UI benefits are bad because they aren't "paid for". Tax cuts for the rich are good even though they aren't "paid for".

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's ironic to hang on to such a Right Wing talking point as 'redistribution of wealth' and still aspire to the above statement.

I really with everyone would just drop the "left" and "right" talk in general, it just gets in the way of discussing the actual issues.

[^_^ 5,021]

I really with everyone would just drop the "left" and "right" talk in general, it just gets in the way of discussing the actual issues.

In the world of the left and right, centrists like you are roadkill.

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

Define wealth how you want. My point is that without a business to work at, the worker has nothing. His labor is an unaccessible potential. Naturally, he can stay home and work to fulfill his needs without the business and no one is stopping him. He can quit his job at any time if he thinks he can do better on his own.

The government is different in two critical ways. One: the resources it takes from people have a high liquidity and are something that people could easily use themselves without government intervention. Two: you aren't free to try to go it alone. The government will hunt you down and lock you up.

Neither business nor labor can function without the other.

[^_^ 5,021]

Neither business nor labor can function without the other.

Correct, a business needs labor but unless the work you do is highly specialized, never make the mistake of thinking a business needs your labor.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Flawed concept. Itr assumes that a person's earnings belong to the government. They do not. There is no need to "pay for" a tax cut. that is like saying "How will I pay for a raise if I do not get it?" Simple. Do not spend the money.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's ironic to hang on to such a Right Wing talking point as 'redistribution of wealth' and still aspire to the above statement.

It's not a Right Wing talking point. It's straight out of the Communist Manifesto, and the professed philosophy of one Barack Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Edited July 14, 2010 by ##########

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Correct, a business needs labor but unless the work you do is highly specialized, never make the mistake of thinking a business needs your labor.

Plus 1. Everybody is replaceable, and no job is so important, that it cannot be left behind.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ##########

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's not a Right Wing talking point. It's straight out of the Communist Manifesto, and the professed philosophy of one Barack Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Talking Point - Something, such as an especially persuasive point, that helps to support an argument or a discussion.

You don't hear any other elements of the political spectrum other then the "right" painting Obama as a Communist. Therefore it is a "talking point" for the right to persuade others that Obama is far left.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

Middle class is sinking like the titanic and going the way of the dodo. In reality, the US is transforming into a 2nd/3rd world country; where the few rich hold the majority of the wealth and the rest are poor. You seem to be cheering this on. Unless you have $50 million to your name and up, I wouldn't be cheering anything. Heck, you guys already idolize sport and entertainers like the second world.

Central America has been hit hardest by this. I have seen various states first-hand and are shocked at conditions Americans live in. Not something you see in AUS period.

This is what it comes down to, would you prefer for the US to return to the heydays [without the segregation] of the 50's and 60's, when the wealthy paid 90% in tax and the highest percentage of Americans were middle class and well off? Or would you prefer to continue on the course of 5% owning the majority of the wealth, with the rest living in trailers or ghettos. Ghettos for the minorities, trailers for the Caucasians.

wow you sure took my post and ran deep to the end zone with it, didn't you? and the obligatory australia drum beating, i didn't expect that either!

the central usa may or may not have been hit hard, depending on one's locality. where i'm at, it does not appear bad at all - only house foreclosed on in the neighborhood was due to a gambling problem.

as for taxing the rich - feel free. my concern is that some beltway bandit will decide those in my tax bracket are rich.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Talking Point - Something, such as an especially persuasive point, that helps to support an argument or a discussion.

You don't hear any other elements of the political spectrum other then the "right" painting Obama as a Communist. Therefore it is a "talking point" for the right to persuade others that Obama is far left.

So, talking points are good things?

Obama paints himself as a Communist, as does those he surrounds himself with. They are all celebrating their victory, and seeing what they can cram down the throats of Americans before they lose power in November. The only ones that need to be "persuaded" are those living in denial.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So, talking points are good things?

Obama paints himself as a Communist, as does those he surrounds himself with. They are all celebrating their victory, and seeing what they can cram down the throats of Americans before they lose power in November. The only ones that need to be "persuaded" are those living in denial.

The term "talking point" is neutral. I was simply highlighting that during an argument, connecting Obama to Communism is by definition a talking point, and one used more often by people on the right side because obviously communism is a far contrast to their political views creating more persuasive power.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Sousuke

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

Obama paints himself as a Communist

Once again, Bill resorts to RWN talking points without providing any real, logical arguments or counterpoints.

Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity. That's what's produced our unrivaled political stability. ~ Barack Obama

[Heracles 417]

wow you sure took my post and ran deep to the end zone with it, didn't you? and the obligatory australia drum beating, i didn't expect that either!

the central usa may or may not have been hit hard, depending on one's locality. where i'm at, it does not appear bad at all - only house foreclosed on in the neighborhood was due to a gambling problem.

as for taxing the rich - feel free. my concern is that some beltway bandit will decide those in my tax bracket are rich.

I am not going to lie that blue-collar equivalents are not absolutely cleaning up there to ensure feelings are not hurt. Nevertheless, you guys endorse low taxes for the wealthy [focus on money] but then get worked up when I mention someone earning more than you guys and doing so in a country [system] you classify as socialist.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

I am not going to lie that blue-collar equivalents are not absolutely cleaning up there to ensure feelings are not hurt. Nevertheless, you guys endorse low taxes for the wealthy [focus on money] but then get worked up when I mention someone earning more than you guys and doing so in a country [system] you classify as socialist.

how about define the wealthy first, as it seems rather nebulous around tax time. pretty much every year amt snares someone in the middle class.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

how about define the wealthy first, as it seems rather nebulous around tax time. pretty much every year amt snares someone in the middle class.

Actually I was thinking about this last night after someone asked the same question. At the time I just responded the top 1%. But I've thought about it in a different way.

Basically in a free market, labor is not paid for their physical production value. They are instead paid based on the supply of that type of labor. That value is mostly beneath their production value...obviously if it was equal to or above that would not work economically. So the vast majority of labor is paid below their physical production value. Now there are people who are paid above, either because the field is so specialized that supply cannot meet demand, or(typically though not always) the highest realm of upper management such as CEOs.

So maybe a better way to view wealth is someone who makes more than their physical production value.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Sousuke