OMG... the Economist endorses Obama.

[TheRealMafoo]

The Ghost of RubangB said:

TheRealMafoo said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:
Were you born in America before the Depression or something?

 

never has a candidate before Obama run on a platform of taking from the rich to give to the poor. I know a lot have wanted to do so, but it was never part of there platform.

When your insulted by saying you want to "share the wealth", and you don't even realize it's an insult... and that wins you votes, this country has become something I don't recognize.

 

But we've had our highest tax bracket at 39.6% and way higher several times throughout history.  Why is it socialism when Obama does it but not Clinton or anybody else during the last century?

McCain can't have this socialism argument if he's also for a progressive tax code that taxes the rich to pay for the poor.  If McCain had a flat tax platform, he could seriously have the "Obama's a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth" argument.  But since their tax plans are both progressive, it makes McCain's argument "the difference between 36% and 39.6% is SOCIALISM."  That argument isn't as strong, so nobody's buying it.

 

Progressive tax is not socialism. it would be if 39% was the tax on everything some earns, but it's not. If I make 100k, and someone makes a million, we pay the same tax on the first 100K we make. In fact, we pay the same tax on the next 900K we make, I just am paying that tax on 0 dollars.

The problem is not with collecting more tax from the rich to pay for things, the problem is what you are paying for.

If you have 10,000 in expenses for infrastructure, and collect 9,000 of it from me, and 1,000 of it from Steven, I am OK with that. 

If you however have 10,000 in expenses + 2,000 in entitlements that you give to Steven, and collect 11,000 from me, I have a problem.