wealth distribution

misshestermoffitt said:

Pointing out that the more greedy types drag god into everything is an observation. Pointing out that the greedy types are the ones that think they can buy their way into heaven is also an observation.

If I was dragging god into the argument I would have said something more along the lines of, "no one is allowed to have money unless they believe in god" or "people who believe in god don't have to pay taxes". Can you understand the difference?

Click to expand...

As one who has been trained in scientific empirical methodologies, I know the difference. Your statement is an opinion, not an observation. If it was an observation, you would have presented evidence. Until you do so, I call it opinion. Present the evidence and I will be more than happy to retract my statement. Until then...I stand by it.

smartsoverambition said:

coul we all just get along? i mean were weed smokers 4 (insert whatever u want to here) sakes

Click to expand...

I haven't smoked weed in almost 30 years.

As I stated previously, greed is a loaded term.

To me a single woman who chooses to have a child she cannot afford to raise, safe in the knowledge government programs will provide for her, is greedy. Women have a series of choices when it comes to pregnancy. They can choose to keep their legs closed. They can choose to make Romeo wear a rubber if he wants some nookie. They can choose adoption. Since Roe v. Wade, they can choose to abort.

A father who refuses to take responsibility for his children is greedy.

Anyone with an entitlement mentality who expects someone else to meet their basic needs because they do not want to take responsibility for themselves is greedy.

Anyone who feigns disability in order to enjoy an early retirement is greedy.

Anyone who works under the table to avoid reporting taxable income is greedy.

I also reject the notion that conservatives are greedy.

In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

Click to expand...

The Chronicle, 11/23/2006: Charity's Political Divide

Obama said in 2001 that the the civil rights movement failed because it did not succeed in wealth redistribution . . . . damn socialist. Who will you vote for? The rights stealing war lord or the Thieving Socialist?

No one has answered the question "how much money is enough" yet. Interesting.........

misshestermoffitt said:

No one has answered the question "how much money is enough" yet. Interesting.........

Click to expand...

The amount of money one can have is only limited by the amount in circulation, or anti-trust laws. The amount one should have is only limited by the tolerance and overall poverty level of the public at large.

In other news, Exxon posted record profits this quarter, some $14.8 billion dollars ($37 billion for the first three-quarters of the year). If this trend continues it will likely be the largest profit recorded for an American corporation, ever.

If you had 10 million would that be enough, or would you need more?

50 million?

100 million?

1 billion?

How much is enough for 1 family?

Another question is, why is it 10 million per year isn't enough for one family, but 20 thousand per year is supposed to be enough for another?

How much money is enough?

NorthwestBuds said:

You have my vote for the biggest jackass on this sight buddy. That is the most twisted, convoluted, stupid, interpretation I have ever heard of in my life. What an asshole thing to do. I guess that restaurant is just another bridge you burned in the name of stupidy.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Even thought Vi didn't really do that, its still a representation of how he/she feels. I've read some of his/her posts about Obama vs McCain.

misshestermoffitt said:

No one has answered the question "how much money is enough" yet. Interesting.........

Click to expand...

As much money as they choose to make. There should be no ceiling on anyone's earnings.

misshestermoffitt said:

If you had 10 million would that be enough, or would you need more?

50 million?

100 million?

1 billion?

Click to expand...

I am certain I could do quite well on $10 million. $10 million would be enough.

misshestermoffitt said:

How much is enough for 1 family?

Click to expand...

That is up to the head of each respective family and no one else.

misshestermoffitt said:

Another question is, why is it 10 million per year isn't enough for one family, but 20 thousand per year is supposed to be enough for another?

Click to expand...

It is the responsibility of each family to see to it's own needs. The person making 10 million a year probably made very different choices from the person making 20k per year.

misshestermoffitt said:

How much money is enough?

Click to expand...

That is a question each person must ask and answer himself. For me, as much as I can earn, but I would be content with $10 million.

Johnnyorganic said:

As much money as they choose to make. There should be no ceiling on anyone's earnings.

Click to expand...

Besides, has this class warfare really helped the middle class?

The rich laugh their asses off at high income taxes, and the poor get refunds, but the middle class, we are the one's that really get shafted by this progressive income tax system.

If you have several million dollars in a bank you don't have to work, you can live off the interest, and thus you can laugh when the government takes a portion of the interest, because there will always be more interest.

Though your argument about the quantity of money. I'm not sure if you are talking about income or wealth. There is a very large difference.

A person working at McDonald's can eventually become a millionaire, if they are diligent in saving money instead of chasing every whim, but it takes them a lot longer than some one working as a lawyer, or a CEO, or a doctor.

But would you trust some one at McDonald's to represent you in a legal case?

Or to do surgery on your spinal column or eyes?

I know I wouldn't, and thus I am willing to pay extra for their services, because I am ultimately paying for the time it took them to go through school.

Let's face it. We live in a brainwashed, dumbed down society, where "Need" is more virtuous than "Achievement."

Vi

ViRedd said:

Let's face it. We live in a brainwashed, dumbed down society, where "Need" is more virtuous than "Achievement."

Vi

Click to expand...

Mobocracy instead of a Meritocratic Republic, of course, that's what Socialism is all about.

No, we live in a SELFISH society where rich people horde money and sit in their mansions eating lobster next to their nice cozy fireplace while poor children go hungry.

Not only do they do that, but they make their millions off the backs of people that they pay the least amount they can get away with.

PS a college education does not always mean the person is smarter. You've never heard of buying grades, or people being passed for their sports ability?

GrowSpecialist said:

No, we live in a SELFISH society where rich people horde money and sit in their mansions eating lobster next to their nice cozy fireplace while poor children go hungry.

Click to expand...

GrowSpecialist said:

No, we live in a SELFISH society where rich people horde money and sit in their mansions eating lobster next to their nice cozy fireplace while poor children go hungry.

Click to expand...

Aight, you know, I think you have us confused with a continent that starts with the letter 'A'.

Though perhaps if it wasn't for this collection of feel good laws maybe there wouldn't be any hunger, because if a person wanted to work either for themselves at a young age, or to help their family they would be able to. All these feel good laws only chain us down, instead of helping us.

GrowSpecialist said:

No, we live in a SELFISH society where rich people horde money and sit in their mansions eating lobster next to their nice cozy fireplace while poor children go hungry.

Click to expand...

Liberal myth.

Show me a poor child going hungry and I'll show you a neglectful parent who does not choose to take advantage of the social welfare programs already in place. Someone who places their own needs above the needs of their children. Now that is selfish.

Show me a poor hungry child and I'll show you a food bank. I'll show you WIC. I'll show you AFDC. I'll show you food stamps. I'll show you free breakfast and free lunch programs in the public schools. I'll show you private charities.

Show me a rich person and I'll show you someone who works their ass off and deserves to do whatever they wish with their earnings. What you dismiss as hording, I call saving.

Poor people do not directly create jobs. They create jobs indirectly through their demand. Big-government jobs: social workers, the state lottery, and plenty of administrators and various other bureaucrats. Jobs for payday advance companies, pawn brokers, and rent-to-own stores. Jobs for the tobacco and alcohol industries.

Wealthy people do create jobs directly by starting and running successful businesses, and indirectly through savings and investment. They create jobs when they build those mansions and buy that lobster.

Selfish is someone who chooses to be a net drain on society rather than a net producer. Poor people do not pay income taxes, but the wealthy pay plenty. Divide this country in half and the top half pays 97% of all income taxes. The bottom half pays 3%. The higher the income the more taxes are paid. In fact, the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes.

let's pull this back a little here's a question:
for those who don't believe in the wealth distribution policy how many of u WONT take the money?

smartsoverambition said:

let's pull this back a little here's a question:
for those who don't believe in the wealth distribution policy how many of u WONT take the money?

Click to expand...

The basic institution of wealth is broken . . . . we are no longer a society in search of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are now a society of debt . . . . So the real question is how do we fix such a basic flaw that has slowly worked its way into every major institution bringing corruption? I think the answer lies in the individual.

smartsoverambition said:

...how many of u WONT take the money?

Click to expand...

What money? My money or other's money?

smartsoverambition said:

let's pull this back a little here's a question:
for those who don't believe in the wealth distribution policy how many of u WONT take the money?

Click to expand...

A tax cut to those who pay income taxes is not wealth redistribution.

Giving money to those who pay no income taxes in the first place is income redistribution.

My answer to your question is yes, I would prefer to pay fewer income taxes. Everyone who pays income taxes should pay less. None at all if I had my way.

It is all academic because the line that separates the evil rich from the rest of us keeps moving down the ladder. What was $250,000 became $200,000 during the Chosen One's prime time special. Joe Biden said it was $150,000, which corresponds to the top 5% also mentioned previously by the Messiah. What they are telling us with all the double-talk is that paying for all the feel-good programs will mean that eventually an income of about $75,000 will qualify you as 'rich.'

Hot Air Blog Archive Obama: I Like Taxes, Except When I Don’t
Barack Obama thinks higher taxes are a good thing | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times