I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know too much about these elections as I am not in the USA. But what is up with the overreaction to "spreading wealth around"? That does not mean socialism/communism.

I does not mean just giving money to whomever wants it and doesn't feel like working. It just might make it possible to create a safety net for someone who gets laid off because he happened to get cancer or similar cases.

You people are so against sharing anything is makes me scared, don't you care about other people at all?

ninainindia, I'm not opposed to helping others. I'm opposed to being FORCED to help others. I give charitably all the time...to people who actually are going to make themselves better with it.

I see what welfare does. I work in programs with the recipients. I walk into houses with big screen tv's, brand new cars, and children who are hungry and have no shoes on their feet.

I'd rather choose for myself how MY hard earned money is spent.

oops, one more thing:

socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

You tell me where that is NOT "spreading the wealth"

There are various degrees of spreading wealth around. Spreading it around a little doesn't turn a country into a socialist state.

I understand what you are saying about people taking advantage or spending it the wrong way, but in every system you have these kinds of people. It would be wrong to not go forward because of some abusers.

I most certainly am not against helping people. I am against people with an entitlement attitude and that is what is developing in this country once people realize they can vote themselves a paycheck. There is a huge class warfare game going on in this country. We went from being a people that believes they can be successful, to a group that resents those that are.

I give more in charity in any given year than Joe Biden has in the last 10. But I give my money to organizations that don't have huge overhead and that are successful - ie: NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

It is the old addage - feed a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

I am all for helping that that cannot help themselves - essentially for me that means those with legitimate disabilities (not those that abuse that system), and children and the elderly to some extent. But we do have a huge class of people ABUSING the system. Not just one or two.

And define poor in this country -- is it two cell phones, cable tv, two cars and dinner out 3 times a week...oh and don't forget the fake nails! - because all of the sudden people collecting government money live just as I have described.

No thank you.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

I've been dirt poor and I've had an abundance of money, and now I'm somewhere in between. I don't want the government to take away my incentive to work harder so that I can give it - not to the indigent, but to some lazy, whiny, brat!

I hope so too!

Julie,

Thank you for your post. Tax dollars go to much more than just welfare programs, but for some reason certain people go on and on about how all their tax dollars go to just that. Sometimes I think that it's not about having to pay the taxes per se, but having to help those they don't feel are worthy of help.

Let me just say that if these people who are so afraid of socialism don't want any of their tax dollars going towards certain programs, I don't want any of *my* tax dollars going towards this bogus war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. Fascism scares me much more than socialism.

Yes, I do use these programs. However, I PAY FOR THEM. I pay my taxes. I also don't take government handouts when my house burns down because I am a responsible adult who a) pays for my insurance; b) have money put aside for such emergencies; and c) don't feel a sense of entitlement that everyone else must pay for my irresponsibilities.

We are also members to the National Parks and PAY EXTRA to be just that. So, I pay more for those things as well.

We give very charitbaly to organizations and individuals in need; it's a hand up not a hand out (they get it ONCE, and only to help them).

You'll also be glad to know that YOUR tax money puts food on MY table since I work for a government funded program that HELPS families become better and contribute to society through education and working opportunities...not hand outs.

If they told me tomorrow that there was no more funding for my job, I'm okay with that. I don't really forsee that happening, however it is always a real possibility when they make the budget every year.

Money gets wasted in MANY programs, not just welfare. I;m fine cutting spending in ALL areas; I just am "lucky" enough to see the waste that goes into the welfare recipients.

I'm all for charitable cases; I'm not for giving people a sense of entitlement.

As Karen stated: give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. My families eat for a lifetime and are able to teach others to fish as well.

SKL, you said:


With a few exceptions, people who make less than Joe Plumber (and me) do so because:

- they didn't invest the time and money in skills or education;
- they don't work as many hours per day;
- they don't conduct themselves as well on the job; and/or
- they don't care as well for their health.

How do you know this? How can you know this about everyone? You must have extrasensory powers or something. Seriously, how can you say that most people who are un- or underemployed fit into one of those 4 categories? Sometimes life hands people a raw deal. Sometimes people can pull themselves up just by working harder, getting trained and taking care of their health on their own. Sometimes, it's not quite that simple.

Joe Plumber may not be someone you want to use as an example in your postings. Turns out that he isn't even a licensed plumber, has no real plan in place to purchase the business he's talked about and is related by marriage to Charles Keating of the 1980's banking scandal. Also, the business that he talks about buying doesn't even net over $250K, so his taxes are going to go down. He doesn't seem to have a lot of credibility.

Juniper, first of all, unemployed people don't pay taxes, so you aren't making any sense. And yeah, I DO know for a fact that what I wrote in my previous post is true. Would you like to attempt to disprove it?

Secondly, I can't believe the way some previously anonymous guy is getting beat up because he dared to question Obama. This is typical of Obama's whole campaign and I'd hate to see what it might be like if he gets elected. This is beyond the farthest extent of dirty politics. I am glad to see the Obamites pursuing such a stupid tactic, though, because I think it will lose them votes.

My family makes under $250K, the magical cut off.
- my husband and I are both went to college and have many post grad credits.
- overtime is not an option at my husbands job and my job is salaried, so working hours do not count for everyone.
- my husband is professional and well liked at his job, and I have recently been asked to join a district committee (only teachers with "skills" who "conduct themselves well on the job" were asked to join.)
- not really sure what you meant on #4, but we both care about our jobs and family. I LOVE my job and my family.

So, Juniper, I have disproven SKL's strange logic. I think many people who make over $250 don't realize that those of us lower middle class still are good, honest, hard working people. We own our own home, we have 2 cars, we pay off our credit cards each month, recycle and have a wonderful little girl. Rich people are not the only successful people out there!

SKL, your only error in your comment is that you compare to those who make the $250K. What you should have said is that those who don't make enough to support their families on their own (without governement aide).

We do make less than that (way less) however, I think that we are very succesful. We have a roof over our heads, food on the table, clothes on our back, and are able to buy things we WANT, not just need. On top of all that, we don't have to rely on the government to do all this.

We also are able to make enough to give what little we can to those in need (by our choice).

So, even though we don't make that much, we are still successful. And I do account our success to not being like those that you listed. As an employer in an agency that helps low-income families, I see too often how right you are both from the employees I hire and the families we serve.

Jenni, I wasn't necessarily talking about $250K in the comments you are responding to. I was talking about enough money to be paying more taxes and still living well. Actually, neither Joe Plumber nor I currently make $250K. When I joined a business as a partner, I accepted lower take-home pay because I want the earnings to be reinvested for the long term (our business is mostly redevelopment of low-income communities, by the way). But, in my previous job I was making enough ($200K or more as an individual) to be taxed higher under Obama's stated plan. Also, I don't believe he's going to stop at that threshold.

I don't say everyone who doesn't work 12 hours a day is a lazy slob. But I do say they should have less disposable income than people who do work longer hours. Ditto for relative education levels, etc. Obama seems to think otherwise.