"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
So all of a sudden everybody has finally discovered that Sen. Obama,
with his comment to Joe the Plumber, plans to ". . . spread the wealth
around." We should all be worried.

snerk



Snerk yourself.

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.

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.

Ironically, without the recent global economic meltdown, McCain, who opposes
selective taxing, would very likely be well ahead in the pre-election polls.
Add the meltdown and much of the public becomes receptive to Obama Socialism
because it serves immediate needs and seems responsive to new, but
temporary, concerns.

But, two months ago, everyone was very happy to be capitalistic, watching
their 401k plans grow in value, etc.

McCain has the right economic ideas at the worst possible time. Once we
give them up to government control under Obama, they will be very difficult
to recover and will probably be lost forever.

People need to think a year or two in the future and not just the next 6
months.

Eisboch

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.

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.

On Oct 28, 1:00*am, 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. ;-)

Or the definition of government!!

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


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.

This touches on a fundamental difference between Republicans and
Democrats. Republicans, at least from my perspective, believe a healthy
wealthy class, is the economic engine that drives the economy, Reagan's
"trickle down" economy, if you will. Democrats, on the other hand,
believe a vibrant middle class is the engine.

Disregard all the campaign BS. "It's the largest tax increase in
history." "It's the biggest tax cut ever." It's all BS. Since the
'50s, tax revenues, as percentage of GDP, have remained remarkably
constant, at @ 18% GDP +-, with individual income taxes accounting for @
8%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=205

If you look he

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

You will see the top marginal tax rate *selectively* cut by Reagan, Bush
I, and Bush II, and increased by Clinton. This is the true "wealth
redistribution" from the middle class to the already wealthy, as
demonstrated by a Gini index of 40 in 1980, and a 46 presently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

The final kicker is, contrary to established myth, the economy does
better under Democrats than Republicans.

http://www.coba.unr.edu/econ/wp/pape...CONWP06008.pdf

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
So all of a sudden everybody has finally discovered that Sen. Obama,
with his comment to Joe the Plumber, plans to ". . . spread the wealth
around." We should all be worried.
snerk



Snerk yourself.

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.


We've had income redistribution since the early 20th Century. There's
nothing new about it. I think it perfectly appropriate for those
families above $250,000 in net income to be paying more in taxes by
seeing some of their previously granted tax cuts go by the wayside.

As far as being against "government control," that baby was tossed out
with the bathwater this year when the capitalists greedily accepted
taxpayer bailouts of their failed financial institutions.

Our economy is upside down right now. It needs lots of adjustments and
the financial markets and the corporate world need lots of regulations
to help ensure it doesn't happen again.

It's too bad greed got in the way, eh?

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
So all of a sudden everybody has finally discovered that Sen. Obama,
with his comment to Joe the Plumber, plans to ". . . spread the wealth
around." We should all be worried.
snerk



Snerk yourself.

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.


We've had income redistribution since the early 20th Century. There's
nothing new about it. I think it perfectly appropriate for those families
above $250,000 in net income to be paying more in taxes by seeing some of
their previously granted tax cuts go by the wayside.

As far as being against "government control," that baby was tossed out
with the bathwater this year when the capitalists greedily accepted
taxpayer bailouts of their failed financial institutions.

Our economy is upside down right now. It needs lots of adjustments and the
financial markets and the corporate world need lots of regulations to help
ensure it doesn't happen again.

It's too bad greed got in the way, eh?


It is. But the greed and subsequent crash was due to a unique sector of the
financial structure, namely sub-prime home mortgages that were bundled and
sold as securities to "average out" the risks. The Democratics were as
responsible, if not more so, for instituting this social welfare program,
which is yet another example of "spreading the wealth". People like Barney
Frank just lie about it now.

To his credit, McCain was raising the alarms back in 2005.

The system isn't perfect, but contrary to thunder's comments and cites, the
US economy has historically recovered from downturns not by raising taxes on
people or businesses, but by lowering them. Even Obama is now beginning to
backpedal a bit from his promises of tax reductions for the middle class by
increasing taxes on those with incomes over 250K (which happens to include
many small businesses that could otherwise use that tax money for
expansion). Obama is beginning to hint that he may have to delay
implementation of some of his economic plan, including the tax provisions,
until the economy improves.

Eisboch