Poor Aren't Poor Because Rich Are Rich

IBD Editorials ^ | November 3, 2008 | ROBERT SAMUELSON

[Kaslin]

For years, we've debated rising economic inequality. On one side, liberals denounce it as unjust. Redistribute wealth to the poor and middle class, they say. On the other, conservatives minimize its importance. What matters most is overall economic growth, they retort.

Well, the conjunction of the presidential campaign and the financial crisis is giving the debate a curious twist. Liberals have triumphed politically; soaking the rich has become more acceptable. But conservatives may have won the intellectual argument; making the rich poorer doesn't make everyone else richer.

If Barack Obama and John McCain agreed on anything, it was this: Greed is bad. They competed in denunciations of reckless investment bankers and avaricious CEOs.

Obama proposed raising taxes on higher incomes (couples above $250,000); though McCain didn't, he suggested that much recent wealth accumulation was ill-gotten. Unintentionally, perhaps, he buttressed the moral case for more redistribution. Let's tap the gold mine of the rich.

Unfortunately, the mine has less gold. All the financial turmoil has left the wealthy — however defined — much less wealthy. Stock ownership is highly concentrated. In 2001, the richest 1% owned 34% of stocks and mutual funds, estimates economist Edward N. Wolff of New York University. Let's see. Since the market's high in October 2007, stocks are down (through Oct. 31) 38%, or $7.5 trillion, reports Wilshire Associates.

[sickoflibs]

RE “he moved closer to the center in his speeches and has done a good job of talking around his real plans.”

He could afford to move to the center and throw close friends under the bus because his liberal base knows he is tricking the stupid public, and they love it. In our case Mccain has to reassure us that he is a conservative all the time, plus if he runs to the center, Obama already took that place. MCain slowly figured out that he needed to separate himself from Obama. If he had shown Maverick leadership on the bailout, separated himself from Obama and Bush on it, and had sounded and looked like he knew what needed to be done, like he did on offshore drilling in the summer, he could have had the election easy (+ still run negative ads.)

In Obama world, he can tax the rich and corporations (our 401Ks ???) and they won’t notice it and he can use it to HELP those that need it, primarily those that don’t pay income taxes. It’s a sales pich for those that beleive those late night get rich quick tele-commercials. And if you oppose your money being taken to payoff Obama voters, you are greedy.

[truthluva]

You have pretty much summed it up. The biggest losers of an Obama presidency will be us...the middle class. We will be taxed more...(don’t believe the 250,000, 200,000, 150,000 or 120,000) and we will pay higher prices for goods and services. Yep. Carter will look like a saint compared to this guy.

[sickoflibs]

But you know what? Maybe the worst democrat is the one we need to reverse the damage done by GWB and some other republicans. Don’t you think that Pelosi/Reid/Obama will not be able to control themselves and the public will be sorry at about mid 2009? Then we need a huge PR campaign to give democrats blame for the middle class tax increase in 2010, we can point out that illegals that dont pay income taxes got tax rebates to pay for their SS payroll taxes.