I think that voting for Obama is economically logical for several reasons.

1) If you believe in equity and promoting a society where wealth is equitably distributed, Obama is a better choice than a Republican candidate.

I certainly don’t want whatever wealth I have taken away. My position has nothing to do with redistribution of existing wealth but encouraging policies that promote equity and opportunity in the creation of new wealth.

2) If you belong to “middle-class America” then Democratic policies make more sense.

I question the logic and mental well-being of non-college educated, economically anxious whites who vote Republican. I’m talking about the Joe-the-Plumber types.

3) If you earn a high income and your purpose in life is the accumulation of more money for yourself, then Republicans are a good match.

Generally, I beleive that America is better off as a New Deal/Great Society country, than with Industrial Revolution laissez faire capitalism.

I don’t know how we can vote for any President who signed a budget that was 50% greater than we collected in taxes.

The concept that he is redistrbuting wealth from the rich to the poor is a complete falacy. When he allows the fed to print money and loan it to the rich people who get the benefit before the effects of inflation, the poor people are loosing massively. The poor have no concept of the inflation tax they are paying and it is really sad.

He is concentrating the wealth at the top, thus the shrinking middle class. Just because the lower income gets a little bit of money with food stamps, welfare, and a little bit of medical care, doesn’t mean they are getting anywhere.

[quote=markmax33][img_assist|nid=15730|title=Mitt and Obama are the same!|desc=Just incase you thought there was a difference between Mitt and Obama, they have almost the same donors funding their campaign.|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=62][/quote]

A very “enlightening” chart, indeed. Thanks for posting, markmax!

I’ve been a bit mystified by this “redistribution of wealth” narrative that’s been so popular over the last few years. It seems that it applies to any tax increase on those in a high tax bracket. Almost as if current rates are somehow sacrosanct. A 35% marginal tax is not redistribution of wealth. But rise above that level, and all of a sudden there’s redistribution of wealth.

I remember when top marginal rates were 70%. I don’t ever remember hearing about redistribution of wealth. Top rates went down to 28%, then back and forth up as high as almost 40% (if I remember correctly) and never a peep about redistribution of wealth. Now, add a single dollar of tax bill of the upper income levels and it’s redistribution of wealth.

If you don’t support progressive taxation, the claim is valid. That would mean you support everyone paying the same amount. Not the same percentage, the same amount. The same $1,000 (or whatever) per person. Otherwise, income taxes ARE a redistribution of wealth. Using the “redistribution of wealth” argument about a minor change in the top rates is absurd.

I think I see a compliment in there somewhere. 😉

Yes, I may be a jerk, but I’m a logical one, and a reasonable one.

The only hope for our country is that there is a “silent majority” of level-headed, objective voters that can suppress the ignorant and extremist masses (on both sides.)

SDR, you have earned acceptance into our club.

Not all of us are jerks.

[quote=briansd1]We’re a big country with only two viable political parties. Unlike Europe, we don’t have governing coalitions of many parties.

There maybe disagreements on the left and on the right, but parties have to move to the center to win. The center is always changing because of demographics.

It seems like on the right, on social policies, religion, and the economy, the Republican party is moving further to the right.[/quote]

They are both exactly in the center. There is only one party. The overspend party that will eventually bankrupt our currency. What we need is a second party.