Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Red Bird]

Well some of us don't think everyone earned their money fairly.

In fact, many believe that a lot of people didn't earn their money at all.

many think that a whole lot of people are earning money by taking advantage of people who are far less fortunate than they are.

And some of us think that allowing a few lucky people to take advantage of those not so lucky is just plain wrong.

So some of us think we should try to fix that.

[Hacksaw]

Well some of us don't think everyone earned their money fairly.

In fact, many of us believe than many people didn't earn their money at all.

Some of us also think that a whole lot of people are earning money by taking advantage of people who are less fortunate than they are.

And some of us think that allowing a few lucky people to take advantage of those not so lucky is just plain wrong.

So some of us think we should try to fix that.

Wow. Really? You're not kidding?

[Red Bird]

No kidding.

[Hacksaw]

Wow. Scary stuff.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin

[Red Bird]

It's not scarey at all.

What's really scary is what happens when a small group of people control all of a nations wealth. See France in the late 18th century and Russia at the turn of the 20th century.

[Red Bird]

And please spare me the stuff about Capitalism, because both pre-revolutionary France and Russia were essentially capitalist economies. In fact, they were much purer forms of Capitalism than the United States today.

[Hacksaw]

Well, you can justify all kinds of thievery with that sort of thinking. Who decides which people deserve their money? How do you redistribute it? And once you start doing that, what keeps the rich people from just taking their wealth elsewhere, before it has a chance to be confiscated? What happens to all of the people who they employ when they leave?

And once the politicians start deciding how much money citizens are allowed to keep, does that mean that they usurp the authority that was once given to the judiciary to pass judgement on who has earned their money fairly? Because that used to be based on whether or not laws had been violated. But you suggest that we now use some less-specific criteria: fair or unfair.

Like I said, scary stuff.

But I do appreciate your candor. Not too many people would be willing to admit what you have admitted tonight.

[Red Bird]

Kant suggested that economic systems should provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You may argue with Kant, many people have, but reason and morality suggests that Kant was right. How can we presume that a system that serves fewer people is better than one that serves more people?

Resent studies show that people living in more egalitarian societies are generally healthier, they experience lower crime rates, live longer and are happier than people in extremely stratified societies like the United States. - The US, by the way, is one of the most stratified societies on earth.

Redistribution of wealth is simple. You simply create a progressive tax system. Back in 1958, the top marginal rate in this country was 92%. That’s right, 92%. The world did not come to an end, the economy did not collapse, and the wealthy did not head for Afghanistan. In fact, the US economy grew fine back then.

What keeps the rich from leaving? Where are they going to go? They can’t go to Europe, those nations have more progressive tax systems than we’re likely to have. China? I doubt they would want to live in a totalitarian state, especially one were they would be extreme outsiders. Japan won’t take them and even if they did, Japan has a much more substantial social system than the US. So no escape there. I guess they could move to Haiti or some other purely capitalistic hell hole like Afghanistan, but what would that gain them?

A few might move to Singapore or Switzerland – let em go. Just tell them they can never come back. We’ll get along without them.

I know you Libertarians all think Ayn Rand has some form of precognition, but I assure you, that if the some wealthy people leave, there will still be plenty of ambitious youngsters to take their place even if they have to pay substantial taxes. The 1950’s were never short on entrepreneurs.

And once the politicians start deciding how much money citizens are allowed to keep, does that mean that they usurp the authority that was once given to the judiciary to pass judgement on who has earned their money fairly? Because that used to be based on whether or not laws had been violated. But you suggest that we now use some less-specific criteria. Fair or unfair.

The politicians have always decided these issues. They raise and lower taxes periodically. They change the laws as society sees fit. The courts interpret the laws as best they can. I do not suggest a less specific criteria at all. And I base what I suggest on reasonable ideas of fairness.

[Red Bird]

But I do appreciate your candor. Not too many people would be willing to admit what you have admitted tonight.

Why do you imagine this? There is a growing underclass in this country and more and more people recognize that the wealthy elite have been waging war on the working class in this country for the last fifty years. There is growing frustration with the hording by the rich in this country. We'd better all take a careful look at the options because to continue the course that you envision has the potential to get very ugly in the end.

[Red Bird]

I don't know how much money you have, but be advised there are a lot more poor people in this country than rich ones. If it gets really ugly, the poor will get theirs even if they have to pry open your dead fingers to take it.

Ask the ghosts of French aristocrats and Russian elitists

[Toemeesleather]

some of us don't think everyone earned their money fairly.




Thank God the Constitution regulates fairness...

[bluetick]

Prof, I own 27 guns..


What year did you join the NRA?


Me....1983.

Wow - '83. You must have one helluva decal collection.

[Toemeesleather]

Don't get me wrong tick, having a Dan Rather...Tom Brokaw...Brian Williams...Katie Couric around to inform us is great. Your altruism is truly appreciated. Too bad yer getting the short end salary wise though. I hear the folks mentioned here make way yonder more than an insurance peddler.

[Toemeesleather]

because both pre-revolutionary France and Russia were essentially capitalist economies


Just wow.....Please share what yer smokin' w/the rest of us.....serfs and peasants owned land??? Really??


....just.....wow.

[AlabamAlum]

Try not to engage the RedBird. She is quite certifiable.

[bluetick]

Don't worry - toe doesn't "engage." He clings to his short-and-pithy playbook. "Just wow" pretty much maxes him out.

[AlabamAlum]

I was addressing the group as a whole.

RedBird is from the old baseball forum (and later TGP) at Wxing.


She once spent a month defending this position of hers:

'All beer is beer. It is the same. There is no difference between Guinness and Natty Light or between a Left Hand Milk Stout and Meisterbrau. If you pay more to get one of those "premium" beers, you are just doing it for the status symbol and so you can feel superior over people who drink cheap beer. They taste the same.'

[Hacksaw]

"How can we presume that a system that serves fewer people is better than one that serves more people?"

That's kind of a funny sentence, because you're asking a question about presuming something when the statement, itself, is based on a presumption. I disagree with the premise that our system serves fewer people, whatever that means.

"Resent studies show that people living in more egalitarian societies are generally healthier, they experience lower crime rates, live longer and are happier than people in extremely stratified societies like the United States. - The US, by the way, is one of the most stratified societies on earth."

Heh. Recent studies have concluded a lot of silly things. Kobe beef cows are massaged for 8 hours a day and given all the beer they can drink. Sounds great, but I wouldn't want to trade places with them. Why can't parents keep 18 year-old children from making bad decisions? Because when they reach the age when society says they are adults, they're not interested in being taken care of anymore -- no matter how fair that treatment might seem to the parents. Adults want to be free to make their own decisions and control their own lives.

"Redistribution of wealth is simple. You simply create a progressive tax system."

We already have that. As of 2008, the top 1% (those making >$380,000/year) pay approx. 38% of all federal personal income tax paid. The top 5% pay almost 60%. The top 10% pay 70%. The top 25% pay 86%.

The bottom half of all those filing (those making <$33,000/year) pay less than 3%. Think about that...half of the country pays less than 3%.

"Back in 1958, the top marginal rate in this country was 92%. That’s right, 92%. The world did not come to an end, the economy did not collapse, and the wealthy did not head for Afghanistan. In fact, the US economy grew fine back then."

This is an oft-cited statistic that trivializes the significant differences that exist between the way the economy works today and the way it worked in 1958. The world is a very different place now than it was in 1958. Most people wouldn't choose to go back to the economic reality of 1958 anymore than they would choose to return to the social reality of 1958. What we have seen, much more recently than 1958, are changes to the economy that correlate to relatively small changes in the tax rate. We have seen revenue increase following decreases in the rates and revenue decreases following tax hikes (again, I reference the Laffer Curve).

But all of that really misses the most important point, which is that there isn't enough wealth in the entirety of all the richest people in this country to dig ourselves out of the mess that our politicians have created. We simply cannot tax our way out of it. The math doesn't work out -- especially when government has shown absolutely no ability to cut back on spending. Any increase in tax receipts will simply be met with more and more spending.

"...I base what I suggest on reasonable ideas of fairness."

With all due respect, implying that I might be killed -- and my money taken from my cold dead fingers -- if I disagree with you, doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable.

[Big Orange Junky]

Honestly I saw the Christie story all over the front page yesterday, but nothing on Weiner. I didn't know any of that was going on until I went to get a haircut between cases and heard it being covered on a radio station. I then searched for it and saw it.

However, on CNN, Yahoo, and the other mainstream areas of the hospital (pages we log on to for computer access etc) the main story was the chopper ride to the ballgame. Which was 100% legal and 100% within precedent for that state but IMO was stupid. Still I find it ironic that a story about a republican doing something completely legal and the same as his previous counterparts overshadowed such a scandalous story like Weinergate.

Now this was yesterday morning. I was in the hospital and was only seeing the newspapers, CNN, and the home pages that are Yahoo, Google, MSN etc but the chopper was huge, front page stuff and I had to actively search to find anything about the scandal.

Bullshit - a huge lie. Christie didn't announce paying the money back until he held a live press conference at 4:30 yesterday - until that time it was not a story in any of those places you mentioned. It didn't become a story at CNN until that time - and there were already seven individual Weiner stories running on CNN's website at that time. Nice try.

Ummm no Tick. What I posted was 100% true. The story on Christie wasn't the one where he paid it back. It was the ones calling it into question and "shedding light" on the fact that it happened. It was front page news.

Then it made front page AGAIN after he paid it back.

I have no reason to lie or make anything up. That was 100% the way it went down. I knew Christe took a chopper to his kids ballgame way before I knew about weinergate and had to actively search for weinergate. Christie was found on accident because it was front page on all the computer home pages in the hospital as well as running on CNN.

Nice try on your part though to try and say something I never said, then try to say I lied about it. I don't give a flying flip about it either way, just pointing out the actual order in which it was presented by the MSM that day.

[Hacksaw]

Red Bird,

I found this video, which illustrates why taxing the rich won't solve our economic problems. Frankly, the guy in the video is kind of annoying to listen to (and there's a lot of partisan crap at the beginning that will probably turn most people off before they even get to the salient points that are made later). But I think it is very informative, beginning at the 2:43 mark...

[youtube]661pi6K-8WQ[/youtube]