Taxes and 'spreading the wealth' thoughts

[Idealism]

Bear with me, this is my first original posting :)

According to the Tax Policy Center and FactCheck.org in April 2008, this next fiscal year about 2% of American households will bring in an adjusted growth income of $250,000 or more. Now this was before the country was in a technical recession, nevermind some fears of a prolonged depression, which means the figure will definitely fall shorter than anticipated.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html

The fact that many people who will vote for McCain would be voting against their own economic best interests is an understatement. The quasi book "Whats The Matter With Kansas" is a compelling argument why this is happening in such numbers. The GOP has managed to somehow win votes because these people who make $40,000 a year as a plumber are told they could ONE DAY(!) reach the promise land of making $300,000 a year. Also, by voting for them now it will somehow help bring about there personal wealth goals with targeted tax cuts on a different tax bracket. Its an amusing ruse. Contrary to popular belief, there has been a trend towards socio-economic stratification in this country that in the next few decades will rival that of Brazil's. There is a shrinking middle class in this country as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Whats worse is the poor are now being demonized by people like Billy Cunningham and other frauds. I would submit to you this intriguing fact, straight from a government website:

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

Scary thought, the land of opportunity has degenerated into a playground for the well-off and not much else.

It has been decently documented on this site the multitude of recent programs enacted for the greater good of the people, and to the surprise of some, many were initiated by and under Republican presidents. What has seemed to be glossed over is, if the definition of 'spreading the wealth' and therefore being a 'socialist' hinges upon taxing someone more to help pay for any type of a new program that helps the population, then practically every politician since George Washington was -in some form or the other- a "Socialist." Ever since the first Congress convened, presidents have initiated legislation to help the poor, whether directly or indirectly. For more than two hundred years, the government has been giving increasingly numbers of subsidies to the private sector, one such example would be stipends to farmers and the so called Agri-Business (who presently receive billions of dollars per year).

And perhaps I was under the wrong impression but I believed that Senators, Representatives, and Governors were elected in part because they could best procure federal funding for programs of importance to their constituents. This manifests itself in Earmarks. Interesting that if said Congressman doesn't acquire enough money for projects, he will be voted out of office. According to the GOPs own standards, people want their socialistic programs, but don't want to hear it be called socialism. They call Obama a socialist because he wants to change the effective top tax bracket a measely 3% (what it was under Clinton- remember those HORRIBLE times?!). I truly do not understand them claiming this credibly, because their own plan doesn't do away with that "socialistic" progressive taxation system, us Americans have been happy to have for almost a century. Nor does it plan to enact a regressive tax policy. Unfortunately for them, they can't have their cake and eat it too.

I would like to hear your comments on this subject

[Narkos]

1. Aristocracy....that's what it's all about

This will explain in more detail....I agree with you on the facts, but that's not what we're dealing with here. Whole nother ball game here.
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

[Idealism]

2. I agree to a certain extent

about it being a sort of aristocracy, but i think that word has a medieval connotation. In America we tend to call these people "the wealthy." It has taken the pseudonym "Conservative" for sure. Something I find humorous is that the GOP is supposed to be the party of business, yet every economic recession we have experianced in the past 3 decades has come under a Republican president.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. The McCain "socialist" argument isn't logical, it's a bullshit scare tactic

The Republican strategy strategy is to drag on the cultural battles of the 1960's out as much as they possibly can because it worked pretty well to sink Dukakis and Kerry. Unfortunately for them, Obama has made a deliberate point of saying at the beginning of his campaign that it's time to turn the page on the 1960's. Instead of picking up a gun and taking a side in the culture wars he instead makes McCain look like an out of touch buffoon for talking about it instead of talking about the future.

[Idealism]

4. I definately do not

think its a valid point of argument, and as several groups (FactCheck among them) that by McCains' own plans admittance he too would be 'spreading the wealth' with his $5,000 tax credit for health care per family. Like I said, if that is the criteria for being a 'socialist' then every politician in history is so. Maybe we need a new Committee on Un-American Activities (Chairman Bachmann?)