Absolutely...I am unsure of where to begin but I will begin and hopefully there may be some responses that will lead to further discussions.

The initial point I will begin with is the most general and most basic of Obama's economic views; redistribution of wealth. It is often tough to argue against such a tenant in economics due to the rather muddled way Classical Economists use of the phrase "allocation of resources" - the fundamental economic ideas that give capitalism it's base (along with the incentives that are taken as assumptions in economic models) are inconsistent with the idea of some "efficient (pareto) allocation of resources". Back to my point; Obama has latched on to the idea that the redistribution of wealth (someone's wealth) is the only way to go about dealing with inequalities we see all around us. I object morally as well as practically to this premise. Money is not static. It can be made. The incentive to "move up" and to save for your future or for your children s future is one of the greatest motivators of wealth creation and that incentive is only a reality if what an individual makes is his or hers to keep. The government does not provide services to the individual that reflect the amount taken off the top (income tax). The fact is there are many things that sound nice..."free two year college" "free healthcare" "free..(you name it)" - who pays for it? Does not the value of a two year degree diminish if everyone has it? Is it not the effort and the struggle that gives each person their own story, their own values? Redistribution should be named for what it really is; stealing.