Spread the Wealth

[CallMeJoe]

I brought this up in a thread, and Corbett told me to take it to a new thread, so here we have it:

McCain interpreted Senator Obama's "Joe the Plumber" answer that we need to "spread the wealth around" as Socialist dogma. Was it really?

I take the view that anyone who opposes "spreading the wealth" is saying, by implication, they support Concentration of Wealth.

Whatever happened to the old idea that "A rising tide lifts all boats" (the justification for "trickle-down economics")? It looks from here like a 21st Century "rising tide" lifts only yachts, and sinks the boats.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yes it is socialism.

As for the rising tide comment... look at the boats belonging to the poor these days. Big screen TVs, multiple cars, cell phones etc etc.
Compare the standard of living of our poor to the poor in other countries or even to the poor of the 60s and 70s.

The living standards of ALL Americans is much better than it was 30+ years ago, and it is not because of government programs, but because of the creating of wealth by private companies and individuals.

 

[redgtxdi]

I'm gonna go broken record here again........


If we (U.S.) ever had to truly wait in bread lines again, here's what it'd look like......


a bunch of dead people (having starved to death) laying on the ground with their Ugg boots, True Religion jeans, North Face jacket, Kangol hat and their $500 iphone blasting tunes into the ear canals of their rotting corpse.


It's a weird, weird, weird world we're living in right now.

 

[Vic]

That depends on how much wealth spreading you're talking about.

Technically speaking though, Marxism and Socialism both must include public ownership of the "means of production," i.e. major industries. And the difference between the 2 is that Marxism is a revolutionary ideology (requires violent overthrow of existing system) and Socialism is not.

 

[piasabird]

On one hand it is socialism. However, aid for dependent women is socialism. Aid for veterans could be considered socialism. Then Social Security and medicare is also socialism. Socialism can be good or bad depending on your point of view. The main problem with socialism is that it tends to cut down on ingenuity and a good work ethic which is what this country was built on. It also may be possible that it limits what the government can do for the common good.

I think we should change certain practices in the country. For instance we need to outlaw Tax Abatement for rich megacorporations. The average guy can not fight for lower tax, buth then your city turns around and offers a giant tax abatement for some company as bribery. So if there was a federal law outlawing tax abatements, then everyone would be on an even playing field, and the little guy could get a fair shake. But hell, things are so corrupt, that we have to play games with snake oil salesmen.

Insert your personal Rant Here
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[theeedude]

This is same McCain who wants to give everyone $5K tax credit complaining about Obama saying he'll spread the wealth around?

 

[Specop 007]

The problem is no "conentration" of wealth occurs because there is no fixed amount of wealth.

Just because CEO is making more and more does not mean hes doing it at the expense of you and I.

 

[hellokeith]

Spreading the wealth just means making the very rich presidents/ceo's of organizations like ACORN, planned parenthood, ACLU, etc more rich.. it has nothing to do with the actual welfare of poor/needy people.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Spreading the wealth just means making the very rich presidents/ceo's of organizations like ACORN, planned parenthood, ACLU, etc more rich.. it has nothing to do with the actual welfare of poor/needy people.

Look, it's like a chatty-cathy doll.

 

[jpeyton]

Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

 

[daniel49]

everyone should give according to thier willingness and ability.
For Uncle Sam ( Uncle Barrack) to assume the role of robin hood is a step backwards.
Unfortunately he has tipped his hand and thats just what he intends to do.
So if you have anything, give it up so Barrack can spread it.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Proof?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Proof?

Yeah, look at the Federal budget. Its available in many places and has been linked to many times on these forums.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

The government spends that money so you don't have to stay up all night every night guarding your house from those dregs with a shotgun.

So who's to say which of 2 big govt lovers is better than the other?

edit: P.S. does your grandma get a social security check?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Proof?

Yeah, look at the Federal budget. Its available in many places and has been linked to many times on these forums.

I checked the Federal Budget.

404: Deadbeat and Dregs Funding Not Found

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: daniel49
everyone should give according to thier willingness and ability.
For Uncle Sam ( Uncle Barrack) to assume the role of robin hood is a step backwards.
Unfortunately he has tipped his hand and thats just what he intends to do.
So if you have anything, give it up so Barrack can spread it.

Yes, because McCain has been assured us that he will be fiscally responsible and cut spending just like GW did.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49
everyone should give according to thier willingness and ability.
For Uncle Sam ( Uncle Barrack) to assume the role of robin hood is a step backwards.
Unfortunately he has tipped his hand and thats just what he intends to do.
So if you have anything, give it up so Barrack can spread it.

Yes, because McCain has been assured us that he will be fiscally responsible and cut spending just like GW did.

Someone should clue in the left that George isn't running.
Its funny how McCain used to be the Maverick Lame Stream Media loved to trumpet all the time.
Now that he is a candidate it's he is exactly the same...blah blah..
He's a different man with different ideas...deal with it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Bankers?

 

[OCGuy]

Work hard, earn your money. Put your hand away.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think we should change certain practices in the country. For instance we need to outlaw Tax Abatement for rich megacorporations. The average guy can not fight for lower tax, buth then your city turns around and offers a giant tax abatement for some company as bribery. So if there was a federal law outlawing tax abatements, then everyone would be on an even playing field, and the little guy could get a fair shake. But hell, things are so corrupt, that we have to play games with snake oil salesmen.

100% Agree. My company right now is planning a move, to get a new 15 year abatement. State law will not allow a city to give an abatement to a current business, so we are moving a few miles down the road to get the abatement, where they are building us new buildings. Mean while the 500K square feet of office space built for us 10 year ago in our current location will be left empty, probably for a long time (not too many companies need that much space right now).

Also the city that we are moving to is going to start charging people a 1% local income tax that'll bring in 1.5M a year, to "offset the $300K/year abatement" to my company. So they are going to bring in 5 times the amount of tax money to offset a loss of money they never had to begin with, not to mention the benefit of having 7500 engineers working in the area.

In Tulsa, American Airlines got the city to by all of their buildings and lease the building back to them for ONE FUCKING dollar a year. And buy city I mean the people that pay sales tax in the City.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

The government spends that money so you don't have to stay up all night every night guarding your house from those dregs with a shotgun.

So who's to say which of 2 big govt lovers is better than the other?

edit: P.S. does your grandma get a social security check?

I really dont know if they do or not. I dont ask. Not my affairs. I know they wouldnt need it if they do.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Proof?

Yeah, look at the Federal budget. Its available in many places and has been linked to many times on these forums.

I checked the Federal Budget.

404: Deadbeat and Dregs Funding Not Found

Then no, you didnt check or you still assume "Welfare" and "Social Services" means poor hardworking moms making minimum wage.

Maybe you should live in the poor part of town, then you'll see reality.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Bankers?

LOL, i cant entirely disagree with that!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The problem is no "conentration" of wealth occurs because there is no fixed amount of wealth.

Just because CEO is making more and more does not mean hes doing it at the expense of you and I.

By that logic, "spreading the wealth" isn't bad either because there is no fixed amount of wealth. Just because some poor person is making more than he was a few years ago doesn't mean he has to be doing it at the expense of the CEO...right?

This is the big lie of the "wealth redistribution" line being explicitly linked to socialism, conservatives want to do it too, just in the opposite direction. The very first conservative post in this thread, from ProfJohn, made it clear that at least one conservative supports increased wealth at the top because those folks create jobs with their wealth. The unspoken part of that argument is that poor people just throw their money in the bushes or something, nevermind that nobody is going to have a job unless the average consumer is around to buy products and services from the companies run by and financially supported by the rich folks.

The idea that it's inherently amoral to try to help certain segments of society do better financially is complete bullshit. Not only because pretty much everyone supports that theory one way or the other, but because it's all interconnected, and while the trickle down folks are right that it's good for me if rich folks have a lot of money to invest, the liberal economic folks are also right that it's good for me if the poorer people can pay their bills and buy groceries and send their kids to college. If we want to argue which approach gets you more bang for your buck, that's fine, but I'm getting sick of hearing the conservative claptrap about how your economic philosophy is somehow more "moral" than a liberal one. Hell, it's basically the same idea applied a different way...so get off your high horse and come up with a REAL argument.