[FoRK] How Barack lost my vote forever

[geege schuman]

Do you have some point on a continuum between irrational tax relief for a
small segment of the uber wealthy ---------> and -------> Robin Hood that
isn't socialism?  Or is it socialism at ever point to the right?

When it's capped at 20%, as Hillary proposed?  Or is any hike BAD NEWS,
PERIOD?

I get the drift of your panic, man, but hey.  Get yourself a grip.

Geege

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:

>
> In the most recent debate Senator Obama showed his true colors when he
> stated that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax "for purposes of
> fairness."
>
> The man is a socialist;  I use the term not in a jingoistic or ad hominem
> sense, but in a very real, very literal sense.
>
> He has made and now articulated a clear moral judgment about earnings from
> capital investment --- never mind the attendant risk-transfer, liquidity
> provision, and other services, yes, *services* that are embodied by such
> investment.  He has further demonstrated that he believes that it is the
> government's prerogative, perhaps duty, to enforce such moral judgments.
>  And clearly, anyone who is earning or has earned enough to invest (i.e.,
> the over 100,000,000 Americans who participate directly or indirectly in the
> stock market) does not deserve the rewards of taking such risk, or at least
> the rewards they presently enjoy.
>
> And he has made it clear that he believes that the priority of the
> government, through its tax policy, should be wealth redistribution and the
> creation of economic social equality *more* than it should be revenue
> provision for the government's needs.  Gibson stated (and the historical
> record supports, though the causality is arguable) that in the past three
> decades each increase of the cap gains rate has resulted in a decrease in
> tax revenue from cap gains, while each decrease in the rate has increased
> revenue.  Fiscal responsibility be damned, it isn't as important to Barack
> as "fairness" --- which, presumably, means that people should not earn more
> than others through the industrious application of capital, at least.
>
> This tells me everything I need to know about the man, and tells me that
> no matter how much I'd love to see the GOP lose the White House, I would be
> selling every principle I have down the river if I were to vote for Obama.
>
> I have a problem with the concept of "fair" when the notion means that any
> advantages of brain or effort  or bank account should be smoothed away by
> the government.  I also have a problem with the notion of "change at all
> costs."  The problem with asking "how could it get any worse?" --- is that
> you might get an answer.  Barack's been pretty vague about the change he
> wants (other than in the White House itself) --- but when he has been clear,
> I haven't liked the answers at all.
>
> I've been a tremendously outspoken critic of the present administration
> and its party since shortly after it took office.  I find myself pained to
> have to consider voting for that party's candidate in the upcoming election;
>  but I sure as hell won't be voting for Mr. Obama should his party nominate
> him.  And that's unfortunate, because after 8 years of the current gibbering
> idiot in the White House flinging feces at foreign powers and making a hash
> of any reasonable domestic policy, it would be nice to have someone as
> eloquent, policy-oriented and diplomatic in the office.
>
>
> jb
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>