Joe Biden Foolishly Played The Straw-Man To Push The Spread-The-Wealth Agenda In SOTU Speech

[SkyChief]

What’s wrong with “spreading the wealth?” . . .

Nothing - when people do it voluntarily. The problem is when government does it.

. . . We have subsidized rich, poor and middle classes through various means. . .

True, and that's why the power and scope of government must be restored to pre-expansion era.

When government becomes too powerful, it tries to control people by moving their money around, and overreach happens. The founders did not want this to happen:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

When we allow government to do things FOR us, we then must allow them to do things TO us.

 

[Nickyjo]

Nothing - when people do it voluntarily. The problem is when government does it.

So the Roman’s shouldn’t have built roads?

True, and that's why the power and scope of government must be restored to pre-expansion era.

You mean before the anti-trust of TR
and/or before FDR’s New Deal? Good luck with that.

When government becomes too powerful, it tries to control people by moving their money around, and overreach happens. The founders did not want this to happen:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

When we allow government to do things FOR us, we then must allow them to do things TO us.

Thomas Jefferson lived in a different time. And strangely, after he wrote that, the government “aided their (citizens’ pursuits” — of Indian land by having soldiers clear Indians away to Oklahoma and elsewhere, then even took Oklahoma back. The government also established the Homestead Act. And the Constitution does talk about providing for the general welfare. We have helped the rich thru the ability to incorporate, through farm and water subsidies (the latter intended for smaller farmers but applied to all), helped the middle class through mortgage interest deductions and the GI Bill, and the poor through food assistance, and all of society has benefitted from the public school system. This is the way of the modern world, even more so among our allies whose economies resemble ours. We are not going back. Ayn Rand is dead, and even she collected Social Security.

 

[SkyChief]

So the Roman’s shouldn’t have built roads?

You mean before the anti-trust of TR
and/or before FDR’s New Deal? Good luck with that.


Thomas Jefferson lived in a different time. And strangely, after he wrote that, the government “aided their (citizens’ pursuits” — of Indian land by having soldiers clear Indians away to Oklahoma and elsewhere, then even took Oklahoma back. The government also established the Homestead Act. And the Constitution does talk about providing for the general welfare.

LOL. Yes, the Constitution talks about "general welfare". This is not referring to modern-day welfare subsidies (redistribution of wealth). If the founders had wanted government to redistribute wealth, then wealth would have been redistributed back in 1791.

But the fact is they did NOT redistribute any wealth.

Redistribution of wealth is the result of a government which has too much power.

Thomas Jefferson explains this concept much better than I do:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Essentially, Jefferson is saying that hard-working citizens' earnings should not be taken by the government. Government should leave us free.

 

[Nickyjo]

LOL. Yes, the Constitution talks about "general welfare". This is not referring to modern-day welfare subsidies (redistribution of wealth). If the founders had wanted government to redistribute wealth, then wealth would have been redistributed back in 1791.

But the fact is they did NOT redistribute any wealth.

Redistribution of wealth is the result of a government which has too much power.

Thomas Jefferson explains this concept much better than I do:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Essentially, Jefferson is saying that hard-working citizens' earnings should not be taken by the government. Government should leave us free.

Get a grip. We long ago abandoned that. Capitalism obviously doesn’t work perfectly, and the world has saved it by doing such things.

 

[ralfy]

Actually, the 1870s to the late 1890s. Trump's idea of Making America Great Again seems to call for a return to the Gilded Age and the rise of Robber Barons - a time before Women and Blacks could vote.

Come to think of it, the criminal fraud Trump first used the alias John Baron way back in 1980, and wound up naming his latest son Barron.

I think MAGA continues with the current admin:



That plus continuing America First and going on and off concerning oil exploration.

 

[Nickyjo]

I think MAGA continues with the current admin:



That plus continuing America First and going on and off concerning oil exploration.

Why does anyone want to end globalization? Were we gonna get raw materials, bananas, coffee, etc?

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

so you think the people paying the most in taxes shouldn't get any tax breaks, that the people making the least should ?

that doesn't seem very fair - they earned their money just like you and I did AND they pay the bulk of income taxes whereas the lower income earners hardly pay any

not propaganda - fact

Every capitalist society across the globe has a progressive tax structure. Right now in this country the top enders can easily afford to pay more...a lot more. From 1954 through 1963 the top marginal tax rate was 91% and the economy was booming then. I think that percentage is far too high, but my point has been made.

The minimum wagers here and abroad don't pay taxes. So what? How does that effect you? It never bothered me.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Nothing - when people do it voluntarily. The problem is when government does it.



True, and that's why the power and scope of government must be restored to pre-expansion era.

When government becomes too powerful, it tries to control people by moving their money around, and overreach happens. The founders did not want this to happen:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

When we allow government to do things FOR us, we then must allow them to do things TO us.

So you are ok with a 2 class society? Are you aware of the huge separation in wealth between the haves and have nots? Absolutely the government has to impose wealth sharing policy. Even Adam Smith the presumed founder of capitalism said controls needed to be put in place. Because as it stands now, the 2 class society is becoming more and more prevalent.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

In 1965, CEO's at the top corporations on average made 20 times the money that the average worker made. Today, the CEO's make 399 times the money the worker makes. Sorry but that is flat out wrong. A wealth tax surcharge needs to be implemented so that a dent can be made in the national debt.

 

[ralfy]

Why does anyone want to end globalization? Were we gonna get raw materials, bananas, coffee, etc?

The video answers the questions in part.

 

[stealthycat]

Every capitalist society across the globe has a progressive tax structure. Right now in this country the top enders can easily afford to pay more...a lot more. From 1954 through 1963 the top marginal tax rate was 91% and the economy was booming then. I think that percentage is far too high, but my point has been made.

The minimum wagers here and abroad don't pay taxes. So what? How does that effect you? It never bothered me.

that's right - rich pay way more in taxes so when there is a tax cut of course they'll get more - that only makes sense

and you're right - lower income really don't pay taxes at all

 

[Wry Catcher]

During his State Of The Union Speech tonight, Biden stupidly propped up a flimsy straw-man :

" . . . The working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It's not fair. We have two ways to go - - republicans can cut social security and give more tax breaks to the wealthy . . . [boos from Congress] . . .Well, that's the proposal . . . .[boooing continues] . . Oh no? You guys don't want another$2 Trillion tax cut?? . . I kind of thought that was what your plan was. . [Congress booing continues] . . . Well, that's good to hear. You're not going to cut another $2 Trillion from the super-wealthy - - that's good to hear. . . .

Only the most profoundly ignorant dems will fall for this straw-man nonsense.

It's over for Joe Biden. There simply is no path to victory for this failed politician.

Joe Biden has and continues to support the Middle Class, the class that built America. Your thread is absurd, in my mind and experience.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There are no laws against ignorance. You are safe.

Laugh out loud: The far right in the House of Rep. is harmful to our population and to those around the world.

In America those who build/repair cars, bridges, high towers etc. now know the Unions are able now that it's necessaary to make more money and benefits when those who sit on desks will take cuts, and understands that the don't make anything that makes the wheels running.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Joe Biden has and continues to support the Middle Class, the class that built America. …

I don't mind cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from any beneficial government program, especially if the government program gets a second wind. Democrats and Republicans both agree that waste, fraud, and abuse need to be cut. The problem is that Republicans want to take a hatchet and non-discriminately cut from these programs.

That said … the perverse irony here is that the so-called "welfare kings and queens" are no longer the stereotypical poor mother with 9 kids. Instead, it's medical companies, hospitals, and the like. I worked for a company specializing in large loss data. You would be shocked at the number of hospitals or other medical organizations that charged Medicaid/care for services the organization doesn't even provide. It would be like a cosmetic surgeon charging Medicaid for providing an abortion. Other times, they're charging for cosmetic surgery that they didn't even provide to any patient at all. If you're worried about Medicare/Caid, this needs to fixed. I could easily see these programs outlasting the time at which they would ordinarily go bankrupt is this swamp was just drained.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't mind cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from any beneficial government program, especially if the government program gets a second wind. Democrats and Republicans both agree that waste, fraud, and abuse need to be cut. The problem is that Republicans want to take a hatchet and non-discriminately cut from these programs.

That said … the perverse irony here is that the so-called "welfare kings and queens" are no longer the stereotypical poor mother with 9 kids. Instead, it's medical companies, hospitals, and the like. I worked for a company specializing in large loss data. You would be shocked at the number of hospitals or other medical organizations that charged Medicaid/care for services the organization doesn't even provide. It would be like a cosmetic surgeon charging Medicaid for providing an abortion. Other times, they're charging for cosmetic surgery that they didn't even provide to any patient at all. If you're worried about Medicare/Caid, this needs to fixed. I could easily see these programs outlasting the time at which they would ordinarily go bankrupt is this swamp was just drained.

I agree, the minority of Republican Pols want to cut taxes, taxes in the "reform" (LOL) of their Party.: Consider, in 2016 the Congress put forth the bill and signed in 2017 by trump. Think about this!!!

 

[Nickyjo]

The video answers the questions in part.

The video (saw half) explains how Georgia, for example, could make some products with only local material. But it doesn’t say how an entire country can do without the raw materials and agricultural products we get from elsewhere. The US still imports some labor from Jamaica, and benefits from the labor of migrants. I don’t think that economic isolationism will work any better than political isolationism. Tho, given the size of our country and its substantial resources, the former will always be more tempting to us than to The Netherlands.

 

[iguanaman]

This hurts me more than it hurts you but you need to pay more taxes and I don't.

So it hurts you to have a higher income than most Americans? Take a pay cut then I'm sure your employer will oblige. FIT rates are determined by what a person can afford to pay.

 

[Nickyjo]

LOL. Yes, the Constitution talks about "general welfare". This is not referring to modern-day welfare subsidies (redistribution of wealth). If the founders had wanted government to redistribute wealth, then wealth would have been redistributed back in 1791.

But the fact is they did NOT redistribute any wealth.

The Homestead Act redistributed wealth.

Redistribution of wealth is the result of a government which has too much power.

I am sure those who were kicked out of the Black Hills.

Thomas Jefferson explains this concept much better than I do:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Essentially, Jefferson is saying that hard-working citizens' earnings should not be taken by the government. Government should leave us free.

So you would oppose food stamps, farm subsidies, etc.?

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

that's right - rich pay way more in taxes so when there is a tax cut of course they'll get more - that only makes sense

and you're right - lower income really don't pay taxes at all

And the minimum wagers shouldn't pay any taxes. A lot of them are homeless or else go to bed hungry.

 

[SkyChief]

The Homestead Act redistributed wealth.

FALSE.

No wealth was redistributed with the Homestead Act (only PROPERTY was given away). Wealth redistribution didn't happen until 1935 with FDR's Social Security Act.

. . . So you would oppose food stamps, farm subsidies, etc.?

Absolutely. I oppose ALL forms of wealth redistribution.

 

[Nickyjo]

FALSE.

No wealth was redistributed with the Homestead Act (only PROPERTY was given away). Wealth redistribution didn't happen until 1935 with FDR's Social Security Act.

I own property. It is part of my wealth.

Absolutely. I oppose ALL forms of wealth redistribution.

FALSE.

No wealth was redistributed with the Homestead Act (only PROPERTY was given away). Wealth redistribution didn't happen until 1935 with FDR's Social Security Act.

Potato/Potahto. Wealth is defined as “an abundance of valuable possessions or money.”

Absolutely. I oppose ALL forms of wealth redistribution.

So you would get rid of food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, interstate highways, FEMA, etc.? Is any or has any politician campaigned on that sort of platform? Is there a country whose policies align with your vision?

 

[SkyChief]

I own property. It is part of my wealth.

I figured you would try an argument like that,.

It's nonsense, and here's why. YOU made that false statement that "The Homestead Act redistributed wealth".

This is FALSE. It didn't REDISTRIBUTE anything. It gave away government property.

The word redistribute means something must be taken from someone and given to someone else. The property that was given away with the Homestead Act was FEDERAL LAND - IT WAS NOT PRIVATELY OWNED, AND THEN TAKEN AND TRANSFERRED.

Two nonsensical arguments from you and you CONTINUE to ignore the facts.

The Founders of our country did not intend for government to redistribute wealth from one citizen to another. They would be furious to learn that the government now has the power and authority to do this.

Potato/Potahto. Wealth is defined as “an abundance of valuable possessions or money.”

So you would get rid of food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, interstate highways, FEMA, etc.?

Interstate highways are not wealth redistribution. . . it should be regarded as infrastructure.

Is any or has any politician campaigned on that sort of platform?

Possibly, but you'll need to research that on your own.

Is there a country whose policies align with your vision?

There WAS. The United States before 1913.

 

[stealthycat]

And the minimum wagers shouldn't pay any taxes. A lot of them are homeless or else go to bed hungry.

hey don't pay taxes, not really but yes, I'm in favor of eliminating all income taxes for people making under $100,000 - it makes zero sense to tax them

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

hey don't pay taxes, not really but yes, I'm in favor of eliminating all income taxes for people making under $100,000 - it makes zero sense to tax them

I would go 50k no tax and then progress to 60% for the absolute high enders. That way the richest country on the planet would have most if not all live much more fruitful lives.

 

[Juks]

That can’t be done without raising taxes on those making less than $400K/year. It would also raise the SS benefits (which are based on ‘contributions’) for those currently making above the cap.

Most ‘just tax the rich more’ plans include a ‘donut hole’ with earnings (by “the rich) above the ‘donut hole’ being ignored for computing an individual’s SS ‘full benefit’ amount. Even with a smaller ‘donut hole’ (taxing those with incomes above $250/year more), it would be far short of preventing the exhaustion of the SS ‘trust me’ fund(s). It would delay their exhaustion (aka kick the can further down the road), but wouldn’t prevent it.

Increase the Maximum Taxable Earnings That Are Subject to Social Security Payroll Taxes | Congressional Budget Office

Background Social Security—which consists of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance—is financed primarily by payroll taxes on employers, employees, and the self-employed. Only earnings up to a maximum, which is $147,000 in calendar year 2022, are subject to the taxes, and only...

www.cbo.gov

Calling everything you do not agree with foolish tactics is assuming everyone share your opinions.

For the future, be more honest in your posts and tell me why you do not like a policy or statement and I and others that do not agree with you will pay attention. You might even convince us that you have a point. After al, there is really no use in talking to everyone that agree with you. That is as useful as talking to the mirror and get proud over the images endorsement.