You are incorrect, the investor (or depositor) should not rely on banks as their financial expert or adviser. The bank "expert" would have a significant conflict of interest. The wise investor should only rely on a trusted 3rd party financial expert who cannot gain money based on advise.
Yeah, but that doesn't really change the bank's obligations to deal fairly with the customer's money. The wise investor also checks to see that his contact isn't a scam artist; but if the wise investor doesn't do that, it doesn't mean no crime was committed by the scammer. Just like it's still a crime to steal from an unlocked house-yeah, it's wise to lock your doors, but that doesn't make theft less criminal.
It sounds like you support raising taxes on the "wealthy", and lowering taxes on the "poor", i.e. wealth redistribution, i.e. socialism. But if thats not really your position, then you don't make your views very clear.
Okay, you quoted what I consider to be an accurate recital of Obama's platform on taxes.
How does that constitute "support for taxing the wealthy and giving money to the poor"?
I pointed out a fact: For most people, Obama's plan involves cutting taxes. That isn't my position, that is a restatement of what Obama's position is on these issues. My position is that it's not true to call Obama a blanket tax increaser-that in fact, his plan is to cut taxes for the majority of individuals. That is a simple fact which you can verify on your own; it is not "my position" or an endorsement of socialism.
Why is it that even accurately reciting a candidate's position is "support for socialism" or whatever you want to call it?