Is Redistributing Wealth a Bad Thing? You Betcha!

[peejay 327]

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

What is the bigger picture?

Under this current health care system, less and less people are getting insured. More people, less healthcare, less people affording it, more taxpayers eat the tab. If no taxes are raised, this makes it less likely to pay back foreign debts. How is this not like universal healthcare already? This is the issue at hand, not "change". I don't care to discuss simplistic slogans. More unhealthy people means spreading their illness means the healthy also pay more because they'll end up getting sick too. Is this logic not correct? Universal healthcare means more people with access to health care means more healthy people meaning more contributors to the workforce and more taxpayers.

You wonder why this is done in every other first world nation? Because hard-line stances on things like this aren't exactly smart.

Regarding police state, I don't care about another simplistic slogan, because I don't use it. What I do use is the fact that AT&T was given immunity for illegally wiretapping millions of Americans in collusion with the NSA. FISA had a set way of dealing with terrorism regarding international phone calls. NOWHERE did this imply that citizens can be tapped 24/7 in both domestic AND international calls. Protest has always been a common theme as a right of speech, a right of petition, and a right of expression for people to protest things, including protesting the government. Yet here we are, throwing people into protest cages because why? Some find offensive or annoying people protesting? Grow some balls.

This is indeed giving up rights for some pseudo-sense of comfortableness and security.

It makes no sense whatsoever to be for government intrusion on your phone calls (your rights of privacy and not to be snooped on without being directly suspected of something) yet against universal health care, which stands to make fiscally responsible the current health care crisis in being able to actually put a direct tab on the costs that we're paying anyways for those who cannot afford their healthcare.

Yes, and 19 Democrats sided with the administration to grant immunity in a Democratic controlled congress.. Whether you agree with the wiretaps or not, it was debated in congress and the issue was addressed. Hardly what I would consider a police state or anything near it.

Protest cages? What are you talking about? I'm lost here.

As far as healthcare goes...yeah the system is broken. I'm not sure the American public wants another huge government run entitement program to go with the others that are already killing the budget. Seeing that HillaryCare got the axe by a Democratic congress in Democrat Clinton's 1st term as president I don't see a consensus for universal.

I'm not so sure radical surgery is necessary or desirable with healthcare when some triage might be more appropriate considering the state of our country's finances.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

If I go out and earn $100, and the government decides it wants to take half of that money and redistribute it to people who did not go out and earn their own money for whatever reason, my incentive to go out and earn money is much less. Eventually, I may just decide to become one of the people who has someone else's wealth redistributed to me via the government.

I think this totally illogical non sequiter is one of the greatest bits of slight of hand ever undertaken. I especially like how you pretend that the tax rate on $100 is 50%! And then you threaten to go on welfare just to spite all of us who'd like to see a strong and prosperous middle class again. Please, be my guest. While the middle class prospers again you can enjoy the wealth you'll be accumulating from your $250/ month. That will show us! A few months on welfare might help you re-evaluate your belief that people are just dying to get on the rolls. This whole argument of yours is smoke and mirrors. Like every magic trick, your attention must be diverted at just the right moment.

First came the reframing of income tax as "redistributing wealth." Simple enough and some people will fall for it but left at that , the republican plan to redistribute wealth upwards is exposed. The reframing must be immediately followed by screaming "socialist!", pointing left and telling stories of welfare queens and lazy bums at the bottom raking in your cash.

Only if you are susceptible to having an emotional reaction to the word socialist do you reflexively buy into the stories of Reagan's welfare queens that no one could ever locate. Only then is your attention diverted long enough to miss the fact that the lazy bums raking in your money are actually at the top, the very wealthy - most of whom inherited their wealth and did not, as the right wing myth goes, work hard to earn their money.

If you are susceptible to the right wing mythmaking, you go on reciting their false illogical story that the middle class keeping their money is bad and that building a strong middle class (which includes lifting up and reducing the drag from the lower class) is a bad thing. You go right on telling people that that govt got to stop sending your money to the po' people, while you gladly hand it over to the rich. And they chuckle all the way to the bank. Joe the plumber has made it clear how much the republican party relies on the "Ralph Kramden" voters. Yes, I may be in the lower middle class now and yes, their may be a much greater chance of moving down under the present system but golly gee, Alice, someday I'm gonna buy this bus company and when I do, I don't want my taxes going up! Bang Zoom!

Like any good religion:

You hear the myths again and again, and it seems they must be real.

If you question the myth, you are shamed and shouted down by the true believers.

When reality confronts you with the ridiculous nature of the myth, you are told to close your eyes and plug your ears. God and the republican party work in strange ways and you must have faith. For one, you must await your reward in heaven. For the other, you must await the "trickle down". No one has seen either one, but they must be out their because our leaders tell us so. The promised land is just over the horizen so empty your pockets and follow me! We will soon be there in trickle down heaven.

Yet, trickle down heaven feels like hell. No problem. Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell socialist! Empty your pockets for the lazy rich while you commiserate with them about those awful lazy poor people who are always looking for your money. Anyone with eyes can see that it's the poor people who hold all the cards in this society. Right?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

You can say that again, peejay. The discourse in this election makes me feel like I'm reliving the 1960's all over again. Those that don't know their history are doomed to repeat it, and that's what this election cycle feels like to me.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Peikko 1,575]

If I go out and earn $100, and the government decides it wants to take half of that money and redistribute it to people who did not go out and earn their own money for whatever reason, my incentive to go out and earn money is much less. Eventually, I may just decide to become one of the people who has someone else's wealth redistributed to me via the government.

I think this totally illogical non sequiter is one of the greatest bits of slight of hand ever undertaken. I especially like how you pretend that the tax rate on $100 is 50%! And then you threaten to go on welfare just to spite all of us who'd like to see a strong and prosperous middle class again. Please, be my guest. While the middle class prospers again you can enjoy the wealth you'll be accumulating from your $250/ month. That will show us! A few months on welfare might help you re-evaluate your belief that people are just dying to get on the rolls. This whole argument of yours is smoke and mirrors. Like every magic trick, your attention must be diverted at just the right moment.

First came the reframing of income tax as "redistributing wealth." Simple enough and some people will fall for it but left at that , the republican plan to redistribute wealth upwards is exposed. The reframing must be immediately followed by screaming "socialist!", pointing left and telling stories of welfare queens and lazy bums at the bottom raking in your cash.

Only if you are susceptible to having an emotional reaction to the word socialist do you reflexively buy into the stories of Reagan's welfare queens that no one could ever locate. Only then is your attention diverted long enough to miss the fact that the lazy bums raking in your money are actually at the top, the very wealthy - most of whom inherited their wealth and did not, as the right wing myth goes, work hard to earn their money.

If you are susceptible to the right wing mythmaking, you go on reciting their false illogical story that the middle class keeping their money is bad and that building a strong middle class (which includes lifting up and reducing the drag from the lower class) is a bad thing. You go right on telling people that that govt got to stop sending your money to the po' people, while you gladly hand it over to the rich. And they chuckle all the way to the bank. Joe the plumber has made it clear how much the republican party relies on the "Ralph Kramden" voters. Yes, I may be in the lower middle class now and yes, their may be a much greater chance of moving down under the present system but golly gee, Alice, someday I'm gonna buy this bus company and when I do, I don't want my taxes going up! Bang Zoom!

Like any good religion:

You hear the myths again and again, and it seems they must be real.

If you question the myth, you are shamed and shouted down by the true believers.

When reality confronts you with the ridiculous nature of the myth, you are told to close your eyes and plug your ears. God and the republican party work in strange ways and you must have faith. For one, you must await your reward in heaven. For the other, you must await the "trickle down". No one has seen either one, but they must be out their because our leaders tell us so. The promised land is just over the horizen so empty your pockets and follow me! We will soon be there in trickle down heaven.

Yet, trickle down heaven feels like hell. No problem. Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell socialist! Empty your pockets for the lazy rich while you commiserate with them about those awful lazy poor people who are always looking for your money. Anyone with eyes can see that it's the poor people who hold all the cards in this society. Right?

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

What is the bigger picture?

Under this current health care system, less and less people are getting insured. More people, less healthcare, less people affording it, more taxpayers eat the tab. If no taxes are raised, this makes it less likely to pay back foreign debts. How is this not like universal healthcare already? This is the issue at hand, not "change". I don't care to discuss simplistic slogans. More unhealthy people means spreading their illness means the healthy also pay more because they'll end up getting sick too. Is this logic not correct? Universal healthcare means more people with access to health care means more healthy people meaning more contributors to the workforce and more taxpayers.

You wonder why this is done in every other first world nation? Because hard-line stances on things like this aren't exactly smart.

Regarding police state, I don't care about another simplistic slogan, because I don't use it. What I do use is the fact that AT&T was given immunity for illegally wiretapping millions of Americans in collusion with the NSA. FISA had a set way of dealing with terrorism regarding international phone calls. NOWHERE did this imply that citizens can be tapped 24/7 in both domestic AND international calls. Protest has always been a common theme as a right of speech, a right of petition, and a right of expression for people to protest things, including protesting the government. Yet here we are, throwing people into protest cages because why? Some find offensive or annoying people protesting? Grow some balls.

This is indeed giving up rights for some pseudo-sense of comfortableness and security.

It makes no sense whatsoever to be for government intrusion on your phone calls (your rights of privacy and not to be snooped on without being directly suspected of something) yet against universal health care, which stands to make fiscally responsible the current health care crisis in being able to actually put a direct tab on the costs that we're paying anyways for those who cannot afford their healthcare.

Yes, and 19 Democrats sided with the administration to grant immunity in a Democratic controlled congress.. Whether you agree with the wiretaps or not, it was debated in congress and the issue was addressed. Hardly what I would consider a police state or anything near it.

Protest cages? What are you talking about? I'm lost here.

As far as healthcare goes...yeah the system is broken. I'm not sure the American public wants another huge government run entitement program to go with the others that are already killing the budget. Seeing that HillaryCare got the axe by a Democratic congress in Democrat Clinton's 1st term as president I don't see a consensus for universal.

I'm not so sure radical surgery is necessary or desirable with healthcare when some triage might be more appropriate considering the state of our country's finances.

I love when, rather than deal with the issues in healthcare, people throw around talking points like "government run entitlement programs" intended to substitute prejudices for real discussion of the issues. In fact, as far as govt run programs go (I'll leave out entitlement since this word is only included to bring up the spector of the scary dark-skinned people who want our money) Medicare is one of the most efficient and quality minded bureaucracies going. A few tweaks to things like funding, which would have to be different in a universal system, would make it a fine model for a single payor.

The healthcare system is badly broken and somehow, I'm thinking Fox News slogans aren't the fix. Fixing healthcare and gaining the enormous benefits that fixing healthcare will bring all of us, will require a little deeper thought. You cite as evidence, facts that are evidence of nothing. Intelligence has been replaced with this recitation of irrelevant facts heard on Fox. If you have a comment on how to fix healthcare make it. As someone who has been in healthcare over 25 years I can tell you the system needs more than triage and I suspect you have no basis for your conclusion that it needs "triage" other than you heard it somewhere.

Triage means making an initial evaluation and directing a patient to the appropriate provider. If you are doing triage it suggests that you do no treatment or fixes yourself but merely direct the patient to someone else to fix the problem. Who exactly are you suggesting we should send our healthcare system to for treatment? Or was that just in there because it sounds like a medical word?

The overhead of a multiple private payor system is enormous. The best estimates are that moving to universal coverage can provide better care while saving about 3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. If you could complete this sentence, I feel that saving 3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years will be bad for our troubled economy because...

The losers in universal coverage (which neither candidate has proposed) are the CEOs and CFOs who are a large part of the current overhead. Once again, by screaming socialist, they recruit people to support their wealth at the supporter's expense.

[peejay 327]

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

What is the bigger picture?

Under this current health care system, less and less people are getting insured. More people, less healthcare, less people affording it, more taxpayers eat the tab. If no taxes are raised, this makes it less likely to pay back foreign debts. How is this not like universal healthcare already? This is the issue at hand, not "change". I don't care to discuss simplistic slogans. More unhealthy people means spreading their illness means the healthy also pay more because they'll end up getting sick too. Is this logic not correct? Universal healthcare means more people with access to health care means more healthy people meaning more contributors to the workforce and more taxpayers.

You wonder why this is done in every other first world nation? Because hard-line stances on things like this aren't exactly smart.

Regarding police state, I don't care about another simplistic slogan, because I don't use it. What I do use is the fact that AT&T was given immunity for illegally wiretapping millions of Americans in collusion with the NSA. FISA had a set way of dealing with terrorism regarding international phone calls. NOWHERE did this imply that citizens can be tapped 24/7 in both domestic AND international calls. Protest has always been a common theme as a right of speech, a right of petition, and a right of expression for people to protest things, including protesting the government. Yet here we are, throwing people into protest cages because why? Some find offensive or annoying people protesting? Grow some balls.

This is indeed giving up rights for some pseudo-sense of comfortableness and security.

It makes no sense whatsoever to be for government intrusion on your phone calls (your rights of privacy and not to be snooped on without being directly suspected of something) yet against universal health care, which stands to make fiscally responsible the current health care crisis in being able to actually put a direct tab on the costs that we're paying anyways for those who cannot afford their healthcare.

Yes, and 19 Democrats sided with the administration to grant immunity in a Democratic controlled congress.. Whether you agree with the wiretaps or not, it was debated in congress and the issue was addressed. Hardly what I would consider a police state or anything near it.

Protest cages? What are you talking about? I'm lost here.

As far as healthcare goes...yeah the system is broken. I'm not sure the American public wants another huge government run entitement program to go with the others that are already killing the budget. Seeing that HillaryCare got the axe by a Democratic congress in Democrat Clinton's 1st term as president I don't see a consensus for universal.

I'm not so sure radical surgery is necessary or desirable with healthcare when some triage might be more appropriate considering the state of our country's finances.

I love when, rather than deal with the issues in healthcare, people throw around talking points like "government run entitlement programs" intended to substitute prejudices for real discussion of the issues. In fact, as far as govt run programs go (I'll leave out entitlement since this word is only included to bring up the spector of the scary dark-skinned people who want our money) Medicare is one of the most efficient and quality minded bureaucracies going. A few tweaks to things like funding, which would have to be different in a universal system, would make it a fine model for a single payor.

The healthcare system is badly broken and somehow, I'm thinking Fox News slogans aren't the fix. Fixing healthcare and gaining the enormous benefits that fixing healthcare will bring all of us, will require a little deeper thought. You cite as evidence, facts that are evidence of nothing. Intelligence has been replaced with this recitation of irrelevant facts heard on Fox. If you have a comment on how to fix healthcare make it. As someone who has been in healthcare over 25 years I can tell you the system needs more than triage and I suspect you have no basis for your conclusion that it needs "triage" other than you heard it somewhere.

Triage means making an initial evaluation and directing a patient to the appropriate provider. If you are doing triage it suggests that you do no treatment or fixes yourself but merely direct the patient to someone else to fix the problem. Who exactly are you suggesting we should send our healthcare system to for treatment? Or was that just in there because it sounds like a medical word?

The overhead of a multiple private payor system is enormous. The best estimates are that moving to universal coverage can provide better care while saving about 3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. If you could complete this sentence, I feel that saving 3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years will be bad for our troubled economy because...

The losers in universal coverage (which neither candidate has proposed) are the CEOs and CFOs who are a large part of the current overhead. Once again, by screaming socialist, they recruit people to support their wealth at the supporter's expense.

The new definition of entitlements are that they are government programs for colored folk. Ha! Ha! That's a good one. And tax defered 401K contributions are tax havens for whitey the wealthy (at least according to Pelosi).

So why doesn't either candidate publicly endorse universal? Hillary tried in 2008 and we see where she is now. What's up with that?

Triage? Evaluating and directing the patient to someone else? Kind of sounds like what the candidates are proposing (at least publicly).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If I go out and earn $100, and the government decides it wants to take half of that money and redistribute it to people who did not go out and earn their own money for whatever reason, my incentive to go out and earn money is much less. Eventually, I may just decide to become one of the people who has someone else's wealth redistributed to me via the government.

I think this totally illogical non sequiter is one of the greatest bits of slight of hand ever undertaken. I especially like how you pretend that the tax rate on $100 is 50%! And then you threaten to go on welfare just to spite all of us who'd like to see a strong and prosperous middle class again. Please, be my guest. While the middle class prospers again you can enjoy the wealth you'll be accumulating from your $250/ month. That will show us! A few months on welfare might help you re-evaluate your belief that people are just dying to get on the rolls. This whole argument of yours is smoke and mirrors. Like every magic trick, your attention must be diverted at just the right moment.

First came the reframing of income tax as "redistributing wealth." Simple enough and some people will fall for it but left at that , the republican plan to redistribute wealth upwards is exposed. The reframing must be immediately followed by screaming "socialist!", pointing left and telling stories of welfare queens and lazy bums at the bottom raking in your cash.

Only if you are susceptible to having an emotional reaction to the word socialist do you reflexively buy into the stories of Reagan's welfare queens that no one could ever locate. Only then is your attention diverted long enough to miss the fact that the lazy bums raking in your money are actually at the top, the very wealthy - most of whom inherited their wealth and did not, as the right wing myth goes, work hard to earn their money.

If you are susceptible to the right wing mythmaking, you go on reciting their false illogical story that the middle class keeping their money is bad and that building a strong middle class (which includes lifting up and reducing the drag from the lower class) is a bad thing. You go right on telling people that that govt got to stop sending your money to the po' people, while you gladly hand it over to the rich. And they chuckle all the way to the bank. Joe the plumber has made it clear how much the republican party relies on the "Ralph Kramden" voters. Yes, I may be in the lower middle class now and yes, their may be a much greater chance of moving down under the present system but golly gee, Alice, someday I'm gonna buy this bus company and when I do, I don't want my taxes going up! Bang Zoom!

Like any good religion:

You hear the myths again and again, and it seems they must be real.

If you question the myth, you are shamed and shouted down by the true believers.

When reality confronts you with the ridiculous nature of the myth, you are told to close your eyes and plug your ears. God and the republican party work in strange ways and you must have faith. For one, you must await your reward in heaven. For the other, you must await the "trickle down". No one has seen either one, but they must be out their because our leaders tell us so. The promised land is just over the horizen so empty your pockets and follow me! We will soon be there in trickle down heaven.

Yet, trickle down heaven feels like hell. No problem. Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell socialist! Empty your pockets for the lazy rich while you commiserate with them about those awful lazy poor people who are always looking for your money. Anyone with eyes can see that it's the poor people who hold all the cards in this society. Right?

Great post.