On Oct 17, 3:18*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:28*pm, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:





On Oct 17, 12:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

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..

Nice try at a save. Really nice try.

Like Murtha's attempt yesterday when he said constituents weren't really
'racist' racists - they were just slow to accept change.

Take from the rich, give it to the poor, so they can give it back to the
rich. Why not just let the rich keep their wealth and eliminate the
middle-man?

You missed the point, namely that Obama's "spread the wealth" line was
not linked to his support for raising taxes on the rich. *Thus, your
characterization is off base.

Obama merely observed (much lke Henry Ford's approach to wages), if
the middle class can't afford to buy cars, we *all* (which happens to
include the rich) are screwed.


No, you are the one who missed the point. *Obama's entire campain is
based around the concept of hitting the rich with more taxes and
giving it to the "middle class" by reducing their taxes.

True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was not related to
raising taxes on the rich.

Josh Rosenbluth