Obama Talks About the need for the “Redistribution of Wealth”
|
|
When those on the right say that Obama is all about Wealth Redistribution, it is called scare tactics. When the candidate himself says it… well, they will spin it some how, I am sure. One of the Liberal talking heads said we should not consider this interview because he said this before he thought of running for President. Uh, what?
I guess when your experience is as limited as Obama’s is, 2001 does seem like a lifetime ago.
“You know if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I would be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical, it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf and that hasn’t shifted. And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.” – Barack Obama
on 
on 
Here’s the initial response from Obama backer (and fellow legal scholar) Cass Sustein:
Obama advisor pushes back on ‘redistribution’
The skinny - “It’s a consitutional lawyer thing, you wouldn’t understand”.
I am in favor of a progressive tax code. I find it difficult to find a Republican that supports me in my belief.
Instead I find Republicans that are willing to cut taxes while increasing spending.
Republicans are in favor of increasing the national debt. I stand against it. I do not like “tax and spend” but “borrow and spend” is even worse.
Little David has got to be kidding. Everytime taxes are lowered revenue to the government increases.
The problem lies with Congress’s that can’t control their spending. We saw it under Reagan and we saw it under Bush.
Couple Obama’s proposed trillion dollars in new spending with a stagnant economy as a result of his promised tax increases and I promise you, he will borrow. He’ll have no choice.
If taxes are decreased as McCain promises and he has the backbone to use his veto pen, spending increases will slow, yielding less borrowing.
It’s quite simple, actually.
Now if you factor in the unthinkable, super majorities the liberals are hoping for, our economy is toast. There’ll be no checks and balances, no filibusters to stop anything. The last time the liberals did that we had unemployment over 6% and something called the Misery Index. We had the worst presidential tenure, under Carter, I ever hope to see again.
Ewww Yah,
Let’s drop the tax rate to zero and then watch the tax revenue explode.
Seems to me we need to figure out the sweet spot. I do not see the exploding deficit we have due to the Republicans as being the sweet spot.
Jeremy, good find. I’m a fan of Sustein generally (republic.com is required reading for anyone interested in how the internet is impacting how folks get their information) and I know he’s been involved in the Obama camp. I respect his thoughts and it’s good to see them here. Thanks.
SW - Obama is correct, the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.
I realize that y’all are using whatever means possible to hold on to power, but this doesn’t even come close to saying what you want it to.
Jeez, can’t you guys let a failed economic policy rest in peace? Even Cato’s Laffer Curve dogmatism believes in an apex at which tax cuts reduce revenue. Bush’s own Treasury Dept released a study discrediting this idea.
Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills
My advice? Try broadening beyond Heritage and Cato. Maybe Krugman?
Regarding Obama’s economic beliefs, i tend to think they are more along the lines as laid out in this primary time-frame article at TNR. At heart he’s a liberal, but in mind a pragmatist/realist. Jason, as you likely know, Sunstein and Thaler are big proponents of behavioral economics, and a number of Obama’s proposals look to draw on this theory.
The problem isn’t the tax rates. The problem is the tax code. Anyone want to stand up and tell me how easy it is to understand the myriad of forms and rules and laws and deductions and credits in the tax code?
Everyone says we’re in a global economy. Well, if our taxes are high and our spending is high and our tax code is impossible to understand, and a company could just as easily be somewhere else but here, why wouldn’t they?
And Joe Biden thinks high taxes are patriotic. Oddly, he’d be pushing more capital overseas.
Taxes are patriotic. Tell that to Samuel Adams.
I love seeing most of you guys (and gals?) scramble to call Obama “Barack the Redistributor” et al and then this appears and clearly doesn’t bring anything you can use to the table. Isn’t “redistribution of wealth” simply the right’s way of negatively “enhancing” something as simple as the term “taxation”?
Brian — I’ll agree we need to rewrite the tax code, and I’m also very conservative in nature (but actually like the idea of a progressive tax rate.)
However, I do believe that paying taxes is INDEED patriotic. If you love your country, you contribute to it’s overall welfare by paying your dues. Otherwise, you may as well be a hermit/isolationist holed up in some compound espousing conspiracies and preaching to a very narrow flock.
Oh, and I think Sam Adams would have enjoyed paying taxes to a US-based government. It was the Queen we hated at the time, silly!
Brian - how do you want to pay for the miltiary? for roads? for infrastructure?
Paying your taxes IS patriotic - Sam Adams was pissed because he didn’t have a voice in the body that taxed us. You do.
What is NOT patriotic is spending and spending, and then leaving the bill for our kids.
Paying your taxes is the ONLY compulsory patriotic duty your - you can let others fight our wars, others teach our kids, others police our streets - but YOU have the patriotic duty to pay for it.
Actually, my brilliant friends, the Founders opposed direct taxation, especially on income.
So, no Samuel Adams would likely not be thrilled with our tax code and would certainly not call it patriotic.