I try to stay away for the political back and forth because most people entrench themselves in an ideology, rather than looking at the positives and negatives of each individual and each party and proceeding accordingly. I meant to add an "lol" to the end of my response to Borredo just to indicate that I was posting that response a bit in fun. Though, I'll tell you "ideologically" I am opposed to MORE taxes for all the reasons you mention, as I believe the government takes in PLENTY of cash, and it's a matter of proper allocation and priority and NOT a matter of not having enough to accomplish the more altruistic goals that you mention.

So I'll offer you this question. Where does one go or who does one support if your ideology is that:

• you are responsible for yourself, and those you bring into the world and for caring for them, providing for them, and being sure you can do both BEFORE you decide to bring them into the world.
• if you can afford heath insurance, YOU should buy it, not wait for the government to provide it for you (many of the 40M you mention fall into that category)
• reliance on and enabling by the government reduces EVERYONE's deisre and ability to improve (lower tide lowers ALL ships)
• DEFENSE, INFRASTRUCTURE, EDUCATION, SAFETY NET ONLY FOR THOSE WHO TRULY NEED IT, and FAIR INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION should be the PRIMARY, and almost the ONLY tasks assigned to governments. The special interest involvement and the inherent inefficiency of government makes them the LEAST capable of addressing more than these basic issues in the best way for all involved.
• the rich SHOULD get richer, AND the poor SHOULD get richer if they provide a positive impact on or service to society that society believes as such
• much of inner city and other societal decays are ultimately instigated by and a result of seemingly well intentioned government subsidy / regulation that winds up increasing the dependence on government and therefore depletes the individual's desire and ablity to positively act in his own best interests and those of society as a whole. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for for a lifetime is the gist of my comment here
• nobody ever said life was fair or easy, only that you have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. It's up to each of us AND our government to make sure those rights are protected, but it's SOLELY up to us to PURSUE that happiness. What makes Bill Gates happy, doesn't necessarily make me happy. I don't think the government should work to take from him to provide to me because OTHERS think that would be best for me.

Therefore, practically, NEITHER party or candidate in the US race really provides hope for someone with these basic beliefs. Therefore, until one party ACTUALLY effects fiscal restraint and proper prioritization and allocation of the ENORMOUS fund base that they already take in, I'll continue to NOT support ADDITIONAL taxes, even if as you state, it's only a "few more dollars a week"