An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Opposing Mexico’s ‘Secret’ Integration with the United States: La Jornada, Mexico

Joe Scarborough: We’re Not a 60/40 Country »

Sharing Wealth

Posted by MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN, Wall Street Columnist in Economy.
Oct 19th, 2008 | Comments

McCain is going after Obama because the latter told Joe the Plumber that he aims to “share the wealth.” Well, yeah. Isn’t that a good thing to do? What kind of country, what kind of people, doesn’t want to share its national wealth? And what’s the alternative? To not share the wealth? To keep it in the hands of the few? I’m not sure that I understand McCain’s thinking here.

Sharing Wealth

Obama wants to share the wealth,
His message here is clear,
McCain thinks that’s a bad idea,
And something we should fear.

But sharing don’t mean equal cuts,
Ones simply based on need,
Though even that’s a better deal,
Than an ethos of pure greed.

******

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Manchester2

Playing defense, eh? The socialist implications of Sen. Obama's comment are obvious to thinking Americans. The "Joe the Plumber" example from McCain makes this concrete for many, and no amount of the media quibbling about details can undue the impact of the illustration. When you have 100 trucks show up on your lawn, that makes the average American feel sorry for the guy, nothing else, and wonder what kind of a truth elicits that kind of frantic spinning by the opposition.

JSpencer

Yeah, I suppose the suggestion that America is for ALL Americans is pretty socialistic. MIght be better if we adopt that loopy MN rep's idea of a country divided into pro-Americans and anti-Americans eh? I think these are the same people who complain about talk of class-warfare, when in fact they DO prefer a class system, just a more quiet, docile, and accepting one.

pacatrue

This phrase "sharing the wealth" is being interpreted (quite naturally) in terms of what people already think. Manchester (I am guessing) thinks many Democrats are inclined to a style of socialism in which we take money from people who do well and give it to people who aren't doing well. Typically, this belief is tied to various ideas of moral worth of the people involved. This is so obvious that Manchester tosses off that every thinking American knows this is socialism.

Of course, there is another interpretation of the phrase "sharing the wealth" as well, which is this: We have a government to fund and someone has to pay for it. There are many people (95% in fact under Obama's plan) who are not doing well. In order for us to get government a little bit more off most Americans' backs, someone else has to pick up the tab so that the government doesn't go under financially. Now that government is a little bit more out of the way in the form of less taxes, the people who haven't already made it will have a slightly easier time of it.

This too is "sharing the wealth" but it's sharing the wealth by letting the little guy have an easier time of creating some wealth. Far less "socialist" under this idea. And it just happens to match the actual Obama's proposals a good bit more.

However, critically, we don't have to wonder what Obama secretly means by "sharing the wealth" and divine it's deep implications. The actual plans are already on the table and they are much more concrete. People can just read them and decide if they think raising taxes on a minority of wealthy people in order to finance a tax cut for the majority is a good idea or not. Much simpler actually.

ChrisWWW

Manchester2,
Are you admitting that American capitalism is incapable of distributing wealth fairly?

blog comments powered by Disqus