Plumber Unplugs Obama's True Intentions

Joel!
I have to commend you on your posts. Well written, lucid, and with salient points to current politcal discussions. I fail to see, however, how one makes the leap from "spread the wealth" to "re-distribute the wealth". Taking current tax dollars and using them to address the needs of our citizens is indeed a form of socialism but not to the extent you claim. Senator Obama advocates a return to the tax structure of the mid 90's. Since the economy was expanding at that time how do you justify your claims that a return to that structure is socialism? To eliminate any semblance of "socialism" in our society do you also advocate ending social security? Medicare/medicaid? Small Business Administration grants (funded by tax dollars)? The military (in favor of an all volunteer militia)? Foreign aid? FEMA assistance to disaster ares? Aren't these all examples of "spreading the wealth"? Isn't John McCain's proposal to fund an additonal 300 billion (pinky to mouth here) dollars to buy distressed mortgages and keep people in their homes a form of socialism? Any tax collected and then used to fund public works/programs is a form of socialism. Let us put the discourse back into proper perspective, Joel. Turn off the TV, pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers, read all of Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, Gustave de Beaumont, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin
Franklin's writings. Only the educated are truly free, and forming an opinion based on the rantings of those idiots on FOX, CNN, and MSNBC is not a proper formulation of an informed opinion.

Thanks for you post. I find it very challenging. I lifted this from Townhall.com, an article written by Amanda Carpenter (Obama's Redistribution of Wealth Vid, dated Monday, Oct. 27th)

"The American people continue to learn more about Barack Obama," said John McCain's Senior Policy Adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin in a statement Monday. "Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change.'"

"No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it," Holtz-Eakin said. "Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change."

"Spreading the wealth" and "re-distribute the wealth" are the same thing.

Obama is not spreading the whealth. His whole purpose is to make the rich finally pay their fair share. I can't understand why so many moderate income Republicans defend the whealthy and their tax cuts so much! It dosen't make sense. If my income bracket pays 28 cents to the dollar, is it to much to have the millionaire pay the same. Currently the millionaire is paying close to ten percent less in taxes than the person making $100 grand. When is the $100 grand American going to get his tax break?

Joel,
Regardless of either Ms. Carpenter's or Mr. Holtz-Eakin's opinion, "spreading the wealth" is not synonomous with "redistributing the wealth". To clarify this refer to the venerable Daniel Webster's dictionary. "Spread" does not, under any circumsatnces, equal "redistribute". Since Senator Obama is a Harvard eucated attorney (indeed he was the president of the "right leaning" Harvard Law Review), it would be fair to state that he speaks "specifically". That is he understands the difference between the words and deliberately chose the one that conveyed his belief. A talking head on the television or a pundit opining in a magazine has no standing to re-define words at will to suit their position. It begins to be a bit Owellian when the media believes that simply because they state something either on air or in print it is so.

Liberals have a tendency to change words or redefine them since they can't win general elections from the left. Think about it, they have to move to the center to win, much like Bill Clinton. Once elected they rule from their true colors. They can't win from the left because the American people don't like liberal ideas or living them out, so they have to redefine themselves and cloak their rhetoric. It's unfortunate that we "may" have the most liberal Senator in all of history as our next president, since the media has been campaigning for him all along. Spread and redistribution may not have the same definition but both words lead to the same thing.

Au contrair, mon ami! The liberals are dominating this election cycle from the left. Advocating an end to the war, pro-choice, raising taxes on the wealthy, expanded government programs, etc. These do not sound like center driven issues to me. It is a true left driven agenda. This is no cause of happiness for me, just a fact. You did not address the issue I raised in your response. Instead you went on an attack against your fellow Americans who hold a different political view than yours. Is that patriotic? Is that either civil or polite? I will admonish you Joel, to remember that 'united we stand, divided we fall" is a truth being ignored to benefit political parties to the detriment of our beloved Republic. With that in mind I will ask you to re-read my original response and answer the questions I raised about our current socialistic programs and how you propose dealing with them.

With the Democrats running left candidates since Johnson, sooner or later, as the election cycle holds true, they would eventually elect a socialist tot he ticket. Remember that Obama is most liberal person in the Senate, a self confessed socialist is #2 and Biden is #3. You have a very leftist government if Obama is elected and you will be held accountable by your conscience for your decision. If Obama does win, the margins are very close, you'll see his true colors come out in his policies toward conservatives and Christians, like me. Already, they are trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, impose it on conservative talk radio, why not impose it upon the liberal news stations?
This is only the beginning. As Christians or conservatives we will not run and hide but will emerge victories in the next 4 to 8 years as the cycle goes. Hopefully with a true conservative like Reagan, not a "compassionate" one like Bush.

The likelihood of an Obama presidency is exacerbated by:

1. The economic woes (hitting at an unfortunate time),
2. An unpopular war (but necessary),
3. The Republican brand has been hurt by Bush's liberal economic policies
(he's not a fiscal conservative),
4. and the willing yet very supportive Obama media who have favored him from the very beginning, even shunning Hillary Clinton.

So yes, for the very first time (Lyndon Johnson was a sympathy vote for Kennedy) the people may elect the most liberal person ever to the White House. It’s unfortunate for conservatives but the timing is great for liberals. But we will have redemption. A Carter administration gave us Reagan. An Obama administration may just kill the liberal movement, and give us a Sarah Palin or Bobby Jhindal.

Hey David,
You chide Jogar about making sure of what he is saying, yet you ignorantly say that the person making $100K pays 10 percent higher tax than the wealthy. As a TAX PREPARER that does BOTH levels of clients, I can assure you that you are totally wrong. The person making $100K can make full use of every tax deduction and credit. As income goes over $250K, there is no tuition credit, the deductions for mortgage interest and other itemized deductions phase out, and even the deduction for the personal exemption goes away. Eventually, the high income taxpayer pays the maximum tax rate on ALL income while the guy at $100K still gets the benefit of the 10%, 15% tax brackets and ALL of the deductions and credits available. Comments like yours are obviously the result of believing the liberal propaganda full of rhetoric and not actually understanding what you are talking about.

Sorry, it wasn't David, but rather Joel's Brother that made the erroneous tax comment.
My apology.