Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3878 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
 
2012-09-20 01:11:44 AM  
I know, have you ever seen an unedited Obama pic?

moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com 

I thought the guy was black!
 
2012-09-20 08:31:06 AM  
OH GEE YOU THINK?
 
2012-09-20 08:41:16 AM  
I'm shocked.
 
2012-09-20 11:01:07 AM  
This is my shocked face.

:-|
 
2012-09-20 11:01:58 AM  
Not that there was anything wrong with what Obama said in the video.
 
2012-09-20 11:02:31 AM  
Romney has nonetheless seized upon this clip

I caught that slimy prick, RNCPRBS on Greta talking about it but does anyone have Romney's thoughts linked?
 
2012-09-20 11:02:58 AM  
Question: why does it seem like lately the GOP has had a monopoly on deceitfulness and outright lying? I don't think all or even most conservatives are dishonest, but their party and talking heads just can't stop spewing 100% bullshiat from their mouths at all times.
 
2012-09-20 11:03:00 AM  
The Romney campaign: 10 percent inspiration, 90 percent desperation.
 
2012-09-20 11:03:42 AM  
stupidest. election. ever. And how long has it been going? A year and a half?
 
2012-09-20 11:03:45 AM  
Is anyone actually surprised by this? It was a naked attempt to say, "Look! Their guy says bad things, too!" It failed, and this is just the icing on the cake.
 
2012-09-20 11:04:07 AM  
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.
 
2012-09-20 11:04:40 AM  

OneTimed: Question: why does it seem like lately the GOP has had a monopoly on deceitfulness and outright lying? I don't think all or even most conservatives are dishonest, but their party and talking heads just can't stop spewing 100% bullshiat from their mouths at all times.


They don't have a monopoly on it but comparing the Dem lies to the GOP lies is like comparing a bathtub to the ocean.
 
2012-09-20 11:06:29 AM  
Editing. How bout that guy who founded Paypay and dumped a big wad investing in Facebook paying for this guy. Now that's an editor. Maybe the Republicans could hire him.

i126.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-20 11:07:16 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-20 11:07:48 AM  
His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.
 
2012-09-20 11:08:12 AM  
Yeah sorry, the "edited out" portion doesn't in any way change the context of his comment about redistribution. Sorry, it doesn't.

"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."
 
2012-09-20 11:08:24 AM  
I think subby has mistaken 'good at something' for 'well-practiced'.
Practice does not always make perfect.
 
2012-09-20 11:08:29 AM  
The comments on that article are great too, some freepers must have been let out of their cages to go over to NBC...
 
2012-09-20 11:09:15 AM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Why? Do you believe that concentrating vast wealth in a very few hands is a positive for the country?
 
2012-09-20 11:09:17 AM  
Oh wow, the comments in the article completely ignore what Obama said, and continue to blame him for everything, including the 'war on women' and so on. The amount of projection i'm seeing is staggering.

The GOP's fanboys are so caught up in the idea that socialism/redistribution/etc is an evil thing that they are literally cheering on the transfer form the poor to the rich, and blaming the liberals for it.
 
2012-09-20 11:09:32 AM  

Spartapuss: Romney has nonetheless seized upon this clip

I caught that slimy prick, RNCPRBS on Greta talking about it but does anyone have Romney's thoughts linked?


> RNCPRBS.bat

Invalid file name or alcohol not found
Abort, Retry, Fail?

> a

Authorities have been notified. Have a nice day!
 
2012-09-20 11:10:05 AM  
The part they quote over and over...

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.

The part they leave out.

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.

Not a damn thing wrong with either but it's obviously another attempt by the right to take Obama's words out of context to prove something that a full in context read would not support.

This is "out of context" for any RWers who are having difficulty with the concept.
 
2012-09-20 11:10:15 AM  
Lies, hyperbole, and subterfuge.....it's all they have left.
 
2012-09-20 11:10:38 AM  

Examples of redistribution: Every government expenditure ever.

- Bill Hammond (@NYDNHammond) September 18, 2012
 
2012-09-20 11:10:38 AM  
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.

I used to think Romney was an OK guy who just happened to lack charisma. Now I know he's a mendacious, disingenuous scumbag.

"This is how America works. It does not work by a government saying, become dependent on government. Become dependent upon redistribution. That will kill the American entrepreneurship that's lifted our economy over the years," Romney told donors at a fundraiser this afternoon in Atlanta. "The question of this campaign is not who cares about the poor and the middle class? I do. He does. The question is who can help the poor and the middle class? I can! He can't!"
 
2012-09-20 11:10:55 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

Why? Do you believe that concentrating vast wealth in a very few hands is a positive for the country?


taxation! legal theft!!
 
2012-09-20 11:11:17 AM  
Here's how the argument goes:

"Yes, we Republicans edited this video of Obama. That proves that political parties manipulate videos to serve their own purposes. Therefore, Democrats edited Romney's 47% video."
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-09-20 11:11:21 AM  

StopLurkListen: This is my shocked face.

:-|

 
2012-09-20 11:11:29 AM  

quatchi: The part they quote over and over...

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.

The part they leave out.

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.

Not a damn thing wrong with either but it's obviously another attempt by the right to take Obama's words out of context to prove something that a full in context read would not support.

This is "out of context" for any RWers who are having difficulty with the concept.


B-b-b-ut two minutes are missing from the Romney fundraising video! Two minutes in which he might have said something that wasn't stupid or false!
 
2012-09-20 11:11:48 AM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Your belief that government spending is 'redistribution' is disturbing. And amusing.
 
2012-09-20 11:11:56 AM  
So let's get this straight. Romney gets a tape released and owns it and says, "We need to see the whole video." When the whole video is put out, Republicans calls it a conspiracy. Overall, Romney looks bad. Republicans put out a snippet of Obama calling for redistribution of wealth. Then when the whole tape is exposed, he actually talks about competition and marketplace and growth. Obama looks better.

Republican shills are REALLY, REALLY bad at this.
 
2012-09-20 11:12:00 AM  
Surely Andrew Breitbart is looking up and smiling today.
 
2012-09-20 11:12:03 AM  
I'm shocked that a party that has done nothing but lie for the past 12 years has lied again. Shocked.
 
2012-09-20 11:12:17 AM  
That's funny, Republicans are big fans of wealth redistribution when defense companies have shiny new planes to sell, or when farmers have a bad year, or when a hurricane hits a red state.
 
2012-09-20 11:12:23 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-20 11:12:44 AM  

OneTimed: Question: why does it seem like lately the GOP has had a monopoly on deceitfulness and outright lying? I don't think all or even most conservatives are dishonest, but their party and talking heads just can't stop spewing 100% bullshiat from their mouths at all times.


It's because if the average person were to listen to Obama speak at length on a topic, his thoughts sound very reasonable. It's a key quality all leaders must have. Ronald Reagan had the same gift.
 
2012-09-20 11:14:03 AM  

SunsetLament: Yeah sorry, the "edited out" portion doesn't in any way change the context of his comment about redistribution. Sorry, it doesn't.

"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."


It does indeed. It means how does the government encourage the small business, the local business, so that it can compete and generate wealth. How do you make Joes hardware store compete with billionaire steves hardware chain? Remember, this clip was from around the time of the internet bomb, which helped a lot of folks do just that. Obama points to stuff like tax credits as an example.

This isn't seizing rich people property and giving it away, it's helping the lower classes and smaller business compete via tax breaks.
 
2012-09-20 11:14:24 AM  

Spartapuss: Romney has nonetheless seized upon this clip

I caught that slimy prick, RNCPRBS on Greta talking about it but does anyone have Romney's thoughts linked?


Oh, you mean Rinse Pubis?
 
2012-09-20 11:15:02 AM  
The baffling thing is the knee jerk reaction to "redistribute."

I hate to break it to you, if there are taxes, that's what is happening.

It's impossible to not be "redistributing" if you have a progressive, modern, tax system. No one is going to get back their exact amount in services.

Only in this country is someone admitting that resources are redistributed to help people, evidence of a October Revolution.
 
2012-09-20 11:15:11 AM  

DarnoKonrad: stupidest. election. ever. And how long has it been going? A year and a half?


For the Republicans, it's been since Obama was elected.
 
2012-09-20 11:15:23 AM  
"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." 

I am shocked to discover that Obama thinks everybody is a commmie.
 
2012-09-20 11:16:46 AM  

Brandyelf: Is anyone actually surprised by this? It was a naked attempt to say, "Look! Their guy says bad things, too!" It failed, and this is just the icing on the cake.


I really liked that part of the TDS video (2 links down) where Stewart exposed this deflection:
Media are reporting on Romney's "47%" comments
-deflection 1: it was "inartfully worded"
-deflection 2: it was an uncomfortable (one might say "inconvenient") truth, but a "winning strategy" to push the 47% line
-deflection 3: that was 5 months ago!!
-deflection 4: Obama once said something, too!
 
2012-09-20 11:17:08 AM  
Did they really build that?
 
2012-09-20 11:17:23 AM  

Brandyelf: Is anyone actually surprised by this? It was a naked attempt to say, "Look! Their guy says bad things, too!" It failed, and this is just the icing on the cake.


This; whereas the Romney campaign was accusing Mother Jones of editing the footage for Romney. MJ came out and said "here's the whole tape" and it makes Romney look even worse.

This smells of total desperation now by the Romney campaign. That ship is sinking and the rats (read: GOP supporters) are trying to get off as quickly as possible.
 
2012-09-20 11:18:51 AM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Only to the 3000 that make $2 Million or more without paying taxes right?
 
2012-09-20 11:20:09 AM  

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


And I will add to that: to the rich, to the poor, to the military industrial complex, etc., etc.
 
2012-09-20 11:20:17 AM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


What is far more disturbing is the ACTUAL redistribution that has concentrated the wealth in the hands of so few over the past 30 years.
 
2012-09-20 11:20:18 AM  
1998? I hadn't even realized what a desperate "NO U" this whole thing is until now. Not only is it reasonable and consistent with Obama's philosophy, it's also nearly two decades old?

Clownshoes. Clownshoes everywhere.
 
2012-09-20 11:20:57 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-20 11:21:19 AM  
Now that's how you edit a video to take something out of context, Republicans...

'Course, considering you did the same thing with the "You didn't build that quote", I'm assuming you already knew that and are just using this to deflect from Romney's asinine comments about half the country.

Carry on, you dishonest shiat sorcerers.
 
2012-09-20 11:22:10 AM  

="_blank">Rwa2play: Brandyelf: Is anyone actually surprised by this? It was a naked attempt to say, "Look! Their guy says bad things, too!" It failed, and this is just the icing on the cake.

This; whereas the Romney campaign was accusing Mother Jones of editing the footage for Romney. MJ came out and said "here's the whole tape" and it makes Romney look even worse.

This smells of total desperation now by the Romney campaign. That ship is sinking and the rats (read: GOP supporters) are trying to get off as quickly as possible.


The real bad thing for Romney is that it puts him on the back foot. It puts him on the defensive.

It's not that the American Public really cares about the particulars of how Romney is defending himself, it is the perception that Romney is constantly having to defend himself.

The vague memories coming away from this summer is that Romney's constantly got problems, that he constantly is insulting people or saying the wrong thing. Obama, by comparison, is doing nothing. Sure he's in the news, but in the battle between the men Romney is constantly fighting to keep up while Obama maintains his status.

And something like that can really doom a campaign. I hope it does.
 
2012-09-20 11:22:16 AM  

SunsetLament: Yeah sorry, the "edited out" portion doesn't in any way change the context of his comment about redistribution. Sorry, it doesn't.

"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."




So, the federal government collects taxes from the whole country, and redistributes the spending as needed? Like, my tax dollars in MN might go to hurricane relief in South Carolina?


Oh noes.
 
2012-09-20 11:22:56 AM  

Esc7: The baffling thing is the knee jerk reaction to "redistribute."

I hate to break it to you, if there are taxes, that's what is happening.

It's impossible to not be "redistributing" if you have a progressive, modern, tax system. No one is going to get back their exact amount in services.

Only in this country is someone admitting that resources are redistributed to help people, evidence of a October Revolution.


It's their code word for when their base should get outraged, just like all the other asinine phrases they use when trying to paint Obama as a Kenyan usurper of Freedom and Bravery.
 
2012-09-20 11:24:31 AM  
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.
 
2012-09-20 11:25:37 AM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Somebody is a Fox News viewer...
 
2012-09-20 11:25:53 AM  

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.


So does allowing the government dictate who can marry, or setting up the tax code to benefit the wealthy
 
2012-09-20 11:26:29 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-20 11:26:45 AM  

bikerific: SunsetLament: Yeah sorry, the "edited out" portion doesn't in any way change the context of his comment about redistribution. Sorry, it doesn't.

"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."



So, the federal government collects taxes from the whole country, and redistributes the spending as needed? Like, my tax dollars in MN might go to hurricane relief in South Carolina?


Oh noes.


You don't understand. We caught Obama red-handed. When he said "redistribute" he actually meant barging into your house and throwing you out on the street and allowing squatters to live there. I know, I know, it just sounds like he's talking about government appropriation of taxes, but he really meant the steal all your wealth and force you to live like a peasant, and furthermore,
 
2012-09-20 11:27:00 AM  

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.


It's not that I "don't like what's being done" it's that it's demonstrably causing a strain on the majority of our country's citizens and our economy.

Deliberate obfuscation makes baby jesus cry.
 
2012-09-20 11:27:19 AM  
"... we decentralize ..." see Fartbama said decentralize, this means Mitt is automatically Emporer of Communism, and Ryan has to wear Sarah's little green commie hat whenever he gives a speech
 
2012-09-20 11:27:23 AM  
Yes, you need competition and marketplace so that the people can make the money that you take from them to redistribute to the parasite community. It's hard to redistribute anything without earners originally earning the money that you want to redistribute.

He either means that, or he is a totally confused moron.
 
2012-09-20 11:27:24 AM  

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.


So what do you call "[L]ay[ing] and collect[ing] Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"?

Because I call it "a Constitutionally-enumerated power of Congress".

// so you wanna argue about taxation levels?
// get elected to Congress
 
2012-09-20 11:27:52 AM  
He's talking about fostering innovation within government at the local level to better handle redistribution. This changes nothing.

The "unedited" version of the Romney video changed nothing.

Stating that these videos are edited is different from asserting that the edits themselves altered the meaning of the words. I can cut a porn video to remove the part where the pool boy arrives at the house. You may watch the video and not know he's a pool boy, but in the end viewing the "unedited" version doesn't change the fact that your mom did porn.

Grow up. Your candidates stink and your mother had low ethical standards when she was young.
 
2012-09-20 11:28:18 AM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 576x432]


That is not lots of dog.

/Use the 14 dwarves next!
 
2012-09-20 11:29:03 AM  
Selective editing by Republicans?

i8.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-20 11:29:49 AM  
Todays GOP explained;

A plate with twelve cookies is presented to a republican and a democrat.

A 1%er immediately takes eleven of the cookies then tells the republican that the democrat is trying to take his cookie.
 
2012-09-20 11:30:05 AM  

Esc7: Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 576x432]

That is not lots of dog.

/Use the 14 dwarves next!


Libertarian Legolas predates Lots of Dog
 
2012-09-20 11:31:08 AM  
Obama during the debates, should ask Mitt how he intends to pay for the current Republican deficits if he doesn't redistribute taxpayers money
 
2012-09-20 11:31:18 AM  

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.


Now that you have context, you can clearly see that Fox News has been lying to you. Oh maybe you can't...
 
2012-09-20 11:32:06 AM  
Look, the thing you're forgetting is Obama is too deceiteful and cunning to ever says what Republicans know he really thinks, so he forces them to cut and paste his words into what he's actually implying.

Love that Romney's only answer to any questions about some of the fun quotes from his tape (the latest being he claimed that the Federal Reserve has been buying 75% of the new debt Obama has created because everyone else in the world sees federal bonds as worthless due to Obama's policies, a statement that has no factual basis whatsoever) is to say "look, all I was saying was that I'm against redistribution of existing wealth instead of creating new wealth which is totally what the president said he believes. Have you seen the tape? He said he believes in redistribution. Why aren't you going after him for demanding the government redistributing wealth?"
 
2012-09-20 11:32:13 AM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


You're probably not cut out for living in civilization then.
 
2012-09-20 11:33:09 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-20 11:36:05 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-20 11:37:29 AM  
14 year old video?

Is the Romney campaign playing the "Talking Points that Didn't Work in 2008 Drinking Game" too?

"Redistribution of wealth!"

DRINK!

www.antidoughnutparty.com
 
2012-09-20 11:37:37 AM  

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

You're probably not cut out for living in civilization then.


As if there were any question about that in the first place.
 
2012-09-20 11:38:44 AM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Indeed. He seems to think the point is to give people something called a "shot" and that markets are somehow inherently desireable. Frankly, I think he needs to spend more time studying Lenin's works.

3/10, would not call comrade.
 
2012-09-20 11:39:13 AM  

aug3: "... we decentralize ..." see Fartbama said decentralize, this means Mitt is automatically Emporer of Communism, and Ryan has to wear Sarah's little green commie hat whenever he gives a speech


I know you're being snarky, but aren't conservatives in favor of decentralizing?
 
2012-09-20 11:39:51 AM  

orlandomagik: aug3: "... we decentralize ..." see Fartbama said decentralize, this means Mitt is automatically Emporer of Communism, and Ryan has to wear Sarah's little green commie hat whenever he gives a speech

I know you're being snarky, but aren't conservatives in favor of decentralizing?


They're in favor of distributing centralization.
 
2012-09-20 11:40:07 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-20 11:40:55 AM  

Le Bomb Suprize: Todays GOP explained;

A plate with twelve cookies is presented to a republican and a democrat.

A 1%er immediately takes eleven of the cookies then tells the republican that the democrat is trying to take his cookie.


ten people bake ten cookies. The people represent the population of the united states, and the cookies represent the wealth.

10 people. 10 Cookies. how bad could it be?

The top guy, the top tenth of the population, eats more than SEVEN of the cookies.

the remaining 90% fight over the last 3.
 
2012-09-20 11:43:11 AM  

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.


You don't need the disclaimer - we're all familiar with your acid-tripped posts.
 
2012-09-20 11:43:51 AM  

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.


400 people have wealth equal to 1/8 of the entire US economy. That is fundamentally unsound for the nation.
 
2012-09-20 11:52:21 AM  

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.


Where does he say that? Where does he advocate for more extreme redistribution?

All the damn quote says is that he believes that reallocating resources to aid those who need assistance in building a future for themselves is a good thing, and that the question presented is what programs provide the most effective use in using those funds to facilitate economic growth that helps distressed communities.

Everybody offended has to try to pretend Obama was "caught" saying that he wanted to take more money for the rich to give away free stuff. The quote is entirely about restructuring the existing redistributive programs to be more efficient and focus on giving a leg-up not a hand-out.
 
2012-09-20 11:54:38 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

400 people have wealth equal to 1/8 of the entire US economy. That is fundamentally unsound for the nation.


THEY EARNED THAT MONEY THEY DESERVE IT!!!! FAIR TAX!!!! HURRRRRRRRRR
 
2012-09-20 11:56:23 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-20 11:57:06 AM  
Is there anything the GOP does that isn't so ironically hypocritical as to require the coining of a new word?

Hypocrublical?

Irocritical?

Conserhypical?

Looking for anything cromulent, here.
 
2012-09-20 11:57:23 AM  
Also: I'm still waiting for someone to show me a clip of Obama showing as much contempt for the rich (which Republicans claim seep through all his policy goals) as Romney does for the poor in his clip.
 
2012-09-20 11:59:06 AM  

Cletus C.: Confiscating wealth...


Where did he say anything about confiscation?
 
2012-09-20 12:02:56 PM  

Grungehamster: Also: I'm still waiting for someone to show me a clip of Obama showing as much contempt for the rich (which Republicans claim seep through all his policy goals) as Romney does for the poor in his clip.


This what really strikes me when I hear both Obama and Romney speak. Obama's appearance on Letterman recently was brilliant in terms of voicing his message while still showing he wants to serve the best interests of ALL people, including the better off and those that don't agree with his policies. I don't like the man's politics very much, but he is a billion times the speaker/leader/man than Romney is.

/of course I forget that promoting unity is for liberal pansies
 
2012-09-20 12:07:00 PM  
wait - so you're saying that mitt romney, who build his ENTIRE convention on on out-of-context lie, is once again taking an obama quote out of context.... while at the same time complaining that the leaked "47%" video was taken out of context, when in fact it wasn't?

the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that permeates the republican party is staggering.
 
2012-09-20 12:08:35 PM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Think of government as a protection rackett that keeps guillotines away in the event simple decency doesn't work, and you'll get over it. By the way, effective government isn't an invitation to stop with simple decency.
 
2012-09-20 12:09:32 PM  

FlashHarry: wait - so you're saying that mitt romney, who build his ENTIRE convention on on out-of-context lie, is once again taking an obama quote out of context.... while at the same time complaining that the leaked "47%" video was taken out of context, when in fact it wasn't?

the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that permeates the republican party is staggering.


Scary is probably a more accurate term to use (at least in my world).
 
2012-09-20 12:09:40 PM  

Rabbitgod: I know, have you ever seen an unedited Obama pic?

[moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com image 297x405] 

I thought the guy was black!


images.wikia.com

AHH! AHH ! AHH! AHH!!
 
2012-09-20 12:11:12 PM  

Esc7: Le Bomb Suprize: Todays GOP explained;

A plate with twelve cookies is presented to a republican and a democrat.

A 1%er immediately takes eleven of the cookies then tells the republican that the democrat is trying to take his cookie.

ten people bake ten cookies. The people represent the population of the united states, and the cookies represent the wealth.

10 people. 10 Cookies. how bad could it be?

The top guy, the top tenth of the population, eats more than SEVEN of the cookies.

the remaining 90% fight over the last 3.


Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for the lest of his life. Take a man's fish and frame his neighbor, and he'll vote Republican.
 
2012-09-20 12:11:27 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-20 12:18:19 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.


You make it sound like Obama and liberals want to do it out of spite for rich people, an outlook I and many farkers find laughable. I believe we want to do it because it is truly what is best for the country at large. I notice you dodged the other half of my post though, care to explain?
 
2012-09-20 12:18:23 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Not that there was anything wrong with what Obama said in the video.


I agree. The additional comments do nothing to change the fact that he used "redistribution" in the prior sentence. This isn't "editing", it's disregarding irrelevant commentary.

Judge Obama on his sentence "I am in favor of redistribution, at least to give everyone a fair shot.".

Personally, I don't think "redistribution" shouldn't be a taboo word. We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor. We can argue about te degree to which we redistribute, and whether we want more or less, but the word itself isn't something that should be avoided or criticized.
 
2012-09-20 12:22:20 PM  

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?
 
2012-09-20 12:22:54 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.


Concentrating wealth among the few at the expense of the welfare of your entire farking country launches you to where we are right now.

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.


Kinda like categorizing a particular kind of income that mostly the wealthy earn as in need of a special super-low tax rate.
 
2012-09-20 12:25:43 PM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Why, how does a market driven society survive without redistribution? It is like the water cycle, if it stops raining then you may need some irregation.
 
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.
 
2012-09-20 04:35:19 PM  
OK, add a few more posts than 6 as some comments were made as I was typing
 
2012-09-20 04:35:54 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: 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?


Terrorists, the wealthy. Same/same. Right?
 
2012-09-20 04:35:57 PM  
I'm surprised they didn't add in something about her/sweet/can-

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-20 04:37:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


I should also mention that even a chunk of the social service spending should rightly be considered as a subsidy to corporations and the wealthy. Companies that do not pay their employees a living wage and who depend on tax payer assistance to keep their employees housed, clothed and fed are getting their bottom line subsidized by the government.
 
2012-09-20 04:37:53 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 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


once more, with feeling:
s.wsj.net
 
2012-09-20 04:43:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 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.


Raw dollars mean everything in this context!!! Romney is paying taxes of $3m that goes to fund whatever it funds, including food stamps. It is an obvious case of one person (Romney) subsidizing many others (you, me, and everyone on food stamps). The government, via taxation, is transferring $3m that Romney earned and spending it on the things govt spends it on, including programs that give benefits (housing, food, medical care) to those who cannot afford it and pay no income tax whatsoever!

Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.
 
2012-09-20 04:44:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I'm surprised they didn't add in something about her/sweet/can-

[25.media.tumblr.com image 464x354]


"So, Mr. Fartbongo, you admit you're a communist. What do you have to say in your defense?"

...

"Mr. Fartbongo, your silence will only incriminate you further."

...

"No, Mr. Fartbongo! Don't take your anger out on me! Get back! Get back! Mr. Fartbongo, no!"

/Dramatization: May not have happened.
 
2012-09-20 04:55:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.


No one is saying the system doesn't do that. What everyone is saying is that the system is not doing it enough.
 
2012-09-20 04:58:07 PM  

orlandomagik: 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.


The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link to a pretty table that shows how the wealthy pay a greater percentage of income tax burden than the income they take home.

Link

But that doesn't consider the fact that even taking a flat percentage of income of every level leads to a transfer from the wealthy to the poor because the wealthy have more taxable income.

Philip's chart shows the relative wealth distribution from 1983 to 2009, a finite arbitrary period of time. Wealth distribution can be affected by many other factors (rising stock market from lows of 1983 (wealthy have more in stock, by definition), immigration and globalization reducing working class wages, trends away from saving by middle and working classes, other economic factors, etc). It speaks nothing about wealth transfer via taxation/government spending.

Are you seriously deluded/dishonest enough to argue that the government, via taxation and spending, doesn't transfer income from the rich to the poor?
 
2012-09-20 05:00:23 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.


And extremely generous taxation on inter-generational wealth transfers means that Romney was able to get the kind of handouts that allow him to be rich enough today that he can insult 47% of the US.
 
2012-09-20 05:01:56 PM  

Cletus C.: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: 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?

Terrorists, the wealthy. Same/same. Right?


So vote wealthy?
 
2012-09-20 05:02:38 PM  

Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

And extremely generous taxation on inter-generational wealth transfers means that Romney was able to get the kind of handouts that allow him to be rich enough today that he can insult 47% of the US.


"Extremely generous" in relation to what? The term you used is "extremely subjective".
 
2012-09-20 05:05:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

And extremely generous taxation on inter-generational wealth transfers means that Romney was able to get the kind of handouts that allow him to be rich enough today that he can insult 47% of the US.

"Extremely generous" in relation to what? The term you used is "extremely subjective".


Anything above 100% would be generous, because those handouts weren't earned on merit.
 
2012-09-20 05:05:42 PM  

Biological Ali: Anything above below 100%


Fixed.
 
2012-09-20 05:11:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link to a pretty table that shows how the wealthy pay a greater percentage of income tax burden than the income they take home.


That actually doesn't prove that wealth is being transferred from them to the poor.

Many aspects of government spending are transfers that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. One example is the portion of the budget spent on servicing the US government's debt. As you have stated that the wealth own more stock than the poor, they also own more Treasury Bills than the poor do.

You would need to analyze the proportion of outlays that benefit the poor vs. the wealthy in conjunction with the proportion of taxes paid if you wanted to conclusively prove your point.

Of course your point itself is off base in that the government based transfers of wealth a but a tiny part of the whole picture, ans in no way change the fact that our economy has a has huge net transfer of wealth to the wealthy from the poor. Examining one insignificant mechanism of transfer in not at all illuminating.
 
2012-09-20 05:11:32 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

No one is saying the system doesn't do that. What everyone is saying is that the system is not doing it enough.


Good lord. Fine, I'm going to repost what I originally said (edited to remove my accidental double negative) and let that be the end of it. If it helps, when I say 'we' below I mean governmenal via taxation and spending. I thought that was implied, as the term redistribution in this context ordinarly connotes governmental involvement, but if my lack of clarity led to us wasting our time arguing back and forth all afternoon, I sincerely apologize to all.

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Not that there was anything wrong with what Obama said in the video.

I agree. The additional comments do nothing to change the fact that he used "redistribution" in the prior sentence. This isn't "editing", it's disregarding irrelevant commentary.

Judge Obama on his sentence "I am in favor of redistribution, at least to give everyone a fair shot.".

Personally, I don't think "redistribution" shouldn't be a taboo word. We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor. We can argue about te degree to which we redistribute, and whether we want more or less, but the word itself isn't something that should be avoided or criticized.

 
2012-09-20 05:15:47 PM  

Biological Ali: 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.


well that's total bullshiat.
 
2012-09-20 05:17:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism

[s.wsj.net image 553x369]
Socialism!


that graph has no bearing on the issue of what is and isn't socialism. Your point was dumb and you should feel bad.
 
2012-09-20 05:18:42 PM  

Mrbogey: Biological Ali: 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.

well that's total bullshiat.


I'm glad you agree. Good luck coming up with a better argument.
 
2012-09-20 05:21:35 PM  

Mrbogey: Philip Francis Queeg: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism

[s.wsj.net image 553x369]
Socialism!

that graph has no bearing on the issue of what is and isn't socialism. Your point was dumb and you should feel bad.


Your definition of socialism was dumb and you should feel bad.
 
2012-09-20 05:28:59 PM  

Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Biological Ali: 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.

well that's total bullshiat.

I'm glad you agree. Good luck coming up with a better argument.


you said something so incorrect it needs no rebuttal.
 
2012-09-20 05:30:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

No one is saying the system doesn't do that. What everyone is saying is that the system is not doing it enough.

Good lord. Fine, I'm going to repost what I originally said (edited to remove my accidental double negative) and let that be the end of it. If it helps, when I say 'we' below I mean governmenal via taxation and spending. I thought that was implied, as the term redistribution in this context ordinarly connotes governmental involvement, but if my lack of clarity led to us wasting our time arguing back and forth all afternoon, I sincerely apologize to all.

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Not that there was anything wrong with what Obama said in the video.

I agree. The additional comments do nothing to change the fact that he used "redistribution" in the prior sentence. This isn't "editing", it's disregarding irrelevant commentary.

Judge Obama on his sentence "I am in favor of redistribution, at least to give everyone a fair shot.".

Personally, I don't think "redistribution" shouldn't be a taboo word. We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor. We can argue about te degree to which we redistribute, and whether we want more or less, but the word itself isn't something that should be avoided or criticized.


Fair enough, if you want to argue that our government redistributes a significant amount of the tax revenue taken in to the poor, I can see where you are coming from and I would say that is a very narrow argument that doesn't really address some of the main problems our country is having at large , although to fully agree I would need to see a very detailed breakdown of revenues and expenditures and whom they benefit. I still stand by that this argument is largely irrelevant due to the fact that even with this "significant" redistribution from wealthy to poor, the poor have still decreased their total share of the wealth of this nation while the rich have greatly increased theirs -something I see to be a major problem and unsustainable in the long run.
 
2012-09-20 05:35:23 PM  

Mrbogey: Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Biological Ali: 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.

well that's total bullshiat.

I'm glad you agree. Good luck coming up with a better argument.

you said something so incorrect it needs no rebuttal.


Hmm... a bare assertion containing no detail whatsoever is certainly different from your earlier claims about socialism, but I'm not sure it can really be considered a better argument.
 
2012-09-20 05:42:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link


The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.

Heritage is a proponent of supply-side economics, which holds that reductions in the marginal rate of taxation can spur economic growth.

In 1994, Heritage advised Newt Gingrich and other conservatives on the development of the "Contract with America", which was credited with helping to produce a Republican majority in Congress. The "Contract" was a pact of principles that directly challenged both the political status-quo in Washington and many of the ideas at the heart of the Clinton administration.

Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program. 

In other words: Your charts are bullshiat, the Heritage Foundation is a heavily biased, unreliable institution heavily weighted towards the deep-seated plutocracy that has been destroying this country for the past 30 years. Your arguments are invalid.
 
2012-09-20 06:26:21 PM  
Lies and half truths in politics? That's almost as absurd as flying machines.

Humans flying, what nonsense.
 
2012-09-20 06:39:12 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.

Heritage is a proponent of supply-side economics, which holds that reductions in the marginal rate of taxation can spur economic growth.

In 1994, Heritage advised Newt Gingrich and other conservatives on the development of the "Contract with America", which was credited with helping to produce a Republican majority in Congress. The "Contract" was a pact of principles that directly challenged both the political status-quo in Washington and many of the ideas at the heart of the Clinton administration.

Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program. 

In other words: Your charts are bullshiat, the Heritage Foundation is a heavily biased, unreliable institution heavily weighted towards the deep-seated plutocracy that has been destroying this country for the past 30 years. Your arguments are invalid.


You just triple down on the DERP at all costs, don't you. The source as cited in the link is the IRS. Queeg's graph came from the economic policy institute, which leans left.

Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn. And theirs includes payroll taxes (allocating both employee share and employer share to the individual) that go, presumably, to fund those specfic programs where your benefit is largely derived from your contribution. If you focused solely on income taxes that pay for everything else, you'd get the heritage chart.

Link
 
2012-09-20 06:39:19 PM  

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Only to you.

I thought there was a brief expiration on comments. You know, like how we can't talk about Romney's clip from WAY back in May. We certainly can't talk about anything from way back when he was governor.

Redistribution is the entire basis of taxation. Our military doesn't turn a profit, so I accept that my taxes are redistributed to pay for troops and bullets.

And government abortions? If some poor girl is so poor she can't afford her own abortion, I'd gladly pay for it myself, rather than pay for her whole kid.
 
2012-09-20 07:33:09 PM  

Mrbogey:

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Your semantic obtuseness not withstanding.


And HE'S the semantic retard. Hmmm.

And every single government program in the history of the species involves some "redistribution of wealth" so every single thing the government ever does -- any government -- is socialist.

So, it follows logically that your politics are Somali Libertarian.


Or perhaps it's just "redistribution" when the money goes to pay for or buy things from or for people you don't like that it qualifies as "socialism" and all the things you like are simply government doing its job.
 
2012-09-20 08:08:11 PM  

wejash: Mrbogey:

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Your semantic obtuseness not withstanding.

And HE'S the semantic retard. Hmmm.

And every single government program in the history of the species involves some "redistribution of wealth" so every single thing the government ever does -- any government -- is socialist.

So, it follows logically that your politics are Somali Libertarian.


Or perhaps it's just "redistribution" when the money goes to pay for or buy things from or for people you don't like that it qualifies as "socialism" and all the things you like are simply government doing its job.


expanding or narrowing definitions is semantic games, retard. Not all govt programs are socialism just by virtue of collecting taxes.

Christ, this site could use a better class of retard. Seriously, the partisan shills of late have been beyond typical politics thread dumb.

Seriously, are you all trying to outdo each other with these stupid statements?
 
2012-09-20 08:29:24 PM  

Spartapuss: Romney has nonetheless seized upon this clip

I caught that slimy prick, RNCPRBS on Greta talking about it but does anyone have Romney's thoughts linked?


Rmoney himself has a difficult time linking his thoughts.
 
2012-09-20 08:35:13 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

Why? Do you believe that concentrating vast wealth in a very few hands is a positive for the country?


Was Obama talking about wealth redistribution or income redistribution? There is a difference, and the arguments with regard to the two are not the same.
 
2012-09-20 09:07:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn


Well of course they do. They're supposed to. In fact, they're supposed to pay far, far, FAR MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

Like... a thousand times more, at the very least. You know why?

www.ishkur.com

Because they have all the money, dumbass.
 
2012-09-20 09:14:16 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn

Well of course they do. They're supposed to. In fact, they're supposed to pay far, far, FAR MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

Like... a thousand times more, at the very least. You know why?



Because they have all the money, dumbass.


Derp!
 
2012-09-20 09:18:56 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn

Well of course they do. They're supposed to. In fact, they're supposed to pay far, far, FAR MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

Like... a thousand times more, at the very least. You know why?



Because they have all the money, dumbass.

Derp!


How is that derp?
 
2012-09-22 01:55:21 AM  

Mrbogey: 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.


Not my fault that you are illiterate.

Also, "redistribution of wealth?" It was recommended by Adam Smith. You know, the granddaddy of capitalism.
 
2012-09-22 07:22:12 AM  

LoneWolf343: Not my fault that you are illiterate.


I know you are but what am I?

LoneWolf343: Also, "redistribution of wealth?" It was recommended by Adam Smith. You know, the granddaddy of capitalism.


I'm sure your exhaustive blog entry on it is without equal.

And in case you're unable to read the sarcasm in that, I'm, mocking this silly notion of yours that is certainly rooted in poorly formed internet diatribes.

"Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"
 
2012-09-22 09:23:12 AM  

Mrbogey: "Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"


How exactly are the poor going to have money if not for the redistribution of wealth? Magic?
 
2012-09-22 06:10:35 PM  

Halli: Mrbogey: "Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"

How exactly are the poor going to have money if not for the redistribution of wealth? Magic?


Please tell me this is a troll and not that you're so economically illiterate that any capital exchange is "redistribution".

When discussion redistribution, were not talking about the use of the statistical term "distribution" or derivatives there of. We're talking of a strategy whereby govt acquires and then redistibutes wealth as a means of economic balancing.

What you're doing is as derpy as saying all taxes are theft.
 
2012-09-22 07:58:50 PM  

Mrbogey: Halli: Mrbogey: "Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"

How exactly are the poor going to have money if not for the redistribution of wealth? Magic?

Please tell me this is a troll and not that you're so economically illiterate that any capital exchange is "redistribution".

When discussion redistribution, were not talking about the use of the statistical term "distribution" or derivatives there of. We're talking of a strategy whereby govt acquires and then redistibutes wealth as a means of economic balancing.

What you're doing is as derpy as saying all taxes are theft.


Yep magic it is.

y
 
2012-09-22 09:11:10 PM  

Halli: Yep magic it is.


You have to work hard to be this dumb.
 
2012-09-23 01:14:52 AM  
I like this new trolling method: getting it right while getting it so horribly wrong.
 
2012-09-23 04:32:00 AM  

Mrbogey: Halli: Yep magic it is.

You have to work hard to be this dumb.


Nope then I would claim everything was socialism and make really stupid claims throughout the thread.

Maybe instead of magic you were thinking trickle down economics. Those have worked so well.
 
2012-09-23 10:06:06 AM  

Halli: Nope then I would claim everything was socialism and make really stupid claims throughout the thread.


You claimed that any change of aggregate wealth is redistribution of income.

What you did was just as bad as claiming everything is socialism because you defined everything in such a way as to make it socialism.
 
2012-09-23 10:38:17 AM  

Mrbogey: You claimed that any change of aggregate wealth is redistribution of income.


Well it is technically correct.

Mrbogey: What you did was just as bad as claiming everything is socialism because you defined everything in such a way as to make it socialism.


So I'm just as bad as you. Shocking.
 
Displayed 194 of 194 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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