wealthy, and it's rather silly for either of them to attack the other on the issue. They are both sufficienty wealthy to be well out of touch with the average American. Neither candidate is facing any kind of serious financial difficulty. The " I have $10,000,000
( I'm not saying these are the actual figures) and you have $100,000,000 so you're out of touch" is kind of silly. Both candidates are out of touch financially with Americans, as were both candidates in 2004 and I imagine for a long time.
The sad point is that it's quite possible that things like McCain not remembering how many houses he has, and Obama's pastor... we will be the deciding factor for the small number of undecideds in the small number of swing states, and therefore will be what this election turns on and what the conversation of the election will be largely about.

However, redistributing the wealth for the sake of redistributing it would cause a decrease in freedom - see communism.

"Freedom" has different meanings to different people. You seem to be talking about liberty, which is related to freedom but isn't the same thing. Someone who has little income or assets has very little freedom because they don't have the capital to do much with what liberty they have. Money buys freedom, but not liberty (at least not directly).

For instance, I'm unemployed and looking to get a job almost anywhere in my state (Ohio) or even the New England area or Alaska. Because I have no savings, I can't afford to actually move somewhere where I'd have a better chance of getting a good job (I've found places are a bit leery of hiring someone who wants to relocate). The government is not stopping me from moving, so my liberty is intact, but since I don't have the means to move, I don't have the freedom to do so. Not having the ability to make a decision because one doesn't have the money is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the government restricting me from doing so.

Not to go too much on a tangent, but this is why lower income people tend to see the government as being a helper, not a hinderer. Most of these people's freedom is restricted by lack of capital. Once one's income starts to rise, freedom is restricted by the government.

so should we look at these people as being morally inferior, I believe not.

I never made the case that McCain was morally inferior due to his wealth, so I don't know where you got that.

It'll give the top 2% 40% of the refunds. It reduces taxes on corporations.

God knows when my family has a budget problem, we do both these:

we cut expenses
we find ways to get more income.

McCain's proposed tax plan is a supply side tax plan. We cheapen the rates on business & the rich and it'll trickle down to the masses and we will collect more money in taxes. That's been tried during Reagan & bush43. It has never worked. it only drives up National Debt.

I say we do the sensible thing that everyone here would have to do when faced with what the future holds for us. Not follow the small cadre who are pulling John McCain's strings. They don't want what's good for America. they only want what's good for themselves. That's self interest, but not enlightened self interest. there's a big difference.

"Now that Gen. Patreaus is leaving Iraq, and Bush and Maliki have agreed to a timeline, er I mean time horizon for troop withdrawal...... I hope that McCain can reconcile that the war has been 'won' and this is a happy day for his favorite line, 'victory with honor'."

Oh he will, and isn't it great we stood our ground, supplied the troops with the armor for their Hummvee's and pursued the surge so we could get to the point, as opposed to withdarwing in humiliation by last march and losing!

Thanks for the props!