Following is some "history" that Mr. O'Rourke seems to ignore. In the 1950s, 60s, and 1970s:
• Income was more evenly distributed. The rich paid more (the top marginal tax rate was never below 70% [until 1981]). The poor paid less.
• Banks were well-regulated
• Labor unions were strong and prevalent.
• Democrats and Republicans worked together

… and the outcomes at that time?
• The economy grew faster the first three decades after World War II than it has since. The productivity of American workers soared, and most Americans shared the gains. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand.
• The median wage in America increased, adjusted for inflation (vs. the past 30 years, when median wages have essentially stagnated)
• The unemployment rate was commonly less than 6% and never exceeded 7.5% (vs. today, unemployment is more than 8.5%, and we may not see 6% unemployment again until well after 2020.)
• We ably managed the federal budget while still investing in important things. Education and infrastructure saw significant investments. Even with these investments, annual deficits rarely exceeded 2% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (vs. now deficits routinely exceed 2% GDP)
• Less than 21% of families with young children lived in poverty between 1967 to 1981 (vs. today it’s 37 percent—the highest percent on record)
• Gross public debt was less than 80% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (vs. more than 100% now)

So tell me again, what is so awful about a little income redistribution? Seems to me it worked pretty good once, why not again?

Heh. During the 50's and 60's we had the advantage of having been the last power standing after WWII. This condition is gone and not likely to be repeated.

Second thing. In those years the Democrat Party was still largely sane. This condition is gone and not likely to be repeated.

Income redistribution? If we took ten percent more from everyone making over 10 million and shared it out with everyone filing a tax return each taxpayer would get about 205 dollars. [statistics from this link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/us-usa-economy-incomes-idUSTRE... Color me unimpressed. Theft is a poor way to make a living, and indulging your envy is the ticket to Hell (either actually or metaphorically. I don't care which.) What are needed is JOBS. If you want your job producers out grazing in the field and making milk and cheese for you, then you need to stop it with all the wolvish howling. This just scares your producers. Their eyes roll up in terror and they stay in the barn.

You want prosperity? Get rid of Obama.

Succinctly put PJ, however, the Liberal mind functions primarily on emotion, not logic.

You people who are demanding change won't see any as long as you have a pResident who spends his career campaigning at $38,000 dollar meet-and greets while preaching divisiveness. Those crony-capitalists and lobbyists aren't sending in the big bucks to Obama out of the goodness of their hearts. Those union leaders are backing Obama so they can reach deeper into the middle-class taxpayer pockets for 'free' benefits.

It is time to wake up and see who is REALLY supporting this regime and elect people not beholding to the groups you are whining about. You could make yourself feel good by taxing the 'rich' 100% and your situation wouldn't change an iota. If mom didn't have the money you didn't get your allowance. If mom liked Johnny more, he got more.

Taxing isn't the answer to your complaint. Changing the culture in DC is the answer and Obama and his minions are leading that culture by preaching one thing and doing another. When the Democrats had complete control of DC why were no immigration reform bills introduced and passed? Government favored Businesses and the Unions LIKE the status quo and they give the big bucks to the Democrats.