TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 6:53 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:49 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
18.10.2008
What's So Awful About "Spreading the Wealth"?

It is hard to imagine we’ve heard the last of Barack Obama’s interactions with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. But lately John McCain seems much more interested in talking about another Obama encounter. It’s the now infamous conversation Obama had with “Joe the Plumber”--and one particular phrase that Obama uttered in the course of it.

For those who may have been in hibernation the last few days, Joe the Plumber--whose real name is Joe Wurzelbacher--met Obama during an Ohio campaign event last weekend. Wurzelbacher was concerned about Obama’s tax plan, which would raise taxes on wealthy Americans. In the course of a lengthy response, Obama said it was a good idea to “spread the wealth.”

Conservative commentators pounced and, before long, McCain had, too. He brought it up in Wednesday’s debate, in subsequent appearances, and--most recently--in his Saturday national radio address.

You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, "spreading the wealth around" is a familiar idea from the American left. And that kind of class warfare sure doesn't sound like a "new kind of politics."

The rest of McCain’s presentation was pretty disingenuous. As proof of Obama’s alleged socialist leanings, he noted that Obama would have the government write checks to millions of people too poor to pay income taxes. McCain called these “refundable credits” a form of welfare, apparently oblivious to the fact that McCain’s own health care plan uses refundable credits. (One reason they make sense, in both cases: Even people too poor to pay income taxes still owe payroll taxes.)

And, once again, McCain implied that Obama would be raising taxes on everybody--when, in fact, Obama would reduce taxes for the vast majority of Americans. Only the very wealthiest people would see higher rates. And they'd still be paying less than they did when Bill Clinton was president.

But let’s get back to this apparently controverisal phrase--which, I gather, is going to remain prominent in McCain's campaign rhetoric over the next few days. What, exactly, is so awful about "spreading the wealth"?

Government performs certain essential functions, from education to national defense. It must raise money to do that. Charging everybody the same tax rate might sound simple. But it would actually impose a much harsher burden on the poor, since they end up spending much--if not all--of their incomes on the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter. As one famous 18th century philosopher argued,

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expen[s]e, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Another rationale for progressive taxation is the fact that random chance has profound effects on everybody’s financial well-being. (A guy named John Rawls once wrote a thing or two about this.) Mandating economic equality--i.e., carrying out a truly socialist agenda--would obviously be wrong. But there are compelling moral and economic arguments for asking the fortunate to pay a little more in taxes, in order to blunt the influence of chance on people’s lives.

Among other things, it’s not clear how long a capitalist society would even survive without at least some redistribution, given the likelihood that--without it--the poor would get poorer and the rich would get richer.

As that same 18th Century philosopher put it,

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged."

No, capitalism is not on the brink of collapse in America. But median wages have been stagnant for a while; inequality is on the rise. And while Obama's policies would help stop and perhaps even reverse these trends, McCain's would reinforce them--which, perhaps, is why he's trying so hard to scare people.

By the way, if you don’t recognize the quotes--or haven’t guessed by now--the 18th Century philosopher is none other than Adam Smith.

Or is he a socialist, too?

--Jonathan Cohn 

Posted: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:44 PM with 48 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

boyski said:

I was actually quite impressed by the line of reasoning Obama was developing in that same JTP interlude, though unfortunately it's been eclipsed by the "spreading the wealth" furor. He didn't develop the point fully but it sounded like he was making the following argument (paraphrased) for progressive taxation:

"Rather than thinking of it as the government wanting to take your money now that you're rich, consider that it was subsidizing you with an unduly low tax rate while you were young and struggling. The same way people take a loan to go to college and pay it back from the extra money they earn as a result. We (Democrats) simply expect people like Joe the Plumber to pay back the de facto loans they got from the government when they were poor."

This may be old hat to people who study tax policy but to this layman it was the most logical rational for progressive taxation I've yet heard.

October 18, 2008 7:36 PM

dbhuff said:

It is pretty simple, when you have money, poor or rich, you don't want the government to take it and give it to someone else. To the extent that there is an overt transfer of wealth (e.g. increasing taxes on rich to provide credits to the poor) it is extremely hard to argue this is 'justified'. Government is better off when it provides services which have a greater relative value to the poor (e.g. healthcare, unemployment, etc) than in actually just giving the money to the poor. Ironically, the Right's obsession with 'letting people decide for themselves how to spend the money' would instead argue, assuming wealth was to be transferred, for refunds instead of services. But in fact, the services the government provides to date only serve to enhance the wealth of the richest: low consumption tax, short welfare payments so as to encourage people to take low paying jobs, financial system lubrication (oops on that one), etc. In the end, the last 10 years have seen a massive transfer of share of wealth to the rich, to what extent is it the responsibility to move that back?

October 18, 2008 7:59 PM

lymon1 said:

I think the reason "spread the wealth" sounds bad to so many is that there's a sense that honest people are being asked to pay for dishonest, be they rich or poor.  You turn on the radio and hear ads every five minutes urging people to dump their credit card bills or settle their tax bills "for penies on the dollar."  Rent payers and people who pay their mortgages are hearing about defaulters being bailed out.  So people don't trust that the wealth will be spread fairly.  Also, not to be a ninny, but this subject needs more nuance. Any liberal this side of Ralph Nader would admit that progresisve taxes *can* be counterproductive when the rates are too high.  And suddenly "yanking down" wealth has historically shrunk the economy.  And we don't really want to adopt Adam Smith's standard -- as long as the working poor are clothed, fed, not homeless and have cable tv they should quit whining?  And is an pure progressive income tax the only way to lessen income inequality?  A progressive sales tax on consumption might generally work out the same but would reward savers at all income levels and wouldn't per-se tax wealth.  A Forbes-like flat tax that doesn't tax the first $50,000 of income but is flat for the rest might in reality be more progressive than the current system given how complex and loophole ridden it is.  

October 18, 2008 8:11 PM

CharlesFosterKane said:

Joe the Plumber is about to appear on Huckabee!

What's that? Yes, Huckabee! is a new Saturday show on Fox News, in which Huckabee stands in front of a live audience like Donahue did on his short-lived MSNBC show five years ago. No, I didn't know either. Clips of him playing bass and hangin' with Chuck Norris are part of the opening credits.

October 18, 2008 8:14 PM

parnest said:

What's really cool about this is that we're suddenly having meaningful discussions about what kind of society we should have, quoting 18th century philosophers, etc. That hasn't been possible since the 1970s. Great development. It's particularly ironic that the most conservative presidency ever, or at least since Hoover, has nationalized the banks along with the nation's largest insurance company. Let's condemn Bush and Paulson as "socialists", too.

I'm especially pleased to see the reopening of the discussion about progressive income taxation. It was the progressive income tax that controlled excesses of CEO and hedge fund manager compensation before the Reagan era. Another area worth examining: The idea that common stock values must always appreciate (encouraged by the call to lower the capital gains tax). Might corporate governance be improved if it was ok for more companies to pay stock dividencs?

October 18, 2008 8:52 PM

lsernoff said:

Thank you Jonathan!  Keep it coming!  Keep on 'splainin why the community organizor get's it.  Find whatever you like from Adam Smith.   Bill Clinton's crowd who "played by the rules' will be delighted.

October 18, 2008 8:54 PM

williamyard said:

I don't care how much money rich people accumulate, as long as 80+ year-old women who've broken their backs don't have to wait five hours in an emergency room hallway to be seen by a doctor, as happened to my mom a few years ago. I don't care how many zeros your paycheck has as long as my girlfriend no longer has to lie for half an hour in bedclothes soaked with her own urine due to nursing staff shortages, as happened to her the day after major surgery two weeks ago.

I don't care how many homes someone has as long as every United States military veteran has medical and psychological care and a roof over his or her head.

I don't care how large anyone's stock portfolio is as long as athletics, music, art, foreign language, and anything beyond basic science and history are no longer considered expendible curricula in public high schools.

I don't care if somebody wants to short Google stock or make a killing on corn futures as long as required classes at, say, California's state college system are restored to adequate availability so students can graduate in four years instead of the increasing more common five years.

I don't care if somebody has a basement full of gold bars as long as men and women who have worked for decades and paid their taxes and played by every rule no longer find themselves living out of their cars when they turn "retirement" age. (The city of Santa Barbara has hired social workers and set aside designated parking lots to accommodate elderly living out of their cars.)

I don't care how many Rolexes somebody owns as long as kids in foster homes aren't summarily tossed out to fend for themselves at age 18, as happens now in the vast majority of cases.

I don't care how many fancy prep schools rich people have to send their kids to as long as the United States of America's infant mortality rate is no longer worse than that of 41 other countries.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

October 18, 2008 9:00 PM

lsernoff said:

Read Gretchen Morgensen's  piece in --of all places-- the New York Times.  Henry Cisneros has forgotten more than Obama knows about good intentions for challenged people.  Henry ain't runnin'".  Obama is.

October 18, 2008 9:19 PM

nathang said:

Obama needs to run an ad saying that after the rich got the bulk of the tax cuts under Bush, lowering taxes for people who make less than $250,000, while raising taxes for people who make more than that, isn't Socialism--it's Fairness.

October 18, 2008 10:01 PM

ironyroad said:

"Henry ain't runnin'".  Obama is."

What's with the dropped "g"s?

October 18, 2008 10:05 PM

jacobt1 said:

williamyard said,

"I don't care how much money rich people accumulate"

You should. They pay for  80+ year-old women helath care. If you live in CA, you probably know that CA is in a financial crisis, because rich are no longer that rich

"..  required classes at, say, California's state college system are restored to adequate availability so students can graduate in four years instead of the increasing more common five years."

If students don't start with remedial classes, they can gaduate in 4 years.

"...  men and women who have worked for decades and paid their taxes and played by every rule no longer find themselves living out of their cars when they turn "retirement" age"

They don't have to. There are places in CA where you can rent  a  subsidized apartment or pay a full proce.  However, not everybody who played by every rule can afford to live in one of the most expensive and beautiful places in US such as Santa Barbara .

October 18, 2008 10:20 PM

psantillana said:

John McCain voted for the bailout. What the hell did he think that was?

And if you can watch Joe the Peabrain's interview with Diane Sawyer without bleeding from the eyes and ears, you will note that he doesn't believe in taxation for anybody, no matter how rich, because that's simply punishing success. How he thinks roads get built I just don't know. Or wars get fought.

October 18, 2008 11:39 PM

JEFF FREY said:

"If students don't start with remedial classes, they can gaduate in 4 years."

I think that is not true at many of the Cal State system schools, and has not been true for quite a while. My younger brother went to Cal Poly Pomona and graduated from San Diego State, and it took 3 years to do the 2 year general ed requirements because too many of the classes were full. If you tried to sign up for 5 you might get 2-3. That was in the 1980s. Maybe he made the mistake of picking classes that were popular, but I remember that it was not an uncommon problem at the time.

At my university, on the other hand, I think most students could finish in 4 years unless they are working (and not taking a full load), or not performing up to standard. But we don't have an overcrowding problem, and I think many of the California schools do.

Congrats to Jacob for missing wiIliamyard's point entirely.

October 19, 2008 12:29 AM

Nusholtz said:

In basketball, the teams that win are the ones where all the players score because the more options you have the harder a team is to defend.    The idea that wealth disparity will somehow lift the country is an idea that serves only the weatthy.  Government should be able to benefit both the country and the individual at the same time.  For example, government should buy research from the colleges and universities on any topic that serves the public interest -- energy, international relations, global warming, prevention of disease and etc because it will benefit the individuals who do the work and will benefit the public by the results.  We are better off both in the global economy and for our own benefit if we educate and train as many as possible,  Anything else is short sighted.

October 19, 2008 12:49 AM

AlanSP said:

In a PA rally (why he's there instead of states like OH or CO is beyond me), McCain said:

"America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by spreading the wealth,  We became the greatest nation by creating new wealth.”

Historically speaking though, creating new wealth and spreading wealth around have never been mutually exclusive.  At the very least, we became the greatest nation on earth *while* we were spreading the wealth around.  Much as conservatives like to think otherwise, U.S. economic growth did not begin under Reagan.  Remember that the top marginal tax rate before Reagan was 70% and had never been below 63% since Hoover, reaching levels over 90% in from 1951-63.  Yet someone we managed some incredible economic growth during those years even while we were "spreading around" so much wealth.

October 19, 2008 1:41 AM

Crock1701 said:

To second Nusholtz's point: Who won the NCAA Tourney last year?  The most balanced team in the tournament: KU.  UNC had the all everything single player, Memphis relied on essentially two players, Chris Douglas Roberts and Derrick Rose for their scoring in the title game.  KU in their six games had four different players lead the team in scoring.  Balance is the name of the game in hoops.

October 19, 2008 1:41 AM

jacobt1 said:

JEFF FREY said,

""If students don't start with remedial classes, they can gaduate in 4 years."

I think that is not true at many of the Cal State system schools, and has not been true for quite a while"

articles.latimes.com/.../remedial-education

Less than half of the freshmen currently in the California State University system were ready for college-level math and English courses upon enrollment.

October 19, 2008 2:02 AM

luispc said:

What I find amazing is the fact that Mr. Cohn's post sounds like a lecture to a 6 year old telling him not to believe in ghosts.

This is a sign of the times. Americans have been brainwashed in such a degree by Reaganomics and it's dishonest propaganda machine that today anything that sounds like social justice in vital areas such as health care or minimaly fair redistribution of wealth has to be explained as if to a 6 year old...

This is the effect of 40 years + since "the speech" of the one that named himself "the last jeffersoninian".

Probably without a clue that Jefferson actually believed in egalitarian distribution of economic resources (in his time, of land) in order to promote a democratic society (which is something very clear in his practice of reformer of Virgina's institutions), in egalitarian access to education, etc., etc.

And I'm not just talking about Jefferson. This madness has been taken to such a degree that if today men such as Eisenhower (that said that any politician who attempted to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, etc., would just be stupid even if there were stupids such as "a few Texas oil millionaires") or even Nixon (that indexed Social Security for inflation, that created supplemental Security Income) defended what they did in what concerns social and economic policies they would be called socialists by the Republican propaganda compressor... avidly followed by a mass of totally radicalized and ignorant people...

So, yes, the most interesting thing about this post is the fact that it had to be written in this pedagogic and simultaneously defensive way.

It's time to stop it: to say something like this: "if you think it is socialism to... than I'm socialist. Jefferson would be to".... Something like facing up the ghosts and scare the hell out of them...

October 19, 2008 3:00 AM

fwslusser said:

Obama is not a socialist, he's a liberal.  Taxing the wealthy and giving the proceeds to the rest of us is necessary to preserve both liberal democracy and liberal capitalism.

October 19, 2008 3:16 AM

psantillana said:

You know, I think we all may be looking for logic in all the wrong places.

October 19, 2008 3:25 AM

fougasseu said:

The current manner in which the Bush family and the Clinton family spread the wealth is via Crony Capitalism.

The NYT's today has a long piece on Clinton friend Henry Cisneros and his real estate dealings. It's a mess, and one big name, as usual, gets a small mention: James Johnson. The ultimate Washington insider/fixer, Johnson was involved with the subprime scandal. Specifically, the piece mentions a significant amount of backdating of stock options to executives.

Folks in Minnesota will take notice: Johnson was head of the compensation committee at UnitedHealth Group when it''s CEO made billions - yes, billions - by backdating options. It stands as the largest financial scandal (meltdown) in the history of American healthcare.

So, traditionally, "spreading the wealth" in Washington means spreading the money via Crony Capitalism, the Bush Crime Family incahoots with the Cinton Crime Family. McCain is surrounded by Bush operatives. Obama got rid of James Johnson. But will anything really change?

Let's see where James Johnson, Rob Portman, Mercer Reynolds, III, and Vernon Jordan end up. Do any of these financial pirates ever go to jail?

October 19, 2008 7:41 AM

micjimenez said:

I suspect "Joe the Plumber" hasn't heard of Adam Smith. But you've hit the nail on the head. Call it what they will, but unless most people get a fair shake at a decent life with good services, all the low or no taxes in the world won't save the "rich." It's called revolution, and it's to be avoided. (Not to mention public health, clean water, and other trans-border resoruces that do not recognize the guards and checkpoints of gated communities.)

October 19, 2008 11:15 AM

Nusholtz said:

Those or you who favor the Republican mantra of lower taxes should ask yourselves what will happen when the government desperately needs revenue and must rely on irresponsibly low income and estate tax rates?  More government agents? More audits?  More seizures?  More court cases slowly eroding our rights in favor of the collection of revenue?  What do you think happened during the American Revolution?

October 19, 2008 11:26 AM

jacobt1 said:

"Nusholtz said:

"Those or you who favor the Republican mantra of lower taxes"

I'm not for lower taxes. I support 50% overall (fed, state, local) marginal tax rate on wages on a couple  making 250K. What do you support?

October 19, 2008 12:00 PM

Nusholtz said:

jacobt.  39.5 in the Clinton years.  I also think we should restore the estate tax back but make accomodations for illiquid assets like family businesses.  It may be more radical, but I would at least want the country to consider the ramifications of getting rid of exclusions where people can afford to pay taxes, like municipal interest, compensation for injuries, life insurance, but the change is possibly too severe.  The important point is to get the tax rates related to ability to pay so we can get out of this mess without amputating a leg and keep rates as low as possible.

October 19, 2008 12:44 PM

jacobt1 said:

Nusholtz said:

"39.5 in the Clinton years"

+ state, local, + Obama SS + medicre + etc = 65.

Is this what you want?

October 19, 2008 12:57 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Jeez, Jacob, half the students at my university are not prepared either. We have an open admissions policy, which means anyone with a high school degree can sign up for classes. That means a whole bunch of entirely unprepared students show up and take intro classes. Lack of preparation is a big problem, but a different problem and not the cause of all graduation delays (it is mainly the cause of dropouts).

But you miss my point. If there are not enough spaces available in classes, you can't get the classes you need, and you can't graduate on time. Lack of classes is a direct consequence of lack of funding.

October 19, 2008 1:12 PM

jacobt1 said:

Jeez, Jeff, You made my point.

"That means a whole bunch of entirely unprepared students show up and take intro classes."

Lack of classes is a direct consequence of overspending on students who are not  prepared for a college. The current push for everybody to go to college is a huge waste of taxpayers money. Students are not prepared  for a college. Colleges are lowering standards. There are no accountability for a colleges. Students graduate with useless majors and can't find decent paying jobs. Their only hope is for Obama to spread the wealth around.

October 19, 2008 1:30 PM

Political Animal said:

SPREADING THE WEALTH.... Barack Obama's tax plan must be pretty good, because the only attacks John McCain has come up with are fanciful nonsense. To hear McCain/Palin tell it, Obama supports "socialism" and his plan to cut taxes on the...

October 19, 2008 2:09 PM

Nusholtz said:

Jacobt.  First, 65% is noting.  The top tax rate in the 70's was 70% and once, during wars, it was 91%.  Secondly, you need to move away from the highly taxed area you are living in, which I assume is California.  But here is the point.  According to TaxFoundation.Org, in 2005, Califonria got 78 cents fof ederal benefits for each dollar it spent in taxes, in the early 80's, under Reagan from California,  it got more than a $1.00 for each dollar sent to Washington.  Now, if California would be willing to forego all that money, we could cut your taxes significantly.  No?  You'd like to cut your rate and get a better deal while can pay for your extravagances?  I'm sorry, but you have to get permission from the Chinese for that.  They make those decisions now becasue we borrowed all that money and then spent it for what?  The equation you offer about the tax rate essentially says, "We shouldn't solve our problems because I don't want to."

October 19, 2008 2:14 PM

jacobt1 said:

Spread the wealth around" is regular Joe speak for redistributionist tax policy, in which the government takes from the Joes and keeps a fee for handling Joe's money, then gives it out to other folks who want Joe's money, so the other folks will love the politicians who run the government and vote for them again and again.

This is a system that works remarkably well for politicians, government workers with fat pensions and others who get Joe's money. It doesn't work out for the Joes, but there aren't as many of them as there used to be. Increasingly, Joes are encouraged to get in the government soup line for what is called "their fair share."

www.chicagotribune.com/.../chi-kass-bd-plumberoct19,0,946674.column

October 19, 2008 2:23 PM

Nusholtz said:

Jacobt  This is not about taking money from one person and giving it to another.  It is about solving our problems.  Did you forget that we are fighting a war in Iraq?  An unnecessary war that was created through the artifice of your president.  Did you notice that the economy is failing primarily because of a lack of confidence in the future?  We got here with low taxes and we are going to stay here with low taxes if McSame is elected.  Reagonomics doesn't work.  

October 19, 2008 2:33 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Yet somehow, Jacob, in the case of my open-admissions university, there are enough intro classes being offered despite the hordes of unprepared students. So there is not an automatic correlation between the two things. And funding problems are not restricted to colleges that have low admissions standards.

I'm all for higher standards and better preparation. But that's a different argument for a different day.

October 19, 2008 2:35 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Actually, we've put far more of Joe's money into expensive weapons systems and military operations than we have in "wealth redistribution".

The one great talent of the Republican party is its ability to focus attention on small things that get people riled up, so that they ignore far bigger problems.

October 19, 2008 2:38 PM

blackton said:

Jacob is an assclown, slapping him down is far too easy, just ignore the troll.

Promote the general welfare I suppose should be replaced by promote the wealthy.McCain believes Wealth should only be for the wealthy. First Republicans complain that poor make so little money that they don't pay taxes, yet seem utterly uninterested in finding ways to raise living standards for the poor and middle class so that they have more money, and hence will be more able to pay taxes and less in need of public services. John McCain, 3 debates no references to the middle class, and for him the poor are an abstraction.

Nov. 4 can not come soon enough.

October 19, 2008 3:34 PM

Nusholtz said:

Blackston, you'r right.  He has a bad habit of not making any sense.  Jacobt should move to Alaska where they tax them there oil companies and give that $1,200.00 to the people.  That's what ya call there that redistribution of wealth.  Yeeee Haaaahhhhh!

October 19, 2008 3:53 PM

jacobt1 said:

blackton,

"yet seem utterly uninterested in finding ways to raise living standards for the poor and middle class "

How do you propose to raise living standards for the poor and middle class ?

As long as people like Bill Ayers, vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers,  lead "educational" reform there is no chance for poor people in this country:

"What he can be blamed for is not acknowledging that his neighbor has a political agenda that, if successful, would make it impossible to lift academic achievement for disadvantaged children. As I have shown elsewhere in City Journal, Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.

Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.” Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change."

www.city-journal.org/.../eon0423ss.html

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

Viva Mission Sucre! Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

www.freerepublic.com/.../posts

October 19, 2008 5:56 PM

Nusholtz said:

Whenever Jacobt pastes a post here, I imagine him saying to himself after each paste: "Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished."

October 19, 2008 6:53 PM

ironyroad said:

Cutting and pasting like a champion today, eh jacob?  Don't overstrain yourself now!

All that cutting.

All that pasting.

Hard work.

Beats thinking, though, doesn't it?

October 19, 2008 6:56 PM

blackton said:

How do you propose to raise living standards for the poor and middle class ?

Easy answer, I am in favor of card checks for Unions, wages rose fastest in America when Unions were strongest. At the bottom end increase pre-school availability so that children get an adequate head start and women can go back to work earlier, 2 years earlier in many cases, and 2 years out of a normal persons 40 years is 5% of their working career. Increase EITC and institute a regional based higher minimum wage law. Have a bio-metric id card for Americans, which will cut down on illegal immigration from Latin America, but at the same time increase aid and visas to the US from those areas, so that when they come they will be able to receive decent wages. Have a health care system like Obama's so that the US will pay far less of its GNP on health care, and more in line like Japan, which pays 6% compared to the US 11%

Jacob, I can go on and on, but you get the idea. And these are my own thoughts, not copied and pasted and ignored by everyone. But you are far too stupid to present your own ideas, and think dropping others is provocative, but no one ever debates the copied items since no one cares, this is a forum to express our own ideas you dumb shit.

October 19, 2008 7:53 PM

jacobt1 said:

"I am in favor of card checks for Unions"

McGovern called secret-ballot elections a “basic right.”

“I believe in the secret ballot as a very important part of our democracy,” McGovern said. “When we elect a president, sheriff or member of Congress, we walk into the voting booth and pull the curtain free of anyone trying to twist our arm.”

He added that he is a longtime advocate of organized labor. “I think my voting record in the Senate is flawless on that issue. But it is in the interest of labor and management to have a secret ballot

thehill.com/.../mcgovern-joins-business-groups-push-to-defeat-labor-backed-card-check-bill-2008-10-07.html

"wages rose fastest in America when Unions were strongest."

Where  Unions  invest their  invest their pension funds, in companies that have highest profit margins or in companies that have wages rising  fastest?

"Have a bio-metric id card for Americans, which will cut down on illegal immigration from Latin America,"

Forget about this in Obama or McCain administrations.

October 19, 2008 8:29 PM

fougasseu said:

Spread the wealth? You betcha. Our intellectual wealth, our financial wealth, any and all of our wealth. That's how I read the New Testament, although I like the word "share" better than "spread".

(Any demoralizing downgrade of language and you know a Luntzian is at work.)

October 20, 2008 3:46 AM

Nusholtz said:

We've hit an iceberg and Jacobt is rearranging the deck chairs.

October 20, 2008 7:54 AM

Right Wing News said:

That is the question that The New Republic asks, and attempts to answer. After six paragraphs of leadup and discussing John McCain, the writers finally get to their defense of spreading the wealth But let's get back to this apparently...

October 20, 2008 9:18 AM

jacobt1 said:

A  majority of those who earn less than $40,000 a year agree with Obama about spreading the wealth around, while most of those who earn more than that disagree. Entrepreneurs are strongly opposed while a slight plurality of government employees agree.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters under 30 agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. A plurality of those over 30 take the opposite view.

www.rasmussenreports.com/.../democrats_favor_spreading_wealth_around_gop_disagrees.

October 20, 2008 10:27 AM

jacobt1 said:

Nusholtz said:,

"Reagonomics doesn't work."

Soviet style Socialism failed. West Europe socialism that you and Obama advocate are doing much worse that US Reagonomics .

October 20, 2008 11:02 AM

mghogwild said:

I make more than $250K, and I think the best way to protect my wealth is to have a stable society where everyone has an opportunity to improve their lives.  

Actually, I don't make that much, but that would be my argument if I did.

October 20, 2008 11:35 AM

jacobt1 said:

"stable society where everyone has an opportunity to improve their lives"

Take a look at France. When US had riots last time? When France had riots last time?  Whose society is more stable?

October 20, 2008 3:02 PM