DakotaT
11 years ago

"Redistribution of wealth" won't do a damn thing. It will just give more money to the government to piss away.
If they can't be trusted to "live within their means" now, what makes you think that giving them trillions more will make them be better at money matters?
The debt will keep growing, and sooner or later we will end up like Greece if they don't learn how to NOT piss away what they take in already.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



Funny, redistribution of wealth is just fine when we fight unnecessary wars to line the pockets of the wealthy stockholders of Haliburton, off the backs of the taxpayer.

The right wing can shove that redistribution shit up their ass, Cheesey! Tax the shit out of those wealthy pricks - they are still paying less here than they would anywhere else in the world.

As for cutting spending, I'm all for it - just so long as it's the military and not domestic social problems.
UserPostedImage
Formo
11 years ago

Funny, redistribution of wealth is just fine when we fight unnecessary wars to line the pockets of the wealthy stockholders of Haliburton, off the backs of the taxpayer.

The right wing can shove that redistribution shit up their ass, Cheesey! Tax the shit out of those wealthy pricks - they are still paying less here than they would anywhere else in the world.

As for cutting spending, I'm all for it - just so long as it's the military and not domestic social problems.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



If we cut the spending on the military war machine (which helps funds all our enemies' militaries as well), we wouldn't have to redistribute the wealth. And the already over-taxed wealthy could be able to give MORE.

Oh yeah, and we wouldn't have to worry about taking away their incentive to continue their wealth.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago

If we cut the spending on the military war machine (which helps funds all our enemies' militaries as well), we wouldn't have to redistribute the wealth. And the already over-taxed wealthy could be able to give MORE.

Oh yeah, and we wouldn't have to worry about taking away their incentive to continue their wealth.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



The key word being "if", of course. Problem is, where do the cuts come? How much you want to bet it won't come among the general officers or the big money contracts and the influencers? Any more than the cuts to "social programs" will come from the administrators and the pet charities that suck off the government tit.

Next time you hear someone up the government/bureaucratic hierarchies, civilian or military, complaining about how terrible budget cuts are, look carefully at their department/agency. Look where the cuts are made (from the low tier employees and from the most deserving of the beneficiaries), and look where the cuts are not made (e.g., from the guys at the top and from the useless dead weight in the agency). In fact they'll often end up hiring/promoting that deadweight "in order to administer the growing needs imposed by the cuts forced on us."

Bah.



And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago

Funny, redistribution of wealth is just fine when we fight unnecessary wars to line the pockets of the wealthy stockholders of Haliburton, off the backs of the taxpayer.

The right wing can shove that redistribution shit up their ass, Cheesey! Tax the shit out of those wealthy pricks - they are still paying less here than they would anywhere else in the world.

As for cutting spending, I'm all for it - just so long as it's the military and not domestic social problems.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



And part of the reason America has been more productive than the rest of the world is that they've paid less taxes than anywhere else in the world.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
p.s., DakotaT. I'm still waiting for your quantitative evidence.

[grin1]
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
DakotaT
11 years ago

And part of the reason America has been more productive than the rest of the world is that they've paid less taxes than anywhere else in the world.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



America, and every other empire throughout history, built their wealth by the exploitation of the poor and through slavery. We like to say that we have these laws in place to protect workers, but then you get a bunch of like minded rich guys, banded together by wealth, to systematically destroy what gains men and women accomplished. To pour more salt in the wound - they come up with a political party that weak minded poor people can relate to and pit the poor against the poor.

Sorry boys, I'm not going to shed one tear for the wealthy that have to pay more taxes. They've taken advantage of the tax system for so long, it's time for them to step up. Robinhood is much greater than Romneyhood.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
11 years ago

p.s., DakotaT. I'm still waiting for your quantitative evidence.

[grin1]

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Go take a Jack Kerouac trip and give me some quantitative evidence of your own. I don't have any time. 30 years of trickle down is pretty evident throughout the slums of our country.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago

Go take a Jack Kerouac trip and give me some quantitative evidence of your own. I don't have any time. 30 years of trickle down is pretty evident throughout the slums of our country.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 




You want to take trillions of dollars away from people (because, remember, the problem here is in the trillions, not just a few tens of billions), and you don't think it is necessary to have quantitative evidence first?

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?? When it comes to that liberal babble, you truly are an overly trusting soul.

Here's a bit of quantitative thinking for you:

I. Solving problems by taking from the rich.

1. How many billionaires are there in the United States?

2. How many billionaires would it take to make a trillionaire?

Answer to #2: 1000.
Answer to #1: 425 (per wikipedia)
So if you took ALL the wealth of the billionaires in America, you'd eliminate about ONE year of the deficit run by the Obama administration.

Source: Wikipedia.

II. How many people are "rich" in America vs. the rest of the world:

USA: 5.1 million households with a $1 million net worth (1.6% of population of 312 million).
Japan: 1.6 million households with a $1 million net worth (1.25% of 128 million)
China: 1.4 million households with a $1 million NW (0.1% of population of 1,344 million).

USA: households with a $100 million net worth: 2989.

Percentage-wise, a bigger proportion of our population is wealthier. Why is that, I wonder?

http://business.time.com/2012/06/05/number-of-millionaires-in-u-s-decreases-but-spikes-worldwide;  www.google.com/publicdata.


III. Thirty years of trickle down.

Comparing 1981 and 2011:
Personal income per person (in 2005 dollars): $19,100 in 1981, $37,000 in 2011 [increased by 94%]

Prices of particular goods/services people buy with their income (all expressed as a percent of 2005 dollars)

Durable goods (cars, furniture, recreational goods): 1981: 99% 2011: 91%. [8% cheaper]
Nondurable goods (food, clothing, gasoline, energy): 1981: 61% 2011: 119% [58% more expensive]
Services (housing, health care, financial services and insurance): 1981: 41% 2011: 117% [76% more expensive]

So, we're spending a lot more for services (e.g. health care), and quite a bit more for food and gasoline [when you separate things out, clothing is actually a bit cheaper]. And we're paying less for goods that last for awhile (furniture and the stuff in our garage and back yard).

And even the amount we've been spending for services, food, and gas? It has increased LESS than our income.


Sources: www.bea.gov (Tables 2.1, 2.3.4)

IV. The slums.

People in poverty:
1980 225,000
2002 285,000
Increase: 26.7%
Population increase over same period: (227 million to 287 million): 26.4%.

Percent of population in poverty, 1980: about 1/10th of 1 percent.
Percent of population in poverty, 2002: about 1/10th of 1 percent.


Poverty threshold 1980 (family of four): 6,628
Poverty threshold 2002 (family of four): 14,480
Increase: 118% [= change in CPI]
Increase in real GDP over same period: 45%


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/rdp05.html 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh80.html 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh02.html 


V. Government "help" and taxation.

(This is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, too, Table 2.9, which only goes back to 1992; I'm pretty sure these are not adjusted for inflation, but that doesn't matter for what I want to point out here.)

1. Personal income (total, not per capita): From $5,300 billion to $12,900 billion [increased by 143%].
2. Government social benefits to persons (Social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, vet benefits): From $300 billion to $2,300 billion [increased by 666%; these are pure transfer payments, i.e. "redistribution"]
3. Contributions to government social insurance (what we pay for social security, medicare): From $200 billion to $900 billion [increased by 350%]
4. Personal taxes: from $350 billion to $1,400 billion [increased by 300%].

So, while increased productivity means our incomes have increased by 150% in the last thirty years, the tax burden we have has increased by three times that and our other "voluntary contributions" by 3.5 times, just so government can help us to shift money from one pocket to another 6 or 7 times?

And with that evidence -- not just pontificating and arm-waving, but evidence -- you really think ANY solution to ANY multi-trillion dollar problem is going to come through ANY government action?

It's an amazing thing about numbers. Start looking at them carefully, and you realize that the sampling process offered by your own eyes turns out to needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Eyewitness evidence, contrary to the TV detective shows, is often the *WORST* evidence. And often the worst eyewitness evidence of all is our own. And this is especially the case when we use our personal experience and observation to draw conclusions about how economies and other "systems" made up of hundreds of millions of pieces or more.

I'm sorry, my friend, but if we don't have time to think seriously about the numbers, we every damn last thing the government does to you in the years ahead.

Paying attention to numbers will set us free.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
11 years ago
lol Virtual beat down!!
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
DakotaT
11 years ago

lol Virtual beat down!!

Originally Posted by: Formo 



What are you laughing at tard? What have you ever contributed to this conversation besides the Tea view?

UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Happy Birthday wpr!
Zero2Cool (14h) : Anders Carlson ... released by 49ers
dfosterf (17h) : Happy Birthday!๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜Š
wpr (18h) : Thanks Kevin.
Zero2Cool (20h) : Happy Birthday, Wayne! ๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‚๐Ÿฅณ
beast (21h) : Edge Rushers is the same... it's not the 4-3 vs 3-4 change, it's the Hafley's version of the 4-3... as all 32 teams are actually 4-2
Zero2Cool (6-Nov) : OLB to DE and player requests trade. Yet folks say they are same.
beast (5-Nov) : In other news, the Green Bay Packers have signed Zero2Cool to update their website ๐Ÿ˜‹ jk
beast (5-Nov) : Might just re-sign the kicker we got
beast (5-Nov) : Are there any kickers worth drafting next year?
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Preston Smith for Malik Willis
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Getting a 7th rounder from the Stillers
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : At least we get 7th round pick now!! HELLO NEW KICKER
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Steelers getting a premier lockdown corner!
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Packers are trading edge rusher Preston Smith to the Pittsburgh Steelers, per sources.
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Preston Smith traded to the Steelers!!!!
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : CB Marshon Lattimore to Commanders
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.
Martha Careful (5-Nov) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
hardrocker950 (4-Nov) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Kuhn let go
beast (4-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : It's raining hard.
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : Packers inactives vs. Lions: CB Jaire Alexander S Evan Williams C Josh Myers Non-injury inactives: WR Malik Heath OL Travis Glover DE Bren
packerfanoutwest (3-Nov) : Malik Willis: My focus is helping the Packers win, not proving I can start elsewhere. But he could
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : I had Texans, but the loss of another WR flipped me
wpr (1-Nov) : I thought about taking the Jets but they've been a disaster. Losing to the Pats last week
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : Surprised more didn't pick Jets in Pick'em.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
8h / Around The NFL / beast

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

5-Nov / GameDay Threads / Cheesey

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

4-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2-Nov / Around The NFL / wpr

Headlines
Copyright ยฉ 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comโ„ข. All Rights Reserved.