Ok if you want to SEE the video go here:

A.  A waitress making $25,000/year who is receiving an earned income credit and day care assistance?

B.  An unemployed machinist who is receiving a federal unemployment extension?

C.  A couple with a combined income of $75,000 and two children who received a tax rebate of $1,800 this year while their neigbors who made $150,000 received nothing despite paying a higher tax rate?

D.  A corporate CEO of a major investment firm who secured a $15 million bonus this year following approval of the Bush-Paulson bailout plan?

E.  The mid-level management executive of a French arms contractor who received a $50,000 Christmas bonus as a result of a new no-bid contract from the U.S. Government to supply the Egyptian government with armored vehicles?

My guess is that the answer will be D & E.  

Brady makes a great point here and what he is saying is absolutely true.  The vast majority of those that receive the most benefits from state-sponsored redistribution of wealth will support the redistribution of wealth.  Also, with the top 5% of wage earners paying over 60% of the taxes, it is easy to see that those paying fewer taxes have the votes to make change happen.  Perhaps the majority will succumb to the bribery that de Toqueville foresaw.

As far as the answer to the multiple choice question, my guess is that most people would be upset about the Obama adviser getting millions of dollars from Fannie Mae, this after Fannie Mae made Obama the second highest recipient of campaign funds after Christopher Dodd (the chairman of the committee in charge of overseeing it.) Change!  

Seriously, Brady, solve your cranial-rectal inversion problem and take a hard look at the competing tax policies of J-Mac and Barry Dunham.  While you're at it, learn a lesson or two about the basics of taxation (such as ECON 101).  Penalizing people for being successful is a surefire way to chase more jobs and job-makers out of this country . . . permanently.

Does everyone play nice when they have a chance?  No; and that's true on every side (including the members of the underground econonmy, who do everything on a cash-only-no-receipt basis to avoid a taxable paper trail).  A key difference is that your examples "D" and "E" aren't tax issues.

Oh, and while I'm at it, it was the Republicans who in 2004 were calling for more oversight of Fannie and Freddie . . . and it was the Democraps who were resisting!!!

Between 2001 and 2005, Bush, McCain, and multiple House and Senate Republicans were screaming the alert about the danger posed by the sub-prime mortgage mess (yet another Democrat-sponsored redistribution of wealth).  High-profile Dems, lead by Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, stifled all foresighted attempts to head this off at the pass.

I don't care for any of your so called choices. Nor do I care for the insinuation that it might be helpful to redistribute in some fashion. That doesn't grow anything. It just brings everyone down on a loser level. You haven't 'grown' anything. In fact, some will have less capital to help grow things so the cute 'more equal' scenerio actually hurts everyone. The waitress' boss will go out of business.

Cutting taxes has always worked. Conversely, growing programs and creating new ones while at war doesn't work.

I take it you don't read economy blogs. The things you're hinting at have brought down whole nations much less individuals and families.

McCain could have clinched this election by voting against the bailout. Unfortunately, he joined Senator Obama and President Bush in foisting one of the worst scams on the American people ever devised by any evil wicked politician.

So, spare me the pomposity. Obama is guilty as hell on this matter, right along side Dodd, Frank, and the rest of the Democrats in Congress. Bush's culpability comes in the persons of Paulsen and Bernake. McCain made one mistake in this whole thing - believing that by voting for the bailout, he was somehow helping someone. It was only the rich bankers who he (and ALL the others) helped.

The problem is not socialism, it's Keynesian economics. Of course, Obama is a socialist, but that's not the problem here. Keynesian philosophy supports fiat money and its manipulation by central banks. It also is the driving force behind progressive income tax rates.

But, since you brought it up - Obama is a socialist. Bush is a fascist (i.e., one who believes that individual citizens can own property, but that it can and should be regulated by the government). Obama wants to take that one step further - where the government can nationalize entire industries. Maxine Waters, one of Obama's supporters, spoke of nationalizing, or socializing, the entire oil industry. Can you say Hugo Chavez? I knew you could.

And spare me the BS about "the failure of capitalism." Central banking is NOT capitalism. It's fascism, where bankers OWN and government CONTROLS. In capitalism, the bankers would be entrepreneurs, and subject to the same competitive markets as any other.

Let's look at a rundown of government controlled industries in America, shall we? Banking, public utilities, postal services, education, and a whole slew of other pockets of control throughout the country (not necessarily whole industries, but a major competitor with independent businesses).

I do think (and studies have shown) that most Americans personally believe in working hard and earning what you get.  This explains why SCHIP and other government programs aren't reaching the enrollment numbers they expect.  

Are there people out there willing to take advantage of the system?  Sure, and these people see the opportunity to do so under Obama.  But the same populace that overwhelmingly supported welfare reform under Gingrich, Engler and Tommy Thompson hasn't changed their minds.  

The real story of entitlements lies in anecdotes and stories of "single moms" and "people laid off of work."  People don't vote for or support these programs for themselves.  They support them because they think other people need them.  

People do not support redistribution of wealth.  Our neighbors aren't in a "class war" with the rich.