CNN Now. Redistribution of Wealth meme

[Medusa]

seems to be leading to "come-backs" for McCain in Iowa and Florida per a GOP strategist outside of the McCain campaign. He's pushing it of course----"Americans are against redistribution of wealth"--it's bullshit we know but I'm telling you now---this is their new line of attack and we have GOT to fight back against it and tell the truth. McCain is worried about his billionaire chums being taxed fairly---and he knows better than anyone that it's utter bullshit that Obama wants to do some "redistribution" of wealth. But this shit works people!

*Edited for spelling.

[boobooday]

1. We need to point out that this is what the GOP has been doing for years

Redistributing upwards.

[sandnsea]

9. Gergen finally said that, and we should too

The bottom 80% has lost billions in wealth under Republicans, the top 1% has gained billions. The wealth has been redistributed and it's time the economy worked for all the people again.

[mrcheerful]

19. Already tried that one and got the republicon talking point

the rich deserve to be rewarded after all they pay the majority of the taxes for welfare queens and the lazy disabled people on SSI collecting nut checks for pretending to be to insane to work. Besides jobs would be lost without tax cuts for the rich and no new jobs would be opened as the won't build new factories if they didn't have money to invest in their businesses. Never mind facts that show them wrong, never mind that under Clinton there was actualy job growth, that was what Clinton inherited from Reagan and BushI.

[DeepBlueDem]

2. GOP strategists=MORANS...

[shraby]

3. There already has been a redistribution of

wealth upward. Real people don't whine about it, they get even. Obama will help us get even.

[av8rdave]

4. The Obama response SHOULD be simple

He's not redistributing wealth...he's merely reversing Bush's regressive tax cuts for the upper income brackets. Tax cuts that McCain was against (before he flip flopped).

This is the point Obama needs to drive home again and again.

[tularetom]

5. I hate to be obtuse but WTF is wrong with a little redistribution of wealth?

Middle class people are happy with the current redistribution that's taking all their money and giving it to the top 1/10 of 1%? That should be a real easy argument to knock down.

[treestar]

24. And why don't middle class people realize that they are the

potential beneficiaries? And what do they care if the wealth of the rich is redistributed to the poor?

They seem to assume the middle class would be taxes to pay the poor. Which also wouldn't be wrong, but that's not the plan.

[dansolo]

31. Because they believe the money will come from them and go to the poor

That is what their idea of distribution of wealth is - welfare. For some reason they don't realize that their money is being siphoned off by the wealthy, not by the poor.

[FVZA_Colonel]

6. A comeback in Iowa?

I'll believe that when the polls show less then double digits for Obama there.


And as Florida, that's hard to swallow as well.

[Vinca]

7. The expression "spread the wealth around" is common and I'm sure

Obama didn't intend for it to be taken literally. It's just more stupid shit.

[Eric J in MN]

38. The phrase sounds good to me.

I want wealth to be spread around.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. brainwash. The real redistribution was from 99% to the top 1%

they probably don't want the story of Robinhood reprinted for the little kiddies.

[Snotcicles]

10. Redistribution of Wealth is done. There is no wealth left to redistribute. nt

[justiceischeap]

11. Um, intrinsically aren't taxes a redistribution of wealth?

No one wants to pay taxes but if we didn't pay taxes how would we run the government and its agencies?

[tularetom]

12. Delete - el dupo

[patrick t. cakes]

13. come back in iowa?

sorry, no chance

[casus belli]

14. they don't seem to realize that....

the VAST majority of their base actually stand to benefit from such a proposal. When they say "he wants to take your hard earned money and pass it around to whoever he thinks deserves it", they are only talking to maybe 3 or 4 out of a hundred of their supporters.

Since when did making someone pay less equate to giving them handouts? Republicans are acting like tax cuts for the middle class are a bad thing. I say let them keep hammering it until people catch on. This line of attack, along with proposing that a plumber who stands to make more than $250,000 a year represents the average hard-working American, show that they aren't connected at all to the people they want to represent. Now if their supporters just realized that, we'd have a Democratic super-majority for the next 100 years.

[polichick]

15. imo people are only amused at this point by all the rabbits being pulled out of hats.

[glitch]

20. Indeed. It's finally starting to click that they will say any shit if they think it will float.

Took awhile but they have managed to sink their own credibility even with the low information voters. All they've got left are the no information voters, the true believers.

[graywarrior]

16. Sheesh.

[Overseas]

17. Which right winger was it that admitted there IS a class war and the rich have won.

I forget who said that during one of the last twelve times the Republicans were trying to use the scary commie theme.

Maybe now enough people will know that he was right.

After they've seen corporate welfare take place to the tune of 700 billion PLUS
and heard that McShame
wants to cut 800 billion off of Medicare and Medicaid--
and privatize as much of those "entitlement programs" as he can.

how's THAT for a major transfer of wealth?

Can enough people see already who has stacked the deck in the class war?

[kenny blankenship]

23. Sounds like Kevin Phillips

[Overseas]

35. Doesn't it? That would be my first choice.

I'm astounded that so soon after the TRANSFER of 800,000,000,000 FROM us taxpayers (95% of whom earn less than 250,000 per year) to Wall Street financiers and insurers who probably have the highest concentration of the top two percent in any industry---

the Republicans are actually trying to push that "sharing the wealth" concept as a threat.
If anything, that should make the Democrats even more popular.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. So, people are going to buy into the GOP's "redistribution of wealth"

Once again, McCain just wants to continue the same failed Reagan/Bush policies of "trickle-down" economics which overwhelmingly results in a yellow rather than a green "trickle-down" from the top.

[kenny blankenship]

21. Let them scream SOCIALISM all they want. The more they scream the better.

Obama is going to be elected by a landslide ANYWAY. And then their "SOCIALISM" bugaboo won't work anymore.

The People in an overwhelming majority approved and voted for it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

22. Yeah, cuz giving it all to the rich folks has worked out soooooooo

fucking good for all the rest of us. 30 years of Reaganomics has gotten us where we are now.

[Mz Pip]

25. That's what taxes are

It's always been that way. This is not new. This is not some grand socialsist scheme perpetrated by Obama. Taxes are collected and the money is spread around to benefit all of the country - roads, education, defense, research. Taxes pay for all of these things.

[Median Democrat]

26. CNN Ignoring Facts - Marginal Tax Rates Under Reagan Were Higher Than Obama's Proposals

It is amazing to here people equate Obama's tax plan with socialism. Such arguments reflect an ignorance of fact and history. The American tax system has been progressive for a long time. Also, Obama's tax plan is not nearly as progressive (or socialistic as some RWs would say) as Bill Clinton's or Ronald Reagans. Indeed, under Reagan, we had a 50% top marginal rate. Unfortunately, the MSM never takes the time to address the charges and counter-charges regarding tax plans with fact. So, here's my effort to introduce some fact into the tax debate:

I got my information from the following websites:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Our current maginal tax rates for 2008 are as follows:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%


Obama proposes the following marhinal tax rates:

10%
15%
25%
28%
36%
39.6%

McCain would simply continue applying Bush's marginal tax rates:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%

However, does this make Obama's tax plan radical or socialistic? Hardly. In 1999, when the stock market was zooming through the roof, and real median household incomes were going through the roof under Bill Clinton, we had the following marginal tax rates:

15%
28%
31%
36%
39.6%

Thus, Obama's proposed taxes are still significantly less than the taxes under Bill Clinton, particularly for middle income Americans.

Okay, well how about Ronald Reagan? Well for much of Reagan's two terms, he had top marginal tax rates of 50%, though deductions may have resulted in a different tax burden. In other words, compared to Obama's proposed tax plans, Ronald Reagan is a pinko commie:

Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,670
11.0% $3,670 $5,940
12.0% $5,940 $8,200
14.0% $8,200 $12,840
16.0% $12,840 $17,270
18.0% $17,270 $21,800
22.0% $21,800 $26,550
25.0% $26,550 $32,270
28.0% $32,270 $37,980
33.0% $37,980 $49,420
38.0% $49,420 $64,750
42.0% $64,750 $92,370
45.0% $92,370 $118,050
49.0% $118,050 $175,250
50.0% $175,250 -

[No Elephants]

27. Um, McCain wants to keep re-distributing wealth to the wealthiest 5%.

[Medusa]

29. EXACTLY!

Which is why Obama needs to hit back and talk about how McCain's plan puts more income into the pockets of the VERY WEALTHY while taxing average, middle-class Americans. I don't understand why they aren't hitting hard to counter-act this.

My other issue that i think isn't getting another attention is that McCain is going to TAX medical benefits.

It's STILL the economy stupid!

[frickaline]

28. These people need to understand

this: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/06poverty_booza.aspx

Analysis of 1970 to 2000 decennial census data for families and neighborhoods in the 100 largest metropolitan areas, and in the cities and suburbs of 12 selected metropolitan areas, finds that:

* Middle-income neighborhoods as a proportion of all metropolitan neighborhoods declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000. This dramatic decline far outpaced the corresponding drop in the proportion of metropolitan families earning middle incomes, from 28 percent in 1970 to 22 percent in 2000.

* Between 1970 and 2000, lower-income families became more likely to live in lower-income neighborhoods, and higher-income families in higher-income neighborhoods. Only 37 percent of lower-income families lived in middle-income neighborhoods in 2000, down from 55 percent in 1970.

* The proportion of neighborhoods that were middle-income shrank faster than the proportion of families that were middle-income in each of 12 large metropolitan areas examined. Among the 12 metro areas, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Baltimore, and Philadelphia experienced much more dramatic declines in middle-income neighborhoods than San Antonio and Louisville.

* Only 23 percent of central-city neighborhoods in the 12 large metropolitan areas had a middle-income profile in 2000, down from 45 percent in 1970. A majority of families (52 percent) and neighborhoods (60 percent) in these cities had low or very low incomes relative to their metropolitan area median in 2000.

* A much larger proportion—44 percent—of suburban neighborhoods in the 12 metropolitan areas had a middle-income profile in 2000. Yet this proportion fell over the 30-year period, too, from 64 percent in 1970, accompanying a smaller decline in suburban middle-income families. Suburban middle-income neighborhoods were replaced in roughly equal measure by low-income and very high-income neighborhoods.

[moondust]

30. John McLaughlin (PBS) mentioned "Marxism."

In the lead-off story on McLaughlin Group this week McLaughlin stated a college professor from Chicago claiming to have been a close associate of Obama back in the day (90s?) has said that back then Obama was as Marxist/socialist as they come. (I'm sure Monica Crowley wet her pants!) He cited a Gallup poll in which Americans are 84% against "redistributing the wealth." Discussion ensued. Eleanor Clift was outnumbered 4-to-1 as is often the case there nowadays. It quickly became unwatchable and I turned it off.

Phrases like "redistribute the wealth" are like gifts from heaven to a right wing propagandist. I expect the GOOPers will push the meme 24/7 until election day as yet another scare tactic.

Obama needs to crush this garbage immediately.

[Phx_Dem]

32. Republicans love wealth distribution, as long as it goes to the rich.

It boggles the mind how fucking stupid the middle-class and blue-collar GOP voters are. They consistently vote against their own interests.

"Republicans want to give a big tax breaks to rich people and corporations who ship my job overseas, but I don't get shit! Woo Hoo! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!" :woohoo:

Ignorant is not strong enough to describe these self-hating losers.

[burythehatchet]

33. HAH! You ought to see Fox. Nancy Funkengroover lying her ass off

[AnotherMother4Peace]

34. If this is all they have - they've lost. I, personally, could use some redistributed wealth.

[Overseas]

37. Exactly. Enough already with Trickle Down. 25 years of failure.

As Thom Hartmann says, Let's Percolate Up for a change.

That's why we are seeing Republican Desertion Effect. Tired of waiting for that dang trickle down.

Remembering that the bits of Percolate Up that Bill Clinton tried enabled him to hand budget surpluses to the Republican gang that took over the White House.

[Eric J in MN]

36. Society redistributes wealth every year.

The only question is whether that wealth will be concentrated in fewer hands or more hands.