[beachmouse]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Your thinking is absolutely dead wrong, in my opinion, but a common point of view. You think there is an 'asset pie' and that it is unfair somehow that you don't have a larger portion of it. So, you somehow feel better about this unfairness by believing that it is OK to penalize those who have a bigger piece. WRONG! First, there is no asset pie. The opportunities in this country allow for an ever increasing volume of wealth and success-there is not a fixed amount to be sliced up into pieces.

Me, my family is comfortable right now. I'm not going to deny a higher income would be nice, but it isn't necessary.

But big picture, it is not healthy for a society to concentrate as high of a percentage of wealth into the top 1-5% of families as America currently has. The last time we've had a similar demographic in this country was during the 1920s right before the Great Depression hit. And it's getting worse- the current economic recovery is largely benefitting the top 1-5% while increasing number of people slide out of the middle class. Child poverty is up; average/median wages for workers have been flat for a long time now once you account for inflation. The rising tide just isn't lifting all boats.

I like capitalism. It's the best way we've come up with to efficiently allocate resources and create wealth. But one of the inherent tenets of capitalism is that there will be winners and losers in many cases, and I want a system that provides a strong safety net for the people on the losing side of that equation.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Your thinking is absolutely dead wrong, in my opinion, but a common point of view. You think there is an 'asset pie' and that it is unfair somehow that you don't have a larger portion of it. So, you somehow feel better about this unfairness by believing that it is OK to penalize those who have a bigger piece. WRONG! First, there is no asset pie. The opportunities in this country allow for an ever increasing volume of wealth and success-there is not a fixed amount to be sliced up into pieces. Second, there is no limit to what any one person can achieve except those placed there by that individual. You can argue that point as much as you like but there are far too many examples of people who had nothing and went on to achieve great wealth, not to mention the many more who achieved average wealth. That the "system" keeps people down is a fallacy created by those who can't handle the truth that they just don't have what it takes to get ahead or who are unwilling to put in the hard work and sacrifice that others have put in. Last, there is an attitude in our country that we all have a right to success and wealth and that the government should redistribute some of the wealth achieved by some people so everyone will have some. This is absolutely wrong! There is no right to wealth or income or financial security or to a job, or to a mortgage for that matter. There is a right to have access to those things, or more specifically, a right to keep the federal government from blocking your access to those things but not a right to have them provided to you. It sounds harsh and mean spirited and, heck, I don't like hearing it myself but it is true and we have become a weaker nation because that message has somehow been destroyed by liberal philosophies and policies (all well meaning in my view) over the past fifty years or so.

You're entitled to your opinion, as misguided as it may be. Anything that can be quantified (such as percent share of assets) means that it has finiteness, at least for one snap shot in time. We know what the GDP is, and we know that it can get bigger, but we know what sectors to attribute the rise in GDP to each year or quarter.

You're gripe was "oh I feel so bad for the wealthy, because even though they have a disproportionate share of the resources currently available to go around, they pay disproportionate taxes." I'm telling you they pay their fair share they have to and should pay, because in any given year that they pay 80% of the taxes, they also maintain control of 80% of the assets and wealth in the country. It's bad enough that the sons and daughters of the working and poorer classes have to fight rich men's wars to protect and secure resources and shipping lanes without having to hear about the tax concerns of the rich. What's that saying? Don't p*ss on me and tell me it's raining?


BTW: The "heyday" of the "American dream" was ushered in by strong union jobs that guaranteed health benefits, pensions, etc. Everything conservatives have worked for the past 40 years or so to erase, so that now our economy is but a shell of its former self. The "wealth gap" has grown, and any economist who doesn't have their lips firmly planted on Ayn Rand's arse would tell you that wealth inequalities lead to shaky economies.

Is it "liberal policy" that has seen CEO compensation and corporate profits grow exponentially while real wages for workers have stagnated? Is it a big mystery why it now takes two incomes to maintain a middle class lifestyle where one man at a union job could support a family of five in the 1950s? Is it "liberal policy" that saw usury laws stripped away? Deregulation of banking?

Is it "liberal policy" that saw hundreds of billions of corporate welfare heeped onto corporations for their miserable failures and losses these past few years?

[bbronston]

Thanks for allowing me my opinion. If you read my comments, I do not support any form of corporate welfare in any form. And yes, it was a liberal democratic congress that heaped all of those billions onto the corporate failures. That's one of the key reasons for the rise of the tea party. It was also the liberal policies of Frank and Dodd that created the environment that led to easy home loans for people who couldn't afford them. Business doesn't exist to create jobs or to distribute wealth to the masses. It exists to create a profit for those who own or invest in it. Jobs are a by-product, not an end. Profits should be distributed to investors but liberals want the profits distributed to everyone through disproportionate taxes. As I said, I am far from wealthy and have very little in investments but I am not blinded by greed and jealousy and ignorance or an irrational belief that I should have more just because someone else has more. I used to think your way but then I realized how fallacious these arguments are.

[beachmouse]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Profits should be distributed to investors but liberals want the profits distributed to everyone through disproportionate taxes.

See that's where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I feel like profits should be distributed to both the components that made the company successful- labor and capital. The unions at their heyday skewed that far too much toward labor; currently the emphasis on Wall Street have both skewed that balance far too much toward capital and created an emphasis on short term gains at the expense of long term corporate stability by gutting research and development (because they aren't directly generating profits at the moment) and pushing companies to expand too fast, taking on large debt loads in the process.

IMO, there needs to be an equilibrium point where both parts of the equation get fair gain form their contributions.

[OrlFlaUsa]

It is absolutely terrible what is happening to Florida right now. Shifting the burden of proof to the individual (re: unemployment claims) is like taking the rock away from David when he is about to face Goliath. Florida's unemployment program was one of this state's saving graces for me, and I actually took pride in the fact that my state supported the little guy. We are heading the way of Texas and hoping that by laying out the red carpet for big business, jobs and fiscal security will follow. Let's truly hope they do, because if RS get's his way and manages to gut our education system, I, and my gf, are going to need those future jobs soon to start saving for our children's private education.

[ferret111]

Originally Posted by OrlFlaUsa

Let's truly hope they do, because if RS get's his way and manages to gut our education system, I, and my gf, are going to need those future jobs soon to start saving for our children's private education.

Don't worry. He wants the public to pay for private school vouchers, anyway.

[OrlFlaUsa]

Originally Posted by ferret111

Don't worry. He wants the public to pay for private school vouchers, anyway.

Haha you made me laugh, thanks ferret .

[beachmouse]

I so want to see someone to put together a proposal for an Arabic language charter school or Muslim private school that takes vouchers down here. The level of freaking out over it would be highly entertaining to say the least, and the government can't give the appearance of favoring or excluding one religion over others without one huge lawsuit being involved.

[bbronston]

Beachmouse, we actually agree on your points. In fact, I think unions were, in the beginning, absolutely needed to counter many of the terrible practices that were occuring at that time. But, they took it way too far and, ironically, were responsible for many of the problems we face now, including demanding such levels of wages, benefits, and rules that drove jobs overseas. I believe in fairness all the way around but I don't believe in the economic communism that some here espouse....from each (rich guy) according to his income, to each according to his jealousy and level of misery.

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by OrlFlaUsa

We are heading the way of Texas and hoping that by laying out the red carpet for big business, jobs and fiscal security will follow. Let's truly hope they do, because if RS get's his way and manages to gut our education system, I, and my gf, are going to need those future jobs soon to start saving for our children's private education.

If we end up like TX, that would be great. TX has more Fortune 500 companies headquartered in its state than any other state in the union, and had managed to have a budget surplus until recently. Even then, they have a much better budgetary picture than states like NY, NJ or CA.