On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, "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


Just call me 'the choir', 'cause I'm a firm believer that communism,
socialism, and liberalism are getting very close to the same damn thing.

The name of the game is to keep the downtrodden dependant on handouts while
the few at the top keep the power. A great example of this is the
Netherlands. So much is now handed out that the middle class is taxed to
death.