Government regulation and taxation of any kind is socialism. Keep in mind there is a difference between socialism and capital S "Socialism."
Consider for a moment what happened with railroad companies. They royally screwed over farmers, charging huge amounts of money to transport goods, and the railroad companies were even paid by the government to develop the railroads. Free market led to huge abuse and huge problems. Eventually, the government decided the railroads should be owned and regulated by everybody as a whole. Another example of how regulation and socialism have occurred for a long time throughout our history to correct the free market.
Are unions socialist? Yes. But I doubt you'd see any candidate going around calling unions socialist or opposing them.
No, socialism does not work. It does not help capitalism work. Certain safeguards can be put in place on unrestrained capitalism, but that's not socialism.
Remember, there is a difference between socialism and capital S "Socialism." Capital S socialism describes positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy.
Actually, you're totally wrong. It does work. Why? Because "the rich" pay the taxes. The rich create jobs. It's been proven three times in the last 40 years that when the upper brackets are cut, the entire economy is stimulated. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it, but to a lesser extent. Trickle-down works.
Then why the hell did the government give everybody $600 economic stimulus checks? To the wealthy, a $600 stimulus is entirely insignificant compare to their income and the taxes they pay. To the middle class, $600 is 6/10 the average tax cut under Obama's plan.
No. It comes from them EARNING it, either through investment, business or employment. The only way in which you're correct is that the "rich" provide jobs for the lower and middle classes. They can't do that if they are taxed into oblivion.
Don't dilute yourself. Wealthy people don't EARN their extra money by working longer or harder. Wealthy people have the resources and skills required to get a larger distribution of wealth than others. Essentially, the are better competitors in the market. You can't make a good investment if you don't have capital to invest. Wealthy people are able to turn excess capital into more wealth by investing it. This is far harder for the middle class where there is little excess wealth.
The middle class doesn't have money unless the wealthy do. That's the flaw in your reasoning.
Yes. And if the wealthy class has all of the money unless the middle class has some. And when the middle class has none, the exchange of money and goods slows down, the economy slows down, investments crash, and there are major problems.
The ignorance and faulty assumptions are astounding. Where does the extra money per customer come from? What you're describing is demand-side economics, which won't work on its own and in spite of tax increases on the supply side.
Really? That's funny... your said yourself:
Now we're talking about raising the top marginal rate from 36 to 50 percent, doubling capital gains, raising corporate taxes and giving out $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes.