That gets into the topic a bit.

And I think it's safe to say the largest economic bubble was the one that just burst.

1. Liberals seem to love pointing out how economic trends coincide with the President in office at the time. It's mostly true that Democratic Presidents have enjoyed more economic success than Republicans:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/10/republic...

Notice how Clinton reaps the highest return, yet, as Goladus points out, that occurred during the largest economic bubble in the history of the United States and was definitive of a technological *revolution* on a scale that'll forever change the landscape of this world. It would be a challenge for the Presidential administration to have stopped such events from occurring and there is no correlation between the existence of the Clinton administration and the scientific research and culmination of events that gave birth to the tidal wave that was the first Internet boom.

2. I have never understood the disadvantages of a “gap” between the rich and the poor. Claiming a “gap” is detrimental is assuming that the United States economy is a zero-sum game. If a rich man has an income of $1M and a poor man earns $50K, then their difference in worth is $950K. If both increase their value production by 50%, then they each gain $1.5M, and $75K, with a $1.425M gap. Sure, a larger gap, but a net gain for the U.S. economy. Attribute factors such as inflation and the gap will inevitably rise.

Most likely, to make over $1M requires a huge amount of wealth production–this person is probably an entrepreneur of some sorts, executive management at a large corporation, or a genetically-fortunate individual that has had success in athletics, theater or some form of entertainment. The $50K is doing a “standard” job and thus produces a disproportionately less amount of value than the other guy. Why soak the rich in favor of the little guy?

The fact that the economy is NOT a zero-sum game is the reason why the little guy enjoys a superior standard of living to the populations of other first-world countries. It's the wealth of America that sets it apart from the rest of the world. Let's harness these value-creators and let them rise to the top.

Sure, there are the inherited wealthy that have assets they didn't earn. Let's tax these people. But let's not increase capital gains tax to make the investments that are fueling already-risky entrepreneurial endeavors more expensive.

3. “As for redistributing wealth, any tax changes or large government actions do that.”

This statement is kind of true in its own rite. It's not exactly what McCain is referring to in his buzzwordery. The redistribution of wealth *by the government* is the key. For example, tax cuts don't appropriate money from one place to another. They simply eliminate government control over that money. This allows the consumers to appropriate their spending where they wish. That is the Republican ideal that is being preached, NOT whether we should cut taxes for the rich OR the poor. I have a feeling that what you're getting at is that money is simply being transferred between the rich and poor, which is not the case, as though there's a clear distinction between the two (I guess it's become $250K, haha). It's the difference between allowing the economy or the government control consumer spending.

Well-thought-out post, keep 'em coming.