If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   No no no. You misunderstood me. When I said "spread the wealth around" I didn't mean that I wanted to "redistribute wealth"   (campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 228
    More: Dumbass, redistribute wealth, Florida Atlantic University, Buffett Rule, Joe the Plumber  
•       •       •

3500 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Apr 2012 at 10:02 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-11 08:21:41 AM  
If you built a dam, and water flowed through it at some rate that most people agreed was working, and then one day the dam gets clogged and now all the water is staying on one side of the damn... fixing the dam would not constitute changing the function of the dam, leaving it broken would.

/king of shiatty analogies
 
2012-04-11 08:35:02 AM  
FFS - There's nothing wrong with redistributing wealth.

That wealth is created by society. Society as a whole has a right to benefit from it.
Nobody is suggesting that everyone gets an equal share... but it's morally wrong and a recipe for disaster when the top .1% controls the majority of the wealth.
 
2012-04-11 08:38:15 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: but it's morally wrong and a recipe for disaster when the top .1% controls the majority of the wealth.


Get a job, hippie!
 
2012-04-11 08:40:34 AM  

itsdan: If you built a dam, and water flowed through it at some rate that most people agreed was working, and then one day the dam gets clogged and now all the water is staying on one side of the damn... fixing the dam would not constitute changing the function of the dam, leaving it broken would.

/king of shiatty analogies


Eddie Adams from Torrance: FFS - There's nothing wrong with redistributing wealth.

That wealth is created by society. Society as a whole has a right to benefit from it.
Nobody is suggesting that everyone gets an equal share... but it's morally wrong and a recipe for disaster when the top .1% controls the majority of the wealth.

 
2012-04-11 08:57:01 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: Get a job, hippie!


Why bother?
 
2012-04-11 09:01:32 AM  
To me, redistribution of wealth would be to take it from one group and give it directly to another. Increasing taxes to pay for education, infrastructure and a near 3 quarter trillion dollar military is not exactly redistribution.
 
2012-04-11 09:10:05 AM  
It's already being redistributed.
 
2012-04-11 09:10:17 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: To me, redistribution of wealth would be to take it from one group and give it directly to another. Increasing taxes to pay for education, infrastructure and a near 3 quarter trillion dollar military is not exactly redistribution.

 
2012-04-11 09:18:04 AM  
What a nice group of little socialists we have here.
 
2012-04-11 09:19:38 AM  
Economies are based on money in motion. If money is not allowed to move economies die. The last ten years have shown that quite clearly.
 
2012-04-11 09:23:31 AM  
Whatever the government does or does not do by way of redistribution is trivial compared to the actions it takes to determine initial distribution. The rich understand this and thus spend most of their effort in seeing that the rules are designed in such a way to continue to increase their share of society's wealth. The wrangling over tax levels is really just deciding how the crumbs will be distributed after the cake has already been eaten.
 
2012-04-11 09:24:17 AM  
Yes, he is. You can be for or against it, but for Obama to say that he does not want to redistribute wealth is a flat out lie.
 
2012-04-11 09:25:36 AM  

TwoHead: Economies are based on money in motion. If money is not allowed to move economies die. The last ten years have shown that quite clearly.


Bears repeating.

jehovahs witness protection: What a nice group of little socialists we have here.


I suspect you couldn't even define socialism.
 
2012-04-11 09:25:50 AM  
And I'm sure he won't spring a bunch of wild shiat on us after the election if he wins....
 
2012-04-11 09:27:33 AM  

OregonVet: And I'm sure he won't spring a bunch of wild shiat on us after the election if he wins....


Cause the way things have been has been working out so well.
 
2012-04-11 09:31:05 AM  
i33.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-11 09:35:22 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-11 09:40:42 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: What a nice group of little socialists we have here.


If meager little me pays 35% in taxes, and I think Mr. Rich Dude should also pay 35%, that's not socialism.

Want to lower taxes? Go for it! But first, make sure the tax burden is even and fair. Then we can lower them for everyone.
 
2012-04-11 09:44:39 AM  

Diogenes: jehovahs witness protection: What a nice group of little socialists we have here.

If meager little me pays 35% in taxes, and I think Mr. Rich Dude should also pay 35%, that's not socialism.

Want to lower taxes? Go for it! But first, make sure the tax burden is even and fair. Then we can lower them for everyone.


That's socialism. Anything but what we've got now is socialism. That's the new definition.
 
2012-04-11 09:45:45 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: What a nice group of little socialists we have here.


that's just the corporations. the rest of us want to see an actual free market, as opposed to the perverted socialist nonsense currently advocated by wall street.
 
2012-04-11 09:49:30 AM  

Diogenes: jehovahs witness protection: What a nice group of little socialists we have here.

If meager little me pays 35% in taxes, and I think Mr. Rich Dude should also pay 35%, that's not socialism.

Want to lower taxes? Go for it! But first, make sure the tax burden is even and fair. Then we can lower them for everyone.


making corporations pay into the system just like normal people is the current definition of socialism favored by the GOP rank and file. see - corporations are people when it's a benefit. But when it's a hindrance, then corporations aren't people, they're businesses and need to be protected. Making corporations pay the same level of income taxes as a normal person? socialisms! punishing corporations for shipping jobs overseas? socialisms! Holding a CEO responsible for criminal actions taken by his company? socialisms!

see how that works? it's all socialisms all the time, except when it isn't.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-11 10:03:36 AM  
I think the idea is to stop redistributing wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. Right wingers like to pretend that wealthy people get that way by working hard, when in reality wealthy people have used their influence to avoid pulling their weight and to make steer unearned money their way without earning it.

Even people who aren't associated with things like fraudulently selling worthless financial instruments or over-billing the military for shoddy equipment usually don't really earn all that they make. Warren Buffet for instance may not be a criminal, but he makes his money speculating in the stock market. Basically that's distributing money from people who produce goods and services to people who don't.

The point of redistributive policies is to ensure that the people who produce wealth benefit from it.
 
2012-04-11 10:08:05 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: To me, redistribution of wealth would be to take it from one group and give it directly to another. Increasing taxes to pay for education, infrastructure and a near 3 quarter trillion dollar military is not exactly redistribution.

 
2012-04-11 10:08:25 AM  
Spain elected a socialist government in 2004, thus getting a head start on the USA electing a socialist we call Chairman Obama

Obama is determined to match Spain's rapid fall, as the money runs out

Its not going to end well
 
2012-04-11 10:09:02 AM  
It's the distinction between redistribution of already gathered wealth, and a change in the way wealth is distributed in the first place.

/farking English, how is it interpreted?
 
2012-04-11 10:09:09 AM  
I remember when Bush was president and I people were warning of future economic problems. The Bush-Apologists were "offended" by rational statements pointing out that things were not so well and good.

Now days those same apologists are venting all sorts of Hyperbole about "socialism" based on the most retarded fear mongering. The only "proof" that they have to offer for their hyperbole are half truths and twisted statements.

This is what passes for rational discourse from the right.

(If I troll you in response it's because you deserve it)
 
2012-04-11 10:09:34 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: FFS - There's nothing wrong with redistributing wealth.

That wealth is created by society. Society as a whole has a right to benefit from it.
Nobody is suggesting that everyone gets an equal share... but it's morally wrong and a recipe for disaster when the top .1% controls the majority of the wealth.


Or, to have the bottom half of society pay for the top half's fark-ups, and then have the top half give the bottom half their money back, with interest. Ya know, the bailouts and what not.
 
2012-04-11 10:09:47 AM  

winterwhile: Spain elected a socialist government in 2004, thus getting a head start on the USA electing a socialist we call Chairman Obama

Obama is determined to match Spain's rapid fall, as the money runs out

Its not going to end well


Evidence?
 
2012-04-11 10:10:07 AM  

winterwhile: Spain elected a socialist government in 2004, thus getting a head start on the USA electing a socialist we call Chairman Obama


You don't even know what Spain's problems are.
 
2012-04-11 10:10:22 AM  

winterwhile: words


best part. . .

for ev er. . .
 
2012-04-11 10:11:13 AM  
i.imgur.com

"We need to redistribute wealth upward, then give the opportunity for the wealth to trickle down. Anything else is class warfare."
 
2012-04-11 10:11:16 AM  
Money is like manure.

Doesn't do a damn bit of good unless you spread it around.

Just piles up and stinks.
 
2012-04-11 10:12:16 AM  
Adam Smith was a gawd damn socialist!
 
2012-04-11 10:12:33 AM  

Dr Dreidel: I_Am_Weasel: To me, redistribution of wealth would be to take it from one group and give it directly to another. Increasing taxes to pay for education, infrastructure and a near 3 quarter trillion dollar military is not exactly redistribution.


funny, did you miss the study on the Maryland use of Stimulus? yea... funny story time.

well, they spent it on the roads, moved the money that was to be spent on roads, and paid folks not to work

tell us again how thats not redistribution of wealth ????
 
2012-04-11 10:12:40 AM  
graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-04-11 10:12:55 AM  
If the wealthy take in less money because they're taxed more, isn't that just incentive for them to work harder?

Isn't that what they tell the bootstrappy plebs? "Work harder and you'll earn more!"
 
2012-04-11 10:13:29 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Petit_Merdeux: Get a job, hippie!

Why bother?


It is so much better living on the dole with no skin in the game. I used my welfare to buy a Hummer with spinners and use my food stamps to buy nothing but smokes and 40s. This is how all poor people live, it is great and jobs are for suckers! I even have a refrigerator!
 
2012-04-11 10:13:46 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 640x286]


Huh. That's not too helpful without the text now is it?

Here's the Link (new window)
 
2012-04-11 10:14:39 AM  
Let me make sure I understand this. Everyone is a consumer. If you are fortunate (through birth or "hard work") to have a high income, then you should be allowed to keep all of that money forever. When an opportunity to make even more money (let's say by collecting it in taxes, giving it as tax breaks to the lower and middle classes who will then spend it right back to the upper class who own the producers and retailers of those goods) the answer is "fark you, we're good with just taking this much, no more."
 
2012-04-11 10:14:54 AM  

Dr Dreidel: I_Am_Weasel: To me, redistribution of wealth would be to take it from one group and give it directly to another. Increasing taxes to pay for education, infrastructure and a near 3 quarter trillion dollar military is not exactly redistribution.

 
2012-04-11 10:15:16 AM  

winterwhile: Spain elected a socialist government in 2004, thus getting a head start on the USA electing a socialist we call Chairman Obama

Obama is determined to match Spain's rapid fall, as the money runs out

Its not going to end well


Another compelling, deeply reasoned comment from the twit brigade.

Recess is over. You should go inside and color like teacher said.
 
2012-04-11 10:15:38 AM  
I'm not sure I agree that trying to get money into a majority of people's hands is exactly redistributing wealth. Isn't it beneficial at some point for the economy for more people to have a little more money than a small portion to have most of it? At some point doesn't the scale tip to people purchasing less due to lack of money that then affects those who make money from that? Wasn't a big part of the collapse before the depression due to too much money hoarding by people? Is there a difference if many, many people have tons of money in their mattresses, or off shore accounts or whatever, and just a few people having the same tons of money in their mattresses? Legit questions for me as I really am ignorant on economics.
 
2012-04-11 10:16:02 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: FFS - There's nothing wrong with redistributing wealth.

That wealth is created by society. Society as a whole has a right to benefit from it.
Nobody is suggesting that everyone gets an equal share... but it's morally wrong and a recipe for disaster when the top .1% controls the majority of the wealth.


So... can you write me a check??? Either do it, or shut up.
 
2012-04-11 10:16:25 AM  
Sounds like Obama is determined to give Romney a run for his money.
 
2012-04-11 10:16:39 AM  
You're a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leach
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you biatch
So you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you
 
2012-04-11 10:17:04 AM  

OregonVet: And I'm sure he won't spring a bunch of wild shiat on us after the election if he wins....


You mean like an etch-a-sketch he can just shake it up and change his position whenever he needs to?
 
2012-04-11 10:17:33 AM  

rudemix: I'm not sure I agree that trying to get money into a majority of people's hands is exactly redistributing wealth. Isn't it beneficial at some point for the economy for more people to have a little more money than a small portion to have most of it? At some point doesn't the scale tip to people purchasing less due to lack of money that then affects those who make money from that? Wasn't a big part of the collapse before the depression due to too much money hoarding by people? Is there a difference if many, many people have tons of money in their mattresses, or off shore accounts or whatever, and just a few people having the same tons of money in their mattresses? Legit questions for me as I really am ignorant on economics.


yes you are, so why did you post?
 
2012-04-11 10:18:30 AM  

OregonVet: And I'm sure he won't spring a bunch of wild shiat on us after the election if he wins....


How sure were you of the things he was going to spring after last election?
 
2012-04-11 10:18:37 AM  

itsdan: If you built a dam, and water flowed through it at some rate that most people agreed was working, and then one day the dam gets clogged and now all the water is staying on one side of the damn... fixing the dam would not constitute changing the function of the dam, leaving it broken would.

/king of shiatty analogies


Sweet Sassy Molassey! Get out the checkbook and pay grandma for the rubdown.
 
2012-04-11 10:18:54 AM  

rudemix: I'm not sure I agree that trying to get money into a majority of people's hands is exactly redistributing wealth. Isn't it beneficial at some point for the economy for more people to have a little more money than a small portion to have most of it? At some point doesn't the scale tip to people purchasing less due to lack of money that then affects those who make money from that? Wasn't a big part of the collapse before the depression due to too much money hoarding by people? Is there a difference if many, many people have tons of money in their mattresses, or off shore accounts or whatever, and just a few people having the same tons of money in their mattresses? Legit questions for me as I really am ignorant on economics.



Economics are not relevant to the republican position. Republicans will never vote for a tax hike on themselves. All of our national politicians are rich. That is why they were fine with raising taxes on the poor, but not on the rich.
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report