Why are people who will never see $250,000 a year voting for McCain?

It's a strange thing but a lot of people living at poverty level are taken aback that IF they ever made $250,000 someone might come and take some of their wealth and hand it over to those in need (right out of their hands!). McCain used the S word too and even though many, many people have an elementry understanding of what the exaggerated McCain version means, I think people actually think they will be waiting in bread lines in the future.

Then there is the dreaded race issue or religion issue that lingers. Just saying that though will bring people to their feet in defense.

I'm with Paul... I think in many cases, the REAL reason is something they don't want to admit to (race) so they just latch onto the easiest excuse. This is a great article, and something I've been wondering about myself.

Because of the dreaded SOCIALISM.

I am always amazed when McCain is giving speeches and gets to the part about the taxing the wealthy and spreading the wealth among the rest of us, all the people are up in arms. They're the ones who'd benefit!
It has turned into mob mentality, I think.

Meanwhile, the top 1% who would be most affected by Obama's tax plan are mostly hedge fund managers. Look at the Forbes list. These people made millions upon millions of dollars this year. Yeah, let's worry about them...............

I don't get it either Julie.

that has actually been the exact question i've been asking my "republican" friends ironically! i have yet to have gotten a definitive legitimate answer myself!!!

It's just an excuse for the REAL reasons they don't want to vote for Obama.

Abe Lincoln was correct, you CAN fool some of the people all of the time.

The GOP has found a large group of fear-wracked folks, and it milks them for all they are worth (their votes).

It defies logic.

My hubby and I were just talking about this. I know a guy at work who makes $8 an hour, lives in a shack and can barely feed his kids, but he's up in arms about the rich being taxed! The GOP, since 2000, has embraced on an "anti intellectual" philosophy that attracts low information voters. The rich are laughing at these people.

There are so many shelters and deductions for the wealthy that their tax rate is the least of their worries. They can post cash bonds and not even have to carry insurance like the rest of us, they get the lowest interest rates on vehicles possible and don't have to carry high interest balances on credit cards plus they get FREE flying miles by the thousands. What they make they get to keep in many ways we humps can only dream about!
If I have to hear one more person say that tax breaks are going to people that don't even PAY taxes I am gonna go ballistic. EVERYBODY pays taxes!
Altho my moderate SS is under the limit for INCOME tax I am NOT immune to
sales tax,
property tax,
gas tax,
entertainment tax,
school tax,
taxes on my phone,
cable, water and Internet connections,
Car tags, pet tags, and all of my non food purchases every month.
So let's get real and stop believing every scare tactic that comes down the pike!
Good post.................thanks!

You raise some very valid points here, Julie.

Most of the people I know that will be voting for McCain are NOT voting for Obama for one reason and one reason only. And it has nothing to do with his ideas for tax cuts (or any other platforms).

What they are CLAIMING as the reasons to not vote for Obama are lies spread via email and by dunderheads like Sean Hannity that have been debunked by numerous fact checkers. They don't even care about the truth.

And another group that I cannot believe would vote for McCain are women. Unless they respect a man that calls his wife a c*nt? And dumps his first wife for a young and rich woman?

McCain/Palin is a nice warm bowl of oatmeal with a side of tart.
Obama/Biden is spicy Indonesian Octopus with a side of cold cream of wheat.

Most vote for what's comfortable.

race, huh? no wonder they can give you some inane reason Y they arent voting for obama but nevah quite get around to telling you Y theyre voting for mccain.

and if you dont mind, julie, im leaving this everywhere:

i wonder what mccain's supporters would think if they knew he was once in favor of "spreading the wealth".

play it until the end....

I think Bruce is on to something but your point is so valid and I am also interested to hear what they say to that.

Lori, I can think of a GREAT post where you need to add that comment...

Socialism> Its the republican party that has made our economy a socialist state replacing free market capitalism so I do not think that is the answer.

They are just party followers that think they are doing the right thing by ignoring what their party stands for hoping it will get better.

So glad you posed this question. I don't get it either.

Every election they bring out the "tax" boogy man and so many people gobble it down.

Last night on TV I heard McCain saying Obama will hurt small business with his taxes. I wonder how many in the crowd have never heard Obama's side of the story.

Basically McCain's is saying we should take care of the wealthiest among us so they can take care of the rest of us, rather than to hold the people we elect to public office to "promote the general welfare" accountable and to do their job. It just doesn't work that way.

Another pearl of 'wisdom' from Lexie.

Class envy, Lex? You wish...

Achievers, Lex, you mean like those that bring a prosperous company to it's knees financially so the government can bail it out while they escape via million dollar parachutes?

Yeah, my heart bleeds for them... What "class"!

I removed Lex's comments. I'm no longer going to allow trolls to gain attention for themselves with their insulting behavior.

I want someone to post a legitimate explanation for my question. Not attack other members with things that have no bearing on the topic.

Because I believe it is fundamentally wrong, Julie Ann, to take money away from one citizen, no matter how much he or she makes, and give it to another citizen who didn't earn it by issuing refundable tax credits. Period. It's a core belief about fundamental fairness. Whether I will ever make $250k a year or not is irrelevant to me.

AC, I think that people who earn ungodly amounts of money from the sweat of people who work day in and day out for very little, those same people who could, at any time, be dumped to help out stockholders "earning" their money, while paying off politicians to get more money from the taxpayer's coffers, is just as morally wrong.

Are there some people who work hard for their untold wealth? I'm sure. Do they work harder than the waitress in the diner working nightshift? I doubt it.

I do, however, respect the fact you answered the question, AC.

because trickle down economics has been proven as a huge success.

Stephanie,

Thanks for your second comment. Here's a though on the first:

"...I think that people who earn ungodly amounts of money from the sweat of people who work day in and day out for very little, those same people who could, at any time, be dumped to help out stockholders "earning" their money, while paying off politicians to get more money from the taxpayer's coffers, is just as morally wrong."

You're talking about people who own businesses, in most cases that they started themselves and worked to build up themselves. They deserve the fruits of their labor. If any of those employees sweating to make money for the owner are unhappy, they are free to leave and work elsewhere. Unemployment is at 6.1%. That means that 93.9% of those looking for work can find it. So there is choice. It's that simple. These are not slave plantations. And the stockholders? Nobody gave them the stock. They invested their money and are now looking for a return. Should they not get one?

"Do they work harder than the waitress in the diner working nightshift? I doubt it." How hard one works compared to another is irrelevant. Talk skill sets, knowledge, expertise, and contributions to the company. That's what determines an employees worth.

Because I believe it is fundamentally wrong, Julie Ann, to take money away from one citizen, no matter how much he or she makes, and give it to another citizen who didn't earn it by issuing refundable tax credits. Period. It's a core belief about fundamental fairness. Whether I will ever make $250k a year or not is irrelevant to me.

I appreciate your answer. But to the point of "fundamental fairness."

First, this isn't a "tax increase." The wealthy were given a tax cut in 2001 that they did not ask for. That tax cut was always set to expire next year. Obama plans to allow that tax cut to expire. A tax cut McCain himself was against when Bush proposed it, because McCain noted then that we would be squandering our surplus and risking the stability of the economy.

McCain was right...back then.

Second, the wealthy don't seem to be the ones complaining about Obama's plan. They aren't the ones screaming about socialism. Perhaps its because they never really cared about the cut to begin with, and realize it is not going to affect their lifestyle once it is gone?

That means that 93.9% of those looking for work can find it.
There is a difference between finding work and earning a living wage. Base unemployment statistics do not reflect the actual ability to survive. Sure, I could quit my job right now and find new work easily. But to find new work at my current salary and benefits? Not so easy.

Julie Ann,

"First, this isn't a "tax increase.""

Okay, stop right there. If taxes are at one level now, and they will go UP to another level later, is that an increase, staying the same, or a decrease? You're playing semantics by comparing to a tax rate that hasn't been in effect for 5 or 7 years, depending on whether you look at the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts.

Let's see, if we asked the people who will have their tax cut reversed if they are getting a tax increase, what do you think they will say? Bottom line is the rate will go up.

"...that they did not ask for."

Why should they have to ask for it?

"That tax cut was always set to expire next year."

Unless it got extended or made permanent. Either way, if the rate goes up from where it is today, it is a tax increase.

"A tax cut McCain himself was against when Bush proposed it, because McCain noted then that we would be squandering our surplus and risking the stability of the economy."

You're only telling part of the story. McCain said a tax cut had to be accompanied by a cut in spending, you know, the pay as you go concept. But Congress wouldn't cut spending. McCain was not opposed to a tax cut, but he insisted that it be paid for. That's quite different from the way you portray it.

"Second, the wealthy don't seem to be the ones complaining about Obama's plan."

You've mentioned Warren Buffet. How about the owner of the Miami Dolphins, who today said he was looking to sell his team before his taxes went up under Obama. For every Buffett, there's a Wayne Huezinger.

"There is a difference between finding work and earning a living wage."

Define a living wage. Anytime you introduce an artificial influence into the economy, like a minimum wage, there are costs. If you force businesses to pay a certain wage, they will not do so out of the goodness of their hearts. They will cut jobs, cut hours, charge more for products, or all of the above. Pick your poison, but there are costs.

You're talking about people who own businesses, in most cases that they started themselves and worked to build up themselves. Not necessarily. Many a rich CEO came in and took over the reins for a year or so, then skated off on his golden parachute. Many others manipulated money they inherited or contacts they knew (often in government) to take advantage of the situation. However, there are throngs of people making >$250,000K who don't own their own business, but make money from investments or by working as a partner. There's not one answer.

Unemployment is at 6.1%. That means that 93.9% of those looking for work can find it. This statement makes no sense. Neither of those statistics provide any insight into how many jobs are available. It just means, if it were an actual description of the total unemployed, that 93.9% HAVE found jobs, not that they are making a living wage. However, my understanding is that the unemployment rate reflects the percentage collecting unemployment, which leaves off: people on disability, retired folks, people whose unemployment has run out, people fired (and therefore not eligible for employment), criminals in prison (who will have a hell of a time finding jobs, even if they have mouths to feed), self-employed people who might be barely eeking a living, if that. I probably left off some. I'm a professional in a specific field. If my job was cut, through no fault of my own, but because the field dried up (which is not even unlikely), I could get a job working at burger joint almost immediately, probably management. But I might never be able to make what I make today.

If I became sick or lost my job, we could lose our house, even though I WANT to pay it, even though I would do everything I could to work whatever I needed to for my family to survive. Medical bills could wipe us out EVEN THOUGH I have insurance.

The insinuation that everyone who needs help is lazy and undeserving is misleading, in my opinion. For someone at/below/near the poverty level, $1200 in credits might make the difference between being able to feed the children or not, it might make the difference between survival or despair.

But, someone who's making a million a year, if he pays another $5K in taxes, what suffering does he really do? How much does it change his lifestyle? Is it the difference between survival and not? Does it really make him less successful?

To me, it's the question between myself and the world. I can make myself richer to what? How many cars, houses, clothes, jewelry do I need? And will any of that make ME a better person? I don't think so. In the end, the goal is to make the world a better place. And, if I pay a little more to do so when it has so little impact on my own cost of living, so what?

Okay, stop right there. If taxes are at one level now, and they will go UP to another level later, is that an increase, staying the same, or a decrease? If something's on sale for a limited time and the sale goes off, did the price go up? No, but the discount is no longer applicable.

Stephanie,

"If something's on sale for a limited time and the sale goes off, did the price go up? No, but the discount is no longer applicable."

Yes. If you could buy it for $1 yesterday, but today it costs you $2, then the price went up.

Stephanie,

"Not necessarily."

In most cases, yes.

"Many a rich CEO came in and took over the reins for a year or so, then skated off on his golden parachute."

Salary and separation package approved by a board of investors, you know, people who have a stake in how much the company makes.

"Many others manipulated money they inherited or contacts they knew (often in government) to take advantage of the situation."

Oh yeah, like Franklin Raines and Tim Johnson. Right. Oops. Forgot, not supposed to bring up Democrats.

"This statement makes no sense."

Why not? 93.9 is the inverse of 6.1. If 6.1% cannot find work, then 93.9% can.

"It just means, if it were an actual description of the total unemployed, that 93.9% HAVE found jobs, not that they are making a living wage."

See my comment above about artificial influences in the economy. I'm not retyping it.

"However, my understanding is that the unemployment rate reflects the percentage collecting unemployment, which leaves off: people on disability, retired folks, people whose unemployment has run out, people fired (and therefore not eligible for employment), criminals in prison (who will have a hell of a time finding jobs, even if they have mouths to feed), self-employed people who might be barely eeking a living, if that."

Okay, that's quite a list. Let's break it down. People on disability are getting a disability check by definition because they aren't part of the work force. Why would they also be entitled to unemployment? Retired folks, presumably drawing retirement benefits or social security, so not a factor for the workforce. People who's unemployment has run out. With a 93.9 percent employment rate, your benefits should not run out if you are actively looking for a job. The math just works funny that way. People fired? Okay. What's your point? They got fired. Criminals in prison. So now we're talking hypothetically when or if they get released? Not sure how that factors into the unemployment rate since they aren't looking for jobs while in prison. Self-employed people. In the workforce and not part of the unemployment rate.

If my job was cut, through no fault of my own, but because the field dried up (which is not even unlikely), I could get a job working at burger joint almost immediately, probably management. But I might never be able to make what I make today."

There is no right to a guaranteed salary. Marketable skills are always marketable. Non-marketable skills are not. Should we guarantee salaries for everyone? Who would pay? Oh yeah, the top 5%.

You hypothesize about catastrophic situations that may or may not happen. What's the solution? Force the top 5% to provide a safety net for the rest of the population? That's where we're headed. When is the breaking point? When do they start sheltering money so the government doesn't get it? They already are. But this brings me back to the fundamental question: is it right to forcibly take earnings from one taxpayer and give them to others who did not earn them?

"I can make myself richer to what? How many cars, houses, clothes, jewelry do I need?"

But you see, those are personal choices you make. Obama's tax plan takes away personal choice and replaces it with government mandate. And that is wrong.

Look, Julie Ann and Stephanie, in the end we will not agree. We have different ideas about tax policy, and that's fine. Your beliefs are rooted in a noble idea and I do not fault that. That's one of the things that makes this country great. We can exchange and debate ideas, without resorting to violence.

In the end, we'll have to agree to disagree. Pleasure chatting with you both.

Thanks for posting your content to the Group: We comment back

AC... here's my opinion. Let's face it, the poor have much less chance to better themselves with a good education. You can't argue with that, correct? So how are they ever supposed to drag themselves out from the rut they are in? I've lived paycheck to paycheck for most of my life. It wasn't a "choice." It was because I didn't have a head start or parents who could pay my way through college. I couldn't save because every penny went to pay rent, groceries, car payments, whatever... I worked two or three jobs for a good share of that time. By the way, I was never paid as much as a man would have been paid, to do the same job.

I'm not even complaining, AC. I have a decent life now and I have some control over it. But if I happen to make $250,000+, I would not argue with paying higher taxes so that someone who is struggling and in the situation I used to be in can feed their own children.

In other words, if what I just described above is "Socialism," or "spreading the 'wealth'" I am all for it.

My rub, Julie, is taking money from one to give to another. That's what our tax system does, and that's what Obama's plan expands. Yes, it is socialism. If you are for it great. If no one was for it then it wouldn't be an ideology. I happen to disagree with it.

In my opinion... it isn't taking money from one and giving it to another. It's taking more from one who has more, and for whom it is much less, proportionately that the ones who can't afford even more taxes.

By the way, I'd love to hear how McCain is going to fund his programs, by cutting taxes for everyone. That's one I have yet to figure out. Remember George Bush (the first one) who said "Read my lips..." and then ate his words? McCain will do it too. At least with Obama's plan, there will be some tax revenues.

I think the rub might be the perception that we're only "taking from the rich and giving to the poor". With regards to the tax credit vs. the increased taxes, that is what's happening and I am happy to agree to disagree with you, AC. I can understand your viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.

However, as soon as we start looking at taxes only and what gets done with them, many a "socialist" program doesn't qualify as "giving to the poor" any more in my book. Increasing emphasis on education and the sciences means more professional and technically adept individuals in the country for the next generation. That's good for the country, good for employers and good for those that pursue those opportunities. Ditto for good healthcare options. It allows employees more flexibility to find jobs best suited to them and allows employers (particularly small businesses) to hire without the onus of trying to provide health insurances for a small pool of employees (which can be a nightmare). Ditto with investing in energy conservation or green technologies. That's all making the world better and is no more "giving to the poor" than paying defense contractors big bucks from the government till is doing so.

In my opinion.

I want my tax dollars to make my country and my world a better place.

Julie,

"In my opinion... it isn't taking money from one and giving it to another. It's taking more from one who has more, and for whom it is much less, proportionately that the ones who can't afford even more taxes."

It's still taking from one and giving to another.

"By the way, I'd love to hear how McCain is going to fund his programs...."

According to the Tax Policy Center, neither of them can fund their programs. Both candidates' plans increase the deficit.

Stephanie,

There's a huge difference between funding programs that help poor people and literally taking dollars from one taxpayer and giving them directly to another taxpayer.

The answer is this: many Americans vote in the interests of the class to which they aspire.

There's a widespread personal delusion that one's dull workaday life will ANY DAY NOW be replaced by a winning lottery ticket, glitzy new friends, and a starring role in one's own reality TV show. When that happens, as it assuredly must, tax cuts for the rich will be essential.

IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION: Around here in South Louisiana - they don't want to see a black man be president - need I say more????? And, yes, I know what I'm talking about - I have investigated this topic. Salud

and, you know that McCain is not presidential material - he is older and he's really got a health problem - please - Sarah Palin is hardly presidential material - consider your children if nothing else - what kind of world would they be waking up to - omg - people look at the big picture - we need Obama to change things - this country needs help -lots of help. Salud

AC, I did note the difference. What you object to, I can understand. I just don't object to it, not if it means the difference between surviving and not. To me, making sure no one suffers unduly is part of making the world a better place. But I respect your opinion.

We will never see $100,000 a year much less $250,000 a year, but we have principles. Those are morals that we provide for ourselves, not depend on the government to keep a roof over our heads, or food on our table. We do not want the money that someone else earned! That's the reason so many people are up in arms. They aren't selfishly frothing at the mouth that they are going to get someone else's rewards.

I would like to remind you that Clinton promised to tax only the millionaires, he hit us all, with the largest tax increase in our lives, that's for sure. Those are the promises that you have to question, because if something sound too good to be true, it usually is.

Julie,

here you go and on topic. You are being sold a bill of goods. Good ole fashion snake oil. An elixir to fix all ills. But the potion is coming from your own kitchen cabinet. Point 1 The middle class has always and will always carry the burden of taxes. Just do the math and you will see there are not enough rich people to foot the bill no matter how much you tax them. That means you, if you are middle class, are the one in the end that is going to get the tax increase. Period. Point 2. Now Barrack, bless his little heart, says although he "doesn't want to punish you for your success" [odd way of putting it don't you think?] is going to make sure you give a larger piece of your pie to those that are less fortunate. Not in the way of services and charity, which you should do on your own without government interference anyway, but in the way of moneys by "spreading the wealth around." Thats your wealth he's going to spread around. Liken unto Marx and his dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". That means Out of your wallet by your ability to pay as he deems fit to be distributed as he sees fit into someone else's wallet determined by the money he needs.. Point 3. Big businesses do not nor will they ever pay taxes. All,-- I'll say it again incase you missed in economics class,-- ALL-- thats ALL business decisions are made based on what the tax implications are. The bottom line being either costs will be cut or prices will be raised as long as the net tax burden is 0% or as close to 0% as it can get. And who do the costs and price increases get passed on to. The purchasing middle class. Did you think it was a coincidence when all but a few tax deductions were done away with years ago? Take the deductions away from the middle class ---the prime tax paying group--- like interest on charge cards, interest on second homes etc etc etc, and more tax money can be had. The logic is simple. How is the middle class going to adjust cost or price when all they do is earn and purchase? The rich as you must know are not concerned because they are rich. They can and will find a way to beat the system and whether the storm. The poor will always be with us and in America we have convinced them they are victims and can never get up so they just hope for the promised crumbs of the politicians that need them to stay poor so they can keep a base of support. A hand out not a hand up is the liberal philosophy whereas the conservative idea is the opposite. A hand up not a hand out. Or as you probably heard in your early education when studying about the pilgrims. Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today . Teach a man how to fish and he will never go hungry..... but he won't need you any more either. { thats probably more related to the Chinese history that it is to our own} That unfortunately leaves us once again with the middle class to take the brunt of whatever is coming. Merry Christmas! Tiny Tim! May God bless us every one.

Put all that together with a life time of associations with people that hate the US or despise our democratic life stye and it makes a most terrifying scenario for those of us who want to fix what iss wrong with America rather than "change" it into something it was never intended to be.

I am with Barbara on this.....

Plus, I don't want some of my rights taken away. Obama is against law abiding citizens owning guns. I also disagree with him on a lot of other issues....and he lacks experience.

I feel i have to vote for the lesser of the two evils...

Julie Ann,
It might be that those of us who will never see the $250,000 appreciate that our country was built on the ideal that what a person did determined what they had rather than having the government decide who would be rich and who would be poor.
We also may understand that the abundance we have comes from the sacrifice and risk taking the successful made.
It maybe that we feel that the people this redistribution is to go do are more focused on spending it today rather than as the wealthy tend to do is invest it for the future by building and modernize businesses, and employing people to make more money.
It may seem to some of us that the good intentions without regard to what we have our affluence is a slippery slope to losing the means that brought us this society of wealth.
Excluding the relatively rare exceptions everyone else made choices that have led them to their financial status, myself included. I am grateful for those that are willing to make the greater sacrifice and take the greater risks because I benefit from what they provide.

“I mean stay on topic. I don't want to here about Acorn, Ayers, Wright, or anything NOT related to this specific question.” Was this just for those that have a different view from you or for all commenter’s, yourself included?

That is the question, and a real good one. I think the answer is because they are just stupid. They just do not understand how to look at it, so they look at it the selfish shortsighted way.

It is like this experiment where they have a dog in a box with a screen window at one end with a dog biscuit just outside the window. The dog sees the biscuit and just keeps waiting for the screen to go away because he does not have the higher brain power to know that he can move farther away from the treat, go out of the back of the box, and get the biscuit. It is called the UMWEG experiment.

I just think that people who think like this are tricked into desiring lower taxes so much they cannot use their higher intellegence and see anything else.

Because they are lying to us all. He has at many times revealed that he believes anyone making over 90,000 per year is rich. He'll say anything to get elected. In a few months he'll say that things are so bad that they have no choice but to raise taxes on all those that can afford it. And it's going to be people like my husband and I. I've been fearful all year that I don't know how we'll pay my daycare taxes. Every dime that I make goes back out without any chance of saving towards my taxes. My husband claims zero dependents at work so that he collects extra money to cover my taxes. BUT, we are paying more and more in expenses and it's just not adding up anymore.

If our taxes are raised we will have to start eating ramen noodles every single day to make up for it. It's not right.

Julie, great article, And how illustrative George W (the plumber)'s comment is of the misguided thinking that confirms what you and Bruce K. have pointed out.

The dumb ass folks, with little or no education, keep buying in to the idea that one day they will win the lottery and be among the rich. Good luck with that!

Suzi, who are you talking about???

It is clear you have bought into the fear and anxiety that has kept the rogue Republicans, who have wasted our nations resources, in power for 8 years!. MCCAIN voted with bush 90% of the time. bush has bankrupted this country. McCain is now like bush on steriods and you think THAT policy will protect you??? Lady, you clearly don't understand the dynamics at work here in the big picture.

The reason some moderate and low income (and others below $250,000) are voting for McCain over this is --- they believe in the "American Dream."

What they don't realize is a) their chance of achieving the American Dream is greater if the middle class flourishes economically, spends money, creates jobs, etc...

And somehow they don't seem to resent the way the tax cuts (you know the ones McCain wanted to make permanent) were sold to the public on the basis of money that was to be returned to the public from the budget surplus we had before the cuts were passed into law. When those cuts were enacted, we were in deficit so this was money that taxpayers who are below $250,000 (who believe in the American Dream) borrowed and will have to pay back at a disproportionate rate if they achieve the American dream.

The other, substitute excuse given for the tax cuts was that they would stimulate the economy enough to pay for themselves, but to this date not one single Bush economic adviser has said they have done that.

If they had really wanted to stimulate the economy, wouldn't it have been more practical to give the break to someone other than those who keep half their money in offshore accounts? Wouldn't it have been more practical to have given those hundreds of billions to the SBA for new business start-up and upgrade no-interest loans? Yeah... it would have. But that's not what it was about.

Why? HISTORY. The last time the economy was in this shape, President Hoover raised the taxes for the same people as Obama proposes. What happened then? DEPRESSION FOR ALL!!!!! Part of politics is not just coming up with a great plan, but checking the history of our nation and others to be sure we are not repeating the mistakes in history. Also, I believe in not adding anyone's hard earned money into a system which I see abused everyday. Maybe us poor stupid people who make under 250,000 are closer to those who are abusing the welfare and disabilty systems to know that we don't want our money or anyone else's being wasted on those who won't help themselves!My second reason for voting against Obama would be the extra spending he has forecasted for his term, in this economy. But most important to me is the right to life. I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control. And above all money issues, a child's life is more important to me than taxes. Money or life, today's world is disappointing to me that money is coming in above life. Look to the past, all of history, before you make changes like the past.

Uh... Jessica welfare and disability programs are mandatory by law. Neither Obama or McCain as president have the capability to decide about these matters.

...and Herbert Hoover is not a valid comparison to Obama. The depression occurred after the stock market crashed the same year Hoover took office. It wasn't taxes that caused this it was the leveraging of too many stocks bought on margin.

If you're going to make decisions based on history, you need to know the history you're relying on for judgment.

Bruce K.,
I am disappointed; I would have thought you would have at least pointed to the fallacy in the rationale. In that way you might have been able to create a discussion and maybe saved some of us. You rather take an elitist posture and disregard the people who have a different as “stupid”.
I maybe “stupid”, but I do like the company for those like Suzie, Janet, Capt, AC, and others who are willing to offer their views and accept the verbal abuse of so many of those who simply don’t like their reasoning.

I was hoping for someone to say how it is the poor that have the real drive to succeed and that is how our country has prospered and then give examples, or how it was the creativity that the poor freely shared with society that the rich simply copied and spent money on, or it was the governments ideas and money that the rich corrupted and made their money on, or it was the unscrupulous ways the that people collected money from the poor and invested to make their riches, or any number of things the “poor” who will the recipients of this largess really did create it.
I thought someone would explain how the government and particularly Barack Obama in their omniscience will fairly distribute it so our nation and the world will ‘live well and prosper’ (I apologize, I am not sure who to attribute this quote to).
I am surprised I have not heard this “spreading of the wealth” is a measure of society by how we take care of the indigent, or how they have taken from the poor to gain their riches, or how it is distributed based on the need from those with the ability, or even it is the right thing to do.
No such luck I am simply “stupid” or I am “dumb ---“ or uneducated or yet another questioning of my mental faculties.
I am truly grateful for those who are willing to offer their views without the personal attacks.

Robert A.,
I have to disavow you of the idea that everyone who disagrees with the concept of redistribution is deluding themselves that they may achieve a dream of wealth and riches. The American dream I aspire to is about the freedom of choice and responsibility. I will never achieve your version of the ‘american dream’ of money, and yet I do believe that we all benefit from people’s accumulation of the financial wealth. Whether it was Ford creating the automobile industry, Rockefeller consolidating the oil industry, and too many others to enumerate, they have created the opportunities for us to prosper both here and around the world. You may want to punish them by taking away what they have earned from their sacrifice, their risk taking, and their smart choices. I am more than happy for them to have all that they have earned either by their sacrifice and diligence, or even from their savings and investments.
You may feel that my doctor who went to school for over 20 years, took the financial risk to create a practice, hired a staff of 3 is abusing the system and is less deserving, and the guy who dropped out school after 10 years of not making any effort is more deserving of more of your ‘american dream’ of money, so your feel it is only fair to take from that doctor (who may be treating that drop out) and spread it to the drop out. I am grateful for what the doctor is doing and feel that he should not have the government take what he has acquired simply to appease those that haven’t done as much as him.

You may not want to consider it, but sometimes there is an ebb and flow to things. Rather than denying that the financial part of life requires sacrifice and those sacrifices entail some discomfort, you might want to consider being one of those who encourages the people who are investing in the future rather trying to take that investment away from them.
If it were simply the fall in the stock market that caused the Great Depression then we should be wallowing it a depression as we speak. You may consider reading the “The forgotten man : a new history of the Great Depression” by Amity Shlaes. You may not like the point of how Hoover and then Roosevelt would not let the market place work and forced prices lower and kept wages relatively high forcing business to control costs by reducing workers.

Well said Robert A.
There are billions of dollars used to prop up the "dream" about America, more and more as it withers when people learn how to exploit the faithful. If there is one thing for sure, Americans are sincere and dedicated people, God help the world and anyone who gets in our way when we actually start thinking and moving forward to rid ourselves of these parasites.

Duane, great, Ford and Rockefeller did create something ... what about the derivative trader that made 3 billion dollars on the fall of the stock market over the last months?

Duane... I never had the idea that everyone who disagrees with the concept of "redistribution" are deluding themselves that they may achieve a dream of wealth and riches. I merely said -- some -- Americans are voting for McCain over this issue because they believe in the American Dream, which generally is characterized as pulling oneself up from low economic position by hard work to a higher level.

It’s not about punishing someone for hard work. That's a phony straw man. It’s about taxing them at an appropriate level. We have a tax structure, and like most tax structures around the world, higher income earners pay more in taxes. This works to the benefit of the high earners as well as those at the bottom. If we allowed the top earners to keep all the money they’ve worked so hard for our the federal government and our economy would collapse. Then where is Mr. Wealthy top 5%? He’s swirling down the drain with the rest of us.

Who ever said a doctor or anyone else who invests in school or anyone else who sacrifices or works hard isn’t deserving of reaping the reward? That’s another straw man you’ve created. It’s not a matter of whether they will be taxed or not, it’s a matter of how the tax system is structured; how much they’ll be taxed. Establishing that by returning to the pre-Bush tax levels is not out of line with the tax systems of nations all over the world. And it’s not any more “redistribution” than Bush’s tax cuts were in the other direction. Bush promoted those cuts as giving back a surplus that wasn’t there when the cuts were enacted. Did Bush, or the Republican Congress, or McCain who wants the tax cuts to be permanent ever say: “We’re doing this because we don’t want to punish the top 5% for their hard work?” Or anything remotely like that? No. They said they were giving back the surplus - false. And they said they were stimulating the economy, but seven years in and you can't get one single Bush economic adviser to say they worked. False again.

Why? HISTORY. The last time the economy was in this shape, President Hoover raised the taxes for the same people as Obama proposes.

OK, first, Obama is NOT proposing "raising" taxes. The Bush tax cuts are already set to expire anyway. He is going to let them expire. As has been noted, the tax cuts were specifically explains as giving back the budget surplus. As there is no longer a budget surplus, there is nothing to give back.

Also, I believe in not adding anyone's hard earned money into a system which I see abused everyday. Maybe us poor stupid people who make under 250,000 are closer to those who are abusing the welfare and disabilty systems to know that we don't want our money or anyone else's being wasted on those who won't help themselves!

Have you ever looked at the federal budget? Almost half the government spending is military. About one third is Social Security. Social services make up only a tiny portion of the total budget. And the percentage of those that abuse the system is an even tinier portion.


I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control.

No rational person does. This is a stupid statement. Do you think women wake up and say "DAMNIT! Pregnant again. Oh well, off to the abortion clinic at lunch time today." Unfortunately, McCain and Palin DO want to limit ALL birth control. McCain won't support mandating insurance companies pay for birth control pills. They support Bush's policies on allowing pharmacists to "opt out" of filling birth control pill prescriptions. Obama wants to provide better education beyond abstinence only to prevent unwanted pregnancies altogether. Because if you make it easy to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with, you reduce the number of abotions overall.

And above all money issues, a child's life is more important to me than taxes. Money or life, today's world is disappointing to me that money is coming in above life. Look to the past, all of history, before you make changes like the past.

If a child's life is more important than taxes, then why do you opposing taxing people to pay for social programs than benefit children? How can you in one breath say that social programs should be cut because people abuse them and in the next say we have to protect children?

Bruce K.,
So if the media finds a handful that have reaped more then we feel they should have and have abuse the system then you feel we should not change the whole system to prevent that handful from ever reaping that much again.
Obama may want what you want, but his threshold is so low that it captures so many others whose sacrifice and risk taking can benefit so many more.
As the saying goes, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”
When the system seems so simple and is described in a catchy phrase I become skeptical. Is what Barack is advocating based on the same rational of Alternate Minimum Tax, that has to have a special law passed every to prevent the middle class” from paying it?
We may all feel that there are those that get more than they deserve, I surely can’t understand why a baseball player should be paid over $500,000,000 for playing into his forties, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the derivative guys who maked and lost millions for the rich, since by law the poor or middle class couldn’t invest in the hedge funds. My view is if the person makes their money legally then it is theirs, whether it is the office cleaning person making over $80,000 with full benefits at GM, it is the baseball player, of the hedge fund manager, the difference is simply a matter of scale. If you don’t like what they are doing then make it illegal, but don’t take from all who simply exceed $200,000?

Robert A.,
If it isn’t everyone voting for McCain then a small handful won’t matter, and we wouldn’t spend time on them.
“It’s not about punishing someone for hard work. That's a phony straw man.” Let me offer for consideration your good intentions and simple solution may have unintended consequences. As I mention to Bruce K. the AMT was to do just what you are wanting to do and without the continual tinkering it would cut in to the so called group that people seem to want to protect. I am curious why the people in power do make any effort to permanent change the law, it couldn’t be because they want the power available when the opposition is weak?
I need your help in understanding how increasing taxes is or isn’t punishment. If someone makes more money and it exceeds whatever the threshold is for being rich and they get more of their money is taken from them to give to someone else is rewarding them for being successful?
I am curious why the talk is always about taking from others (taxing) and never about the possibility of waste and ineffective spending, or some form of accountability.
You keep referring to my offerings as “strawman”, if that is the case then the spark of an idea that shows the error would burn then down. When the threshold was set at $250,000 how would that not capture the doctors?
It seems that who/what is rich is a moving target, up until yesterday I thought it was $250,000 now I’m hearing it is $200,000. What do you think it should be and who should be deciding by the government, say the President?
In Michigan we have a single statewide multiplier that is used to determine the taxable value of homes, in Michigan the values surely seem to be dropping fast and yet the State are not lowering the multiplier relative to the actual value of homes. The State and cities need money. You seem to be saying I should accept that Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Frank/Dodd would never consider that approach they would always turn to the public for consensus on what is rich.

One of the things I keep hearing about is America’s lack of savings. You and many others seem to focus on the “Bush tax cuts”. Do we need more savings, should we be encouraged to save, who has the money to save? If America needs more savings (so we don’t have to borrow from the peoples that are saving) then how should we encourage them to save? Is taxing them a good savings plan, is raising taxes on the interest and dividends a good plan for savings? Since you and others apply the Willie Sutton (go where it is) approach to getting the money then maybe we should try to encourage that money to be saved and loaned to those who are willing to spend it. By your account the rich have the money so should we take their money or encourage them to save? Doesn’t the “Bush tax cuts” do that by setting a ceiling on the amount of tax to be paid on those parts of income at 15%? If that cut is removed are you suggesting that people will be more likely to save?

“If we allowed the top earners to keep all the money they’ve worked so hard for our the federal government and our economy would collapse. Then where is Mr. Wealthy top 5%? He’s swirling down the drain with the rest of us.” You are the first person in all these conversation and in the political ads that even suggested the top earners should keep all the money the make, might this be called a “strawman”? I know that the poor are paid to be a low earner, EITC, but I have never said anyone even the rich should not pay taxes.
If you feel that Mr. Wealthy us swirling down the drain with the rest of us then simply taxing them more seems almost like punishment or at a minimum is make their drain steeper.
I think if you review Greenspan’s comments while he was still the head of the Fed did say it help us out of the recession that was happening 8 years ago.

Julie Ann,
If your taxes go up, whether it is a tax reduction expiring or it is a new law specifically raising the % of income you have to pay, it is taking money away from you. As best I can recall Obama has been saying that he was going give a tax cut to those in the middle and lower classes and he was only going to raise the tax on the rich those over $250,000 or $200,000.

Why do you like so many others keep calling me stupid, have you seen me and is it tattooed on my forehead? Why do you think people making less than $250,000 are stupid? Why can’t it be simply a choice that each of us make and let us live with the consequences?

AS far the budget, you must be in that group that feels the Constitution is wrong and should either be ignored or changed. The Constitution identifies an army and navy while it doesn’t say anything about Social Security or other social programs. My view was written to help preserve the country rather than make people field good about spending other people’s money.

“want someone to explain this logic to me. And I mean stay on topic. I don't want to here about Acorn, Ayers, Wright, or anything NOT related to this specific question.” I know this is your article so you can make the rules, but how does abortion fit your original question?

As far as money vs. a child’s life, how do you describe money? You may only feel it is money and money can take care of any child. I the care of a child is much more about the feeling and efforts the parents than it is simply throwing money at the kids. As for money, it is a method of measuring value on what people to, for me money represents time that I spend doing for others what I can. You may feel my time or anyone’s time is cheap and the government is a better judge of how it should be spent, I feel the person whose time it is should have control of what is done with their time. As far as I can judge, time is a precious thing to each of us because it is limited. To you taxes maybe simply money, to me it represents a precious commodity for each person. You may feel that money can solve all the world ills, I think it is about the tools people have and the choices they make.

Duane, care and feeling for the child is all well and good, but it won't feed the child if he's hungry. There are children dying every day all over the world whose mothers love them but can't give them the food they don't have.

Shortchanging a child on education is a bad step for the country as a whole. Every child that fails to reach his or her natural potential because of substandard education is a bit of the future potential for this country that has been lost.

Parents that are working multiple jobs so that their children can get food and clothing and shelter and basic medical care - how much leisure do they have to spend time with their children and give them the love they want to give them.

I'd LOVE to be able to stay home with my kids. I miss them every day. I'm lucky I'm in a professional job that doesn't require much travel and has flexible hours or I'd spend even less time with them. Many don't have those luxuries and must work shifts and hours that all but preclude the time they could spend with their children.

Your view is too narrow, in my opinion, and misses a great deal of what we need to be able to do.

Julie Ann,
I apologize for again going outside your original boundaries, but I feel Stephanie has earned a response.

Stephanie B.,
If I understand, you feel people should stay home with their children rather than earn money for their food, shelter, and clothing, and the government should take the money from those who are willing to sacrifice that time with their families so those others won’t have to.
Or do you feel it those without children who should pay the taxes so those with children won’t have to sacrifice for their families?

I feel we each make choices, whether it is to conceive children, to become sufficiently educated to provide value in our labors so we can garner more money for our time so we can do more for our families, and so on.

My daughters (then phrase then was “latchkey kids”) are now grown with families of their own. I like to think we prepared them for their lives. We provided them shelter, we kept them clothed (no name brands, shopping at lower priced stores), we helped them value their education (at public schools where their friends didn’t have the expectation of graduating high school), and we weren’t there all the time and missed some of their events.
They have gone on to their lives, they are more successful then we. It wasn’t money, it wasn’t time, it wasn’t feel good, it was their learning value and responsibility and sacrifice. Your answer is money, mine is responsibility. In our town the high school has a dropout rate of 50%, the building are nice brick well maintained, the teachers are well paid (wanting more), we have the smartest, the just ask him, Superintendent and he has the best staff, and is hiring special coaches to help selected kids stay in school. In our school kids just have to pass (D-) classes to play sports or do any of the extracurricular activities. And you want to give them more money. This is a small town in Michigan.
When do we start giving the kids expectations for themselves, teaching them responsibilities, and allow them to learn consequences of actions?

My school was cement block, the building has nothing to do with learning the basic skills necessary to become educated. I had maybe two or three really effective teachers, a bunch that were good, and too many that did more harm than good, this was true of my kids, my wife went to parochial school and had a similar experience, and yet we all learned. What I have found, it isn’t the buildings, it can be the teachers, the parents are extremely important, but it is the kids and their desire.

You feel the difference is money, I say it is the way the money is used and the accountability of the people in the system. You simply want to take money and push it into the system. My kids had regular report cards so everyone involved knew what their progress was, I want those who spend the money to have a report card of their progress is getting value from our money.

I do know that there are kids are suffering around the world, I believe that the generosity of private charities has provided more effective help for them than any formal transfer of US tax dollars. Just as with education you feel that good intentions are enough and all we have to do is throw other people’s money at problems here and around the world. We differ because simply throwing money is not only wasteful it makes no effort in determining what is truly effective for the person facing the problem and can become more about promoting the agendas of peoples rather than caring for people.

Duane, I think you missed my point entirely.

I think that raising a child and doing right by a child certainly involves love, but it's also requires more. My argument was that you were oversimplifying a very complex dynamic that includes money but money isn't the end all be all of it. You telling me an oversimplified interpretation of what I've said misses the point. Money is ONE difference, but not the only one.

And, what people fail to note when they despise Obama's giving a tax credit to the poor is that it is only for the working poor. People struggling to survive, but not quite making it.

Money, when you have a little more than you need, is considerably less important than we you have a little more than you need. That's the distinction I think that has been lost in this distinction.

Stephanie B.,
I am simple, so I try to break problems into simple parts and try addressing those parts. You seem to see problems as complex and only ask for people to turn over their money to the government. Do feel the government employees are smarter than us and are the only ones to solve the problems?
“Money is ONE difference, but not the only one.” Why can’t we hear about the other differences? What should I be doing to help with educating the kids?

“Shortchanging a child on education is a bad step for the country as a whole. Every child that fails to reach his or her natural potential because of substandard education is a bit of the future potential for this country that has been lost.” It seems you were trying to explain why more money was needed. I explained my view and gave the reasoning behind it, why don’t you want to describe how I am wrong and how simply giving the government more money will solve kids not getting a good education? Do honestly believe that the education level of the kids will be (perish the thought, based the No Child Let Behind testing) will the score measurably better in 4 years?

I expect Obama will win, that will give Pelosi and Reid free rein with the tax laws and all the revenues (Obama won’t say no to them). How should they spend those billions? Do you think they will make any effort to verify the money is being spent effectively?
Robert A, Bruce K, Julie Ann, Cynthia and so many others who feel those that oppose the “spread the wealth” are somehow are stupid, selfish, dumb, misguided, and many other personal characterizations see it as simply money, in reality it may be more about getting value for the money. We all use to hear about the $100 hammer, but when do we hear about the money poured into the DC public schools and getting less educated kids each year? Why doesn’t anyone supporting the “spreading of wealth” ever want to talk about getting value for the money and holding those responsible for spending it accountable?

It is disappointing that you feel people despise the helping hand for those that can effectively use it. America is the most generous nation on earth, the total dollars privately given to charities worldwide by Americans exceed any other country or government. Who do you think is giving that money is done only by those who support Obama and his “spreading the wealth” philosophy?

Oversimplification is a good way to take something complex, shaded not only with shades of gray but a rainbow of colors and try to make it a pencil drawing: black and white. It was a liberty you took with my statements. I objected and still object.

Life ain't like that.

Stephanie B.,
I did not purposely misinterpret what you have said. If you could high one or two examples of where I have errored I would surley appreciate it. And I will try to respond more appropriately.

Duane, perhaps it would be easiest to say, I see your point, but don't agree with it . In my personal belief system, I am driven to do no harm. To sit idly by while people struggle and fail o survive fits my "doing harm". Taking a little more money from those who have more than they need does not.

Stephanie B.,
I agree about doing no harm. However, how do you choose to help and how do you choose to help? Should people give to the United Way who put over 90% of donation to the hands of people being help or should they give to the phone caller where over 80% of the donations go to the charity for helping people, both have good intentions and the causes are to help others?

How is it not doing harm when you simply take from someone else and give to the government with no tracking of how the money is spent? The private charities are more accountable of the money than the Federal Government. Even Warren Buffet who feel that the rich should be taxed more is giving his billions to the government he is giving to private charities to help others.

Good intentions are great, my religion encourages it, my family encourages it, but why should it simply be thrown at a problem and not spent on the things that are most effective at getting the problem solved?
Why is it only business that needs to be accountable for how they spend the money they earn? Why not government? If businesses simply throw money at a problem rather than work try to solve it in the most effective manner they go out of business, look at the US auto companies. Why should we support simply giving the government money without making them be effective in how they use it?

It may be easier to walk away from the conversation, many do, but how does that achieve change?

I have learned that the best way to solve a problem is to work at it, whether it be your health, problems in your community, or problems at work. Especially since I don’t have unlimited moneys to be wasteful on how I solve my problems.

I can see your point, but its OUR government. It's us to us to make sure it uses the money the way we want. We can't do that with private charities.

Is it mismanaged? In some places, yes. But we shouldn't jut accept that as inevitable; we should seek to have them change the things that don't make sense. And, for all some programs are mismanaged, others are quite efficient and a great many do services every single day that we take for granted. Mismanagement can be corrected. We don't have to accept otherwise.

Stephanie B.,
If we agree on not wanting our money mismanaged then why don’t we talk about the ways we should be watching those spending our money and holding them accountable?

The reality of the charities they are held accountable, there are WebPages that track their spending, in my town the charities are posting their annual reports in the local newspaper, and if the charities aren’t effective people simply stop donating. These charities all have mission statements describing what they are trying to do, so everyone can see it they are doing that. What is the mission statement for “spreading the wealth”?

I believe that the government has a role and we as citizens need to fund it, however, the idea of them simply being given/taking the money and our trusting them to be smarter that we are is where my resistance stiffens.

Pick one thing you think the government should do with the money that Obama would tak from those earning over $200,000. Then let us see if we could write a mission statement and create some measure to verify they are doing what you expect.

"""Why are people who will never see $250,000 a year voting for McCain?""""

Because the other guy is a politician promising all things to 95% of Americans. To me it would be no different than barack Obama trying to sell me a frozen sasquash.

I'm voing for McCain because of my disdain for a socialist government. Obama has told us that is where he is going. Most recently in his statement to Joe the plumber when he said, "I don't want to punish you for your success, but we need to spread the wealth so those below you can have your same success"

Obama said: "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

Well, what else is it?

If Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation in the world of it. Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

I don't make $250,000+, but hope to make that much someday. When and if I do, why should I be punished? It cost me a $100,000+ in student loan debt to get to my current job and countless days of little sleep to both work and go to school in the hope of making a better life . Obama's plan is a slap in the face for me for everything I have worked, studied and planned for my future. Anyone could have done what I did. I did NOT come from rich parents. I gotta' share the income from the rest of my life with those who chose not to work the way I have. Will any of them help me pay off my student loans? I give a lot to charities, sometimes more than I can afford. I want to give the way I choose to give. I don't want Obama and the goverment telling me how much I have to give to who. So, where is the "real" selfishness?

It is disastrous when you kill individual ingenuity, and make everybody a robot, waiting for what the government will dole out to them each month.

Since when is it selfish to want to see the benefits of what you have burned the midnite oil and worked for all your life?

Under Obama's tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks. He's flip flopped on the amount of going after the rich, beginning with $250,000., then $200,00, now $120,000. Which is it? Where might that end up?

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from Obama. This is what he learned from the Marxist professors he sought out at the university and all of his past associations since then.

These utopian notions have always produced nightmare states. This is what makes Obama scary.

For next Halloween, instead of the "insane asylum" and the "mad scientist" rooms in our haunted house, I'll propose "nightmare states". We'll have a Sweden room, a Netherlands room, a Belgium room, maybe an Austria room...

Patricia B.,
No, the taxing of rich (over $200,000 or the 120,000 or 80,000 or lower) would not touch me.
The idea of simply “spreading the wealth” is what disturbs me. In my small town we don’t have the people the media likes to focus on, those making the multi-millions of dollars a year. Our town has the small businesses where the owners are making the $200,000 or more a year. These are the ones (especially in Michigan) that our local economy depends on for jobs. Hopefully they have accumulated some reserves because if their tax rate goes up they may feel they have to start cutting back or they may feel it isn’t worth the hassle to run their business.

If these small business people begin to decide to take their hard work, risk taking, and ingenuity out of their businesses and go to work for some other company, somewhere else, the vast majority of the jobs we have will disappear. Oh, the government (not the state of Michigan, and not the local) can hire many of them, but not all.
You may want to think that anyone can run a business, but it takes a certain desire and risk taking, and personal sacrifice, not many of us have that. To simply say those making over so much (you pick a number because Obama’s keeps changing) are rich and have too much and it needs to be spread to those who don’t have enough (you pick a number) is what concerns me.

Many will say that as the “poor” get the money they will spend it faster than the “rich”, I can’t say either way, but what are they spending it on? Is it new tools and refurbished building for more jobs or is it on clothes and entertainment? Which is more important to the whole society? The economists and the media talking heads say how we need more savings to support the lending for building businesses and homes, and other longer-term needs, where does that fit into “spreading the wealth”?

Consider if you have a family of 10, the parents have a business that all 10 work at, 1 is the salesman that gets all the business, 8 work hard to make the products and services that they sell, and 1 at best does nothing except spend. Do you risk driving the selling one to another company by taking more of his earnings so the spending 1 can spend more and feel better about how things are fair? The “spread the wealth” mind set likes it because it makes them feel good, I don’t because I feel that one doing all the selling is already providing for the whole family business, for without the selling no one has work.

If you don’t see the analogy for the US and the rest of the world, consider this latest scare on the economic debacle, it is worldwide. It isn’t just the US banking (money not being lent) it is the world banking. Those other countries are now competing for the money because it so easily flows around the world. People can whine about out sourcing and importing from other countries, in truth ever since I have been alive we in Michigan have imported from other states (in Europe our states are the size of their countries) so out sourcing and importing has been going on and we have been dependent on it for longer than any of us have been around. IN my small town a lot of what we make exported out of your community (we are the out sourcing for others).

This country has been around over 200 years, was it “spread the wealth” credo, or was it hard work and personal property rights that built this country?

"Why are people who will never see $250,000 a year voting for McCain?"-Dawson

Because they WILL see $150,000...

Aniko, wake up. Those pathetic Countries are able to behave as the Pacifist fools they are BECAUSE of this Great Country. Their freedom to be drunkards, purchasers of prostitutes, and heshers is paid for on the backs of OUR Military.

Patriicia B

McCain's plan is absolutely best for small business, in my opinion. Please take a look at this:

Senator Barack Obama would make the tax code more progressive by increasing taxes on those at the top and providing credits to those earning and paying the least. Many of the highest earners are small-business owners—who would be hurt by Senator Obama's plan. Senator John McCain would reduce taxes for all small business. Many more businesses would suffer under Senator Obama's plan than is cur­rently understood by the public as well as many Members of Congress.

Full article can be found at: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2203.cfm


Written by Guinevere Nell, a research programmer at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, focusing on the impact of economic policies on American entrepreneurship.

(More About Guinevere Nell)
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/GuinevereNell.cfm

Patricia B.,
I don’t know where I presumed anything about you I simply was trying to explain how I look at the “spread the wealth” concept. As far as I can tell in my example you have show that extra sacrifice that I see differentiating you from the vast majority of people.
As far as the moving target, I heard the talking heads reflecting on an Obama ad a few days ago that and then today on the morning political analyst shows that the new left was $200,000. If I am wrong then I own up to my error, if what I heard was right then dropping the threshold by $50,000 suggests what is rich is a moving target.
As far as what I said, in Michigan are the big auto companies or the small businesses that are employing more each year? D the small business owner make greater sacrifices than the workers, do they take more risks? Can a few % increase in income tax affect the viability and reward for taking the extra risk and making the extra sacrifice? Do you think just anyone could run your business and make it succeed (I don’t)? Do you spend all your income on personal consumption or do reinvest part of it to keep the business viable today and for the future?
“This country has been around over 200 years, was it “spread the wealth” credo, or was it hard work and personal property rights that built this country?” What is your answer to this question?
I am not enamored with either candidate, I am simply very concerned when a basic principle of a candidate is “spread the wealth.” My concern is that when push cones to shove in the legislative process and Pelosi/Reid/Frank/Dodd shove for taxing more to create support more government spending today, Obama’s principle of “spread the wealth” will win out over business and the future. My experience has been that when people get in a stressful situation they fall back to their basic principle.

Aimee said: This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from Obama. This is what he learned from the Marxist professors he sought out at the university and all of his past associations since then.

These utopian notions have always produced nightmare states. This is what makes Obama scary.

I understood that to mean that any country that uses progressive taxes and "redistributes" some of them through welfare programs to mitigate the necessary evils of capitalism is a Marxist nightmare state.

So I said For next Halloween, instead of the "insane asylum" and the "mad scientist" rooms in our haunted house, I'll propose "nightmare states". We'll have a Sweden room, a Netherlands room, a Belgium room, maybe an Austria room...

Obviously, this sarcastic comment was meant to point out that this is far from the case: those countries are the prosperous free democracies of the world--including the US, of course, which already does this, if to a lesser extent. I used the countries with the highest "top" tax rate, but I could have named the UK, Germany, Canada, Japan, and many others as well. I could have also added that actual Communist "nightmare states" use a very different method--after all, in those the state owns all the means of production and no one has a high income to tax and redistribute to anyone.

Mark-John said: Aniko, wake up. Those pathetic Countries are able to behave as the Pacifist fools they are BECAUSE of this Great Country. Their freedom to be drunkards, purchasers of prostitutes, and heshers is paid for on the backs of OUR Military.

I don't think we were speaking about pacifism and the military... It was about taxation and social services. However, I am not sure what you're talking about, other than World War II, when indeed Europe had a lot to thank America for. But that was over half a century ago, and none of the wars the US has fought since then have been to protect Europe. The intervention in Bosnia might be counted as such, but that was certainly an international effort. And many countries you would see as liberal welfare states have troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

(As for the "drunkards, purchasers of prostitutes" etc--that's hilarious, Mark-John. As if those things didn't exist in the US. As if it wasn't safer to lose your way wondering around in Vienna--to name one place where I've done that several times--than in any American metropolis.)