“Right now the debate is pretty shallow, but the whole election has been pretty shallow.”
No argument there. Unfortunately that has been the case in every American election I have witnessed and is not likely to change any time soon.

This is the exact thing this country fought a war over against the Brits. The idea of taxation withut representation. The idea that the courts could “decide” where our money goes and the government has the right to take it. Obama is making that argument here. That the govenment would have the right to take our money for something like repreastions for example- not metter if your family didn’t get to this country until 1970 or not you would have to pay! This is a pretty major point of perspective for a President which we are electing. I think we need to hear more on this not less. The media has been ignoring this.

Grewgills,

There is a difference on how you justify your policy. You may think government should have fair tax policies that don’t overburden one class over another; and that public money should go into services that are available for everyone, not just poor or rich. Or you may think the government has a license to do whatever is necessary to address economic inequities. So don’t gloss over the difference. Right now the debate is pretty shallow, but the whole election has been pretty shallow.

“I believe there is a legitimate discussion how much redistribution. ”
Absolutely, and that is the argument that should be made rather than simply calling one candidates policies redistribution when both candidates policies will inevitably redistribute wealth.

“We already have a progressive system of taxation and social safety nets. Any further wealth redistribution to an individual or family is not even a wise ‘investment’…”
That is an example of a much more honest way to begin the discussion.

We already have a progressive system of taxation and social safety nets. Any further wealth redistribution to an individual or family is not even a wise ‘investment’, as the new left likes to call these things, because such individuals/families would fare better having pro-growth economic policies during a period of economic stagnation so that they have a much better chance of finding or keeping a job. Which benefits the working poor more- to continue at least being able to work (and hopefully rise to higher paying jobs over time) or to get a once a year check for $500 from the federal govt?

You silly and simplistic like “four more years of the Bush administration?

Critisizing a campaign theme as “simplistic” is like stating that American Idol is not “high art” No sh*t!

And as for the gist of the “redistribution” argument. I believe there is a legitimate discussion how much redistribution. This is a variation on the “we already have progressive taxation so what’s the big deal”. Well a worthwhile discussion would be whether it a good policy idea to have 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes or have that same percent pay 60%? or 80%

For better or worse it appears Sen. Obama will be our next president. There is enough in his early political career to suggest he was decidedly to the left of center. Since his Senate election he has maintained a pretty liberal voting record while at the same time generally speaking in less left wing rhetoric. Now we should be clear, for the past two years his campaign has overwhelmed his senate voting record (i.e. often absent) so we can’t say for sure that he continued in his movement the center. Even without tapes listed above or statements of “spreading the wealth” Sen. Obama’s politics are too far from the center for my taste. I haven’t seen anything reassuring in that respect. (I take campaign rhetoric for what it is: campaign rhetoric). But only his presidency will clearly tell us if he has moved toward the middle.