Thanks for the well thought out and reasoned comment Alex. 'Spreading the wealth' is an age old socialist concept of wealth redistribution. It is not new or hopeful. It is not change we want. It has not worked at any time throughout history that it has been tried.
yeah no definitely glenn's spot on with this one... even as a democrat this is the thing i hate most about obamas campaign, he's trying to bring back socialism. so yeah alex you're wrong, and this is one of the things a lot of dems have to learn... idealism does not equal realism right now.
How is taking 9% of the income from the top 10% of the population socialism? I could see spreading it around so that everyone has the same amount, sure, but raising taxes by a tenth of what they are now in order to give our citizens the kind of health care everyone in Europe takes for granted?
Imagine how outraged you'd be if someone suggested that you contribute money to have some other guy's dumb kid go to elementary school and use libraries. I'd be mad as hell.
Taxation != socialism. And again, the comic's kind of misleading, implying that the average person is going to give "half" of their money to the poor. I doubt any of you make more than five figures a year - you would not be the kid in the comic.
I would like to re-iterate glenns first sentance - without the sarcasm.
When will you republicans come to realise that because someone is poor does not mean they are lazy. more often than not, it is the exact opposite.
There is something completely disgusting about a country that puts the bonuses of corporate fat-cats above the possiblity of a poor person trying to keep a roof over his head and something resembling food on the table.
Glenn and Sam, you truly disgust me, and I don't use that turn of phrase lightly.
You must note that this great country was not built on old world European socialism. It was built on individual responsibility and hard work. Liberty is the answer to the human condition, not big government.
If government is given the ability to grant you, the citizen, the means for a good life, then they can also take it away. Look throughout history for examples of this.
I'm sorry if that offends you or disgusts you Roriniho but it is absolutely true. The comic makes fun of the democrats for leaning towards wealth redistribution - as if wealth is a limited resource and we have to take it away from those who earn it and give it to those that do not. It is NOT the role of government - and we should fight it at every turn.
You would have a much stronger case if you weren't on the verge on a second great depression. Not just because your economy might collapse but because your economy has already collapsed once before. A system which fails so monstrously every 80 years or so is kind of hard to defend. I'm not saying hardcore socialism is the way to go, but it's also not what most democrats advocate. And in response to Glenn, Socialism works quite well in Europe and here in Canada. COMMUNISM, which is an extreme form of socialism has never worked.
Wealth IS a limited resource. It's not how much money you have, but how much more money you have than others that determines how well off you are. Otherwise, you could give everyone a billion dollars - NOT what the democrats are advocating - and everyone would be dandy. No, you need to have poorer people in order to have richer people, and hence, if a certain percentage of your country is really wealthy, it's impossible for the rest to get to the same level.
All that the democrats want to do is get a bit from the rich - who more often than not work just as hard as or LESS hard than the poor (when was the last time Bill Gates broke a sweat?) - and use it to make sure that our lowliest citizens can enjoy some semblance of a reasonable quality of life. That is the role of government - to protect its people. Not just from enemy states and terrorists, but from diseases, hunger, and living in the gutter.
Well ignoring the fact that Marxism IS a form of socialism thus showing that you're already wrong. Obama's strategy will only cost you more if you're in the top 1% of the population. EVERYONE ELSE is better off with it.
Its just a fact. You can argue you want to vote democrat at any cost if you want but the fact is that Obama is a Marxist. American men have fought wars and died to defend America from this and we are going to vote him in.
Come on guise! Funny overused turn of phrase! Another funny overused turn of phrase!
Taxing the rich more than the poor is just as socialist (or Marxist, as you can't decide which philosophy you want to fight) as taxing the poor more than the rich. That is, not at all. Some group is always going to be taxed more than another, and we've tried the "trickle down" philosophy, and it turned out to be crap, so now we're moving on to something that makes more sense.
And messiah? Joe? WTF? Guy doesn't even pay his taxes. Even Jesus paid taxes.
Everyone seems to be forgetting what I consider an important point. Money belongs to the person who earned it. It doesn't matter whether they worked really hard and made smart financial decisions or if they just sat on their butts and inherited it. It's theirs not yours and you have no claim to it. A flat tax levied on everyone would be the fairest and most reasonable. This class envy, redistribution stuff is the road to ruin.
First of all, everyone here needs to learn what Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are. Glenn seems to be the only one who knows. Socialism is a form of ECONOMIC policy. Communism is GOVERNMENT rule. Marxism is the PHILOSOPHY behind Socialism and Communism. Barack Obama's ideals ARE socialist. Taking the wealth from those that earned it and simply giving it away to people who IN NO WAY EARNED IT is VERY socialist! As for the "Trickle Down Effect", better known as Classical Economics, it is required. Just like the bottom up method, called Keynesian. Both forms of money distribution are needed for our economy to be healthy, neither one is better or worse than the other. Obama's policy would completely eliminate the use of Classical Economics, which would cripple businesses by forcing unhealthy competition. McCain is open to using both (but he leans towards Classical, as is his party philosophy). So enough of my economics lesson and ramblings, bottom line is that this comic is spot-on as to what Obama is trying to do. People need to stop leeching off the government and make a damn living on their own.
The first few Anons to comment on this disgust me and are clearly newfags trying to use Anon as their personal army to back their shitty personal beliefs.
With that said, here's a little story:
Kim has had her first quarter of college. She comes home from college excited and energized. Kim: I love college, I'm in politics club and I am so ready for Obama to win, I will totally vote for him! Kim's Mom: Oh, that sounds great! Sounds like everything is perfect. Kim: Yeah, I have one problem though. My roommate is the biggest slob and never makes it to class. She wont even clean up after herself. She will probably drop out before the end of this semester. Kim's Mom: Well have you tried helping her? You should be more supportive. Kim: I have done everything I can. I have woken her up before I leave even picked up her gross clothes and did her laundry. She's hopeless. Kim's Mom: Well if she is going to fail, why don't you go down to the Registrar and have them transfer part of your 3.9 GPA into hers so she can continue going to school. Kim: What!? No. I worked for my grades, thats not fair! Kim's Mom: Congratulations, your no longer a Democrat.
Everyone in the school could, conceivably, get a 4.0, and helping someone else to reach that goal requires no lowering of your own GPA. It's impossible for someone to gain money IRL without getting it from somewhere/someone else.
And why are so many people still acting like the poor deserve to be poor? Do us a favor. Give all of your money away (donate to McCain, say), go out into the middle of New York with nothing but the clothes on your back and a Swiss army knife, and see how long it takes you, hard working, intelligent people that you are, to get to the point where you can pay rent and bills month after month after month.
Better yet, do that with a flat tax breathing down your neck. Good luck to you.
Fred has worked all his life, 15 hours a day, sometimes juggling multiple Jobs, gives some of the tiny amount of money he has earnt to charity, and barely manages to put food on the table.
Jim is, to put it politley, a slob. His Great-Grandaddy stole several million, and, because there isn't enough evidence, he managed to keep the money. He invested it all in the stock market, but, through sheer luck, took it out before the Wall Street Crash. Jim now owns a huge mansion, has never done a day of work in his life, and has all the manners of a Glaswegian Docker on his 37th Bottle of Scotch. (apologies to any Glaswegian Dockers).
Now where do YOU think the money SHOULD go? Use whatever sence of Common Decency you have, and you will see that loving your fellow man goes above all else. You guys should be helping the poor, not hindering them. This is what disgusted me.
This is also why in Europe we have vastly higher quality of life, a more stable economy, and Generally happier people.
It doesn't matter where the money SHOULD go. It is "Jim's" money to do with as he wants. Not the governments, not yours, and not mine. It is up to him, not you, to decide whether he gives it away or not. Did you know that Bidden made 2.5 million dollars last year and only donated $3,000? And that Obama's Aunt is living in public housing (and she isn't even an American, she is here illegally). People need to practice what they preach. It sounds good, but in practice, it isn't something that works. There are too many people who abuse the systems that we have now.
Bloody brilliant actually. If you want some test, you can ask for it, and you'll get it. For FREE. By the worlds best doctors. It really is like it is in sicko, no matter which way you look at it.
Thanks for coming back for a visit Roriniho. While we made a nice bit of income on this topic (thanks for your support) we tend to move on after a awhile. I'll post another biting social commentary item soon and we look forward to your input.
As opposed to in your fine country, where hundreds of people die through lack of treatment anyway. If it makes the news, it's the exception. Otherwise, it's not news.
Actually I'm not interested in debating which country is better. I've spent alot of time in the UK and I love your country. Wonderful towns, great people with great character, best beer in the world and fascinating history.
Our disagreement is purely philosophical. I'm a proponent of smaller government, conservative values and fiscal conservatism. I currently don't get this from either of the top 2 American political parties.
I have no issues whatever (contrary to one of your earlier posts) with helping and aiding those less fortunate than me. I just don't want the government to do it by force. The aide often creates an entitlement, lazy class. I give freely of my charitable contributions for just such targeted groups. If fact research shows that in America conservatives give much more to charity than do American liberals. ref
America was built on the backs of strong, independent working men and women who did not depend upon the government to give them a handout. Yes - times have changed and many Americans are wholly dependent upon the government for their lives.
Thanks for the well thought out and reasoned comment Alex. 'Spreading the wealth' is an age old socialist concept of wealth redistribution. It is not new or hopeful. It is not change we want. It has not worked at any time throughout history that it has been tried.
ReplyDeleteyeah no definitely glenn's spot on with this one... even as a democrat this is the thing i hate most about obamas campaign, he's trying to bring back socialism. so yeah alex you're wrong, and this is one of the things a lot of dems have to learn... idealism does not equal realism right now.
ReplyDeleteHow is taking 9% of the income from the top 10% of the population socialism? I could see spreading it around so that everyone has the same amount, sure, but raising taxes by a tenth of what they are now in order to give our citizens the kind of health care everyone in Europe takes for granted?
ReplyDeleteImagine how outraged you'd be if someone suggested that you contribute money to have some other guy's dumb kid go to elementary school and use libraries. I'd be mad as hell.
Taxation != socialism. And again, the comic's kind of misleading, implying that the average person is going to give "half" of their money to the poor. I doubt any of you make more than five figures a year - you would not be the kid in the comic.
I would like to re-iterate glenns first sentance - without the sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteWhen will you republicans come to realise that because someone is poor does not mean they are lazy. more often than not, it is the exact opposite.
There is something completely disgusting about a country that puts the bonuses of corporate fat-cats above the possiblity of a poor person trying to keep a roof over his head and something resembling food on the table.
Glenn and Sam, you truly disgust me, and I don't use that turn of phrase lightly.
You must note that this great country was not built on old world European socialism. It was built on individual responsibility and hard work. Liberty is the answer to the human condition, not big government.
ReplyDeleteIf government is given the ability to grant you, the citizen, the means for a good life, then they can also take it away. Look throughout history for examples of this.
I'm sorry if that offends you or disgusts you Roriniho but it is absolutely true. The comic makes fun of the democrats for leaning towards wealth redistribution - as if wealth is a limited resource and we have to take it away from those who earn it and give it to those that do not. It is NOT the role of government - and we should fight it at every turn.
So that is why Europeans have a higher quality of life, higher average individual happiness and more economic security, it all makes sense now.
ReplyDeleteYou would have a much stronger case if you weren't on the verge on a second great depression. Not just because your economy might collapse but because your economy has already collapsed once before. A system which fails so monstrously every 80 years or so is kind of hard to defend. I'm not saying hardcore socialism is the way to go, but it's also not what most democrats advocate. And in response to Glenn, Socialism works quite well in Europe and here in Canada. COMMUNISM, which is an extreme form of socialism has never worked.
ReplyDeleteWealth IS a limited resource. It's not how much money you have, but how much more money you have than others that determines how well off you are. Otherwise, you could give everyone a billion dollars - NOT what the democrats are advocating - and everyone would be dandy. No, you need to have poorer people in order to have richer people, and hence, if a certain percentage of your country is really wealthy, it's impossible for the rest to get to the same level.
ReplyDeleteAll that the democrats want to do is get a bit from the rich - who more often than not work just as hard as or LESS hard than the poor (when was the last time Bill Gates broke a sweat?) - and use it to make sure that our lowliest citizens can enjoy some semblance of a reasonable quality of life. That is the role of government - to protect its people. Not just from enemy states and terrorists, but from diseases, hunger, and living in the gutter.
Anon is spot on. I would never call Obama's policy socialism. It's simply not the right word. Wiki that shit.
ReplyDeleteActually you're correct. Obama would more closely be aligned with Marxism rather than socialism. Wiki that.
ReplyDeleteWell ignoring the fact that Marxism IS a form of socialism thus showing that you're already wrong. Obama's strategy will only cost you more if you're in the top 1% of the population. EVERYONE ELSE is better off with it.
ReplyDeleteCome on guys - enough partisan kool aid drinking. You have to take off the blinders and face reality.
ReplyDeleteRedistributing wealth is a socialist/marxist ideal - and Obama says he wants it.
When a private citizen disagrees with the messiah (Joe) - he gets trashed by government thugs - also Marxist.
Its just a fact. You can argue you want to vote democrat at any cost if you want but the fact is that Obama is a Marxist. American men have fought wars and died to defend America from this and we are going to vote him in.
Its just a fact.
Come on guise! Funny overused turn of phrase! Another funny overused turn of phrase!
ReplyDeleteTaxing the rich more than the poor is just as socialist (or Marxist, as you can't decide which philosophy you want to fight) as taxing the poor more than the rich. That is, not at all. Some group is always going to be taxed more than another, and we've tried the "trickle down" philosophy, and it turned out to be crap, so now we're moving on to something that makes more sense.
And messiah? Joe? WTF? Guy doesn't even pay his taxes. Even Jesus paid taxes.
Everyone seems to be forgetting what I consider an important point. Money belongs to the person who earned it. It doesn't matter whether they worked really hard and made smart financial decisions or if they just sat on their butts and inherited it. It's theirs not yours and you have no claim to it. A flat tax levied on everyone would be the fairest and most reasonable. This class envy, redistribution stuff is the road to ruin.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, everyone here needs to learn what Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are. Glenn seems to be the only one who knows. Socialism is a form of ECONOMIC policy. Communism is GOVERNMENT rule. Marxism is the PHILOSOPHY behind Socialism and Communism. Barack Obama's ideals ARE socialist. Taking the wealth from those that earned it and simply giving it away to people who IN NO WAY EARNED IT is VERY socialist! As for the "Trickle Down Effect", better known as Classical Economics, it is required. Just like the bottom up method, called Keynesian. Both forms of money distribution are needed for our economy to be healthy, neither one is better or worse than the other. Obama's policy would completely eliminate the use of Classical Economics, which would cripple businesses by forcing unhealthy competition. McCain is open to using both (but he leans towards Classical, as is his party philosophy). So enough of my economics lesson and ramblings, bottom line is that this comic is spot-on as to what Obama is trying to do. People need to stop leeching off the government and make a damn living on their own.
ReplyDelete"Come on guys - enough partisan kool aid drinking. You have to take off the blinders." Wow. That's so many conspiracy cliches in one sentence.
ReplyDeleteWAKE UP, SHEEPLE!
The first few Anons to comment on this disgust me and are clearly newfags trying to use Anon as their personal army to back their shitty personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, here's a little story:
Kim has had her first quarter of college. She comes home from college excited and energized.
Kim: I love college, I'm in politics club and I am so ready for Obama to win, I will totally vote for him!
Kim's Mom: Oh, that sounds great! Sounds like everything is perfect.
Kim: Yeah, I have one problem though. My roommate is the biggest slob and never makes it to class. She wont even clean up after herself. She will probably drop out before the end of this semester.
Kim's Mom: Well have you tried helping her? You should be more supportive.
Kim: I have done everything I can. I have woken her up before I leave even picked up her gross clothes and did her laundry. She's hopeless.
Kim's Mom: Well if she is going to fail, why don't you go down to the Registrar and have them transfer part of your 3.9 GPA into hers so she can continue going to school.
Kim: What!? No. I worked for my grades, thats not fair!
Kim's Mom: Congratulations, your no longer a Democrat.
False metaphor is false.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in the school could, conceivably, get a 4.0, and helping someone else to reach that goal requires no lowering of your own GPA. It's impossible for someone to gain money IRL without getting it from somewhere/someone else.
And why are so many people still acting like the poor deserve to be poor? Do us a favor. Give all of your money away (donate to McCain, say), go out into the middle of New York with nothing but the clothes on your back and a Swiss army knife, and see how long it takes you, hard working, intelligent people that you are, to get to the point where you can pay rent and bills month after month after month.
Better yet, do that with a flat tax breathing down your neck. Good luck to you.
How about another story.
ReplyDeleteFred has worked all his life, 15 hours a day, sometimes juggling multiple Jobs, gives some of the tiny amount of money he has earnt to charity, and barely manages to put food on the table.
Jim is, to put it politley, a slob. His Great-Grandaddy stole several million, and, because there isn't enough evidence, he managed to keep the money. He invested it all in the stock market, but, through sheer luck, took it out before the Wall Street Crash.
Jim now owns a huge mansion, has never done a day of work in his life, and has all the manners of a Glaswegian Docker on his 37th Bottle of Scotch. (apologies to any Glaswegian Dockers).
Now where do YOU think the money SHOULD go? Use whatever sence of Common Decency you have, and you will see that loving your fellow man goes above all else. You guys should be helping the poor, not hindering them. This is what disgusted me.
This is also why in Europe we have vastly higher quality of life, a more stable economy, and Generally happier people.
Roriniho
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter where the money SHOULD go. It is "Jim's" money to do with as he wants. Not the governments, not yours, and not mine. It is up to him, not you, to decide whether he gives it away or not. Did you know that Bidden made 2.5 million dollars last year and only donated $3,000? And that Obama's Aunt is living in public housing (and she isn't even an American, she is here illegally). People need to practice what they preach. It sounds good, but in practice, it isn't something that works. There are too many people who abuse the systems that we have now.
roriniho
ReplyDeleteIf you think that England is that much better, go live there.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteroriniho
If you think that England is that much better, go live there.
I think he does live there...
How's the healthcare over there roriniho?
Bloody brilliant actually. If you want some test, you can ask for it, and you'll get it. For FREE. By the worlds best doctors. It really is like it is in sicko, no matter which way you look at it.
ReplyDelete*Notices lack of smarmy comeback*
ReplyDeleteTruth hurts, don't it?
Thanks for coming back for a visit Roriniho. While we made a nice bit of income on this topic (thanks for your support) we tend to move on after a awhile. I'll post another biting social commentary item soon and we look forward to your input.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime this is truth and it hurt this family: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1102625/He-saved-Wife-demands-answers-hospital-dying-husband-forced-wait-hours-A-amp-E.html
As opposed to in your fine country, where hundreds of people die through lack of treatment anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf it makes the news, it's the exception. Otherwise, it's not news.
Agreed...
ReplyDeleteActually I'm not interested in debating which country is better. I've spent alot of time in the UK and I love your country. Wonderful towns, great people with great character, best beer in the world and fascinating history.
Our disagreement is purely philosophical. I'm a proponent of smaller government, conservative values and fiscal conservatism. I currently don't get this from either of the top 2 American political parties.
I have no issues whatever (contrary to one of your earlier posts) with helping and aiding those less fortunate than me. I just don't want the government to do it by force. The aide often creates an entitlement, lazy class. I give freely of my charitable contributions for just such targeted groups. If fact research shows that in America conservatives give much more to charity than do American liberals. ref
America was built on the backs of strong, independent working men and women who did not depend upon the government to give them a handout. Yes - times have changed and many Americans are wholly dependent upon the government for their lives.
And that disgusts me, Roriniho.
Glenn