Labels and name-calling

The socialist play is funny to me. The Earned Income Credit came from the Ronald Reagan era and is redistributing the wealth to working families that pay no tax. Lets resort back to the tax policy from the Reagan era with a 50% tax on the top instead of the 36% tax from the Clinton era. Would that be a better tax policy since it came from the great Ronald Reagan? How about rolling back to pre-Reagan tax policy? Why should people listen to the scare tactics of the top 5% about taxes anyways? The top 5% will always cry unfair even after the massive cuts to their tax rate through the years. Now the socialist tag fits on Reagan by their outcry.

Isn't McCain's proposal of buying up bad mortgages with taxpayer money and then renegotiating them at lower rates more of a socialist idea? I would bet any true socialists out there would probably be voting for Nader.

To Obama's words, I'll say that I believe I would be a lot worse off economically four years from now than I am today should he become President. I hope our military will at least keep us safe during that period of time.

What the Republicans forget about Reagan was that he refused to denounce the New Deal and would tell the Young Turks around him that he had supported the New Deal. IMHO we could use Obama as Redistributor in Chief after 8 years of Bush redistributing everything from the middle class to the rich. 8 years ago we had a budget surplus, a mild recession after 8 years of prosperity and peace. Now we're broke, facing a second Great Depression, and at war with people who never attacked us.

Interesting, Michael--but I don't see anything funny about socialism. The core of the Obama campaign is to create class envy, to make the have-nots believe that the reason they don't "have" is because someone else does. We don't live in a zero-sum economy. If I have a dollar, it doesn't mean that someone else goes without that same dollar. Obama is telling the nation that if you are poor, unhappy, or otherwise disadvantaged, it must be the fault of the government, large corporations, and/or the rich. Even more terrifying is that Obama believes in “redistributive change” through the courts and legislation. Combine that with his preference for a single-payer healthcare system and his belief that we need to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” in favor of entitlement welfare and “economic justice,” and you have a full-fledged, card carrying Socialist likely to win the White House. This election is not about George Bush—believe me, I’m happy to see him go as well. An Obama White House could mean serious erosion of the basic tenets of a free market economy.

By the way, the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all income taxes, and the top 1% pay 30%. It's a fact--check the IRS statistics. I’m not sure how that amounts to an unfair advantage for the wealthy.

... not to mention that Palin herself bragged about Alskans sharing the wealth two months ago.

Last night on John Stewart, he cautioned Sarah Palin about labeling people, then showed a photo of her in her beauty queen costume with her Miss Wasilla label riding across her chest. Sarah is the only candidate who has in fact labeled herself. People who label themselves should not label others. Pretty funny.

If McCain wants to get preachy about Socialism, he should not have supported and voted for a $700 billion bailout that's being used to nationalize our banking system. I realize that the word "socialist" is little more than an insult to many on the right, but nationalizing the banks is a cornerstone of Socialism and the Republicans have always been the first to turn to Socialism when they're in an economic bind. Remember Nixon? He was a Republican too, and he instituted wage and price controls. If you truly care about avoiding Socialism, you can't possibly vote Republican. No other political party has moved us closer to Socialism than them and no party is less trustworthy than them. Just watch that interview Tucker Bounds gave on CNN if you want to see how untrustworthy they are. I used to be Republican and I always voted for McCain. I'll never trust that man again as long as I live.

We just redistributed the loss - to the tune of $700 Billion. Now we hear that, according to Bloomberg News, financial institutions that we as tax payers are helping to bail out have set aside bonus pay for their employees: like $6.3Bil at Goldman Sachs, $6.4 at Morgan Stanley and $6.7 at Merrill Lynch. I wonder how much of that will trickle down to me, other than the cost of providing the bonuses.

McCain has no problem socializing debt, but he wants privatized profit through giving tax breaks to the wealthy? No way.

Funny Thing -
I do decent in life; I have my struggles.... Yet I look at the rich-welathy and I don't want "theirs"; I look at them and ask, "How do I get to that level...."
It's called "opportunity". It's called "drive to achieve".

I don't want the wealthy to redistribute their wealth; I look and ask, "How can I get to where they got." (I don't need handouts).

I guess that makes me "just plain silly, eh ??"

McCain/Palin '08 !!

Dave has misquoted Obama's 2001 radio comments. He did not say that he thought the Supreme Court should have abandoned the restraints of the constitution, nor did he suggest that he opposed those restraints. Below are the portions of Obama's 2001 WBEZ interview that Dave misrepresented:

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that."

If you look at the whole piece, and not just little snippets being bandied about, you will see that Obama was suggesting that the people organize to try to bring about greater economic justice. And no one can rationally suggest that is a goal that our vaunted Founding Fathers opposed- since they advocated for the violent overthrow of the English monarchy's control over the colonies, principally because of unfair taxation. That hardly makes Obama a socialist.

And as for the glories of the supposedly free market economy, well, we are all seeing how naive and misguided is the notion that unregulated markets work to the benefit of all. How about that $700 billion bail out? Why is that any less re-distributive than Obama's proposal to give middle and lower class citizens a tax break? Or are tax breaks only a good thing if proposed by a Republican?

Oh, Dave, you are proof that a little knowledge is dangerous.

Changes in Income Tax rates do not have an impact on the basic tenets of the free market economy. The only type of tax that impacts the free market are taxes on specific goods and services, such as a gasoline tax, cigarette tax, and a tax on Alcohol, or taxes on specific industries. By the way, another "threat" to the free market economy would include Farm subsidies, tax breaks to Oil companies, etc.

And regarding the progressive in tax rates, it is based on a basic tenet of economics call “Decreasing Marginal Utility”. What it basically means is the more money a person has, the less he values an additional dollar. In other words, $10,000 dollars means more to someone who makes $50,000 than it does to someone making $1 million. The question becomes, what amount of $1 million is equivalent to 20% of the $50,000. Is it $200,000? Does a person who has $800,000 value the 800,001st dollar as much and the person with $40,000 value the 40,001st dollar? This isn’t socialism. It isn’t communism. It’s basic economics.

The income redistribution argument is another red herring. Obama is suggesting a one time tax adjustment which will be forgotten almost as soon as it is enacted. The crushing reality is that the next administration will need new revenue to pay for the military and basic services almost immediately, or pursue austerity in a recession. That is a recipe for another Great Depression.
When the economy was going well, Bush should have been saving for the rainy day, not spending high on the hog and putting it on the credit card. Now we are maxed out, so Obama will not be able to redistribute wealth. There won't be any wealth.

Wow free money? count me in! Keep working suckers. (Heavy Sarcasm)

executive pay has more than tripled in 10 years. average worker pay has stayed stagnant. I think the wealth has already been redistributed.

Your not silly Kevin. what you say is silly. You never got student loan? guess what. that is a handout. you got a low interest loan that you couldn't get without government help. Ever go to public schools

Oh Kevin you are a confused and misguided individual.

You can still do well under Obama's plan. Under McCain you will not even be a spec on his radar. He is out for the wealthy and will end up sending you back 10 years with his tax plan.

Obama/Biden 08!!!! Vote right Vote smart!

Funny. It's the Republicans who were against the bailout - just check the news (CNN, Boston Globe, et al) - who didn't vote for it when it was proposed. It was the Democrats and the media who were all over the Republicans for not going along with the bailout and saying it was all their fault that the economy was tanking. The Republicans then vote for the ammeded bailout (by a very slim magrin) - Democrats with a very big margin - and now the bailout plan is the fault of the Republicans. Sort of the same as Barney Frank and the Democratic gang fighting against reforming Fannie & Freddie (again, go back to the media coverage) while the Republicans and even good ole Bill Clinton were trying to put more regulation on the industry, yet it is the fault of the Republicans that Fannie, Freddie and all the rest went into the tank. As late as June of this year Barney Frank was saying that there was nothing wrong and nobody should be worried about investing in these companies. Yet, it is the fault of the Republicans that we're in the mess we're in.

Typical Democratic bait and switch; not accepting responsibility for their failures and very questionable judgement and blaming it all on somebody else. Hmm, sort of sound like their presidential candidate, doesn't it?

Tax-and-spend liberal is better than borrow from China and spend Republicans. McCain will be dead when the bill comes to be paid for his and Bush's policies. Republicans already redistributed our wealth for a generation.

Many of the super wealthy (Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to name two) recognize that the source of their wealth depends on a strong middle class. When Obama rolls back the Bush tax cut on these two they will get to keep only $610,000 of the last million they make instead of the $640,000 that they keep right now. Of course if the middle class does not have the discretionary funds to buy their high school student a $1000 computer Bill Gates will not make his last million bucks at all.

They are in Obama's corner because they are thinking capitalists, not socialists.

The Class War started under Bush and you know it. Middle class Americans are not looking for handouts. We're looking for fairness.

I don't want your money. I want MY money back, in things like better schools, better roads, medical advancement, etc.

Get a life and stop trying to make it seem like you've got a line of unemployed, greedy, uneducated immigrants outside your door asking for you to save them.

No Kevin... It makes you a stupid, greedy, hypocritical, republical parrot.

Everyone should pay a flat tax. Liberals argue it would be regressive, though that's not very convincing. If a person earning 1,000,000.00 per year pays 100,000.00 in taxes, while an individual making 50,000.00 pays only 5,000.00 -- the wealthier person is still paying way more than his fair of taxes. Remember, it's unlikely that the wealthy person uses more government resources than the less wealthy. Indeed, the wealthy person usually sends his kids to private school. Additionally, he pays more in real estate taxes. The poor, who pay far less in taxes, are far more likely to send their kids to public schools and to receive state benefits (like food stamps, etc.). How is the government's soaking of the rich justified?

Moreover, when you tax the wealthy they are far less likely to contribute to charities because they're already getting soaked.

But most residents of this great Commonwealth will vote for Obama and he and his liberal cohorts will tax all of us to death.

Kevin - no, it makes you an unrealistically ambitious moron with no appreciation for others that don't have your baseline of reasonable prosperity.

Funny, if we were all just paid the fair wages we deserve we would be able to become rich. Face facts for the last 8 years the rich have gotten richer and the middle class is disappearing. The trickle down economics does not work because the wealthy don't let it. If you look at the growth in wealth of the rich and compare it to the growth in wages of the middle class it is disgusting. The vast majority of our countries workers are not paid a fair wage vrs the profits that are earned by the employers. How many people are given a 1 or 2% raise per year when the companies are making record profits. The standard of living has gone down while the expenses keep going up. To many people need second and third jobs to make ends meet. Our parents could afford homes, yet we now make more than our parents and can not afford them. The rich get rich off the blood, sweat and tears of the middle class and when the rich horde the wealth the middle class suffers and then the economy suffers. When the middle class is given thier fair share of the wealth, not redistributed, not a hand out, what they earned, fairly earned, with thier hard labors, the economy flourishes and the rich actually get richer over the long term.

If corporations/the rich would pay fair wages to all the economy would be in much better shape, the small business would boom because the middle class would have the money to spend on it. More people would enter the rich class as they would have the time and money to start thier dream jobs and business. Our Children would go to better schools, better universities! Homes could be bought and this country would be in a much better circumstances and the American dream would live on.

Michael - one correction: the Earned Income Tax Credit was actually enacted in 1975 by Gerald Ford. Reagan enhanced it '84 and called it the "greatest anti-poverty measure ever passed by Congress", and John McCain voted for it.

For those that don't know what the EITC is, its a refundable tax credit that can reduce an individual's tax liability below zero so that they actually get a refund even if they owe no federal income tax. And Obama didn't invent it, the Republicans did. The conservatives have always supported this measure because in order to receive the credit, an individual must a) have a job and b) submit a federal return.

Whether you agree or disagree with the EITC, its a little disingenuous of Republicans to claim that Obama is a wealth spreader when they've supported this tax credit for over 30 years. Consider also that the total cost of the EITC to the federal gov't is about $40 billion per year - just over 1% of $2.9 trillion budget. Surely we should all be discussing the other 99%.

What's scarier then Obama being Commander in Chief is the fact that it seems more then 50% of the country is naive enough to believe his "yay me" speeches that present absolutely nothing factually. Yet these same people are able to turn a blind eye to the undeniable evidence that presents him as a Socialist, Racist, Anti-Semite who is going to all but invite the worlds worst to throw their stones at this once-great country, all while penalizing those who have successfully chased down the American Dream.

Please wake up poeple...don't let generations to follow pay because you wanted to vote for the flavor of the month

Lets discuss the $2.9 trillion dollar budget, a majority of which goes to the industrial military complex. I hear a lot of BS about cutting wasteful governmental spending, but never hear anyone discussing cutting the military budget. Face it, with two wars, the deficit, the bailout, neither party is going to CUT taxes, RAISING taxes is far more likely. And neither party is going to cut the military budget at this point, and without cutting the military budget or other fixed items, the amounts that can be cut are meaningless --- If you are a working stiff in this country, you pay close to 50% of your gross income in taxes and/or fees, do the math. WAY TOO MUCH. A couple of hundred dollars is meaningless if you are making a decent living and paying thousand and thousands in taxes, so "trickle down" is BS and meaningless also. We need a strong military, but not warmongers like George Bush and John McCain in charge of the trigger. Iraq, what a waste, and Afganistan, another unwinnable situation, unless you want to inject 750,000 troops in country. Get off the tax issue, move on to another. We are all destined to pay more, not less in the near and distant future. Wars are terribly expensive people, we are fighting two at once. Big mistake, and we can thank the republicans for it, they don't get it.

Only 40% of the middle and low income pay taxes. The rest either aren't paying or getting an earned income credit. The 5% population of the rich pay 70% of our taxes. Now you want to talk redistribution, today in Massachusetts, I will give you an example that is happening in the present. A divorced mother of two, does not get child support but the exhusband pays 1500.00 mortgage plus car insurance, medical and miscellaneous. She works and makes between $10,000-18,000, she also gets and SSI check monthly for one child, who also goes to a private school at the town's cost of $600,00 per week, a $17,000 grant for college tuition for another child. Collects food stamps, gets oil, and had a new furnace, insulation, gutters and windows treatments supplied by the state. She also received an earned income credit. Now you add up her income and she pays no taxes and gets money back. If this is what you want, Obama is your man. Oh, and if you are paying for your child in college, I would advise them to drop out. A new surgeon, coming out of school after 10 years, over $100,000 in debt, high malpractice, their taxes will go up. You have to pay to work hard these days.This makes sense to you?

I agree most wholeheartedly,when will the people wise up to the republican slime machine and their backers,theBIG Rich?The rest of the world breathed a sigh of releif today,when they discovered the days of pre emptive strikes against smaller nations is coming to an end.Many mothers will no longer weep over the deaths of thir sons in a maniacle war with no real purpose,than to further the power appitites of a few meglomaniacs.Hooray for the American people,they finnaly got something right!

master tard