Interesting post. But i have to take issue with the portion of your post that says:

designed to get Obama votes at the expense of America's most educated and productive workers.

Are you suggesting that America's most educated and productive workers are the so-called "rich" top-percentage who are being disproportionately taxed?

I think that's presumptuous. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but remind you that there are many productive workers who own businesses who are NOT rich AND there are many educated people who aren't making a fortune and there are plenty of billionaires who barely graduated high school, a lot of rich people who don't work at all etc etc. That generalization is not only false, it ignores the fact that some of the most productive workers in the country (MOST) are NOT in the "disproportionately taxed" tax category - but barely eek by a living. Some are even well-educated!

___

As to the substance of your article i think that there is a delicate balance that somehow needs to be achieved. I'm actually a libertarian so I believe government should be small. However, unlike 1776, we are a very large country now and we have some real problems that cannot be effectively dealt with in a true free market system. Counting on people doing the right thing is naive, especially in our society where wealth at nearly any cost is so highly valued.

I understand that the richest in America pay the most MONEY, dollar for dollar and percentage-wise. I get that. But if I earn, say, 20 million and pay 10 million in taxes (50% OUCH!) isn't that very different than someone who earns 20,000 paying only 3,000 (15%)? From a practical standpoint how does one live on 17,000? Is it possible to live very comfortably on 10 million? That's why the disparity doesn't seem unfair to many middle- and lower- income Americans. While the dollar amount and percentage is greater, it doesn't (or shouldn't) effect quality of life.

If you're talking about corporations being taxed, which I think you are, i can tell you that as a business owner, the best thing that could happen for my business would be to increase my working capital and reinvestiment/growth capital by implementing a SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM similar to medicare - so I can offer my employees health insurance without it costing me 30% of my budget! I could hire more people, pay the ones I have a better wage....things i really value.

The next best thing would be the guarantee of USEFUL education to ALL Americans through the bachelor's level so I can hire AMERICAN employees instead of those from China and India...Americans who ARE educated and can compete on a global level.

While I don't believe a government should DO EVERYTHING for its people, we're too far gone as a society for anything that looks remotely Libertarian. And the money has to come from somewhere.

You're just blowin' it out your ass.

I agree with what you are saying. Run my own business myself, so no suprise we've come to similar conclusions.

I have a question for those who favor a single payer healthcare system. I'm serious because I haven't quite made up my mind on it. One question that occurs to me is, under the current (or even modified) insurance system, if an insurance company refuses coverage for some procedure and it turns out that refusal causes health damage, there is legal recourse. Under a single payer (government) insurance system, would we have the realistic ability to sue the government?

I appreciate what you say and I agree: At the end of the day, most of us are on the same side (nay, in the same quadrant), even though we may support different candidates.

Honestly, I find these message boards quite disturbing. I applaud them for providing opportunities to create bonding social capital, but many of the posts are quite negative and offensive, detracting from any social benefit they potentially create. I sometimes don't know why I even scan them. Still, I appreciate those posters who can debate and deliberate without debasing their challengers and devolving into a morass of insults.

Cheers.

...is as cringe-inducing as Dukakis in his tank w/ helmet and as Kerry tromping around in the woods in his combat gear w/guns.

They all looked pretty silly, and should be embarrassed for such obvious pandering to a stereotype.

However, I doubt that the msm will subject BO to the same sort of ridicule... at least not yet.

The problem is one of relative differences. Most of the Salon readers here are insanely left of Bakunin. I chalk it up to immaturity and lack of perspective for how the world actually functions.

I'll tell you, everyone's for limiting and rationalizing health care so that 'all' can have some, until they're the ones who are turned down. Everyone hates lawyers until they need to sue someone then it's "Kill Him!!!"

They great charm of extremists is that they're fundamentally parasitic. They only exist in terms of complaining and fighting the system that permits them to fight and complain. If you've ever lived in one of those really broken countries that Liberals love to weep over you'd understand that people who are scrabbling for food and water and trying not to get shot, raped or set on fire don't give a crap about Voltaire. You'd also see that the 'opposition' to tyranny isn't all that different from tyranny. It's just a different bunch of people who want to be in charge of the same garbage heap.

I chalk it up to immaturity and lack of perspective for how the world actually functions.

I've noticed that lots of people on all sides of any argument come from lots of different places. Different parts of the US, Canada and other parts overseas. They're Vets, lawyers, tech geeks, business people, teachers, professors (and some lecturers disguised as professors) and more. You can certainly make a case for immaturity, but not one based on chronological age.

I find it pretty cool, even if it more resembles the Saloon of Yosemite Sam than the Salon of Henry James.