cthulu23

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.

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

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.

wonderwench

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

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cthulu23

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:

Hwed

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

Hwed

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.

roachboy

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

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

smooth

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 theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

cthulu23

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."

Hwed

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.

Hwed

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.

onetime2

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.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

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.

cthulu23

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?

smooth

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).

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

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

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

wonderwench

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.

wonderwench

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.

wonderwench

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.

poco_vino

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....

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

cthulu23

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.

roachboy

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....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

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.

cthulu23

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?

cthulu23

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

BTW, indoor plumbing predated the existence of the corporation.

cthulu23

Who said it was wrong to be succesful?

smooth

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...

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

wonderwench

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.

smooth

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.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

wonderwench

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?

cthulu23

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?

wonderwench

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?

poco_vino

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.

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

cthulu23

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?

wonderwench

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.

cthulu23

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."

wonderwench

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?

cthulu23

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.