Not to take sides, but Robin Hood wasn't just stealing from the rich.

The legend: Prince John oppressively taxed the poor and abused his power in other ways (arguably with out the authority to do so). When King Richard returns he pardons Hood.

The real stories behind: Several lower aristocratic heroes (William Wallace is one you've probably heard of) in the history of the British Isles that stood up to the corrupt upper aristocracy to win freedoms for the poor or the gentry.

The real question is: Why do I know so much useless information?

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.

If the money is used on education and healthcare, this is actually a benefit to you and society. I admit, I am for consumer-subsidized healthcare and education as opposed to producer subsidized, but the money has to come from someone.

So when a person has $1,000,000 in the stock market on monday, and then the government bails out more companies and creates demand for stocks when it starts buy into banks driving their portfolio artificially 14% in one week to $1,140,000.

Why is that income of $114,000 only taxed 15%?

Edit:

Hypothetical Steven and Reals health care benefits are of equal cost, but Reals portfolio got 140k in charity from the government.

Like I keep saying and you keep conveniently ignoring: The rich gain way more than the poor.

You implied that you don't care much about abortion, gay rights, and drug reform because you don't have personal involvement with those three things.  So, akuma587 says, since you're not a woman, does that mean you also don't care about women's rights?  If you have no children, do you not care about child labor laws or education? 

And on the subject of the government being bad at taking away civil liberties, perhaps you missed the whole "warrantless wiretapping" deal?  Or the many other perfidies of the Bush Administration?  Do you not care that people are being held indefinitely without trial, have been held for years without ever getting a lawyer or being charged with crimes, because you don't personally know any of those people?  Or because most of them happen to be a different color or religion? 

Oh yeah, and then there's the torture.  Maybe they have to be rich for you to give a shit about them?

It seems to me that TheRealMafoo is mad simply because Obama made him realize that the USA isn't as capitalistic and "free market" oriented as he once thought.

Why do I say that? Because Obama didn't really announce any fundamental changes to the working of USA's tax or economic system. Every single time someone presses TheRealMafoo on this matter, he ends up admitting that he's mad at Obama because he openly asserted that spreading the wealth around happens and will continue to happen in the US.

There's more to come though... All the economies in the world will be put to a great deal of stress in the next few months and years, and many people (including some formerly free market worshippers) will be clamoring for "Marxist" policies.

As an example, look at the American automotive industry, which is about to go belly up. I'm sure there will be plenty of socialism to go around in helping the affected people.

NJ5, I just got slapped with a wet fish with your comment. It made clear, how a lot of my friends must feel. I feel their pain. I went through it over the past few years, as I was evolving my positions, but could never see it in myself.

Where did I say it was good to bail them out? I was vary much against the bailout. Thought it was a horrible idea from the start.

That needs to be fixed as well.

As for taxing stocks, that's tricky. the gain is perceived. I would probably tax the shit out of it when he sold it, and it became real income.

No, I have known this for a long time. I am upset because we have a candidate that openly says we are not a capitalistic and a "free market", and if you vote for me, I will continue down the path away from those ideals, and the country is on board.

I would hope that a candidate that wants to bring us back to what we once were would run and win (Ron Paul), and not a candidate that wants to take us in the opposite direction.