How Should the Wealth be Redistributed?

[Sunstone]

We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.

True enough.

 

[Heneni]

James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich

Authority is given. No one has ever assumed authority and survived for long without a band of followers. If you are fighting a person, remember that you are fighting the multitudes supporting them as well. Now forgive me, but none of these man have got so much clout as oprah winfrey, so i cant see how they have the power to change the world. Not like oprah, who can change things easier than the president can.

Heneni

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If Liberals are so smart, how come they need other people to pay for their programs against their will?

Who pays for your roads? Who pays for the education of the children in your county?

Do we have to keep going over this again and again?

I must have missed the legislative act that dictated that only avowed conservatives pay taxes.

Being a liberal myself (by your definition), I have been paying my taxes my entire lifetime. Unlike Leona Helmsley, I believe that it is both my responsibility and my duty, since I reap the benefits of them.

Why is it that conservatives insist on feeling persecuted when asked to pay their taxes? No sense of patriotism?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Many of us neo-cons are just hoping something like this will erupt. Believe me my friend, it won't be pretty and you will not like the outcome. Take a look at the map of red states and blue ones.

Do you think that liberals do not own guns? Do you think that liberals do not hunt, fish, or go to a shooting ranges?

 

[Heneni]

Why is it that conservatives insist on feeling persecuted when asked to pay their taxes? No sense of patriotism?

Id feel persecuted for having to pay taxes if what the taxes are suppose to do, and which the goverment promised the people it would do, is not being done. Paying taxes is not about patriostism, its about paying for a service. Its bad business to pay for something you dont get good value for, and it is bad business for a goverment to not deliver on their promises. Patriotism and business are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Id feel persecuted for having to pay taxes if what the taxes are suppose to do, and which the goverment promised the people it would do, is not being done. Paying taxes is not about patriostism, its about paying for a service. Its bad business to pay for something you dont get good value for, and it is bad business for a goverment to not deliver on their promises. Patriotism and business are mutually exclusive concepts.

Patriotism and business are completely unrelated, but they are not mutually exclusive.

My comment regarding patriotism and taxes is intended to point out the absurdity of questioning someone's patriotism simply because they do not agree with your position on a given subject.

The last eight years have been an unending exercise in this, as the Republicans have gone from questioning the patriotism of others, to calling them un-American, outright.

It is political rhetoric, that anyone with a fifth grade education and a rational mind can see through.

Oddly, on this site, we have a handful of dogmatic social conservatives that honestly buy into that line of BS.

 

[Heneni]

Patriotism and business are completely unrelated, but they are not mutually exclusive.

My comment regarding patritotism and taxes is intended to point out the absurdity of questioning someone's patriotism simply because they do not agree with your position on a given subject.

The last eight years have been an unending exercise in this, as the Republicans have gone from questioning the patriotism of others, to calling them un-American, outright.

It is political rhetoric, that anyone with a fifth grade education and a rational mind can see through.

Oddly, on this site, we have a handful of dogmatic social conservatives that honestly buy into that line of BS.

I wouldnt know who is buying into who's ********. But i think its reasonable to believe that patriotism is something that is felt in the heart, and taxes is something that is felt in the pocket.

Im afraid taxes have gone from something that is suppose to increase and improve or at least sustain our quality of life to some sort of duty and responsibility. Though we all pay taxes, its not being very effective is it?

Countries like switzerland have four taxes. And if you go there, you can see why they pay it and where its going. Someone, somewhere is bamboozeling the americans.

 

[Alceste]

Authority is given. No one has ever assumed authority and survived for long without a band of followers. If you are fighting a person, remember that you are fighting the multitudes supporting them as well. Now forgive me, but none of these man have got so much clout as oprah winfrey, so i cant see how they have the power to change the world. Not like oprah, who can change things easier than the president can.

Heneni

Let me get this straight - are you saying that Oprah would have had an easier time than Bush / Cheney / Rove and co. ruining America's reputation in the international community, waging two pointless, bloody, unwinnable wars, bankrupting the USA, reinvigorating the nuclear arms race, castrating the UN, wiping her backside with the US constitution and the magna carta - thereby setting western human rights legislation back 800 years - empowering Israel to invade Lebanon and make plans to bomb Iran, transforming the US into an endemic surveillance society, implementing energy policies that have doubled the price of food and regulatory policies (or the lack thereof) that have plunged the entire world into a recession?

I respectfully disagree.

 

[tomspug]

Who runs this economy? The rich or the poor? The answer, of course, is BOTH.

Let me ask you this: why does Obama not support a flat tax, which would tax based on SPENDING. Because even though that would put a higher tax burden on the wealthy (in a fair, non-socialist manner) he doesn't support it because taxing the rich is a great way to be popular among idiots.

 

[tomspug]

Conservatives and Liberals I can live with. I've voted for both. And at different times in my life, I've been both. Conservations want to preserve traditional American freedoms and liberties, and Liberals want to expand those freedoms and liberties. I can live with either group in power.

But I take issue with authoritarians. Authoritarians want neither to conserve nor to expand American freedoms and liberties. Instead, they would restrict and abolish our freedoms and liberties. They are deeply, fundamentally anti-American, and I oppose them.

I'm glad you've finally noticed how McCain is different than George Bush.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I wouldnt know who is buying into who's ********. But i think its reasonable to believe that patriotism is something that is felt in the heart, and taxes is something that is felt in the pocket.

Im afraid taxes have gone from something that is suppose to increase and improve or at least sustain our quality of life to some sort of duty and responsibility. Though we all pay taxes, its not being very effective is it?

Countries like switzerland have four taxes. And if you go there, you can see why they pay it and where its going. Someone, somewhere is bamboozeling the americans.

I agree (completely) with your post. Our taxes are ineffective, in the sense that far too much of them are being siphoned off, rather than being utilized for their intended purpose.

The real culprit here, is the absolute lack of accounting and accountability at the federal level (although, it occurs at the state level as well, but isn't quite as refined).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Who runs this economy? The rich or the poor? The answer, of course, is BOTH.

You absolutely must get out of the house more often.

Let me ask you this: why does Obama not support a flat tax, which would tax based on SPENDING. Because even though that would put a higher tax burden on the wealthy (in a fair, non-socialist manner) he doesn't support it because taxing the rich is a great way to be popular among idiots.

Again, with the keen insight into all things economic. How do you do it? What's your secret?

I'm glad you've finally noticed how McCain is different than George Bush.

Absolutely! He's older, and far less stable.

 

[Alceste]

Someone, somewhere is bamboozeling the americans.

This I agree with. 70 billion dollars of that bailout money is already lining the pockets of banking executives. Hard to believe, isn't it? 10% of the total package has already gone straight into private pockets. Your money, to be paid by you, your children and grandchildren in the form of severely restricted funding for social programs like health care and education, putting fuel in the yachts of the stupidly rich, all because they managed to convince our elected representatives that the prospect of a banker who can't afford to fill his yacht is an apocalypse that threatens the very foundations of society.

But that's capitalism for you.

 

[Troublemane]

lets face it, democrats are just as much a part of the problem. We have a two-card montey system here, where Bush (supposedly conservative) puts in place the biggest increase in govt spending in history and still the republicans call the dems the big spenders.

But....back in the 90's, Bill Clinton signed into law NAFTA, which the dems said to their supporters (like the AFL-CIO) "hey its kewl, this wont take away american jobs, honest!"...wow were they ever lying! And nobody asks, why did Clinton a supposed liberal put into law something no conservative president would have been able to?

...maybe we should take note on how buddy-buddy the Bush family is with the Clintons and realize we are gettin played.

 

[Heneni]

Let me get this straight - are you saying that Oprah would have had an easier time than Bush / Cheney / Rove and co. ruining America's reputation in the international community, waging two pointless, bloody, unwinnable wars, bankrupting the USA, reinvigorating the nuclear arms race, castrating the UN, wiping her backside with the US constitution and the magna carta - thereby setting western human rights legislation back 800 years - empowering Israel to invade Lebanon and make plans to bomb Iran, transforming the US into an endemic surveillance society, implementing energy policies that have doubled the price of food and regulatory policies (or the lack thereof) that have plunged the entire world into a recession?

I respectfully disagree.

I dont care what you think about oprah winfrey, i dont even care what i think about oprah winfrey. The point is she has support and she has in that sense got a lot of power. If wealth was going to distributed, choose someone to head up the campaign that already has a world wide following. Now that could have been you, but alas, you havent found your niche yet.

Maybe it doesnt have to be oprah. But like everything else in america, as soon as it becomes a show its successful. Presidential elections are a 'road show'. Make the distrubution of wealth a show as well, and you will have great success. Make it a political matter and you will have many people fighting. But the distribution of wealth on a 'neutral' playing field, add the lights, cameras, and make sure the rest of the world is watching the americans distribute their wealth....and you have a winner.

The rest of the world will follow.

But as long as the distrubution of wealth is about political power, few people will co-operate. If its about glory for ourselves...more people will co-operate, and if they have a voice that can make their efforts known over the world all the better.

Heneni

 

[Alceste]

I dont care what you think about oprah winfrey, i dont even care what i think about oprah winfrey. The point is she has support and she has in that sense got a lot of power. If wealth was going to distributed, choose someone to head up the campaign that already has a world wide following. Now that could have been you, but alas, you havent found your niche yet.

Maybe it doesnt have to be oprah. But like everything else in america, as soon as it becomes a show its successful. Presidential elections are a 'road show'. Make the distrubution of wealth a show as well, and you will have great success. Make it a political matter and you will have many people fighting. But the distribution of wealth on a 'neutral' playing field, add the lights, cameras, and make sure the rest of the world is watching the americans distribute their wealth....and you have a winner.

The rest of the world will follow.

But as long as the distrubution of wealth is about political power, few people will co-operate. If its about glory for ourselves...more people will co-operate, and if they have a voice that can make their efforts known over the world all the better.

Heneni

While I appreciate that Oprah has a lot of influence on people's opinions, there are a few problems with your vision. The main one, as I see it is "the rest of the world will follow". I hate to disillusion you, but most parts of the industrialized world are miles ahead of you guys when it comes to the fair distribution of resources. We've all got some form of universal health coverage, for example. We've all got progressive tax rates and just about everybody, rich and poor, finds that fair and understands the relationship between taxes and services.

So it's really just America that needs to play catch up with the rest of civilization - not lead the way.

The other problem is the bit starting "if wealth was going to be distributed..."

It isn't as if wealth isn't already distributed. It's impossible to govern a society without some concept of how to manage property and wealth. These things all require laws, and the laws represent particular views. The popular view for the US and its fans elsewhere is that laws should represent the interests of the wealthy - especially the extremely wealthy. This means private property is valued over nearly any other consideration. Therefore, efforts to combat child poverty (for example) end where they bump up against something somebody thinks they own.Efforts can go no further because private property is sacred. So a child sleeping in the gutter outside an vacant house is not allowed to sleep inside it because the ownership of the house has more value to our legislators than the life, health and happiness of a child.

So what we now have is everybody's resources being allocated to individuals with money. The more money they have, the more resources they get. There is no limit to how many vacant houses a rich person can own, no matter how many children are sleeping in the gutters outside. The wealth has already been distributed, and 5% of the population has gotten almost all of it.

So what the rest of us have figured out how to do (and what America used to do, but has forgotten thanks to Reagan, and now is starting to remember, causing the rich to scream blue murder) is to try to strike a balance of fairness.Yes, people have a right to own property - even lots of property - but children also have a right to shelter no matter how poor their parents are. So our governments compel the people who have far more than they need allocate a portion of their excess wealth to those who have nothing at all. Of course the rich love to ***** about it and seek offshore tax shelters, but it's the foundation of a healthy, strong and satisfied middle class.

 

[Heneni]

While I appreciate that Oprah has a lot of influence on people's opinions, there are a few problems with your vision. The main one, as I see it is "the rest of the world will follow". I hate to disillusion you, but most parts of the industrialized world are miles ahead of you guys when it comes to the fair distribution of resources. We've all got some form of universal health coverage, for example. We've all got progressive tax rates and just about everybody, rich and poor, finds that fair and understands the relationship between taxes and services.

So it's really just America that needs to play catch up with the rest of civilization - not lead the way.

The other problem is the bit starting "if wealth was going to be distributed..."

It isn't as if wealth isn't already distributed. It's impossible to govern a society without some concept of how to manage property and wealth. These things all require laws, and the laws represent particular views. The popular view for the US and its fans elsewhere is that laws should represent the interests of the wealthy - especially the extremely wealthy. This means private property is valued over nearly any other consideration. Therefore, efforts to combat child poverty (for example) end where they bump up against something somebody thinks they own.Efforts can go no further because private property is sacred. So a child sleeping in the gutter outside an vacant house is not allowed to sleep inside it because the ownership of the house has more value to our legislators than the life, health and happiness of a child.

So what we now have is everybody's resources being allocated to individuals with money. The more money they have, the more resources they get. There is no limit to how many vacant houses a rich person can own, no matter how many children are sleeping in the gutters outside. The wealth has already been distributed, and 5% of the population has gotten almost all of it.

So what the rest of us have figured out how to do (and what America used to do, but has forgotten thanks to Reagan, and now is starting to remember, causing the rich to scream blue murder) is to try to strike a balance of fairness.Yes, people have a right to own property - even lots of property - but children also have a right to shelter no matter how poor their parents are. So our governments compel the people who have far more than they need allocate a portion of their excess wealth to those who have nothing at all. Of course the rich love to ***** about it and seek offshore tax shelters, but it's the foundation of a healthy, strong and satisfied middle class.

Im really only entertaining this idea of distributing wealth. Im not an american by the way...maybe i should have said that. I think one has to examine what exactly it is that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. And armed with that information we can debate what could be done to change that. However, i have to say...that it seems like generally you need money to make money. Opportunities are not there for poorer people like there are for richer people. To buy a house on auction you need to put down a deposit. Poorer people dont have the deposit. So the rich gets the bargains. The poorer people cant afford university while the rich can. Both these examples directly affects the future wealth of a person. So there are less camera lights action ways of distributing wealth. Not having to pay for healtcare is another good idea. I for one believe that it is a human rights issue. Everyone should be able to have access to really good healtcare. I think that taxing the middle and lower class less is a good idea. I also think that childcare should be subsidised, or that mothers recieve incentives to stay with their children at home for the first few years. I believe there should be huge benefits for parents who save for their childrens future education. All this leaves us with more money in our pocket to have a better quality of life. To for example buy healthier food, and to save more. To have more money for leasure activities, and to travel more.

I find european people very open minded. I wonder if that is because the average european teenager has been to more countries than an american adult? I think that there is a huge drive to make migration between countries less of an issue. Anyway...its interesting that the bible says.


you will always have the poor among you.


Heneni

 

[Sunstone]

I'm glad you've finally noticed how McCain is different than George Bush.

That's an excellent point, Tom. Like you, I'm pretty sure McCain is not an authoritarian. Bush, on the other hand, is. And that's a key difference between the two.

I am, however, greatly troubled both by Sarah Palin -- who strikes me as authoritarian -- and by many of the people McCain has surrounded himself with, and who would likely have roles to play in his administration.

 

[Sunstone]

Im really only entertaining this idea of distributing wealth.

My dear, there never is any possibility the wealth in any society can remain undistributed. Pigs can't fly and wealth can't remain undistributed. The only question, then, is how it is distributed. Not whether it is distributed.

In America, wealth is currently being distributed up the socioeconomic ladder much moreso than it is being distributed down the socioeconomic ladder. Consequently, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's to say, the gap between the rich and the poor is currently growing in America.

That threatens the very foundations of our freedoms and liberties here. If something is not done about that, we could be looking at tyranny.

 

[Heneni]

If you read the rest of my post you can see how i think wealth can be distributed. Did you miss it? I dont see how wealth though, can bring liberty and freedom. Does having a morgage and debt to pay give us liberty and freedom? That depends on your idea of liberty and freedom. The poor are free from the worries that come with wealth. The wealthy are free from the worries that come with poverty. Freedom and liberty is a state of mind. It transcends your current situation or spending abilities.

That is why im saying..im only entertaining the thought of distributing wealth. I am of the opinion that there is more than enough for us all to get along just fine. What is required is a little more sharing. But most people would percieve parting with what they have as putting themselves in a disadvanteged position. That in itself is mostly only an exaggerated perception.

Heneni