Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary in a sheet
Hey Joan, when are you going to dump one of the most disgusting women ever running for president? How can you keep silent given what this slut is doing? I honestly think you need to justify your support.....or better yet, explain why, at last you've come to see what a scum-bag she is.
-
@ idearh
I'm glad you replied. I don't think Obama excludes progressives. Actually, I think his life itself is a case study of progressive principles in action.
I do think Obama believes in some ideas about how economies work which are considered conservative, and which are usually associated with Republicans. I don't, however, think he has conservative ideas about social or public policy.
The last point may have the most to do with your conviction that he is not progressive. I'll try to address your concerns about this, but first I want to remind you that Obama, like Clinton, proposes to do two things Republicans and libertarians both firmly oppose.
First, Obama, like Clinton, proposes to raise taxes on the richest taxpayers. Libertarians see any taxation as a threat to self-determination. Conservatives believe that any tax system which treats the rich differently, and punitively, is wrong on its face.
I promise you there isn't a Conservative alive who defends taxing the rich at a higher rate than anyone else. Not one. If there were a single question test of whether a person is a Conservative, this would be it: do you think the rich ought to have a higher tax rate than the middle class? Anyone who answers yes to this question isn't.
Second, Obama, like Clinton, proposes to increase the tax on capital gains. Who has the bulk of the capital which gains in value? Rich people. Those with millions to invest oppose increasing the capital gains tax because every time they sell stock which has appreciated they will pay more and keep less. Republicans often vote on this issue alone: who will leave the capital gains tax alone, or even lower it?
Actually, Republicans believe that capital is taxed as regular income before it is invested, and taxing the gains on the investment is double dipping. (And in a way it is.) Republicans, in their happiest moments, dream of a time when capital gains are not taxed at all.
Obama is no conservative in sheep's clothing to Republicans, who will vote as one for McCain as long as he promises to keep Bush's tax reductions on capital gains in place.
However, the idea that Democrats always do, or should, look at economic issues in a fixed Democratic party way is not historically the case, and not necessarily the optimal case. Economic policy is concerned with this question: how do economies grow? Growing economies - that is, increasing overall wealth - is good: the more money we all have, the more money we all have.
Democrats should be happy to support policies which increase aggregate wealth. Overall prosperity is not bad, and it is not a platform only Republicans can embrace.
Obama is referring to this when he says "Republicans don't have a monopoly on the truth." There are some economic principles which, well, work. They spur investment. They create jobs. They encourage investment. And together they increase overall wealth. That these ideas tend to be associated with Republicans doesn't make them less useful. It doesn't make them wrong, either.
But economics is a neutral discipline. It doesn't have an opinion about what we do with all this wealth.
Social policy is concerned with a different question: how do we handle our prosperity? Winner-keep-all policies are conservative, and the argument for them is that the less redistribution of wealth there is, the more individuals are motivated to create it.
Incentives for individual rewards balanced against social well-being is a traditionally Democratic idea. Now that we are so wealthy as a country, how do we want to use this wealth? Progressives are interested in providing help to the least advantaged among us. I do not see anything in Obama's campaign that suggests he is less committed to this than Clinton.
I am not sure what makes you question this. I do think he gives answers which don't make it very easily into the nightly news. For example, about affirmative action he says this: he was a beneficiary of it, his wife was a beneficiary of it, and it works. But then he goes on to say his daughters should not be beneficiaries of it.
That might not go over so well with those who wonder why this was good for him and not, say, for themselves. His fuller explanation, the one that sometimes doesn't make it to the evening news, is that affirmative action works better when it is linked to income and not to race.
Why? Because the single biggest predictor of school performance is household income. He believes, and studies have shown, it is the fact of being poor and NOT the fact of being black that handicaps children in school. Household income is reflected in the kinds of early education children get, the stability of the home, even whether they get enough to eat of the right kinds of food. All these indicators of wealth tell us much more than race about who is going to do well in high school.
As a result, Obama is for affirmative action, but in a more useful, less race-based way. His views are progressive, absolutely, but not necessarily orthodox.
I don't know enough about why you think Obama is not progressive to know what else to include. It would be very helpful to me if you wrote back with examples of positions which make you think he is conservative or libertarian.
What examples were you thinking of when you came to the conclusion that Obama wasn't dedicated to the programs that matter to you? I want to answer you, but I think I may be talking about programs or policies that miss your main point. Please tell me more about why you think Obama is not your guy.
-
wELL SAID BUT WHY.
"First, Obama, like Clinton, proposes to raise taxes on the richest taxpayers. Libertarians see any taxation as a threat to self-determination. Conservatives believe that any tax system which treats the rich differently, and punitively, is wrong on its face.
I promise you there isn't a Conservative alive who defends taxing the rich at a higher rate than anyone else. Not one. If there were a single question test of whether a person is a Conservative, this would be it: do you think the rich ought to have a higher tax rate than the middle class? Anyone who answers yes to this question isn't.
"
Agreed and good points.
There is a reason the rich are taxed more. Not to punish sucess as they whine. When CEO's stop getting over 100 million in severance, that should be used to pay and give a better life to the people who make the business run. Who would make the ceo's product? Who would sell it? Who would support it? Who would ship it? Is that his money to take?
When that day comes, if ever, I will pity the rich for paying high taxes.
how do you hurt people who care about nothing but money and power? you must take it away from them. money is nothing but little pieces of paper with old dead guys on it. Oh, and what it is able to purchase. :)