Re:Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama (Score 1)

It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:

1. Do not tax anyone. Consequently, all the resources - wealth - in the society are concentrated on a few hands, and the rest live a miserable life or outright starve, just like it was during the industrial revolution. Since starving people have nothing to lose but their chains, such conditions can and have led to bloody revolutions.
2. Tax people, therefore taking some of that concentrated wealth back from those who have it and redistribute it to the poor, thus preventing anyone from starving or getting truly desperate but having to put up with whining libertarians who'd rather "let them eat cake".

This is ridiculous.

The actual choice is an infinite rage that goes from "0% tax" all the way to "100% tax". Your first option in a single point at the beginning of this range while your last one covers everything else. The real question is what is a "acceptable" level for the amount of tax. I say acceptable because while may people (such as youself) would have a problem with 0%, I (and probably most of the population) would be violently against 100%. So, the answer must lie somewhere in the middle.

I personally favor lower taxes. The lower the better. Any argument for higher taxes needs to be based on the notion that the money would be well spent. I have no confidence whatsoever that I would be. For instance, the "great society" social programs that so much of the entitlements are based on have been an utter and abject failure. Rather than combating poverty they have institutionalized it. Throwing more money at this system in the name of "helping the poor" isn't going to change anything. Its ironic that "change" is a theme in the current election since I don't see ANY choice that isn't "more of the same".