Redistribution of wealth to favor the have-nots is a good idea in this economy.

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
Whether you agree or disagree with whether Obama is a Marxist, it appears rather indipsutable that Obama is not a capitalist. In consideration of our tax laws, I admit that redistribution of wealth is not a foreign concept, but Obama's actions and words have shown his unquenchable thirst for taking from the haves to provide for the have nots. And this thirst is not limited to the provision of constitutionally mandated government functions but instead to MASSIVE wealth redistribution so that we will all be equals (excepting of course the governing elite). This is what his mother, grandparents, father, mentor (Frank Marshall Davis) etc.. preached to him in his formative years and what he embraced while sitting in the pews listening to the rants of Jeremiah Wright.
This is total bullshit.

Ignore the fucking pundits, especially the Limbaughs and Fox News.

Take it from a REAL business owner and from someone who has actually achieved things in the financial services sector.

Redistributing wealth to the have-nots would help a wide swath of businesses and industries in America.

Let us run down the facts which are not in dispute.

1) The have-nots have stopped spending because they lack the money and the credit to continue spending.

2) This has been a huge factor behind why many businesses from a wide variety of sectors, have been laying off people or, in the case of retail companies, going completely out of business.

3) This has all been going on since BEFORE the end of George W Bush's term. Therefore, President Obama did not cause this.

Those are all historical facts.

Now, for those who are smart, this is the solution:

Put more money into the hands of the have-nots, the working class. Lower their cost of living, and fund big stimulus packages - straight up giveaways for people earning under $250,000 a year (max benefits for those under $100,000, declining to zero benefits at $250K) with higher taxes on those earning over $250K (that would be me, and I was glad to pay for it these past years*).

Another historical fact: the Cash for Clunkers program was a success - just not long enough of one. Obama needs a longer term job creation program. He needs to get more alternative energy infrastructure projects going, and most importantly he needs to look upward. To space.

I would pump big money into NASA and get them started on some big projects, like a moon base and a mission to Mars. That's jobs, folks. Lots of jobs. From entry level tech and manufacturing to high level science and engineering, that's jobs, jobs, jobs. Renewable energy would be a huge help for this kind of endeavor: there's a hell of a lot of energy coming from the Sun and we need scientists and engineers to figure a way to harness it for space transportation. The rich would pay a heavier burden for this in the beginning but guess what? They'll benefit when the job boom hits, and this job boom would be a lasting one.


The rich of today are fucking parasites. They don't create jobs - they send them to fucking China. The working class, the consumers, they're the ones who create jobs - have you not noticed that when they cut back spending, businesses go away? You bolster the working class, you create more consumers and you cause more spending. That causes businesses to flourish.

What good does lowering taxes on the rich do when they're not hiring in America anyway due to cheap labor in China and India? What good does lowering taxes on the rich do when the businesses are closing due to people not spending? Lowering taxes does not cause more hiring - and it certainly does not compensate for consumers being unable to spend money because their credit cards are being cut.

Politicians scoff at these facts at their peril. I've warned you all about this years ago and my predictions are now past history.

Ignore the right wingers - they don't know jack shit.

* I paid some steep taxes these last few years but I still had enough left over that if I posted my bank accounts deposits for this year alone, much less my balances, JackAssJim would fly into such a jealous fit of denial-fueled rage that I could never get him off my jock. EVER. So no, these taxes don't bother me. But they did send customers out for brief spending sprees which kept a few more businesses alive and thus helped me keep more general liability insurance customers.
 
Just like raising the min. wage does not cause unemployment. In fact, the opposite happens as demand increases.
 
Just like raising the min. wage does not cause unemployment. In fact, the opposite happens as demand increases.
Liberals are smart enough not to raise unemployment TOO much. Raising it a few bucks here and there puts more money in people's hands to buy stuff. Raising it from $8/hr to $20/hr would wreck shit.

That's the miracle of Keynesian economics - flexibility, and the ability to say "this far and no farther". Laissez-faire? It would never allow social security disability, welfare or unemployment insurance. The economy would fucking tank and there would be widespread lawlessness. People would rather rob and kill than starve.

This is why America will always have socialism and truly free market capitalism will never appear anywhere in the world. Ever. Not one Conservative on this forum has the nutsack to admit that their fairy tale will never happen; the moment they do, they cease to exist. POOF. (They become liberals, heheh.)
 
Liberals are smart enough not to raise unemployment TOO much. Raising it a few bucks here and there puts more money in people's hands to buy stuff. Raising it from $8/hr to $20/hr would wreck shit.

That's the miracle of Keynesian economics - flexibility, and the ability to say "this far and no farther". Laissez-faire? It would never allow social security disability, welfare or unemployment insurance. The economy would fucking tank and there would be widespread lawlessness. People would rather rob and kill than starve.

This is why America will always have socialism and truly free market capitalism will never appear anywhere in the world. Ever. Not one Conservative on this forum has the nutsack to admit that their fairy tale will never happen; the moment they do, they cease to exist. POOF. (They become liberals, heheh.)

Of course, extremism is never good.
 
Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $25 an hour? Full employment in no time, right?





Raising it a few bucks here and there puts more money in people's hands to buy stuff. Raising it from $8/hr to $20/hr would wreck shit.

Of course, extremism is never good.

Didn't you say there should be no min. wage, before?

That is the other end of the extreme spectrum.

Obviously it should be adjusted accordingly to meet basic cost of living needs.

You claim to hate welfare and subsidies. In which case anyone who works full time should make enough to survive. Thereby eliminating the need for such programs, and increasing consumer demand in every sector.
 
Last edited:
So when are we going to hear from the REAL business owner?

It's amazing that he's making all these profits, then bitching about other companies that are making profits. Why doesn't he pay his lowly workers more and keep less? Why doesn't he cut his prices so the Po' folk can buy whatever it is he's selling. Making such HUGE profits is just... Capitalist.
 
It's amazing that he's making all these profits, then bitching about other companies that are making profits. Why doesn't he pay his lowly workers more and keep less? Why doesn't he cut his prices so the Po' folk can buy whatever it is he's selling. Making such HUGE profits is just... Capitalist.

Everything he brags about is capitalist but then he talks about how evil it is. He'll say he pays his employees more than anyone else and gives them cars as bonuses and all that but still brings home millions.
I wish he'd work his story out on paper before posting so that it would make more sense. And he needs to keep a spreadsheet of all his points so he'll stop contradicting himself all the time.
 
It's amazing that he's making all these profits, then bitching about other companies that are making profits. Why doesn't he pay his lowly workers more and keep less? Why doesn't he cut his prices so the Po' folk can buy whatever it is he's selling. Making such HUGE profits is just... Capitalist.

There is an extreme way of doing things and a responsible way of doing things in business.

Extreme: Sams Club

Responsible: Costco

Both are viable, highly profitable companies.

One pays its employee a great wage and has a nice benefits package and stock options. As a result they have lower turnover and more experience in the store, which leads to a better experience for the customer.

The other cuts costs rabidly everywhere, including wages and benefits. This leads to employees on public assistance, higher turnover, and a comparatively worse customer experience.
 
Didn't you say there should be no min. wage, before?

That is the other end of the extreme spectrum.

Obviously it should be adjusted accordingly to meet basic cost of living needs.

You claim to hate welfare and subsidies. In which case anyone who works full time should make enough to survive. Thereby eliminating the need for such programs, and increasing consumer demand in every sector.
That's because right wingers don't want to pay taxes on anything. Except, that is, foreign wars to conquer countries that are of no threat to America. (Notice, of course, how Bush chickened out on stopping Iran and North Korea...)

As for minimum wage - hell, right wingers want to see workers paid shit wages for top quality work. They cry about 'inflation' if workers make enough to live on. Well look at what we got during the last of the Bush years... deflation. How many times does deflation of this magnitude happen in history?
 
There is an extreme way of doing things and a responsible way of doing things in business.

Extreme: Sams Club

Responsible: Costco

Both are viable, highly profitable companies.

One pays its employee a great wage and has a nice benefits package and stock options. As a result they have lower turnover and more experience in the store, which leads to a better experience for the customer.

The other cuts costs rabidly everywhere, including wages and benefits. This leads to employees on public assistance, higher turnover, and a comparatively worse customer experience.
Exactly. The people I manage at work get well above minimum wage and they work their asses off. My wife and I own a business, too, and we pay commish+base pay. Not too many insurance brokers do that. But they haul in policies like a trawler, too.

I shop at Costco for that reason. In my experience their people work harder and are a hell of a lot happier than the ones at Sam's Club.
 
Exactly. The people I manage at work get well above minimum wage and they work their asses off. My wife and I own a business, too, and we pay commish+base pay. Not too many insurance brokers do that. But they haul in policies like a trawler, too.

I shop at Costco for that reason. In my experience their people work harder and are a hell of a lot happier than the ones at Sam's Club.

You were fired from your job, remember?
 
As for the statements on the economy.

In this particular situation, we have a worst case scenario for those that believe in trickle down economics.

When the rich move their money into commodities like precious metals, the money stops flowing.

Investment is what drives the american economy. It is based entirely on growth.

Redistributing wealth IN THIS CASE (im not advocating anything) would be more beneficial to the economy than letting the wealthy hoard it.

The government has essentially done this via TARP and ARRA. While TARP is mostly loans and wont result in a large real cost... ARRA is direct investment done by the government to create growth. This puts people to work and gets money moving around in the economy based on government project grants.
 
Have nots are NOT the middle class,but people who are on the bottom of the education and pay scale or on welfare.
 
Have nots are NOT the middle class,but people who are on the bottom of the education and pay scale or on welfare.

Then, if wealth were redistributed their way, they probably would not invest it -- but they would spend a lot more than they spend now; that would help the economy.

Of course, it would be better, in the long run, to spend the money on programs that would help underclass people gradually climb into the working class or the middle class. That would do wonders for reducing the crime rate, etc.
 
the have nots spend their money on cigarettes, potato chips, Pepsi, and lottery tickets

no education and no motivation are the root causes of poverty
 
As for the statements on the economy.

In this particular situation, we have a worst case scenario for those that believe in trickle down economics.

When the rich move their money into commodities like precious metals, the money stops flowing.

Investment is what drives the american economy. It is based entirely on growth.

Redistributing wealth IN THIS CASE (im not advocating anything) would be more beneficial to the economy than letting the wealthy hoard it.

The government has essentially done this via TARP and ARRA. While TARP is mostly loans and wont result in a large real cost... ARRA is direct investment done by the government to create growth. This puts people to work and gets money moving around in the economy based on government project grants.
I'd have tweaked the hell out of TARP. Save AIG to stop the credit freeze and let less important banks go. I'd still have fought for GM's survival. I'd also have taken a hard line and broken up AIG and any other "too big to fail" bank that REALLY needed to be saved for America's sake.

Have nots are NOT the middle class,but people who are on the bottom of the education and pay scale or on welfare.
No shit sherlock. I was talking about the working class in general, which includes the people on the bottom. I also include the working class as have-nots because they're being forced down into the lower classes because of parasitism by the rich. The more accurate word, of course, is the middle class are the 'vulnerable' class.
 
and let us not forget to reward the lazy! after all its hard work sitting on one's ass thinking about how hard life is....he or she should earn a pay check for doing nothing! yes, Redistribution of wealth is a great thing!



This is total bullshit.

Ignore the fucking pundits, especially the Limbaughs and Fox News.

Take it from a REAL business owner and from someone who has actually achieved things in the financial services sector.

Redistributing wealth to the have-nots would help a wide swath of businesses and industries in America.

Let us run down the facts which are not in dispute.

1) The have-nots have stopped spending because they lack the money and the credit to continue spending.

2) This has been a huge factor behind why many businesses from a wide variety of sectors, have been laying off people or, in the case of retail companies, going completely out of business.

3) This has all been going on since BEFORE the end of George W Bush's term. Therefore, President Obama did not cause this.

Those are all historical facts.

Now, for those who are smart, this is the solution:

Put more money into the hands of the have-nots, the working class. Lower their cost of living, and fund big stimulus packages - straight up giveaways for people earning under $250,000 a year (max benefits for those under $100,000, declining to zero benefits at $250K) with higher taxes on those earning over $250K (that would be me, and I was glad to pay for it these past years*).

Another historical fact: the Cash for Clunkers program was a success - just not long enough of one. Obama needs a longer term job creation program. He needs to get more alternative energy infrastructure projects going, and most importantly he needs to look upward. To space.

I would pump big money into NASA and get them started on some big projects, like a moon base and a mission to Mars. That's jobs, folks. Lots of jobs. From entry level tech and manufacturing to high level science and engineering, that's jobs, jobs, jobs. Renewable energy would be a huge help for this kind of endeavor: there's a hell of a lot of energy coming from the Sun and we need scientists and engineers to figure a way to harness it for space transportation. The rich would pay a heavier burden for this in the beginning but guess what? They'll benefit when the job boom hits, and this job boom would be a lasting one.


The rich of today are fucking parasites. They don't create jobs - they send them to fucking China. The working class, the consumers, they're the ones who create jobs - have you not noticed that when they cut back spending, businesses go away? You bolster the working class, you create more consumers and you cause more spending. That causes businesses to flourish.

What good does lowering taxes on the rich do when they're not hiring in America anyway due to cheap labor in China and India? What good does lowering taxes on the rich do when the businesses are closing due to people not spending? Lowering taxes does not cause more hiring - and it certainly does not compensate for consumers being unable to spend money because their credit cards are being cut.

Politicians scoff at these facts at their peril. I've warned you all about this years ago and my predictions are now past history.

Ignore the right wingers - they don't know jack shit.

* I paid some steep taxes these last few years but I still had enough left over that if I posted my bank accounts deposits for this year alone, much less my balances, JackAssJim would fly into such a jealous fit of denial-fueled rage that I could never get him off my jock. EVER. So no, these taxes don't bother me. But they did send customers out for brief spending sprees which kept a few more businesses alive and thus helped me keep more general liability insurance customers.
 
Back
Top