Ross,

"Spread the Wealth" was a stupid response. It certainly isn't the government's job to "spread the wealth."

Obama will lower taxes for most Americans. I agree with those policies, except for refundable tax credits for those who pay no taxes at all.

I think some progression in the tax system is reasonable. I've been to India and I've seen what extreme poverty is like. Societies have a stake in eliminating extreme poverty and those with the most money benefit the most from it. It reduces crime, eliminates homeless people begging for money at every corner, etc. Therefore, some redistribution is to the benefit of all. Even rich Republicans don't want to live in a society where people are starving on the streets. I think most Americans agree that some redistribution of wealth is appropriate to avoid these situations.

The typical argument is that the rich obtain a greater benefit from government infrastructure. That said, we ALREADY have a progressive tax system. Taxes need to be lower for everyone, which means we need to reign in spending.

The Republicans don't have a history of balancing budgets (at least Republican presidents don't). Over the last 8 years our national debt has doubled. We don't have a revenue problem in this country, we have a spending problem.

I don't actually believe that Obama is going to lower spending, but at this point, I think he'll do a better job of balancing our budget and dealing with our national debt than the Republicans have. I'm not going to reward Republicans for their lack of fiscal stewardship during the last 8 years by voting for McCain.

I am going to vote for my Republican congressman, who is a staunch fiscal conservative.

I wish the Republican party would split in two between the evangelicals and the libertarians. I'm much more comfortable voting for libertarians than repubs or dems.

-Abe

Ross, I'm not a bit surprised.

Obama is proceeding as though he has election in the bag. He is very deliberately using openly socialist rhetoric, because he wants to be able to claim it as a campaign promise. He wants to raise it as a mandate, and push it through.

He never would have said any such a thing while he thought victory was in doubt.

@Abe - your generalities are endearing, but way off the mark.

"I think most Americans agree that some redistribution of wealth is appropriate to avoid these situations."

NO. NO NO NO. Most Americans do NOT agree with that sentiment. We DO agree that a society is most humane when it has a safety net that catches those who fall. But a safety net should NEVER start to look like a hammock.

What you fail to grasp here is the naked use of "Redistribution of Wealth" is the END, not the means to an end.

I agree that taxes are too high on everyone, and we would ALL benefit from a smaller government. Actually, we're still on the wrong side of the hump on the Laffer Curve, and could generate more revenue with a lower rate and a healthier economy (which means fewer people needing safety nets.)

Glad we also agree on the tax credits disguised as tax cuts. It reminds me how dangerously close we are to tipping over the point Alexander Tytler warned about (and I brutally paraphrase):

A democracy can only last until the point where a majority of voters figures out it can vote itself benefits at the expense of a minority.

I have deduced a disastrous result of Senator Obama's economic plan, which no one seems to have explored in the media or via the Internet. It is as follows....


1- Senator Obama purposes to raise taxes to those making yearly over $250.000 by 3%.

The overlooked problem with his proposal, that unfortunately no one has dove into is, Family's with Children.

What if Family A - Who makes $250.000 yearly, has four small children and a
$400.000 dollar mortgage.

Compared to

Family B - who makes $250.000 yearly, has no children and a $100.000 mortgage.

Senator Obama's plan is not factoring children who require school costs, larger living quarters, higher insurance's, food, clothing, daycare and so forth. While those without children, a low mortgage and living in a smaller home, can possibly survive this plan a bit further.

With this Spread the wealth plan, Senator Obama is jeopardizing more than small businesses. It is everything he is saying he will protect. Education, Insurance's, Children and Home Mortgages.

Will Senator Obama's plan be different for a bachelor without any children at
$250.000 yearly?

Compared to

A Family of 5 earning $250.000 yearly.

It would take Trillions of dollars yearly to deduce how Senator Obama's plan would differ from ...

A - A Business who's owner was a self supportive Bachelor.

Or

B- A business who's owner has children and more costs in which to raise them adequately.

The main discussions of Senator Obama has been spreading the wealth to those less fortunate in their small businesses or endeavors. The term "Taking food from my children's mouth." Does seem to apply to his Spread the wealth proposal.

The costs are astronomical when you have children. Being he has two children of his own, I am very surprised that this plan left out what I have entitled
the "Family Clause ."

If you are interested in contacting me with comments, please do so.

metalviolinist@aol.com

My name is Skyler James and I am a student of Psychology, Music Teacher, Writer and Inventor.

I am not a Democrat nor Republican. I am a proud American and concerned home owner.

Please email me your thoughts.