Well....you can go ahead and " refuse " all you want...but guess what.

You aren't going to have a choice in the matter. If you make more than 250K....yer in it whether you like it or not.

Unless, of course, you decide to move to Canada or something.

Canada, what a great idea! All the wealthy people will move to Canada and leave the poor people here and THEN they will HAVE to work, right?

The thing too, is: There are many poor people who DO work very hard.

There are people working 2-3 jobs just to make it. I used to be there, dont get me wrong, and I DO have sympathy for those people.

I dont, however, think that those people will be struggling indifinitely. Eventually, because they are hard workers and will fight to survive, they will rise to a higher wage, either through hard work and experience or through an education.

Tina

I don't believe that is necessarily true, Tina.

You can work your ass off for minimum wage, and as long as the employer can GET you to work your ass off for that wage, they are not very likely to raise it any.

Education is a possibility, but how many of those people who work 2 or 3 jobs, and have a family to take care of, actually have the time to be able to get that education? They can't drop one of the jobs in favor of getting the education because to do so would be to make their family go without something.

I do see your point. What many people don't know, is that there is much federal funding for college now. When I went, I got grants. This not only paid for my education, it also gave me some to live off of. In addition to grants, you can get student loans, though yes, you will have to pay them back, the money made after graduation will make that pay-back seem so worth it (if the loans are taken in moderation).

And then, working a full-time job, that should take care of all the family's needs.

Tina

That was cynical and cruel and puts you in the same category as the idiotic woman who refused to give Halloween candy to kids whose parents supported Obama. It's also not an example of "walking the talk." More like "Christian" hypocrisy at its worst.

Cynical, cruel, idiotic.....lovely adjectives to apply to someone and not on the constructive side...

Lindyy

I am sure some of some these arguments about who's at fault are easier to swallow when you say 'poor people" as if they are some how less than you or your hard working neighbors.

The phrase "poor people" conjures an image of those on welfare, those who are too lazy or stupid to work, those who chose not to try to better themselves.

That just isn't the case.

A large portion of "poor people" work very hard, have two parent families and pay taxes. Why are they poor? Yes, lack of fiscal responsibility plays some part in the mix but there's something more.

People are working longer hours now for less. As the cost of living rises faster than their pay advances, as fewer jobs are created that offer benefits and more companies that did offer them drop them and as existing jobs shift from higher paying manufacturing and skilled labor positions to service sector positions, more and more people are becoming poor despite being hard working and responsiable.

Please, don't try to escape dealing with this mess by over simplifying.

The numbers of working poor are rising fast. It's a disaster that is unfolding now as we can plainly see. The answer isn't in a us and them mentality. Why? because we can or should be able to see that we are all in this together.

Poor people do work!! Sometimes they work two jobs to put food on the table.

And accurate.

You're a crappy tipper. I would urinate in your food and rub your steak on my arse if you ate in my restaurant.

I made a "club" baloney sandwich just for you

Lindyy

now THAT is a bit on the negative side

gives true meaning to " shid on a shingle "...lol...

I haven't eaten baloney in years.

I should hope not...it's terrible for you...

You all forgot to add immature.

Now for some facts for those people who scream about Obama. Get the hook out of your mouth please and look at McCain's plans.

The facts are that McCain had plans to redistribute wealth too.

His version was different from Obama's but no less a redistribution.

Government redistributes wealth to some extent by its very existence, since it's impractical for citizens to pay for or benefit from it in equal proportion, even if that were desirable. So long as you have a system of taxation and a spending on public goods like education and roads, some people will do better in the bargain than others.

Redistribution has a "from" side—taxation—and a "to" side—spending. On the "from" side, the notion that government should use taxation to increase rather than decrease equality is hardly Marxist.

Adam Smith begins his section on taxation in The Wealth of Nations, with the following maxim: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities." To ask otherwise, Smith writes, would be obviously unfair.

McCain adheres to his hero Teddy Roosevelt's principles. Unlike George W. Bush, John McCain supports the retention of an estate tax (he favors reducing it to 15 percent on estates above $5 million). McCain opposes the Flat Tax, which would repudiate progressivity (though with a $46,000 exemption, it would still redistribute income).

McCain doesn't support the repeal of Social Security, or Medicare, or a raft of other wealth-spreading programs like food stamps. McCain also supports new redistributive measures, such as a tax credit to help people with lower incomes purchase health insurance.

McCain wanted to redistribute from the top down. We have seen just how well trickle down works haven't we?

a 3 dollar tip?? Miserly AND meanspirited..classic "Quickie"

trickle down actually increase revenues to the treasury...the problem was on the spending side...look it up !...