And it must be conscious stupidity to vote for Obama, who will oppress minorities more than whites. That's right, I said what you thought I said.

You see, it is blacks and other minorities who have had on average more obstacles to "getting ahead". So blacks and minorities must work even harder than whitey to get ahead, according to most blacks anyway. Thus an Obama tax increase on those making over $250,000 means:

• relatively more tax "punishment" to blacks and minorities that worked harder than whites to get ahead, because they did work harder and thus will suffer more, relatively speaking
• relatively harder work now must be expended to get back to where you were before the tax increase if you are black or minority than if you are a whitey
• Obama is making a direct attack on Martin Luthers King for blacks and minorities to "overcome," as Rev King put it, by in effect, putting them back on the plantation with tax increases instead of letting them "overcome" their former poverty.

Remember, Obama is only half black and really does not understand all this.

So if I vote for Obama, who is half-white, does that make be a racist against whites, because if it does not, then neither does voting against Obama make anyone a racist, either.

The argument is just asinine.

Personal note: It is of course wrong that some minorities have had to work harder than some whites, though this is gradually changing. And it is the consensus of minorities this is true. Thus since it is true, then it is also true minorities are relatively hurt more than others, since they worked harder to get ahead by the same amount as others.

And what about less fortunate minorities? Well, growing wealth provides more wealth to distribute. But punishing the hard workers who grow wealth for distribution by spending it and investment, will squash their incentive to work as hard, thus reducing the growth of wealth to be spread around whether by spending/investment or by taxation.

In short, more taxation leads to a smaller growth of weath for distribution (one way or the other) and less taxation leads to larger growth of weath for distribution (one way or the other). You cannot have a 0% tax rate or a 100% tax rate of course. The question really is a what tax rate maximizes the growth of wealth for distribution by both spending/investment and by providing relief for the poor who are unable to work?

Well the answer to the optimum tax rate is usually relative, not absolute, since economic condition vary, mostly beyond anyone's control, for example, hurricans and earthquakes. But is not too hard to understand when it is time to raise taxes and when it is better to lower them, and which demographic group should be taxed more or taxed less. Economists make recommendations to Congress and Congress acts accordingly, right? Wrong. Politics outweighs recommendations, and so the politicians screw it up as usual.

In the Obama-McCain tax plans, in a time of economic distress, the best thing is to help businesses by lowering taxes, since they are the backbone of maintaining employment for workers in tough economic times. I mean what good is a middle class tax cut to someone who got laid off by a company that Obama "taxes out of business"?

Conversely, in could economic times, taxes can be raised a tad, but keep in mind that in good ecomic times, the government automatically gets more money. So the government, in bad economic times needs to "encourage" the economy by the best taxation policy. That is what McCain's plan does best.

I totally agree with you!!

Second,

It's ALL race with Dem's. Period.

If any of you Libs are reading this...I'll give you examples!!!

Bob...Steele IS AWESOME!!!  Dr. Walter E. Williams is AWESOME!!!.....

ps...notice I knew his middle initial?!?!?   He is Great!

Ster. 

Black holes are where God divided by zero.