Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Octavious]

Potential re-post, but CNN has the Larry King interview of the Florida woman who interviewed Biden. It's pretty interesting...funny actually. It's been said, but it's quite funny the republicans attempt to paint Obama as a socialist relies on 'spreading the wealth' around with his tax ideas. Apparently no one has told the republicans that taxes have been redistributing wealth for some time now... >_>; Anywho, link below if it hasn't been said, if it has please resume the arguing etc etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...ef=mpstoryview

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

- (The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism)

How is that Socialist? Where in there does he say government should redistribute wealth? Unless progressive taxes are socialist.

[Kuya]

It's not socialist, much like most of the things you say are socialist, and furthermore, would you care to tell us what redistribution of wealth means? I'm starting to wonder what you think it means.

[Olo401]

they failed get into a line of work that isn't easily replaceable, nor did they put away money for a "rainy day"

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit and you know it. They busted their ass to get educated, get working, and get their lives together desipte extreme hardship. They struggled their asses off just to raise their kids. They had no extra income to save.

And you have the unmitigated nerve to claim that the crushing of their American dreams by forces beyond their control was a failure on their part? If you honestly believe that then I have no recourse except to say..

Fuck you and the high white horse you ride.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's not socialist, much like most of the things you say are socialist, and furthermore, would you care to tell us what redistribution of wealth means? I'm starting to wonder what you think it means.

Government taking money from one person and giving it to another.

[Olo401]

How is that Socialist? Where in there does he say government should redistribute wealth? Unless progressive taxes are socialist.

Umm.. the whole entire thing is Socialist, if you believe the foaming mouth bullshit that McCain/Palin are spreading lately.

That's actually the point here. A progressive tax plan that is meant to redistribute wealth is not socialist at all - in fact, it's a necessary component of a healthy capitalist economy.

[Kuya]

Government taking money from one person and giving it to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

Methods of transferring wealth

The transfer of wealth can occur in various ways. Some methods for transferring wealth are voluntary transfers from those who have it to those who do not. Other methods involve forcibly removing the wealth from those who have it and redistributing it to those who do not. Redistribution of Wealth, in political/simple terms is "taking from the rich to give to the poor". Although this is a simple view, the ideas and implementations by governments to facilitate this process is generally considered negative, and the impact is negligible. It could be argued, that Redistribution by choice creates as many positive outcomes (or more) than "by force".

All political and economic systems facilitate the redistribution of wealth including Capitalism, Communism and Socialism, however the favored method of redistribution varies from system to system.

Capitalism relies primarily on the voluntary purchase and sale of goods and services, whereas Communism and Socialism typically use involuntary methods such as taxation and nationalization of property.
[edit]Voluntary transfer of wealth
Charity is a common method of shifting wealth from those who have it to those who do not. As well, contributions to local (and other) economies such as Auto/Boat/Home purchases, and the upkeep/upgrade of such holdings, contribute to redistribution, by creating/sustaining jobs.

Taxation is a common form of redistribution of wealth that mixed economies use, which is also what Smith is talking about.

[Olo401]

How is that Socialist? Where in there does he say government should redistribute wealth? Unless progressive taxes are socialist.

Government taking money from one person and giving it to another.

You just contradicted yourself.

Why am I not one whit surprised?

[Kuya]

whit

What?

[Dimmauk]

So what is the difference between Obama's wealth spreading and Bush/McCain's wealth spreading?

One goes to Lower and Middle income people and the other goes to Higher income people? I wonder which Class there is more of? And who they would vote for?

[Tristam]

What?

Whot?

edit: nuts, looked funnier with nested quotes

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You just contradicted yourself.

Why am I not one whit surprised?

Where did I contradict myself? I've never read Wealth of Nations so I'm only basing it off that quote. Smith is talking about funding government, not redistributing wealth. Just because a tax is progressive does mean it's a redistribution of wealth.

And Kuya, again where did Smith, in that quote, talk about redistributing wealth?

[0ni0n]

Where did I contradict myself? I've never read Wealth of Nations so I'm only basing it off that quote. Smith is talking about funding government, not redistributing wealth. Just because a tax is progressive does mean it's a redistribution of wealth.

And Kuya, again where did Smith, in that quote, talk about redistributing wealth?

Did you not read what Beckin posted earlier a direct quote from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"?

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. "

- (The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism)

More here, read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

[Jaybar]

So what is the difference between Obama's wealth spreading and Bush/McCain's wealth spreading?

One goes to Lower and Middle income people and the other goes to Higher income people? I wonder which Class there is more of? And who they would vote for?

I thought McCain's plan was to give tax breaks to businesses and corporations, even though they may not make high profits? Or was it the tax breaks for high profit corporations and all small businesses? Or did I totally misread the fundamentals of McCain's economic policies?


Or is this a whoosh?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Did you not read what Beckin posted earlier a direct quote from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"?

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. "

- (The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism)

Did you not read what I posted? Where in that quote is Smith talking about redistribution of wealth? A progressive tax in and of itself is not socialist. If you're referring to Marx, he said a progressive income tax. I don't see Smith talking about a progressive income tax. Unless he goes on to say that the funds from that tax should fund the poor then I must be reading something different.

[Khamsin]

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit and you know it. They busted their ass to get educated, get working, and get their lives together desipte extreme hardship. They struggled their asses off just to raise their kids. They had no extra income to save.

And you have the unmitigated nerve to claim that the crushing of their American dreams by forces beyond their control was a failure on their part? If you honestly believe that then I have no recourse except to say..

Fuck you and the high white horse you ride.

Once again, they haven't been crushed (yet). The layoffs have yet to happen, and it might not even affect them. If they were smart, they'd have lined up a backup job by now just in case. Worst case, he gets laid off, they live off her income for a little while until he finds another job. And if he isn't lazy about it (i.e. already been searching since he got the notice), he should find something.

He's got a good chance of coming out just fine. The vast majority of the country is able to find work, like 94% of the nation has a job. The other 6% are retired businessmen, college students, and street bums.

[0ni0n]

Did you not read what I posted? Where in that quote is Smith talking about redistribution of wealth? A progressive tax in and of itself is not socialist. If you're referring to Marx, he said a progressive income tax. I don't see Smith talking about a progressive income tax. Unless he goes on to say that the funds from that tax should fund the poor then I must be reading something different.

Read between the lines, the redistribution of wealth is implied. Adam Smith did mention that the rich should shoulder the larger burden of the government expenses as compared to the poor. Same way that the constitution never explicitly states a separation of church and state, but it is interpreted as so.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. "

It is pretty obvious to me that Smith is talking about a progressive income tax.

btw, progressive income taxes are a widely used method of income redistribution, or a means of wealth redistribution.

[Correction]

He's got a good chance of coming out just fine. The vast majority of the country is able to find work, like 94% of the nation has a job. The other 6% are retired businessmen, college students, and street bums.

That's not what 6% unemployment means, bub.

[Jaybar]

The vast majority of the country is able to find work, like 94% of the nation has a job. The other 6% are retired businessmen, college students, and street bums.

6% unemployed inside the Labor Force. That doesn't include retired business men or bums (people that have been unemployed over 27 weeks I believe is the term?)

Also, here is the Bureau's stats for Sept.

EDIT (so you don't have to read):

Only 19% of teenagers in the Labor Force are unemployed (the highest in the group).

Jobs hurt the most were in the "hard working" fields such as construction and manufacturing (and many of the jobs lost in construction came in the residential area). Retail was hurt too, and retail is a big employer for most teenagers.

[0ni0n]

The definition of unemployment is when a person is available to work and currently seeking work, but the person is without work. So if you're a full time student, you won't be included in that 6%. Matter of fact, if you're fully eligible/able to work, but you're not looking for work, you still won't be included in the stats.