Collegiate Times

Best article yet. Thank you

Erika, you've been drinking too much McCain Kool-Aid. I've been working for 35 years, saving for retirement and living a fiscally responsible life. Thanks to the Republican policies of the last eight years, my savings have been decimated in the recent financial crisis and I won't be getting any help with my mortgage because it's not subprime and I make my payments. Oh, and I don't qualify for those Bush tax cuts for the wealthy either. And you're whining about redistribution of wealth? You must have missed the massive upward spreading of the wealth in recent years. Just who are these "people who blindly expect government support"? Surely you don't mean AIG, Bear Stearns and big banks? Oh no, it's those icky, lazy poor people who are so inconvenient to our great American society. Just remember, there but for the grace of God.... Good luck out there.

"Thanks to the Republican policies of the last eight years" should be "Thanks to the Democratic policies of the last twelve years." There, fixed that for you. See Bill Clinton repeals Glass-Steagall act in 1999, or Bill Clinton changes Community Reinvestment Act in 1995. Maybe you missed the roll call for the bailout package here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml where two thirds of republicans voted nay. Honestly I'm stoked about this wealth redistribution thing. I mean, just look at social security. I've just started paying into it, and I can't wait to see what I get back when I retire in 40 years.

What do your grandparents do all day? Mine Grandfather lives in Florida and golfs and bowls weekly. He also reads the paper daily and visits the pool nearly every day. You could argue he sits around all day and waits for his government check. But, what really got me laughing at you is your lack of insight into the loss of jobs, an addition 2.2 million people last month. So, get a job? More like try to find out who is hiring because you are missing the scroll at the bottom of Fixed News telling you that companies are laying off hundreds and thousands of workers. Good luck in your job search, but don't classify everyone else as lazy.

To Yawn: Presumably, your grandfather collects a check because he has paid into Social Security for his entire working career. That's how SS works: the government takes your money from you (since clearly they can invest it better than we the moronic people), then they start paying it back to you once you reach the appropriate age.

Not everyone who receives a check from the government is pond scum. I became disabled during college and my meager college student savings didn't get me very far. I could no longer work, but still had to pay rent so I applied to the social security office for disability. For me, it was short term, but it is a flawed system that makes transitioning back to the workforce difficult.

Wow, that was so perfectly put! I would agree 100%. And for those who are "enraged" because you recieved governemnt support and blah,blah, blah...the writer said "I am for helping people who need BRIEF assistance to get back on their feet." But, this is simply for those, and we ALL know they are out there--we have seen, if not, heard of people who know the government will simply take care of them. It's positively ridiculous. I work hard everyday 8-5 for my husband and I, NOT for some idiot who knows his check will roll in every month and thinks that he'll look for a job "tomorrow". As far as social security, that's a completely different subject--those who retire and have paid social security their ENTIRE life deserve to get those checks--not the idiot who sucked off the government his entire life and amounted to nothing.

It has been the Democrats' policies that have suffocated this countrys economy. Labor unions are leaches on this society. You can't regulate the free market so that it is always going up, thats just retarded.

The fact that the CT still employs you after the embarrassing and ignorant articles you write amazes me. Do us all a favor and just quit.

Jason T: Thanks for the lesson but I already knew it. I am an educated elitist liberal who wants to give money for nothing and believes that making a master list of everyone who receives welfare or food stamps is wrong because then we could check when they applied and cut them off at a certain point, plus as a republican like you, or a libertarian would argue it infringes upon their civil liberties. Not like the current administration would want to defend those. Besides, the party in power almost exclusively for the past couple years could not have been the Republicans, NO WAY!!

Anon, do us all the favor and do not excercise your 2nd ammendment

This is a perfect example of people who do not research their facts before they think something. This whole article seems to be based on the words "spreading of the wealth". But if you did your homework instead of just letting someone swing the way you think you would know that McCain is doing the same thing, "spreading the wealth". The truth is that you assume that money will be taxed from you and given to people who don't deserve it. When in-fact unless you own your own business or make over like 200 grand a year you will either get a tax break or stay the same. The plus side is that hopefully if you work for a small company who doesn't provide health insurance, they will be made to do so, with a tax breaks. Is that what you call spreading of the wealth , i don't think so! I just don't understand how people, mostly Republicans I know, can just follow someone's words without figuring it out for them selves, or having their own opinion. Do some research so you don't look like an idiot. No, they let someone tell them how to think. I just wish people would do some research before they typed up words to be put on such a public forum. It really makes me Sad!

Exactly right.. which is why neither of them should get our votes. BOTH voted in support of the socialist "Bailout." Vote 3rd party and send Washington a message.

Joey: that was the most incomprehensible gobblygook I've ever read. "The truth is that you assume that money will be taxed from you and given to people who don't deserve it. When in-fact unless you own your own business or make over like 200 grand a year you will either get a tax break or stay the same." What? I think you are trying to say that only people who make over $200,000/year (which was $250,000 at one point, and Biden's now saying $150,000) need to worry about higher taxes. And the business owners... the rest of us will be getting "tax cuts." Now explain to me how 95% of Americans will get tax cuts when approximately 35% don't pay any federal income tax? Do those 35% deserve a tax cut when they don't actually pay anything? What Obama is proposing is taking money from the 65% that pay taxes and giving it to the 35% who don't. This reaches far deeper than just those making $150,000/year, so we all should be worried.

By the way, he's not really the modern Robin Hood. Robin Hood took from the rich that which was stolen from the poor and gave it back to the poor. Obama is taking from the rich, middle class, and the poor, and giving it to the government.

GREAT ARTICLE. Poeple are idiots. By saying that he is for the middle class, Obama is grabbing the attention of the majority of people and that is all he is trying to do; get votes. Look at his policies. In reality, some of them are not even possible, plus Biden has voted the exact opposite of Obama in many cases. He simply votes the most liberal in every single case. He is nothing more than a good public speaker with NO experience and terrible values and he is trying to play off of people wanting Change in this country. Do a little research about his past too.

Does anyone in here know anything about taxes? Lets look at a few facts about taxes... we currently use a progressive tax system, whereby the poor are taxed a smaller percentage that the middle class, the middle class less that the rich. All of this money goes to the government to help pay for programs that everyone uses (healthcare, transportation, defense, education, etc). Therefore, the current administration is spreading the wealth as well. If you dont want to spread the wealth, too bad, you have done it before if you've ever paid taxes so you are all "socialists." Tax cuts for 95 percent of americans does not include the entire population. In order to receive a tax cut, you must pay taxes. How can you cut something when that something is zero?

WOW, you are really ignorant of the reality of living in America!! You mustve grown up rich, because reality check but - poor people arent lazy, they are trying to SURVIVE. Being born into generational poverty is extremely different than growing up in generational wealth. "Minimum wage" is not even a living wage - people have to work 2-3 jobs just to make enough money to feed their families! Plus, welfare has time limits if you didnt realize, so people cant just spend their lives mooching. There are some people at the bottom that abuse the system, but look at ALL of the people at the TOP that abuse the system, finding loopholes to stay as rich as possible and scheming to pay less taxes. You have to realize that people start at different places depending on what situation they are born into, how much money their parents make, and where they live. Everyone deserves a chance, and I agree that moochers should be stopped, but so should those corporate CEOS and rich people that screw the system too!!

What's wrong with equal income? Why should some big fat business man make more than I do at McDonalds? LOL!!1 I work hard two days a week (when I'm not watching People's Court on TV). I also can't support my crack habit and pay for my 10 illegitimate kids. THIS IS GEORGE W. BUSH'S FAULT. I can't wait for the Messiah to take office

How did Collegiate Times approve this dribble? You can disagree with Obama's plan, you can even call him a socialist, just so long as your arguments have at least some grounding in truth. You don't say anything about Obama's plan or how you interpret it to be an increase in welfare provisions besides saying "he said spread the wealth! Commie!". Your crassly neoliberalist argument is merely a repeat of the tired (& untrue) idea that welfare just helps lazy people who don't want to work. This is what Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity will tell you...but you might want to look at the facts, because they don't.

3 of 3 The US has the same (high) degree of income inequality as Ghana and Cambodia. We have a small welfare state compared to nearly all other advanced democracies. We don't even provide our citizens with health care like nearly every other developed nation does. The proportion of the federal budget we're spending on the type of welfare you're referring to is extremely low. Welfare makes up like 12%, & when you remove Social Security, Medicare, & corporate welfare, its tiny. The amount you pay in your taxes to fund Bush's tax cuts to the rich is more than you pay to give to the poor. Far more of your tax money goes to tossing money at big oil companies. Far more of your tax money goes to fund the War in Iraq.

To Yawn: Thanks for laying on the sarcasm so heavily; I'd have hated to miss it. You certainly didn't represent yourself as one who knows anything about the Social Security system. As for the comments since: yes, it is true that we already redistribute wealth via a progressive tax system, so in some sense what Obama said was not news. The issue at hand is whether this is the right thing to do philosophically. I happen to think that it is not. No doubt, people are all born into unique circumstances, which is unfortunate because the playing field is not level from the start, but not everyone is born with the same intelligence or physical capabilities either. What do we do about that? Give everyone a lobotomy so we're all on equal footing? While "all men are created equal" is a nice slogan, we all know that it's not really true. In a capitalist society, certain people are just more apt to be wealthy than others, and while this may be unfortunate to those at the bottom, I'm not sure I see an easy solution. It would be nice to assign wealth based on measuring the difference between what was expected of a person based on their birth situation vs. what they have actually achieved, but this is simply not practical.

By the way, NKR, those "tax cuts for the rich" are really just taking a stab at making things more equal, percentage-wise. The only reason you get to call it a cut is because it was even more inequitable before.

Dear Rush Limbaugh listener, Put the drugs down you sheep. Thanks, Reasonable Americans

The major problem I, personally, have with Obama's tax plan has to do with the rhetoric he uses to support it. It's one thing, of course, to assess 'the rich' for services of which they use an inequitable amount (ie, if a shipping company requires naval security in order to maintain its ability to conduct commerce, then it would be reasonable to assess that company more for the added service it needs). It's another thing entirely to promote what amounts to a rhetoric of class warfare. Obama's plan seems to be less aimed at generating the revenue needed to keep the government operation, but rather aimed at taking money which has, by his standard, been 'ill-gotten' by the wealthier aspects and passing it on to the people who were somehow (he never explains how) extorted by these rich people. The long and the short of it is, our society (with a few exceptions) doesn't actually work this way - and historically, no society which has accepted an economic system supported by class warfare has proven economically or politically successful.

That's not to say that I agree with the current system. I'm actually a proponent of the 'fair tax,' which would elimenate income and all other taxes and replace them with what is commonly called a 'consumption tax.' It's not as complicated as the current system either - when you buy stuff (and not all stuff is tax-eligible, either), some of the money you spend goes to the government. Rich people tend to buy more stuff - and would consequently pay more taxes. But that's a moot point. I'll conclude with one final saying - The rich get rich by acting poor, and the poor stay poor by acting rich. We live in a society which promotes quite a bit of economic mobility. Take a moment next time you look at statistics which aggregate people into classes (ie, xx% of people are impoverished) and try and look instead at how many people who were impoverished THIS year remained impoverished 5 years later. The number will be higher than you expect. . .

Encinas, you should be ashamed of yourself for taking Barack's words out of context and distorting their meaning in such a public space. I hope other students are smart enough to see this for what it is. This is a biased rant -- not a respectable article. The Collegiate Times should know better.

Dear Erika, please reimburse us for your tuition subsidy. Thank you for your unflinching refusal to accept a spread of the wealth. And please make it cash, we don't trust your socialized bank.

Old fart...I mean John?, Is that you? Thanks for taking time out of your campaign of lies and invective to hurl some around on this site. We love you John, now go back to Arizona where you can limit your bank failures to that state.

Alana, how much more context do you need than Obama's own? "I believe that when you spread the wealth around, everyone benefits." That's not some paraphrase, that's his actual words. Now as a personal philosophy, perhaps it has some merit - and I encourage everyone to give as much as possible to charities. But at the end of the day, the government isn't a charity, and the President isn't Constitutionally permitted to determine who deserves what amount of money. Neither is the Congress. So what Sen. Obama advocates is a system which runs counter to the structure of the federal government as espoused in its chartering document. How can a man swear to uphold and defend a document he specifically desire to trample upon? If only we could elect Ron Paul. . .

How about we get rid of the party system that GW said we should never have because this article and many of the comments are prime examples of BLIND PARTY FAITH VOTING. Vote from knowledge of candidates not just because mommy and daddy said you were republican!

Take a break from your rant and include some concrete evidence of your claims. I read your "article" many times and could find none, which speaks volumes of your ability as a journalist. To get to the point, the phrase "spreading the wealth" was manufacted by the McCain campaign, similarly to Obama's terrorist ties. This reeks of desperation, I'm shocked you can't see it. To old fart: It's pathetic you use one of the worst events in human history so casually as well as including no explanation for including it. You are what is wrong with this country.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." From "The Wealth of Nations"

I can't believe this race is as close as it is. Mccain is clearly a senile idiot, while Obama is one of the most intelligent and capable leaders. End of story.

"I think that when you spread the wealth around, everyone benefits." I believe that was the direct quote from Sen. Obama. So unless a McCain handler told Obama to say it while he was being filmed, it wasn't a phrase manufactured by anyone but Obama himself. You'll note, Adam Smith, that this country actually employs only a very few of the policies you proclaim in "The Wealth of Nations," and that there is a fundamental difference between the public expenses your book is talking about and 'tax rebates' which Obama wants to provide. Smith's policies weren't about wealth redistribution but were rather about maintaining the abilities of government to remain strong enough to help the businesses thrive. Successful businesses invariably require more public resources than the average citizen, and consequently need to pay for those resources in the proportion to which they use them. That's very much different from claiming that poor people deserve the money that the rich people have. And incidentally, I think they're both idiots. Obama may be charismatic, but in my book charismatic idiocy qualifies one to be a used car salesman and little else.

You are a Godsend [yes, i said God]. You are brilliant. I want to meet you for drinks sometime. You have no idea how happy I am to hear something from a more conservative viewpoint in the CT. And I'm shocked that these Obamabots on here really just don't get it; I mean, I'd vote for Obama too if I could sit on my butt and do nothing while collecting a welfare check. But the big difference between Obama supporters and myself is that I was raised to do work for a living. If you don't work--you don't get money. End of story. If I feel like "spreading my wealth" then I'll do so by giving back to my church out of the goodness of my heart, not because someone takes my money and makes me. Obama has all this money why can't he spread the wealth on his own? And for that matter, his running mate doesn't share [he barely gave $3,700 last year to charity and he makes more than my parents combined and we are upper-middle class]. So if you liberals like spreading the wealth because it makes you feel better, then fine--but don't include me in your plan. I keep the money I work hard to make.

Your comments echo that of McCain and his handlers for good reason - they play into yours and others artificially created fear of "socialism". Nothing about Obama's plans suggest handouts for those workers making less. A smaller portion of their income - as in money earned - as in earned from a job or some other reputably source - will be collected by the governement to support the civilization around us. It is also used to support the university at which you study. He has no desire to increase handouts to the unemployed. He does plan to continue the earned income tax credit, which is money given by the government to those who do not make very much money. The earned income tax credit was created and instituted by Ronald Regan, a man who I'm sure you would not have a problem with.

"I mean, I'd vote for Obama too if I could sit on my butt and do nothing while collecting a welfare check." First of all, Obama's statement on spreading the wealth has been blown way out of proportion. Mccain took this one statement and ran like hell. I'd like some proof that Obama indeed plans to take welfare to such extremes. Secondly, those of you who agree with the author on this are thinking way to abstractly. I've spent years working in places ranging from inner cities to some of the poorest areas in africa. I have not met a single person who would choose to waste their life and just live on welfare. Quite the contrary. These people have a tremendous desire to earn a living to support themselves and/or their families. Don't forget to take a look at your own situation. Generally, those of us in college are children of moderately successful parents, who in turn are children of moderately successful parents, and so on. Essentially, you will be at the same socio-economic level as your parents, and this fact is nearly impossible to escape. So for those of you who believe you worked hard to get to where you are, think again. Truth is, your position in society was determined far before you were even born.

This is America and not everyone can be equal. The world needs ditch diggers, McDonalds workers, garbage men and construction workers, just as much as it needs high paying jobs. Some people succeed through life and some people don't. Some people make millions, some people make hundreds. The problem with Obamas plan is that it will make people in the lower class work less to attain financial freedom. Although I was born more privileged than most I understand how hard it is to go from lower class to middle class or to upper class. My suggestion to those people is to work harder. If you want it bad enough you will get it, and if you don't Mr. Obama will get it for you.

To anonymous @ 11:06pm: Well put. I agree what you have to say except that Obama's plan will encourage the lower class to work less. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, but at any rate it is still just an assumption.

"My suggestion to those people is to work harder." Talk about an oversimplification.

Not all lower class people will work less because Obama will support them. There will still be a good amount working hard to do better in life, but I also believe there will be many who simply give up.

"I agree what you have to say except that Obama's plan will encourage the lower class to work less. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, but at any rate it is still just an assumption." "Obama will make a good president," sounds like a reasonable assumption, but it too is also just an assumption.

Let's face it, the collegiate times isn't exactly the "hub of election news" that no one expects it to be. The fact is that the one time a conservative article is posted, everyone throws their hands up in the air like the whole building is on fire. The CT is a liberal newspaper, the entire BACK of the paper had a huge Obama ad. There is one dissenting opinion and you wish to attack the writer? Grow up. Seriously, you are in college. I am glad that someone finally gave a different viewpoint instead of reading biased journalism every day, five days a week, like the biased television wasn't enough? So please, if you wish to voice a dissenting opinion, keep it on the issues. Not the "lack of journalist fact." The amount of poorly researched Obama propaganda is a little too much for the stomach to take and the second we complain we are just some "bigoted Republican idiots". A) I am not a Republican. Just someone who can do my research. B) I am an engineering student, like most of Virginia Tech. Last time i checked, that does not make me an idiot. Thank you for your time.

To "I don't care what party your are" I have no problem with conservative articles, but this article is not an argument based on a critical evaluation of Obama's plans, & doesn't support its claims with an facts or statistics. In the past the CT has posted well-written conservative articles (with sound arguments). This is just ideological ranting. I'm completely against people who scam the welfare system & avoid work, too. None of Obama's policies would increase social welfare. They would only give (modest) tax cuts to the middle & lower class. See http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html

All I'm saying is, that if you're willing to put your mouth where your money is, you should be willing to put you're money where your mouth is. Give back your tuition subsidy NOW. Take a principled stand, or be a hypocrite. It's your choice. Please deliver $8767 for 06-07; $8772 for 05-06; and $8259 for 04-05 to our legislature immediately.

Cool it: "Essentially, you will be at the same socio-economic level as your parents, and this fact is nearly impossible to escape." This is absolutely not true. Historically we live in one of the most class mobile societies. If you have a decent skill set and work hard, you will prosper even with the government's endless interference. I am a prime example. I lived poor enough for a substantial portion of my childhood to collect welfare (although my mother was too proud to take it). I now nearly have a Ph.D. paid for by loans, merit based scholarships I earned, and working. When I graduate soon, I will be making 3 times my mother's currently salary my first day at work. Many "poor" people by government standards are that way by choice. My brother enjoys his "poor" life. He didn't want to go to college and work for a degree (he's smart enough). He was happy getting a factory job for 40 hours a week and living in a trailer in the woods.

Notice I qualified my statement at the beginning with "generally". In no way did I say this was the rule. You are clearly an exception, even more so taking your brother in to consideration, and I genuinely congratulate you for your success.

You really can't equate the assumption that Obama's welfare program will encourage laziness to the assumption of Obama's capabilities as a president. Taking a look at the definition of assumption should help: "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof." So whereas there is little to no proof that his welfare program will cause laziness, there is substantial evidence of Obama's qualifications. He has been in government for years, and has enough of a track record to disprove any assumption of his qualifications as president. Totally unrelated, is this newspaper part of virginia tech? It seems like a majority of the people and topics here are about VT.

No, but I can legitimately infer a philosophy of governing from Obama's remarks and disqualify him on that basis. Economic policies of protectionism have historically been miserable failures (see the Hawley-Smoot Tariff), and economic policies centered around increasing the size of the welfare state have similarly proved to be economically disastrous (see the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, as well as the Great Society program). Obama could have all the experience in the world (he doesn't), but if he's unwilling to look at historical implications of his policy proposals and unwilling to look at the Constitution to assess to what extent the Presidency is endowed political power (VERY little), then it seems like his qualifications become fairly moot.

I think welfare is a lot more complicated than "sitting on your butt". Sometimes it's not your fault you can't get a job. Say there aren't enough for everyone. Like in Appalachia. What if you get injured? You go blind? Get sick? Get pregnant, father runs off and can't afford a babysitter and you can't work because you have to watch the child? Are we supposed to let them starve? Also, welfare is not a very comfortable way to live. If you really want to be lazy, working somewhere may be a better choice because just getting by on welfare wouldn't be so relaxing. It's not about freebies. It's about compassion while doing EVERYTHING we can to keep people from exploiting the system. I don't understand why you are arguing the welfare system. that's not going to change. You can't blame welfare on Obama. That's not where it started, last time I checked. And I am positive that McCain would NEVER abolish welfare.

To "The Virginia Taxpayers," your comment becomes nonsensical because a refund of the subsidy to the state would only be redistributed again to someone else. It's one thing to take a principled stand against a general policy - but the overarching point here is that taxation has become overblown anyway. Keep in mind, the original Constitution explicitly banned direct taxation of the population. I'm of the opinion that the government has no business subsidizing anything at all - but it isn't going to convince the government of anything unless everyone receiving the subsidy forfeits it. It'd be hypocritical of the author to advocate for herself receiving a subsidy and against the same benefit for others - but what she argues is that no such subsidy should exist in the first place.

No, she argues against "spreading the wealth" but happily accepts her spread. That is hypocritical, and because of it, her arguments lose all credibility. We're not going to subsidize her tuition so that she can be lazy. Apparently she isn't principled enough to give the subsidy back and get a second job. You should too. The more adamant of you claiming socialism and decrying spreading the wealth should give your money back, so that the subsidy can quickly be lowered, then eliminated. For you oh-so-industrious ones, it's a place to start. Remember?, you're a thousand points of light. Oh wait, it's easier to sit on your wealth-spreaded behind, whining about taxes. You'll take the money with one hand, while blogging against it with the other. Never mind.

Rejecting the 'wealth spread to her' would only amount in that wealth being re-spread somewhere else. What the author advocates is a wholesale change to the system - which can't happen unless more than just her stand up and give back the money they've been given. I'm personally of the opinion that no school should be publicly funded - but the state disagrees, primarily because a well-educated populace is crucial to economic stability and growth (not saying that those are bad things, but I'm always skeptical when the government claims it can do things better than I can for myself). My job is just fine, thanks - and I'm paying for that 'subsidy' now by paying my taxes into the Virginia coffers (and the Federal ones). Don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm a student. And don't make the mistake also of believing that the state won't make up it's subsidy when you have graduated and found employment as well. A subsidy isn't a subsidy if you have to pay it back. . . .

You kind of used the wrong example of Robin Hood. Robin hood took from the King that had confiscated from his subjects and gave it back to those people. The correct example would be closer to Carl Marx, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. As for leading by example... Remember when we all got those 600 or 1200 dollar "rebate checks a few months ago? I sent mine back with a note: Please return this to the person whom you stole it from. Now I'm not so stupid to think they actually returned that money to anyone, but I couldn't keep that money that wasn't mine. I still have to live with myself. I see some trying to blame Earned Income Credit on Ronald Regan. While he did expand on it some, that came from Jimmuh Cahtah.

FYI. There are 150,000 federal government employees that earn 100,000 and up per year. How can private enterprise compete with the Federal Government for hiring talent. To those that are decrying the loss of thier savings over the "Last 8 years of failed Bush policies". The dow dropped to the new lows when Democrats were in control of the money. I think looking at blaming George Bush for your problems is a clear exhibit of BDS (Bush Deraingement Syndrome" The tax breaks "To the Rich" is a fallacy. The tax breaks were ACROSS THE BOARD! Everybody got tax breaks. When decrying the 17 billion that Exxon Mobile posted as extreme, does anyone realize that the same organization paid 32 billion in Taxes? Sometime you have to think for yourself instead of getting your talking points from Daily Kos.

Honestly I agree with the poster. Obama seems like a smart guy but when I heard him say "spreading the wealth around" I really had to take another look at him. I like his tax cuts, I mean, who doesn't like getting more money, but reading up on it sheds a new light on not only where that money is coming from, but where it's going. People making over $250k or more are going to have about 50k more taken out in taxes. This translates into modest tax cuts for the middle class. Furthermore, he's proposing to turn tax credits into a payout system. Normally if you have a lot of tax credits it just erases what you owe or gets what you paid out back in the form of a refund. Obama's plan gives refunds to people who didn't even pay out the taxes in the first place. Charity should not be forced, especially by an organization so poor at handling money. Such a shame, I had high hopes for Obama.

Yes, I was going to vote for McCain, until he and his campaign took a stupid turn of phrase by Obama during an offhanded conversation with a McCain supporter, and went too far with it. Clearly Obama was trying to calm down the aggressive Joe the Plumber, just like McCain was trying to calm down the "I'm afraid he's an Arab" McCain supporter by saying Obama is a decent person. Did the Obama Campaign jump on that term and start crowing that "Obama is decent, McCain admits it, case closed on Obama's "associations"!"...no they didn't. I refuse to be associated with this "socialist" fear mongering. Regardless of who is elected, our government "spreads the wealth" in so many ways that to call one use of this phrase while trying to calm an aggressive idiot as "socialist" and then to run around like chicken-little crying that the sky is falling, cheapens the discussion and insults me. McCain must think I'm stupid to buy that stuff. Well, I'm not dumb enough to believe it, and consequently, not dumb enough to vote for him.

I'm not about to vote for someone for president who has never been in charge of anything. That's just absolutely foolish.

I agree. McCain has never been in charge of anything, including his campaign. At least Obama has been Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review, and in charge of his campaign.

If you want to have it your way, you must look at both ways. How about defense contractors that get contracts because they have ties with important people (e.g. Cheney)? How about adding $1.2 billion to an already established contract with Northop Grumman without extending any contract requirements. How about the rich that got to where they are because of the lack of moral values? How about those that sit around and do nothing but make 150,000k a year working for defense contractors. If you want to simplify the "spreading of the wealth" concept so much as to say the poor will sit around and do nothing, then you must stop and look it the way things have been the past eight years. Giving money to someone for nothing is "spreading the wealth" in my mind, so we have been doing that for the past eight years as well.

Photoshop is an amazing tool for altering reality, but it's only really great when you're aware of its effects. There are several tools existing to help people detect Photoshopped images. Of them site <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> offers the best result. Unlike other forensic analysis tool, pskiller.com analyzes image integrity in the content level, which is more accurate and reliable.