Senator Barack Obama says that we need to “spread the wealth around.” But whose wealth, and to whom?
A cynic once observed that a politician is a man who boasts about taking money from the few to give to the many, while actually taking money from the many to give to a favored few. Obama’s proposals would do that, by enriching wealthy trial lawyers by promoting lawsuits than do more to enrich lawyers than their clients, and by radically increasing the size of government (government employees are much better compensated than private-sector employees, especially with regard to employee pension and health benefits). On the other hand, Obama’s proposals would also help welfare recipients by giving them refundable tax credits — more welfare — even if they do not pay any income taxes to begin with. And he would allow deadbeats who have been living in big houses they bought in the real estate bubble to avoid foreclosure for months, even if they refuse to make their mortgage payments and have little equity in their home.
Why redistribute wealth in the first place? Liberal politicians claim that social inequality is much greater in America than other Western countries. But that’s not true. Living standards are already far more equal in the U.S. than they are in most of the European countries that liberals wrongly idealize as egalitarian paradises.
Most Americans below the poverty line live better than the average Western European, and possess things — like air conditioners, cable TV, and dryers — that many European households lack. Moreover, 46 percent of them own their own homes, typically, a three-bedroom house. By contrast, my brother, a millionaire who works in New York City, lives in a home with three bedrooms, while my own home has only two bedrooms. But then, our family isn’t on welfare, and doesn’t get any handout from the taxpayers.
Poor people live much worse in Europe. My wife, who is from a working-class French family of modest means, had to share a French home no bigger than our current house with seven or more relatives, and didn’t even have a bed — just a mattress on the floor — for part of her childhood. She certainly didn’t have a room of her own. The income of different social classes may technically be closer together in many European countries than in America, but living standards are further apart in Europe, because it typically costs more in Europe for basic necessities, like housing and household appliances, than it does here.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
{ 6 comments }
Obama has supported radically broadening the ability to sue in many areas, especially employment law. Trial lawyers will be the chief beneficiaries, and the increased litigation costs will be passed on to consumers and investors.In employment law cases, the plaintiff’s lawyer often receives far more money from the other side than the plaintiff does. See, e.g., Brandau v. Kansas, 168 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 1998) (Plaintiff received $1 after suing her employer for discrimination, while her attorney received $42,000). If the plaintiff wins, the employer pays the plaintiffs’ legal fees; but if the plaintiff loses, the defendant still pays its own fees. That encourages lawyers to sue over small amounts of money allegedly lost due to discrimination.A classic example of Obama’s history of promoting lawsuits that enrich trial lawyers is in the area of alleged pay discrimination. Under current law, a person alleging pay discrimination can sue up to 3 years after the alleged discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (covering gender discrimination), 4 years under 42 U.S.C. 1981 (covering racial discrimination), and 180 or 300 days (depending on the state) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (covering gender, race, and other forms of discrimination). These deadlines do not apply rigidly, and can be waived where appropriate under an doctrine known as “equitable tolling.â€Obama has supported the misleadingly-named Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would functionally abolish the statute of limitations in pay discrimination cases by allowing an employee to sue forever as long as the employee is still receiving a paycheck or pension benefit allegedly affected by the alleged discrimination, even if the discrimination occurred decades before. I have previously discussed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. A link to such discussion can be found at: <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2008/02/04/rewriting-the-law…Obama” target=”_blank”>www.openmarket.org/2008/02/04/rewriting-the-law…..Obama has also supported the deceptively-named Paycheck Fairness Act, which is essentially a comparable worth bill. I have previously discussed that bill. A link can be found at <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/06/nothing-fair-abou…” target=”_blank”>www.openmarket.org/2008/08/06/nothing-fair-abou…..
t
Obama seems to be intruding on a lot personal finance issues. He is also for legislation that will cause many businesses in the payday loan industry to go out of business, effectively annihilating their existence.Not only does the payday loan industry provide a much needed service in todays troubled economy but it also provides thousands of jobs across the United States.Forcing closure through regulatory legislation is a distasteful and unfair maneuver that is going to cost many Americans their lively hood.Much of the legislation is based upon myths about the industry that are debunked in the following article payday loan myths debunked
Alexis de Tocqueville, a great French political philosopher, once said, “The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through.†Although that quote originated years ago, it still rings true today and is especially evident in this year’s elections. Many individuals involved in politics think cash advances are harmful to the American people. Some elected officials have even proposed measures that would ban payday loans in certain states. There are even some politicians that would like to eliminate the payday loan industry from the entire United States. For example, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland proposed a bill that would wipe out the payday loan industry, along with the 6,000 jobs it provides for Ohioans. Barack Obama and John McCain aren’t excluded from this conversation either. Both Presidential candidates supported a bill that fundamentally banned military personnel from taking out payday loans. Barack Obama is a proponent of certain measures that would put short-term lenders out of business altogether. An aristocracy is when the ruling class makes decisions on behalf of everyone else. I hope those old aristocratic colors don’t break through when determining the fate of payday loans.Post Courtesy of Personal Money StoreProfessional Blogging TeamFeed Back: 1-866-641-3406Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans……Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Try these sites if you want to waste some more time and money http://RecordOnlineGuide.blogspot.com
i think that if the u.s has those machines to make money why not make alot of money and give 1 million dollars to all the u.s citizen and spend wisely
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }