"Obamanomics a recipe for recession"? (WSJ)

About 1% of the Americans gets hold of 22% of national income. Since the average income suffices for a house, a car and holidays the question arises how the remaining 21% are to be spent best.
At least part of it should become capital for investment in order to realize full employment which causes maximal national income. Not to be forgotten is that the Bible spoke to organize a fiftieth year in which the production means -in ancient times land only- were to be redistributed, reshared. So the looser would get a new chance, but especially to provide youth with equal start positions.
Moslims are not allowed to take interest. Christians may cede annually two percent of their capital to cooperative companies which aim less on profit but try to produce what the population on our planet needs. This does not impede becoming richer by working. By the way millionaires cannot be allowed to stay idle. They too shall have "sweat on their forehead" instead of parasitic lifestyle.
If next year a Republican will sit in the White House no bigger part of those 21% shall be transferred to the Treasury. Although such would be very good for reducing indirect taxation like VAT, as this is quite a burden for the lower income categories. They then will have more money available for buying necessary things and that keeps away recession. Of course tons of steel in the car are not considered necessary. Dragging around iron takes much fuel which becomes scarce. Likewise transportating lots of iron must be reduced (see "The anti-iron candidate" on this site), although insurance companies may not like it.
So mr McCain is going to provide the wealthiest 1% of the USA population with great possibilities to help with their money the households with lowest but not zero income and bring them on average level. If such is expected by the public the right candidate should be chosen.
The majority of the voters gets less of national income than the minority of the well-to-do. In cyphers: more than fifty percent of the voters get less than half of national income. That must not change is the big idea and the Republican candidate already promises to see to this when becoming president.
 
Maybe Obama reads in the Bible. The Book tells about old Pentecoste on which first products of the new harvest were shared with the poor and the priests. Capitalists give after own pockets have been filled. The Ten Commandments forbid to want the ox of the neighbour, since he needs it to plough. Otherwise there won't be income from his land. Multi-nationals try to get all oxes in own stable. When Boaz fell in love with beautiful but poor Ruth the farmer was not allowed to pick up the wheat that during harvesting accidentally had fallen to the ground. That was to the poor and the animals. Perhaps the Biblical saying that the corner of the field belongs to the stranger is a falsification. Anyway one should not always do what the Bible tells. Don't give (selling OK) the travelling stranger a cold class of water. (A warm cup of coffee suits better in temperate climate). Another thing is that in heaven all will sit at the same dinner table. It seems no good preparation on Earth to have it very, very different with very expensive restaurants and food stamps.
 
From a sociological point of view a country reaches optimal wealth when everybody can use all his capacities. To this contradicts semi-enslavement like in feudal Middle Ages, but also keeping away able candidates from training for top mangement in order to reserve such positions for own class and receive accordingly overrated salaries. Plus bonusses, plus facilities paid by the company like luxury travelling, etc.
A situation with 1% of the population claiming more than a few percents of national income spoils democracy because governing is done by both law and money. An army of shrewd advisers is ready to help the rich bypass law and do as they like with their money. Remember that good law protects the weaker party against the stronger, the rich, the cunning, the mean, the criminal. The other way is not necessary. One may bet that the rich's priority does not regard the position of the lowest income categories. On the contrary more difference in thickness of wallets raises their status, they think. At least Obama wants to help the superrich people to change their nasty outlook and attitude.
                   
                    Humain par la sagesse
                    de Dieu le Créateur
                    nous cherchons en noblesse
                    la liberté d' tout coeur
                    Le droit pour chaque tête
                    s'appelle égalité
                    Sur terre se rend une fête
                    plein de fraternité
 
Art 1 of the UNO Declaration on human rights -everybody is born free and with equal rights- should be enlarged with a material component. If the government allows the very rich to command you what to do and not to do by means of their money which you need to buy bread....can you then just sit and wait, stay home at election day? A fine president already would introduce that material component thus that everybody has a right to stay or dwell in own place without others squeezing money out of it. The latter of course does not concern the carpenter who contributes with real effort but regards profiteurs. The present crisis might have been avoided and likewise coming crises in a state with deep gorges between rich and poor are to be fought with democratic principles. The millionaires aim to become billionaires, which means getting other people deeper into kind of semi-slavery. Such egoism does not suit a righteous America and have it prevented not only by raising income tax for the wealthy but also with curatele on their capital they presently command. Plainly said transferring it gradually to democratic cooperatives.
 
In so called primitive societies the strongest men hunt and next everybody gets food of good quality. Why should many Americans eat from bio-industry, which is contradictory to the Bible?: The Ten Commanmends accord sabbath to animals under human controll, which is strolling around at leisure in a natural environment. It is for the sake of Mammon that bio-industry was invented and obesity is a consequence. When Republicans try to ventilate that Obama will bring recession they do not recognize that a camel, a person with fat belly and fat wallet -kind of elephantiasis- will have difficulty to pass the donkey gate in the wall of Jerusalem called Needle's Eye. It is not nice to block the entrance for others who are less concentrated on own growth.
The same regarding international traders who want a totally free market on which they can make big profits by shipping all around the world, destroying often local industry and agriculture.
The Wall Street Journal is free to have written on its pages that with Obama the US economy will suffer a serious setback. But failure in argumentation occurred. Truth is radically different: A maximum of wealth for a nation is obtained when everybody is allowed and has sufficient means to contribute at his best to society. Taking away possibilities by directing 22% of national income to 1% of the population harms such development very much. More redistributing taxation then is needed to improve conditions and balance the situation.
A last question: How can America be friends with the rest of the world if a small class of superrich dictates economics?
 

---