redistribution of wealth

[Dogbean]

I just want to tap your knowledge on something here....help me find a piece of the puzzle I'm missing.

We talk all the time about how Obama is planning redistribution of wealth, and how it's going to be so much worse, and so much more socialist than ever before in America. However, we currently have a system that takes taxes from hardworking Americans and then gives it out as handouts to the poor in the form of welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc....like Andrew Wilkow's example today of the bum in the street urinating himself, he gets taken care of. A system of redistribution of wealth is already in place, and has been for many years, even under republican presidents and congresses.

So I ask you, what's the difference between that system and what Obama is planning? How is what he's planning any worse? And I don't even know specifically what he's planning, so if you can enlighten me on that as well that would be great. It just seems that republicans and right wingers preach "smaller government, less intrusive government, cut programs, etc." yet I hear that government expands with every president, republican or democrat. I hear that government is bigger at the end of GW Bush's term than it was under Bill Clinton. Is that right?

 

[PantsMcFist]

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head here.

The part that everyone thinks will be worse is the mandatory civil service and community involvement. Oh, and I think there's something about guns....

 

[chaz345]

The problem with Obama's plan is that there is no wealth to redistribute. Well at least no where near as much real wealth as the numbers we've assigned to it. If Obama and other very rich liberals want the poor to have more money, instead of using force of government to make that happen, why not try leading by example? Why is it that the group that as a whole pretends to care more about the poor(liberals/left/whatever label you want) lags behind the big bad mean heartless conservatives when it comes to personal voluntary giving?

 

[PantsMcFist]

The problem with Obama's plan is that there is no wealth to redistribute. Well at least no where near as much real wealth as the numbers we've assigned to it. If Obama and other very rich liberals want the poor to have more money, instead of using force of government to make that happen, why not try leading by example? Why is it that the group that as a whole pretends to care more about the poor(liberals/left/whatever label you want) lags behind the big bad mean heartless conservatives when it comes to personal voluntary giving?

Before you cite statistics to back this up - church giving is not the same as giving money to a shelter or non-profit, or NGO. Many churches take no responsibility for the poor, and many more are cheerleaders for individualism.

 

[joebudda]

The government 'wastes' and 'looses' trillions of dollars. And that isn't even counting the overhead cost of the vast bureaucracies that have an incentive to be inefficient and wasteful. Because if these bureaucracies don't do the job they were set out to do they get even more money thrown at them.

Which is why if people really did care about these "charitable causes" they would stop paying taxes and support charities. Because if a charity was as inefficient and wasteful as the state is that charity would fail because you would change your support to a charity that is efficient and less wasteful.

So there is incentive for a charity to be efficient and have the least amount of waste as possible if they wish to remain. Whereas a state bureaucracy doesn't need to satisfy you and gets more of your money the more inefficient and wasteful they are.

Which means the more wasteful and inefficient a bureaucracy is the less able you are to help the people who you believe need it most. This is because you don't have the money anymore that they take from you to put to what you believe to be a "greater good". So the state prevents you from helping others to the degree you might believe that help might be needed.

 

[Billnew]

I

So I ask you, what's the difference between that system and what Obama is planning? How is what he's planning any worse? And I don't even know specifically what he's planning, so if you can enlighten me on that as well that would be great. It just seems that republicans and right wingers preach "smaller government, less intrusive government, cut programs, etc." yet I hear that government expands with every president, republican or democrat. I hear that government is bigger at the end of GW Bush's term than it was under Bill Clinton. Is that right?

Goverment size and intrusiveness is bigger then ever before. Bush expanded goverment faster then lib's with that "compassionate Conservativism." That is one reason he lost his base support in the end.

True Conservatives want to minimize Goverment growth. It will grow like a weed without any help, but it needs to be pruined and cut back to prevent waste.
Obama's plan was to end Bush's tax cuts(to all tax payers) and put in place tax cuts to the lower tax brackets(Including rebates to people that didn't pay any taxes, and large tax increases on the upper tax brackets.

Putting more of the load on the people that pay the majority of the load any way.

Pants- I have heard conflict with Manditory service(internment or forced labor) and community involvement, but haven't heard anything from Obama on gun control...yet.

Also, Bush spent trillions of dollars, putting us in debt for the war, Obama wants to spend trillions and put us in debt to keep weak industrys from failing. Adding debt on our kids not in defense of Freedom, but on poor business leaders and poor decisions.

The stimulous money could give every taxpayer a very large sum of cash to spend on mortgages, credit card debt, and other problem areas in their life, saving their homes and getting people out of debt, instead it will go to the people that worked their company into debt, just to kep them going for a few more years, with no guarantee that they will fix the problem they have had for decades.

goverment is the problem, not the solution.

 

[PantsMcFist]

Another ctrl C ctrl V from our man with the individualists plan, JB.

 

[joebudda]

Another ctrl C ctrl V from our man with the individualists plan, JB.

Nope, I typed it out.
But I do find it amusing how you choose to focus on the person who made the argument and avoid the argument all together, how very intellectual of you.

 

[chaz345]

Before you cite statistics to back this up - church giving is not the same as giving money to a shelter or non-profit, or NGO. Many churches take no responsibility for the poor, and many more are cheerleaders for individualism.

I realize that. And even with church giving accounted for conservatives still outgive others.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/index.html

 

[JustOneWay]

I realize that. And even with church giving accounted for conservatives still outgive others.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/index.html

....because God just loves a humble giver

 

[PantsMcFist]

Nope, I typed it out.
But I do find it amusing how you choose to focus on the person who made the argument and avoid the argument all together, how very intellectual of you.

I call shenanigans. I have seen those paragraphs word for word before. I have already addressed your argument. I said nothing about you, except mentioning the ideology which you wear on your sleeve. You, however, have responded with a veiled insult, and alluded to an imagined ad hominem attack.

 

[chaz345]

Before you cite statistics to back this up - church giving is not the same as giving money to a shelter or non-profit, or NGO. Many churches take no responsibility for the poor, and many more are cheerleaders for individualism.

I realize that. And even with church giving accounted for conservatives still outgive others.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/index.html

 

[joebudda]

I call shenanigans. I have seen those paragraphs word for word before. I have already addressed your argument. I said nothing about you, except mentioning the ideology which you wear on your sleeve. You, however, have responded with a veiled insult, and alluded to an imagined ad hominem attack.

Yes I am making the same argument because I know the argument inside and out. But please show me where I have made this argument word for word. I will bet you you can't, because I know I did just type it out.

Now I have insulted you too. Too funny. You are a crack up.

 

[PantsMcFist]

I think one day I will construct a typology of JBs dismissals. When I first started posting in October or so, I saw the occasional "funny", after a while there were "too funny"s, and now I am cracking him up. Either he's relaxing, or the Zen is wearing thin and he can't bring himself to true belligerency.

 

[Chamdar]

Dogbean: Another social Darwinist who doesn't believe in evolution.

 

[Dogbean]

But what I am asking is, how is what Obama wants to do for redistributing wealth any more socialist than the system in place today?

 

[JustOneWay]

But what I am asking is, how is what Obama wants to do for redistributing wealth any more socialist than the system in place today?

The only difference is Bush, and now Obama are redistributing our tax dollars to private business. They were not held accountable and we all lose....

The government pulled a reverse Robin Hood on the taxpayers.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The only difference is Bush, and now Obama are redistributing our tax dollars to private business. They were not held accountable and we all lose....

But it's change!!11one!one11!!!!!11

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

If you take a look at how wealth is distributed in American society, ever since the Reagan years we've had a redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy elite.

 

[JustOneWay]

But it's change!!11one!one11!!!!!11

Can you stop that? You continue to attack Obama for the same stuff Bush was doing.

Are you American? Or did you also renounce your citizenship?