Quick Question

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by JCL

Looks like Obama is spreading it around today

100,000 attendees at his rally. Meanwhile, 5,000 attendees at McCain's rally. Maybe everyone understands McCain's policies, and so they don't need to hear him speak.

Doesn't matter much to me personally since I'm voting for neither. He!!, American Idol gets more votes than a US election...not big surprise with the YouTube candidate

[motordavid]

Originally Posted by Wagner

That may very well be true, but the question wasn't if it was happening, but if you agreed with it.

C'mon BigR, who is doing the "what is is" deal now?

It's like "not agreeing" with the weather...

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by motordavid

C'mon BigR, who is doing the "what is is" deal now?

It's like "not agreeing" with the weather...

We have to agree to disagree MD. I think the answer is simplistic, some think it is complex. Enough said.

[realchef]

Not for Obama! but pretty much against the republican machine and it's destruction of the constitution, re-defining the VP etc...

The beauty of capitalism is it allows one to earn what one is not only capable to but also what one is inclined to. Many people drive for the daily dollar at all costs. Others have more babies for more welfare. If you remain uneducated or unskilled and just want a pay check, then you deserve the check you earn.

Where we are now is a tilted scale that seems to have gotten too far from balanced. It is well publicized how the upper 1 to 10 % command the vast majority of wealth in the US. Everything is leaning towards the top at an acute angle.

Now, as much as it pains me to read Obama's plans, aren't his tax proposals actually geared around levelling the field; taking some of the advantage down to the people?

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by realchef

Now, as much as it pains me to read Obama's plans, aren't his tax proposals actually geared around levelling the field; taking some of the advantage down to the people?

Bingo!

Wagner: Here are a few past examples that could fit in the category of "wealth redistribution"....

Integration of the schools (sending poor minority kids to wealthy white areas to attend school, even though their families did not pay the higher taxes which funded those better schools) -- certainly this was an attempt to "equalize" the quality of education kids were getting

Having a public school system (forcing wealthy people to pay taxes to fund schools for poor people who don't pay any taxes). Is this fair? How about we just have private schools and everyone pays for their own kids to attend.

Having a public fire department (same as the last example -- why should rich people pay to fund a fire department that puts out the fires in poor neighborhoods. How about we allow the "free market" to take care of this sector and have private fire companies and everyone pays to put their own fires out. If you can't afford it, too bad) Or will you argue that having this service to put out fires is an "entitlement"??

"Universal Service Fund" - if you have ever paid a phone bill, you paid this -- it's one of the taxes they charge on telephone service. This tax went to subsidize telephone service in rural areas where there weren't enough customers to make it profitable for the telephone companies to run telephone lines. So instead of rural folks having to pay $1000 per month for telephone service, everyone else paid taxes so that they could have more affordable phone service -- "wealth redistribution" for certain.


These are just some examples. If you are in favor of any of these programs, then you are indeed in favor of "wealth redistribution", at least in some circumstances.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Bingo!

Wagner: Here are a few past examples that could fit in the category of "wealth redistribution"....

Integration of the schools (sending poor minority kids to wealthy white areas to attend school, even though their families did not pay the higher taxes which funded those better schools) -- certainly this was an attempt to "equalize" the quality of education kids were getting

Having a public school system (forcing wealthy people to pay taxes to fund schools for poor people who don't pay any taxes). Is this fair? How about we just have private schools and everyone pays for their own kids to attend.

Having a public fire department (same as the last example -- why should rich people pay to fund a fire department that puts out the fires in poor neighborhoods. How about we allow the "free market" to take care of this sector and have private fire companies and everyone pays to put their own fires out. If you can't afford it, too bad) Or will you argue that having this service to put out fires is an "entitlement"??

"Universal Service Fund" - if you have ever paid a phone bill, you paid this -- it's one of the taxes they charge on telephone service. This tax went to subsidize telephone service in rural areas where there weren't enough customers to make it profitable for the telephone companies to run telephone lines. So instead of rural folks having to pay $1000 per month for telephone service, everyone else paid taxes so that they could have more affordable phone service -- "wealth redistribution" for certain.


These are just some examples. If you are in favor of any of these programs, then you are indeed in favor of "wealth redistribution", at least in some circumstances.

Well not quite in the terms defines throughout these posts. No I don't think money should be forcefully distributed to equalize financials.

The school system is paid EQUALLY no matter how much you make. Phone bill, that is something you chose to have. True you probably needed it, but you were not required to have it.

All we have in MD for the most part is volunteer fire departments, so that may be true in some places but it is not the only method.

If wealth redistribution, as proposed by the goof running for office, was to create fire department, schools, libraries and infrastructure I might be able to get behind that. But to simply "spread" it around to socialize our country? Not for it. I do find it utterly hilarious that a person who refuses to provide HC for his own employees is such a proponent of looking out for the other guy via socialist practices.

[Quicksilver]

MD's answer was simple. The weather is the weather.
It is what it is "You can't change it" Politics? Same deal.

Originally Posted by Wagner

We have to agree to disagree MD. I think the answer is simplistic, some think it is complex. Enough said.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

MD's answer was simple. The weather is the weather.
It is what it is "You can't change it" Politics? Same deal.

Not sure what your purpose of this post was, unless to just do a verbal with MD

Igon, from Ghostbusters, voice "Good job, short but pointless" This thread has gone on a tremendous tangent...though there is still a 92% vote in favor of not redistributing.

[Quicksilver]

It was indeed......

Originally Posted by Wagner

Not sure what your purpose of this post was, unless to just do a verbal with MD

[Meiac09]

My jaded, cynical 18 year old viewpoint:
The systems of wealth redistribution (at least where I am from) has been abused so badly that it needs to be seriously reconsidered. Although it cuts off those who truly need it, someone who owns a business up nawth shouldn't have to import workers because they won't pay under the table.