Senator Obama says that if we disagree with him about the virtues of spreading our (or other peoples’) wealth around, that we’re selfish.
Nothing I like better from a socialist presidential candidate than being lectured about my personal morality.
22 thoughts on “Glad He Explained That”
Comments are closed.
> Nothing I like better from a socialist presidential candidate
> than being lectured about my personal morality.
The One will smite you down for saying that!!
😉
Well, he’s right. You’re all selfish unless you’re willing to share your money with me. Send me your money. Also your women. And…um…the deeds to any real property you have lying around.
Then this may be your lucky four years, because if Obama wins, you can count on getting lectured about your morality for opposing having your and other people’s money and other property stolen, and possibly even for opposing something that looks an awful lot like slavery (compulsory national service).
The kind of selfishness that Obama apparently opposes (and as Glenn Reynolds noted was promoted by Ayn Rand in her famous book “The Virtue of Selfishness”) is a completely noble and moral American virtue. This country was founded on the principle that men and women had the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” free from government interference and tyranny.
Many immigrants (such as my parents) came to this country precisely to be able to work hard, prosper, and give their children a chance for a better life. They came to this country with little more than the clothes on their back, but did well over the years, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement. Their life has been a real-life embodiment of the American dream.
If we want America to remain a beacon of hope to millions around the world, we should re-affirm our commitment to free markets and capitalism, and reject calls for more socialism and “redistribution of wealth”.
This country is great precisely because it allows people like my parents to attain selfish goals such as their lives and happiness. Americans should be proud of that fact, not condemn it.
When Barack lifts his poor auntie in Boston out of poverty, instead of just using her as a prop in his life story, he can lecture me on selfishness. And when Joe “The Cheapskate” Biden for once opens his purse to donate more than $950 bucks to charity after spending years suckling at the Public teat, he too can get in my face about my “selfishness.”
Whoa! So now it turns out according to the AP that Obama’s aunt is in the US illegally, having been ordered out of the country by a US immigration judge four years ago. And, since she has been living in public housing in Dorchester (a suburb of Boston), that probably opens up a real can of worms. Hmmmmm.
Actual Rand, if you listened or read, when Obama said ‘they’, he was referring to McCain and Palin, not you so don’t take it so personally.
So Obama wants to lower tax rates for middle income and raise tax rates for upper income folks back to what it was during the Clinton years. And that’s socialism? I see you like using that label. So maybe you should also be calling McCain a socialist. Afterall, McCain voted agasint the tax cut rates. But it just shows your double standard.
Actual Rand, if you listened or read, when Obama said ‘they’, he was referring to McCain and Palin, not you so don’t take it so personally.
So McCain and Palin are being “selfish” because they try to protect us from having our wealth spread around? How does that work?
So Obama wants to lower tax rates for middle income and raise tax rates for upper income folks back to what it was during the Clinton years.
No, he wants to take money from the higher brackets, and hand out checks to people who don’t pay income taxes.
And that’s socialism?
The impulse behind it certainly is.
So maybe you should also be calling McCain a socialist.
I think that McCain, to the limited degree that he has any economic philosophy at all, is more socialist than suits my taste. But he’s a pike when it comes to Barack Obama.
Rand, Who is the ‘we’ you refer to? I didn’t know you were doing so well : )
I can understand that people making >$250/yr wouldn’t like to pay another 3% (even though the rates were much higher in the past) but times are tough so sorry, I think it is a little selfish given the fact that we are fighting a war and people are having tough times. I would say also that McCain also has plans of his own that will significantly increase government spending but McCain offers no details on how this is going to be paid which means more national debt.
I think you have to be careful about saying Obama is going to hand out checks to people who don’t pay income tax. First, people pay taxes in a lot of ways that aren’t necessarily income tax and when you are poor, you get hit with a lot of other costs that more fortunate people don’t have to pay. Unfortunately the minimum wage hasn’t kept up with cost of living. I’d like to see an increase in minimum wage plus somehow limit how much CEOs can make since it is ridiculous (how can anyone be worth hundreds of millions is beyond me) but as far as I can tell, the tax rate cuts Obama is proposing will help mainly the middle class so I’m not sure how you are getting that lower income will be getting checks.
My wife and I make pretty good salary and no, I don’t like paying taxes either. So how about this – let’s just can everyone that works at NASA and anything else related to space exploration. If a business wants to invest, be my guest but the government should not spend another dime on space, afterall we don’t want to be socialist. Do I really care about water on Mars or what is going on with the outer planets? Granted, the moon mission in the 60’s helped drive a lot of new technology but as far as I’m concerned, it is just a drag now.
Rand, Who is the ‘we’ you refer to? I didn’t know you were doing so well : )
Regardless of how well you know I’m doing, if I do do well, I think I know how to spend my money better than Barack Obama does, both for me, and for worthy causes. Most Americans don’t practice the politics of envy, I hope.
I can understand that people making >$250/yr wouldn’t like to pay another 3% (even though the rates were much higher in the past) but times are tough so sorry, I think it is a little selfish given the fact that we are fighting a war and people are having tough times.
So, because people are having tough times, I’m “selfish” if I don’t want a bureaucrat to decide what to do with my money? And you assume without basis that an increase in tax rate will actually result in an increase in revenue. In fact, raising taxes in a recession, particularly on those who create jobs is a Hooverian policy, and will turn it into a depression, particularly combined with Obama’s plans to restrict free trade (also Hooverian).
I think you have to be careful about saying Obama is going to hand out checks to people who don’t pay income tax.
No, I don’t. It’s an absolutely true statement, unlike Obama’s. He’s not giving people a “tax cut.” He’s just handing out welfare checks.
I’d like to see an increase in minimum wage plus
Thereby throwing more people out of work in a recession. Good plan.
Have you ever had a course in economics?
So how about this – let’s just can everyone that works at NASA and anything else related to space exploration.
Fine by me, given how most of the money is being spent.
Hmmmmm.
@ Rand
“Nothing I like better from a socialist presidential candidate than being lectured about my personal morality.”
Good. Because Das Obama wants to discuss certain elements of your daily ablutions and personal hygiene that are perhaps a bit … under par shall we say?
🙂
Frankly I wouldn’t doubt it’ll come to that.
Tom, in what sense are times “tough?”
Last time I checked, the unemployment rate was still quite low (maybe 6%, which is almost as low as it ever gets), inflation hotted up in the summer with gas, but will be crashing down this fall with gas going down, and, while wages may be flat for a while, there’s no obvious sign they’re plummeting.
I mean, seriously. Don’t you have parents or grandparents who lived through the Great Depression? Don’t you remember the recession of 1982, with 12% unemployment? Or the stagflation of the late 1970s, with the prime rate and hence mortgages up around 15%, inflation running near 20%?
So far what we’ve seen is that a lot of fools on Wall Street are going to lose their jobs and get their Porsches repossessed and have to sell the Matisse. Well, boo hoo. Live on wild speculation, die on wild speculation, huh? They knew the score when they took the job. Next time, become a plumber, for a nice steady (but not spectacular) income.
Then, there are all the people who are upside down on the mortgage and going to lose the house. Sucks, to be sure — but whose fault is it? If you buy more house than you can realistically afford, and then the zooming price you’d counted on to flip the house doesn’t materialize…? Well, again, I’m having a hard time sympathizing. Furthermore, while plummeting real estate prices sucks for homeowners and sellers, it’s great for homebuyers. I thought we liked the idea of every man owning his own home? Lots more lower-income prudent people are going to be able to afford these newly-cheaper homes.
Hmm, well, you might say, all very true, but this uncertainty in the credit markets, whatever its source, is going to make companies pull their horns in, have people work overtime instead of hiring new people. So jobs might start to get a little scarce, and boy does that suck.
And you’d be right. So what’s the solution? Jobs. The government should do whatever it is that makes new jobs more plentiful, whatever increases the salaries offered to new hires, whatever makes people running companies (or about to start companies) decide to take on more people and pay out more salaries.
And what do you suppose is the exact opposite of that policy? You guessed it, raising taxes, particularly raising taxes on higher income people (those with capital to invest in paying salaries) or on businesses (duh). We’ve known this since FDR fucked up the economy and prolonged the Depression by (modern economists estimate) nearly seven long years.
Obama and his party are not stupid, of course. They know this very well. So why go down that path? Because they’re not interested in a recovered economy. They’re not interested in a booming private sector, with lots of great high-paying jobs. That doesn’t help Democrats keep power, does it? That doesn’t make people want to vote the Federal government more and more control over the economy, let the Democrat civil servants hire more and more assistants for a bigger and bigger “helping” bureaucracy, does it? What brings Democrats to power, and keeps them in power, is an anemic economy, despair everywhere, no jobs, and people so desperate they’ll swallow their pride and take a government hand-out to survive. So that’s what they’d like to see. They’re not economic idiots. They just have different goals than most of us, and those goals do not include having us not need them.
You’re buying fire insurance from an arsonist, my friend.
Tom said, “I’d like to see an increase in minimum wage plus somehow limit how much CEOs can make since it is ridiculous (how can anyone be worth hundreds of millions is beyond me)”
And that goes double for Oprah, Tiger Woods, A-Rod, Kobe Bryant, Eli Manning, Steven Spielberg, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Madonna, the Rolling Stones, 50 Cent, Johnny Depp, Jerry Seinfeld, Michael Jordan, Harrison Ford, Robin Williams, Celine Dion, Puffy Combs, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy—all of these people earn 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars each year. How can they be worth it? It’s beyond me. The government should limit how much these people can earn.
Carl, By your reasoning we should just eliminate taxes for high income people and businesses and we will have jobs galore. In fact, why don’t we eliminate taxes all together for everyone? We can hava a government that justs prints money.
As for high paying jobs, at least the democrats want to keep these in the U.S. Most big businesses are shipping these high paying jobs overseas because they are more worried about making their quarter so they can get their stock options. As far as I’m concerned, any drop in tax rates for them won’t result in any more jobs, just more pay for the executives.
And there are plenty of economists that believe that Obama’s economic plan will help our ecomony. Look at Alan Greenspan, who admitted that he had screwed up in his thinking. When he supported Bush’s tax breaks and said it will have little impact on government revenue, I thought what an idiot, it will only lead to huge budget deficits (guess what, it did).
Your theory on Democrats is pretty pathetic. It was the Republicans that got us into this mess and now it will take Democrats to get us out.
Carl, By your reasoning we should just eliminate taxes for high income people and businesses and we will have jobs galore.
Well, yes, in fact we would. The corporate tax is particularly absurd, because corporations never pay taxes–they only collect them from others (either the stockholders, the customers, or the employees).
In fact, why don’t we eliminate taxes all together for everyone?
Because the government has to have revenue.
There is no need for an income tax, however. An income tax is the worst form of tax, because it punished productivity. A consumption tax would be much more economically efficient.
As far as I’m concerned, any drop in tax rates for them won’t result in any more jobs, just more pay for the executives.
That’s because you don’t understand how the economy, or business works.
And there are plenty of economists that believe that Obama’s economic plan will help our ecomony. Look at Alan Greenspan, who admitted that he had screwed up in his thinking.
He didn’t say that he supported Obama’s economic plan.
There are many more economists who are opposed to Obama’s plan that in favor, many of them with Nobel prizes.
It was the Republicans that got us into this mess and now it will take Democrats to get us out.
Yes, that’s a very popular thing to think, but it’s utter nonsense. It was a bipartisan endeavor, and the Democrats proposed solutions will return us to the 1930s.
Tom, Rand has already answered you ably. So let me just add an interesting historical fact that may shock you, since I assume you made your sarcastic suggestion (why don’t we just eliminate [income] taxes entirely?) under the assumption that no sane person could consider such a radical move.
Did you know that the United States government had no income taxes at all for the first 120 years, roughly, of its existence? And yet the Republic got along just fine. There were plenty of jobs, the economy grew robustly, and living conditions generally here were just as good (if not often better) than anywhere else in the world. The Industrial Revolution came along, steamboats and automobiles and airplanes and the telegraph were invented and thrived, the American economy grew from a seedling in Britain’s shadow to the biggest in the world — all before the income tax.
So how’d that happen? How did we do so well, for so long, without this magic thing? Why was “the middle class” not mired in grinding hopeless jobless uneducated poverty, before it was possible for the Federal government to “help” them?
The income tax was a direct result of 1890s class-warfare “progressive” populism, and it was openly designed to transfer wealth, not generate it (sensible people in the 18th and 19th century understood perfectly well that any tax is a brake on economic activity). It has only been later generations of ace bullshitters, unmoored to any sense of reality, who have advanced the logically self-contradictory proposal that an income tax can conceivably be used to enhance economic growth.
I mean, let’s try a formally equivalent thought experiment scheme. You have a certain income, which, I expect, you’d like to use most efficiently, so as to have the most left over for fun stuff at the end of each month. So, instead of you figuring out what to buy and when, why don’t you send me roughly a third of it? I’ll then decide what you should and shouldn’t buy, and send you some preprinted checks (drawn on your own account), with the things you’re supposed to buy and the merchant you’re supposed to buy them from already filled in. Er…and I’ll keep a small portion of your money, to pay my own expenses, so you won’t get all if it back.
No, I won’t have time to interview you to determine what your particular needs and wants are, because I’ll be doing the same for millions of other people. I’ll only be able to decide in a broad general way what you all should be doing with your money. And, I must admit, there’s some chance that someone with better access to my ear (like the owner of a corporation who wants you to buy something from him at top dollar) may cause me to make some small mistake, and force you to buy something for somebody’s else’s benefit, not yours. But, well, can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. I’m only human. I promise in general I’ll be thinking of your interests, or…um…at least, what I think are your interests, based on a few polls and what I learned in law school.
Does that sound like a winning plan? Think the amount of cash you have left over each month will increase? Think your long-term goals — a nice retirement kitty, a home of your own, a degree or a job in a field you like — will be met better if I make the decisions than if you do? If so, I’ve got a hot investment in Nigeria to tell you about. If not…why do you imagine it works better if we dress it up in noble-sounding doubletalk about “pulling together” and “social investment” and other such con-man bullshit?
Outstanding thought experiment Carl, I’d never heard it put exactly that way, great job. I suspect if Tom had responded he would have eventually got around to stating what (for him) is the obvious: Why save for retirement, a home, a degree for you or your kids? Under our new messiah all those things will be provided for you!
“Actually Rand, if you listened or read, when Obama said ‘they’, he was referring to McCain and Palin, not you so don’t take it so personally.”
That was rather disingenuous, Tom, because Obama’s moral condemnation applies to anyone who holds the same opinions.
I think it’s selfish for me or anyone else to designate where my money goes after I give it up.
—
It’s a good thing people are motivated to be selfish. Otherwise that invisible hand thing wouldn’t work to give me an incentive to be productive for others’ benefit.
Carl Pham, outstanding comments. The ChicagoBoyz have linked to them.
Rand, The consumption tax ism’t all that bad but the tax rate would be so high that too many folks would try to get around paying that kind of tax. I have heard rates of 2% or higher which can be difficult to enforce. Plus since this is regressive, tax credits will be used which adds complexity. Carl gave a long note on no income tax but let’s get serious, we are living in the 21st Century. The world is a little more complicated – I would hate to go back to no Social Security, no Medicare, no USDA, etc.
I think the biggest issue is the disparity that is growing between the middle class and the wealthy. Alan Greenspan said this isn’t something that a capatilistic democracy can sustain for long. I don’t know all the answers to how this can be eliminated but I have seen the consequences in countries such as Mexico where there is not a strong middle class and it isn’t pretty.
I’m all smiles tonight given the Obama win. Hopefully we can pull together to get this economy back on track.
Sorry, I missed a digit. Consumption tax rates of 23% or higher.