I think the cocoon has been hermetically sealed

If I were someone seriously invested in the need for a GOP victory, I guess I would be flirting with unreality too.

And the quote from Obama was taken way, way out of context. Here is the full quote:

"And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don'?t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who'?s things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy?'s good for folks from the bottom up, it?s gonna be good for everybody."

"If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off it you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now I think everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Quoted from Ambinder. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/obama_the_friendly_socialist.php#more

Crazy concept, I know.

You're greatly underreacting. Granted, 39 percent is just a number, and not a terribly important number either. Presidents have the ability to shape US tax policy, but they must account for powerful domestic constraints that limit their latitude. No one is more susceptible to these constraints than presidential candidates.

Bush 41 and Clinton both broke campaign promises not to raise taxes. Campaign rhetoric is just that. More important than the "pretend numbers" that a campaign determines are most palatable to the public is the philosophy that will inform the creation of "real numbers" after the election.

Reasonable people can disagree over what tax rates are necessary to generate acceptable government revenue. Obama didn't make an argument of this nature, though. He explicitly came out in favor of using the federal income tax to engineer social class. That's a huge philosophical difference from McCain and, yes, it is a big deal.

I was celebrating every time McCain attacked with 'spread the wealth,' and that was even before I heard that the dial-watchers at the networks tended to go negative on McCain each time he said it.

The DNC should underwrite any Republican ad buys where they want to accuse of wanting to "spread the wealth" around. It'd be great fun.

As Jon Stewart pointed out progressive taxation is classism but capital gains cuts are not. A philosophical difference as great as the emperor's new clothes. There is a difference but it is only trying to appeal to their different supporters. And if you have any fantasies about balanced budgets, it is only so much lip service as well.

I watched the entire video and thought Obama was impressive as hell explaining his program. I'm not in his pocket. I voted for Reagan twice, Bush pere once, Dole, and Bush fils twice. I even held my nose and voted GOP for congress in 2006.

This year I finally had enough, and decided to vote for Obama if he was nominated (I couldn't stomach Hillary).

But I've not felt a lot of enthusiasm for the choice - it's just that I've concluded that the GOP doesn't have any answers for my problems after 28 years in power. Best they sit on the sidelines and come up with some good ideas.

After watching Obama on that video clip I'm much more enthusiastic about my choice. I think he 'gets it' in a way no politician since Reagan has 'gotten it'.

I'm not wild about the tax cut and the tax increase, but they are pretty marginal either way. I think we're going to have a huge stimulus to mitigate the recession & I think a big infrastructure repair bill is the way to go. Fix a lot of bridges, improve some dingy and overstretched airports, improve the ports, - things like that. We're gonna have to run a big deficit for stimulus, so spend the money as intelligently as we can. That will improve productivity and in the long run hopefully incomes will rise with improved productivity.

I don't think it's social engineering as such; it's about knowing who is on your side. Cutting taxes on bankers bonuses didn't work out too well, did it?

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and
the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 (10% of
Americans pay 59% of the taxes!!!)

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers, he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we
pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the
other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
'fair share?'They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" , " Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.
"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I." "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Copied from an email I got. Author unknown.

It depends, because it's hard to know what the general public actually knows about Obama, as opposed to those who read blogs. There's been so little reported on him in a critical light that when a nugget of potentially damaging information gets through it's hard to know its impact. I mean, anyone who has actually done some research on the internet knows that Obama plans to raise taxes on small businesses, which are the major source of job growth in this country. You can agree or disagree with this proposal, as you said it's only a 3 percentage point increase (I tend to believe our tax burden on businesses should be more rather than less competitive with the rest of the world in a global business climate), but again, it's hard to know what people actually know about him. I saw a recent poll by Rasmussen that said nearly half the country thinks that raising taxes on the wealthy would be a good move in this economy; so, using this as a reference point, it seems likely this will have little impact on people's opinions.

But, the obvious response to those to whom this will come as news might be, so what else don't we know about him? In this sense, the media has done Obama a disservice by not being more critical towards him. Also, so many moderates, it seems, are for him based on faith. You are a prime example of this: your argument for voting for him boils down to the hope and belief that he's lying to you to get elected, and won't implement the worst of his proposals. Only those who are extremely cynical about politicians could accept this view (which is why, it seems, those who originally supported Bush and feel let down by him seem to be most attracted to it). As someone who never supported Bush, I actually do think we should take what a politician says seriously and believe it in making our voting decisions; but, the American people are in a very cynical mood, so many of them might feel as you do.

You're right, Dan. I saw that post today by James and thought it was just crazy. I don't think a country socializing its losses in the financial sector will mind an increase in the top tax rate. That's not my preferred policy, but McCain hasn't done a good job of explaining why it's not the best way to go. McCain has very little voice on domestic issues and would rather talk only about stuff that flies around and explodes. To assume Americans will now not vote for Obama based on his idea to "spread the wealth around" strikes me as drastically misreading the situation. I think Americans want the government to do something and will tolerate Obama's tax increase to do it. I have no idea what Obama will do, but sadly, it seems that politics really isn't much about policy anyway. If Obama seemed somehow unpresidential, then it might be more of an issue. Yet, it seems Obama is not the candidate the country should be concerned about behaving in such a manner.

I would say Americans are actually rejecting the cynicism that has been used time and again by politicians. If Republicans wanted lower taxes they would have cut spending. If Republicans didn't want tax cuts to go away they would have made them permanent. If Republicans wanted reform, they would have done it. If Republicans believed we should live within our means, we already would be. Repeating stale cliches to get elected is cynical, not rejecting them.

I also think Obama needs to move on from this; there's video today of Obama mocking this guy and the press is really hammering him, which just reinforces the worst images people have of the relationship between Obama and the media, and Obama's past statements about small-town USA. Asking tough questions of a politician (even one whom many seem to think is the Messiah), should not be grounds for character assassination. And, it keeps the issue in the news, which is a day wasted for whatever msg. Obama wants to get across.

If Obama plays it cool, he wins the election. If he and the media try to destroy this plumber, this small issue could conceivably hurt him badly.

I like a good debate over social engineering as much as the next guy, but feel I should point out that the federal deficit in pushing half a trillion dollars. Sen. Obama is running on a platform to make it grow marginally less than Sen. McCain would.

No one likes taxes, but the alternative to higher taxes isn't lower taxes; it's lower taxes and higher debt, followed by higher taxes (or a badly depreciated currency) to cope with the burden of higher debt. Sen. Obama, as much a creature of campaign politics as there is in public life, managed to inoculate himself against Republican charges that he wants to raise taxes by proposing tax cuts, slightly less massive than McCain's tax cuts and structured somewhat differently, but still tax cuts we cannot afford.

It's a little off topic, but I've noted a few blog posts recently about how subjectively conservatives pick on socialism as the defining characteristic of leftist illuminati. Yet these same critics support our postal delivery service and public schools. I challenge those who selectively decry socialism and its infestation to be prepared to give up the benefits that such a system endows them.

obama's intention was to spread the wealth. what do you think?

as for fannie mae and freddie mac, i blame democrats for resisting reforms in 2003-2005 to rein in both mortgage giants.

I've heard two attacks coming out of the Republican party over the last twenty years on taxation:

1. The democrats will raise your taxes.
2. The democrats are a bunch of Socialists with their progressive tax curves.

Put these together and you get a low flat tax. Now, all this would be well and good if the Republicans actually reigned in spending, which as far as I know has never happened. Does anyone believe now is the time for McCain to make good on all those broken promises with a spending freeze in the middle of a serious financial crisis?

The Republican message on taxation is a message of perpetual fiscal insanity. This party is the drunkard that takes a dump on your couch and slinks off at 5AM. I think saying "the cocoon is hermetically sealed" is an understatement.

Hermetically sealed it is. A massive defeat may be able to break through, but even then I doubt it. They haven't even been able to leave Bush behind. About the best they can hope for is for the Democrats to produce such unprecedented prosperity that Americans come to believe they are no longer needed.

I think Obama's comment is innocuous on the substance, but you could make a legitimate argument otherwise. To suggest that Obama might have 'blown the election' with it, though, is simply idiotic.

The "spread the wealth" comment gave McCain an opening. I think we're missing the point on the marginal tax rates. Obama's explanation reveals the true nature of his tax plan. How do you cut taxes on 95% of the population when only 40% actually pays income tax? His tax plan is a redistributionist policy that takes money from higher earners and essentially hands a check to people who do NOT pay income taxes. It depends on what your interpretation of fair is but don't take it from me...the WSJ explains it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=most_emailed_day
And if you don't think the tax plan itself echoes strands of socialism, wait until you see what an Obama-Reid-Pelosi combination will do. They will certainly try to institute a single payer health care system, empower unions, demonize and punish 'big business' with windfall profix taxes who will in turn just pass the cost off to consumers or hire less employers. Passing environmental cap and trade is just another restraint on capitalism's growth potential. Once entitlements are passed, they can rarely be undone. We're still living with the Social Security timebomb and increased Medicare expansion. To suggest socialism won't creep with a filibuster proof Democratic majority is surely wishful thinking.

#7 (Chris)

The argument wouldn't be so bad if the bartender could afford to cut the cost of the drinks. But, if instead, he said they only had to pay $80 now, and he'd put the other $20 on a tab for later, the story plays out differently.

Also, an aspect of the story is unreal. In the story, the last night the rich guy doesn't come to the bar. But, how many rich people do you think will leave the US due to higher taxes? The reality is they won't leave, because it is only in a country like this, or another industrialized country with similar tax laws, in which someone can really make a lot of money. And that speaks to such a rich person's 'debt' to society -- this is exactly why they should pay more.

You also need to add in some of the perks of being really rich, as well. For example, the bartender sucks up to you, always gets your drinks first, gives you a clean glass, and gives you free drinks and drinks not available to the other members of your party on occasion.

I've always thought of progressive taxation as a kind of counter-influence to the power of concentrated wealth in a democracy. Theoretically, all of us have equal political status - "one man, one vote", "all equal before the law", "right to petition" and all that. But in reality (and this transcends America), the rich have political power completely out of proportion to their actual numbers. Politicians that can't be bothered to give more than a form letter to an average voter unless it's election time in a closely fought district will meet rich folk in person and personally listen to their concerns. Rich folk can use their money to fund campaigns like the initiatives in California that would require pain-staking fund-raising on the part of folk of lesser means, and while federal laws limiting campaign contributions exist, many states and state elections do not have these laws.

Progressive taxation acts as a counter-weight to this, combined with high inheritance taxes. It helps prevent patterns of concentrated wealth from becoming a de facto aristocracy like what happened in much of Latin America 100 years ago, with all the distortions on democratic politics that that brings.

Federal tax isnt the killer. Lifting the cap on social security is a 12.5% bump on the 9 million tax payers already footing almost all of the bill, people who won't see a tythe of it back. Thats a HUGE transfer of wealth. And we can't claim its investments in infastructure etc that the wealthy benefit from via business, its direct cash transfer from one group to others.

Why don't you all study the Fair Tax? It works, as several states, including Texas and Florida, operate off a consumption tax.

How steep is their consumption tax, though? In order to get to a similar level of funding with the Fair Tax, you would need a very high percentage of sales tax - at least 23% (which is what they say it will be). You're going to probably have issues with underground economies and the like, and to do that on a federal level would require that you replace the current IRS with a new one designed to go after sales tax evasion.

Plus, to be honest, I don't like the idea of being so dependent on one type of tax. Sales tax, like income tax, is affected by how good the economic climate is. I'd much rather do a substitution, like eliminating capital gains tax and lowering personal income tax while implementing a nation-wide sales tax, in order to ensure that the tax base is diversified.