Are you talking about the electoral college votes you get? Erm. They haven't been assigned yet. They don't vote until the 15th of December, and even then they don't have to vote for who the election says to vote for. While about half of the states have laws prohibiting that,, theoretically they are free to vote for anyone.

Why does it make you giggle?

... they have been assigned. They don't necessarily need to vote for the person they were assigned to go with (in some states), but I don't see how you can claim anything else.

It makes him giggle because he has no idea what he's talking about, and is just hopping on the bandwagon like oh-so-many others who think that Obama is the way to go

OBAMA: What is amazing to me is this whole notion that somehow everybody is just looking out for themselves. I mean, the fact is, we just talked about student loans. When young people who have the drive and the skill to go to college can't afford to go to college, how do you think we pay for scholarships or loan programs? That money doesn't grow on trees. It's got to come from somewhere, and the attitude that I have is that, if we want to grow our economy, the way it grows is from the bottom up. You don't just give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. What you do is make sure the tax code is fair. I want to give a tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, but in order to pay for that, I'm going to take the tax rates back to what they were in the 1990s for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. Now for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, if they are paying 2 or 3 percent higher in taxes, the notion that they're somehow going to stop working, or that this young man is going to not want to be successful, that just doesn't make any sense. Back in the 1990s, we created more millionaires, more billionaires, because the economy was growing, everything was strong, at every income bracket, people were doing well. So this idea, that somehow everybody is just on their own and shouldn't be concerned about other people who are coming up behind them, that's the kind of attitude that I want to end when I am president.

It makes him giggle because he has no idea what he's talking about, and is just hopping on the bandwagon like oh-so-many others who think that Obama is the way to go

They haven't been assigned.

They have been projected to be assigned.

If I had a car I'd so be at a Watch Party right now. The local news just showed one at one of the bars here in town. It looked fun!

This thread counts as a Watch Party, though, right?

Nope

It makes me giggle because Higher Taxes for the Rich != Socialism or Marxism, especially since the Wealthy have gotten tax cuts in the recent years. This is what most people are refering to when they spit out the labels of "Socialist!" or "Marxist!". Why is it wrong to "Redistribute the Wealth" only when it benefits the Non-Rich?

Daganev:
I wasn't refering to the Virgian Congressman either.

Best explanation to share with your congressman, and any Democrats/Republicans who might be your friends, who clearly do not understand this “complex” principle of Obama’s Tax Plan.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just
$80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man, ‘but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar,
too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them
for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Author Unknown

...

um wow, I find what you wrote very disturbing. Because there was a nation wide tax cut, for capital gains taxes, you think its ok to tax the rich people?

Its not a problem when you raise taxes across the board because you need more money. However, it is Socialist / marxist, when you say that the rich need to be taxed more AND the non rich, need to be taxed less. And then say that the reason for the change in taxes, is to pay for programs which are only given out to those people who are not rich. (i.e. rich people are not allowed to benefit from said programs)

That is the very essence of what Marx suggested would happen in productive capitalistic societies.

If you don't understand why "redistrubition of wealth" is not a good thing, read this lovely analogy:

Well said

Please no more Marx, Marx makes me cry. Up is down, and all around and what not and every where with Marx.

It's over.

Marx makes everyone cry. Yet people got confused and voted Obama anyway for some reason.

Ayup.

He is pretty difficult to study in your first year, the TA thinks our Polisci prof. is out to torture us.
Say no to Marx!

And when he's terrible, I'm going to laaaaaaugh at you guys.