The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

I understand the graduated tax system... but why continue to turn to the top 10 percent to bail everyone out?

At the rate that "the savior" is pissing money away, it doesn't matter who pays what, generations will be paying off his budget presented today. Which is funny considering he made a pledge to cut earmark spending lastnight, then presented a budget with over 9000 earmarks worth over 7.7 billion dollars.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881855,00.html?iid=tsmodule

He plans on balancing the budget by the end of his first term, but presented a budget with a 1.75 trillion dollar deficit.

You do realize, that one of the, if not the, largest reason his budget is so large is that he's actually including much of the spending the Bush administration left "off the books".  Things like the actual cost of the war? 

His budget is not perfect...it uses some pretty optimistic projections on growth that I'm not sure we can actually attain.  But lets be honest:  Much of the increase in the deficit isn't his doing...it's what has historically been spent in the past, it's just that now it's going to be above board and on the books.

[pilferk]

Infrastructure, jobs, research, whatever...anything to get it moving along.

What percentage of the stimulus does this make up? I've asked this before and have not received an answer.

I'll help you out:  Independant economists estimate it's at right around 1%.

Which doesn't make it right.  But arguing against/opposing the bill, in it's entirety, because of 1% of the spending seems llike nitpicking to me.  One of those things where you constructively point out what's wrong, but realize that the other 99% of the bill  is necessary.

[freedom78]

I love how you word it to make it seem like making 10 times the average annual household income is a crime. Or that living in an area with a higher cost of living than you is their 'fault'.

I understand there are people born into bad situations and they could give 500% of themsleves and never do better than almost scraping by... but at the same time there are plenty of people who do this to themselves by dropping out of highschool. Last I checked public highschool didn't require tuition so poverty has nothing to do with graduation... that is pure and simple lazyness. Lack of money doesn't make you too stupid to graduate... an auto plant in Detroit shutting down doesn't somehow make kids unable to go to school 180 days a year.

It's those people who dominate the 'poverty bracket'...

So I ask, why raise the already higher tax rate on the successfull to help out a large number of people who don't do enough to help themselves... after all if you removed the people who have done this to themselves from the handout line, then there would be more to go around for the people who have been born into generally bad situations or have been dealt a very bad hand later in life (and I don't mean lack of education based on dropping out).

I just cannot get on board with the people who have been 'responsible' having to be responsible for those who weren't.

And if those same high school dropouts all were college graduates, we'd have the most highly educated supply of fast food workers in the world, and you'd fault them for not getting an advanced degree.  Making money isn't a crime.  But creating a system in which some benefit to the tune of exorbitant wealth while a society and millions of people are crumbling beneath them borders on insanity.  It's a conservative myth, oft repeated, that poor people are to blame for their situation, rather than the wealthy business owner who pays them minimum wage, despite the fact that they work their asses off just to scrape by.  

Responsibility means giving people an equal shot and THEN considering how they perform.  You yourself acknowledge that this isn't the case, and the conservative argument about self-help would resonate much clearer if everyone had anything close to an equal shot at "making it".  But they don't, so it's a constant game of the poor trying to get a better shot at life and the rich yelling from their ivory towers that they need to help themselves.

I love your continued attack on Libertarianism as if it had been tried and failed.  I guess the industrial revolution and the existence of the US up until the New Deal is just a smudge on the paper.  I know you've got a Marx complex and are one of those few, young Academics who continue to portray the idea that Marxism just hasn't been given a real shot, despite the millions killed and affected by its execution.  I though Jundt did a good amount of work in labeling modern Marxists as intellectually laxy, but I guess some still persist.  

Taxation as itself isn't punishment; it's a necessity for the continued existence of our government.  Taxing individuals differently based on their income and redistributing it to others in lower brackets is punishment and at the same time, rewards those who make bad decisions.  People just don't magically wake up one day with a house they can no longer afford and a family they can't feed.  I know no one likes to make personal judgements under the guise of moral ambiguity, but if you're losing your home, it is more than likely because YOU made bad decisions and didn't live within your means.  We can sit here all day and toss pies back and forth at each other as to whom is to blame, but at its most basic cause is the failure of Joe and Jane America to behave fiscally responsible.  I know, I know, our government under Bush didn't set a proper example of fiscal responsibility.  Well, so what?  Since when did looking to the government for advice become a good idea or even the "American" thing to do.

The economy is going to rebound in a bout a year without any action from Obama or Congress.  I realized this under Bush and now see it under Obama; they're using scare tactics to push control down our throats.  Bush is ultimately responsible for all of this as he set every ounce of ground work, but Obama is chugging right along and doing his part to dramatically expand the size and scope of the government.  A flat tax is the way to go.  We need massive downsizing of our government; not one federal employee was let go during these hard times.  Much of the garbage that was put into the stimulus bill is business as usual and can be found in any bill in Washington.  Users fees and tolls would alleviate much of the fraud, waste and abuse that comes from the government.  This country was doing quite fine while it followed Libertarian principles, only as it has grown in size and added regulations have issues risen.  

Ooh...a "liberal academic" criticism.  How clever of you.  

Anyway, regarding your love of America under classic liberalism, I suppose insignificant little facts like mass poverty, gross inequality of people, slavery, etc. mean nothing to your argument about libertarianism's having been successful in early America.  

Indeed, I'll go one further.  It was successful.  It was the best system ever created, at that time.  It certainly beat the hell out of European feudalism and everything that came before.  The point that seems lost on many is that just because we managed to create something better does not mean that the struggle to make society better still is over.  Indeed, it is not.  You may not like it, but a lot of us realize that we've still got a long way to go.

Regarding "living within your means", you'd think by now that people would realize that that's the true trap of our system.  If everyone were to live within their means, our ridiculous credit based economy would suffer greatly, meaning that even more people would be out of work.  So, for those living with a salary that doesn't allow them to buy their home with cash money, which is most of us, we have the choice of living beyond our means (credit/loans) or of not, knowing that if we don't use that credit, someone else will get his ass canned because the factory just isn't shipping as many units.  Come on.  It's a classic catch 22, and conservatives will berate normal people no matter which they choose.  Don't spend...you're killing the economy.  Spend...you're living beyond your means and it's your own fault that you're struggling to make it.  All the while, the lucky few benefit from the misfortune of most.  When the choice for most is (a) bad or (b) worse, then it's time to say that something's wrong.

[pilferk]

I love how you word it to make it seem like making 10 times the average annual household income is a crime. Or that living in an area with a higher cost of living than you is their 'fault'.

First off, I think you missed the touch of sarcasm used to "downgrade" the $320 grand income to a lower rate.  Second, nobody said the pursuit of money is a crime...well, other than Axl....but it should be expected that, as you succeed, you give back to the system that helped you do so.  I think that's a no brainer.

I understand there are people born into bad situations and they could give 500% of themsleves and never do better than almost scraping by... but at the same time there are plenty of people who do this to themselves by dropping out of highschool. Last I checked public highschool didn't require tuition so poverty has nothing to do with graduation... that is pure and simple lazyness. Lack of money doesn't make you too stupid to graduate... an auto plant in Detroit shutting down doesn't somehow make kids unable to go to school 180 days a year.

Being poor means you likely live in a poverty stricken area.  Have you ever SEEN the inside of an inner city school?  Seen the class sizes or the materials used for educating?  Compare that to any school in the suburbs and you'll see the radical difference in "advantages" in public schools.  Also, the more poverty stricken areas tend, also, to be the areas with the highest instances of violent crime.  The schools are no different, and are usually a reflection of the community around them.  How much "learning" do you think you're really capable of when you're constantly in fear of getting shot, stabbed, the shit kicked out of you, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Don't assume that all "public educations" are created equal...they're not.  Not by a long shot.

Sometimes you drop out because you need to actually GO TO WORK in order to help support your family.  Sometimes you drop out because school is more dangerous, and less useful, than the other alternatives.  Sometimes, yes, you drop out because you're a fucking lazy turd who wants to get the system to support you. What gets me, though, is the conservatives suppose those in that last category are the majority...simply because it helps them justify their POV.

It's those people who dominate the 'poverty bracket'...

You, of course, have proof of that, right?  Please, by all means...let see it!

So I ask, why raise the already higher tax rate on the successfull to help out a large number of people who don't do enough to help themselves... after all if you removed the people who have done this to themselves from the handout line, then there would be more to go around for the people who have been born into generally bad situations or have been dealt a very bad hand later in life (and I don't mean lack of education based on dropping out).

I just cannot get on board with the people who have been 'responsible' having to be responsible for those who weren't.

The point is, you assume that having money is 100% reflective of merit, responsibility, etc.  Sometimes, the skills you have just happen to be more valued by society.  You don't work harder, you're just good at something that commands a high price tag.  See, the issue here is the one of stratification....you believe in an "us and them".  You have no further to look than your own posts to see how you view those who have, for whatever reason, less means that you think they SHOULD have...and you assign them "blame" for that.  You ask "Why is making 500k being talked about like it's a crime".  The same quesiton, in reverse, can be asked of you......

[pilferk]

My biggest complaint about all of this job creation is that they are planning a job spike around government infrastructure projects (which tend to last a few years), so what happens when that bridge, or re-paving job is complete? Why don't you ask the pool of laid off workers in MA who were brushed aside when the Big Dig ended.
Government job creation like this is a flimsy band-aid. A temp fix that is around just long enough for people to pat themselves on the back for 'fixing' the problem.

Um...other than the "flimsy" part (history proves otherwise)...that's the point.  The goverment spending is supposed to be finite.  It's supposed to be a bandage to stop the bleeding.  Then, as those jobs stimulate the economy (because those working spend money), other jobs get created.  Retail jobs, manufacturing jobs, construction jobs.....all spurred on by the spending done by the government.  The idea is that, when the spending by the government has stopped, there are now enough NEW jobs for those done working on public works to move on to.  It's worked before...I'm not sure why you think the concept won't work now.  Other than because you really don't WANT it to work, that is, because your POV is diametrically opposed to it.

So while I agree that something needs to be done, I don't belive that this trillion dollar bailout, or Obama's new 3.5 trillion dollar budget (that puts us another 1.75 trillion dollars in the hole) will accomplish a whole lot.

Lets at least be honest.  While Obama's budget does show a 1.75 trillion defecit, much of the reason for that is because he's putting huge chunks of Bush's "off budget" spending BACK on the books.  It's not entirely HIS spending that's hiking the defecit.

I hope I'm surprised and he can accomplish what he claims he will by the end of his first term... but I don't see how pushing thru the spending he is talking about (while only raising taxes on 250K+) will lead to balancing the budget. He will need to lower that ceiling from 250K, but where does that stop?

Because if the economy is stimulated the way he's projecting (and I agree, those projections are ambitious and I'm not entirely sure they're realistic), then your tax base increases, and so does the revenue of your existing tax base.  You're growing the tax base from the ground up, so you don't have to increase the amount you're taking from any one member of the base.

[C0ma]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html (it's an AP article...)

Considering that they estimate over 1.2 million students drop out every year, I would say that's a significant chunk of the lower class. I understand your argument that inner city schools are run down and can be potentially dangerous, but a decision is made one way or the other to drop out... While some one comming out of a Detroit High School, Roxbury High (Inner City Boston), or a High School in Compton is probably not getting a fair chance to hit Yale or Harvard, they are making a choice to leave school. A High School Diploma will at least give you a tool to get out of the shitty situation your parents may have been in.

Even Obama made a point to bring this up during his address to the Joint Session. He just wants to throw more money at the situation.

I just think I am a little more worried about Obama's creative projections for the turn around of the economy, because if it doesn't turn around than he will have set us up with a nearly unrecoverable deficit... but atleast we will have a greater understanding of Grape Genetics!

[Axl4Prez2004]

Pilferk: "...nobody said the pursuit of money is a crime...well, other than Axl...."

When did Axl say that?


btw, may I say I loved Freedom's explanation of that Catch-22 situation.  The whole "living beyond your means" vs. the "you're not spending enough 1 week after 9/11, go shopping!" b.s.  Then the GOP has the nerve to try and get their votes with pandering b.s. like "Joe the Plumber."  Unbelievable. 

Here's another question.  Should anything be done to prevent the mass accumulation of wealth by the richest .5 or 1% of the country?  Do people here understand that even with our current graduated tax system the richest of the rich have become even richer?  Check this out:

"During the last half-century the distribution of income and wealth in America has become more and more unequal. Even during the 1990s, a period of sustained expansion, most of the growth in income and wealth was concentrated among the top 10% of households. By 2000 this group accounted for 44% of total household income, compared with 33% in 1980.

Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40%. And the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income."


Where should we let it stop?  Are we going to be better off under Republican plans that will do nothing to stem the tide washing us toward the richest 1% owning 50%...60%...75% of total household wealth?  Hey!  The economy sure would be humming, eh?  Give me a fucking break.   

[TheWalkinDude]

There is quite a difference between taking out a loan to buy a house that incurs you a monthly payment you can afford and living paycheck to paycheck because you have maxed out credit cards and decide to buy a new car every 5 years.  There are real people out there who got fucked by the system.  I acknowledge that and they truly get my deepest sympathies.  But those people who got fucked are few and far between.  This notion of creating a system that provides a great wage just because you "bust your ass" is unrealistic and has already been tried and failed by numerous nations.  Socialism doesn't work in the long run.  Even the epitome of socialist nations - Norway; acknowledges that its current standard of living is going to go bust soon.  As soon as the demand for oil is removed, there just went 25% of their GDP. 

This argument isn't as simple as spend or don't spend.  There is reasonable spending and excessive spending.  Those who fail to recognize that distinction are going to have hard times.  Please don't exaggerate the situation to help fit into your nicely wrapped political ideology. 

[freedom78]

Pilferk: "...nobody said the pursuit of money is a crime...well, other than Axl...."

When did Axl say that?


btw, may I say I loved Freedom's explanation of that Catch-22 situation.  The whole "living beyond your means" vs. the "you're not spending enough 1 week after 9/11, go shopping!" b.s.  Then the GOP has the nerve to try and get their votes with pandering b.s. like "Joe the Plumber."  Unbelievable. 

Here's another question.  Should anything be done to prevent the mass accumulation of wealth by the richest .5 or 1% of the country?  Do people here understand that even with our current graduated tax system the richest of the rich have become even richer?  Check this out:

"During the last half-century the distribution of income and wealth in America has become more and more unequal. Even during the 1990s, a period of sustained expansion, most of the growth in income and wealth was concentrated among the top 10% of households. By 2000 this group accounted for 44% of total household income, compared with 33% in 1980.

Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40%. And the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income."


Where should we let it stop?  Are we going to be better off under Republican plans that will do nothing to stem the tide washing us toward the richest 1% owning 50%...60%...75% of total household wealth?  Hey!  The economy sure would be humming, eh?  Give me a fucking break.   

Indeed, you MAY say it, and if you're feeling generous, checks can be made payable to the "freedom78 Marx Complex Fund for the Proletariat Revolution". 

Dude...it doesn't matter.  You can throw as many facts out as you want.  It doesn't matter how many people are hurting...ideology trumps pragmatism, apparently.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Seriously, where does the gravy-train for the richest 1% stop? 

The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income.

Where does it stop?  Seriously?  100 years from now, when our grandkids are serfs working at the Jetsons' Space Castle, rockin' out to Axl's cryogenically frozen-head concert tour, they'll be wondering why we didn't do anything to stop the process. 

The rich get richer and it isn't always because they are smarter or more talented or harder-working.  Many times it's because their parents were, and they are the beneficiaries.  By the same token, the poor don't always stay poor because they don't work hard, are less talented, or want to suck off welfare for life.

I'll ask again, what total % of houselhold wealth should the richest 1% own?  You folks realize taking away the graduated income tax would effectively raise the % the richest 1% own, right?  Think about it.

[C0ma]

Seriously, where does the gravy-train for the richest 1% stop? 

The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income.

Where does it stop?  Seriously?  100 years from now, when our grandkids are serfs working at the Jetsons' Space Castle, rockin' out to Axl's cryogenically frozen-head concert tour, they'll be wondering why we didn't do anything to stop the process. 

The rich get richer and it isn't always because they are smarter or more talented or harder-working.  Many times it's because their parents were, and they are the beneficiaries.  By the same token, the poor don't always stay poor because they don't work hard, are less talented, or want to suck off welfare for life.

I'll ask again, what total % of houselhold wealth should the richest 1% own?  You folks realize taking away the graduated income tax would effectively raise the % the richest 1% own, right?  Think about it.

Are you kidding?
You want to put a plan in place to not only stop the rich from getting richer, but you actually want to reverse the trend... more of their money should flow down to the poor in an effort to create a more level playing field?

Yes... because that isn't Communism

[TheWalkinDude]

It's easier for them to view things that way Coma.  It requires less thought and less reflection to just view the wealthy/successful as some abstract, evil entity that plunders and exploits the working class.  Of course under the view, the working class does no wrong; they don't overspend and mismanage their finances.  They don't lack a valuable skill that places them in the income bracket they wish to enjoy.  And finally, they have every right to live in NYC, LA, SF etc. where the cost of living is 3x that of every where else and expect to live like the Hilton's.  Bottom line, collectivism/communism/socialism is an intellectually lazy theory.  When you corner someone and point this out and the numerous glaring flaws in the ideology (assuming you support human rights) they simply write you off as an elitist and explain that it hasn't been tried under the right circumstances.  Ask Mr. Freedom 78 if he's willing to pay 50% of his taxes.  As a professor, he earns roughly 100k a year; well over 2x the national standard.  Ask him to start living on 35k a year and we'll see how committed he is to his ideals.  It's so much easier to point the finger at someone else, but it's a whole different game when it's pointed at you.

[freedom78]

It's easier for them to view things that way Coma.  It requires less thought and less reflection to just view the wealthy/successful as some abstract, evil entity that plunders and exploits the working class.  Of course under the view, the working class does no wrong; they don't overspend and mismanage their finances.  They don't lack a valuable skill that places them in the income bracket they wish to enjoy.  And finally, they have every right to live in NYC, LA, SF etc. where the cost of living is 3x that of every where else and expect to live like the Hilton's.  Bottom line, collectivism/communism/socialism is an intellectually lazy theory.  When you corner someone and point this out and the numerous glaring flaws in the ideology (assuming you support human rights) they simply write you off as an elitist and explain that it hasn't been tried under the right circumstances.  Ask Mr. Freedom 78 if he's willing to pay 50% of his taxes.  As a professor, he earns roughly 100k a year; well over 2x the national standard.  Ask him to start living on 35k a year and we'll see how committed he is to his ideals.  It's so much easier to point the finger at someone else, but it's a whole different game when it's pointed at you.

HA!  You're a dumbfuck.  You know nothing about me or my income, douchebag, so stop making shit up to satisfy your OWN fucking intellectual laziness.

[freedom78]

Seriously, where does the gravy-train for the richest 1% stop? 

The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income.

Where does it stop?  Seriously?  100 years from now, when our grandkids are serfs working at the Jetsons' Space Castle, rockin' out to Axl's cryogenically frozen-head concert tour, they'll be wondering why we didn't do anything to stop the process. 

The rich get richer and it isn't always because they are smarter or more talented or harder-working.  Many times it's because their parents were, and they are the beneficiaries.  By the same token, the poor don't always stay poor because they don't work hard, are less talented, or want to suck off welfare for life.

I'll ask again, what total % of houselhold wealth should the richest 1% own?  You folks realize taking away the graduated income tax would effectively raise the % the richest 1% own, right?  Think about it.

Are you kidding?
You want to put a plan in place to not only stop the rich from getting richer, but you actually want to reverse the trend... more of their money should flow down to the poor in an effort to create a more level playing field?

Yes... because that isn't Communism

Any tax is, by definition, redistributive.  If we didn't have taxes, would the rich folks buy their own "national defense" for the few areas of the country where they live and leave the rest of it out in the rain?  They could build their own roads, and no one else has any.  They could build their own schools, while everyone else sits on a dirt floor.  I, for one, am not interested in general welfare payments to the poor (if that's waht you mean by "creating a level playing field") so much as truly creating one by having a high quality and EQUAL public education system, no matter where you live in this country and making sure everyone has healthcare, given that health crises are the #1 cause of poverty and personal bankruptcy, which will save us all money (even the wealthy) by ensuring that our health care costs aren't jacked up to cover those who can't pay their own.  These things are hardly communist.  That we should aspire to good schools and a quality health care system?  Why is that so threatening?  You'd think the prospect of a highly qualified and trained work force would be a thrilling prospect, would lead to a new wave of American innovation, and could help to put us back at the top in so many areas where we're slipping.  It's not even close to communism.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Agreed with Freedom.  Intellectual laziness?  You seem to be the one putting forth the baseless argument.  Assuming Freedom did bring home 100k annually, he wouldn't be having his taxes go up at all under the Obama administration, they'd actually be going down, just like the rest of us mere mortals making less than $250k/year.

Beckett, please cut the crap.  Nobody in here "hates" rich people.  I'll ask again, what total % of houselhold wealth should the richest 1% own?  You folks realize taking away the graduated income tax would effectively raise the % the richest 1% own, right?  How much more do they deserve?  It's as if you came from the Montgomery Burns School of Economics Beckett.

Rich folks, and the rest of the country for that matter, were doing pretty well in the '90's. 
Nobody here is advocating raising taxes to levels above and beyond what we had in the '90's.
Bush gave the ultra-rich a huge money give-away, and now when a responsible administration comes in and says the free ride is over, you bitch and moan about your taxes being raised, when in fact they're just going back to where they were before Bush and the GOP pushed through the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Boo-fucking-hoo!

 

[C0ma]

Seriously, where does the gravy-train for the richest 1% stop? 

The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income.

Where does it stop?  Seriously?  100 years from now, when our grandkids are serfs working at the Jetsons' Space Castle, rockin' out to Axl's cryogenically frozen-head concert tour, they'll be wondering why we didn't do anything to stop the process. 

The rich get richer and it isn't always because they are smarter or more talented or harder-working.  Many times it's because their parents were, and they are the beneficiaries.  By the same token, the poor don't always stay poor because they don't work hard, are less talented, or want to suck off welfare for life.

I'll ask again, what total % of houselhold wealth should the richest 1% own?  You folks realize taking away the graduated income tax would effectively raise the % the richest 1% own, right?  Think about it.

Are you kidding?
You want to put a plan in place to not only stop the rich from getting richer, but you actually want to reverse the trend... more of their money should flow down to the poor in an effort to create a more level playing field?

Yes... because that isn't Communism

Any tax is, by definition, redistributive.  If we didn't have taxes, would the rich folks buy their own "national defense" for the few areas of the country where they live and leave the rest of it out in the rain?  They could build their own roads, and no one else has any.  They could build their own schools, while everyone else sits on a dirt floor.  I, for one, am not interested in general welfare payments to the poor (if that's waht you mean by "creating a level playing field") so much as truly creating one by having a high quality and EQUAL public education system, no matter where you live in this country and making sure everyone has healthcare, given that health crises are the #1 cause of poverty and personal bankruptcy, which will save us all money (even the wealthy) by ensuring that our health care costs aren't jacked up to cover those who can't pay their own.  These things are hardly communist.  That we should aspire to good schools and a quality health care system?  Why is that so threatening?  You'd think the prospect of a highly qualified and trained work force would be a thrilling prospect, would lead to a new wave of American innovation, and could help to put us back at the top in so many areas where we're slipping.  It's not even close to communism.

What you are describing is hardly communism but is also hardly what Axl4PRez was describing. Taxes are needed... infrastructure improvments are needed... national defense is needed.

He is talking about devising a plan that prevents the rich from getting richer... He is talking about true redistribution of wealth, that is nothing but pure and simple communism. Based on his comments, he wants government to cap a groups wealth.

[Axl4Prez2004]

"He is talking about devising a plan that prevents the rich from getting richer... He is talking about true redistribution of wealth, that is nothing but pure and simple communism. Based on his comments, he wants government to cap a groups wealth."

I repsectfully disagree COma.  The rich will always get richer.  Re-distribution of wealth has been going on for the last 70 years and this will continue like it or not. (I like it, you don't)  This is not communism...not even close.  If you think Obama's a socialist, then you must also think every president before Dubya was a socialist.  It's ridiculous fear-mongering.  No group's wealth is being "capped."  Again, you are making false accusations meant to scare up the populace.  Politics, "pure and simple."

We live in a capitalist society and always will.  This is good!  There will always be haves and have-nots...believe it or not, I think that's good!  It provides for competition.  That said, I understand there needs to be a check on out of control capitalism.  The "invisible hand" does not always ensure the have-nots have bare minimums. 

I think Obama could really impress some conservatives by reforming the food stamps program.  If he took a page from Axl4Prez's playbook and made food stamps only pay for grade D staples (instead of the shit it currently allows poor people to buy) there'd be a lot of happy tax payers out there.

I'll ask again, what total % of houselhold wealth should the richest 1% own?  Where does it stop?  We can obviously see through the numbers that the Bush administration has rapidly accelerated the rate at which wealth is accumulated by the richest 1%...is this a good thing?  Honestly, I don't think so...but to label people communists for advocating a tax structure we had in the 1990's under Clinton is fear-mongering "pure and simple." 

[Smoking Guns]

Should Obama put us back on the Gold Standard?  I say yes.... I guess most will say no.  Do we need to shut down the fed reserve's power?  I say yes, most of you say no. 

[adman2374]

If this is the only thing you have to hang onto after the whole thing I have to say, it's sort of sad.

No, the things I dislike about B.O. and his administration will only continue.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were a certified soothsayer!  My sincere apologies, of course!

bo is destroying out country...open your eyes....stop thinking he is gonna pay for your kid....you are responsible...

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Should Obama put us back on the Gold Standard?  I say yes.... I guess most will say no.  Do we need to shut down the fed reserve's power?  I say yes, most of you say no. 

If we went back on the gold standard there wouldn't be enough money for his spending programs.

Gems like these would have never been funded by the American Socialist act of 2009:

Our tax dollars at work.......

1.7 million "for a honey bee factory" in Weslaco, TX

$475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah

$200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past

$300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center

$1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah

$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi

$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York

3. $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas

$2 million ?for the promotion of astronomy? in Hawaii

$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa