BTW, I think you mean “Doc’s Political Parlor” in the first sentence. They have interesting discussions at Left in Alabama, but I haven’t seen this one there, and judging from the link at the bottom, I am guessing you mean the Political Parlor.

Thanks again.

I am enjoying the new look of your place here. Looks good!

God Bless America!!!

It’s interesting how you immediately jump to the bottom 30%…what about the 60% in the middle, the majority, who pay federal income taxes now? Also, Obama is proposing reducing taxes overall, the amount that will be gained from increases on those making over $250,000 is not going to offset the amount of the decrease for those under $200,000. His plan will give a net reduction in the overall tax burden of the country from what it’s been under W.

You want a name for it, I call it ensuring people can afford healthcare and to support their children. If a low-income person doesn’t have any children and doesn’t own a home the only credit they get under Obama’s plan is for healthcare.

If he is increasing taxes on the evil rich and simultaneously increasing refundable tax credits (i.e. payments) for the poor then what, prey tell, do you call that if it is not wealth redistribution? I would love to hear the term you use for that.

I never said all people got wealthy because of inheritance, you are the one who said people got wealthy because of talent and ability. I was simply refuting what you said. I also don’t have to prove most wealth is not earned, as I never said I believed that.

Obama isn’t talking about punishing the wealthy. He is talking about giving tax relief to 90% of Americans. That is his tax plan. If you want to view an increase on those who are most able to pay when the rest of the country is seeing a reduction, that’s you superimposing your thoughts on his plan.

The idea that every tax increase on the wealthy is somehow passed down to the rest of us is simply ridiculous and completely unproven. As for the largest impediment to success being the individual…I don’t even know where to begin. That belief is why it’s so difficult for you and I to find much common ground. We approach this debate from completely different understandings of reality. I firmly believe and know people who are just as skilled and capable as I am who for any number of reasons (poor health, a family member’s poor health, downsizing, etc.) struggle to get through the day. The fact that you don’t see that in your reality is baffling to me.

You didn’t directly call me crazy. You argued that most sane people would not have arrived at my conclusion, hence you implied that I may not be sane.

I cited Google stats not to validate my view point as the truth (as a matter of opinion such an endeavor would be impossible). I did it to chide your imprecise usage of the word unique - it is a pet peeve of mine. I was pointing out that my “talent to twist words” wasn’t unique since so many others obviously came to the same, or similar, conclusion.

Have any of the impediments to success that you mentioned actually kept you, not some arbitrary construct of a disadvantaged individual, from prospering? I wasn’t born wealthy. I seriously doubt my parents will leave me enough money to begin to approach the death tax threshold. Unless you encountered particularly challenging circumstances we faced the same challenges to prospering. I feel that I have done well with my life so far and thus disagree with the notion that there are insurmountable impediments to succeeding. The single largest impediment to success is the individual.

Beyond your own beliefs that inherited wealth is dangerous, what justification, legally speaking, would you find for confiscating privately earned income upon someone’s death?

If you have more time or resources than me (which is likely) why don’t you research what portion of wealth in this country is inherited. Conventional wisdom is that most wealth is not earned. I’m sure that I’ve seen stats that refute that point.

The whole inheritance thing is off topic anyway, more of you superimposing your own thoughts onto Obama’s tax plan. He isn’t talking about punishing only heirs. He will punish all “wealthy” people irrespective of how the money got into their bank accounts. (I can’t wait until I find out, much to my alarm, that I am considered wealthy and get punished for working hard.) Now, justify taking more and more from those who earned it on their own.

(BTW, I abhor NCLB - or as I call it, No Child Gets Ahead)

Now we’re using Google hits to define whether or not there is truth? My God…I could put together a whole lot of phrases that would get more than 71,000 hits, my friend. And of course some people believe it, because the McCain campaign pushed that intrepretation of the remarks, when there are many ways you could intrepret it.

There are any number of policies currently in place that prevent people from prospering…from lack of finanacial support for No Child Left Behind, to lack of funding for higher education, to investment in new technology that will create more job opportunities in a struggling economy.

The idea that the assets accumulated by someone during their life should not be given, in it’s entirety, to a relative is NOT predicated on the belief that wealth should be controlled by the government, it’s predicated on the belief that in a democratic capitalist society, you should have to compete for wealth, not have it gifted to you.

If America wants to remain the greatest country on earth, we cannot continue to have a widening gap between those at the top and everyone else. It’s an untenable situation. Success and achievement are the basis of a great society, but excessive accumulation of wealth amongst a very small percentage of the population is a recipe for disaster.

A side note on language. Unique means one of a kind. It is a binary term that sorts all things into one of two groups, one of which consists of only a single “thing”. I googled the following phrase:

obama “spread the wealth around” “redistribution of wealth”

and had over 71,000 hits. I guess I wasn’t the only one who interpreted Obama’s comment as a very thinly veiled promise to redistribute wealth. If Obama only wants to allow you to prosper then I have to ask, specifically, which policies in place currently prevent you from prospering?

BTW, why do you bring up inherited wealth? Obama isn’t talking about just taxing inherited wealth and “spreading” that around. He is talking about taking from all the haves and giving it to the have nots. In any event, why should the government have more claim to someone’s assets when they die than a family member? The very notion is predicated on the belief that wealth is controlled (and distributed) by the government.

“Son, when you get to the hotel room…Call me”

Hours later he gets to the hotel room with his beautiful blushing bride and he calls his father,

“Dad, we are the hotel, what do I do?”

“O.K. Son, listen up, take off your clothes and get in the bed, then she should take off her clothes and get in the bed, if not help her. Then either way, ah, call me”

A few moments later…

“Dad we took off our clothes and we are in the bed, what do I do?”

O.K. Son, listen up. Move real close to her and she should move real close to you, and then… Ah, call me.”

A few moments later…

“DAD! WE TOOK OFF OUR CLOTHES, GOT IN THE BED AND MOVED REAL CLOSE, WHAT DO I DO???”

“O.K. Son, Listen up, this is the most important part. Stick the long part of your body into the place where she goes to the bathroom.”

A few moments later…

“Dad, I’ve got my foot in the toilet, what do I do?”