‘Spread the Wealth’?

Rockgoods offers that there are more wealthy Democrats than Republicans and also suggest they are "liberals" while at the same time offering some evidence they are not as liberal with their personal gift giving as Republicans.

My question is, how are such people considered liberals and why, having larger numbers of wealthy in their ranks, would they support more tax on their "hard work" and wealth? Why would others, by contrast, not support an increase in their contribution, relative to an increase in their income derived from that society? Or is there some additional distinction that only Republican "conservatives" “work hard” and would have their wealth be subject to what the ‘non-liberal’ "liberal" Democrats would impose while providing exclusions for themselves? Affirmative Action (from another post) is applied to or only affects "hard working" Republicans? The delusions are running high and so also seem to be the delusions of grandeur about one's self important role in American society as a group or individuals.

I have yet to see a structure that hovers above the ground with no means of support or means of defiance from the forces that would pull it down. In short, if the foundations are crumbling or removed, that which sits at the top will fall to the ground. Anyone who has run or owned a business knows that it is not built from the top down, but from the ground up. One can have the best idea and concept for the most successful money maker the world has ever seen and a thousand investors knocking down the door to invest in it, but if they can’t get the functional on-the-ground operational heart of the business going because they can't find the labor or won't pay enough to attract any, they can’t deliver any product and they have zip, nada, zero for all the cash dribbling down on their shoulders from the top. The investors make nada, zip, zero and investment trade falls off. Business and societies are cooperatives of teams that make them function from the bottom to the top, from one side to the other and vice versa. They can fall apart without compromise and cooperation and they won't get off the ground or stay in business without all the components. In many small businesses, the management and ownership is also the total labor force, to grow, they have a need for more labor so they can mange or a need for management so they can labor, but their personal stake is now diluted and dependent upon others top to bottom, to work. To grow, they need all the help they can get, whether it comes from investors or in the form of uniform tax break provided by a relative increase in tax from the same people that “might” invest in the company or “might” invest in a company that hires Indian or Chinese labor, supporting the Indian or Chinese economies with those payrolls and where they are spent. For some patriotism seems to lose its attraction when cheap labor found in disparate foreign economies increases the profit margin.

There was a time when the Grand Old Party was grand and actually cared about the society they lived in as much or more than their own personal worth. When it had people who thought beyond their personal bubbles, net worth and what's-in-it-for-me attitudes.

We may be able to stand a little less me, me, me and "us" vs. them" in our attitudes in exchange for more we, we, we as in "we the people" of the UNITED States of America.

I believe the point is the threshold at which one is struggling and one is not. When the cost of relative standard of living, including rent, food, healthcare, education, etc. etc. for an average or modest lifestyle takes a certain percentage of gross income there is a relativity when gross income goes up for whatever purpose, a Democrat's or a Republican's "hard work" and based on retainign that same standard level of living. When income goes up, but achieving that average level of lifestyle stays the same, there is more disposable income. No own is forcing someone to begin to live the lifestyles of ten avergae ones, simply because they have the money to. If they can afford to to that, why can't they afford some public investment in helping others achieve the same? Our money is taken and edirected for many things in the interest of the general welfare, including infrastucture, built in many cases for defense, but used by commerce as well and those who profit from it. Yes they pay additionally for the use, but the constuctions were shared. If it takes $80,000 (arbitrary) a year to achieve a lifestyle free of huge debt burdens and worries about paying basic average or modest bills income above that level is icing on the cake and only adds, not subtracts, from that comfort. I can choose to raise my lifestyle level, maintaining a higher than avergae one, but balanced with my income, if nt my real needs or I can maintain the average, modest lifestyle and take advantage of the larger income to expenses gap. No one is ordering me to live higher off the hog, simply because I can afford it and no one is really stopping me either, with some relative increases in what I can now afford as a contribution back to the society that contributes to my larger income. In the case of Joe the Plumber, we're talking about a 3% change on the amount OVER $250,000. Do the math and tell us if that amount is going to suddenly put Joe back in the poorhouse relative to the advances he made under a lower tax rate to get to the higher one. Once again, some of my fellow Republicans seem to forget that conservative applies to lifestyle and mindset, not just presevervation of "what's mine" or net worth. Democrats also work hard and are subject to the same proposals they support, the contrast in attitudes and opinions is stark and revealing. Is Warren Buffet wrong and being greedy when he brings up the reality that his secretary pays a higher effective tax rate than he does? When did being a Republican and being greedy become synonymous?

Did you here Obama's comment about people not being taxed a 200K per year, He just dropped it from 250K What is next!?

okay Jennifer Kleinman the liberal! It is funny to read your response to pat's vignette. But I guess college would be to blame for that one.

1) your first argument: How about this person you are talking about in the lower bracket actually strive to make something for hi/her self. It is called self responsibility. She/he can use the lame system we have and get financial aid and if smart could go to a city college and make something of themselves and not have a baby before he/she could afford it. Oh but that is okay the government will help. Or will that be the tax payers.

2) This one just made me laugh because all it is is filled with envy. So what if this girl has it all is that any of your concern? Maybe her wonderful husband runs a business and employs many people which in tern make the economy grow. Maybe they give to charities and are actually good people.

How about another one
3) Bob works very hard to become a fire fighter. 9 years in fact. Testing and even coming in the top 2. Just to find out that the last test he took they have to redo because they were actually hiring women minorities and they did not pass. So test had to be made easier.
Let's go even further.. how about your house is on fire and your husband or dad is inside and the female firefighter has no strength to help him. Bet you wish fireman BOB was there.

The left would rather have everybody equal and poor than to have just a few poor.

To Howard and musicloverman- Amen to that!

As for Jeff- Charitable giving-neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals — especially secular liberals.
In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity — or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity — or 5.5 percent of their income.
Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity — or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let's sum up. The "compassionate" liberals — at least based on charitable giving — show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.

As the election approaches – remember the wise words of Abraham Lincoln
* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.

* You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong .

* You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.

* You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.

* You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men's
initiative and independence.

* You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could
and should, do for themselves.

Apparently we need to brush up on our basic economic studies. If the point here is that the rich get that way because of us (the middle class) then it is true. Let us not forget that we work for the rich, they give us jobs because we all buy their products and services, and if they have less tax burdens then they can do more business and hire more of us. The result is wealthier middle class and a stronger economy.

If a middle class man has a great idea and makes it rich because of his hard work, does that excuse his punishment of a higher tax to support us? It is bad business and it only leads to collectivism.

Working hard and getting ahead is not a Republican only trait. I am a Republican and I prefer Republicans don't lie to themselves and cheat to win. What Obama said is there for all to see. His plan will effect as many hardworking and wealthy people who support him as those who think paying 3% more when you can afford 3% more is socialism. First, they might familiarize themselves with what socialism truly is, then look up who eneded up breaking promises and raising taxes in the last 30 years. Stop being so greedy and lend a hand to people in places were you used to be just as your parents and guardians or even investors gave you a stake to get a start. The GOP has gone from being grand to being greedy. Check out McCain's hero, Theodore Roosevelt and his tax plans. Don't be so ignorant.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for taking the time to write the words down to go with the video so people can see what Obama actually said versus what is being spread around out of context with spins and twists added.

If people are still blind then they will get what they deserve, more of what's going on now.

The Woman who outlined the Democratic plan to seize all American 401 K plans - and fund the soon to fail Social Security program is an teacher from Notre Dame and Economics teacher called, Teresa Ghilarducci. In 2006 in the Montly Review Vol 58 #1 she outlines her plan now being adopted by the Democrates and promoted by radio and talk shows by her - as the best way to fix social security and to quote her - today on Rush Limbaugh Oct 28, 08 - "Spread the Wealth Around". Obama and these educational socialist are banning together to do what they think is the best thing for us all! I think they ought to mind their own business and realize that most of the books they are reading and teaching socialism with are sugar coated versions of the true dictatorships and opression that results from any socalistic take over and if this is not a BLOODLESS COUP I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS! Start passing this around before we have Obama as our first King!

Obama has also said that wealthier Americans should pay more taxes because "they can afford it."
Taxing people because they can afford it is ridiculous. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you need rich and wealthy people. Why? Because they are the ones who supply jobs. You don't have people making $42 K a year supplying jobs. By reinvesting their hard earned money back into their business allows more jobs to be created which in turn places more people on payroll. More people on payroll means more money going into the coffers of the oh so dependable US Govt.
Don't take my money because you can.

To the Patriot who called Americanwoman out on her spelling! You are right - I spelled it Coo - Webster spells it Coup! I thought that sounded more like Rev Wright's roosting chickens! But, you prevail, you got it right my spelling checker in India got it wrong! Here is the Definition: Coupdetat - a sudden, highly successful stroke or move, a quick-witted scheme or achievement, a sudden and decisive (one of Obama's favorit words with divisive) - measure in politics, esp. one effecting a change of government illegally or by force. Being that the Democrats are now Socialists - shouldn't their party have been legally declared that way - Can we force them to redeclare themselves or be pulled from the ballet?

Danielle, that would be a very poor strategy by the Dems since people of lower socioeconomic status vote at much lower rates than those of higher SES. Also, tax cuts are not the same thing as welfare, which is what it sounds like you're referring to. The women who you claim are having babies for money aren't making enough to be benefiting from tax exemptions for additional children, they are getting welfare - they are two distinct issues. I think you have valid points about public assistance but I wouldn't want to see more families living on the streets, either.

I forgot to say that Pelosi, Barney Frank, Acorn with Obama's help - promoted the messy mortgages and together blocked efforts by McCain and other Republicans to investigate what was going on - My message made 2 mistakes - I forgot to finish my sentence regarding (who caused this economic mess) and I spelled earned wrong! Otherwise - I hope people wake up - DEMOCRATES WANT TO REDISTRIBUTE ALL OF YOUR WEALTH - In Brazil they took farms and cash owned by people for generations and spread the wealth! Now they have SOCIALISM - It is knocking on AMERICA'S DOOR - and I BELIEVE FROM MY RESEARCH NOT JUST READING THE CRAP ON THE INTERNET - that OBAMA IS THE MESSINGER! VOTE FOR MCCAIN! IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIM DO IT JUST BECAUSE YOU love your Freedom!

The latest is that a Democratic Congress woman close to Obama and Pelosi has written a plan to fix social security! They want to take the 401 k's of all American's - and give back the missing money everyone lost in their 401 k's from the financial crisis, Acorn, Pelosi, Barney Frank & yes Obama (who helped Acorns part in this downturn) - then put it all in a government fund that only the gov will control and you will only get a small % of your hard earned cash each month to live on! The socialistic marxist part of this is that even people who never worked a day in their life will get the same % of you hard eared cash each month! As the woman said, so sweetly, we think this is best for everyone - WE WANT TO SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND! They will confiscate your 401 K and other plans - and spread YOUR CASH AROUND! Bringing you down to the level of those who did nothing to support themselves! The politician who has been on the radio touting this democratic plan is Magillglia (or something similar to that) google it! I am so angry I cannot remember the name! But she was real and I just heard this today Oct 28, 08 - When McCain says, fight he must know more about this proposed BLOODLESS COO than the rest of us - this election is not just an election - it could be the end of the Opportunities that make us the United States of America!

Joe The Plant is good for the Dems - keep asking questions that Obama will reply to with clear precission and professionalism - it advances our agenda. Meanwhile, McFailin will continue to try to get us to believe that B. Hussein Obama wants to fly airplanes into our buildings. Brilliant, coming from the only candidate who has ever fought for me.
Somebody, PLEASE improve the education in our country so that candidates will not rely on scare tactics and my grandfather's (outdated and unrealistic) values!!!

What Obama try to with his tax plan is to finetune the tax bracket by making it more progressive. Any other countries in the world are also doing the same. No big deal! Just like automotive, imbalance economy needs to be tuned up. Obama seems to be a good mechanic. Lets vote for him.

By the way, I am a social worker when I could have easily gone into something more profitable, and I witness every day the horrifying unintended consequences of allowing people to become dependent on the government. Children really are born every day so that women can get more money, or they simply dont care because there are very few consequences for their irresponsibility. Think for a moment about who benefits from this cycle of dependence? The party that advocates personal responsibility and less government assistance, or the party that promises continuing and increasing amounts of governmental support in exchange for votes. The Democrats would LOSE VOTERS if there were no poor people. That's not a strong incentive to actually change anything. I know it seems mean to say "spreading the wealth" to poor people is the worst possible way to deal with this, but it is and I see the results every single day.

Everyone here is fighting over the particulars of Obama's tax plan while ignoring the fact that there is no reason to believe that Obama will do what he is saying during his campaign. Anyone recall his public financing pledge? He is the first president in decades to turn it down and has been able to garner FOUR TIMES as much money for himself than McCain could because McCain stuck with his promise. Aside from that, you liberals remember the telecom immunity act, right? How Obama promised to vote against it and then...oops..maybe he hit the wrong button in the Senate as he has claimed to have done five times in the past when his votes were poorly received.(look that one up yourself, I can hardly believe it!) This man would literally do ANYTHING to win this election. If I were an Obama supporter, I would start preparing for the inevitable moment when he is revealed as the corrupt political manueverer that he is.

Unless policies like Senator Obama's are adopted, we will be a country with no middle class--only a few rich getting hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout when they mess up the economy and the rest of us who barely make it and see our retirement savings evaporate. We'll be like a South American country with just the few who are rich and run everything and the rest of the country poor, disenfranchised, and unable to move up the economic ladder.

For a good case study of how the middle class has almost disappeared, I refer readers to look at what has happened in Argentina in the last 20-25 years.