On Oct 17, 9:38*am, Mike Granby wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:30*am, wrote:

and the whole thing was a setup
engineered by the Republicons.

Let's assume that was true for the sake of argument. How would that
change the fact that Obama said it was better for everyone if you
"spread the wealth around"? That's the real point here, and levelling
the politics of personal destruction at a voter who dared to ask a
question should not take away from the revealing nature of the reply.

Let's take a look at Obama's full quote:

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom
up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing
business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if
you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and
right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody
and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for
everybody."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-the-weal.html

He wasn't arguing for higher rates on the rich to redistribute
income. To the contrary, he is arguing that lower rates on the middle
class will "spread the wealth" to everyone including upper income
folks who rely on the middle class as their employees and consumers.

Josh Rosenbluth