A response to the previous two comments made on the blog:

Keeping the current tax rate the same, for those making above $250,000, is NOT on par with a 60% tax rate on those making under $250,000, as you proposed. Such an argument is a non-sequitur, lacking a logical basis. You seem to advocate the redistribution of wealth, which makes me wonder what justifications you have. Why are you entitled to the hard-earned money of another, sir? Why should someone who has spent over seven years, beyond high school, specializing in a degree be forced to give you the money that his specialty has awarded him? Did you pay for his law school? Did you pay for his medical school? Did you come up with his entrepreneurial ideas or his ways to achieve success? NO. He incurred the debts himself and with persistence and dedication eventually paid them off. He has given back to his community; he has given to charities; he has given although that money was rightfully his. Now let me ask you a question, sir: if you were in the specialized man’s position, would you honestly stand for the government increasing your taxes further? NO, you would not. If you advocate socialism or communism sir, you may enjoy the prospect of living in Cuba. There, sir, people have all in fact been left the same. They have all been left dirt POOR. Cuba is the star example of a failed attempt at communism. A failed attempt which initially began with socialism, an initial redistribution of wealth, which is what you are advocating, that then continued to spiral downwards until communism was whole-heartedly achieved.
Additionally, my ideas are not solely based on corporate philosophy, but also on recent economic data. If you look at the current financial crisis we are in, which can be primarily attributed to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, disadvantaged individuals, who would not have otherwise been given loans, were in fact given loans under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html). This act, endorsed by both Carter and later Clinton, facilitated the eventual collapse of large banks that were primarily backed by mortgage securities. Because banks began to crash, wealthy individuals began to remove their money from the stock market, which further worsened the economic situation. Those individuals who invest in the stock market help our nation’s economy grow and prosper further. If you continually take money away from them, you will experience a deepening recession and possibly even another depression.

Why Senator Obama's Tax Plan Will Take the US Backwards

Ever since the days of colonialism in America, English settlers realized the importance of giving compensation for hard work. John Smith is famously quoted with having said: "He who does not work shall not eat." If John Smith would not have stated and enforced this rule, laziness would have quickly spread throughout the colonies. After all, if people will be fed even if they do not work, what incentive do they have to work?

The political campaign of Senator Barack Obama is reducing incentive for hard work. If those individuals making over $250,000 are going to be taxed 39.6%! for anything over $250,000 earned, what incentive do they have to work harder? Why would small business owners and large corporations want to make more jobs in the United States if increased revenue meant increased taxes? Why would these businesses increase their production of goods if that would only increase their revenue which would in turn increase their taxes? Why would Senator Obama want to tax oil companies, if that would in turn cause the oil companies to increase the price of oil on us (Bill O'Reilly)? Naturally, the demand for goods would increase because of a limited supply of goods, and unemployment rates would also increase because of businesses not wanting increased revenue for fear of increased taxes. Senator Obama wants to inhibit free markets and capitalism in the United States. He and his campaign have been trying to use scare tactics in order for U.S.' citizens to believe that taxing those who make over $250,000 will set us free from our current economic woes. This touches upon an even more fundamental issue: who is to blame for the current economic crisis?

Although many individuals claim that our current economic woes are attributed to too much deregulation, our woes are actually due to loans not being payed off.

Stay tuned...more to come on the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a later date...