Obama and redistribution of Wealth...

Originally posted by orderedchaos
Sorry, sir. I don't believe for one minute that Obama will redistribute wealth from the top 1% and spread it around. That 1% don't even pay taxes.

I don't think he's going to significantly redistribute it, either, and I wouldn't support that. But I think he's going to try to get the ball rolling toward a more fair handling of the money in this country. More fair taxing, fewer tax shelters, etc. I think he's going to do a little bit to ease the strain that's on the lowest-income people in our country. He's not a miracle worker, but I think he's doing what he can to make things better.

Originally posted by Gateway
What is redistribution if income is not taken from some and given to others then?

Exactly. You cannot seriously sit here and tell me any administration over the last century that didnt have some kind of re-distribution of wealth. Yet you willfully kept your mouth over the last 8years, probably during the Reagan administration because at the end of the day this has nothing really to do with redistribution of wealth and everything to do with making an excuse to complain.

You cant seriously sit here and tell me any other "acceptable system" by conservative standards that doesnt have some form of distribution of wealth. Seriously list me some "acceptable" system and I will gladly show you why its still redistribution.

Essentially your argument against redistribution of wealth, a collective income collecting system, means that nobody should then pay for anything in this nation, including the roads, the police, the army for petes sakes. You come up with warped ideas and beliefs against collective systems and yet you continue to fail the systems you readily agree with that depend heavily on it.

Without some redistribution of wealth the military would not have any funds to grow, those roads of yours would not have funds coming in, the policed will not have any source of income without distribution of wealth. Oh yes yes yes but we should trust "people to give charity". You fellas continue to create this reality of yours.

Nobody gave the lefties the idea to 'dictate' what is OKAY in terms of taking my INCOME

Oh I'll tell you who gave us lefties the right to implement our own systems, November 4th 2008 when we voted and chose our government under our own free democratic will. When your candidate and your issues get voted again, you will have the right vai the will of the people to implement your issues. Thats why we have elections, so people can vote on the candidates with the issues they wish to see in the whitehouse. Majority vote, as in the constitution. Us lefties were told to shut the hell up during 2000, 2003, now its our turn to implement our issues, we were voted in fairly in November, if you oppose it get the majority to support you come 2012.

We pay for fireman and police why not keep on spending on something else...lets see.....lets see...I KNOW HOW ABOUT we spend on HEALTH CARE.

Exactly. If you want to dictate to us telling us we cant implement a public option its our right to outright oppose paying for your overgrown military. We spent an extra $1 trillion over the last 8years and kept our mouths shut on your military so by all means we have every right to implement our system and we will.

SG

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I know that. I disagree strongly with him on that.

Okay.

I AM talking about laws. Tax shelters, loopholes, corporations and their bonuses at the expense of the workers, $10 million salary for the CEO while the worker feeds his family on $10 an hour. Government subsidies of industries such as Petroleum, Pharma and Agribusiness. I'm talking about "trickle up".

CEO are not the owners of companies correct? The owners are stock holders. If Stock holders OWN companies and feel that a CEO is overpaid then is it not IN THEIR INTEREST TO CURB THIS expenditure? CEO'S loose their jobs all the time...see here. The stock owner don't put with shenanigans if the company is going down the tubes and the CEO or other corporate head don't produce. If a CEO bring in profits by making the correct decision on expansion and new markets or taking on the risk of a new product like STEVE JOBS lets say. Who BRINGS in BILLIONS to Apple shareholders...then what's really a $10 million dollar salary. True, the guy who probably sells IPODS at the local APPLE retail store may earn $10 an hour, but DID his productivity EARN APPLE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS? Pay is associated with worker productivity.

Also, becarefull..your last line about loop holes and taxes is making it sound like the problem you have is with RICH PEOPLE trying to keep more of their money.

Look at it this way. Let's say I earn 35k a year, which is not much nor is it a lot. And let's say I have a brother-in law who is savvy enough to reduce my taxes down to only 2k per year, normally if I didn't use my brother-in law I would have paid 5k per year or say 10K. Is this something illegal...really? Wouldn't you overlook this...and argue this man WORKED for his income. He not only has every right to only paying his 2k per year, but in fact he should be entitled TO ALL OF IT!

And that is the argument I propose, WE cannot be hypocrites AND see the only difference BETWEEN these two people is the AMOUNT of income or money they make. And if WE are going to head down the PATH TO BELIEVE that SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU EARN $10 MILLION dollars or whatever "X" sum of MONEY...THAT...YOU must be more PUNISHED than the other, simply because your only crime IS HIGHER WEALTH.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You cannot seriously sit here and tell me any administration over the last century that didnt have some kind of re-distribution of wealth. Yet you willfully kept your mouth over the last 8years, probably during the Reagan administration because at the end of the day this has nothing really to do with redistribution of wealth and everything to do with making an excuse to complain.

I despise Reagan, because he's the big spender he was. But let's be honest we can agree that in life there are degrees of taxation?

So answer me this, in relative terms even though OBAMA has been only a few months in OFFICE we can gauge that he will raise taxes: NOW...IS/WAS Reagan known to increase taxes/redistribution of Wealth? As opposed to, Carter, Bush sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and now Obama?

REDISTRIBUTION IS:
Again forceful, coercion of wealth THAT can only done from behind a gun or threat of jail time?

I know wealth grew and tended to move in the upward quadrant, during Reagan's presidency, BUT this is not REDISTRIBUTION. REAGAN did not institute the IRS to come INTO YOUR HOME TAKE YOUR INCOME AND give it to the WEALTHY. You can coin it income inequality, but that's life...nobody is equal...and not everyone is the same as far as productivity goes. Labor pay equals the amount of productivity you provide.

You cant seriously sit here and tell me any other "acceptable system" by conservative standards that doesnt have some form of distribution of wealth. Seriously list me some "acceptable" system and I will gladly show you why its still redistribution.

I'm not imposing my "acceptable system" on ANYONE. IT is YOU LEFTIES that want to IMPOSE A SYSTEM on everyone else. Am I proposing to INCREASE YOUR TAXES to fund a pet project? Or am I saying that we SHOULD not impose anything on anyone?

Just WHO is being the TYRANT here Southern Gaurdian?

Essentially your argument against redistribution of wealth, a collective income collecting system, means that nobody should then pay for anything in this nation, including the roads, the police, the army for petes sakes.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. However this would be the ideal society that you pay for things you use. And in theory everything can be privatized.

Having said that, I have to live within the confines of reality. And reality says that MOST people LOGICALLY don't want to FURTHER INCREASE government taxation/redistribution.

IT is you who is in the wrong here...let the will of the people decide.

You come up with warped ideas and beliefs against collective systems and yet you continue to fail the systems you readily agree with that depend heavily on it.

I don't depend on anything FEDERAL DO YOU? Even as far as the MILITARY? ARE they protecting YOU? DO you think the military is PROTECTING YOUR freedoms in IRAQ, SOUTH KOREA, JAPAN, SPAIN, GERMANY...AND COUNTLESS other countries. I DON'T depend or NEED the CIA, nor other numerous other forms of FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

Without some redistribution of wealth the military would not have any funds to grow, those roads of yours would not have funds coming in, the policed will not have any source of income without distribution of wealth. Oh yes yes yes but we should trust "people to give charity". You fellas continue to create this reality of yours.

Again we are talking FEDERAL PROGRAMS as opposed to local programs. The FED does not pay for police, firefighters, or even local and state highways. This is all covered by state or local taxes.

You are discussing a new imposed FEDERAL SYSTEM, this is apples and oranges. Your argument is incoherent and illogical.

Oh I'll tell you who gave us lefties the right to implement our own systems, November 4th 2008 when we voted and chose our government under our own free democratic will. When your candidate and your issues get voted again, you will have the right vai the will of the people to implement your issues.

No no no...here you ARE SERIOUSLY confused. A presidency does not equal A DICTATORSHIP. Anything OBAMA wants to pass still needs the consent of the PEOPLE.

Because BUSH was elected does not equate with him having the roughshod of ordering ANY military campaign. YOU ARE USING NEOCON logic here...

This is a democracy...ANYTHING AND everything HAS to still be APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE, regardless who's in office.

And if the people WANT TO END THE WAR IN Iraq, SO TOO should the PEOPLE DECIDE TO END/KILL this OBAMACARE.

Thats why we have elections, so people can vote on the candidates with the issues they wish to see in the whitehouse. Majority vote, as in the constitution. Us lefties were told to shut the hell up during 2000, 2003, now its our turn to implement our issues, we were voted in fairly in November, if you oppose it get the majority to support you come 2012.

More ridiculous nonsense. WHOEVER is in office MUST still get consent from the people for any NEW PROGRAMS, SINCE IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR THEM.

Exactly. If you want to dictate to us telling us we cant implement a public option its our right to outright oppose paying for your overgrown military.

BY that same TOKEN, why not also allow the people to OPPOSE YOUR Obamacare?

And don't use the word DICTATE, because nobody has the right to dictate ANYTHING to the people. It is WE who DICTATE to the GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO.

We spent an extra $1 trillion over the last 8years and kept our mouths shut on your military so by all means we have every right to implement our system and we will.

Sorry, you're barking up the wrong TREE here. I'm not HAPPY NOR support of INCREASE SPENDING in anything. And it seems to me, that your logic is like that of THE politician in the beltway. You scratch my BACK AND I'LL SCRATCH YOURS....i'll keep my mouth shut about the egregious military spending...if you keep your mouth shut about the egregious spending on my NEW HEALTH CARE program. All the while the people in this country continue to get the SHAFT and pick up your tab.







[edit on 16-8-2009 by Gateway]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Wait a minute. $1 trillion dollar war you didn't agree with and you kept your mouth shut? Now you expect others that oppose an incredible, disagreeing expenditure to keep their mouths shut because you ridiculously kept yours seeled?

That sounds like a one-hand-washes-the-other scenario.

If you disagreed with and found the war grievious to the extreme, you should've opened your mouth. To now exhibit the audacious decree for other people to close theirs because it's something you agree to, which others' may not...?

Ludicrous.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Better Mouse Trap

 

So, let me get this right, you're FOR a marxist approach to the economy and peoples money?

You believe in a redistribution of wealth?

How much can I take from you?

What can we do when the powers that be have acquired so much wealth and power that they now control our nation and the paychecks of 96% of us?

The system we are using "Capitalism" in its current form is only working for an elite few who have not worked or accomplished anything worthy of amassing so much a share of the wealth to the point we have people living with painful rotting teeth, disabilities and living in squander and worn down leaking hot/cold trailers. People who work but cannot afford to get medicine they need. What do we do about that?

We all can't be the elite guy with all the money. Why should a society allow a few to hold so much while everyone else can just get by?

Most of us work hard and get little in return when compared to the efforts of those in power. If you daddy was rich so shall you be. Why is it ok for people to be born into jobs and or positions in the government or working with a Senator not having to have worked there way up?

The American Dream was just that for most of America a Dream. Only a few can ever get there under the current system.

How as humans do we make this right for us all? You tell me ok?

We can either have a country ran by elected officials or Corporate elite. That is the question. We already have socialism here it is ran and controlled by CEO's.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Xeven]

reply to post by orderedchaos


You can't blame Southern Gaurdian, orderedchaos...he has naively bought hook line and sinker the MYTH that the office of the President is equal to a standing/elected KING.

For the DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS think the office of the presidency also equals dictatorship. That's why MOST OF THEM, from both sides of the isle shirked their chore and said nothing about the patriot act, the abuse of prisoners, nor question the fact that Bush did not declare WAR like the constitution requires him. Instead they rather give the president a pass...so LONG as the dictatorship, can then be used by the newest elected sleazeball, be it republicans or democrats. So that the NEW slime ball can pass SOMETHING the party now in power LIKE.



[edit on 16-8-2009 by Gateway]

reply to post by Gateway


So, in your opinion, the neocon lefties are going to take your hard earned dollars to pay for the poor people who are too lazy to work to afford their own? You don't want your money to go to support the lower income brackets.

That's fair.

But what about all the people making hundreds of thousands of dollars and aren't paying their fair percentage of taxes?

The world needs a redistribution of wealth. Possessions and gadgets don't matter. Food and shelter matter. But maybe you're too much of a consumer to realize that, although we make money fairly and want to spend it on things that we want, many people cannot get what they need to survive. Tons of people are unemployed through no fault of their own and have lost their houses, and have lost enough income that making a monthly grocery trip is a strain.

Many people in this country never had the money to afford to send their child to college. Many people in this country started working at very young ages to help their parents keep a roof over their heads. Here's something enlightening. (The statistics changed so I used two sources)

In the world today, more than 6 billion people live.
If this world were shrunk to the size of a village of 100 people, what would it look like?

...

20 are undernourished
1 is dying of starvation, while 15 are overweight.
Of the wealth in this village, 6 people own 59% (all of them from the United States), 74 people own 39%, and 20 people share the remaining 2%.
Of the energy of this village, 20 people consume 80%, and 80 people share the remaining 20%.
20 have no clean, safe water to drink.
56 have access to sanitation
15 adults are illiterate.
1 has an university degree.
7 have computers...

If you have money in the bank, money in your wallet and spare change somewhere around the house, then you are among the richest 8.

(The statistics were derived from Donella Meadows "State of the Village Report" first published in 1990)

www.mysterra.org...

80 would live in substandard housing
67 would be unable to read
50 would be malnourished
and 1 dying of starvation
33 would be without access to a safe water supply
39 would lack access to improved sanitation
24 would not have any electricity
(And of the 76 that do have electricity, most would only use it for light at night.)
7 people would have access to the Internet
1 would have a college education
1 would have HIV
5 would control 32% of the entire world’s wealth;
all 5 would be US citizens
33 would be receiving --and attempting to live on--
only 3% of the income of “the village”

bloggingjuba.blogspot.com...

I don't like you calling the leader of my country a "sleezeball" or "slimeball" and I dislike your avatar.

[edit on 8/16/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by Southern Guardian

The overgrown military you fellas go on about, that depends on redistribution of wealth, 20% of our taxes go into the military, thats a piece of MY money going into your "strong defense" so if your going to tell me you dont want money taken out of your backside I dont need to be forced to pay for your overgrown military.

Sure, get rid of the military altogether. Then see how fast some country with a BIG military force redistributes OUR wealth to their coffers.

Oh, but you say, we can cut it down. Sure cut it down, and again that BIG, BAD country that really likes our resources and wealth increases their military and scenario 1 occurs again.

You don't want to pay for the military? Fine, we can just send your location and address to that BIG, BAD foreign military power, and tell them that they are free to come and take your resources and possessions, since you're not paying for defense. They can also force you to "enlist" in their military, where you can serve them until you die.

I can see you really pine for the return of the Roman Empire, and you can be that country that has no defense. I'm sure you're really love being a slave, because you'll have no goods and services for anyone to take from you.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Better Mouse Trap

 

So, let me get this right, you're FOR a marxist approach to the economy and peoples money?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but let me take a stab at it: NO. But given a choice, I'd prefer that my money be given to the poor, as opposed to the wealthy or the military.

How much can I take from you?

You can take 100% of my tax money. I don't care. If you need it more, then you need it more. Just be civil about it. Some of us have lived with this reality all of our lives.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Sure, get rid of the military altogether. Then see how fast some country with a BIG military force redistributes OUR wealth to their coffers.

Oh, but you say, we can cut it down. Sure cut it down, and again that BIG, BAD country that really likes our resources and wealth increases their military and scenario 1 occurs again.

You don't want to pay for the military? Fine, we can just send your location and address to that BIG, BAD foreign military power, and tell them that they are free to come and take your resources and possessions, since you're not paying for defense. They can also force you to "enlist" in their military, where you can serve them until you die.

I can see you really pine for the return of the Roman Empire, and you can be that country that has no defense. I'm sure you're really love being a slave, because you'll have no goods and services for anyone to take from you.

This is an example of the scarecrow fallacy. Our military spending is more than "BIG." Our military spending could be slashed, and we'd still be top-dog.

Our struggles in the Middle-East aren't due to inadequate funding; our struggles are due to the fact that (history has proven) it's very difficult to defeat guerrilla combatants on their own soil.

You're too smart to go around committing the scarecrow fallacy.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by theWCH]

reply to post by Gateway



Ya that first clip certainly indicates you capacity for cognitive activity.
Shows you would be a good kindergarden teacher



's



STUDENT

amazing demonstration!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


By more few taxes, you mean the bottom half of earners will actually pay taxes right?

You mean the top 10% wont have to pay more than 50% of the taxes correct?

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The overgrown military you fellas go on about, that depends on redistribution of wealth, 20% of our taxes go into the military, thats a piece of MY money going into your "strong defense" so if your going to tell me you dont want money taken out of your backside I dont need to be forced to pay for your overgrown military.

Sure, get rid of the military altogether. Then see how fast some country with a BIG military force redistributes OUR wealth to their coffers.

Oh, but you say, we can cut it down. Sure cut it down, and again that BIG, BAD country that really likes our resources and wealth increases their military and scenario 1 occurs again.

No I think your approach would be better... Let the middle class be billed to death from every which way and then one day soon enough the BIG BAD COUNTRY will attack 30 the Americans who will hold 95% of the wealth

OR

wait until the cost grows 5 fold in the next 40 years, we can institute faith based healthcare. And remember praying often is not a bad thing, as long as preying together is not socialist...


[edit on 17-8-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by TheAftermath
You mean the top 10% wont have to pay more than 50% of the taxes correct?

Errr...have you done any research into wealth inequality?

I haven't looked into the past few years (and I'd imagine that they've been "hard" on people who have investments); but those numbers aren't as disproportionate as they sound.

Originally posted by theWCH

Originally posted by TheAftermath
You mean the top 10% wont have to pay more than 50% of the taxes correct?

Errr...have you done any research into wealth inequality?

I haven't looked into the past few years (and I'd imagine that they've been "hard" on people who have investments); but those numbers aren't as disproportionate as they sound.

Equal protection under the law. Ever heard of it?

Income inequality has nothing to do with the percentage one must pay in taxes. Simple because one can afford it more than the other does not mean they should be penalized more.

Originally posted by TheAftermath

Originally posted by theWCH

Originally posted by TheAftermath
You mean the top 10% wont have to pay more than 50% of the taxes correct?

Errr...have you done any research into wealth inequality?

I haven't looked into the past few years (and I'd imagine that they've been "hard" on people who have investments); but those numbers aren't as disproportionate as they sound.

Equal protection under the law. Ever heard of it?

Income inequality has nothing to do with the percentage one must pay in taxes. Simple because one can afford it more than the other does not mean they should be penalized more.

But it also means that they should not be able to use their money or station to manipulate and undermine the entire society.

I mean we give prisoners and zoo animals healthcare, by your logic does that not mean
we punish people for not being criminals or CAGED ANIMALS?

reply to post by TheAftermath


My beef was with the figures that you used. First, differentiate between wealth and income -- they're very different things. Second; do the math.

Maybe the figures have changed dramatically, in recent years.

But I doubt that they've changed THAT much.

I'm pro-wealth; but those numbers seemed to be pulled out of thin air, in an effort to skew the conversation.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by theWCH]

reply to post by mental modulator


Animals? Really? Where? In a zoo? Thats what admission fees are for.

Im all for cutting off healthcare to prisoners, but SCOTUS has ruled the government has a duty to care for those in its custody.

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Animals? Really? Where? In a zoo? Thats what admission fees are for.

Im all for cutting off healthcare to prisoners, but SCOTUS has ruled the government has a duty to care for those in its custody.

I'm sure you would champion the idea of ending the socialism that is a toilet at yellowstone national park.

So you don't think tyranny is created if those with a majority of the money systematically undermine society by highjacking its government?

What is the point of government if it is not to better the society it serves?

Then what is the point of society?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by mental modulator]