View Poll Results: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Voters
120. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    96 80.00%
  • No

    24 20.00%
Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 451

Thread: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

  1. #381
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    If someone includes more than the top rate, whether via effective rate or simply highlighting the percentage on 20k, the graph is blown out of the water. Just show a little of the rest of the picture, and that Microsoft Excel created HS graph goes pop.


    Anyway, on topic, I don't get how people can construe Obama's words about wealth redistribution to mean "everything". To completely ignore the intellectual, practical, ideological and other aspects of his statement is ridiculous. It's basically claiming that Obama was trolling by dropping context; he's not that simple.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 09-24-12 at 12:48 PM.

  2. #382
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Anyway, on topic, I don't get how people can construe Obama's words about wealth redistribution to mean "everything". To completely ignore the intellectual, practical, ideological and other aspects of his statement is ridiculous. It's basically claiming that Obama was trolling by dropping context.
    So you are complaining about those who bypass the spin in order to pull back the curtain and expose the agenda behind it?
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  3. #383
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    So you are complaining about those who bypass the spin in order to pull back the curtain and expose the agenda behind it?
    What's wrong with openly embracing wealth redistribution. I'm right wing economically, but I figure if I was left wing I'd be "hell yeah, try to stop us".

  4. #384
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,401

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    What's wrong with openly embracing wealth redistribution. I'm right wing economically, but I figure if I was left wing I'd be "hell yeah, try to stop us".
    If you are talking about progressive tax rates there is nothing wrong. Progressive taxes tax income not spent at a higher rate. In a consumer economy this stimulates growth, benefitting every class.
    Taxing income that would otherwise be spent in the economy slows growth and comes right out of GDP.

  5. #385
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    If you are talking about progressive tax rates there is nothing wrong. Progressive taxes tax income not spent at a higher rate. In a consumer economy this stimulates growth, benefitting every class.
    Taxing income that would otherwise be spent in the economy slows growth and comes right out of GDP.
    I wouldn't argue so much from the tax angle, though I'd like to enact the Fair Tax bill. I'm pretty ok with progressive, if we must have it. I think of wealth redistribution more as subsidy and Obama-phones with e-ticket apps.

    I definately do not count jobs as wealth redistribution. I presume those people could/would work elsewhere. That's only wealth redistribution if we presume those people would otherwise be unemployed. Roads are market and service infrastructure, and benefit everyone; that's not wealth redistribution either.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 09-24-12 at 01:06 PM.

  6. #386
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    What's wrong with openly embracing wealth redistribution. I'm right wing economically, but I figure if I was left wing I'd be "hell yeah, try to stop us".
    What is your definition of the term "wealth redistribution," the purpose, and the moral justification for it?
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  7. #387
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    What is your definition of the term "wealth redistribution," the purpose, and the moral justification for it?
    My definition of wealth redistribution is redistributing wealth. Governement jobs, which would presumably be replaced by private jobs less efficiently if so necessary, do not count. Roads that benefit everyone do not count. Welfare (particularly unproductive), subsidy and unjustified hand-outs are flat out taking and handing cash.

    The purpose and moral justification are the same. If it benefits society as a whole, then it's investment. If it is taking and giving cash for things that are not objectively infrastructual requirements, it's buying votes.

  8. #388
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,874

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by diogenes
    I take that "Well, maybe" to mean "No" you have no alternative suggestions for defining "social justice." If you care to offer something, we can resume the conversation.
    You shouldn't, since "well" is just a particle, and "maybe" does not mean "no." More to the point, we were discussing the pitfalls of the currently most widely-held position and why it cannot be correct--i.e. why it must lead to social injustice. You seem oddly unwilling to continue that discussion. Essentially, you said that if the buyer and seller were both willing, that ought to go a long way toward guaranteeing that the resultant distribution of goods was fair. I responded that this might be so, but we need to hone in on just what "willing" means in this case. This is the point where you seemed to stop wanting to discuss, which again seems very odd.

    In the meantime, I think we could build on Adam Smith's notion of the liberal reward of labor as a means to begin thinking about what social justice should entail. Briefly, Smith's idea was that the "masters" (i.e. those who own the means of production) should pay their workers as nearly as possible the wage they would make doing the same labor on their own. Thus, if barrels are selling for $100, and a barrel-maker can make five barrels a day, he ought to be paid as close to $500 per day as possible.

    Of course, it is correct that the factory owner risks his capital. He should be entitled to an expectation of profit. I think we should do two things about that: first, limit the expectation of profit to something like 5-8%. Second, provide some mechanism whereby losses are made up by society for the first five years a business is operating. Now, of course, we'd have to be careful about how we'd define and implement both. However, I think the popularity of CDs and T-bills provides plenty of evidence that people with capital would still be willing to invest in businesses carried out under such conditions: low risk, low reward will work if it's the best that one can expect.

    We should also overhaul how money works. It appears a fiat currency is really no better than having a gold standard, but for different reasons. Money is supposed to track actual wealth. That is, there should be about as much money in circulation as the sum total value of things-of-value in an economy, plus a little extra (no more than 10% extra). Banks would obviously be structured very differently, as they could no longer just make up money whenever it pleased them to offer a loan. Derivative instruments would have to be outlawed (with an exception, perhaps, for commodity futures). I would propose a currency based on a multi-commodity standard. So, instead of exchanging for gold or silver, the guarantee would be that the money could be exchanged for an equivalent value (determined by supply and demand) of some commodity at the pleasure of the exchange agent (i.e. the treasurer). So if I have a fifty dollar bill, and I go to the window at the dept of the treasury, I might get $50 worth of gold, silver, diamonds, oil, lumber, wool, cotton, wheat, etc. at the pleasure of the person behind the window. Next door would be a multi-commodity exchange, where I could walk my sow (assuming that's what I got) back over and sell her for ~$50, depending on what changed in the exchange rate in the time it took to do the walking.

    The major advantage this would have is that it gets rid of the instability of a gold standard, since it's much more difficult to corner the market on so many commodities at once. At the same time, people with money would have a vested interest in keeping that money stable, since they could not guarantee which commodity they might receive in exchange for it. Thus, you wouldn't have someone primarily invested in gold trying to destabilize the fishing market, since they might get just that in return for their money. At the same time, the economy would grow based on the total growth in commodities. We'd be back to rewarding hard work rather than financial engineering.

    Finally, I think it would be necessary to overhaul inheritance laws, though that's still something I'm thinking about.

  9. #389
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    My definition of wealth redistribution is redistributing wealth. Governement jobs, which would presumably be replaced by private jobs less efficiently if so necessary, do not count. Roads that benefit everyone do not count. Welfare (particularly unproductive), subsidy and unjustified hand-outs are flat out taking and handing cash.

    The purpose and moral justification are the same. If it benefits society as a whole, then it's investment. If it is taking and giving cash for things that are not objectively infrastructual requirements, it's buying votes.
    We might quibble around the edges, but we are generally agreed on this.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  10. #390
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    09-14-16 @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,415

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by comedy4all View Post
    I believe that unions are out of date and are fighting their demise. Maybe someday unions will be needed again, but they are not needed now. A union that forces people to join the union is not “a force that fights for the worker”, it is nothing but thugs looking to make money off of the workers backs.
    Thugs that are corrupted by the 1%. A they want it to be.
    Why opress the worker when you can spend $100k and get the union to do it for you.

    Solution is all union leaders are elected by members........Then corrupted leaders are eliminated.

Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •