• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  What is it about Republicans?
   
  I really don't get it.  If it costs me 1.00 to make something I need to charge 1.10 to to make money.  If you tax me ten percent I have to charge 1.20 to make the same amount of money.  Tax breaks for the rich SHOULD work.  They clearly don't but I really can't understand where it braks down and more importantly why because it defies common sense and logic. 
   
   

• bloc said on Jun 15, 2008....

  because many of the ultra wealthy don't make money by making things.
  
  
  The issue with the graph is the debt the republicans ran up. No one can claim that democrats are the ones that want to tax and spend. The republicans are the big spenders!

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  I know that part, and Regan doesn't have the benefit of a war, and Bush 1 had an exagerated field exercise.  No good excuse for getting up that way and I do not understand.
   
  I suppose when I think of the ultra rich I automatically leap to Gates and Oil and Trump. 
   
  Even then giving them a tax break shouldn't hurt anything down the stream from them, at worst it should nulify and I'm sure there is something that I'm just not seeing in the circle of life.  One of those things where one less lion means the gazelles overpopulate eat all the grass and die out, thus killing the entire savanah but I still have a difficult time comprehending it.  For me trusting in Democrat Economics for me is one of those acts of pure faith.  I know it works, I don't understand how, or why and I have to try not to care.

• bloc said on Jun 15, 2008....

  because rich people can't get rich if they don't have good employees and good infrastructure. Allowing people like myself to get an education is good for the whole country. I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for some wealth redistribution. 
  
  
  
  

• Bellefree said on Jun 16, 2008....

  http://www.blackgirlsconnect.com/ ? It is really a funny and interesting place to date attractive girls or hot guys. Many hottie videos and photos at this site, you can enjoy latest interesting videos or talk about hot topic with other friends. I've met many thoughtful singles who were trying to find true love.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 16, 2008....

  I'll make no excuses for this current crop of Republicans. They've spent and scandalized themselves into a well-deserved minority.
   
  I didn't feel any richer when we were running a surplus and I don't feel any poorer now that we're deeper into debt, no matter what Andrew Sullivan would have me think about it.
   
  I will point out, however, that Democrats held slightly less than 50% of Congress and the Senate throughout Bush's entire tenure in office. If they were so gosh darned concerned about debt, tax cuts and the "fiscal catastrophe" that Sullivan is crying about, they had options. They could have, for instance, fillibustered every single budget bill that came their way, including the tax cuts. They could have shut down the Federal Government. But they played along and the industrialists who now support Obama are doing so having increased their disposable income courtesy of the Bush tax cuts.
   
  And now that the Dems hold both Congress and the Senate, there's no excuse for their current inaction. But hey, blaming Bush works well politically. Obama's doing nothing but running against a guy who will be out of office in a couple of months.
   
  Hey man, if you want to redistribute your wealth, please be my guest. You, however, have no moral right to set about redustributing someone else's wealth.
   
   

• Kickingbird said on Jun 16, 2008....

  From Mr. Cut-and-Paste.
  
  $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
  

• Kickingbird said on Jun 16, 2008....

  Price of Addiction
  $3,757,681,127,358.43
  to Foreign Oil

• bloc said on Jun 16, 2008....

  @curm
  "I didn't feel any richer when we were running a surplus and I don't feel any poorer now that we're deeper into debt, no matter what Andrew Sullivan would have me think about it."
  
  
  Because we aren't pay the debt yet! A college kid that runs wild with a new credit card doesn't feel poor UNTIL it comes time to pay for it.
  
  
  "You, however, have no moral right to set about redustributing someone else's wealth."
  
  
  So let's disband our military!

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 16, 2008....

  But like a college kid (or most) they couldn't afford their books or their gas or any of the things that let them get ahead later in life if they idn't have said credit card and probably go into debt.
   
  Though I'm not sure why we are debating us as individuals feeling poorer since you know, we as invididuals by the large aren't poorer, the nation is and there is a different.  I doubt many kids have any solid understanding of when money is tight for their parents and when money is good aside from hey daddy got a new car AND a new tv

• bloc said on Jun 16, 2008....

  @sean
  you're describing responsible use of credit. What we have here is a college kid who quit his job (cutting taxes) while running up the largest debt of any kid at his school

• kelly said on Jun 16, 2008....

  "You, however, have no moral right to set about redustributing someone else's wealth."
  
  
  Putting the redistribution of wealth on the scale of morality is out of order.  Or perhaps not, as most Republicans see wealth as more important than human life.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 16, 2008....

  @bloc:  Uh.  Damn I concede.  Just most people seem to think that debt=bad period.  But uh, I concede to your point.
   
  @kelly:  I think a lot of republicans see wealth as human life.  I have a hard time debating them.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 17, 2008....

  What justification is there for the redistribution of wealth, if not ultimately moral?
   
  Is "benefiting" the poorest among us through redistribution not a moral justification? Is benefitting society by funding education not a moral justification?
   
  Seriously - chances are I'm poorer than all of you at this point. What right have I to simply take your money away, for no other reason than my income is lower than yours?
   
  If you feel you all owe me something, I'll set up a paypal account and you can assuage your feelings of guilt by helping me out.
   
  Come on guys, here's your chance to put your money where your mouths are.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Like bloc said, arey ou saying we should disband our military, close public schools or disband the US Postal Services?
   
  Are you going to be the one who turns away gunshot victims at the hospital?  Or better yet and more pertinent to the discussion are you gonna turn down heart attack or stroke victims?

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  "If you feel you all owe me something"
  
  
  I think there are many unsaid assumptions in this that I don't agree with. I do owe society something. I do owe american society specifically because my success is partly due to the society I live in, the infrastructure I use daily, the protection I get from the police, fire, military, the court systems I use to do business, and the education a poor kid like me can get for far less than it actually costs.
  
  
  So yes, people that are rich in america do owe something to the society that helped them get rich.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Bloc suggested disbanding the military. I did not. If you wish to argue with this proposal, argue with him. Please don't argue by putting one person's words in another's mouth. That's lame and really beneath you.
   
  Paying for necessary government services is not, to my mind, redistribution of wealth. The Constitiution enumerates the functions of government for which government may levy taxes. That's not a problem for me. NOWHERE in the Constitution does the term "redistribution of wealth" appear, however.
   
  "So yes, people that are rich in america do owe something to the society that helped them get rich."

   

  Just because you feel you owe "society" something doesn't translate to someone else owing society something. That's your sentiment, not another's. "The rich" pay their employees, invest in entrepreneurial ventures, and purchase goods and services for which people are compensated. They "redistribute" their wealth in myriad ways. But people like you want to take more of their money by force.

   

  See, I don't like to argue in terms of "the rich" or "the wealthiest five percent" or other dehumanizing terms. I understand that we're talking about very specific people on both ends. You have failed, over and over, to justify why Bill Gates owes Joe Schmoe, simply because of Joe Schmoe's relatively lower income.

   

  Again, you're wealthier than I am. I want your money. As a member of American society, you owe me. According to your own standards, I have a right to take what you have because I make less than you. Pay up.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  How are they necessary government services and not redistributing wealth?  Does Blackwater not fight wars?  Do UPS not deliver the mail?
   
  And again are you going to turn away heart attack and stroke victims?

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  it's not sentiment. I owe much of my success to the things society provided to me. Bill Gates, if born in afgahnistan, would not be rich today. His success is both a result of his own personal attributes AND the opportunities that our society provided him.
  
  
  You say that people shouldn't put words in your mouth, which sean didn't, then you put them in mine. You are intentionally distorting my use of "owe" and why I believe that people should be taxed. My first paragraph in this comment should make it clear if you didn't understand my point from earlier. 
  
  
  Oh, you still haven't answered why I "owe" the fire department my money. If I want to risk fire and feel I adequately take care of myself why should I be forced to pay taxes for the fire department?

• curmudgeon said on Jun 17, 2008....

  If born in Afghanistan, a business-minded guy like Bill Gates would probably become quite rich growing poppies, or selling poppies for the guys who own the land. Come on. What, do you think there aren't rich people in even the most impoverished countries?
   
  If you owe, you pay. Why is it that you feel others have to pay too? Again, what right to YOU have to assert that someone else ought to pay for what YOU want?
   
  I didn't suggest any of the things Sean or you said. And if he's asking "are you suggesting such and such", indeed he is putting words in my mouth and arguing with it.
   
  I thought it would be clear that essential government services would cover the fire department. That's not redistribution of wealth, that's paying for a shared service.
   
  If paying for essential government services is how you define redistribution of wealth, we may not have as much of an argument as we think we do. Military, fire, emergency health services are costly but essential services I think most people can agree merit paying taxes for. I certianly do. But again, what those services cost and who should pay how much is subject to negotiation. This is not redistribution of wealth.
   
  I envision "redistribution of wealth" as akin to taking someone's land away and just giving it to someone else, just because there's a disparity in income or property holdings. If that's not what we're talking about, I'll shut up. But if that is what we're talking about, you still have not offered a single reason why one person ought to pay just because the other person makes less.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Ok since I have to phrase my questions exactly a certain way to prevent hurting your feelings I'll try again.
   
  1.  Why do you feel that paying for military, fire, emergency health are redistibution of wealth when clearly they are?
   
  2.  We've proven time and time again that from a purely economical stand point Universal Health Care is cheaper than Emergency health services.  It costs less to tune up a car every single year than it does to replace the engine once.  Which is essentially how our system works.
   
  3.  Bill Gates really wasn't that great of a business man, I doubt he would have gotten rich growing poppies.  If he'd been born in Afghanistan. . . I don't know how their rules work, if he was born in Russia he'd be like Alexey Pajitnov  where the state essntially robbed him.
   
  4.  If redistribution of wealth is limited to taking someones land/money away and giving it to somebody else, well it simply doesn't happen.  Taxes according to you aren't redistribution by definition, instead it matters how it is spent correct?

• curmudgeon said on Jun 17, 2008....

  OK perhaps then I need to re-think my idea of what redistributing wealth means to the folks who call for it. Clearly we're not talking about the same thing.
   
  It seems to me that fielding a military, fire departments etc. maintains a level of security and/or stability that benefits everyone within society, rich and poor. I don't consider it a "redistribution" if everyone clearly benefits. Soldiers provide a service for which they are compensated. In the strictest terms, yes, wealth is "redistributed", but it is in exchange for goods and services.
   
  I've been really thinking about the health care system in this country. I suppose if we considered medical services and products a shared resource like fire and military, a national health care system would save employers and families a great deal of money and provide a semblance of security as people transition from company to company. However, our current system still benefits the vast majority of people in this country. Changing the way 260 million people currently get their health needs looked after simply to benefit 40 million uninsured (maybe it's 50 or 60 million at this point) seems a bit dramatic. Wouldn't it make more sense to target the 40 million somehow?
   
  Even so, I wouldn't consider Federally organized medical services a redistribution of wealth because everyone, rich and poor, would clearly get something in return for what we pay.
   
  I do have a problem, however, with paying for public education when I have no kids or when I educate my kids privately. The benifits are not one to one, as in firefighters saving my house, or the military protecting the borders and projecting power. Someone else's kids may or may not do something that benefits me, and I can't ask these kids to do anything for me if I need, neither are they obligated to help me even though I'm paying for their education. There's a huge difference between paying to educate someone else's kid and insuring myself and others to against some future catastrophe by forward-contracting government services.
   
  Regardless, we must come to some agreement as to how much each of us ought to pay for those shared resources. To flatly say that I ought to pay more simply by virtue of the fact that I make more than the next guy just doesn't wash with me, especially if I'm paying the bulk of the cost already.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Ok.  I think you and I mostly agree then.
   
  My only debate against public education is that it does benefit you to have more kids educated.  Not only does that improve the number of inteligent people in our nation which will continue to keep us as the world leader in education (high, our public schools might suck but you come to America to get your college education), It also increases the chances of my being gainfully imployed, which raises everying else.  It's the inverse of since Bill Gates employs directly and indirectly hundreds of thousands if not a solid million people in this country and abroad.  If I make more money I can afford to pay more for his product.
   
  More than that it is the stated opinion of most people that it's not wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed yourself or your child.  Most people aren't going to allow themselves to starve to death so in the end you are given two choices.  Are you as a rich man going to hand out loaves of bread and peanut butter once a week or would you rather get robbed?

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  @curm
  that's a great breakdown of the issue. I think we all agree on your basic description we just disagree a bit on the edges. I'm not a socialist and I very strongly believe in markets for MOST things. I do not think that rich people should pay 50% of their income in taxes or anything like that. There certainly are people that want such things, even on this site, but I'm not one of them. I believe that education and health care fall into the "security and/or stability that benefits everyone" category.
  
  Sean explained eduction pretty well, are nation is wealthier in general if we have citizens that can compete in the global market place. It isn't a direct benefit, which is what seems to be your criteria, but I think it's a clear enough benefit to justify it.
  
  Regarding healthcare, there is another angle I think is important. For the past 10 years or so I've worked for small companies, mostly two dot coms. Healthcare is a burden for small businesses. It's hard to hire good people if you don't have healthcare benefits, and it's not only expensive to provide them, but it's time consuming. As a business, and as a society, it's better for small businesses to focus on providing their products or services; not navigating an every changing and complicated healthcare system. Most job creation comes from small businesses so removing this burden should help encourage entrepreneurship and our economy in general.
  
  In the end I think we agree far more than we disagree.
  

• curmudgeon said on Jun 18, 2008....

  I'm glad to see that we agree on some things. Guess it takes time to get beyond the heated rhetoric, barbs and broadsides.
   
  I think it's also important for me not to make assumptions about what other people are saying, but really get clear about what they mean.
   
  Then I can disagree vehemently.
   
  I see both of your points about public eduacation. We can talk about whether or not our public school systems are actually performing as described in another thread.

Comment on "The Bush Economy"

Currently tagged	politics bush black girls black dating liberal hypocrites WEALTH morality messaged me economics national debt (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment