Teresa

You are completely missing the point. No one is saying Joe shouldn't pay taxes. And maybe higher taxes are needed to do this or that. The point, plain and simple, is that Obama said, quite specifically, that he would raise taxes on some so he could give that extra money to others. (And by the way, the whole thing about Joe owning multiple businesses and owing tax liens is another lie concocted out of whole cloth by the raving lunatics at Daily Kos.)

Micro ms., I realize you got your talking point about lower withholding from whatever leftwing site most Salon readers refer to, but that's not what Obama said. The "tax cut" would go to those who pay no taxes in the form of the earned-income tax credit, which is basically a cash handout to people who pay no taxes.

Again, very simple question: under what meaning of "fair" does one take money from Joe and simply give it to someone else for no other reason than he earns less money than Joe?

Please don't obfuscate with irrelevant points about our duty to pay taxes etc. Very simple question deserves a straightforward answer.

Easy for you to say that it's no burden paying extra taxes. But for a small business, it is. Someone else posted a link to an article showing how increased luxury taxes led to massive layoffs in the boat-building industry, which had a ripple effect through the rest of the New England economy.

And my question was: justify this under any meaning of "fair" taking from one guy and giving it to another. Obama specifically said he would raises taxes on some to give tax cuts to others. But a large proportion of those "others" don't pay taxes in the first place, so basically Obama is taking from Joe The Plumber and giving that money to someone else, who did nothing to earn it.

It's one thing to give government money to the truly destitute. But you can make as much as $46,000 a year and not pay income taxes, yet Obama would give some of Joe's money to that family.

Stop muddying the waters by talking about jobs and the like. That's not what Obama said. Raises taxes on some in order to give to others. That, plain and simple, is Marxist redistiribution of wealth.

Sorry, but that's not what Obama is proposing. He's said specifically that he'd raise taxes on the "wealthy" to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. Well, 40% of Americans pay no income taxes, so basically Obama is taking the guy's hard-earned money and simply giving it to someone else.

That is not hiring people or anything else yo say. It's simply taking from one under threat of jail and giving it to another.

Please justify that under any system deemed "fair" or "just."

And the problem with this is ...?

Assuming Joe follows the law, the business is legal, and all the money he earns is from a legal transaction, what's the problem here?

Why should he have some of his hard-earned money taken by the government and used to give a "tax cut" to someone who doesn't even pay taxes?

Democrats love to talk about "fair"; please explain the fairness of taking Joe's had-earned money under threat of jail (for not paying taxes) and simply giving it to someone else?

That is what Obama openly admitted to: "spread some of the wealth around," his words.

I'm really curious to see how anyone can justify this.

No one should sit down with the president of Iran, since he has promised to destroy the single reliable ally we have in the Middle East.

That's the difference between the two: Obama, having had his ass kissed by the MSM for the past 2 years, thinks he can charm anyone, even though Iran has been yanking the Europeans' chains for something like 4 years now and would see Obama for what he is: an ambitious empty suit and nothing more.

McCain knows you don't waste president-to-president talks on nut jobs.

You don't think it matters that Obama was smirking and making faces while McCain was talking, apparently not aware that the network feeds were using a split screen. He came across as arrogant and petulant, just like Al Gore did in 2000.

Do you realize how utterly paranoid and stupid you sound?

Get a grip, man.

I provided a link to a web site with lot of information, not just "inference" but the actual documents themselves.

Look on the righthand side of the page. There are probably about 10 or so articles, some of them quite long and well-documented.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/

The papers on Ayers/Obama are not he said/she said. The ones examined so far (out of thousands) are damning.

There's a web site (http://globallabor.blogspot.com) that has comprehensive research on this, including .pdf files of CAC documents showing grant approvals to Ayers-connected "schools" while legitimate educational institutions were turned down.

No he said/she said about it, and that's why Obama is trying so hard to squash the story.

You think that's controversial? That's basic Christian theology, and you can hear any number of variations on that on any Sunday in any number of Christian churches.

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

You, of course, don't have to believe it, but there are millions of Christians who do.

But if you're wanting to make comparisons, check out the writings of James Cone, whom Rev. Wright claims as his intellectual godfather. God wants black people to destroy white people. Nothing about sin or judgment being done by God. It's racial hatred, plain and simple.

Actually, Bush graduated with a higher GPA than Kerry. And he earned an MBA from Harvard. They don't just hand those out.

Gore got multiple F's before he dropped out of divinity school. He flunked out of law school.

Kerry has a J.D. from Boston College.