See this page for some interesting numbers about stock ownership...

The idea that janitors are equal partners in the "stock game" is a recent American conservative illusion.

Here are some other economic tidbits from the same site:

So there is obviously lots 'o money out there. Why hasn't it trickled down?
If you argue that gains have been made by the bottom 40% of society, I'd like to see some numbers that back this up.

Those figures are only for federal income tax. Add in Social Security, state income, property, sales and other taxes, and one sees that the tax burden has increased substantially. I recommend the taxfoundation link in one of my more recent posts.

Hwed, I don't smoke a pipe.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm#1

So what you are advocating is the confiscation of wealth (capital) by the government?

Talk about a job-killing strategy.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the two pie charts from the Tax Foundation which shows that people today actually spend less of their income of food, clothing and shelter than they did 50 years ago.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. Accusing me of wanting to confiscte wealth is not a substitute for supporting facts. I've just been trying to show that income has declined for many Americans, which calls into question of the wealth generating power of trickle down for the bottom half of society.

Some taxation is necessary. Should we abolish all business taxes and regulations in exchange for jobs? Businesses are part of this society and should contribute to it. Many fortune 500 companies pay no taxes at all but enjoy the benefits of operating in this country. Is that right or reasonable?

And after all of our pandering to business (tax abatements, etc) to keep them here, they still leave.

I'm still waiting on evidence that income has risen for the bottom segment of society.

I'm not sure what that means, but I bet that you have a suggestion.

Funny I don't seem to recall saying that they were equal partners or that they owned significant levels of stock. Obviously the wealthy will own more stock than the not so wealthy. Just because they don't own a majority of the stock it does not mean they don't benefit from owning stocks or homes, or anything else.

There is no reason for the bottom 40% to suddenly be granted equal levels of wealth. Anyone who looks at it this way will never see any evidence of improvement. Pointing to the fact that there are wealthy people who own lots of stocks has nothing to do with the argument you put forth about real wages declining over the last 30 years.

You want evidence of improvement? How about the fact that the vast majority of people have jobs? The rapid influx of workers over the period you pointed to earlier has been absorbed by the economy and that results in lower wages for all. That very fact is missed in the real wage analysis.

And I'm still waiting for yours that shows it's declined. I've outlined why real wages is a poor indicator but you only point to the fact that the "rich" own the most stock in defense of it.

Who do you think gets overtime more often the "poor" or the "rich"?

Here is is: Due to production efficiencies, the relative costs of necessities (food, clothing and shelter) have declined dramatically. Instead of enabling families to save this money and build some wealth for the future, the every expanding and hungry government Hydra has consumed the savings.

Rather than blaming The Rich, your energies would be better spent understanding the negative impact this unchecked government consumption has had upon working and middle class Americans.

The Rich in any era, will have the resources to protect themselves from government, except in extreme violent revolutions - one of the reasons it is Good To Be Rich.

No one suggested that the bottom 40% should be granted equal levels of wealth...I was using the growing income disparity as an example of how trickle down has failed it's promises to lift all boats. You can accuse me of this if it makes youi feel better, though.

There have not been "lower wages for all." In fact, many people have been making money hand over fist.

OK, so let's scale the governement back...we still have declining wages and wealth concentration. Our economic policies have been to the advantage of the wealthiest 1% of this society. Middle class tax cuts do not change that fact.

Take home pay, my friend, take home pay.

Would you rather have net pay of 90% on $40,000 or 60% of $50,000?

Whatever. You pointed to the levels of stock ownership by income group in response to my pointing out that there are other drivers of wealth. Nowhere does that dispute that the poor and rich alike have access to stocks and benefit from the gains in the stock market. You then claim in the next breath that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer while only pointing to "real wages" as evidence. Since "real wages" does not capture overtime worked (and tips, pay for vacations, holidays, and non production bonuses) you are relying on an indicator which by its very nature ineffectively captures income for the group you are focused on.

there is no misunderstanding in my use of the term equality.
sorry.
think about what you are saying...think about the extent to which, for example, your understanding of poverty and what it means is a version of one of reagans most ethically indefensable statements, the one concerning the "welfare queens"?

it is obvious that a significant problem in the exchanges across this whole thread is that there is no agreement whatsoever on the frame of reference, so it is nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion---what one side excludes in order to start their chain of deductions is not excluded by the other. and both sides operate entirely within their respective frame of reference--whenever it comes down to a question about the frame of reference, the conservative folk in this thread in particular do not react--it is as if they cannot relativize their framework--or they cannot explain or defend how the variables they work with or defined.

why is that?

and is there any way to get us all (myself included obviously) to step back a second and see if by opening up the frames of reference to debate that we might be able to deepen the conversation?

otherwise it will continue as it is--an example of why people operating in different ideological positions--and these are ideological questions, political questions, that are at stake in how one is understanding what is and is not relevant in the matters being discussed--why different ideological positions cannot talk coherently to each other.

and might it be possible when it comes to throwing around data that one also at least note where the source is politically? over the past 20 years, the network of right thinktanks have specialized in producing pseudo-proof for their position--the reason it is pseudo-proof is because of the way the data is analyzed, what is included, what is excluded--the problems star t **before** the deductions, which may in themselves be formally correct.

and an aside: my suspicion has long been that people operating in a more neoclassical frame cannot or will not move to this level of conversation either because (a) they cannot do it--in which case what prompts you to accept the frame in the first place? or (b) are unwilling because they suspect that in a conceptually oriented debate, they could not defend themselves.

but i would be really pleased to find myself in a conversation that proved me wrong about this assumption.

The other fallacy is that the economic pie is static. A smaller piece of a much larger pie is not a bad portion. Our efforts would be better spent on ensuring healthy economic growth which benefits society in general. The only group with a vested interested in class warfare is the career politicians/bureaucrats. By pitching Rich against Poor, they distract the voting and taxpaying population from the large cut they extract for themselves.

I can make the same claim regarding those who ignore the abundance of documentation left by the Framers which supports the notion of equality under the law and individual liberty which recognizes difference of condition.

Please provide evidence that the original concept of equality was mean to entail equal economic circumstances.

That still doesn't address the growing income gap.

Why is an income gap bad is the pie is growing and everyone benefits?

OK, so "real wages" may not be a perfect economic indicator. That still does nothing to disprove the premise that wages are declining for median families. You can look at census data that states the same thing.

Access to stocks is largely a measure of wealth...if one does not have wealth, one does not have much stock.

Not everyone is benefiting from the "growing pie." That's the entire thrust of my argument.

The Framers did not want to forcibly redistribute wealth equally, but some of them did recognize that the extreme concentration of wealth and power to a few individuals is anathema to a democracy and that there must be steps taken to prevent it.

um..wonderwench---i was talking about the rest of the post, not the first paragraph--they was stuff between the first two and last few lines--read that please.

cthulhu -

You are correct: the Framers did not want to forcibly redistribute wealth. So why should we advocate doing so today? The most telling comment is that taxes should be proportional to "what may be annually spared by the individual". Taxes should not burden the individual in ways which harm his ability to take care of his responsibilities and liberty. A germaine concept is to avoid taxation without representation. Who is to be the judge as to what an individual may "spare"?

When any minority is preyed upon with taxes because a majority is able to aggregate votes to seize their property, it is wrong.

I am unclear as to which post you are referring and regarding which you seek comment.

ten posts above your last one (10:48 pm on the time thing)....that one--i had hoped to shift the terms of debate a little--watching conservatives and others talk past each other is tiresome--i wonder if there is a better way to do this.

You seem to have missed the part where i said distibute all wealth EQUALLY. The constitution gives congress the power to levy taxes, which is an implicit acceptance of the redistribution of wealth.

You also appear to have missed this quote entirely, so here it is again:

Wow, now that's twisting Jefferson's words... there's nothing to imply that he approved of it, just that that was a way of redistributing wealth silently.

Maybe you missed this Thomas Jefferson quote in your quest to bring our economy to its knees:

Or how about this one:

Maybe this:

I like how he sums it up here:

Take caution when twisting the words of founding fathers, for it shall come back to bite you on the rump. :P

One more little snippet from Thomas Jefferson for you, since you seem so intent on dishonoring his beliefs:

Anyone interested in Jefferson should pick up American Sphinx, by Joseph Ellis. A great read that really gets your gears turning.

you know, jefferson was writing in the late 18th and early 19th century.
before the emergence of american capitalism.
the world now would be totally unrecognizable to him.

there is no point in making a fetish of his history-bound words, which are now irrelevant except at the level of empty bromides

Second roachboy,

but if you insist on using his words regardless, Hwed, it would behoove you to refrain from quotes that undermine your position.

Unless you are going to argue that the top 1% wage earners are harder working than industrial or service workers...

wonderwench: are you arguing that the "poor" are represented by elected officials and that the top 1% wage earners are a minority*? That is, that the interests of the top 1% wage earners are not reflected in the policies of our government?

If so, I find your claim strange. Wealth is persistently correlated with voting behavior. Wealth also grants access to public officials in all sorts of ways. This thread was started about a dinner party that one had to pay $10,000 dollars to attend. Hillary was speaking to her constituents--and they weren't firemen, police, or steel workers. They certainly weren't a room full of single women trying to raise children while looking for gainful employment.

BTW, why is it that raising children is not looked upon as a job in itself? I hear people castigating women who stay home on welfare to raise children (I'm not going to deconstruct this myth in this thread--I'll just pass on it for the sake of my point), when in reality it seems that is exactly what they should be doing--staying home and taking care of their children.

Unless of course you think the wealthy children are going to grow up and become the factory workers it might behoove you to support the raising of an industrial army. Maybe you don't want impoverished parents reproducing. In that case, you might need to reconsider your stance on immigration...someone has to do the menial labor and it isn't going to be Chelsea...contradictions abound.


*(definition time: minority in this context should mean one's political power, not size of group--you may have twisted it on accident. Social scientists mean one's ability to get something done in this country when they speak of a "minority," not how many people comprise their group)

The quote reads "silently lessening the inequality of property" not "redistributing wealth"....I think that the difference in tone is important.

You certainly assume a lot. I've argued that there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, that supply-side seems to be encouraging that trend and that the poor pay too many taxes. So far no one has disproven these ideas with any real evidence but I've been accused of trying to wreck the economy and redistribute all wealth equally. Can I get some fairness here? Not everyone that disagrees with you is some stereotypical "tax & spend liberal."

I never said you were trying to bring the economy to its knees. I believe you have good intentions.

If you think the poor pay too many taxes, I'm fine with that. Reduce 'em. The bottom 50% (most of whom could hardly be considered poor) could all stop paying federal taxes completely and barely make a dent.

My issue is when you start trying to sieze money from the upper 50% who fund 96% of our federal government. These people (middle and upper class) are already bled dry by the government. The last thing the need are more taxes.

What good do you really think higher taxes will do?

The ultra-rich, faced with some ridiculously higher tax rate, will only hide it from the government in tax shelters that prevent them having to pay taxes, but at the same time, prevent them from investing in business opportunities that create jobs. They will thereby generate less income, and at the end of the day, government revenues will shrink.

You mean well, I'm sure. But you should remember that the ultrarich aren't hurt by changes in law. They have armies of accountants and lawyers to find loopholes and minimize the impact of tax increases. The people hurt most by short-sighted attempts at wealth redistribution are on the middle and lower end of the scale, who make a decent living, but can't afford the fancy tricks.

And like it or not, the lower and middle class are dependent on the upper class to provide jobs. Giving those people tax relief allows them to create more jobs. This has been proven again, as it has in the past, with the effects of Bush's tax cuts, which you're now seeing generate about a quarter-million jobs a month.

While your industrial workers are punching 40 hours a week on a clock, billionaires are working 100 hour weeks. Not only do they work their asses off, they put their own money on the line.

Thats' the crux of it. If I'm going to risk my money to start a business, I damn well expect a reasonable chance of profit. If I have to turn over 90% of what I make so the government can hand it over to people who do just enough to get by, do you think I'm going to risk MY neck? No way.

I don't think you've grasped how the wage data is collected and calculated and the fact that it's more likely than ever that families have dual incomes and other means of wealth generation.

Wages are still affected by the growing number of people in the labor force. This growing number crosses all economic boundaries.

People (rich and poor) are more invested in the stock market than ever and participation in it is more likely to increase than decrease.

So use your superior grasp of economics to give me some numbers that show that wealth is on the rise for the majority of the population. I've seen no numbers that support that.

Thanks for the belated benefit of the doubt.

I never argued for higher taxes...read my last post to you again, where I list the things that I have stated. I don't really think that we need to tax any more heavily than we already are. There is plenty of tax money out there, it's just being used for the wrong things.

What you say is true, and a clear indicator that our system is rigged in the favor of those with the most wealth. This is why incredible income disparities are harmful to our democracy and why both parties pander to the needs of the ultra elite. Rather than accepting it as "reality," we should work to reform the system and take money out of the political process.

I don't accept that Bush's tax cuts are the cause for our economic recovery. That's a near unprovable proposition when considering a system as complex as our economy. You can't lay all the responsibility for the health of the economy on the level of taxes in society. Why was the economy doing well under Clinton, before Bush's tax cuts? Wasn't economic success dependent on them?

I didn't actually think you were going to go that extreme in your claims--a 100 hours per week?!

There's not a chance that the top 1% wage earners are working 100 hours per week. That is ludicrous.

The top wage earners in this country don't and haven't worked a day in their lives. You're buying into some real false ideology to think that the richest people are at the top because of good ole fashioned hard work. Just research where their wealth stems from.

Your next point is that they invest their money and should reap the benefits. That would be true if they were willing to accept the risk, but they don't. When a venture capitalist fails in his or her endeavor, he or she writes it off. They play with public money. When a cronie sucks up a private family's money and squanders it on a hope and a prayer, the federal government steps in and picks up the pieces.

You've got some real adoration for the wealthiest people in this society. It's unfounded adulation, however. The richest don't float this economy--that's a laughable proposition. Their money dumps right back into the global market and spreads to the point of best return for investment. That means that while an insignificant portion of their wealth may buy a hummer (although I haven't seen too many elites cruising around in those; maybe entertainment stars who are caught up in commodity fetishism, though), they don't do it very often. Their wealth dumps into develoment in India and Taiwan, not Chicago, where they can buy capital for pennies on the dollar.

And the pie can only grow so much before it implodes when there aren't enough consumers to purchase the products that are made. Careful analysis goes into the production process to ensure commodities don't saturate the market. Those aren't market forces, to be sure, they are monopolizations of the means to sustain a living.

If you want to make an argument that shoes, television, and candy bars aren't birthrights, I can grant you that. You'll have a hard time extending that to food, healthcare, and an abode, though (we'll throw in reliable transpo since this country is determined not to invest in public mass transit and, by golly, we need the workers to get from home to work).

onetime is supposed to step in here and support your point. We'll see if he stays true to his earlier comments...

Well done.

It's also important to note that passage of the 16th Amendment was required to institute an income tax. It was not something the Framers thought to include - for good reason.

Absolute b'loney. The Framers designed the Constitution and the government based upon eternal, persistent values: Individual Liberty and Responsibility. Nothing in the development of Capitalism is a justification to annihilate either one.

One can argue and provide evidence for both views. In terms of mass voting, the wealthy are a minority. Take a city such as Berkeley or a state such as CA. Measures and initiatives are passed based upon popular vote, many of which have tax or government debt implications. I would classify these as the "bread & circuses" of the majority. Conversely, the wealthy always have the power of influence and personal pull in order to affect legislation; perhaps we can deem this aspect "guns & butter". Neither situation is ideal, but pick your poison. Would you rather have an incentive for capital to be productive or to encourage redistribution of wealth which is usually channeled to consumption rather than productive investment?

I do not believe anyone should have children they are not in a position to financially support. There is a high correlation between children raised in single welfare mother households and inadequate education, leading to a perpetuating cycle in the next generation.

I'm working on a deadline, so I can only post this once (stopped for a smoke break and read some of the latest posts)

I did the rearch, and it doesn't back up your claim.

"A 2002 study by Capgemini found that more than half of the high-net-worth individuals in the US were "new money", or self-made millionaires. Inherited money is declining as a share of wealth in the US, according to the study, accounting for fewer than 20per cent of high-net-worth individuals in 2002."

http://afr.com/cgi-bin/newtextversio...244973824.html

I have one question stemming from the last dozen or so quotes. Why is it wrong to be successful. I consider myself succesful and I do not feel guilty about it. Would it be nice to have no poverty in the world, sure. A lot of things would be nice that just aren't realistic.

Before I go, I would like to share one story:

My first daughter was about six months old and I went to the store to buy formula. I was nowhere near the financial shape I am now, so $20 a can on formula, buying several cans at a time (plus diapers, etc) took a chunk out of my budget. In front of me, in line, was a women that was obviously on welfare/social assistance (I say obviously because of the wad of food stamps/coupons she had in her hand). This women had two cases of formula (I think there were six cans per case), and stacks and stacks of baby food, diapers, etc. I stood there and did the math in my head; I guesstimated about $250-300 worth of baby stuff. All of this was paid for with stamps, no cash whatsoever, out of her pocket.

Anyway, I paid for my stuff and followed her out. As I got into my 9-year old Toyota. she met her boyfriend and got into a brand-new car. See by not marrying the daddy of the baby, she qualifies for the assistance.

Now, I would like someone to explain why my income should be re-distributed to make sure that women like this can get their freebies. I would've loved a new car at the time, but I couldn't afford it. She on the other hand, had a brand-spanking-new car and didn't pay a nickle for food, baby stuff, etc.

The poor get a lot of tax advantages that I do not. I know of a girl who got back more than she paid (EIC).

Sorry, I gotta run--thats my 2 cents--talk at ya later....

Well, this is how Jefferson felt about the rise of the "joint-stock" corporation...how do you think he would feel about our mega-conglomerates?

The desires of business are not always synonymous with liberty. Let's not confuse cultural values with economic systems.

that's hilarious.

"eternal persistant values" is the kind of phrase that only appeals to the religious--if you have a religious commitment to the signifier nation, it makes you kinda dangerous politically--that kind of attitude informs lovely texts like junger's storm of steel and other such speculations about a wholesome unified and eternal fatherland that brought all of us such a delightful period in the last century.

that kind of relation has nothing to do with the political framework that these same founders set into motion,. where debate about matters of import was assumed as a sign of the healthy functioning of that system.... that debate would include the meaning of the idea of nation, the relation of that idea to shifting historical conditions....the debates undertaken by the people who set this system up were never understood as resolving the matters once and for all--the same questions persist, should be talked about, should be debated continually. if they really thought in the way their contemporary worshippers imagine they did, there would be no precedent-based legal system, no provision for change and adaptation written into the heart of the conception of law....

What would have been the implications of crushing "joint stock" corporations? The landed class would have retained the majority of wealth and industrial innovation would have been significantly stunted. Maybe for some, that is a bucolic image. Considering, however, that industrialization led to tremendous economic opportunity and rising standards of living, I am thankful not to be a sod buster in the Dakotas as were my great grandparents.

I like indoor plumbing.

The future holds many more possibilities than the two that you list. Isn't it more reasonable to strive for a middle point, an equilibrium between the two? I would argue that the reforms of the last few centuries have attempted to do just that. History has taught us that the world is not quite the wretched place that your binary choice would indicate. Such dualistic thinking does explain why I keep getting beliefs wrongfully attributed to me, though. If you're not with us, you're against us, right?

Wow, it didn't take you very long to abandon the Founding Fathers.

BTW, indoor plumbing predated the existence of the corporation.

Who said it was wrong to be succesful?

This kind of misunderstanding can happen when one does spur of the moment "research."

Both roachboy and myself sit around and read about wealth inequality all day long. That's what we do for a living.

I'll point out that if you reread my posts rather than just that one line you will understand that I am referring to the top 1% of our economy. The quote you are plastering in here isn't remotely speaking to that issue (note: self-made millionaires). If you think that comment is speaking about our top 1%, your concept of how much money and assets this group owns is out of touch with reality.

Actually, I probably shouldn't have even used the term "wage earner." it's hard when people start flinging terms around to keep on top of things and still use terms that everyone will be able to grasp without resorting to deconstructing the entire thread.

EDIT: damn, someone else posted that story about the woman getting into her boyfriend's new car, too. Run a search on it because I posted a fairly lengthy explanation back then. She must really get around the states for everyone to have the same anecdote...

For or against us are your words not mine; but I will admit to using rather absolutist language. It is one of my charms.

I just fail to comprehend how the government redistributing wealth benefits society. We have several decades of failed programs which indicate the contrary.

Actually, they're the president's words.

Our country's very own short history are loaded with examples of how "redistribution" have benefitted society. First one to come to mind: the resuscitation of capitalism during the New Deal.

EDIT: I also want to add that I find it strange all these tech innovations are being attributed to the wealthy. Our growth happened in spurts, first of all. It began, as I believe someone already pointed out but was promptly ignored, when people began to grab fertile land for "free" (we'll table the notion that other people owned it for now).

Later, those landholders got "free" laborers to work that land (there's a nasty word for this, but free labor is really the main point here).

Then a lot of history happened, but most people don't know it, so why reiterate it, and _whomp_ we needed a middle class to save our crumbling economy and squelch public uprising and dissent (the innovators were sitting on their hard working asses and all the stuff "they" overproduced but no one could purchase cuz there wasn't any jobs to be had). Off to war the men go, into the factories the women get to be, and back to college we went, and bammo--presto magico we have a whole new crop of talent in the wide world of USA. That's your innovation, BTW, all those soldiers who came back from war and got a higher education from the GI Bill (one of those pesky redistribution schemes) coupled with a hefty dose of copulation and a population explosion.

Opinions on the impact of the New Deal vary a great deal. One of the more egregious developments was the enactment of Social Security - which is the mugging of the working poor by the relatively more affluent wealthy.

How does this benefit society?

You should weigh the benefits of cuteness versus the costs of intellectual simplification. If there are only two choices available, those not with you must be against you. I'm just fleshing out your mode of thinking.

Which programs are you referring to? Rural electrification? The Tennessee Valley authority? TANF? The prison-industrial complex?

How about the social engineering experiments of welfare which discouraged young mothers from marrying the fathers of their children, thus destroying family formation and condemning generations to a virtual apartheid of low expectations and opportunity?

careful there buddy, watch the accusations.

That story is in no way manufactured or copied. I have been very open with my sources and my opinions. Not once have I mis-represented myself or made an assertion without backing it up. To that point, you have recieved nothing but honesty from me.

I could give two hoots if this happened to someone else. I actually was relating something that happened to me in 1999. It was a Safeway in Aurora, CO. The same store I went to on a weekly basis. She was parked in the same aisle as I was (the middle one) and her car was red. She was also a very "healthy" women, if you get my drift.

I remember the event so clearly because it bothered me so much. I felt jipped.

I would ask that you refrain from making accusations like you did. I would not take this so personally, if it didn't happen to me.

Any one thing I CANNOT STAND, is someone who attacks my credibility or calls me a liar.

Enough said, good day.

It certainly benefited my poor grandmother, who used her social security to feed herself. Damn socialist parasite. Why didn't she just ask the Heritage Foundation to give her food?

I haven't abandoned the Founding Fathers. I just make a distinction between their personal opinions and what they agreed upon as being the legal foundation of the country.

Indoor plumbing would have remained a luxury of The Rich if industrialization had not made it affordable via mass production.

Certainly the welfare system had some egregious unexpected consequences, but you can hardly lay ALL of the blame for social disintegration on it. I seem to remember reading poverty and low expectations well before the "great Society."

And how many people did it harm? Our grand parents were fortunate to be part of the early beneficiaries of this Ponzi scheme - the ratio of workers to beneficiaries was quite high.

So, in order for your grandmother to feed herself, we now have a monster. The SS "lock box" (has there ever been a more cynical phrase) has been borrowed against with government bonds as collateral. This looting has enabled explosive growth in government spending - shackling your grandmother's great grandchildren with ever increasing taxes and lowered economic expectations.

Wouldn't we all have been better off if your family had kept its money and assisted your grandmother instead?

I used the Jefferson quote to illustrate the fact that some of our founding Fathers did not support unfettered capitalism, seeing that the concentration of power can lead to a new aristocracy.

Corporations are not the sole sources of innovation in the world. We do need organized business and, perhaps, limited liability, but we must also guard against the possible harms that emerging powers can inflict upon us. Corporations are quickly becoming the most powerful forces on this planet and are, by law, only beholden to the desires of their stock holders. The danger in this situation should be apparent, but this is probably a subject for another thread. God knows we've meandered enough in this one.

I would argue that the most powerful forces on earth are governments - not corporations.

Compare the billions of fraud in the UN Oil for Food Program to Enron. The former dwarfs the latter.

Remember, government power is the power of the gun. It is force and coercion. Corporate power requires shareholders, employees and customers - these relationships are voluntary.

Certainly, corporations need to be held to standards of law. The recent fraud scandals are a lesson which we must take to heart. We do have laws against fraud - let's prosecute the guilty without hampering the efforts of honest people via over-correction.

Again, you assume much. Could my family afford to help my grandmother? You don't know, but you say that we should have. Thanks for the advice.

Social security was never meant to be borrowed against. Nixon helped pass the laws that allowed it, but it wasn't heavily used until several administrations later.

How much did your grandmother receive in monthly benefits vs. the collective SS contributions paid by her various descendents? I bet it was a pittance.

The lesson for the SS "lock box / trust fund" is an important one. Virtually all government programs morph into perpetuating the existence of the permanent bureaucracy. Of course SS should not have become a piggy bank - but our learned representatives just can't resist that much cash.

<g> What accusation?

jeez, dude, get a grip!

The only thing I'm questioning is why you are ditching your work duties to post on an internet forum. Dontcha wanna be rich like your uncle Bill? You better get back to work: $50 dollars per hour X 60 hours per week X 52 weeks per year X 50 years (calculating on 18-68) will give you a near cool 8 mil before taxes. Just think, your whole life in overtime and without vacation to make nearly what a Gates or Bush made in the last hour from dividends! I think they say in Chicago "Such a deal..."

Anyway, back on track. I figure you probably did see something like that. You should have run that search I told you about--because I didn't say the other person was lying, either. What I did say was that 1 person out of 300 million people doesn't really mean jack shit.

It also doesn't do much good to speculate: the car might have not been her boyfriends (who knows they were even together), might not have been owned, might have been purchased before a layoff, might be a result of illicit money making, could be a friend, could be anything is the point here.

Mostly, though, it doesn't matter to me at all because the stuff she bought was to support a baby who isn't worthless and deserves to be in diapers and have food just by virtue of being a US citizen. I get your drift, though. She was fat. I guess that means her children don't deserve a shot at the "good life" you all are purporting our nation to be full of. Guess what? I think I don't care if she went home and loaded a crack pipe and sat in front of a plasma televison (I have neither, btw), I'm happy my piddly 30% of earnings could only be used to purchase baby food, diapers, milk, vegetables, a few steaks or two (fuggit, I don't begrudge a fat, poor woman a bite at the good life. look at it this way, maybe she'll be tempted to work for a living if you get my drift) or maybe, just maybe, she's too busy raising her child to worry about taking a $6 dollar an hour job at McD's that won't even pay rent.

Oh, that's right, one of the many tangents we've hit in this thread--a sustainable wage (which at least one person seems to think is a silly proposition). Here's what I think: pay people a wage that will allow them to pay their rent and put food on the table and we might encourage people to not live on the public dole (cuz we all know how glamorous it is to stand in line with a "wad" of funny money while some *cough* is evaluating your personal worth over your shoulder--she must have felt so damn rich under your gaze. Job well done in castigating a fellow citizen for her laziness...bravo

Corporations leverage the powers of governments to achieve their ends. To them, controlling a population is an externality best suited to another agent. Thus, they do their best to dictate government policy for their own gains. It's not just fraud that we must be guarding against....we must defend against their attempts to influence every facet of our lives, from popular political thought to "branding" our children like consumer zombies.

It seems like your blame is misplaced. From your statement, the fault was with taking earmarked money and spending it elsewhere, not in the development of a social safety net.

cthulhu,

One more comment on what SS was never meant to be:

It was never intended to be The Retirement Plan for working Americans. It was never intended to result in a payroll tax that is at a higher rate than the original income tax. (The original income tax was only supposed to be assessed on The Rich).

As the old joke goes: "I was all for taxing the rich until I realized they were talking about me."

It is no longer a safety net - it is a broadbased entitlement program which has decimated the ability of working folks to save for their own retirments, thus making them government dependents.

Why is that good?

"Both roachboy and myself sit around and read about wealth inequality all day long."

Thanks smooth, i always wondered where roachboy's name came from - it's all making sense now.

How long are your dreads?

Damn you Matthew. I laughed so hard I snorted Diet Coke up my nose.

You bad man.

So the program wasn't wrong, only the interference that helped to despoil it? I can agree with that. Some such program is necessarry. Not everyone has a family to support them in their twilight years. We can't just condemn some of our elders to complete destitution.

When you can't come up with a decent argument, resort to (ridiculous) personal attacks. That always works, right?

Have you ever heard of academics?

The biggest wholesale condemnation of people to destitution is done by destroying a value for productive work and replacing it with dependency upon the government.

WTF? :confused:

I don't have any dreads.

I guess your use of caps in "The Retirement Plan" is supposed to mean "the end all, be all." When SS was passed, retirement plans, benefits and other concessions to workers weren't quite so common. SS was passed as a retirement plan for those without the means to support themselves. That is what is taught as historical fact. What was it if not that?

I went the route i expect poco to will be taking shortley Smooth. Learned real quick it's a waste of breath, the more effort you put in a post, the less it's paid attention too.

It was never meant as a retirement plan - it was meant to be a safety net for truly unfortunate people.

There is another form of retirement plan you did not mention: personal savings and investments. Allowing people to keep their money enables them to do this quite effectively.

So all charity is harmful to the recipient than? That is the logical conclusion of your statement. This has the familiar ring of Ayn Rand's objectivism, a fringe "philosophy" that few people adhere to.

Of course i've heard of akademiks smooth (it explains much about your posts) and it took damn near 10 years to come to terms with real life. It's a long hard road and i wish you the best.

"What accusation?

jeez, dude, get a grip!

The only thing I'm questioning is why you are ditching your work duties to post on an internet forum. Dontcha wanna be rich like your uncle Bill?"

Poco had the exact same reaction to your post that i did, he is not the one that needs to get a grip. It's ironic that you took so much offense to my little post.

..but sense i'm not contributing to this topic, i'll let you get the last word. I'm my own moderator.

What are you referring to this time? When did I take offense at your "little post?"

Here's a quote from Social Security Online:
Sounds like a retirement plan to me.

Anyway, historical trivialities aside, it's nice to think that we could become a nation of entrepeneurs that invest our way to security. Unfortunately, not every citizen is in a position to become a savvy investor. There are 3.9 million people who suffer from daily hunger in this country...what's to happen to them? Are we supposed to allow people to become martyrs to a free-trade ideology that deems them irresponsible? What kind of society does that create?

it doesn't matter but..."Have you ever heard of academics?"

you took offense

Actually, I posted the "academic" line. I was just making a guess as to what someone's profession might be if they study social trends for a living.

It's nice to see that our culture's respect for educators is as strong as ever.

ahhh - a sociologist?

\takes a bow

i love this idiocy....the "academics vs. the real world" schitck---the final resort of people who cannot defend their positions---funny stuff.
and and and i even got slagged for my "name"...

i argued earlier in the thread that perhaps--just perhaps--the discussion could be made more interesting if folk tried to step a little bit back from the religious adherence to neoclassical economic theory and think, just for a minute, that the problem with that approach might--just might--be in how the variables are defined (for example)--and that just passes by the conservatives here, who feel much better about discussion when it is simply extending arguments that are indefensible on any grounds except their own---the same folk who talk about freedom and individual repsonsibility avoid any prompt to take responsibility as individuals for their own positions, either at the level of how the framework is put together or at the level of consequences of their own arguments---no wonder your politics are such a fucking disaster when they actually influence policy.

what you seem to want is less a conversation than a circle jerk.

the world is easier when there is no-one to call you on your assumptions. but you know, if you hold a position, it is beyond weak to not be able to even articulate them, much less defend them. no matter how much you talk about individual freedom and such, if you cant do that, you have none.

hehe....do you guys have pagers?

and if you'll notice, i haven't taken a position - just making fun of yours. You said "folk" - you definately have dreads.

Step away from your textbook for a bit.

"the religious adherence to neoclassical economic theory and think, just for a minute, that the problem with that approach might--just might--be in how the variables are defined (for example)"

I'm no economist toker, but it's clear if you had any desire to make a point and not just win an argument you wouldn't resort to some neoclassical variables in religious economic thought schtick that your akademics taught you last week. No one's impressed.

I love tilted politics.

Congratulations! I think that you may have pulled the trigger on this long suffering thread. I would like to remind eveyone not to feed the trolls.

gee, you are pretty presumptuous for someone who knows nothing about me. kinda make you feel all powerful, imagining that you have the faintest idea what i might do and how long i might have been doing it?

btw that part of the post wasnt directed at you in the first place--you werent involved in the debate.... try to remember....scroll back if you like...you didnt post anything...so it would make no sense to talk about your position....hmm.....do a little research if its still foggy....

you seem to want things posted in little tiny bites so that you dont have to think too much....was that a result of your therapeutic "adjustment" to this fiction called "the real world"?....
nasty experience with thinking you must have had...its good you took that 10 years to eliminate the tendency...didnt do you much good in "the real world" did it? and why might that be? couldnt be that the system is fucked...no, it has to be a function of the thinking part....bad bad bad people, asking you to think for yourself...they must be out of touch with the real world...asking you to read long sentences and consider why you might think as you do...good christ, why would anyone do that? where is the immediate benefit in it?

they dont do that on tv....
it must not be normal.....

...i do it for Johnny, man. That's what they do on TV.

ok then.

i feel like we just played a rockem sockem robots round.
that game was also tedious.

enough.

it was fun though.

"the final resort of people who cannot defend their positions---funny stuff."

I didn't really think you were laughing but i certainly was. Sorry to interupt. What ever happened to my moderating myself?

To get this thread back on any track it might have previously had, I have a question/comment. I hear on the radio, about how the comment made (the title of this thread) is so blatantly socialistic and communist..but, isn't that what taxes are both for and *in theory* SHOULD be used for the "common good?" Or am I completely wrong?

I know how saying something like that (the title of the thread) could sound really, really bad - but aren't taxes and government in general to "take" resources from society and "redistribute" them for the "common good?" If thats NOT what its for, we've still got the taxes part (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as we need money to pay for the betterment of the "common good"). Is it only okay to take taxes and squander/poorly manage the money, and not actually better society?

Again, I really have no stance on what you guys are talking about, but just in general..I was under the impression that taking different ranges of taxes from different people and using that money to help everyone was what it's all about.

no, i was laughing.

everyone grows snippy from time to time. its easy.

No, charity is not harmful when it is true charity - a voluntary donation to a worthy recipient.

SS is not charity. It is forced redistribution of income and wealth.

Jesus, this thread blew the fuck up!

onetime, to answer your question from two pages ago, no, I don't believe that poor sections of Philly are representative of the nation. People were talking about how easy the poor have it using anecdotal evidence along the lines of "when I drive through a poor neighborhood everyone has a satellite dish, a cell phone, a tricked out car, and is a fat tub of shit." I was taking issue with that, and I think that if you rolled up to someone in that neighborhood and said "Man, you poor-ass fuckers sure have it good," you'd get the shit beat out of you and rightly so. I'm sure things look okay for the poor from the outside.

Hwed, as you can see from my location I live outside Philly, in KoP, a rich-ass suburb, though I myself am neither rich nor poor, but the last of the Middle Class. My sister goes to Temple, which is not the nicest section of town, so I've seen some bad parts. I refer you to the last sentence of the above paragraph.

Why are they hungry? What has happened to them that they are not in a position to lead productive, self-sufficient lives? Is it possible that the social engineering experiements have put them in this position?

One does not need to be a saavy investory to put money into a passbook savings account. The returns of doing so are far larger than the fraction on the dollar most will see on the SS donations in future.

1st: One needs to have more income than expenditure before even thinking about socking any of it away in any kind of savings account.

Back to living wages...

2nd: Passbook savings? Are you serious? What's the average return...it couldn't be more than 4%. What's the average rate of inflation?

Post that and let's figure out if it's worth more to spend one's money now rather than save it in a piddly account.

What is bothering you is that we do think. It is not a religion. The problem with expecting the government to run our lives and shield us from the risk of our decisions is that it runs contrary to the way people are naturally wired. Liberty is not a value because it is an abstract. The drive to be an independent individual is inherent in all of us.

This leads me to why we have so much apathy and disassociation in society today. The government expects us to act in a contrary fashion to our natural hierarchy of values. A rational person values first and foremost himself and those he loves - extending outward in concentric circles of friends, acquaintances etc. He would rather use his resources to further the well-being of those closest to him. What does the government do - takes from him first an enormous portion of his income to serve complete strangers, even when doing so harms him and his family. No wonder we have such cognitive dissonance infecting our culture.