You could restate the OP to say that John McCain favors changing the law to take 131 billion dollars away from the middle class and give it to the wealthiest 1%. At least that is what he's telling the wealthiest 1% to get them to write checks to his campaign.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

So the rich are not "hard working honest American workers"? Your position of stealing from one to give to the other is disheartening.
If god is going to punish one for greed then why should the government get involved?
And since when does working hard a becoming rich from it a sign of greed?

I guess what I'm getting at is that your use of flashy words will fall on def ears when trying to convince those who proffer to use logic as a means of decision making.

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

Do you have a quote that will back this up?

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

No, you couldnt. The middle class will be paying less taxes under McCains plan. As will the wealthy.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Do you understand what happens when the government borrows money?

The Economy is crashing because of inequality. Rich greedy Americans have taken all the money for themselves, America has canabilised itself and now there is very little left to eat. Need a good balance of left and right policies to restore balance, no one wants and isolationist America.

As we are a hungry bunch, we're going after Australia next. We won't mind our table manners this time.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I love how only rich people "take" money but middle and lower class workers are the only people who "earn" money. Could it possibly be that the rich are offering and selling products on the marketplace that a lot of people like to buy?

__________________

1) Unlike America, Australia is democratic so we vote out the facists (Costello).

2) We invented the minimum wage by stealing the idea from New Zealand and we believe in Socialist programs such as health care and high minimum wages. You may have already taken us over but it has a very long way to go before we are as bad as the USA.

Taking all the money implies that it belongs to someone else. How is that the case?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

No, it implies nothing of the sort. Stealing all the money would imply that.

In fact, the money belongs to no one before it is taken, but just the same it is earmarked by the rules our society uses at this time for distribution of wealth produced. Exactly how it's divided up is determined by several factors, but most of all by the supply and demand impacts on wages. When wages are high, the wealth produced is distributed more broadly and near-equally than when wages are low. And that has implications in turn for how well the economy functions.

But the important thing to recognize here is that nature provides no title deeds, and also that all wealth is produced collectively -- no individual produces anything all by himself. And finally, under the rules we have, much of the wealth goes to people who do not work to produce it at all (or even if they do, that is not WHY they gain the large share of the wealth they do). It goes, not to those who work to produce it, but to those who own it.

These rules are not laws of nature. They are artifacts of society, outcomes of law and government policies. As such, they can be changed, and to change them is not to take anything from anyone. Rather, it is to alter the rules under which ownership is assigned.

Because you want to make hard working middle class American poor for your own greed.

You want American to become like Brazil. You want all the girls to become prostitutes.

Greedy rich Americans trying to destroy their middle class so that they can oppress them to make more money. Trying to create a class divide between the rich and the poor only for your own gain.

Selfish greedy Americans.

You didnt answer the question. If the rich are taking from everyone else, this means that money belonged to someone else. Explain that logic.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I answered the question. See above.

But the important thing to recognize here is that nature provides no title deeds, and also that all wealth is produced collectively -- no individual produces anything all by himself.

Sure they do, even under your paradigm - tho then it's rather rare. But even if one does subscribe to your paradigm, it could easily be argued that the poor owe more to the rich than vise-versa. The first example to come to mind is sitting here in my chair. Yes, my work would be hindered if there weren't people to run wires, empty the trash, sweep the floor, keep the muggers out of the building, etc. But then, I could do all those things if I had to. I rather doubt the electricians, garbage collectors, janitors, and rent-a-cops could all debug SQL, summarize volumes of technical data into one page w/ a pretty graph, etc. (Wording specifically chosen to allow that a few possibly could.) So without them, I would admittedly not be as well off, but without me, they'd be a Lot worse off. The business owners admittedly get wealthier from the labor of the employees, but the employees avoid abject poverty thanks to the existence of the business.

Sure they are. The owner (or possessor, if you prefer) of the bow eats better than the owner of the knife eats better than the bare-handed hunter. The otter with a rock to open oysters eats better then the rockless one. The monkey with an ant-fetching-stick eats better than one without. We've just expanded on this concept to the betterment of all people. (Tho admittedly some more bettered than others, but again, that's the law of nature.)

They are indeed artifacts of society and can be changed, but the tendency towards inequality is both an artifact of nature and an artifact of human nature. Somebody has to make the rules and enforce, even if they are ostensibly to promote equality, and those making the rules (as a group, there may be exceptional individuals) inevitably find themselves above the rules and a new upper class is created.

So short of finding some ethical way of rewriting human nature, we will always have rich and poor, and the best one can do is work towards a system that provides the most equitable (as in fair and deserved, not as in universally equal) outcomes. While our system is certainly not perfect in that regard, it is, to the best of my knowledge, the best one going, so tweaks are probably more the order of the day than some vain attempt to trash it and start over.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian