There are a number of misperceptions and false assumptions in that post, and I'm not even sure where to start, but since I see you as one of those people here with an honest desire to know how things are, as opposed to some who are an agenda on two legs, I'm going to take a bit of time here.

These assumptions are not unique to you, by any means, but are held by many reasonable, non-extreme people at a near-unconcious level.

The guys that cook the books to get lucrative stock options are surely more deserving than the lower middle class. The guys that come up with brilliant strategies like cut costs 10% are far more deserving than those that figure out how to do it. The guys that have the power to earn 10 times more than their contributions to the company deserve it more than those doing the majority of the work.

Assumption: one gets money, or gets to keep it, because one "deserves" it. The use of the word "deserve" is loaded right from the start. Left unspoken is who gets to decide who "deserves" to keep their wealth and who doesn't. Ideally, one gets to keep one's money because, unless a crime was committed in getting it, it belongs to them. This idea of "owning" something is anathema to socialists, as is the idea of "earn." Both words make redistributionists uncomfortable.

A do-gooder might say that surely more people deserve to have millions of dollars than many who do. Does Eminem "deserve" to have millions, more than a poor pastor running a charitable food center? The knee-jerk answer is "of course not." The real answer is it's not a matter of "deserving." It's a matter of who is the real owner of what one earns. The earner, or some authority who gets to decide if he "deserves" to keep it? It's easy to tout confiscation of wealth when "some other guy" is on the shit end of the stick. Just remember while you're advocating redistribution of the wealth of the guys higher on the rung than you are, that there are plenty of people a few rungs lower than you.

And for the record, there are damn few CEOs earning more money than what they have contributed in value to their companies.

...It also takes a lack of economic astuteness to think dividend cuts are going to be more stimulative over the short term (and recessions are usually a short term problem) dollar per dollar than income tax cuts to people with a small amount of disposable income.

It's just math. The object of a tax cut is to move money away from the state and into the hands of the private sector, where it can actually be used to create wealth. Tax cuts on those who pay few taxes does not do this, however much political capital it generates. If you're going to have tax cuts that add up to the billions you need, you need to cut the taxes of those who pay the billions.

It is also a proven fact that tax cuts do not stimulate enough growth to return a dollar in extra income per dollar in cut. They grow deficits or cut surpluses.

I challenge you to come up with the numbers for that statement. The zero-sum game is not accurate. Many people assume that cutting ten billion in taxes means that ten billion in revenues is gone forever. In point of fact, that ten billion creates many billions more in new wealth, usually taxable. It's economic growth that drives the deficit numbers, not taxes directly.

Revenues have gone up after every large tax cut as the economy has improved. I expect no different now, but nobody is tracking the numbers closely. The deficit for 2003 turned out to be considerably less than had been predicted by the CBO in August. We'll see.

It is also quite obvious that the system pre-Bush was working fine. We had a long period of growth and dropping unemployement due to low deficits and/or surpluses and resulting interest rates.

This is exactly inverted. The low deficits were the result of the growth, not vice-versa. In fact, a great deal of the additional revenue was generated simply by capital gains taxes riding on the stock boom. Between 1995 and 2000, the revenue from capital gains went from 180 billion to 644 billion. Subtract those numbers from the "Clinton surpluses" (236 billion in 2000) and see what you get.

It was a period good for everyone yet those with money and political influence are determined to get even more of the pie at the expense of everyone else.

Again, the odd assumption that money kept by the wealthy is somehow "taken" from others. When I get a paycheck, it is not money that would have gone to the poor if I had not earned it. I don't understand this kind of thinking. If one believes that any money left "untaxed" is somehow "stolen" from society, the assumption is that all wealth is public property. We know who believes stuff like this.

And yes I think it is fair for those that benefit from our system more than others to pay more for it.

"Benefit from our system?" How? In what way does someone who earns more wealth than someone else "benefit" from the government more than someone who earns very little? I've been over this one a lot. Exactly what extra benefits did I get for paying tens of thousands more in taxes last year than my neighbor? (Unfortunately, not going to be the case this year.) Did the army fight harder for me? Did I get an extra fire truck that would come only to my house? Would the cops answer my 911 call faster? Do I get a special lane on the roads? Do the bank examiners watch my accounts more carefully? Do I get a special line at the airports?

Where the hell would we be if everything was priced this way? Do you go into the grocery store, and get charged ten dollars for a loaf of the same bread everyone else is buying for two dollars, just because you can afford it? Should your electric bill be higher for the same usage? Should you pay twice as much for an identical car because you have committed the crime of wealth?

A good business climate is one with a stable government, a just rule of law, and a tax structure sufficient to provide basic infrastructure, without hobbling competitiveness.

Perfectly true. Too bad our current government spends most of its money on things other than this.

The moral code of the Left is that if someone has something you want, and you think you, or someone else, needs it more than that person does, it is moral and proper to take it from them. It is not a coincidence that this is the moral code of the guy who holds you up at the ATM machine. And I honestly don't think you believe this.

People will blow smoke up your ass for days trying to cover up this basic truth. Most of them believe they have a better use for your money than you do, and will go to great lengths trying to work it so it doesn't look like they are simply looting you. They'll invoke "society," "social responsibility," and pretty much anything other than the basic idea of taking your money and using it for their own purposes, or to buy political power.

Anyone selling you the socialist line is, basically, a looter. The fact that they give the loot to the poor doesn't change this, although they would like you to think it does.