wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:04:03 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


While the concepts are nice and appealing to many during an election
campaign, the problem is not the specific details of Obama's proposals
or even the income levels over which taxes will be raised.

The problem is in allowing government - and the "leaders" of government
to control it ... period.

Government has always controlled taxes. I think it's in the definition
of taxes. ;-)

Taxes are necessary to provide funding for programs and agencies
designed for the public's benefit, however selective taxing of one group
over another to "spread the wealth" is socialism, regardless of how you
want to define the word for your purposes.

Taxes have always been selective, be it "sin taxes" on cigarettes and
booze, to deductions for having children. GWB's tax reductions for the
rich were selective. It's a democracy. If you don't believe in Obama's
stated tax policies, don't vote for him.

As for socialism, it is government *ownership* of business, and that is
exactly what is happening now. This bailout, buying into banks, is
socialism, and I believe it was a Republican idea.

A history lesson: One of the first crisis in the United States was the
control of the banks. The original banks was owned by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_..._United_States

It is interesting that the democrats of today have not hung Greenspan
for his Mistake in regulating the banking industry. I don't suppose it
had any thing to do with the fact that that mistake was to overestimate
the ethics of the people in the banking industry, who are currently
running the obama's campaign.