this isn't for the economy coca cola, this is for the programs that we desperately need to go into the future. What do you think oil independance just happens?

 I did not say that no money from a rich person should go to the poor just because they are poor. I am not rich, so it is kinda hard for me to be an elitest..... The Government should not be the ones to redistrubute the wealth. If I were rich I would give a ton of money to scholorship funds, or to kids who want to go to school directly. Many of them are not lazy and are smart, but their parents have made stupid choices or are lazy so they might now have a fair shake. The problem is that lazy good for nothing people get the handout too when the government is doling it out.

About those 2 above, Gates and Buffet are so incredibly rich I am sure it would not be a big deal to them... But there is not a special tax for who have 20 billion or more dollars is there? Thus the reason the dump their money in charities they believe in.... How it should be.

If you want to talk about a true elitist look at Joe Biden, I encourage you to look at his charitible giving. The come back and tell that the Robin Hood BS he spews out is not just because he knows it get his more votes.

Athletes, they are kinda a funny group. Many of them have more money than their intelligence would normally allow them to acrue. Many of them are bankrupt within a few years of being out of the leauge. Some are good with money and actually do better once they get out of sports, especially by using their Name and Image. Another funny thing about them is most of them don't realize they fall within the top 1%. But enough about them.

Actually it was, that was the intended principle. You have to take into consideration that the views of society at the time didn't regard slaves or women on the same level in general. It would be like passing a law now that excludes rights for frogs, and 100 years from now, frog rights are established. Women and slaves were not viewed as "individuals" in general, and thus the laws were slighted against them, only on the grounds that they were so often overlooked. Had someone like Abe Lincoln said "Hey, those slaves - theyre people too", things might have been different. What you are saying is the end result of a social norm of a time period many moons ago. Yet, don't think that the intent was for equality.

I think it is about the economy.

socialist programs tried in Europe didn't work and it won't work here.

Quote Alexander Tyler on the Fall of the Athenian Republic:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Barrack Obama's whole campaign is based on the fact that America as a country is in the dependency stage. And he's right. As the OP pointed out, no one sees the problems of a government with a Robin Hood complex.

Ok I'll accept that, but that exact argument can be used to point out why the right to bare arms is no longer needed. Clearly it made sense during a period where the country had recently had to fight for their independance against a foreign power and very much distrusted the role of government. Yet anytime someone suggests removing gun rights because it's really not necessary in todays society(the 'man' is not coming to get you), people get all up in arms(no pun intended) saying that the founding fathers protected your rights to bare arms etc.

Reagan, Reagan...wasn't he that guy who multiplied our national debt several times in the course of a few years, thus setting a precedent for future presidents to make the problem even worse? Doesn't this massive debt hurt out relation with other countries, and won't it eventually hinder our economy as we are forced to pay it off, billion by billion?

I'm not saying that Reagan is a horrible president, but I think democrats generally have their flaws far overblown compared to republicans.

What kind of freedoms?  Economic freedoms or social freedoms?  John McCain and the Republicans want economic freedom, so they can be free to make as much money off of you as possible, but hate the idea of freedom of choice, freedom to choose who you marry, and so forth.  Democrats want more social freedoms but more economic control, so for any given person its a tradeoff between what you want to be free and what you want to be controlled.

A little history about distribution of wealth, America is much more divided than we ever have been.  The wealth gap continues to grow as our economy faulters, which makes me think that they forgot the basic fundamentals of economics, no one is going to make a good if no one will or can afford to buy it.  Having most of our wealth in the hands means less buying power for the general population and less reason for those with money to make jobs.

A little more history, read up on the Great Society, the New Deal, or Norman Thomas (the candidate for the Socialist Party of America who got over a million votes in the presidential election and founder of the ACLU).

Congrats Manus! You actually got that right.

However, you should forget the Great Society and New Deal stuff and go back to the fundamentals, the Constitution. It's interesting because it frames a government that wants economic freedom and social freedom, or something that is known as "Liberty." In other words, if your candidate has you trading one for the other then they are NOT a qualified candidate. This would include both Obama and McCain.

Ofcourse you do have one thing wrong. Republicans don't believe in taking money from others, they believe in earning money and keeping what they worked for (Capitalism). The party thet likes to sieze money unrestrained is the democrats, and their means of siezure is a powerful central government (Marxism). 

I think they'd think "Hey you got the number down signficantly interesting."

Like seriously, do you know what it was like back then?

You don't need to take more money from the rich then should be to make these things equalized.  The government could do it with a flat tax.  They don't because the rich are an easy target.  People should be for government reform.  Not higher taxes.