http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78671

The Obama camp hasn’t a terribly clear explanation of its refusal to go beyond the legal requirement,

This way, Soros can give ten thousand $199 checks, & no one will know.

… Obama has been telling them to go ahead and vote
Terrye on October 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I took his advice and voted today, but I don’t think he was talking to me.

Count to 10 on October 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Yep.

Americans give about twice as much (as a percent of GDP) as Brits (who are the most generous Europeans) and three times as much as other European countries’ citizens.

According to Philanthropy UK:

“The most wealthy 10% account for about half of all individual giving in the USA; in Britain it is only a fifth.”

“American households with annual incomes over $200,000 give 7.4% to charity. UK households with similar income give 1.2%”

Let’s eat the rich (where’s Grue when you need him?). It won’t have a deleterious effect on our universities, hospitals, patient support groups, women’s shelters, rape crisis hotlines, AIDS research efforts, zoos, museums….

Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s promise everyone universal health care and a college education.

Don’t forget the negative effect on philanthropy. Less private charity = more spending on social programs.

Y-not on October 21, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Goes without saying, doesn’t it?
The US has been nationalizing charity since FDR.
Celebrities want people to know that they are helping the pour, and using their money to push the government to give money to the pour seems to be more efficient at getting attention than giving the money directly.
If its not out of bounds for an atheist like me to mention, isn’t there a line in the bible about not letting one hand know the other is giving to charity?

(AND PLAY IT UP, BIG TIME !!)

Of course, that’s not what would actually happen. The reality is that an increased tax rate on the rich will decrease tax revenues from them, and we are already running a deficit, so all of those checks Obama plans on mailing out will be funded by borrowing, which, in turn, soaks up the capital that would otherwise be used to expand the economy.
And this is before we factor in the borrowing necessary to fund Obama’s other projects.

Count to 10 on October 21, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Don’t forget the negative effect on philanthropy. Less private charity = more spending on social programs.

I thought this money came from donations on the tax return?

If you can’t tell the difference between this and a plan to tax the earnings of rich people and spread it around, which is Marxian socialism, then you need to head back to high school and take World Cultures again.

philwynk on October 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Of course, that’s not what would actually happen. The reality is that an increased tax rate on the rich will decrease tax revenues from them, and we are already running a deficit, so all of those checks Obama plans on mailing out will be funded by borrowing, which, in turn, soaks up the capital that would otherwise be used to expand the economy.
And this is before we factor in the borrowing necessary to fund Obama’s other projects.

So, then, Captain Genius, explain how that is not “spreading the wealth around”.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Please keep posting Dave. Every post forcefully demonstrates that being a leftard and having an ability to think are mutually exclusive.

btw, the answer is that the people of the State of Alaska are the owners of the land and the natural resources under them. The people of the USA are not the owners of Joe the Plumbers business and income. Simple enough for even a leftard.

Here in Indiana, people are already voting early. Obama has been telling them to go ahead and vote because after all they never know when their car might break down or they might not have money for gas. Poor little peasants. Maybe Barack should share that wealth and give all these poor little Democrats a ride to the polls. After all with all this money, he can easily afford to buy an election.

Speaking of how he made this money and all that, he made 9 million in one night at a Hollywood gala when a bunch of well heeled movie stars turned out to support the man of the people.

gag me.

MIDWEST DEMOCRACY NETWORK
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE:

Question I-B:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Yes No

Comments (please limit to 250 words or less):

I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

I thought “words mean things.”

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

I think we’re all missing the larger point here.

Let’s assume for a minute that Dave is absolutely right that Governor Palin’s plan is indeed socialism.

How would that then support the conclusion – Obama’s socialism is not a problem at all?

“Person X did something socialist therefore socialism is fine” is not a valid argument unless we’ve already established that Person X can do no wrong.

Somehow I doubt that Dave is making the argument that Sarah Palin can do no wrong, therefore, I fail to see what his argument is at all.

If you can’t tell the difference between this and a plan to tax the earnings of rich people and spread it around, which is Marxian socialism, then you need to head back to high school and take World Cultures again.
philwynk on October 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM

To the collectivist, EVERYTHING is collectivism. We ‘free’ enterprise mavens are really just puppets who don’t yet realize we’re dancing on strings; futiley bucking against the tides of historical inevitability.

The philosophy of liberalism is pure tautology. The only thing about it that can’t be denied is its simplicity.

It doesn’t change the fact that the Palin put through legislation that taxed oil companies and the proceeds were REDISTRIBUTED to every man, woman and child in Alaska.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Simply beyond belief.

The oil is owned by the state of Alaska. The oil companies lease the land, and then draw the oil out of the ground, but it’s not really their oil. So, they have to pay Alaska for the oil. That’s your “tax,” idiot. Geez. This is pure capitalism.

If you can’t tell the difference between this and a plan to tax the earnings of rich people and spread it around, which is Marxian socialism, then you need to head back to high school and take World Cultures again.

Of course, you know perfectly well how different these are; you’re just a shill for the D liars, and don’t mind prostituting yourself for their benefit.

Must be an old ACORN trick…..

Starlink on October 21, 2008 at 11:27 AM

And who trained ACORN?

Why are liberals so angry? Repressed sexual frustration?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 21, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Infantile response to any frustration.