You acknowledge that unless you make over $250K, you won't have taxes increased – except for out of the clear blue this ominous "healthcare tax hike" on those making $42,000. Does this even sound logical, let alone factual??? The funding for healthcare comes form letting the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250K expire. That's it. No nre tax on those making $42K to fund health care.

I don't want him deciding winners and losers. We learned form Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hos utterly disastrous that is.

So by this I assume you make over $250K, else you won't be paying taxes. If that is the case, then great for you, you are fortunate, and probably worked hard to get there.

However, this flys in contrast to your other statement:

"I want to decide for myself where I spend my money whether I get something out of it (commerce) or I give it to someone I believe should have it (charity)."

Then you must pay NO TAXES now, or else you believe the entire tax system is a "charity"? Your support of McCain is just as fostert stated – taking from the poor and giving to the rich just so you can choose to give them more money in commerce of your choosing. However, as fostert also pointed out, the flaw with the "taxing the poor and giving to the rich" ideology is that there is no money left to give in commerce.

This is FACT. Check the consumption of oil in the US this past summer with the year before. Find out why the OPEC nations were hammering the oil companies this summer – consumption was down, ergo sales were down – they were pricing the commodity out of the market. When it isn't about pricing anymore, but instead people have no money, that is called "depression". We will find out Jan 1 what the holiday season will do to consumer spending. Think McCain will patronize the socialist for another blank check to bail out retailers???

Fact is, when the middle class doesn't have enough economic stimulation, those sitting at the top of the roost don't feel the love "flowing up" from consumer spending. There is only one way to get the middle class spending – and it isn't by buying houses (McCain's fundamental flaw of the economy). It is by allowing the middle class to keep their money and spend it as they see fit. They are the consumers en masse. There are only so many houses, boats and cars that the wealthy 1% can buy – and it isn't enough to support the economy and the entire financial infrastructure of the US. The PEOPLE need to be spending en masse. Tax cuts for the wealthy only represent about 5% of the total population. If 5% can carry and GROW the economy – then yes – give them the money. Fact is they haven't been able to since the 1950's. It saw its demise at the end of the 1980's. It has just taken almost 30 years for the lobbyists to get their d!cks out of the politicians pockets to allow the economy to rebound and slow inflation. Most people today are making about the same money they made 10 years ago. Costs have gone up exponentially in just the last two years. Lowering the amount the middle class gets to keep in their pockets is going to have the opposite effect, and we will see a collapse in the economy…oh wait, that happened three weeks ago….

Oh really? Then why is oil production in Alaska declining? I find it rather strange that you would equate "booming" with "declining." But then again, conservatives have their own definitions for words, so I shouldn't be surprised. If you really want to see booming, take a look at natural gas production in Colorado. Or wind production, for that matter.

"I said that it is publicly-owned."

Fair enough, but it's still socialism. And you're right, I don't like it.

"He wants to take it from me and give it to whomever he sees fit."

No, he wants to give more of it back to you. And I'm really surprised that you don't want to take it. Instead, you want to give it to me. But that's okay, when Obama is president, you will still have the right to overpay your taxes and refuse to take Obama's tax cut. And I'm sure you'll be happy to do it.

"And Canada just negotiated with Alaska to run a pipeline through it."

Umm, no. A private Canadian company negotiated the right to build the pipeline. That doesn't mean they'll actually build it. And if they don't build it, Alaska will pay them $500 million to not build it. And let's face it, they probably won't build it. To bad I couldn't get some of that action. I'd be willing to not build a pipeline for only $1 million. That would be a bargain for Alaska.

Indeed, Alaska has not been "chasing off" oil companies. Oil companies have been operating there at a booming rate. And Canada just negotiated with Alaska to run a pipeline through it. So you're incorrect on that count, too.

Here's the different between Barack Obama and me. I want to decide for myself where I spend my money whether I get something out of it (commerce) or I give it to someone I believe should have it (charity). He wants to take it from me and give it to whomever he sees fit.

This subject isn't difficult, tom.

But the public ownership of raw materials really isn't any different. In America (unlike the Emirate of Alaska), resources are privately owned. I know that, because I own some. But you think our resources should be publicly owned, just like in the socialist countries of Europe. I include raw materials in the "means of production" because usually, corporations that use those materials own them to start with. Look, I grew up in a steel town. And Bethlehem Steel didn't buy iron ore, coal, and limestone from the government. They owned those mines and operated them by themselves. Hell, sometimes they even owned the towns. That's private enterprise. The Alaskan system isn't like that. It's socialism. It is the public ownership and control of resources. And, under Palin, they've been chasing the oil companies away with high taxes. Let's just compare my state with Alaska over the past two years. At the start, Alaska only barely exceeded Colorado in energy production. Now, Colorado exceeds Alaska in energy production by a pretty large margin. Alaska's production dropped significantly, and Colorado's production expanded significantly. We have a Democrat as governor, and Alaska has Sarah Palin. And in Colorado, energy resources are privately owned. In Alaska, they are publicly owned. Which system works better?

And I notice you won't even come close to trying to answer the redistribution question. But you still want to redistribute your wealth to me. I can't imagine why you would want that. I've explained why I want to give more money to you. It comes back to me anyway. But why you would want to make both of us poorer is really a mystery.

Secondarily, the money gained from the voluntary business transaction between the oil companies and the trustee of the resources was distributed equally, without preference. It wasn't distributed according to "need" or the Governor's whims.

I'm sorry. You can't twist the two situations to make them equal, no matter how hard you try.

You are also misrepresenting what McCain's plans are. He won't "throw" anyone off of health care. That's an Obama talking point that simply is not true.