« Presidential Politics | Main | Bail out the regular folks »

October 27, 2008

Redistribution of wealth

I’m 71 years old, work full time, and will for another five years.

Barack Obama has called for more government programs, more government spending, tax refunds to the many people who pay no tax and redistribution of wealth.

What qualifications does he have to decide how I spend my money?

What qualifications does he have to decide how much of my hard-earned money I can keep and how much he can take and give to someone else?

This great country was founded by people from all over the world in the search of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their hands weren’t out for a government to take care of them, or some president to tell them how much money that can earn and how to spend it.

Hardworking taxpayers, do you want the pursuit of happiness or the government to run your lives?

William F Thompson
Excelsior Springs

After reading recent letters, I have only one thing to say: Get a grip, folks!

To say that Barack Obama’s redistribution of wealth is socialism is to completely ignore the Bush-Cheney redistribution of wealth for the last eight years. They have redistributed it to the wealthy, their friends at Halliburton and their friends in the oil industry. They called it capitalism.

Do you honestly think if Obama were a socialist he would be endorsed by the likes of Warren Buffet? The problem isn’t that Obama is a socialist. The problem is that John McCain and Sarah Palin have used the only weapon they have: fear. They have nothing else to offer, and, hey, it worked in the last election.

As McCain himself said, “you do not have to be scared” of an Obama presidency. Nothing Obama does could be even half as bad as what’s been done for the past eight years.

This right-wing hysteria is nothing more than ignorance.

Chris Bovos
Overland Park

Am I beginning too late, or too early, to request that 20 good citizens each donate 5 percent of their earnings to me?

I want to quit my job and be supported by those who are eager to continue working because they want to help spread the wealth.

Stephanie Hamil

If we all raise our children like Barack Obama wants to lead our nation, more of our children would never leave home and will be dependent on their parents for the rest of their lives. How sad.

Dorothy Baker
Kansas City



Oh no, Bush is so powerful that he single handily redistributed the wealth to all his friends and big evil companies. He totally bypassed the congress because the Democratic controlled congress has no power over the budget.

You have not seen redistribution yet, not until you get the Democrat House, Senate and President you are all crying for to kill those evil big corporations.

Big corporations create jobs not government. Contrary to Obama’s claim that “I will create new jobs”
Democrats have been running the congressional show for two years and have done nothing but ignore the warning signs as they pursued their social engineering with laws requiring loans to those that cannot afforded them.

Dems are already taking about removing the tax deductions in 401k’s and IRA’s. That is middle class money.

Hold on to your hat, we are heading for the %10 unemployment that socialized Europe has had to live with for decades.


Regarding Stephanie Hamil's dream of retirement, I must say I haven't laughed so hard since Steve Martin said he wanted to do one more concert where 10,000 people paid $1,000,000 per ticket, so he could just disappear... Here's why I think Stephanie's future goals are incorrect.
First, she is suggesting something that neither candidate has proposed, even though the she has apparently partaken of the McCain/Palin kool-aid. I would suggest that she continue to work. I will step out on a limb here and state that Stephanie (and those who embrace her beliefs) might make somewhere around the national average income of $45,000 per year. Stephanie wants to maintain the status quo because she knows someday she will be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I do not buy into that reasoning as I contend that it is more effective to set reasonable goals. Trickle down economics do not work and have not worked in the many years since Reagan planted the idea into the minds of the populous. It would take you 430 years at your current pay scale to make as much as many of the Wall Street CEOs make annually not including the Xmas bonuses they state they still intend to pass out with our taxpayer provided bailout funds.
Second, I'll be the first in line to champion your right to pursue life, liberty and happiness, but I will not support anyone's unquenchable greed at the expense of “We the People.” “'We the People' established a country where all men are created equal, wrapped in fairness and justice. We created an environment in which people can become wealthy, even obscenely wealthy. IE When the former head of Exxon Mobile retired a couple years ago he walked away with a retirement package equal to $166,000 PER DAY until he dies. When we allow any of our equals to acquire that much wealth, it should be obvious, if not a moral imperative that they should contribute to our great country at larger tax rates than a school teacher making $20K a year. And before you rant that our tax rates for the wealthy are already higher than other countries, consider that other counties don't have the kind of outrageous disparity between the rich and the poor.
Finally, tell me honestly that you wish to support policies that are not in your best interests and the needs of the vast majority of the public. Or will you will continue to blindly serve the needs of our most wealthy citizens? Thomas Jefferson once stated that a little revolution now and then is probably a good thing. If we don't stop the run away train wreck that we are now witnessing, when will it end? Or must we wait until all of us are literally living in “van's down by the river” while a select handful of people spend their early retirement in homes the size of New Hampshire?


"I DOUBT Christ would be for any government that did not have a fundamental belief in God"-KC

I included that quote on Monday explaining exactly what I meant. Your use of the word DOUBT was you saying that you know Christs intent would be as you see things. Very definitive criticism on my part. Please don't be an ass, we have gCyl here to play that part.


Jim, The One is telling Dems to take the ENTIRE day off. You assumed it was to vote, something you say will take as long as 3 to 4 hours. What do you figure the industrious Dems will be doing with the other 4 to 5 hours they would normally be at work?

Whatever they’re doing, it seems clear that The One either doesn’t care if the wheels of industry grind to a halt for a day for lack of Democrat workers, or he doesn’t think the Obamaterians do much at work anyway. Either way, my Republican co-workers and I will manage to both vote and work.


solomon -

It was very obvious to me that yesterday you had your head completely up your behind. I'm still waiting on a quote that you won't and can't give. As Kenny Rogers once said, "You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run." I suggest you learn when you are beaten and give it up.


kcstar does not even understand the word "doubt", so don't take his class.


Wow, Kate. You should probably take that reading comprehension course KC Star keeps pimping out.

Is it so unrealistic to think that a person who works full time, has kids and a life wouldn't have 3-4 hours on a Tuesday to stand in line to vote? I don't know what you're doing all day, but most people just don't have that kind of time.

How you equate 3-4 hours with 24 hours is beyond me. But try to be a little less snarky when you're pretty obviously wrong.


“When did I say it would take all day to vote?” Here: “I believe Obama encouraged people to take election day off in order to ensure they had time to vote.” Can you go a full hour without contradicting yourself?

Actually, Obama wants his worshipers to take the day off to work for Him. Guess that’s to get them used to relying on the government.


There are proper functions for government. Infrastructure and social programs are included among those functions. Certain programs or improvements can be questioned, such as the monstrosity in Boston, without saying that all programs are bad. Our Country has long accepted a progressive tax structure. This is not income redistribution. Sending checks to 40 percent of the population based solely on income level is. This also creates the huge problem of an overly large number of welfare dependents. Obama seems dedicated to creating a nanny state and appears to have a great deal of support in the quest.


"...surely we can take McCain's many clear denunciation of tax cuts for the rich at face value."

Would that be the same way we shouldn't take Obama's comments at face value because he "obviously" didn't mean what he said?

"It's odd to me that the candidate who'll cut taxes is the "socialist".."

I'm guessing the socialist label isn't coming from a proposal to cut taxes from the majority as much as it is coming from a proposal to tax a minority of the population in order to give it directly to the rest. Nice try by forgetting about "the other half" of the proposal, though. Class warfare at it's finest.

Face it, Obama's been caught MULTIPLE times letting his true opinions shine through, and McCain's been caught MULTIPLE times sacrificing his lond-held beliefs at the alter of the republican party. It seems as though only a dolt would believe that anything EITHER candidate says is really the truth. So sad...

This would be a good place for Jim or Engineer to step in (or Rogue and Pub if you like it a little less coherent) and tell the rest of us how it only the OTHER party that....



The tax code we have now takes money from the taxpayers that funds social programs, infrastructure and other things you've deemed "wasteful" in the past. That fits your definition of wealth redistribution. McCain would continue that policy. It is not an invention or secret belief of Obama's. To deny that just shows how far off into left field you've gone.

McCain has said more than once in the recent past that it is a matter of fairness that the rich pay more than everyone else in taxes. How is he not a socialist, usuing your criteria? If one can go back and twist an answer from 1996 to mean whatever they want, surely we can take McCain's many clear denunciation of tax cuts for the rich at face value.

It's odd to me that the candidate who'll cut taxes is the "socialist" but the one who wants the government to spend taxpayer dollars to buy up the mortgages of irresposible homeowners is a free-market conservative.

That's the reason you guys are losing. None of your attacks make any sense.


"The fact that you’d believe a co-worker who claimed it took him all day to vote explains how you became an Obamabot."

Can you even go a day without making stuff up? When did I say it would take all day to vote? What I said was that there would be wait times that would be prohibitive to people who work. Already, in early voting, there are many place across the country where the wait time is 3-4 hours. If you think the average person can fit that in somewhere in his or her workday, you're delusional.

I know you guys aren't big fans of people showing up to vote, but this is getting a little ridiculous.


The tax code is "progressive" but that is not wealth redistribution.


It is what I heard him say. If you have an exact quote to show otherwise please present it. I am convinced that the reason such a talented speaker has mumbled and stumbled at times on TV during the last year is that he is being careful not to say what he really thinks.


Simple Jack
Actually opinions on the "Laffer Curve" have nothing to do with my point concerning Obama's stand on capital gains. He said he did not care if raising capital gains taxes resulted in less tax revenue so long as it decreased higher incomes. As to the "Laffer Curve' it illustrates the economic truth that when you raise the tax rate beyond a certain point, tax income starts to decline. This is because tax rates cause modifications in financial behavior. The unknown is, of course, just what this point is. In fact it may well vary under different economic conditions. The Bill Maher Show is a high tax friendly environment. I did not hear the show and would assume your idea of what was said is open to interpretation. In any event saying taxes could be raised either to increase revenue or without decreasing revenue is perfectly compatible with belief in the "Laffer Curve" if you think tax rates are on the low side. As to your link, Schiff did seem to be correct. However they were not talking about the "Laffer Curve".



Take the day off to vote or to sit around. Either way, the rest of us get stuck doing more work.



I believe Obama encouraged people to take election day off in order to ensure they had time to vote. Many places are experiencing heavy wait times that most working folks don't have time for. The fact that you'd rather make it into some crack about welfare says more about you than about Obama.


"Obama also said something about if he and others like him were Supreme Court justices they could override the Constitution."

Talk about tying yourself into knots! Eng, you're being incredibly dishonest and you know it. That's not what he said at all.



The tax code as it exists now redistributes wealth. McCain will continue this policy. Your contention that this is somehow an invention of Obama's that everyone's trying to hide is laughable at best and incredibly naive at worst.


Obama says he is for wealth redistribution and will have a tax plan that will redistribute income. Why can't you and Joe Biden admit that? Actually that interview from his State Legislature days is quite clear. Turn yourself in knots as you will, but he is committed to avowed wealth redistribution. Obama also said something about if he and others like him were Supreme Court justices they could override the Constitution. Apparently that is the kind of judges People Are Dumb wants.
