Define “Rich”
Rick Warren asked this question to both presidential candidates. The answers were revealing:
OBAMA:
“LOOK, HERE IS HOW I THINK BIT. HERE IS HOW I THINK BIT AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN MY TAX PLAN. IF YOU ARE MAKING $150 THOUSAND A YEAR OR LESS AS A FAMILY, THEN ARE YOU MIDDLE CLASS OR YOU MAY BE POOR. BUT $150 DOWN, YOU ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE CLASS….I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 THEN ARE YOU IN THE TOP 3, 4 PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY. ARE YOU DOING WELL.
NOW THESE THINGS ARE ALL RELATIVE AND I’M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY THAT IS MAKING OVER $250,000 IS LIVING ON EASY STREET, BUT THE QUESTION THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD SCHOOLS, IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD ROADS, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE, IF WE DON’T WANT TO LEAVE A MOUNTAIN OF DEBT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, THEN WE’VE GOT TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS. THEY DON’T COME FOR FREE. AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE, I BELIEVE IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE INTER GENERATIONALLY FOR US TO INVEST OR FOR US TO SPEND $10 BILLION A MONTH ON A WAR AND NOT HAVING A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE.
NOBODY LIKE TO PAY TAXES….WHAT I’M SAYING IS UNDER THE APPROACH THAT I’M TAKING IF YOU MAKE 150 THOUSAND OR LESS YOU WILL SEE A TAX CUT. IF YOU ARE MAKING $250,000 OR MORE YOU WILL SEE A MONTH DEFENDANTS INCREASE. WHAT I’M TRYING TO DO IS CREATE A SENSE OF BALANCE AND FAIRNESS IN OUR TAX CODE. ONE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON IT SHOULD BE SIMPLER SO YOU DON’T HAVE ALL THESE LOOPHOLES AND BIG STACKS OF STUFF THAT YOU’VE GOT TO COME THROUGH WHICH WASTE A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND ALLOWS SPECIAL INTEREST TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THINGS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.”
McCAIN:
“SOME OF THE RICHEST PEOPLE I’VE EVER KNOWN IN MY LIFE ARE THE MOST UNHAPPY. I THINK THAT RICH IS — SHOULD BE DEFINED BY A HOME, A GOOD JOB AND EDUCATION AND THE ABILITY TO HAND TO OUR CHILDREN A MORE PROSPEROUS AND SAFER WORLD THAN THE ONE THAT WE INHERITED. I DON’T WANT TO TAKE ANY MONEY FROM THE RICH. I WANT EVERYBODY TO GET RICH. I DON’T BELIEVE IN CLASS WARFARE OR REDISTRIBUTION OF THE WEALTH. BUT I CAN TELL YOU FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE SMALL BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE WORKING 16 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD CLASSIFY AS, QUOTE, RICH, MY FRIENDS, WHO WANT TO RAISE THEIR TAXES AND RAISE THEIR PAYROLL TAXES. LET’S HAVE — KEEP TAXES LOW. LET’S GIVE EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA A 7 THOUSAND DOLLAR TAX CREDIT FOR EVERY CHILD THEY HAVE. LET’S GIVE THEM A 5 THOUSAND DOLLAR REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT TO GO OUT AND GET THE HEALTH INSURANCE OF THEIR CHOICE. LET’S NOT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN AMERICA.
SO — SO I THINK IF YOU’RE JUST TALKING ABOUT INCOME, HOW ABOUT FIVE MILLION. SO — BUT SERIOUSLY, I DON’T THINK YOU CAN — I DON’T THINK, SERIOUSLY THAT — THE POINT IS THAT I’M TRYING TO MAKE HERE SERIOUSLY — AND I’M SURE THAT COMMENT WILL BE DISTORTED, BUT THE POINT IS — THE POINT IS — THE POINT IS THAT WE WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE’S TAXES LOW AND INCREASE REVENUES.
AND MY FRIEND, IT WAS NOT TAXES THAT MATTERED IN AMERICA IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. IT WAS SPENDING. SPENDING GOT COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL. WE SPENT MONEY IN A WAY THAT MORTGAGED OUR KIDS FUTURES. MY FRIENDS, WE SPENT $3 MILLION OF YOUR MONEY TO STUDY THE DNA OF BEARS IN MONTANA. NOW I DON’T KNOW IF THAT WAS A PATERNITY ISSUE OR A CRIMINAL ISSUE, BUT THE POINT IS — BUT THE POINT IS IT WAS 3 MILLION OF YOUR MONEY. IT WAS YOUR MONEY. AND YOU KNOW, WE LAUGH ABOUT IT, BUT WE CRY AND WE SHOULD CRY BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE CAREFUL STEWARDS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS. SO WHAT DID THEY JUST DO IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ENERGY CRISIS WHEN IN CALIFORNIA WE ARE PAYING $4 A GALLON FOR GAS, WENT ON VACATION FOR FIVE WEEKS. I GUARANTEE YOU, TWO THINGS THEY NEVER MISS, A PAY RAISE AND A VACATION. AND WE SHOULD STOP THAT AND CALL THEM BACK AND NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES. WE SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT RAISE TAXES IN TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES. SO IT DOESN’T MATTER REALLY WHAT MY DEFINITION OF RICH IS BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO RAISE ANYBODY’S TAXES. I REALLY DON’T. IN FACT, I WANT TO GIVE WORKING AMERICANS A BETTER SHOT AT HAVING A BETTER LIFE AND WE ALL KNOW THE CHALLENGES, MY FRIENDS, IF I COULD BE SERIOUS. AMERICANS TONIGHT IN CALIFORNIA AND ALL OVER AMERICA ARE SITTING AT THE KITCHEN TABLE, RECENTLY AND SUDDENLY LOST A JOB, CAN’T AFFORD TO STAY IN THEIR HOME, EDUCATION FOR THEIR KIDS, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, THESE ARE TOUGH PROBLEMS. THESE ARE TOUGH PROBLEMS. YOU TALK TO THEM EVERY DAY.”
So, $250,000 versus $5 million? I really believe McCain answered that question honestly. In his highly privilged enclave of the ueber-rich, anything below $5 million destines one for skid row! And his economic policies attest to his sheer isolation from reality: we have a collection of ideological slogans, a defense of his preferential option for the rich (I want everybody to be rich!), a lack of concern with the economic and ethical implications of high deficits, anecdotes about petty and irrelevant minor earmarks, a dose of voodoo (“cutting taxes and raising revenues”), and a lot of largely diversionary stump-speech blather.
As I discussed before, the contrast between the Obama and McCain tax plans is stark. Obama’s plan is progressive in the sense that it lowers taxes at the bottom and raises them at the top (the top quintile, and especially those at the very top of the distribution). On the other hand, McCain’s plan sees practically no gains going to the first three quintiles, with the top quintile benefitting greatly (and the top 0.1 percent doing best of all). In a sense, McCain’s plan amounts to telling all but the very rich: if you can become this wealthy, you can get a tax cut too– good luck with that!
Especially in an atmosphere of starkly rising inequality and stagnating median income, Obama’s approach is far more aligned with the notion of solidarity and the common good as taught by Catholic social teaching. It is more consistent with the idea that the fruits of development should be “distributed among individual persons and classes that the common advantage of all since “one class is forbidden to exclude the other from sharing in the benefits.” It fits with the paramount importance of an equitable division and distribution of this wealth” and the preferential option for the poor.
Comments are closed.
I’m sure that comment will be distorted. – John McCain, yesterday.
I really believe McCain answered that question honestly. In his highly privilged enclave of the ueber-rich, anything below $5 million destines one for skid row! – Morning’s Minion, today
Prescient guy, that John McCain.
John McCain at least must have memories (albeit, repressed) of middle class struggles:
CNN: Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s divorce was amicable enough that he and his ex-wife jointly brought a lawsuit 10 years later to recover damages for lost mementos, but it wasn’t amicable enough to prevent McCain’s mother from suing his ex-wife to get back some personal property.
Both lawsuits were settled out of court decades ago and before they went to trial, but records of them are kept in the archives of the city courthouse in Alexandria.
Curiously, although the records clearly list the plaintiffs, McCain’s campaign says that the Arizona senator didn’t know about or authorize the 1990 lawsuit with his ex-wife, Carol, and that his mother’s 1980 lawsuit was filed “unintentionally.” And McCain’s 96-year-old mother, Roberta, says she never sued Carol.
But others involved dispute those assertions.
In the 1980 lawsuit, filed shortly after John and Carol McCain divorced, Roberta sued Carol to reclaim some personal property,including paintings, a needlepoint screen and a pair of earrings. A
settlement was reached in 1981.
But in a brief telephone interview, Roberta denied filing the lawsuit.
“I have never heard of what you’re talking about. … I will put my hand on a Bible,” she said, to attest that she had never sued Carol.
Roberta’s denial prompted laughter from the ex-daughter-in-law.
“Yes, she sued me,” Carol said in a brief phone interview.
Roberta’s lawsuit sought personal property she claimed Carol was refusing to return. The disputed items included an “18th century Burmise Buddist Preist (Burmese Buddhist priest)” valued by Roberta at $2,000, and a “Butlers Tray for Liquor” she valued at $225.
McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in an e-mail, “Of course, by all accounts the divorce was completely amicable. After John and Carol McCain’s divorce, there was apparently some confusion about belongings that were Roberta McCain’s but we understand the court papers were unintentionally filed, and the matter never went further in the legal system. It went nowhere, and was of no consequence.”
In the 1990 lawsuit, John and Carol McCain jointly sought $1 million in punitive damages after a property management firm mistakenly threw out some McCain family treasures from a garage the
McCains shared with an adjacent townhouse. The lost items included letters McCain wrote to his wife as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
In his e-mail, Bounds said McCain “had no knowledge of the suit: He did not authorize the suit or participate in its filing.”
But the lawyer who represented the McCains said she did indeed speak to McCain and get his permission to sue on his behalf.
“You can be sure that I talked to and got the permission of any client who is listed as a plaintiff,” said attorney Barbara P. Beach.
It would be a serious violation to file an unauthorized lawsuit, and “I haven’t been disbarred yet,” Beach said with a laugh.
You can’t fault Minion for taking the only figure that McCain actually provides in response to the question as McCain’s answer. This was one of the big problems with most of McCain’s answers: he used jokes or anecdotes to escape answering the question directly.
I would ask those who believe that Obama has not articulated particular policies to look at this answer among others where Obama answers the question directly and McCain tries to get around it.
Are you seriously going to use that answer to attack McCain?
How about this: it is a fact that McCain grew up in a middle class, military household. It is a fact that Obama grew up, as some critics have claimed, as a “preppie from paradise.” It is a fact that Michelle received a very, very, very large raise to “diversity consult” right as her husband’s political career took off. It is a fact that Obama is a member in good standing of Daley’s machine, which takes care of its people very well.
Ergo, Obama doesn’t know about or care about middle and lower income people.
That is as fair and sensical as your characterizations here.
Like Warren Buffet, I believe in class war and I believe the rich are the real warriors-always looting and always pillaging. And, as in biblical times, the rich are winning. As always. Giving the psalms a timeless edge.
Mr. Jones, all you have proved is that Obama came from a privileged background, and McCain did not.
From that logic does not follow to “Ergo, Obama doesn’t know about or care about middle and lower income people.”
This shows poor logic in fact-little connection. By such standards, society-raised Katherine Drexel (now saint) ergo, cared not for the poor.
Try again.
Maybe, just maybe, McCain should be critiqued for these ridiculous comments. Not defended. Even from conservatives.
Daniel, you appear to have missed the point completely. Try again…
Mr. Jones:
In such logical frameworks as presented by yourself, Elizabeth of Hungary and her relative Elizabeth of Portugal would not really care for the poor. Yet the current Proper of the Saints allows for the Common of Those Who Served the Underprivileged to be said for both. I suspect your argument has problems.
Work on your logical framework. Throwing in those tricky foreign words like “ergo” does not buttress a weak argument.
If you find that Obama is, in your opinion, insincere in all things, just say so. Its a much easier framework to understand. Poor logic is never helpful.
Blackadder– I quoted both candiadates verbatim, linked to an incidence analysis of their tax proposals, and then appealed to Catholic social teaching? What more do you want?
And yes, sorry, anybody who believes you are only rich if you earn more than 5 million is seriously detached from reality– whether he thinks he is being “distorted” or not.
So the question is a difficult series of questions for conservatives:
One, does wealth prevent one from having a sincere desire to help the poor or understand the middle class? The narrative has been, no, of course not. In fact, the narrative has been that because of wealth, folks who had capital knew about the meaning of money, effort, etc. And as such, could be models for others. However, in Obama’s case, this ideal is not permitted. Why?
Or, is it required that background determines one’s ability to serve the poor well. If so, and this is a liberal narrative, how does one do this?
Or is it just the name Obama, is that really what it is? Is it white hat (conservative) vs. black hat (liberal)? I grow weary of always being presumed to be insincere, being of the lefty ilk (knowing that folks like Santorum think of me as liberal “something” but not Christian). Is it just Obama can’t be trusted on anything? And as such McCain is of course right?
Jonathan Jones, it is impossible to have a rational argument with you. “diversity consult”– there you so again, implictly appealing to race. It’s been a while since you brought up your notion that race explains intelligence….
But if you want to play this game, McCain spent his whole life in government, and dumped his wife to marry a super-rich heiress. Both Obamas are self-made, with great educational achievements. What’s more, Barack chose the the really lucrative path of community organizer. I know who I’d rather be friends with.
I heard an arguement recently that something like 25% of our tax revenues are provided by those that earn the top 4-5% in the US. The point was made that if we increase their taxes, we give them an incentive to earn less, they just might. While I believe that there are surely a lot of driven individuals that will continue to go about their work, I wonder if many people near the tax break points will try to take steps to reduce their taxable income by any number of means, thus reducing our tax revenues.
I have no idea if this may come to pass, but I was wondering:
First, do any of you feel that richer people would reduce their taxable incomes enough to counteract the goal of increasing revenue by increasing tax rates, and;
What do we do if that happens?
And yes, sorry, anybody who believes you are only rich if you earn more than 5 million is seriously detached from reality
From the selection and context you have provided here, there is no indication whatsoever McCain believes this. You distort his answer – badly.
And here comes your irrationality, projection, false characterization, and uncharitable discorse, right on cue.
“diversity consult”– there you so again, implictly appealing to race. It’s been a while since you brought up your notion that race explains intelligence….
This is not a matter of dispute: in 2004, very shortly before her husband’s election to the Senate, Mrs. Obama, vice president of community affairs at the University of Chicago Hospital (dealing with diversity issues), received a very large raise.
Maybe it had nothing to do with her husband. What do I know? The point, however, still stands: they are very much a part of Daley’s machine (look it up, there’s quite a bit more), and second, it makes no sense – unless one wishes to engage in political hackery – to take the leap and say “his wealthy family doesn’t know or care about poor people!” – just as your treatment of McCain does.
Jason: one of the great myths out there is that increasing marginal tax rates on the rich will destroy the economy. In fact there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. After Clinton did the same in 1993, the economy expanded at a rapid clip (and while Clinton clearly cannot get the credit for the 1990s expansion, there is pretty solid evidence that his Rubinesque deficit reduction spurred growth– on similar grounds, Berkeley’s Brad deLong estimated that the kind of profligate fiscal policy that McCain is promoting will lead to sharp declines in income in the nbext decade).
Going back even further, top marginal tax rates were around 80 percent or more during the major post-war boom. Looking at the economics: sure, higher taxes create disincentive effects (to work, save, and invest). But on the whole, these effects are pretty small.
Back to McCain’s point, which he speaks about frequently: there are small and family businesses, “worth” on paper in the hundreds of thousands or single digit millions, that are “punished” in the tax code counterproductively. One could say that these individuals, who have risked a lot and may fail completely in any given year, are wealthy. And that’s not inaccurate in many cases. But there should also be incentives in the tax codes to reward them and their behavior…..ideally, in my view, an idea like Ponneru and Douthat advance that would greatly expand child tax credits.
From Frank Rich:
“We have heard too much indeed about Michelle Obama’s Princeton thesis, her pay raises at the University of Chicago hospital, her statement about being “proud” of her country and the false rumor of a video of her ranting about “whitey.” But we still haven’t been inside Cindy McCain’s tax returns, all her multiple homes or private plane. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that Hensley & Company, the enormous beer distributorship she controls, “lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety,” in opposition to groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The McCain campaign told The Times that Mrs. McCain’s future role in her beer empire won’t be revealed before the election.”
McCain got into the military academy on affirmative action– as a few B/ C-student sons of admirals positively must get admitted each year.
Until he married Cindy, the man accomplished next to little (bracketing the whole Keating 5 affair), aside from his heroically being tortured.
And someone here has the audacity to make slurs towards Mrs. Obama’s (the daughter or a municipal worker, if I remember correctly) accomplishments and throw her professional credentials into question.
Pathetic.
Jonathan, if you have a point to make, make it. What kinds of taxes are you talking about?
Why the diversity word is valid here: it is a long-standing and very common line of work for those in the good graces of the (impressive) Chicago political machine. This goes back to Daley the original – it’s a necessary form of payment for black support (both “active” and “inactive” – as in keeping away serious primary challenges). I personally don’t see much wrong with this, given the difficulties of running a city with three powerful ethnic groups that act as singlular political actors.
But we should not be deluded that Obama isn’t the product of corrupt machine politics. He is, and he’s used it to enrich himself. I don’t hold this against him, and don’t think it’s a particularly bad thing (unless he’s broken laws, which is possible – Tony Rezko ain’t talking yet).
This isn’t to defend the McCain’s, only to put a bit of the cold water of reality onto this notion that Obama is anything other than another politican looking to get elected.
What kinds of taxes are you talking about?
I want to see McCain adopt an expanded child credit as a part of his economic plan, which is possible if we believe some of his supporters. In my opinion, all fiscal policy should in some way, if possible, benefit and advance the two parent family through incentives to get married and stay married. See here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDY5NDU3YmZmODYxN2YxNjhlNGI4OTYwMTdjYzUwODA=
The only way to counter Obama’s constant playing of the race card is to allow McCain to run in black-face. After all, his politics are far closer to those of Clarence Thomas and other “real” blacks than Obama’s. Obama is clearly a white liberal in black face. He’s not _really_ black! He shouldn’t get credit for being black. It just isn’t fair.
I have no problems with child tax credits, but (a) it’s not the focus here, and (b) it would do little to help the poor and middle class. You said you had some evidence that the “rich” are being overtaxed– what is that?
I retrurn yet again to the comparative plans: http://vox-nova.com/2008/06/12/obama-mccain-and-tax-progressivity/. Bottom line: for Obama, the top four quintiles gain, and the poorest gain most. Under McCain, the the first 3 quintiles get nothing, the fourth gets peanuts, and the top get the gains. Its a true preferential option for the rich.
Being a rich beer heiress and married to a U.S. Senator definitely gave Cindy McCain an extra edge that far surpasses anything that Michelle Obama (allegedly) received, via her ‘diversity’ and ties to her husband: ESCAPE FROM JAIL TIME.
From Salon.com, 1999, regarding Cindy’s legal luck in her trial for stealing opiate-related drugs from her own charity foundation…
“Among the questions asked: Did Cindy McCain get preferential treatment by the feds? True, Cindy was a first-time offender, which partially explains the fact that she did no prison time; instead, she entered a diversion program. But at the time, defense lawyers told New Times that if Cindy McCain had been a poor minority and not married to a U.S. senator, she likely would have been locked up.”
Ergo, Obama doesn’t know about or care about middle and lower income people.
Yea… you are right. The guy who owns 8 different houses and wears $500 shoes knows much more, and cares much more, about middle and/or lower income people.
You have to be kidding me.
The very fact that McCain responded with “$5 million” makes things quite clear. He either believes that, or is afraid to say how high he thinks “rich” is so he makes a joke about it.
And as has already been stated quite clearly, Obama’s tax plans are MUCH more beneficial for the “bottom” 80%, while McCain’s plan most benefits the top 20%.
But yea – McCain cares about those middle and lower income people, as long as you can include people makiing 4.9 million dollars in the middle income class.
I heard an arguement recently that something like 25% of our tax revenues are provided by those that earn the top 4-5% in the US
Yea… it is called progressive taxation. And it works well.
I want people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to paying a larger % of their income in taxes than someone making $50,000, or someone making $25,000.
And don’t forget that Mr Laffer himself last year distanced himself from recent GOP efforts to use his famous curve to justify what it has been and wants to do on the tax front.
I remember how my investment management firm’s well-regarded economist decried the 1993 tax settlement as “the greatest macroeconomic policy disaster by the federal government since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff” – his usual audience was brokers and investment managers, and he fed them the terror they craved. I called him out on it at the time (I got to vet his speeches in certain contexts). He later ate his words and predicted that the GOP would overplay its hand on tax cuts in the early 2000s and would likely in a decade’s time reap a bitter whirlwind for it – he was deeply concerned that tax cut orthodoxy would undermine the social contract that undergirds relatively free enterprise.
Understand that the government is not apart from “the market” – market participants votes as as much a part of the market as their consumption and productivity decisions.
And capitalism in the perspective of Adam Smith was not ideologically orthodox – it was much more descriptive (of how human beings tend to act under certain conditions of freedom) than prescriptive. Far too many people have tried to ideologize capitalism, and that is a fundamental error – it’s a kind of inverse Marxism.
I have no problems with child tax credits, but (a) it’s not the focus here,
This is not a thread about tax policy?
and (b) it would do little to help the poor and middle class. You said you had some evidence that the “rich” are being overtaxed– what is that?
If addressed to me, I did not make that assertion. I stated my opinion that small and family businesses should have their taxes lowered so that such risk-taking behavior – centered on the family – should be rewarded and encouraged. This would include businesses worth, on paper, in the millions.
Second – Dave, like Daniel, you missed the sarcasm. (See the last line of my first response). As such, I will think more carefully about including or not including sarcasm in the future.
Morning’s Minion on last night’s debate at the Commonweal Blog:
I believe Obama gave thoughtful honest answers. And because he took that approach, he spoke less fluidly, less confidently than usual. Then McCain comes out and launches straight into his stump speech and his stupid anecdotes. Talk about the contrast between the old and the new.
“Lessons learned from years as a Prisoner of War” = “stupid anecdotes” to MM.
Instructive, in another way.
I quoted both candiadates verbatim, linked to an incidence analysis of their tax proposals, and then appealed to Catholic social teaching? What more do you want?
The ability to recognize a joke would be nice.
“SO — SO I THINK IF YOU’RE JUST TALKING ABOUT INCOME, HOW ABOUT FIVE MILLION.”
So the 4.5 mill earner, earner mind you, because we’re just “talking about income” not net assets (like implied and distracted by some minds), just “talking about income” is not rich. So this is what? Middle class.
Unlike folks who cannot accept sincerity from the left or liberals (because of what?) I’ll take McCain on his word. One: he really doesn’t want to define “rich” because he doesn’t really think such a thing as class war occurs. Now the liberal narrative is: of course it does. The conservative narrative, well, it depends on the audience. For “populist” discussions, the “Northeast liberal elites” (feel free to add in Chablis sipping if this gets a good rise) are going to take your hard earned money-so yes, the image of rich fat Kennedys sitting around taking the hard-earned income of farmers works the “class war” image. Death tax, “marriage penalty” and on and on. However, among themselves, the conservative wealthy narrative is that, “no of course there is no class war.” A good family is all the wealth one needs, and about 4 million a year to secure this family in the middle class.”
Take McCain at his word. 4.5 mill is all very average. Not really all that rich.
And that disinvesting in the community wealth (roads, bridges, universities, NIH, libraries) is the key to true success.
I will take McCain at his word (unlike those who can’t take Obama at his word). And say he is utterly in error, grave moral error and demonstrating failed leadership. He will divest the community of its infrastructure and its wealth. While each home in his gated community gets a 60in digital TV with a Wii connected.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO GET RICH.
“Live simply so that others may simply live.” – St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
I could cite more evidence from the Christian tradition to support the claim that McCain is not only out of touch with the lives of most Americans, but out of touch with Christianity. Not sure that most non-Republican Christians need this to be pointed out to them, though.
Obama’s $150,000 comment seems out of touch as well, of course, but McCain’s claim is absolutely obscene.
The ability to recognize a joke would be nice.
How long will you people explain McCain away by saying “it’s just a joke”? Is everything the man says “just a joke”?
I DON’T BELIEVE IN CLASS WARFARE OR REDISTRIBUTION OF THE WEALTH.
Class warfare and wealth redistribution exist whether McCain wants them to or not. His party is a party of corporate capitalism which by definition is constantly at war with the poor, constantly redistributing wealth and resources to elites. This is the real class warfare that exists.
It becomes increasingly clear with each day of the campaign how very little McCain’s perspective shares with Christianity.
First, there is no “distortion” of McCain’s answer here (as Jonathan suggests). Rather, it is the only answer given. In fact, it seems more like a surrogate for a figure that McCain really didn’t know, which may be why he ties it to anecdotes and then deflects attention toward spending in Congress.
Second, if we can stop cheer leading for our favorite candidate for just one moment, we can recognize that McCain does not talk economics. It’s not his strong suit. He skirted the issue. The parallel is with Obama on abortion. Obama absconded from answering directly about human rights and the unborn.
Third, let’s be frank: neither of these guys are willing to discuss the areas in which they are weak. It’s a flaw. A big one. So let’s not rally behind Obama on abortion or McCain on his understanding of economics. They are both amateurs in the national arena, and it shows on specific issues.
Fourth, McCain’s upbringing and Obama’s upbringing are immaterial, and I have no idea why Jonathan brings it up (and perpetuates false information on Obama’s boyhood). I want the goods on economic policy in 2009-20013. Obama was better prepared in this regard, and it takes someone quite dense not to realize that his plan is more in line with Catholic social teaching insofar as it works at redistribution. This doesn’t make him the better candidate or any less pro-death. What it does show, however, is a disconnect between McCain and the typical middle class family in America.
It seems to me that the cheer leading for Obama and for McCain causes a degree of fanaticism which blinds celebrants from seeing the problems in their guy. The country is in trouble with either one…so cast your vote and participate, either formally or materially, in the evil each propagates.
It’s interesting. People claim they support McCain because of Obama’s position on abortion. Fair point– but what always gets me is that they seem to have little problem with McCain’s other positions– the ones quite far removed from Catholic social teaching. Case in point.
For once, I agree with Policraticus–only with the caveat that it is a citizen’s onerous DUTY to make the “choice” he speaks of.
I’ve made mine: I believe Obama to be the “lesser” of the “two evils,” and am perfectly prepared for certain things in America NOT to get better under him.
And, yes, I DO have the right to vote, by absentee ballot, in your country.
Will somebody PLEASE read the constitution!
When Christians can only talk about the “responsibility” of the state to redistribute (by force) the “wealth” of others, this country is really and truly LOST.
To suggest that our Christian responsibility is reflected in the cynical buying of constituencies in order to centralize power and dependency on the federal government is pathetic, and shows an abysmal lack of understanding of the constitution. And history.
The debate should NOT be about the definition of the word “rich”. It should be about the role and responsibility of government vs. the responsibility of the individual. And in this context I would add – what is the responsibility of the Church?
We have seen tax rates of 70%, and the “Great Society” programs destroy the family in the inner-city. The effect was diametrically opposed to the goals of Catholic social teaching. The Bishops (in the U.S.) predictably backed a typical, traditional socialist economic plan. They never mention tithing. They abnegated our responsibilities as Christians to the state. Much like the “thriving” Church in all of the socialist states in Europe. (Please note the sarcasm)
Bottom line: If the Church says that I should tithe, I will. If they Church tells me and the world what OUR responsibility is, I will listen and follow. When they tell me that Socialism is God’s chosen method to fulfill our obligation to the poor, they are lying or terribly mislead.
“We have seen tax rates of 70%…destroy the family in the inner city.”
Rubbish. (It was under St. Ronald Reagan that the grand finale of inner city decay occurred.)
Diametrically opposed to Catholic Social Teaching.
Rubbish.
Mr. mhugo has been imbibing the Kool-Aid of the Dystopians: Weigel, O’Brien, Novak. That private property has a Sacramental quality over the common good. That one has no community responsibility and that all that is taken from him and not converted into a weapon of death, a possibility to train someone to kill, or some further way to secure his wealth against the invading jealous hoardes is someone stolen from his wallet and given to some undeserving crack-using woman in New York City.
I congratualte the dystopains for so warping the conversation. They offer no future plans, no possibilities, just some wild sense of indignation that has no history in Catholic thinking. But they pretend so.
Their propaganda has been fantastic.
Mr. mhugo,
The constitution has little role in Catholicism. It was written by atheists, agnostics, and deists, mainly. It is not a religious document.
And it allows taxation.
And our religious Tradition has no special promise of exclusive private property. The “common good,” is the routine discussion around issues of private property.
Read someone other than the dystopians.
I see over and over the point that the rich pay the most taxes– a very “Limabuaghesque” point. Take a very simply example. Imagine an economy with only 2 people, one who earns $500,000 and the other who earns $50,000 (both are poor by McCain’s standards but let’s let that slip, shall we?). Now suppose the rich guy pays an average tax rate of 20 percent, and so forks over $100,000. And let the poor guy be taxed at 50 percent, forking over $25,000, half of his income. Does this seem fair. Hardly. And yet the rich man is paying 80 percent of income tax revenues! And thre unequal the underlying distribution of income, the more notable is this fact.
Bottom line: If the Church says that I should tithe, I will. If they Church tells me and the world what OUR responsibility is, I will listen and follow. When they tell me that Socialism is God’s chosen method to fulfill our obligation to the poor, they are lying or terribly mislead.
1) The Constitution is not a source of moral guidance for Catholics.
2) The Church has never “backed” socialism.
3) Bottom line: If the Church tells you what you already believe, you will believe it. If the Church challenges what you believe, “they are lying or terribly mislead.”
“The constitution has little role in Catholicism. It was written by atheists, agnostics, and deists, mainly. It is not a religious document.”
I love the demagoguery used in the above, the self-righteousness here, in that you assume everyone not a Catholic cannot have a correct social outlook, is amazing. Quite honestly, instead of using an absurd ad hominem against those who wrote the Constitution how about you object to it using what it says.
MM,
Your last post would have some merit if its mathematical truth had any bearing on the real facts and circumstances in America. People who know stuff about taxes (not you apparently) know that your mathematical hypothetical is absurd when applied to the US tax system.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/04/wsj_on_distribu.html
And even that study exaggerates the contribution of middle and low income earners since it counts social security payments, which in substance are just contributions to a defined benefit plan biased in their favor.
Now it is true that the a very small percentage of very wealthy Americans are taxed on large amounts of income at lower rates, but even this is complicated insomuch as (i) some of the gain taxed is inflationary and not real and (ii) increasing capital gains rates can actually cause a reduction of revenue due to the lock in effect. But in any case, taken as a whole the US tax system is quite progressive. I suggest you research before you write.
Mike,
(1) I do know something about taxation.
(2) The example was designed to be silly, as it was written in reponse to the “rich people pay a greater share of taxes” argument,
(3) The data you provide deals only with income taxation. It omits other taxes which are typically more regressive.
Actually, the data provided deals with both income taxes as well as social security (i.e., payroll) taxes. It does not include sales taxes, property taxes, or corporate income taxes. Sales taxes are regressive, property taxes are mildly progressive, and corporate taxes are a mystery, except we do know that they do operate at least to some extent as a tax on corporate investers by impairing returns. This, in fact, is one justification (there are many other sensible ones as well) for the lower capital gains rate. Finally, any effect of not including sales taxes is easily overwhelmed by the inclusion of social security payments. It is not sensible to count contributions to defined benefit plans as taxes for this purpose, and that is especially true when payouts are biased in favor of those who pay in less.
And [the Constitution] allows taxation
It does now. Recall it had to be amended in 1913 in order to allow for the current disaster we call taxation (in fact, anger over high taxes was one of the motivating factors of our country’s initial existence IIRC. My how we have changed).