Eisboch wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
You need to change your hearing aid batteries. The redistribution O'Reilly
talked about is the redistribution Obama talks about continuously. The
middle class tax cut (which we know is bull****) would be financed by an
upper income tax increase.

If that's not redistribution, what is. Obama's answer to O'Reilly's
question was, "We can afford it." Why should those who have earned their
money give it away?



This is one of the most important faults of the left wing, semi-socialist
Obama economic theory.

A person (or persons) who go out and create something of value don't do so
at the expense of those that don't or can't.
There is no finite amount of value or wealth to be "grabbed". It is
created.

Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a redistribution
of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is socialism or communism,
plain and simple.

Eisboch




I see no reason to not raise taxes substantially on the wealthiest
Americans. Thanks to deregulation, a lack of enforcement, greed,
destruction of the social contract (the one that says what we do in our
society is supposed to benefit all), golden parachutes, bail-outs of
shareholders, destruction of jobs to benefit the rich, et cetera, only
the richest are prospering in this country.

Obama has proposed progressive tax cuts for those making up to $250,000
a year, and some tax increases for those earning more. I don't believe
the tax increases go nearly far enough.

In the good old days, most of those who got rich did so by working hard.
This days, most of the rich get richer by gaming the system.