Showing posts with label Class Warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class Warfare. Show all posts

Friday, November 2, 2012

Why This JFK Democrat Won't Vote for President Obama

I have always considered myself a John F. Kennedy Democrat.
I sat glued to the radio when he tried to win the vice presidential nomination. I rooted for him as he debated Richard M. Nixon on TV.
It is because I remain a Kennedy Democrat that I won't vote for President Obama. I can't for three main reasons.
First, I think the president is dead wrong on how to raises revenues and revive the economy. I also believe that Gov. Mitt Romney, who is following JFK's approach, is right. Here is what JFK said. (As you read it, recall Joe Biden's derisive remarks to Paul Ryan: "Now, you're Jack Kennedy").
"There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth.
"But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand -- to cut the fetters which hold back private spending.
"It could ... be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy.
"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system -- and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
"In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
"(A)ny new tax legislation enacted ... should meet the following three tests:
"First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required.
"Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment... When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
"Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.
"For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
"Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges.
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget -- just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. ... This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.
"The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
"I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: (a) a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or (b) a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe -- and I believe this can be done -- a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future." -- JFK, address to the Economic Club, Dec. 12, 1962.
The second reason, I can't vote for President Obama is because he doesn't tell the truth, and sends his surrogates to lie for him. It began with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers and continues with every unemployment report that excludes those who have given up seeking employment, as well as the series of lies about Libya, etc. I no longer have any confidence that anything he tells the American people will be the truth. Mr. Obama is the Democratic equivalent of the Richard M. Nixon.
Finally, I am tired of this president's broken promises to fix important things: Medicare and Social Security. I am tired of class warfare, and of his blaming everybody but himself. And I will not accept as the "new norm" that America grows poorer and weaker, while China gets richer and more powerful with our money.
Jack Kennedy wouldn't, and I won't.
(As a result of the JFK/LBJ tax cuts, unemployment fell from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.8 percent in 1966. And taxes paid by individuals rose from about $45 billion in 1964 to $60 billion in 1967.)

Posted Online: :   Nov. 1, 2012 at 2:22 p. m.   - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea




Thursday, August 25, 2011

Expropriate Exploiters' Wealth? It's Been Tried Before!

Multibillionaire Warren Buffet does not feel he is paying enough federal income tax.

He suggests the government tax him more. ... what does he mean by "more?" Is he suggesting taxing billionaires out of existence?

Would you be in favor of abolishing billionaires? Millionaires? What about corporations with net incomes in excess of $1 million? If so, why? To eliminate the deficit?

Remember, if taxes on individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million were doubled, it would only cut our $1.5 trillion deficit by roughly 17 percent. So if making the "super-rich" pay their "fair share" is your solution to eliminating the deficit, you might wish to consider "nationalizing" their wealth, instead.

And if you favor "nationalizing their wealth," how do you define "billionaire?" "millionaire?" (Bs and Ms.)

Do we define Bs and Ms based on how much property they own? Or is a B someone with an annual adjusted gross income of a $1 billion or more?

If you classify people based on their annual income, then abolishing Bs and Ms is as easy as raising the taxes they pay. You might, for example, pass a law which says "all persons with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $1 million shall pay a tax sufficient to reduce their after-tax income to $999,999.99." Or perhaps to $100,000!

But if you define Bs and Ms based on the net value of their estates, then you will probably need to pass an excise tax, taxing the privilege of being rich or owning property in a sum sufficient to reduce the net worth of each to $999,999.99, or less. After all, that is the theory of the Obamacare's individual mandate. If not having health insurance "affects interstate commerce," surely sitting on a mountain of money which the government could better use to stimulate the economy also adversely "affects interstate commerce."

Of course, abolishing Bs, Ms and corporations has been tried before. In 1918 the USSR enacted a Constitution that abolished capital and created a Republic of Soviet workers. And for 70 years, people lived dismal, bleak incentiveless lives, until the whole system collapsed in 1990.

Here are a few excerpts from the "enlightened" 1918 Soviet Constitution:

"Article 3. Its fundamental aims being abolition of all exploitation of man by man, complete elimination of the division of society into classes, merciless suppression of the exploiters, ... and victory of socialism in all countries, the ... Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies further resolves:

"a. Private land ownership is hereby abolished, and all land is proclaimed the property of the entire people ... on the principles of egalitarian land tenure.

"b. All forests, mineral wealth, waters of national importance ... and agricultural enterprises are proclaimed the property of the nation.

"c. The Soviet laws ... are ... confirmed ... to guarantee the power of the working people over the exploiters, as a first step towards the complete conversion of factories, mines, railways and other means of production and transportation into the property of the Soviet Workers' and Peasants' Republic.

"d. The Congress of Soviets regards as a first blow at international banking and financial capital, the Soviet law on the annulment of loans negotiated by the governments of the tzar, the landlords and the bourgeoisie ...

"e. To ensure the sovereign power of the working people and to rule out any possibility of restoration of the power of the exploiters, ... the creation of a socialist Red Army of workers and peasants, and the complete disarming of the propertied classes are hereby decreed."

So, before you decide to nationalize the income and the assets of Bs, Ms and greedy corporations, think twice. The America of your dreams, could very well end up looking a whole lot like the workers' paradise formerly known as the USSR. And if you are too young to remember the USSR, take a trip to Cuba.

It's only 90 miles away!

So why defend Bs and Ms (those who have lawfully amassed and lawfully utilize their wealth)?

It is not because I admire them or want to be one of them. It is because I am unwilling to exchange traditional American "equality of opportunity," for Soviet-style "equality of outcome."

As long as America has its Bs and Ms, you and I retain the liberty to become Bs and Ms. I defend them because I won't engage in class warfare, and because I refuse to covet my neighbors' goods. Because if their wealth can be expropriated, so can yours and mine.

Posted Online: Aug. 24, 2011, 2:46 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea