I say if people are too blind to see the reality behind Obama because they are paying more attention to Bush and the fact that his days are numbered, then they deserve Obama. It's a shame others will pay the price for their ignorance but then that seems to be part of this countries values as well.

I say lets punish the rich, make them pay more why we pay less, which according to Biden, makes me unpatriotic. I'll take Obama's victory as a 4 year smack in the face in the hopes it will knock some sense into people. I can only pray it works, and I can only hope the damage will be little.

I say that is cutting off your nose to spite your face - which I will probably do by not voting for McCain.  Sometimes you have to show people what BAD really is.

You guys are silly.  Obama is calling for anything that is too radical.  Bush pushed the deregulation and attempting to create a flat or even regressive tax structure too far.  Taxes aren't only about lowering or raising, but about having the RIGHT structure.  If you guys think the Republicans who ran congress when Clinton was president were socialists then go ahead and make this argument. 

Silly?  This is not about the republican congress, or Bush and his tax cut (regressive?  Pulease!  The rich pay 90+% now - after the tax cut).  This is about Obama and his wanting to "spread the wealth". Yet he will not even spreAd it to his own family!

I think that is called hypocrite.  We may be silly, but then your messiah is a hypocrite.  The last thing he "shared" was a PB&J sandwich.

Don't forget DrGuy, he claims he will fix the country but currently his campaign management is preparing to tell all those who voted for him that not everything he promised will come true.

Obama Lays Plans to Kill Expectations After Election Victory

Obama has a ten-year payment plan for his expenses. Do the math. He's in probably four, maybe eight, maybe even less, and he's planned for ten years of debt.

Ok.... now listen for the sound of mass ear plugging by the obama crowd.

All taxation is basically spreading the wealth, its not a radical or novel idea. the McCain campaign just wants to try to make it sound scary. And as far as "Joe the Plumber" he is a normal guy which is why he wouldn't see a tax raise under Obama's proposed plan (he actually makes closer to 40k a year) and if he did make 280k a year as he claimed then the higher tax rate would only be on the 30k income earned over the quarter a mil he is taking home. And no, I don't feel bad for people making over a quarter million dollars, and no progressive tax programs don't make people not want to earn over a quarter million dollars.

COUGHbullshitCOUGH

No, it simply discourages people from starting businesses and encourages large businesses to break camp and set up in another country.

Nice attempt at double talk btw.

No, it's not, and yes, it is.  If you tax equally(percentage wise) from everybody and use money only for the true public good, like the miliary, road maintenance and such, then you are most definitely not redistributing wealth from anyone to anyone.  In fact, in the Constitution before certain amendments, it lays out that you can't tax people based on how much they make.  You couldn't consider the individual taxpayer in any way.  What went for one had to go for all.  The idea of taxing the richest and giving away the money to the poorest is a fairly recent idea.

Actually, just last week Biden lowered it to 150k.  They keep changing the amount, lowering it actually.  The fact that you are gullible enough to believe these people, when liberals have a history of promising not to tax certain groups and then doing it anyway, is more than I am capable of understanding.

It certainly lessens the benefits of doing so.  More than the individual, consider the impact on small buisinesses.  250k without any taxes is only enough to hire 5 people at 50k a year, and that's without considering even one expense.  In reality it means that if you have a small business and actually hire people, you are in trouble.  When Joe the plumber talked about 250k, it was in context of him possibly buying the buisiness he works at.

I don't "feel bad" for them either -- it's not about feelings, it's about facts.

The fact is that "high wage earners" -- which is being conveniently redefined lower and lower as we approach Tuesday the 4th -- are those professionals and small business owners who drive the economy. Tax them higher and everybody suffers:

1) They pass on their higher expenses to their customers. I pay more at the store, not a tax on me but on those who create and produce for my consumption.

2) They lay off workers. Small businesses are the engine of the US economy, the most vibrant and economically powerful tier of small business of any nation in the world.  Talk about killing the golden goose.

Would you rather have a job or a handout?

Cant say he is not learning - straight from the clinton play book!

That is the biggest non-news.  Democrats only demonize republican deficits not their own.

His campaign theme should be changed to the Sounds of Silence - as in the silence of the press when he basically makes them all out to be fools.

Anguish?  Yea, I guess there is some.  There is still a lot of denial out there.  But you wont be hearing that for long - I told you so - is a lot sweeter.

Actually no.  Taxation was not that for the first 150 years of this country.  It was to provide for common services.  FDR under the new deal changed the definition, and now kids cant seem to think of anything else.

And the "tax the rich" is regressive.  So that if you make more than the imaginary level, you start losing your deductions and paying taxes on the money less than 250k.

But your last statement is very indicative.  If you are anything but a moron, the tax is going to get you in a few years.  It may seem like a lot now, but to my parents, $40k seemed like a lot 50 years ago, hell even 30 years ago!

Not double talk.  Just inexperience.  Just like Obama.

Great points all!  Thanks for posting!

Obama is just selling handouts - and they are selling very well.  When told that his tax would not increase revenues, he switched and said it was about "fairness".

It is not the money that matters, but making it "fair" by his standards.  Problem is, while many may agree today with his definition, I doubt that will be the case for long.

Hello:

The tax cuts that were implemented by President Bush were tilted heavily towards the higher incomes.  This is supported as a rational practice through the trickle down (or voodoo) economical theory.  As I understand his plans he will be rolling back the recent tax cuts to something more Clinton like (sigh...remember Bill Clinton...I wish I could have voted for him).  By spreading the wealth around what Obama will be doing is letting us keep more of what we earn (by us I mean myself and others who do not make over 250K).  As of this year there was an attempt to stimulate our economy from the bottom up...thats right the checks...  If the poor have more of the money they earn...1) they might be more willing to work 2) with more of their own money they are more free to spend, to invest in themselves. 

As for spreading the wealth...were you aware that the "red states" receive more federal handouts than un poor blue states happy to support you...because we know you wouldn't ask for it unless you ALL REALLY needed it. 

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

So really both your Dems and your Reps, please everyone this is beneeth us, we're better than this...Lord I hope we are better than this.  The older I get the more I wonder if our founding fathers were just like this or if they were more lofty.  Perhaps this is why they wanted to keep the common people out of the important decisions (the senate for example...2 people over 30 from each state or the electoral college).  

Listen:  I loved McCain 9 years ago or so on the straight talk express...loved, I am saying loved here and I really dug Obama before he became a serious cantidate...  To be a serious cantidate for president in this country you have to walk yourself through a bullshit car wash and in case you don't know...that sticks to ya.  Thomas Jefferson once said that no man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation that carried him into it...something close to that...it once meant that once you were there you would be shot down and slandered for up to eight years...but now after what Obama have endured...which all in all has not been THAT BAD...i guess...but I think its now possible that Obama (if he wins) has a chance to become beloved by the country or McCain a chance to regain his character.  Gosh I miss the old McCain...and Clinton...remember Slick Willy...?  sigh. 

Rev Phil

No they were not.  They were actually tilted toward the low end.

When you grow up, you will realize Clinton was just another hack that got caught lying.  And no, when your taxes go up, that is a tax increase.  Big brother has not taken over yet. 

That is the whole point. He is spreading YOUR wealth around (remember Niemoeller).  He is keeping his under lock and key.

The poor already have all the money they earn.  They do not pay taxes.  Without Obama they can still invest in themselves.

Did you factor out defense?  no?  So you really dont understand the numbers you are looking at do you?

The founding fathers were against forced confiscation.  I dont think they would like the modern politicians much at all.

Nice of you to reminiss.  But the point is that if I take your wallet, that is robbery.  If I get elected, it is called spreading the wealth.  The difference?  newspeak.

As my friend above said, that is not true. In fact, I do believe lower incomes had a slightly higher amount of taxes, percentage wise, reduced than those with higher incomes.  The fact remains that 1% of 2 million is a lot more than 5% of 20,000.  Does that mean that in my example, the cut is tilted heavily toward the 2 million?  No, it isn't.  The opposite is true.  Those who pay massively more do get more back in any tax cut, simply because they have and pay so much more.  In reality it is wrong to treat the person at 2 million this way, punishing him because he makes more.

In addition, who invests money so that banks and buisinesses have money to grow and lend?  Who spends a lot of money on things that we need people to work to make?  The rich do.  Certainly it's wrong to exclude any group from any tax cutting, and those with lower incomes need the help, but right is right and punishing someone else is the kind of injustice our country is supposed to stand against.

Perhaps you folks as I pointed out in a different post should take alook at the history of taxes since 1917.  When you do you will notice that in the last 30 years the richest amongst us have been making out quite well, if you base your observations on real actual history, the real hard numbers.  My guess is that you wont though you'll just say "oh your wrong you look at the wrong stuff moose".