Right wingers love to rattle on about "re-distribution of wealth"

[SoCalDem]

yet they fail to see that capitalism is ALL about that. A worker gets $7 or $8 an hour to produce a product/service that his boss sells to someone else for a profit.

The profit he makes is a distribution FROM the worker who actually made the product, because he produced it.

The tax-savings that are given to wealthy people because they have the money to hire consultants and employ dodges and loopholes written into tax law by their pals...are made up by people who are lower on the totem pole, and who have no capability to "fudge the numbers"..

I am not saying that innovative people who create businesses should not profit from them, but there are too many super-rich people who are selling out their own employees, and living high on the hog because they are cheating their own employees..

The corporation that has a 50% PLUS profit from the previous year is screwing someone...probably the employees and the consumers..

Instead of congress going after middle class people who are scrambling to keep a roof over their heads, it sure would be nice to see them setting up some restraints on corporations.

[NashVegas]

1. I've Finally Come to Accept How Our Economy Works

Some people are content with Enough.

Some people are not and need to have More. And More. And More.

One person can only produce So Much.

Economy was created so that the relatively small second group can control the much larger first group and convince them into being their producers.

[Count Popeula]

2. I always thought it was code.

When republicans refer to "redistribution of wealth," and around here republicans like Pat Toomey call it "The SIN of redistribution of wealth" (because you know how big Jesus was on making sure people kept their money), I always thought it meant "The rich keep all the money, and the workers remain destitute."

So, yeah, not only is okay for the rich to get richer on the backs of the working poor, it's God's will! And they're using the term "redistribution of wealth" to convince people that they don't want to get ahead, that they belong at the bottom of some medieval caste system. Sometimes I wish I could be that evil.

[SoCalDem]

3. and in the next breath, we are all told that it's our DUTY

to buy more stuff....but don't ask for more wages:eyes:..and if you use credit cards, in a few months you will be S.O.L. if you get into trouble:(

[Count Popeula]

4. That's another thing...

I suppose bankruptcy reform falls under "redistribution of wealth." For too long now, I suppose, people have been able to get out of paying their credit cards and medical bills by surrendering all their possessions and proving they had no way to pay them.

Luckily, our great republican leaders put an end to THAT crooked system. That'll teach people to try to redistribute wealth away from giant banks and medical conglomerates.

I haven't heard how the right is trying to justify this one to the voters, and frankly, I'd like to. I seem to remember Rush Limbaugh advocating debtor's prison in my youth, so one wonders how far behind it really is on the agenda. They can claim it's a deterrent for negligent behavior, then take credit for reducing the unemployment rate.

[SoCalDem]

5. That's exactly how they are doing it.. anecdotal "stories"

of people (less than 5%) who run up huge credit card debts by taking fancy trips, and gambling.. It's the same story as the "welfare queen in the cadillac", just updated...

[bridgit]

6. any change in the status quo except for changes...

in overhead thereby lowering profit, disrupts the distribution of wealth in their direction and that is what drives them shit bonkers. better make that: status flow. and the flow is clearly to the top. grover norquist, to mention but one, will not rest; his handlers will not let him, unless & until all the available capital is cloistered within their gated communities. when the rest of the 'civil' world is sniping & snarking for a half used roll of pre-soiled tp; there is where they will make their stand.

welcome to thunderdome...

[Hotler]

7. Grover Norquist is one mean...

nasty, hateful man.

[SoCalDem]

8. with direct ties to Arabic terrorists..

and yet he walks among us:(

[bridgit]

9. norquist is one in particular, michael medved...

hannity, limbaugh, o'reilly, the entire lot of them; i've had a belly full of all such who do not even work for a living telling me that i'm not working hard enough. to hell with that. i don't need grover norquist snarking what money i may in my pocket back out by way of republican/investor class sponsored spend & tax gobbledygook.

let them dig trenches, or actually work producing something that you can hold in your hand to learn what working for a living is all about for the remaining 90% of america.

[applegrove]

10. Distribution of wealth goes one way or the other... fight for it!!!

"HIGHTOWER: Corporate Redistribution of Wealth

By Jim Hightower, AlterNet. Posted September 5, 2000.


http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/9744/



In their candid moments, economists are beginning to concede that knocking down the middle class is thievery ... and stupid.

SKIP ...

Once again, the "Don't-Worry, Be-Happy" media machine has been working overtime, with the Powers That Be trying to convince a falling Middle Class that the economy is performing almost perfectly.

Not only do they point to Wall Street's spectacular profit rise, but they also brag that millions of new jobs are being created. Say what? I was born at night but it wasn't last night.

SKIP....."



When I googled 'distribution of wealth' the first two articles on it are elite propaganda against progressive taxes:

1)http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_RedistributionWealth.html

2)http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

[mpendragon]

11. money, the only thing that rolls up hill

Considering that red states get more federal money than blue states and blue states pay in more money, it is just another sad instance of hyprocracy from conservitaves.

[lonestarnot]

12. Redistribution from us to them....

[Silverhair]

13. I want the COMPLETE elimination of ALL corporate welfare.

The use of the tax code for anything other than the straight collection of revenue for the gov't is absurd. To use it to try to stimulate some business and punish others is bad economic policy. Even well meaning gov'ts will still end up propping up the wrong business. That is not cynicism on my part. It is a fact that is shown by complexity math. Gov'ts are almost always wedded to the past (Look how NASA isn't really helping with the development of private space vehicles.)and always fail to anticipate the new directions an economy will go in.

Stop all subsidies. If a business, even a big one, fails, let it fail and be replaced by an efficient competitor.

[Kansas Wyatt]

14. If a business fails, let if fail and replace it by an efficient competitor

Well in the Corporate Government today, that means this:

If a person fails, let them fail and they will be replaced by an efficient competitor.

Our Corporate Government protects businesses at the expense of 'We The People.'

[hfojvt]

15. you say you want a revolution?

Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

It is not the corporate welfare that bothers me as much as the tax cuts for wealthy individuals who do not work, combined with cuts to services for poor people. As my old signature quote said:
"when our president proposes policies that
yank the ladder of opportunity out from under
those who are working to make it, in order to
give wads of cash to those who've already
got it made, we have a duty to call it what it is:
class warfare." Paul Begala

[Silverhair]

17. Yeah, I know. It's like writing a letter to Santa Claus.

But I can still want it, even if I know I won't get it. Just like when I was a little kid, I didn't get that Lone Ranger outfit that was in the Sears catalog. And Santa KNEW how badly I wanted it.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

19. ouch, early on, corporations ground up red brick...

for food coloring, forced children & their parents into forced labor & usury profits @ the company store, unwrapped & resold mummy linen from a new found source in egypt and caused an epidemic in the process. attorneys are one thing. corporations, absent adam smith's 'invisible hand' & predicated upon unbridled avarice are another altogether. consumers need protection. we're not talking enlightened corporate behavior.

china is running a very tight corporate game plan right now. american corporations are not exhibiting a flare for competition. unless & until we are prepared to hire all illegal aliens in response to china's production of flawed products in order to float the bottom line & enhance the investor class; the dissolution of tort reform is not the answer.

better answers are imo

http://www.parsons.com

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

22. why was it my sense you would key upon that but yes...

good corporation = good; bad corporation = bad. parsons was a leader in the esop program boyfriend being a benefactor = parsons good. his recollection of having worked with bechtel = bechtel good. yet parsons is not so willing, it would seem, to make a buck on the blood, sweat & tears of our armed forces as the ultimate burns security force with quite so cavalier an attitude as, oh, shall we say: halliburton = bad halliburton stuffing all those cooked up bid monies into a one key lock box that cheney still has access to don't kid yourself.

at lease martha did the time such as it was. i don't care who it is: corzine, lay, bush, or fill in the blank; all of this "(selling them off to the unsuspecting)" shenanigans has to stop. it is patently unhealthy to our state of capitalism which is the engine for the freedoms we, presumably, appreciate.

you're only myopic with respect to goldman sachs cause that is where corzine comes from??? where's your righteous indignation?

completely & aside from we the people; american capitalism has become a two faced clown with no other punchline but for the military acquisition of ever more scarce resources belonging to the world at large they are no longer able to negotiate with in good faith.

there is where the failure lie; acting as though they are above all reproach: with american capitalism's inability to abide by its own rules imo.

[deadcenter]

20. way i see it

the "redistribution of wealth" i.e. "from each according their ability, to each according to their need", take from one, give to another is wrong. that being said, I think the rich need to get taxed a higher rate. I'd love to see a flat tax with no loopholes, except that it should be graduated upward. The salaries we pay to atheletes and entertainers (although in todays world that's redundant) are insane when compared to salaries we pay to teachers (arguably the most important job in our country).

Corporations need to do a lot more towards reigning in out of control executives. This dates back long, long before the current administration. These days, a chief executive officer gets paid a monstrous amount of money whether they successfully lead the company to higher profits or greater efficiency (look for Braniff for an older example, Hewlett-Packard for a recent). This definitely needs to change, the golden parachute needs to go away, i.e. the company does well they get paid, the company does poorly they get unemployment.

deadcenter