Spread the Wealth

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree, and every independent analysis of McCain's spending proposals confirms that he will increase spending even more and faster than Bush did and Obama proposes, and with bigger deficits.
Which is what make it that much more comical when McCain promises yet another bailout, yet more spending, yet another tax cut, and then promises to be fiscally conservative. It's hilarious.

What I really find funny is when party line Republicans can't get it through their thick skulls that theirs is the BiggER government party.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree, and every independent analysis of McCain's spending proposals confirms that he will increase spending even more and faster than Bush did and Obama proposes, and with bigger deficits.
Which is what make it that much more comical when McCain promises yet another bailout, yet more spending, yet another tax cut, and then promises to be fiscally conservative. It's hilarious.

What I really find funny is when party line Republicans can't get it through their thick skulls that theirs is the BiggER government party.

"W." was certainly not fiscally conservative. I can't argue with that.
I am expecting better things from McCain...although he was not my first choice.


oh and as I watched the third debate the moderater said both of thier proposals would add 2oo billion to debt.
(according to the infamous independant analysis)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree, and every independent analysis of McCain's spending proposals confirms that he will increase spending even more and faster than Bush did and Obama proposes, and with bigger deficits.
Which is what make it that much more comical when McCain promises yet another bailout, yet more spending, yet another tax cut, and then promises to be fiscally conservative. It's hilarious.

What I really find funny is when party line Republicans can't get it through their thick skulls that theirs is the BiggER government party.

"W." was certainly not fiscally conservative. I can't argue with that.
I am expecting better things from McCain...although he was not my first choice.


oh and as I watched the third debate the moderater said both of thier proposals would add 2oo billion to debt.
(according to the infamous independant annalysis)

Alright, just humoring your argument here, but given the recent Republican track record of fiscal dishonesty while firmly in power, why should I pick McCain if even both their budget proposals would have similar increases to the debt?
I thought the conservative theme song was "Won't Get Fooled Again"?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: 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.

You're running along my original train of thought here, Rainsford. I think you should also factor in that "spreading the wealth" can mean more than just "taking from the rich to give to the poor". It can also mean giving the poor more of an opportunity to earn a bigger share of the pie. It also doesn't have to mean just helping the poor; it can mean helping the lower middle class work their way further up the ladder.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree, and every independent analysis of McCain's spending proposals confirms that he will increase spending even more and faster than Bush did and Obama proposes, and with bigger deficits.
Which is what make it that much more comical when McCain promises yet another bailout, yet more spending, yet another tax cut, and then promises to be fiscally conservative. It's hilarious.

What I really find funny is when party line Republicans can't get it through their thick skulls that theirs is the BiggER government party.

"W." was certainly not fiscally conservative. I can't argue with that.
I am expecting better things from McCain...although he was not my first choice.


oh and as I watched the third debate the moderater said both of thier proposals would add 2oo billion to debt.
(according to the infamous independant annalysis)

Alright, just humoring your argument here, but given the recent Republican track record of fiscal dishonesty while firmly in power, why should I pick McCain if even both their budget proposals would have similar increases to the debt?
I thought the conservative theme song was "Won't Get Fooled Again"?

I can't speak for why you should. I can only speak for why I should.
You will have to decide why you should on your own

the economy will be no worse and I believe better then under Obama.
The international affairs will be handled by a true statesman.
Justices will be appointed who do not legislate from the bench.
The rights of the unborn will be protected.
The traditional definition of mairrage will be preserved.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't speak for why you should. I can only speak for why I should.
You will have to decide why you should on your own

the economy will be no worse and I believe better then under Obama.
The international affairs will be handled by a true statesman.
Justices will be appointed who do not legislate from the bench.
The rights of the unborn will be protected.
The traditional definition of mairrage will be preserved.

Your first 3 are debatable (if not pipe dreams, especially the 2nd and 3rd) and your last 2 are big govt authoritarian agendas.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't speak for why you should. I can only speak for why I should.
You will have to decide why you should on your own

the economy will be no worse and I believe better then under Obama.
The international affairs will be handled by a true statesman.
Justices will be appointed who do not legislate from the bench.
The rights of the unborn will be protected.
The traditional definition of mairrage will be preserved.

Your first 3 are debatable (if not pipe dreams, especially the 2nd and 3rd) and your last 2 are big govt authoritarian agendas.

1)everything can be debated..whats your point?
2)what Martin Luther can have a dream and I can't?
3)some ,including me ,would call them traditional American values worth holding onto.
However in a free country you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't speak for why you should. I can only speak for why I should.
You will have to decide why you should on your own

the economy will be no worse and I believe better then under Obama.
The international affairs will be handled by a true statesman.
Justices will be appointed who do not legislate from the bench.
The rights of the unborn will be protected.
The traditional definition of mairrage will be preserved.

Your first 3 are debatable (if not pipe dreams, especially the 2nd and 3rd) and your last 2 are big govt authoritarian agendas.

1)everything can be debated..whats your point?
2)what Martin Luther can have a dream and I can't?
3)some ,including me ,would call them traditional American values worth holding onto.
However in a free country you are entitled to your opinion.

My point is that your arguments lack basic fundamentals like logic, consistency, and truth.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't speak for why you should. I can only speak for why I should.
You will have to decide why you should on your own

the economy will be no worse and I believe better then under Obama.
The international affairs will be handled by a true statesman.
Justices will be appointed who do not legislate from the bench.
The rights of the unborn will be protected.
The traditional definition of mairrage will be preserved.

Your first 3 are debatable (if not pipe dreams, especially the 2nd and 3rd) and your last 2 are big govt authoritarian agendas.

1)everything can be debated..whats your point?
2)what Martin Luther can have a dream and I can't?
3)some ,including me ,would call them traditional American values worth holding onto.
However in a free country you are entitled to your opinion.

My point is that your arguments lack basic fundamentals like logic, consistency, and truth.

as do yours. Your making the same assumptions about obama.
I least I have a 25 year senate record to look at.
And a distinguished military career that shows courage, character, and determination.
You have a great speech barrack gave and a couple of boring books.

I see you have gone offline so I guess our discussion has ended.
Goodnight:moon:

 

[BigDH01]

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.

Wow, shows a complete lack of reasoning and logic. If we assume that total wealth rises roughly at the rate of inflation, it is still entirely possible that the CEOs or other wealthy class citizens concentrate the wealth. If the upper quartile gains wealth faster than inflation and the lower class gains wealth at a rate lower than inflation, what do you think is happening? Seriously, God gave you a brain, freaking use it.

 

[BigDH01]

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....

Wow, nice scare tactic. How many times do I have to show you the federal budget before you freaking understand it? If you combine DoD and GWoT budgets, it is greater than all the money spent on unemployment, Medicaid, and welfare. You can view the relative amounts here. Less than 12% on welfare and unemployment. And, in case you didn't know, employers pay an unemployment tax for their employees to ensure people who lost their jobs can collect. That's right, it isn't welfare, it's money collected to be dispensed at a later date.

Why don't you actually go look at the data instead of getting all upset about something you know nothing about:
Federal Budget Outlays

Federal Budget in Millions 2008 Estimate (in millions)


Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) and related programs 17,059

Unemployment insurance (UI) programs 34,095

Interest paid on Treasury debt securities (gross) 241,103

Department of Defense?Military:
Military personnel 117,549
Operation and maintenance 221,661
Procurement 126,143

Your only argument is Medicaid:

Medicaid grants 206,886

Of course, Medicaid covers a lot more than just "the people that don't deserve it." Many of those covered by Medicaid are children (an estimated 19.7 million out of 42.9 in 2004 to be exact). Medicaid covers almost 60% of those living in nursing homes as well. And before you chime in with, "Well, why should I cover the mistakes of some adults? Let's punish the adults by letting the children suffer," let's investigate actual costs. Providing health insurance via Medicaid is actually much cheaper than the alternative.

Regardless, you could fully fund Medicaid and TANF for a cost less than what is paid on the interest on our debt. If you visit this site, you'll see war appropriations for 2008 approach 200 billion.

If you subtract the children and elderly from the Medicaid + TANF spending, you'd see that indeed more money is spent in the GWoT than is spent on the "irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society." That is, unless you consider the children and residents of rest homes to be irresponsible deadbeats and dregs. Who knows what they teach you on Fox News though.

Seriously, did you even bother to look at any of the facts or figures that I've ever posted on these forums. Did you ever give them serious consideration? Or do they give you an "ignorance badge" at neocon school that permits you to ignore all facts and reason?

 

[colonel]

Socialism is happening right now, the government own more than the private capital, the government got a big debt for years to pay.

 

[miketheidiot]

if you aren't spreading the wealth, your are hoarding it.

so since republicans are apparently against spreading the wealth, they must be in favor of hoarding it. Considering their record, this is clearly the case.


and as far as marxism goes, this only shows a lack of understanding of what marxism is.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

can i come to the detatched non-reality that you live in?

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

to a large degree, this is a zero sum game, there are only so many resources to go around. If someone else gets more, that means there is less for you, even if it is imperceptibly small.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

in the last 8 years mccain morphed himself into a bush clone. Most of his ideas are pretty much the same as bushes now, at least in public. who knows what he really wants to do.

 

[ebaycj]

I posted the following in a previous thread with regards to "Spreading the wealth", but received no responses, so I will re-post here, since it is more pertinent to the topic :

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is way too limited. Over the same time frame, I checked the numbers for a variety of economic indicators - unemployment, GDP growth, etc.

For pretty much all the indicators, the rankings of the presidents mostly had the democrats in the top spots and the Republicans in the bottom spots. It was very clear.

The one thing you can pretty much count on with the Republicans is increased concentration of wealth.

Concentration of wealth is not done at the expense of another group of people, so if thats the best argument you have you're standing on very, very thin ice.

Concentration of wealth IS fundamentally done at the expense of another group of people.

The distribution of wealth is a snapshot function. Since wealth is always either being created or destroyed, the distribution of wealth is only good at the point in time that the sample is taken.

The concentration of wealth (or, more accurately, the re-distribution of wealth) is easily explained away by saying that new wealth is being created and so that is to blame. Unfortunately it's not that simple. Since wealth is created or lost by an incredibly small amount when it is compared to the existing amount of wealth, it is possible to re-distribute the existing wealth while at the same time creating some new wealth.

The concentration of wealth is the re-distribution of existing wealth from a group of many (each having a moderate share) to a group of few (each having a massive share). It is not mutually exclusive with the creation of some new wealth (or the destruction of some of the existing wealth).

To say that it is not possible is asinine. It is possible, and it is easy. It is best done when the momentum changes in the economy (good -> bad, or bad -> good economy). When going from good -> bad, Corporations intentionally over-constrict in order to assure a strong bottom line, and in doing so extract more value from the labor of their remaining people (the many), who feel lucky to have a job at that point. Profits go up due to the over-constriction, and large bonuses / raises / incentives are paid to the executives (the few). When going from bad -> good, the company is already at a constricted state, so as revenues begin to rise due to the economic improvement, the company only needs to hold off expanding as long as possible, and then they only need expand at a slower rate than their revenues are expanding, and in doing so, they extract more value from their existing employees (the many). Profits go up due to increased revenue with minimal increase in cost, and large bonuses / raises / incentives are paid to the executives (the few).

Case in point: Oil spot prices vs. average Gasoline prices. Good -> Bad (price of oil going up), average gasoline prices rise almost immediately (often literally overnight). Bad -> Good (price of oil going down), average gasoline prices fall at an incredibly slower rate than the rate at which oil is falling. Businesses make money on the up-side (by quickly and drastically increasing prices long before their materials costs actually go up), and they make money on the down-side (by reducing prices slowly and methodically, only after their materials costs have gone down and stayed down).

Believe what you want. However, the concentration (re-distribution) of wealth is indeed possible, and it has been happening extensively, in a purple america wearing a worn and tattered red suit.

 

[ebaycj]

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.

This is patently false. Let's say the wealth of the country is 100 dollars. and that every day there is either a dollar created (added to the 100 dollars) or taken away (subtracted from the 100 dollars). Let's also say that the population of the country is 3. Anastasia, Brian, and Christine (A, B, C). The wealth can be arbitrarily redistributed between A, B, and C (for the purposes of this example). They all start with an equal share, 33 dollars, leaving one dollar in the pot to cover the first day's risk.

(day 1) A new dollar is created today and goes in the pot. (2 dollars in the pot). $10 from B and C is redistributed to A. (totals: 53/23/23/2).

(day 2) A new dollar is created today and goes in the pot. (3 dollars in the pot). $10 from B and C is redistributed to A. (totals: 73/13/13/3).

(day 3) A new dollar is created today and goes in the pot. The pot is evenly distributed, leaving one dollar in the pot to cover tomorrows risk. (1 dollar in the pot, 1 dollar to each of A,B,C.) (No wealth redistribution today). (totals: 74/14/14/1).

(day 4) A new dollar is created today and goes in the pot. (totals: 74/14/14/2).

(day 5) A dollar is destroyed today and is taken from the pot. $10 from B and C is redistributed to A. (totals: 94/4/4/1).

(end of days).

So does this make any sense? What i'm saying is that the amount of wealth created / lost is so small compared to the existing pool of wealth, that concentration of wealth IS possible, while at the same time creating / destroying "new" wealth. They are not mutually exclusive.

The only way your theory would hold up is if the amount of wealth being created or destroyed at one time was on the same order of magnitude of the amount of the existing pool of wealth. i.e. in the exmaple above, it would be total wealth = $100, and $50+ is either created or destroyed per day.

 

[jackace]

When I see people talk about sharing the wealth I'm not picturing hand-outs. I look at a restructuring of the system so those with large sums of capital for investing and running businesses can't use that power to keep wages and benefits suppressed all the while their profits continue to increase.

What were the statistics from that other thread?
Something like the top 0.01% of Americans have seen a 500% increase in their income and the 80-90% range saw almost a 30% increase in their income, compared to a 4.7% increase for the bottom 20%. If those numbers are correct then our system is not working for the majority of Americans. The majority of the wealth in our country is ending up in the hands of a small group of ultra-rich, and the rest of us are left with small increases at best.

 

[darincm]

What's funny is that John McCain's plan to use 300B to buyback mortgages using taxpayer money is in fact a redistribution of wealth. He is using your hard earned money to bail out those taxpayers who can't do it themselves.

Any capitalist society that uses any form of taxation indulges in "spread the wealth" If you can't see that there is no hope for you

What is hilarious is that all the talking GOP heads on CNN keep talking about how bad "spread the wealth" is because America is a country where you apparently put the individual first, but look at the signs at any McCain rally & you will see a ton of "Country First" signs. Just go to the John McCain homepage and you will see in big letters, "Country First".

 

[StageLeft]

Every successful society spreads the wealth including the US.

Next.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Every successful society spreads the wealth including the US.

Next.

That does not make wealth redistribution right, why should anyone who has earned a four year degree and busted his butt to make his fortune have to give up a share of it so it can be handed to someone who never even bothered to graduate high school?

Why should that same guy be forced to give up a share of his fortune just so Obama can give it to poor countries whose people do little or nothing to try and better their own selves, usually just the opposite?

He shouldn't, like all other life on this planet it is survival of the fittest any deviation will end in disaster.

The other downside;
Obama has many rich starting to make moves now with the assumption he will get elected like moving their wealth and dealings out of the country. Others like the Miami Dolphins owner is selling the Dolphins now before Obama gets elected and he raises the capital gains tax.

The rich will avoid his taxation by every way possible; he will NOT get the funds he is expecting and further pound the middle class for it causing irreparable damage to that segment of society.

 

[owensdj]

A progressive tax system isn't wealth redistribution. We've had that in the USA for generations. The only policy question is just how progressive it should be.

 

[microbial]

The idea of spreading the wealth is common for both Republicans and Democrats.

John McCain himself believes in trickle-down economics (classic Reaganomics). Which is the bullshitiest lying-pile-of-turd way of masquerading redistribution.

If you buy Reaganomics--I have a bridge to nowhere I'm selling...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

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

You really believe that?