Jay_C "It is quite alright for Obama to advocate such a program, but calling it a tax cut is disingenious at best. " Even though I disagree with Obama's idea, you are right on.  Why not just call it what it is?  Why the shady tactics? tax cut? are you kidding me?  That that's like saying my dog is a cat.  Suspending disbelief doesn't even work.  One more reason not to trust the Obama Campaign.  We were asking "who is Obama"  Well we are staring to get ta better focus on that picture....Disingenuous at best.

John A. "33% of Americans do not pay taxes" is simply incorrect. What you perhaps mean to say is that a third of Americans do not pay Federal Income Tax, which is true. I'm in that bracket now myself. But we still pay all the other taxes everyone has to pay. We pay taxes on food. We pay taxes on gas. We pay taxes on all goods and services. We pay property taxes on our homes (yes, many of us low-income individuals do own their own homes -- I pay $3,000/year in taxes on mine), and we pay taxes on our utilities. Some of these taxes are local, some state, and some federal. But even the average individual below the poverty line is still paying over $1,000/year in taxes of some nature. Obama's plan lowers the taxes of individuals making under 20k by $567/year. It's frankly a little silly to call a modest reduction in tax liability "welfare".

C Stanley John A, it's not dishonest to say that you can't cut or rebate what was never to be paid in the first place. You admit that this group of people (including yourself) pays no federal income tax. You give a rationale for getting a check from the federal govt, saying that it's to offset the state and local taxes that you pay. If that's his intent, he should say so and then people could have an honest debate about it. That's not what he's doing though.

John A. Fair enough.  But I think to the average low-to-middle income citizen, they just see that they're paying a lot of "taxes".  Saying "oh, but those are STATE taxes, not federal" may be true, but from the taxpayer's perspective, its a distinction that doesn't help cope with dramatically rising food and gas prices.  :)  Let's say Obama gets what he wants, and families making under $20k/year get the full $567 "tax credit".  How exactly is this plan somehow a slippery slope to Marxist philosophy, and Bush's $600 "stimulus check" (which I did indeed receive) not?

C Stanley John A- you're absolutely right, the Bush stimulus checks were basically the same thing- but that's why it shouldn't be presented to the public under false pretenses. The reason we worry about a Trojan horse of Marxism (which is overstating it, to be sure, but still something along those lines) is that we see that policies are being brought on board in well, Trojan horses. And wouldn't it be logical, if Obama's plan for tax credits was presented as another round of the Bush stimulus checks, for people to examine whether or not those had the intended effects and whether or not there were any unintended consequences, as well as whether or not the same policy would be likely to produce a good effect the second time around? That's the kind of healthy debate that should surround such policies- but when they're presented in disingenuous ways, then people don't even realize what they're approving.

Lynne I would add one other wrinkle to this discussion: while everyone does pay various state and local taxes (such as food, etc.)- it is at least theoretically possible for people paying these local taxes to move to another area where the local taxes are lower. (I realize in reality not everyone can just relocate).  The rebate checks, however, are cut at the federal level- which means that although local taxpayers who pay no federal tax can relocate to maximize their tax savings, those paying into the federal coffers will have no choice but to give their money to those paying nonfederal taxes only.  Thus, those paying federal taxes are effectively a "captive" revenue source, while those paying only state/local taxes have some options to maximize their tax savings. That said, I should point out that I have lived both above and below the poverty line, and am currently unemployed.  So I understand the strains on nonfederal payers.

John A. Hey, the stimulus checks worked, didn't they?  I mean, the economy's soaring right now!  ;) I'm in a politically weird position these days.  I've voted Republican in every election since college, and was a 2000 McCain supporter and fundraiser.  But this will be the first time that I've been truly won over by a Democratic candidate for President.  No, I don't think he's "The One", but the Republican economic policies practiced by Bush, and endorsed by McCain, are simply failures.  By almost any objective measure, Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility, and Republicans are the ones who don't seem to care about National Debt expansion.  You can have tax cuts if coupled with spending cuts, but that's not how Republicans govern anymore.  If, therefore, expensive government programs seem to be inevitable, and neither party cares at all to reign in spending, then it at least makes more sense to elect the party who has a plan to pay for the spending.  Side note -- the reason I don't pay Federal income taxes now is because I went from making 90k or so a year to about 15k or so the last two years.  The reason is because I've started a business.  It is now growing quite nicely, I have many wonderful clients, and am hiring my first additional employees at my new location within the next month or so.  There may indeed be a time in which my business grows to a point where McCain-style tax policy would be more beneficial to me.  But I've gone over this with my accountant many times, and we're quite confident that, in these early stages, Obama's policies would be rather dramatically financially better for me and my business.  And really, in recent years struggling to get by, though I've still refused government assistance for food or anything of that nature, I certainly have come to respect the Democratic perspective that using government funds to help lift people up is something that benefits everyone.  And on some issues, especially health care, I've completely come around to the Democratic position.  It will be years before I have enough capital to be able to offer quality health care to upcoming employees.  This dramatically hurts the growth of my business, because it limits the quality of personnel I can attract.  Imagine how much more competitive the auto industry would be if they weren't spending thousands of dollars per vehicle on health care.  Private insurance companies can stay in business, but as someone paying for their own health care now, I frankly have lost faith that a fully private system can ever be cost effective or well run. As much as I admire the Ayn Randian philosophy of noble self-dependence, someone did, at one point, change Roark's diapers, teach him to read, buy him medicine, etc.  Perhaps if someone were to come along committed to libertarian principles, I might indeed listen.  But really, right now we have a Democratic "tax-and-spend" party, and a Republican "just-spend" party.  The former may be a shade closer to socialist/Marxist ideas, which I still loathe, but at least it's mathematically sustainable.  We're not going to be able to eliminate deficits and pay down the debt (let alone afford these huge promised entitlement programs) by giving more tax cuts.  We either have to stop promising the programs, or raise taxes in order to pay for them.  Since no one is willing to talk about reducing the programs, taxes are the only answer.  Republican "principles" -- racking up massive debt to our children and essentially selling our nation to China -- is near-treasonous in its selfish incompetence, and is leading this country into complete financial ruin.  After the last eight years, I'm more than willing to let the other side have a shot.

Jason, Managing Editor That’s the kind of healthy debate that should surround such policies- but when they’re presented in disingenuous ways, then people don’t even realize what they’re approving. I have found that not only are policy proposals presented in disingenuous ways, but then are also often criticized in equally disingenuous ways.  The constant refrain from the right about "socialism" as a reason to reject all government response the the financial crisis is an example of this -- the term is a "scare word" that serves to invoke a negative emotional response about the policy without actually discussing any practical dimensions of the problem of or available solutions. Tax policy proposals are infested equally with pejorative, emotional terminology and misrepresentation on both sides.  Tax cuts that are across the board are always presented as a "handout to the rich" even though the only reason that they are so in absolute dollar terms is because "the rich" pay the vast majority of all tax dollars and thus will by definition always benefit the most from a tax cut.  On the other side, tax credits targeted towards the poor like the earned-income tax credit and tax increases targeted on the wealthy are opposed as "redistribution" and "socialism" even though by definition revenue can only be raised in substantial amounts by taxing those who actually have money and stimulus can only be put into the economy by giving money to people who will, you know, actually spend it on products. Disingenuousness knowns no single party.

C Stanley   By almost any objective measure, Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility, and Republicans are the ones who don’t seem to care about National Debt expansion.  You can have tax cuts if coupled with spending cuts, but that’s not how Republicans govern anymore. John, with all due respect this is where I think you are fundamentally wrong (though I think you've got it wrong because of the information we're fed through a biased media.) The best debt hawks right now are in the conservative caucuses of the House, bar none, IMO. I could name at least a dozen of them, and can't think of a single person from the Democratic party that I trust to work on debt reduction. The Democrats pay lip service to the idea when they say they're for PAYGO, but even when they pass such measures they immediately go about finding ways to get around them. Instead of being a serious measure to provide accountability for spending, PAYGO ends up as political cover and the Dems then go on merrily proposing tax hikes on the rich while they claim that they'll help the middle class. I do appreciate the discussion though- it's nice to be able to discuss ideas instead of talking points.

John A. Me too!  I tend to feel a little party-less these days.  They don't make "Pro-life Atheist Republicans for Obama" t-shirts.  (Yet.) I think a Balanced Budget Amendment would help enormously.

C Stanley I should add, John, that the leadership of both parties in Congress is abysmal, on deficit spending and nearly everything else- so I can see why people hold the GOP more accountable since they were at the helm for 6 of the last 8 years under GOP president. But when you look at which party DOES contain more reformers, I think the GOP wins hands down even though they're not given the power they need (just as the Blue Dogs generally are serious about debt reduction through PAYGO, I think, but they don't get to decide policy.)

C Stanley John- I don't know that I could fit mine on a t-shirt- something like "Conservative Catholic, Christian but not Christianist, prolife but not single issue voter, hawkish but supportive of smart diplomacy backed by threat of force when necessary, fiscally conservative but compassionate and smart enough to recognize the need for safety nets, pro-comprehensive immigration reform, pro-business but supportive of smart regulation." That used to be a pretty good fit for the GOP and I hope it will be one day again soon- by default I still have to go with them since I see the alternatives as farther from my positions in almost all cases.

Jason, Managing Editor

Jason, when Obama himself says “I want to spread the wealth around,” it’s 100% honest to call his goal “redistributing wealth.” That’s because “spreading wealth around” is another term for “redistributing wealth.” Two different phrases meaning the exact same thing.

Perhaps.  But perhaps also if that term had not been so grossly overused to describe EVERY tax policy to the left of Tom DeLay for the last 15 years, it might have more credibility.

C Stanley That?s because ?spreading wealth around? is another term for ?redistributing wealth.? LOL, well, unless you want to spread something else around, that is In Jason's defense though, Michael, I am pretty sure it was your line about welfare that he'd object to, not the one you referenced there. But Jason, don't you see that the first step has to be calling things what they really are, albeit in the most neutral terms possible- and then calling people out on it if they try to use more inflammatory language to represent it? I just find that the thinking you describe is used as an excuse for hiding one's true policy intentions- calling something a tax cut becomes necessary, according to this thinking, because the bad guys on the other side of the aisle are going to kill it by calling it 'socialism' otherwise. We saw the same thing with the immigration (non)debate, when the dirty word "amnesty" was so feared that no one could get any traction for any plan which addressed the obvious need to do something other than deport the millions of illegals who are currently here.

Lenny Teytelman Today, the news of Obama saying that his economic plan will “spread the wealth around” is spreading quickly through the internet and John McCain has seized on it for his speeches. In light of this, I would like to point out a new web site, www.obamaforeconomy.com that has recently been rolled out to specifically address the false notion that Obama's policies are about redistribution. As is obvious from the many personal quotes that we collected from investors, business owners, Nobel winners, and economists, Obama's proposals are about stimulating the economy - not about robbing the rich for the sake of the poor.   The goal of the web site was to ask the people who would be taxed more under Obama, why they support his candidacy. While the web site is still just beginning to amass the quotes, it is already obvious from the powerful statements on it that Obama is the right candidate for growth of the US economy.  

Andreina I totally agree with those thinking Obama is a Trojan horse.  I truly believe that "redistributing the weatlth" as in the Marxist notion is his true intent.... his true policy intentions. As a side note, here are some little known but interesting info about the people Obama relates to, in the past and not in the too distant past, and not only as an acquaintance as he would like the people to believe.    "At an education forum in Venezuela, Bill Ayers showed the real issue is not his terrorist past. It's the socialist revolutionary agenda that he and Barack Obama want to impose on the nation's schools. Read More: Election 2008 Still more evidence of how the media are in the tank for Obama was evident in Tom Brokaw's description of Ayers on Sunday's "Meet The Press." "School reformer" is how Brokaw identified the co-founder of the Weather Underground, the radical organization that, among other activities, bombed government buildings, banks, police departments and military bases in the early 1970s. Yeah, right: Ayers is a school reformer in the same sense, as City Journal's Sol Stern put it, as Joe Stalin was an agricultural reformer. An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America's schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez. With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for "the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane." Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: "Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion." It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America. Ayers, now a tenured Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students. As Stern points out, "Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive." If Ayers was just another nutty professor, we'd be lucky. But he wields great influence in academic circles and has had Obama's ear. He's the author or editor of 15 books. Chicago's current mayor, Richard M. Daley, has employed Ayers as a teacher trainer for Chicago's public schools and consulted him on the city's education-reform plans. Just last month, Ayers was elected vice-president for curriculum for the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association. AERA is the nation's largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. In a recent interview on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," Obama upgraded Ayers' status from "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" to "somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know." Actually, Obama knew him quite well, having worked together on a school "reform" project called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Annenberg Challenge, securing a $50 million grant to reform the Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg. Obama was given the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office. He ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients. During Obama's tenure as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers' own education projects received substantial funding. One of Ayers' descriptions for a course called "Improving Learning Environments" says a prospective K-12 teacher needs to "be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation." John McCain needs to repeatedly point out the stealth socialism of Ayers' education agenda and Obama's complicity in it. Otherwise, we may one day see Ayers as Obama's secretary of education."

T.K. Farrow Trojan horse is an understatement.  I've worked for the MSM for years, and our behavior in this election has left me sick to my stomach.  There are quite a few relevant items about Senator Obama that have not been widely reported - or in some cases, reported at all.   I have yet to see a CNN story on the very topic of this thread: that "spreading the wealth around" has always  been Obama's agenda.  That is not, by the way, limited to spreading it from "wealthy" Americans to "poor" ones; spreading what's left of American wealth to poor countries abroad is another clear, longtime Obama goal.