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.

(NBC News)   That 14 year-old video of Obama? Turns out the Republicans are good at editing   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 194
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Illinois Senate, Republican, Capitol Hill, NBC News, Mitt Romney, NBC Nightly News  
•       •       •

3876 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Sep 2012 at 10:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-20 12:31:58 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.


I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.
 
2012-09-20 12:40:55 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.


This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.
 
2012-09-20 12:44:45 PM  

colon_pow: Dr Dreidel: colon_pow: sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.

Either you're arguing against progressive taxation (which is something Benjamin Franklin, TJ, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and a whole lot of other philosopher-economists have come up with as the best way to tax fairly and sensibly) or saying "it's not 2+2, it's two PLUS two!" or arguing against all taxation.

Any money you send to the government is by definition redistributed - it was "distributed" to you by your employer or stock broker, you "redistribute" it to the Feds (or the state), they spend it on gas for a motor pool car, or the governor's salary, or a tax break for the new Walmart, or TANF, or as insurance on a student or home loan - unless the government sets it on fire.

so you're saying that when the president uses the term "redistribution", it's not the same dog-whistle or coded word that it normally is. you're gonna stretch it and spin it and contort it. is that what your handlers instructed you to do?


I'm saying that redistribution is what taxation does, unless your government is in the habit of setting its collected revenue on fire (or otherwise destroying the actual currency).

If you ignore the part where Obama says that it's "redistribution AT A CERTAIN LEVEL" that he favors, and that Obama's proposing the Clinton-era tax rates (or, if you prefer, no new legislation to keep the Bush rates in place past 2013) - hardly breaking some new confiscatory-tax-communism ground that no president would ever think to do - and that at no point did Obama suggest anything as radical as what your fevered imagination did - then yes, Obama used a coded dogwhistle word.

My handlers instructed me to write a User Guide and diagram my application's data flow, but instead I'm here arguing some bullshiat. I tried listening to the air handler herre for instruction, but it just gave me a boring drone sound. Chelsea Handler instructed me to drink a lot of wine. Chandler Bing asked if I could BE any more politically-minded, then did a mound of coke off my desk. I Bing'd (the search engine) "Obama instructions", but all I got was a page telling me about the Obama/Alinsky plan to turn America into 1643 France.
 
2012-09-20 12:45:17 PM  

Cletus C.: Lochsteppe: Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.

Okay, thank you for that example of a talking-point shart. Now explain to the class why it's laughably stupid.

Please do not redistribute your anger. Things are bad enough.


Okay, that was mildly droll. Credit where credit is due and all that.
 
2012-09-20 12:47:05 PM  

Dr Dreidel: colon_pow: Dr Dreidel: colon_pow: sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.

Either you're arguing against progressive taxation (which is something Benjamin Franklin, TJ, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and a whole lot of other philosopher-economists have come up with as the best way to tax fairly and sensibly) or saying "it's not 2+2, it's two PLUS two!" or arguing against all taxation.

Any money you send to the government is by definition redistributed - it was "distributed" to you by your employer or stock broker, you "redistribute" it to the Feds (or the state), they spend it on gas for a motor pool car, or the governor's salary, or a tax break for the new Walmart, or TANF, or as insurance on a student or home loan - unless the government sets it on fire.

so you're saying that when the president uses the term "redistribution", it's not the same dog-whistle or coded word that it normally is. you're gonna stretch it and spin it and contort it. is that what your handlers instructed you to do?

I'm saying that redistribution is what taxation does, unless your government is in the habit of setting its collected revenue on fire (or otherwise destroying the actual currency).

If you ignore the part where Obama says that it's "redistribution AT A CERTAIN LEVEL" that he favors, and that Obama's proposing the Clinton-era tax rates (or, if you prefer, no new legislation to keep the Bush rates in place past 2013) - hardly breaking some new confiscatory-tax-communism ground that no president would ever think to do - and that at no point did Obama suggest anything as radical as what your fevered imagination did - then yes, Obama used a coded dogwhistle word.

My handlers instructed me to write a User Guide and diagram my application's data flow, but inst ...


thanks for the chuckle, doc. i think both of us probably need to gbtw.
 
2012-09-20 12:48:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.


So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

s.wsj.net
 
2012-09-20 12:48:46 PM  

colon_pow: dog-whistle


Don't use terms if you don't know what they mean.
 
2012-09-20 12:50:17 PM  
The full clip doesn't change what was said. It only adds further thoughts on the issue.
 
2012-09-20 12:58:17 PM  

Mrbogey: The full clip doesn't change what was said. It only adds further thoughts on the issue.


It doesn't change what was said, perhaps, but the "further thoughts" certainly indicate that the GOP spin on what was said is utter bullshiat.
 
2012-09-20 01:03:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

[s.wsj.net image 553x369]


It absolutely blows my mind that people actually think that the opposite of what your graph demonstrates is what is going on in this country. Goddamn facts and their liberal bias I guess
 
2012-09-20 01:13:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?


That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.
 
2012-09-20 01:15:36 PM  

Biological Ali: colon_pow: dog-whistle

Don't use terms if you don't know what they mean.


people who don't pay attention would just hear "redistribution" and think nothing of it.
people in the know, hear marxist ideology.
 
2012-09-20 01:16:36 PM  

Mrbogey: The full clip doesn't change what was said. It only adds further thoughts on the issue.


The further thoughts proved that he wasn't espousing communism.
 
2012-09-20 01:36:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.


Well the government trend must be pretty pathetic if it is having so little impact on the overall picture. So pathetic that the word "significant" cannot reasonably applied to it..

I know this conflicts with your view that the noble and heroic wealthy are being cruelly oppressed by the greedy grasping poor.
 
2012-09-20 01:38:26 PM  
The GOP honestly worries me at this point.
 
2012-09-20 01:44:05 PM  

Antimatter: From TFA:

In the whole clip, Obama says:

I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.


Sounds pretty reasonable to me.


And pretty deep for a mid 30's male who isn't getting any sleep due to tiny munchkins running around.
 
2012-09-20 01:45:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.

Well the government trend must be pretty pathetic if it is having so little impact on the overall picture. So pathetic that the word "significant" cannot reasonably applied to it..

I know this conflicts with your view that the noble and heroic wealthy are being cruelly oppressed by the greedy grasping poor.


The government transfers income from the wealthy to the poor through the progressive tax code, housing subsidies, health care subsidies, education, earned income tax credits, and many more ways. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with taxation and government spending. Why is it so hard for you to accept? I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't have such income redistribution, only that it exists.
 
2012-09-20 01:52:51 PM  
 
2012-09-20 01:54:45 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.

Well the government trend must be pretty pathetic if it is having so little impact on the overall picture. So pathetic that the word "significant" cannot reasonably applied to it..

I know this conflicts with your view that the noble and heroic wealthy are being cruelly oppressed by the greedy grasping poor.

The government transfers income from the wealthy to the poor through the progressive tax code, housing subsidies, health care subsidies, education, earned income tax credits, and many more ways. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with taxation and government spending. Why is it so hard for you to accept? I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't have such income redistribution, only that it exists.




Of course you are ignoring the myriad of government programs that funnel money right back to the wealthy, such as corporate subsidies, preferential tax policies that leave ultra wealthy individuals like Romney with a lower tax rate than the middle class,
bailouts to protect the wealthy from investment losses, and the like.

You focus on a tiny trickle going from the wealthy to the poor in government programs and ignore the flood going the opposite direction. If you didn't, it might mean you'd have to look at the wealthy with less awe and reverence and the poor and middle class with less disgust and disdain.
 
2012-09-20 01:57:28 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.

Well the government trend must be pretty pathetic if it is having so little impact on the overall picture. So pathetic that the word "significant" cannot reasonably applied to it..

I know this conflicts with your view that the noble and heroic wealthy are being cruelly oppressed by the greedy grasping poor.

The government transfers income from the wealthy to the poor through the progressive tax code, housing subsidies, health care subsidies, education, earned income tax credits, and many more ways. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with taxation and government spending. Why is it so hard for you to accept? I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't have such income redistribution, only that it exists.



Of course you are ignoring the myriad of government programs that funnel money right back to the wealthy, such as corporate subsidies, preferential tax policies that leave ultra wealthy individuals like Romney with a lower tax rate than the middle class,
bailouts to protect the wealthy from investment losses, and the like.

You focus on a tiny trickle going from the wealthy to the poor in government programs and ignore the flood going the opposite direction. If you didn't, it might mean you'd have to look at the wealthy with less awe and reverence and the poor and middle class with less disgust and disdain.


Well, I guess you aren't remotely familiar with taxation and government spending, hence your misguided views on redistribution.

Carry on.
 
2012-09-20 01:59:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.

Well the government trend must be pretty pathetic if it is having so little impact on the overall picture. So pathetic that the word "significant" cannot reasonably applied to it..

I know this conflicts with your view that the noble and heroic wealthy are being cruelly oppressed by the greedy grasping poor.

The government transfers income from the wealthy to the poor through the progressive tax code, housing subsidies, health care subsidies, education, earned income tax credits, and many more ways. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with taxation and government spending. Why is it so hard for you to accept? I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't have such income redistribution, only that it exists.


Is anyone here denying that this redistribution exists? All Phillip is saying is that in your initial post you referred to this redistribution as "significant", which he proved through his graph that it can in no way, shape, or form be considered "significant" if the reality is that the lower classes have seen their share of total wealth go down while the upper class has seen their substantially increase. If there really as significant redistribution in this country, that graph should be the other way around. I know you are being purposely obtuse, but come on.
 
2012-09-20 02:00:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Of course you are ignoring the myriad of government programs that funnel money right back to the wealthy, such as corporate subsidies, preferential tax policies that leave ultra wealthy individuals like Romney with a lower tax rate than the middle class,
bailouts to protect the wealthy from investment losses, and the like.

You focus on a tiny trickle going from the wealthy to the poor in government programs and ignore the flood going the opposite direction. If you didn't, it might mean you'd have to look at the wealthy with less awe and reverence and the poor and middle class with less disgust and disdain.

Well, I guess you aren't remotely familiar with taxation and government spending, hence your misguided views on redistribution.

Carry on.


Oh I will carry on showing how ignorant and deluded your views are, don't worry.
 
2012-09-20 02:25:51 PM  

Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.


You mean like how W froze all of the terrorists' assets? Why do you support the terrorists?
 
2012-09-20 02:37:18 PM  

colon_pow: Biological Ali: colon_pow: dog-whistle

Don't use terms if you don't know what they mean.

people who don't pay attention would just hear "redistribution" and think nothing of it.
people in the know, hear marxist ideology.


For it to be a "dog-whistle", the supposedly hidden meaning has to be intended by the speaker himself, and not merely be imagined by third parties of dubious mental stability. For instance, if a politician says "gay marriage" and some guy interprets that as "teaching toddlers how to have gay sex", that's not a "dog-whistle" - that's just old-fashioned lunacy.
 
2012-09-20 02:37:51 PM  

LoneWolf343: Mrbogey: The full clip doesn't change what was said. It only adds further thoughts on the issue.

The further thoughts proved that he wasn't espousing communism.


yes, only socialism. Specifically one of the most core and controversial aspects of it.

interesting defensive tactic you went with though.
 
2012-09-20 02:52:10 PM  

Mrbogey: LoneWolf343: Mrbogey: The full clip doesn't change what was said. It only adds further thoughts on the issue.

The further thoughts proved that he wasn't espousing communism.

yes, only socialism. Specifically one of the most core and controversial aspects of it.

interesting defensive tactic you went with though.


"so·cial·ism

noun/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Policy or practice based on this theory

(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism"

I can't find "redistribution of wealth" in there.
 
2012-09-20 03:02:51 PM  

Biological Ali: For it to be a "dog-whistle", the supposedly hidden meaning has to be intended by the speaker himself,


that's exactly what i was saying. if he was just talking about taxation and public services, he could have said so. he knows when he uses the word redistribution, conservatives become alarmed and all the socialists get little boners.
 
2012-09-20 03:11:16 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Examples of redistribution: Every government expenditure ever.- Bill Hammond (@NYDNHammond) September 18, 2012


Who is Bill Hammond? The man is a moron.

Or:

Examples of redistribution: Every expenditure ever.

About as helpful a 'witty' tweet.
 
2012-09-20 03:11:45 PM  

orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.

Well the government trend must be pretty pathetic if it is having so little impact on the overall picture. So pathetic that the word "significant" cannot reasonably applied to it..

I know this conflicts with your view that the noble and heroic wealthy are being cruelly oppressed by the greedy grasping poor.

The government transfers income from the wealthy to the poor through the progressive tax code, housing subsidies, health care subsidies, education, earned income tax credits, and many more ways. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with taxation and government spending. Why is it so hard for you to accept? I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't have such income redistribution, only that it exists.

Is anyone here denying that this redistribution exists? All Phillip is saying is that in your initial post you referred to this redistribution as "significant", which he proved through his graph that it can in no way, shape, or form be considered "significant" if the reality is that the lower classes have seen their share of total wealth go down while the upper class has seen their substantially increase. If there really as significant redistribution in this country, that graph should be the other way around. I know you are being purposely obtuse, but come on.


Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.
 
2012-09-20 03:19:15 PM  

colon_pow: Biological Ali: For it to be a "dog-whistle", the supposedly hidden meaning has to be intended by the speaker himself,

that's exactly what i was saying. if he was just talking about taxation and public services, he could have said so. he knows when he uses the word redistribution, conservatives become alarmed and all the socialists get little boners.


Well, you got half of that right. Conservatives have indeed been "alarmed" by the innocuous since the dawn of human civilization.
 
2012-09-20 03:20:25 PM  

colon_pow: orlandomagik: colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.

Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.

sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.


So what do you call it when Romney wants to raise taxes on the poor and simultaneously cut taxes on the wealthy? Magic?
 
2012-09-20 03:24:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way.


It is going the other way. The rich receive far more government entitlements than the poor do. Romney, for instance, got a $4 million tax break last year. In food stamps terms, that would have kept him fed until the year 4800.

/cf. JS
 
2012-09-20 03:49:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?


No, he actually believes the wealthy "earned" that money through hard work and bootstrappy-ness, and the poor dark-skinned people let the wealthy take it because they were too shiftless and lazy to get up off their asses and stop them.

/I say we stop being lazy, and start standing up to these plutocrats using "Second Amendment Solutions"
 
2012-09-20 03:51:38 PM  

LoneWolf343: Mrbogey: LoneWolf343: Mrbogey: The full clip doesn't change what was said. It only adds further thoughts on the issue.

The further thoughts proved that he wasn't espousing communism.

yes, only socialism. Specifically one of the most core and controversial aspects of it.

interesting defensive tactic you went with though.

"so·cial·ism

noun/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Policy or practice based on this theory

(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism"

I can't find "redistribution of wealth" in there.


Not since you went with the most concise and abstract definition. If I were to define Louisiana as the 18th state to join the United States of America it doesn't mean that New Orleans is suddenly part of Texas because my definition didn't include it.

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Your semantic obtuseness not withstanding.
 
2012-09-20 03:54:27 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way.

It is going the other way. The rich receive far more government entitlements than the poor do. Romney, for instance, got a $4 million tax break last year. In food stamps terms, that would have kept him fed until the year 4800.

/cf. JS


I don't know where you are getting the $4m number from. But theoretically, lets say he had $20m in income last year. Under ordinary tax rates, he would have paid $7m. If that income is dividend income or cap gains, he would have paid $3m.

As we know you can't compare cap gains/dividends taxes to ordinary income taxes on an apples to apples basis without understanding how corp taxes affect gross income, but let's ignore that for this exercise.

But now he's paid $3m, which goes to fund food stamps for one year for 2,091 people (using your 4800 figure less 2012 for $4m, reduced by 1/4 to get to the number of years you could feed someone on $3m, and assuming all of these people eat about the same as Romney). Do you think that Romney has received a 'government entitlement' of $4m, even though the $3m he did pay went to feed 2,091 others?
 
2012-09-20 03:55:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.


I think if we saw Mitt Romney's tax returns for the years immediately before and after the Bush tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy took effect, it might illustrate the point a little better.
 
2012-09-20 03:58:05 PM  

Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism.


When you've gotten to the point where you're describing the socioeconomic system the US has had for its entire existence as "socialism" - maybe, just maybe it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate your debate strategy.
 
2012-09-20 03:59:25 PM  

Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism


s.wsj.net
Socialism!
 
2012-09-20 04:00:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor.

I'm sure you got that backward on accident, and meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This is what out of touch delusional liberals actually believe.

Cripes. That'll teach me to agree with you.

So you deny that the wealthy have increased the percentage of the wealth of the country they control steadily over the past few decades?

That trend is economic in nature and doesn't remotely resemble the government redistribution of wealth that is the subject of this thread.

Well the government trend must be pretty pathetic if it is having so little impact on the overall picture. So pathetic that the word "significant" cannot reasonably applied to it..

I know this conflicts with your view that the noble and heroic wealthy are being cruelly oppressed by the greedy grasping poor.

The government transfers income from the wealthy to the poor through the progressive tax code, housing subsidies, health care subsidies, education, earned income tax credits, and many more ways. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with taxation and government spending. Why is it so hard for you to accept? I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't have such income redistribution, only that it exists.

Is anyone here denying that this redistribution exists? All Phillip is saying is that in your initial post you referred to this redistribution as "significant", which he proved through his graph that it can in no way, shape, or form be considered "significant" if the reality is that the lower classes have seen their share of total wealth go down while the upper class has seen their substantially increase. If there really as significant redistribution in this country, that graph should be the other way around. I know you are being purposely obtuse, but come on.

Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.


This is a complete mischaracterization of what Philip is saying.
 
2012-09-20 04:08:23 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.


No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "

Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.
 
2012-09-20 04:10:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism


Socialism!


Hey, when a bank robber robs a bank and the FDIC replaces the stolen money with MY tax dollars?!?! Socialism! Redistribution of wealth!

/yes, I know the money is replaced by "fees" the FDIC collects from banks, but we have to dumb it down for people who don't realize we need to level the playing field and recover some of the money these wealthy assholes stole from ALL OF US. Did you hear that Debeo? These wealthy people you are defending stole FROM YOU ALSO, unless you are one of them. Are you one of them? If not, why would you defend people who already have so much, but want to steal MORE from you? Helsinki syndrome?
 
2012-09-20 04:11:35 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: This is a complete mischaracterization of what Philip is saying.


orlandomagik: No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.


Well done!
 
2012-09-20 04:15:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: This is a complete mischaracterization of what Philip is saying.

orlandomagik: No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.

Well done!


You started it!

/keep it up ;)
 
2012-09-20 04:19:56 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Who is Bill Hammond? The man is a moron.

Or:

Examples of redistribution: Every expenditure ever.

About as helpful a 'witty' tweet.


Good talk.
 
2012-09-20 04:20:50 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Do you think that Romney has received a 'government entitlement' of $4m, even though the $3m he did pay went to feed 2,091 others?


Yes. The same way if my tax bill is $2,000 and I only pay $1,000, I have not "paid my taxes" according to any sensible definition of the term.

He used portions of the tax laws - written by GOVERNMENT - that he is ENTITLED to use to save himself $4m. That he's now biatching that he paid too much, when his effective rate is about equal to mine (if Mitt makes $20m, I make 1/400th what he does), is incredibly galling no matter how many people his relative pittance helped out.

Raw dollars don't really mean much in this context, especially considering when you stack the $3m he paid in taxes against the $17m he didn't ($4m of which lies in, we'll say, "disputed" territory), or against the $100m he somehow has in his IRA (lessee...contributing a max of $6,000/month by law...Mittens is 16,000 years old?!? The fark?), the other millions in the offshore accounts, the preferential treatment that money of his that we DO know about gets...and those raw dollars stack up to millions in revenue he's creatively (and, for varying values of 'legal', legally) accounted for.

To recap: Mitt has (probably) paid everything he legally owes. Mitt has used creative accounting and some shady-but-legal means to reduce his liability. Mitt still complains about how much he paid, despite paying a rate similar to a (single) guy who makes .25% (1/400th) of his 2010 income. He should STFU and realize how far ahead he is already.
 
2012-09-20 04:22:00 PM  

orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.

No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.


His 'boobies' indicates that he believes there is a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

This is obviously not the case - the government transfers wealth, on a net basis, from the wealthy to the poor. It takes from the better off and gives to the less well off. That is the income redistribution that Obama is talking about. And before you go off on a tangent, my 'boobies' agreed that Obama's use of the term 'redistibute' shouldn't be noteworthy or cause for alarm.
 
2012-09-20 04:28:10 PM  

Dr Dreidel: To recap: Mitt has (probably) paid everything he legally owes. Mitt has used creative accounting and some shady-but-legal means to reduce his liability. Mitt still complains about how much he paid, despite paying a rate similar to a (single) guy who makes .25% (1/400th) of his 2010 income. He should STFU and realize how far ahead he is already.


Not only does Romney complain about what he paid, he complains about others who legally reduced their tax burden.
 
2012-09-20 04:30:50 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I don't know where you are getting the $4m number from.


I just cited it. It was posted on Fark.

Debeo Summa Credo: As we know you can't compare cap gains/dividends taxes to ordinary income taxes on an apples to apples basis without understanding how corp taxes affect gross income,


Yeah, if anything, cap gains should be taxed far higher. At least 75%. They produce nothing. I think that's one of the biggest problems with the current system, is too much leniency given to the financial system. It should be the other way around. If you make money producing things and hiring labor and building factories, you get to keep it. If you make money through interest upon interest, financial speculation and the stock market, you gotta hand a sizable portion of it over to the public coffers. It was not earned.

Debeo Summa Credo: Do you think that Romney has received a 'government entitlement' of $4m, even though the $3m he did pay went to feed 2,091 others?


Why does Romney deserve any kind of entitlement at all? Why does he get preferential treatment just because his income was generated differently than people who, you know, ACTUALLY WORK FOR A LIVING?
 
2012-09-20 04:32:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.

No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.

His 'boobies' indicates that he believes there is a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

This is obviously not the case - the government transfers wealth, on a net basis, from the wealthy to the poor. It takes from the better off and gives to the less well off. That is the income redistribution that Obama is talking about. And before you go off on a tangent, my 'boobies' agreed that Obama's use of the term 'redistibute' shouldn't be noteworthy or cause for alarm.


There is a clearly documented net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy in this country. A massive transfer of wealth.

Your attempts to limit the discussion only to the small portion of wealth transferred by governments through social service programs is inherently dishonest.
 
2012-09-20 04:34:31 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.

No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.

His 'boobies' indicates that he believes there is a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

This is obviously not the case - the government transfers wealth, on a net basis, from the wealthy to the poor. It takes from the better off and gives to the less well off. That is the income redistribution that Obama is talking about. And before you go off on a tangent, my 'boobies' agreed that Obama's use of the term 'redistibute' shouldn't be noteworthy or cause for alarm.


How can you possibly argue that the transfer of wealth on a net basis favors the poor in light of the graph Phillip posted. And in the post 6 above this one, Phillip acknowledges that my summation of his arguments is correct, so stop trying to say differently.
 
Displayed 50 of 194 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report