Friday, October 31, 2008

Who Is Trying To Spread The Wealth? by Akindele Akinyemi
People are so excited about this year's election. However, while people will be going to the polls next week to vote on their candidate of their choice I would like to remind you several things.

First, all politics are local. Regardless of who is going to be the next President we still have work to do on a local level. Every Democrat here in Detroit do not sound like Sen. Barack Obama and every Republican is not a Maverick like Sen. John McCain. We need to be realistic about our approaches to solving the problems in our community. While Obama has presented an urban policy agenda McCain has NOT presented any urban nothing. That's a black eye for Black Republicans who are now crossing over the vote for Obama.

Second, the economy will not be fixed overnight. I strongly disagree with Obama's "income redistribution" plan. The media has been calling it "spreading the wealth." The basic premise of the redistribution of income is that money should be distributed to benefit the poorer members of society, and that the rich should be obliged to assist the poor. Thus, money should be redistributed from the rich to the poor, creating a more financially egalitarian society.

This is bull because this "Robin Hood" economics will further keep us from being independent on government. If Obama would preach less government intervention and more free markets in our community I would have probably supported him (at least in theory).

84% of Americans oppose Obama's plan of income redistribution. That could cost him the election next week.

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%).

The other thing is the fact that while Obama supporters want more government the fact remains that Americans more likely to believe government is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (50%) as opposed to saying government should do more to solve the country's problems (43%).

Most conservatives accept and advocate voluntary charitable giving as necessary to alleviate social problems, and believe government should not interfere, but rather should encourage personal involvement and personal giving to the underprivileged, elderly, disabled, and other hardship cases. Also, many conservatives view some forms of government redistribution as an impingement on personal rights, leading to unjust expropriation of property, fostering irresponsible social conduct and acting as a disincentive for personal involvement to alleviate social problems.

Those who are liberal (like some of our Obama supporters) generally support income redistribution based on their belief that individual charitable giving cannot be relied upon and tends to advocate some degree of compulsory redistribution of resources as necessary.

For example, welfare and progressive taxation. Liberals believe that increased redistribution and consequent reductions in inequality lead to better outcomes for individual welfare and freedom.

What I have learned from Sen. Obama and his supporters is this...when you hear that Obama is offering a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans what is he talking about? Studies show that only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Sen. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

Maybe people like Sean Hannity and others have a point when they call Obama's tax plan a socialist plan.

You tell me if this is right..anyone please who may be reading this.

Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes. What is that called?

According to Wikipedia the definition of Socialism is a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means and production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.

So are people like Sen. John McCain or Gov. Sarah Palin WRONG when they call Obama's Tax Plan "socialist?"

A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Sen. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy. So what is going on? How come so many Americans who are supporting Obama are ignoring this fact?

How can anyone ignore the fact that energy prices and Wall Street has crippled the American economy? With the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly vulnerable position.

Sen. Obama says he wants to cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. While most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions dividends will take money from all those. I ask you again is it fair that those Americans on Main Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase?

Whatever happened to teaching our children about working? I mean, if you need the extra money why not work two jobs? What about taking up a skill in school or going back to get your degree to help you advance your career? Obama's tax plan is BAD for the inner cities here in Michigan. All this would do is reinforce laziness and handouts. I agreed with former Gov. John Engler when he cut off General Assistance in 1991 here in Michigan because we were handing out checks to men to sit on their asses when they needed to go work. It's bad enough that some of our men sit at home playing XBOX 360 and Sony Playstation while their women are working 16 hours a day only to come home to see that the dishes have not been washed, every single dish has been used, clothes everywhere and their men are hanging out with the boys while the children need help with their homework.

The third thing is the fact that places like Michigan are still in a recession. Our economy has gotten worse and while people are emotional about voting for Obama next Tuesday because the media has demonized the Republican Party when the smoke clears we will be mad at Obama just like those who re-elected Gov. Granholm in 2006 because we felt that she needed a second chance. With unemployment damn near 9% you would hope that people would vote AGAINST the Democratic Party but the Republican Party has NOT done any better. We need a bi-partisan approach to fixing the economy here in Michigan FIRST not wait on whoever from Congress or the White House to fix it.

Sen. Obama's plan for universal health care (a scary thought) will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Who is going to foot this bill? In order to execute his plan to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. Is this the way we should be moving in America? Are we thinking?

Regardless of who wins next week we still need practical approaches to solving problems in our local communities. I HOPE people will FIND out the facts about BOTH candidates (like I did) before they vote on Election Day.

1 comment:

johnpetersen said...

Interesting concept and site. You'll have to keep us up to date on how things progress over time.I wanted to wish you luck. I just got in from meetings and don't have time to study it more closely at the moment, but I didn't want to pass by without wishing you the best with this venture.