...from Obama in 2001. I am certain that most political junkies have heard this already, I am curious as to what Obama's campaign response has been.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Ok, Guido, I'll take the bait. Is it possible, in your world, for the rich to ever be too rich? What I would like you to answer is, is there such a thing as opposite wealth redistribution? Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?
Your thoughts, please.
Here's a pretty good unpacking of this "controversy" (plus the fact Drudge's headline is wrong):
http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Here's a pretty good unpacking of this "controversy" (plus the fact Drudge's headline is wrong):
http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml
Your article does little to "unpack" the controversy. Indeed, I found this passage interesting:
"[T]here is no doubt from the interview that he supports "redistributive change," a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.
What I don't understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more "fairly" distributed than it is currently?"
Also, I did not cite to Drudge.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Ok, Guido, I'll take the bait. Is it possible, in your world, for the rich to ever be too rich? What I would like you to answer is, is there such a thing as opposite wealth redistribution? Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?
Your thoughts, please.
First, I never knew I was "rich" until this election cycle. Most certainly, I have not taken anything from you or anyone else. My wife and I worked damned hard to get to where we are. As you probably know, we both served in the military after high school, then went to college and completed graduate school. Everything we have, we earned.
Now, the taxes we pay on what we have earned are extraordinary. My question to you: how much of what we have earned are you willing to take from me and my family and give to someone else?
Money is the route of all evil.
Send $9.95 to my e-mail account for more information.
As Colin Powell states, "all taxation is a redistribution of money." Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military? Did you get some help in college from your military tour? Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?
The fact is the vast majority of our tax money goes to worthwhile pursuits like paying our military, and taking care of our elderly. We educate our youth, pave our roads, secure our borders all through the "redistribution of wealth." And we spend around 8% just paying interest on the huge deficit President Bush has created. Somebody has to pay this. A progessive tax approach allows us to pursue our interests, pay off our debt, and not destroy the middle class.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military? Did you get some help in college from your military tour? Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?
You mean did I get paid for serving my country, by my country, yes. Did I get a uniform, weapon, and food from the government, yes. Did I earn that money (which incidentally was not that good back then) by standing in harm's way, yes.
As for the rest of that post of yours, all I can say is "God save the middle class!" That's what is most important I guess, all others be damned.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As Colin Powell states, "all taxation is a redistribution of money." Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military? Did you get some help in college from your military tour? Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?
The fact is the vast majority of our tax money goes to worthwhile pursuits like paying our military, and taking care of our elderly. We educate our youth, pave our roads, secure our borders all through the "redistribution of wealth." And we spend around 8% just paying interest on the huge deficit President Bush has created. Somebody has to pay this. A progessive tax approach allows us to pursue our interests, pay off our debt, and not destroy the middle class.
Well put. When politicians voted to reduce the tax rate on the highest tax brackets during the last decade, that too was a redistribution of wealth but most didn't recognize it as such. In fact no one called it socialism. When the state of Oklahoma (and Alaska) sent tax rebates to their citizens because of oil largesse, that was a corporate redistribution of wealth. Anyone complain? (I did. I thought it was irresponsible when the state needed so much infrastructure attention. Its lonely out here.)
On a more local level, when my parents paid for my college tuition, I was the beneficiary of their income redistribution. What's the big deal about income redistribution?
And I've never met anyone who didn't relay how hard they worked to make it on their own when in fact we all got help in one way or another.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Ok, Guido, I'll take the bait. Is it possible, in your world, for the rich to ever be too rich? What I would like you to answer is, is there such a thing as opposite wealth redistribution? Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?
Your thoughts, please.
What do you think the maximum allowable income should be?
Pretty much any movement of money could be called redistribution. I hired some people to take away limbs from last year's storm. I got a service I wanted. They got a money redistribution. Whenever you buy something, you redistribute money to the "rich store owner". Presumably you did it willingly to get something you wanted.
The objection comes when the government mandates redistributing assets to programs that don't provide desirable goods and or services. Defining desirable is where most of us go our separate ways.
My guess is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's money will go a lot further to help medical research than any government program ever would. They wouldn't be able to do that if the government had kept them from becoming unfairly rich.
Edit: I forgot to ask: What should be the maximum allowable wealth? Above this level, the government takes everything. It would keep any one from becoming too rich.
All I can say is I'm weary of taxation and the talk of more of it is, well, taxing.
My total tax outlay as a % of my annual income this year will be in the neighborhood of 45%, taking into account payroll taxes, property tax, car tags, consumption taxes (sales and fuel), and imbedded taxes (corporate tax) on every good I buy and every meal I eat out. Imbedded taxes are harder to calculate, but they are real and it's not corporations who pay corporate tax, but consumers. My total outlay may actually be more due to this. Keep in mind my company, as does yours pays, 1/2 of my social security tax. I did not take that into account as more % of taxes paid on my behalf.
If everyone had to write a check to the OTC and IRS once a week, twice a month, or once a month, instead of it being deducted from their paycheck, and they had to pay 100% of their SS tax, they'd have a better appreciation for how much they were paying in taxes. Many people never really consider they are paying taxes, as it's all taken out and they over-withhold so they get a refund at the end of the tax year.
Government needs to wean itself off our tax dollars and politicians need to quit justifying confiscation of wealth by shaming people into believing it's patriotic to support out-of-control spending and paying for worthless pet projects which are far from our home legislative districts.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?
Your thoughts, please.
ah, the good ole liberal finite wealth theory. this "taking my share" of the wealth bull**** just seems to never go away. have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, rich people CREATED their wealth, instead of "taking yours" from you? do they really get wealthy on the backs of those less fortunate souls? Give me a break. there are certainly people in the world that steal people's trust funds, but by and large the far majority of rich people got their wealth from being smart and doing smart things with THEIR money, not by taking yours. There is no finite amount of wealth that is traded around like currency, wealth can be created, and without disenfranchising those who chose not to go earn it themselves.
I get asked all the time, "how do you have such a big house and nice cars you are so young?" It is because I am SMART with my money. I'm not stupid like my sister and take out stupid ARM loans on a house and get upside down. But I didn't get well off by taking her or anyone else's wealth. I worked for it. So why should I support ANYTHING that takes my hard earned money and gives it to people who don't want to work hard for it and did nothing to earn it? Why do you think so many people are pissed off about the bank bailouts? because they weren't stupid with their money, they didn't gamble it on loans for stupid bums who couldn't afford a house. The people that are mad about bailouts and redistribution of wealth are the ones who did nothing but mind their own business and were SMART with their money.
When Obama takes office temporarily the old saying "work harder, millions on wellfare depend on you" will never ring more true.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military? Did you get some help in college from your military tour? Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?
You mean did I get paid for serving my country, by my country, yes. Did I get a uniform, weapon, and food from the government, yes. Did I earn that money (which incidentally was not that good back then) by standing in harm's way, yes.
As for the rest of that post of yours, all I can say is "God save the middle class!" That's what is most important I guess, all others be damned.
Quit playing the victim.... you are LUCKY to live in a country where you are given ample opportunities to create wealth... opportunities greater than any other country in the world...
Certainly more opportunities than my stepfather had... drafted into Vietnam... I got to grow up watching him go from drugs to Jesus... got to watch him "hit the deck" after a stray firecracker on July 4th took him by surprise back in the day.
If given a choice between "spread the wealth" and "horde the wealth" guess which one I'm choosing?... when given a choice between "tax and spend" versus "spend and spend" guess which one I'm choosing?.... what do you think that $700 billion package is gonna be?... redistribution of wealth.... Robin Hood in reverse...
Yet you've indicated NO PROBLEM AT ALL with a regressive county sales tax rate hike to pay for improvements along the Arkansas River. That smells like wealth redistribution to me...
Go figure.
I have zero sympathy for right-wing wealthy crybabies going into a corner and yelling "it's socialism" .... after the Bush administration sent a patriotic military into a post-9/11 pre-emptive war and spent a helluva lot more money on Halliburton than it did supporting our troops...
I know the economic doublespeak....
Redistribution of wealth to bailout the rich by dismantling estate and inheritance taxes is: economic stimulus...
A reduction of middle-class taxes is... drumroll please, SOCIALISM!
Maybe someday you'll learn what I learned a long time ago.
Life ain't fair. Ain't ever been fair.
But it's been more than fair to you.I worked for frozen wages at or tied to minimum wage while my cost of living and cost of college rose in the 80s.... my taxes went up under Ronald Reagan... nearly dropped out of school after Gramm-Rudman budget cuts... I was told to "buck it up"...
So, cry me a river, Guido. Instead of blaming Democrats, maybe you should set your sites a little higher in the blame game...
Soldiers die, CEOs prosperBy Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist
August 30, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/30/soldiers_die_ceos_prosper/
There is no evidence of a contractor having a soul in the 13th annual Executive Excess CEO survey by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, and the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy. The report found that 34 defense CEOs have been paid nearly $1 billion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
As soldiers have died in displaying personal patriotism, the pay gap between soldiers and defense CEOs has exploded.
Before 9/11, the gap between CEOs of publicly traded companies and army privates was already a galling 190 to 1. Today, it is 308 to 1. The average army private makes $25,000 a year. The average defense CEO makes $7.7 million.``Did this surprise us? No, because we've been watching since Sept. 11," said Betsy Leondar-Wright, communications director for United for a Fair Economy. ``While the rest of us were worrying about terrorism and mourning the people who died, the CEOs were maneuvering their companies to take advantage of fear and changing oil supply, not just for competition but for personal enrichment."
The top profiteers after 9/11 were the CEOs of United Technologies ($200 million), General Dynamics ($65 million), Lockheed Martin ($50 million), and Halliburton ($49 million). Other firms where CEO pay the last four years added up to $25 million to $45 million were Textron, Engineered Support Systems, Computer Sciences, Alliant Techsystems, Armor Holding, Boeing, Health Net, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Truck, URS, and Raytheon.
While Army privates died overseas earning $25,000 a year, David Brooks, the disgraced former CEO of body-armor maker DHB, made $192 million in stock sales in 2004. He staged a reported $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter. The 2005 pay package for Halliburton CEO David Lesar, head of the firm that most symbolizes the occupation's waste, overcharges, and ghost charges on no-bid contracts, was $26 million, according to the report's analysis of federal Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
``Those examples take the cake, especially because it's all related to their government contracts, which is money straight out of the taxpayer's pocket," Leondar-Wright said.
The Executive Excess report, with the help of the Wall Street Journal's 2006 survey of executive compensation, made similar observations of oil executives as their firms enjoy record profits during war.
The pay gap between the average oil and gas CEO and the average oil worker is 518 to 1. The general national CEO to worker gap is 411 to 1. The report said that the typical oil construction laborer would have to work 4,279 years to match the $95 million pay last year for Valero Energy CEO William Greehey.This is so out of line that the authors of the Executive Excess report recommend wartime pay restraints for defense CEOs and a permanent congressional watchdog panel for contract fraud and waste. Companies that cannot adhere to restraints should be ineligible for contracts, they said.
The report said
``democracies decay when one segment of society flourishes at another's expense." Leondar-Wright said, ``It is now at the point where we have lost any sense of proportion. There is no sense of shared sacrifice, no sense that we're all in this together." Spreading democracy to Iraq is far-fetched when defense and oil CEOs speed its decay at home. They are all in it for themselves, at our expense.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/f/combatpay.htm
So, let's take a married E-5, with six years of service, stationed at San Diego, CA:
Base Pay: $2,205.30
Housing Allowance: $1535
Food Allowance: $267.18
Family Separation Allowance: $250
Hazardous Duty Pay: $225
Hardship Duty Pay: $100
Total: $4,582.48 per month, or $54,989.76 per year, tax-free
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
So, let's take a married E-5, with six years of service, stationed at San Diego, CA:
Base Pay: $2,205.30
Housing Allowance: $1535
Food Allowance: $267.18
Family Separation Allowance: $250
Hazardous Duty Pay: $225
Hardship Duty Pay: $100
Total: $4,582.48 per month, or $54,989.76 per year, tax-free
When did the military stop paying income tax? I had to pay on my $550/mo (+living in the barracks and eating in the chow hall) as an E-5 over 4 yrs in the mid 70s.
I was leaning towards Obama for a slew of reasons, but this redistribution of wealth mantra has scared the hell out of me. I don;'t know if it is rhetoric, or if he means more social programs, or if he really wants to see radical redistribution of wealth (which would be odd for a millionaire). I understand full well that this rant is probably taking his rhetoric too seriously, but the concept is deserving of fear.
NO. IT IS NEVER EVER EVER RIGHT TO TAKE MONEY FROM ANYONE, NO MATTER HOW RICH, AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. NEVER.
It is a thing called property rights. It is in the constitution. I have a right to property. It's mine. You also have a right to property. But not mine. I have the right to eat my sandwich, then throw it up to keep my girlish figure as I watch you starve to death. I shouldn't do that, nor would I... but I have the right to. Is that blunt enough for you? Do we have the concept of property rights down now?
When the government takes my property for the express purpose of giving you property, that is a violation of my core rights. Rights that should be defended. Equitable taxation is a debatable issue, by naked redistribution of wealth in a radical fashion should be met with violence.
Sure, he's just going to take from the really rich and give to the really poor. Who gets to draw that line? 50% of the nation pays no appreciable income taxes. Is the other 50% rich? I know it is an extreme concept, but consider the road this leads down.
Go ahead and twist this to mean that I hate all government programs. It simply isn't true. Government assistance, section 8, title 19, food stamps, subsidized college, free daycare, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, loan programs, HUD, welfare and on and on and on. Generally speaking, they are not granting property to anyone - this is not the level I'm talking about. There are government programs that can benefit people - education, college loans, entrepreneurial grants, and social programs to help people get ahead (that's what welfare, section 8, and food stamps should be. A way to get ahead, not a way to stay behind). I have no problem with carefully structured government programs that benefit society in the long run - we try but are failing. Naked redistribution of wealth is not a winning concept.
What possible good would come from a society that decides our inventors, our entrepreneurs, our writers, authors, actors, our most educated doctors and most successful businessmen should be punished? Sorry, you did too good. I understand you started a company that was innovative and now employ 8,000 people in good paying jobs but you've done too well... so we are going to take some of that away from you and give it to people who might be down on their luck, stupid, breed too much, or just didn't give a sh!t enough to stop partying and graduate from college, find a trade, or otherwise get a career that can pay the bills.
I don't care what sob stories you have for me. Sitting next to me as I type this is my uncle's flag, a Vietnam vet who did the classic downward spiral. Would taking money from the business owner and giving it to him have saved him? No way. Lets just take all their money and give it all away, if we took 60 Billion from Bill Gates and gave it to all the bums we would have no more homelessness! Awesome! Problem solved.
And yes, soldiers die. That is what they do. If you do not want to risk getting killed in combat, it is much safer not to sign up for the military. I have the utmost respect for military personnel, but their job is to do as they are commanded. They understand that, they sign up, and every year ~0.08% of them die. Because Americans are willing to sign up for the military and risk getting killed, we should limit how much wealth other Americans can have? That makes sense...
And while we are at it, NO, I was not in the military. I chose not to, as is the right of every American in the last 30+ years. I was given no magic spoon, I don't make $200K a year. I'm sure had I better circumstances and made better decisions than some, and I know the reverse is also true. So should I be forced to subsidize the guy who made worse choices? Do I get check form the guy above me?
The entire basis of the concept is flawed. It is NOT a zero sum game, wealth can be created.
The reason the CEO of the company makes more than Joe Blow because it is a LABOR MARKET. You are only worth what you have to sell. Field hands in the oil patch are a dime a dozen. Good ones that are willing to travel, show up, and aren't coked out can earn a DAMN good living (read: far, far more than an attorney in Tulsa). Crane operators, salesmen, many people can make a good living with or without degrees. Who are you to tell them they make too much? AND WHY DO YOU CARE if other people are rich?
It is not a zero sum game. The CEO of Anycorp can make $50 zillion and it does not prevent the field hand from making a damn good living for his family. If the CEO takes a massive pay cut or receives NOTHING it doesn't mean the field hand gets any more. My boss can drive a $150,000 car, live in a mansion, own a ton of property... whatever. What should I care? He isn't keeping me down. And if he is I can and should go elsewhere.
And what's wrong with making $66,000 a year (E-5 working taxes back in)? I know PLENTY of highly educated, skilled, and dedicated people that don't make that much money. Odds are that E-5 will tell you gets paid to play with big-boy toys and camp out. If he doesn't think that, he'd of left after his first sign up ran dry.
And I sure as hell am not a corporate welfare recipient or advocate. The hell with them too. Too big to fail? Great, the government now owns you just long enough to sell off the pieces. If we allow booms, we must accept busts. Cushion the fall if you want but let it fall. Where's your bonus you ask? Where's my kids college money you lowlife? What's that Citgo, you want $50mil to stay in Tulsa... head South/South East until you get stuck in traffic and smell smog and sewer, you're in Houston. Enjoy yourself.
I'm not in favor of redistributing wealth up, I'm not in favor of redistributing wealth down. Trickle down economics as type cast is ridiculous, punishing the rich is equally fool hearty. The ENTIRE CONCEPT of taking money from one group for the express purpose of giving it to another should be removed from civilization. I want to be able to make my pittance and know I earned it. I want to see Paris Hilton lose everything and know it was her own damn fault. I want to see the man next door hit it rich with the next great invention.
Basically, I want to live in America. The best and the brightest come here to live their dreams and bake their own big damn pies. And that's fine with me, even if I don't get a whole one I'm happy to live in the USA and grab a piece of it every now and then.
I'm SURE AS HELL NOT YELLING AT DEMOCRATS ABOUT THIS ONE. What about the Bush "Tax cuts" for people that DONT PAY TAXES? Spending money we don't have, on crap we don't need. Thanks George.
The hell with both parties. It may void my entire ballot, but I'm writing in "someone else" on my ticket then heading home to rest my weary head on my little piece of private property. Then I'll get up and drag myself in to work to complain about whomever wins this election. Vote the bums out.
/rant
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'll get up and drag myself in to work to complain about whomever wins this election.
Focus on the positive. It won't be a Bush.
For eight years I have been thinking, "Anybody else for President".
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Focus on the positive. It won't be a Bush.
For eight years I have been thinking, "Anybody else for President".
I thought that about Clinton and look what we got.
lol, I thought that about both of them.
I am trying to understand why Republicans are saying the middle class will be taxed and screwed. I am middle class and make not even close to $250,000.00. Nor do some of my what I consider well off friends. I checked the average income of the so called middle class at The Tax Foundation (credible?) and here is what they said...
Table 1. Middle Income Range Varies by Type of Household
Calendar Year 2006
Type of
Household Median Income
(2006) Middle 20 Percent Range Middle 60 Percent Range (Not in bottom 20% or top 20%)
All Households $48,201 $37,771 - $60,000 $20,036 - $97,032
Married Households $69,716 $57,200 - $82,935 $35,476 - $121,842
Unmarried Households $29,083 $24,500 - $39,010 $13,062 - $63,500
Households with Unmarried Female Family Head $31,818 $25,200 - $39,336 $13,476 - $63,000
Households with Unmarried Male Family Head $47,078 $38,776 - $55,500 $24,300 - $84,000
Non-Family Households (Single) $29,000 $22,200 - $36,020 $12,108 - $60,300
Note: Income measure is cash money income from Census, which includes most market income (except capital gains) and some transfer income such as Social Security payments. However, it excludes the value of employer-provided health insurance, net imputed rental income, Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments, the value of food stamps and other in-kind government services, capital gains realizations, and more. For a detailed description of the income concept Census employs, see http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html.
Also, technically the fraction of the population falling into those characteristics is based upon March 2007 responses—not exactly the year 2006—even though the income data is all based on 2006 income. (In other words, some households could have a change in their status in that short time period.)
Source: 2006 Current Population Survey, Census Bureau
So what gives? According to The Washington Post people with income between 226,000.00 to 603,000.00 are not really affected by Obama's plan. Again, I don't see how this would affect the middle class.
John McCain says the middle class are going to be taxed by Obama. This is not true, unless McCain's version of the middle class is someone who makes over $603,000.00 a year. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised by that either.
If my choice for president was soley based on his tax stance and my household made under $125,000.00 a year, I would be a fool not to vote for Obama.
Now, if you want to use the trickle down argument....
Mr. Burns
This fool is voting for Bob Barr.
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
Now, if you want to use the trickle down argument....
Trickle Down economics turned into Tinkle On economics. The rich just pissed on the poor.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I was leaning towards Obama for a slew of reasons, but this redistribution of wealth mantra has scared the hell out of me. I don;'t know if it is rhetoric, or if he means more social programs, or if he really wants to see radical redistribution of wealth (which would be odd for a millionaire). I understand full well that this rant is probably taking his rhetoric too seriously, but the concept is deserving of fear.
NO. IT IS NEVER EVER EVER RIGHT TO TAKE MONEY FROM ANYONE, NO MATTER HOW RICH, AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. NEVER.
It is a thing called property rights. It is in the constitution. I have a right to property. It's mine. You also have a right to property. But not mine. I have the right to eat my sandwich, then throw it up to keep my girlish figure as I watch you starve to death. I shouldn't do that, nor would I... but I have the right to. Is that blunt enough for you? Do we have the concept of property rights down now?
When the government takes my property for the express purpose of giving you property, that is a violation of my core rights. Rights that should be defended. Equitable taxation is a debatable issue, by naked redistribution of wealth in a radical fashion should be met with violence.
Sure, he's just going to take from the really rich and give to the really poor. Who gets to draw that line? 50% of the nation pays no appreciable income taxes. Is the other 50% rich? I know it is an extreme concept, but consider the road this leads down.
Go ahead and twist this to mean that I hate all government programs. It simply isn't true. Government assistance, section 8, title 19, food stamps, subsidized college, free daycare, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, loan programs, HUD, welfare and on and on and on. Generally speaking, they are not granting property to anyone - this is not the level I'm talking about. There are government programs that can benefit people - education, college loans, entrepreneurial grants, and social programs to help people get ahead (that's what welfare, section 8, and food stamps should be. A way to get ahead, not a way to stay behind). I have no problem with carefully structured government programs that benefit society in the long run - we try but are failing. Naked redistribution of wealth is not a winning concept.
What possible good would come from a society that decides our inventors, our entrepreneurs, our writers, authors, actors, our most educated doctors and most successful businessmen should be punished? Sorry, you did too good. I understand you started a company that was innovative and now employ 8,000 people in good paying jobs but you've done too well... so we are going to take some of that away from you and give it to people who might be down on their luck, stupid, breed too much, or just didn't give a sh!t enough to stop partying and graduate from college, find a trade, or otherwise get a career that can pay the bills.
I don't care what sob stories you have for me. Sitting next to me as I type this is my uncle's flag, a Vietnam vet who did the classic downward spiral. Would taking money from the business owner and giving it to him have saved him? No way. Lets just take all their money and give it all away, if we took 60 Billion from Bill Gates and gave it to all the bums we would have no more homelessness! Awesome! Problem solved.
And yes, soldiers die. That is what they do. If you do not want to risk getting killed in combat, it is much safer not to sign up for the military. I have the utmost respect for military personnel, but their job is to do as they are commanded. They understand that, they sign up, and every year ~0.08% of them die. Because Americans are willing to sign up for the military and risk getting killed, we should limit how much wealth other Americans can have? That makes sense...
And while we are at it, NO, I was not in the military. I chose not to, as is the right of every American in the last 30+ years. I was given no magic spoon, I don't make $200K a year. I'm sure had I better circumstances and made better decisions than some, and I know the reverse is also true. So should I be forced to subsidize the guy who made worse choices? Do I get check form the guy above me?
The entire basis of the concept is flawed. It is NOT a zero sum game, wealth can be created.
The reason the CEO of the company makes more than Joe Blow because it is a LABOR MARKET. You are only worth what you have to sell. Field hands in the oil patch are a dime a dozen. Good ones that are willing to travel, show up, and aren't coked out can earn a DAMN good living (read: far, far more than an attorney in Tulsa). Crane operators, salesmen, many people can make a good living with or without degrees. Who are you to tell them they make too much? AND WHY DO YOU CARE if other people are rich?
It is not a zero sum game. The CEO of Anycorp can make $50 zillion and it does not prevent the field hand from making a damn good living for his family. If the CEO takes a massive pay cut or receives NOTHING it doesn't mean the field hand gets any more. My boss can drive a $150,000 car, live in a mansion, own a ton of property... whatever. What should I care? He isn't keeping me down. And if he is I can and should go elsewhere.
And what's wrong with making $66,000 a year (E-5 working taxes back in)? I know PLENTY of highly educated, skilled, and dedicated people that don't make that much money. Odds are that E-5 will tell you gets paid to play with big-boy toys and camp out. If he doesn't think that, he'd of left after his first sign up ran dry.
And I sure as hell am not a corporate welfare recipient or advocate. The hell with them too. Too big to fail? Great, the government now owns you just long enough to sell off the pieces. If we allow booms, we must accept busts. Cushion the fall if you want but let it fall. Where's your bonus you ask? Where's my kids college money you lowlife? What's that Citgo, you want $50mil to stay in Tulsa... head South/South East until you get stuck in traffic and smell smog and sewer, you're in Houston. Enjoy yourself.
I'm not in favor of redistributing wealth up, I'm not in favor of redistributing wealth down. Trickle down economics as type cast is ridiculous, punishing the rich is equally fool hearty. The ENTIRE CONCEPT of taking money from one group for the express purpose of giving it to another should be removed from civilization. I want to be able to make my pittance and know I earned it. I want to see Paris Hilton lose everything and know it was her own damn fault. I want to see the man next door hit it rich with the next great invention.
Basically, I want to live in America. The best and the brightest come here to live their dreams and bake their own big damn pies. And that's fine with me, even if I don't get a whole one I'm happy to live in the USA and grab a piece of it every now and then.
I'm SURE AS HELL NOT YELLING AT DEMOCRATS ABOUT THIS ONE. What about the Bush "Tax cuts" for people that DONT PAY TAXES? Spending money we don't have, on crap we don't need. Thanks George.
The hell with both parties. It may void my entire ballot, but I'm writing in "someone else" on my ticket then heading home to rest my weary head on my little piece of private property. Then I'll get up and drag myself in to work to complain about whomever wins this election. Vote the bums out.
/rant
I think your point is well made but when we have a bunch of people saying this is supposedly a Christian nation, the logic you typed above just doesn't jive with the first four books of the new testament.
Also, it amazes me how we focus on the sob stories and individual aspect while never taking large corporations to task. Talk about welfare mothers.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
Mr. Burns
This fool is voting for Bob Barr.
Hi. I am a dues paying Libertarian. You are not voting for Bob Barr if you live in Oklahoma. Mostly because no 3rd party is allowed to run in Oklahoma.
Louisiana has banned the party also, because it missed a filing deadline on account of a mandatory Hurricane evacuation order that closed state offices. In spite of the deadline being extended and the filing meeting the extended deadline the Republican AG is fighting it.
Same story in many other states. Lawsuits by attorney generals or other parties to keep an entire group off the ballot. Many states the LP is only on the ballot because they sued and won. Need 10K signatures, they turn in 15K and then STILL have to sue to get on the ballot. Deadlines get moved. Laws enforced against the LP that haven't been enforced in 70 years. Different rules for the LP than everyone else. Cases currently before several courts including Oklahoma and the US Supreme Court just trying to get a name on the ballot.
Did you know BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats missed the filing deadline to have their candidate n the ballot in Texas? The LP challenge was dismissed. The facts there are not in dispute, but those parties do not have to follow the rules.
(http://www.lp.org/files/BA.gif)
The two party system sucks.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
Mr. Burns
This fool is voting for Bob Barr.
Hi. I am a dues paying Libertarian. You are not voting for Bob Barr if you live in Oklahoma. Mostly because no 3rd party is allowed to run in Oklahoma.
Louisiana has banned the party also, because it missed a filing deadline on account of a mandatory Hurricane evacuation order that closed state offices. In spite of the deadline being extended and the filing meeting the extended deadline the Republican AG is fighting it.
Same story in many other states. Lawsuits by attorney generals or other parties to keep an entire group off the ballot. Many states the LP is only on the ballot because they sued and won. Need 10K signatures, they turn in 15K and then STILL have to sue to get on the ballot. Deadlines get moved. Laws enforced against the LP that haven't been enforced in 70 years. Different rules for the LP than everyone else. Cases currently before several courts including Oklahoma and the US Supreme Court just trying to get a name on the ballot.
Did you know BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats missed the filing deadline to have their candidate n the ballot in Texas? The LP challenge was dismissed. The facts there are not in dispute, but those parties do not have to follow the rules.
(http://www.lp.org/files/BA.gif)
The two party system sucks.
Amen to your comment about the two party system.
Ya, my support for Bob Barr is only in spirit. I did not know about the Texas fiasco, that is pretty interesting.
Still not sure about who my vote will go to, this election has been a nightmare.
Remember when Bo Gritz ran for President?
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
and you have never heard, nor ever will hear me support a proposition using God as my reasoning. I do not subscribe to the Christian nation argument as clearly many (if not most) of the founders were as set against that as possible. Not too mention their notion of "Christian" was different than ours and affiliations with many popular churches today would be heresy to the most staunchly religious founders.
BUT, I could still argue that in fact the bible supports my contentions. The Lord helps those who help themselves. People are given a mandate to show their love for God by loving their neighbor. People are to give alms. It is not a mandate to require your fellow man to do so, the mandate is to do so yourself as a sign of devotion to God.
Forced faith or forced action of any kind is not righteous, it is a shame. If an omnipotent being wrote a book 6,000 years ago and has tracked humankind since creation, I think such a being will be able to tell earnest intentions from those mandated by the tax man or those done not out of the spirit of support for ones fellow man, but by vanity (look how much I give!).
SO, I don't buy the Christian nation line, and even if I did... mandated socialism doesn't apply.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
and you have never heard, nor ever will hear me support a proposition using God as my reasoning. I do not subscribe to the Christian nation argument as clearly many (if not most) of the founders were as set against that as possible. Not too mention their notion of "Christian" was different than ours and affiliations with many popular churches today would be heresy to the most staunchly religious founders.
BUT, I could still argue that in fact the bible supports my contentions. The Lord helps those who help themselves. People are given a mandate to show their love for God by loving their neighbor. People are to give alms. It is not a mandate to require your fellow man to do so, the mandate is to do so yourself as a sign of devotion to God.
Forced faith or forced action of any kind is not righteous, it is a shame. If an omnipotent being wrote a book 6,000 years ago and has tracked humankind since creation, I think such a being will be able to tell earnest intentions from those mandated by the tax man or those done not out of the spirit of support for ones fellow man, but by vanity (look how much I give!).
SO, I don't buy the Christian nation line, and even if I did... mandated socialism doesn't apply.
Actually, I'm going to do a write in for God in every race on my ballot.
His tax plan is only 10%. If I don't have it in cash I can give it in sheep, goats, wheat, or chickens.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
and you have never heard, nor ever will hear me support a proposition using God as my reasoning. I do not subscribe to the Christian nation argument as clearly many (if not most) of the founders were as set against that as possible. Not too mention their notion of "Christian" was different than ours and affiliations with many popular churches today would be heresy to the most staunchly religious founders.
BUT, I could still argue that in fact the bible supports my contentions. The Lord helps those who help themselves. People are given a mandate to show their love for God by loving their neighbor. People are to give alms. It is not a mandate to require your fellow man to do so, the mandate is to do so yourself as a sign of devotion to God.
Forced faith or forced action of any kind is not righteous, it is a shame. If an omnipotent being wrote a book 6,000 years ago and has tracked humankind since creation, I think such a being will be able to tell earnest intentions from those mandated by the tax man or those done not out of the spirit of support for ones fellow man, but by vanity (look how much I give!).
SO, I don't buy the Christian nation line, and even if I did... mandated socialism doesn't apply.
After reading your previous post on another subject about you being a Libertarian, I suspected your follow up post would be of this nature. That is not a bad thing!
My point was this, you cannot pick and choose issues as to what defines us as a Christian nation. There are statements in the bible that also support the ideal of socialism, non violence, anti-rich, give unto cesar too.
I am a firm believer that religion should have no place in government. Example... Check the census data and where America will be in thirty years. Mexican Americans/Latinas will be the majority. Majority are Catholic. If we were to allow the ten comandments into our government buildings today, then don't start pitching a fit thirty years from now when a majority wants a photo of the pope next to the ten commandments.
Not that there is anything wrong with the pope, catholicism, etc. etc. I am simply making a point by example. Same holds true to Mormon, Lutheran, Islam, Buddhism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Actually, I'm going to do a write in for God in every race on my ballot.
His tax plan is only 10%. If I don't have it in cash I can give it in sheep, goats, wheat, or chickens.
I have a real problem with giving ten percent of my sheep to God. I only have one sheep. Which part do I give?
My God accepts cash. I misspelled his name once by adding an "L". It turned into Gold.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
So, let's take a married E-5, with six years of service, stationed at San Diego, CA:
Base Pay: $2,205.30
Housing Allowance: $1535
Food Allowance: $267.18
Family Separation Allowance: $250
Hazardous Duty Pay: $225
Hardship Duty Pay: $100
Total: $4,582.48 per month, or $54,989.76 per year, tax-free
When did the military stop paying income tax? I had to pay on my $550/mo (+living in the barracks and eating in the chow hall) as an E-5 over 4 yrs in the mid 70s.
I thought the same thing. I recall paying income tax as well in the 1980s.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Actually, I'm going to do a write in for God in every race on my ballot.
His tax plan is only 10%. If I don't have it in cash I can give it in sheep, goats, wheat, or chickens.
I have a real problem with giving ten percent of my sheep to God. I only have one sheep. Which part do I give?
That is when a sharp knife and accurate scale is useful. Let your conscience be your guide on whether it come from the head or the tail.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have a real problem with giving ten percent of my sheep to God. I only have one sheep. Which part do I give?
I think God will let you keep the whole sheep, seeing as how your career in shepherding is likely near the end.
I tell you, all this talk of sheep reminds me of a yarn.
Mary had a little sheep,
And with this sheep
She went to sleep.
The sheep turned out
To be a ram
And Mary had a little lamb!
Before you fleece me, let me tell you a riddle...
What do you call a sheep with no legs?
A cloud.
Thank ewe very much.
Wow, that was Baaaaaad.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
My guess is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's money will go a lot further to help medical research than any government program ever would.
Nevermind that most medical breakthroughs in the last 50 years (aside from Viagra and other lifestyle drugs) have come from basic research funded by the government that drug companies don't do because it's unprofitable.
And CF, I'm surprised you're falling for the right wing smear machine.
Nathan, I prefaced my comments with a statement that I am not sure exactly what his stance is and that is scares me. He sure hasn't backed away from the statements that he wanted a radical redistribution of wealth. And while I am certain he is not talking about the doomsday scenario I outlined, he is taking a step in that direction WITHOUT strongly saying what limits he would like to see imposed.
I'm not buying at the wholesale level, but they have sold the concept to me.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Nathan, I prefaced my comments with a statement that I am not sure exactly what his stance is and that is scares me.
Everyone who doesn't have an axe to grind can see that Obama is actually pretty centrist. There's nobody in this country who is going to embark upon wholesale wealth redistribution.
The worst (or best, depending on your point of view) we'll probably see is a return to 1980s or 1990s tax policies in general. Basically higher marginal tax rates for high income earners, and about the same or a little lower on people who don't earn much.
How exactly is it that you see Obama taking from the rich and giving to the poor? (I'm not attacking, I'm wondering) He's not a communist, for crying out loud, and even if he were, you can't do that much damage on an issue without consensus in four years. (barring some sort of catalyzing event like 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or the burning of the Reichstag)
Anyway, what Obama wants isn't what he'll get if it's too radical, even if the Democrats control Congress. Congressional Democrats do not hold the party line nearly as well as the Republicans do, besides which, there are a bunch of conservative Democrats (like Lincoln and Pryor in Arkansas) who wouldn't be caught dead voting for some radically liberal agenda.
Either way, the most socialist things we'll see in this country in the near term have happened and already are happening as a result of the economic crisis and the Bush pandering in previous years.
In a nutshell, my point is this: It doesn't matter if Obama is actually a dyed in the wool communist, unless Congress is full of commie sleeper agents, which it isn't and won't be regardless of the outcome of this election.
Being afraid of that is like being afraid of a passenger airliner being hijacked and crashed into a building again in this country. It isn't happening because there are too many people who wouldn't let it.
I'm actually quite surprised people haven't gotten more upset about the treasury investing in banks. If that isn't socialism, what is?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Nathan, I prefaced my comments with a statement that I am not sure exactly what his stance is and that is scares me. He sure hasn't backed away from the statements that he wanted a radical redistribution of wealth. And while I am certain he is not talking about the doomsday scenario I outlined, he is taking a step in that direction WITHOUT strongly saying what limits he would like to see imposed.
I'm not buying at the wholesale level, but they have sold the concept to me.
Here's his stance. It's worth the 5-plus minutes of your time to watch....
Obama Explains His Tax Cut Plans To Plumbing Business Ownerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA
My view: Obama gives Joe-the-Plumber his full attention and respect, and explains his position on taxes. Obama showed far more respect for Joe than the McCain campaign showed for him....
The Republicans' view: Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-SPREAD-THE-WEALTH-AROUND!!!!!!!....
blah-blah-blah.... OMG!!! He's a socialist!... gotcha!!!... he's a pinko-commie socialist!... he's a redistributor of wealth!!!... gotcha!!! gotcha!!! gotcha!!!
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Well put. When politicians voted to reduce the tax rate on the highest tax brackets during the last decade, that too was a redistribution of wealth but most didn't recognize it as such. In fact no one called it socialism. When the state of Oklahoma (and Alaska) sent tax rebates to their citizens because of oil largesse, that was a corporate redistribution of wealth. Anyone complain? (I did. I thought it was irresponsible when the state needed so much infrastructure attention. Its lonely out here.)
Looking through my old 1040 booklets from 1998 to present it appears that the highest rates were reduced from 39.6% to 35%. The lowest rate was reduced from 15% to 10%. Rates between there came down but not as much. In all cases, the amount of taxable income at a given rate increased.
I would call a reduction in tax rates less redistribution. It depends on whether you think the money you earn is yours or the governments'. If it's yours, you give to the government in the form of taxes. If it's the governments', they allow you to have some back.
If I make $100 and you take $39.60 one year and then I make $100 next year and you only take $35.00, you haven't given me anything. You just took less.
The year after the Oklahoma "Tax Rebate" (pay less taxes), I had to pay income tax on the rebate even though I did not itemize either year to take advantage of deducting Okla taxes on my Federal tax return. Oklahoma tried a tax free weekend similar to Texas for back to school supplies. Should the people who shopped that weekend declare their sales tax savings as income on their income tax? I say no.