Where do you think the money came from in the first place? Wealthy people!
Yeah... Right...
I think the middle class and upper middle class are still wealthy relative to the people who some would say would benefit from the redistribution of income.
Note that wealth redistribution would NOT boost happiness among the poor.
That's so funny it deserves its own space.
The extent to which people have swallowed that propaganda is remarkable.
The extent to which people have swallowed the propaganda claiming that wealth redistribution is the answer to societal problems is also remarkable given the course of history.
I find measuring effectiveness by happiness somewhat intriguing, but also problematic. Maybe my previous statement was a bit too extreme. As Odub pointed out, metrics like health, safety, dignity, and opportunity are important and aren't adequately represented in "happiness".
Anyway, my point was that I don't think a bigger government that redistributes wealth will accomplish what we want.
Where do you think the money came from in the first place? Wealthy people! "Redistributing" wealth back to the people you taxed is still wasteful. I'm pretty sure those with money complained about high taxes before, no?
Federal taxes are lower now than they were at any point in the last 50 years. I haven't noticed that the complaining has diminished.
.
Federal taxes are likely still at Bush ere levels because of the recession. I think the complaining has increased latelly because there's a perceived threat of a greater attempt to redistribute those taxes (or future taxes).
That's not it at all.
They want increasingly lower taxes. They want the capital gains tax abolished entirely. They want no estate taxes at all. They want to abolish unions and child labor laws and Social Security and - always - most forms of welfare.
I'm not being paranoid. These are all things they actively pursue and talk about in public. Their dream is the total destruction of the social safety net.
If I'm wrong about any of this tell me why. But I'm not wrong.
Where do you think the money came from in the first place? Wealthy people! "Redistributing" wealth back to the people you taxed is still wasteful. I'm pretty sure those with money complained about high taxes before, no?
Federal taxes are lower now than they were at any point in the last 50 years. I haven't noticed that the complaining has diminished.
.
Federal taxes are likely still at Bush ere levels because of the recession. I think the complaining has increased lately because there's a perceived threat of a greater attempt to redistribute those taxes (or future taxes).
That's not it at all.
They want increasingly lower taxes. They want the capital gains tax abolished entirely. They want no estate taxes at all. They want to abolish unions and child labor laws and Social Security and - always - most forms of welfare.
I'm not being paranoid. These are all things they actively pursue and talk about in public. Their dream is the total destruction of the social safety net.
If I'm wrong about any of this tell me why. But I'm not wrong.
I don't care to argue about the details, as I'm sure there's people that believe what you say (not me). However, I don't think that group of people would want to argue for the government taking money from the rich (taxes) and distributing it back to rich. (Your quote below) That strikes me as very non-libertarian.
"The bogus concern about "government programs that redistribute wealth" would be more impressive if it also condemned the programs that redistribute wealth TO the wealthy as well as the ones that help the poor. But somehow that never seems to happen."
In general I think you're exaggerating the desires of libertarians and conservatives. There's not a large contingent of Americans pining for the abolition of child labor laws. I think libertarians and conservatives bring worthwhile arguments to the table (small government, greater liberty) that's a healthy part of the national discourse.
Anyway, my point was that I don't think a bigger government that redistributes wealth will accomplish what we want.
So you're under the impression that conservatives made the government smaller and didn't redistribute wealth upwards to the wealthy?
Really?
Did I say that?
I couldn't tell for sure. That's why I asked.
By the way, referring to your earlier comment - the conservative method of income redistribution hasn't involved taking money away from the rich and giving it back to the rich. It has involved squeezing and diminishing the middle class and shifting the wealth of that class to the rich.
It's sort of the inevitable consequence that follows when Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in tax than he does. Again, as discussed elsewhere.
You repeat nostrums about markets and "bigger governments" as though they're eternal truths. It just seems to me that you're not doing much (or any) real thinking about what is basically propaganda.
Oh, and this: "I think libertarians and conservatives bring worthwhile arguments to the table (small government, greater liberty) that's a healthy part of the national discourse. "
Since they don't really do anything to advance those "arguments" - which aren't arguments at all - I'm not seeing what's so healthy about it. I see them doing a lot of yipping against gay marriage and in favor of expanding our prison population. These things have nothing to do with small government or greater liberty and never will.
Anyway, my point was that I don't think a bigger government that redistributes wealth will accomplish what we want.
So you're under the impression that conservatives made the government smaller and didn't redistribute wealth upwards to the wealthy?
Really?
Did I say that?
I couldn't tell for sure. That's why I asked.
If I said something about how conservatives successfully reduced the size of government, you would have had some text to quote. You're reading things that I am not writing.
BobDesperado said:
You repeat nostrums about markets and "bigger governments" as though they're eternal truths. It just seems to me that you're not doing much (or any) real thinking about what is basically propaganda.
There's nothing wrong with claiming my allegiance to market based economies with governments that can adequately protect their citizens against market failures. I haven't "fallen for their lies." It's pretty middle of the road for an American to believe such a thing, and I shouldn't be called out for not doing any "real thinking" just because I believe in this basic principle and type it out on a message board.
I'm not the conservative/libertarian who wants to erode the entire social safety net/put all the gays in prison (double whammy!). I would like a smaller government, but the form of that government doesn't involve significant cuts in social services. Instead, I want a slightly greater emphasis on markets (than the Obama administration at least) and a re-structured national defense strategy that doesn't involve nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the reduced cuts in military spending associated with that different strategy).
BobDesperado said:
By the way, referring to your earlier comment - the conservative method of income redistribution hasn't involved taking money away from the rich and giving it back to the rich. It has involved squeezing and diminishing the middle class and shifting the wealth of that class to the rich.
Your clarification of "redistribution" of wealth by the wealthy makes sense now... sorry for the confusion there.
I heard an interesting study about an economist that predicted that if the government didn't extend unemployment benefits again, then unemployment would drop by 2-3%. People would be a bit more more motivated to take any job opportunities they might have (which would suck for many, I'm sure). I'm not saying that they shouldn't have extended unemployment, I just found the study interesting.
I find it laughable that you claim my allegiance to market based economies with governments that can adequately protect their citizens against market failures as "falling for their lies." It's pretty middle of the road for an American to believe such a thing, and I shouldn't be called out for not doing any "real thinking" just because I believe in this basic principle.
I find it beyond laughable that you quote me as saying "falling for their lies" when I never said it.
But I'm not sure what "market based economies" even means. There has never been such a thing as a "free market" in this country. The economy always flows from the market, but the right/left dichotomy just involves which way the policies of government will lean. For the past 30-40 years that lean has been almost exclusively rightward. That's been the effect of the weird theory of trickle-down economics, which you seem to have internalized to a large degree.
The right has been very successful in pushing the idea that raising taxes on anyone, at any time, is a terrible idea. It's just a stupid idea that has done a lot of damage to this country because the theory behind it is pure shit.
I heard an interesting study about an economist that predicted that if the government didn't extend unemployment benefits again, then unemployment would drop by 2-3%. People would be a bit more more motivated to take any job opportunities they might have (which would suck for many, I'm sure). I'm not saying that they shouldn't have extended unemployment, I just found the study interesting.
Dude.
You "heard" a study? About some anonymous "economist"?
I had a dream once about a cat that could shit gold. I found the dream interesting but I never found the cat.
Welfare Queens driving Caddies and Young Bucks Buying T-Bones - Thank you Saint Reagan for saving us from these deep, deep horrors! Plus you made government smaller in our minds but not in reality.
Ingenuity!
Deregulation!
Intelligent design!
And a union guy cut me off in traffic once. So they all suck.
No, corporations will do that. They are looking out for our best interests.
Not corporations, but markets. Yes, I think that markets are more efficient at allocating resources than governments. There are also organizations called "charities" too. Thanks for blowing it out to extremes though.
Are you suggesting that charities, rather than governments, should take responsibility for providing a social safety net?
Also, the idea that markets are the best method of allocating resources is demonstrably idiotic. The "market" is constantly being propped up, bailed out or subsidised by governments and has been for many, many years. And yet the staunch defenders of "markets" are the first to decry hand-outs to the poor or sick. Disgusting.
No, corporations will do that. They are looking out for our best interests.
Not corporations, but markets. Yes, I think that markets are more efficient at allocating resources than governments. There are also organizations called "charities" too. Thanks for blowing it out to extremes though.
Are you suggesting that charities, rather than governments, should take responsibility for providing a social safety net?
Also, the idea that markets are the best method of allocating resources is demonstrably idiotic. The "market" is constantly being propped up, bailed out or subsidised by governments and has been for many, many years. And yet the staunch defenders of "markets" are the first to decry hand-outs to the poor or sick. Disgusting.
No, I don't think that charities should replace governments. I said above that the government should continue to provide a social safety net.
I'm not saying that markets shouldn't be left unregulated. I found the quote above about corporations looking out for our best interests too simplistic. It reminds me of the South Park where the guys is complaining about the corporations being so "corporationy."
Sorry for mentioning markets more than once. I tried to keep my argument simple because I wasn't trying to provoke further outrage... if that came off as dogmatic, I hope you understand.
In conclusion, I had issues with one of Bob's post about wealth being channeled to the wealthy. The way I read it, I thought he was saying that libertarians have no problem with "redistributing wealth towards the wealthy." That's been cleared up. I also made a comment about wealth redistribution not creating happiness, which wasn't well-placed and it's problematic because happiness isn't the best metric.
I think that we should have a slightly smaller government, but I don't think that governments should stop providing a basic social safety net, charities should not replace governments, and George Bush didn't make the government smaller.
I heard an interesting study about an economist that predicted that if the government didn't extend unemployment benefits again, then unemployment would drop by 2-3%. People would be a bit more more motivated to take any job opportunities they might have (which would suck for many, I'm sure). I'm not saying that they shouldn't have extended unemployment, I just found the study interesting.
Dude.
You "heard" a study? About some anonymous "economist"?
I had a dream once about a cat that could shit gold. I found the dream interesting but I never found the cat.
You sound very angry.
Yes I "heard" something. I learn things by "hearing" and "reading." I didn't have time to dig up the source last night. However, I just tracked it down for you. The "economist" is Robert Barrow. Not sure I spelled the last name right as I "heard" about it on a podcast, but he's from Harvard so you should be able to track it down if interested. The speaker (not the professor) said that the study found that unemployment would drop from the high 9s to the high 6s.
If 'the Market' + small Government is the best system, when it fails it should just be left to fail, instead of being bailed out by the Government at the cost of billions to the tax payer.
I find it laughable that you claim my allegiance to market based economies with governments that can adequately protect their citizens against market failures as "falling for their lies." It's pretty middle of the road for an American to believe such a thing, and I shouldn't be called out for not doing any "real thinking" just because I believe in this basic principle.
I find it beyond laughable that you quote me as saying "falling for their lies" when I never said it.
My apologies- it wasn't my intention to pass that off as your quote... i put it quotes because it's a phrase that's commonly tossed about.
If 'the Market' + small Government is the best system, when it fails it should just be left to fail, instead of being bailed out by the Government at the cost of billions to the tax payer.
Or you could just let it fail at the cost of an entire society, while the ubermenschen go Galt and peer down on the weaker examples of their species from their lofty perch.
If 'the Market' + small Government is the best system, when it fails it should just be left to fail, instead of being bailed out by the Government at the cost of billions to the tax payer.
Or you could just let it fail at the cost of an entire society, while the ubermenschen go Galt and peer down on the weaker examples of their species from their lofty perch.
The magical wand of free enterprise would never let such a thing happen surely.
If 'the Market' + small Government is the best system, when it fails it should just be left to fail, instead of being bailed out by the Government at the cost of billions to the tax payer.
Or you could just let it fail at the cost of an entire society, while the ubermenschen go Galt and peer down on the weaker examples of their species from their lofty perch.
The magical wand of free enterprise would never let such a thing happen surely.
If 'the Market' + small Government is the best system, when it fails it should just be left to fail, instead of being bailed out by the Government at the cost of billions to the tax payer.
Or you could just let it fail at the cost of an entire society, while the ubermenschen go Galt and peer down on the weaker examples of their species from their lofty perch.
The magical wand of free enterprise would never let such a thing happen surely.
Said wand is mainly employed these days for poking workers in the eye.
Sorry F16, there are no such things as workers anymore. Only CEOs of You, Inc.*
*PLEASE NOTE: You Inc value may increase or decrease without notice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. No you cannot just 'buy' a baseball team
It always makes it easy when people use certain terminology that reveals their worldview. Using "redistribute" in a conversation about social programs and taxes is akin to using "illegals" in a conversation about immigration. It's not necessarily pointless to continue the talk, but you already know the outcome: agree to disagree. As far as changing Social Security to a "market-based" program, hasn't that been proven to be foolish -- Bush, Pt. II tried that and failed, right before the stock market crashed (!) and everyone lost much of the value in their retirement accounts. And then had to rely on the tried-and-true of the government program.
I mean, shit, if anyone has been paying attention to the markets lately, it's like a mechanical bull ride, just volatile as all get out. And why? Because a possible civil war in Libya may disrupt oil shipments to the few, small European countries it ships to? Not trying to diminish at all something deadly serious. But can you imagine how buck wild things would get if something more major went down? If anything, these last few years in the markets have shown us how truly vital it is to have something detached from the ebbs and flows of an increasingly complex global marketplace.
Sorry F16, there are no such things as workers anymore. Only CEOs of You, Inc.*
*PLEASE NOTE: You Inc value may increase or decrease without notice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. No you cannot just 'buy' a baseball team
Comments
There is no such thing as upper middle class.
The extent to which people have swallowed the propaganda claiming that wealth redistribution is the answer to societal problems is also remarkable given the course of history.
I find measuring effectiveness by happiness somewhat intriguing, but also problematic. Maybe my previous statement was a bit too extreme. As Odub pointed out, metrics like health, safety, dignity, and opportunity are important and aren't adequately represented in "happiness".
Anyway, my point was that I don't think a bigger government that redistributes wealth will accomplish what we want.
That's not it at all.
They want increasingly lower taxes. They want the capital gains tax abolished entirely. They want no estate taxes at all. They want to abolish unions and child labor laws and Social Security and - always - most forms of welfare.
I'm not being paranoid. These are all things they actively pursue and talk about in public. Their dream is the total destruction of the social safety net.
If I'm wrong about any of this tell me why. But I'm not wrong.
FIXED
So you're under the impression that conservatives made the government smaller and didn't redistribute wealth upwards to the wealthy?
Really?
I don't care to argue about the details, as I'm sure there's people that believe what you say (not me). However, I don't think that group of people would want to argue for the government taking money from the rich (taxes) and distributing it back to rich. (Your quote below) That strikes me as very non-libertarian.
"The bogus concern about "government programs that redistribute wealth" would be more impressive if it also condemned the programs that redistribute wealth TO the wealthy as well as the ones that help the poor. But somehow that never seems to happen."
In general I think you're exaggerating the desires of libertarians and conservatives. There's not a large contingent of Americans pining for the abolition of child labor laws. I think libertarians and conservatives bring worthwhile arguments to the table (small government, greater liberty) that's a healthy part of the national discourse.
Did I say that?
I couldn't tell for sure. That's why I asked.
By the way, referring to your earlier comment - the conservative method of income redistribution hasn't involved taking money away from the rich and giving it back to the rich. It has involved squeezing and diminishing the middle class and shifting the wealth of that class to the rich.
It's sort of the inevitable consequence that follows when Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in tax than he does. Again, as discussed elsewhere.
You repeat nostrums about markets and "bigger governments" as though they're eternal truths. It just seems to me that you're not doing much (or any) real thinking about what is basically propaganda.
Oh, and this: "I think libertarians and conservatives bring worthwhile arguments to the table (small government, greater liberty) that's a healthy part of the national discourse. "
Since they don't really do anything to advance those "arguments" - which aren't arguments at all - I'm not seeing what's so healthy about it. I see them doing a lot of yipping against gay marriage and in favor of expanding our prison population. These things have nothing to do with small government or greater liberty and never will.
If I said something about how conservatives successfully reduced the size of government, you would have had some text to quote. You're reading things that I am not writing.
There's nothing wrong with claiming my allegiance to market based economies with governments that can adequately protect their citizens against market failures. I haven't "fallen for their lies." It's pretty middle of the road for an American to believe such a thing, and I shouldn't be called out for not doing any "real thinking" just because I believe in this basic principle and type it out on a message board.
I'm not the conservative/libertarian who wants to erode the entire social safety net/put all the gays in prison (double whammy!). I would like a smaller government, but the form of that government doesn't involve significant cuts in social services. Instead, I want a slightly greater emphasis on markets (than the Obama administration at least) and a re-structured national defense strategy that doesn't involve nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the reduced cuts in military spending associated with that different strategy).
Your clarification of "redistribution" of wealth by the wealthy makes sense now... sorry for the confusion there.
I find it beyond laughable that you quote me as saying "falling for their lies" when I never said it.
But I'm not sure what "market based economies" even means. There has never been such a thing as a "free market" in this country. The economy always flows from the market, but the right/left dichotomy just involves which way the policies of government will lean. For the past 30-40 years that lean has been almost exclusively rightward. That's been the effect of the weird theory of trickle-down economics, which you seem to have internalized to a large degree.
The right has been very successful in pushing the idea that raising taxes on anyone, at any time, is a terrible idea. It's just a stupid idea that has done a lot of damage to this country because the theory behind it is pure shit.
Dude.
You "heard" a study? About some anonymous "economist"?
I had a dream once about a cat that could shit gold. I found the dream interesting but I never found the cat.
Entrepreneur!
Good old-fashioned!
Bootstraps!
America, Fuck Yeah!
Welfare Queens driving Caddies and Young Bucks Buying T-Bones - Thank you Saint Reagan for saving us from these deep, deep horrors! Plus you made government smaller in our minds but not in reality.
Ingenuity!
Deregulation!
Intelligent design!
And a union guy cut me off in traffic once. So they all suck.
Are you suggesting that charities, rather than governments, should take responsibility for providing a social safety net?
Also, the idea that markets are the best method of allocating resources is demonstrably idiotic. The "market" is constantly being propped up, bailed out or subsidised by governments and has been for many, many years. And yet the staunch defenders of "markets" are the first to decry hand-outs to the poor or sick. Disgusting.
No, I don't think that charities should replace governments. I said above that the government should continue to provide a social safety net.
I'm not saying that markets shouldn't be left unregulated. I found the quote above about corporations looking out for our best interests too simplistic. It reminds me of the South Park where the guys is complaining about the corporations being so "corporationy."
My comments are being blown out of proportion.
In conclusion, I had issues with one of Bob's post about wealth being channeled to the wealthy. The way I read it, I thought he was saying that libertarians have no problem with "redistributing wealth towards the wealthy." That's been cleared up. I also made a comment about wealth redistribution not creating happiness, which wasn't well-placed and it's problematic because happiness isn't the best metric.
I think that we should have a slightly smaller government, but I don't think that governments should stop providing a basic social safety net, charities should not replace governments, and George Bush didn't make the government smaller.
Can we be friends?
You sound very angry.
Yes I "heard" something. I learn things by "hearing" and "reading." I didn't have time to dig up the source last night. However, I just tracked it down for you. The "economist" is Robert Barrow. Not sure I spelled the last name right as I "heard" about it on a podcast, but he's from Harvard so you should be able to track it down if interested. The speaker (not the professor) said that the study found that unemployment would drop from the high 9s to the high 6s.
My apologies- it wasn't my intention to pass that off as your quote... i put it quotes because it's a phrase that's commonly tossed about.
Or you could just let it fail at the cost of an entire society, while the ubermenschen go Galt and peer down on the weaker examples of their species from their lofty perch.
Unless God wanted it so.
Said wand is mainly employed these days for poking workers in the eye.
*PLEASE NOTE: You Inc value may increase or decrease without notice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. No you cannot just 'buy' a baseball team
I mean, shit, if anyone has been paying attention to the markets lately, it's like a mechanical bull ride, just volatile as all get out. And why? Because a possible civil war in Libya may disrupt oil shipments to the few, small European countries it ships to? Not trying to diminish at all something deadly serious. But can you imagine how buck wild things would get if something more major went down? If anything, these last few years in the markets have shown us how truly vital it is to have something detached from the ebbs and flows of an increasingly complex global marketplace.
Heading out to dig my Omega Man moat as we speak.