BF2S Forums The bottomline on Obama "spread the wealth around"

lowing wrote:

He isn't getting a discount, he already pays waaaaaaaaaaay more than us. The problem is, you think it isn't enough and you want more of his money, not for maintaining the functions of govt. but for no other reason that to give it someone else to make life "fair". That simply is not the roll of the US govt.

Why don't you actually read the link before you speak for Mr. Buffett.  And I guess the US military doesn't require money to exist?  If we didn't have the spectre of the strongest military in the world would our governent just exist?  You aren't quite grasping the simple concepts.  Mr. Buffett needs to pay a lot of taxes because he's got a lot of shit that needs the protection of our government/military.  You and I pay remarkably less than Mr. Buffett because we much less to protect.

you guys dont need guns, you stab everyone.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You call it big brother, we call it representative democratic government. Take your pick.

Yeah, I will stick with calling it big brother.  You can make yourself feel as good as you want calling it whatever you want, you have a big govt. dictating your lives.

Firstly, you can buy and own firearms here in Europe... the only difference is you can't buy them like sweeties, we actually have strict gun-control.

Secondly, it sounds like you think we elect people to Government who, on election, turn around and pass loads of laws and regulations to 'control' us... the Government reflects the desires of the people, if we don't like the laws and rules they pass we don't vote them back in next time an election comes up. We as a society WANT gun controls and other such 'controlling' measures... if we didn't we'd all be looking for gun-toting cowboys to elect to office.

Really? Exactly WHO is allowed to buy a handgun? andwhat "strict" gun-control laws prevail?

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bullshit Turquoise! and offer the very fact that you yourself make claims to the "few rich". If it were as easy as, "just start my own business" we all would have our own businesses and we would all be rich. Like it or not, the rich provide the means for the rest of us to live. If they didn't then we wouldn't be asking them for jobs now would we?

Also, they do thank us, they pay us do they not? I will bet you have thanked the company that hired you for the opportunity to work for them when they called you to tell you that you had the job. Or are you really telling me that you told them they were lucky they hired you,

You really do focus too much on money.  It's like you worship wealth as if it's some virtue.

Just because someone is rich, it doesn't mean it is totally the result of hard work.  Just because someone is poor, it doesn't mean it is totally due to laziness.  The sooner you grasp the shades of grey that apply to both wealth and poverty, the sooner we can have a more comprehensive discussion on economics.

Again, money is nothing more than an agreed upon medium of trade, but said medium is only gained through the aid of others.  Without consumers, a good or service is useless.  Without workers, a factory is useless.  The list goes on and on, but the general point here is that all the wealth in the world doesn't mean a thing if you don't have manpower to serve you.  In the end, humans are the most valuable capital you can have, which is why reinvestment in infrastructures like education and job training are far more important than giving Bill Gates another tax break.

I am focusing too much on money? I see, well then if money is just not so important, then stop endorsing taking it from people that have it. I love how money is not important yet you all seem to know what to do with other peoples, and tell me how unimportant money is so I shouldn't have a problem just giving some more of it away.


Education is fine Turquoise, the problem is the lack of moral character, that is prevailing in our country. The problem is, Americans are more and more emulating a sense of entitlement over a sense of responsibility. The problem is, parents are NOT raising their kids properly with respect and true guidance.

Once again you guys want to blame everyone and everything for personal problems over blaming the individual. Now, people are poor because of bad education systems, it could not be because they simply didn't attend.


You did not address my post in the slightest Turquoise please do so,

I will also ask you to tell me how nessessary a factory worker is without a factory to work in. The rich provide the jobs and pay us to work for them. They assume YOU wanted to work for them since YOU asked them for a job, and was probably excited to beat all hell when you got hired. The truth is you are not that important to a company nor I, if we quit there will always be someone there to take our places. Or have you ever noticed how unemotional a company is compared to an individual when a job is granted, lost, or enhanced?

You think you are important to a company, nope, YOU need them, THEY need anyone.

Last edited by lowing (2008-10-25 09:51:15)

527's.. lulz

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

"spread the wealth around"   http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

This is the reason not to vote for Obama. What he wants to do is have govt. control over your money. When has it become the govts. job to seize money for the purpose of "spreading it around". Folks this is socialist/communist ideology and it goes against everything the US was meant to be.
Which is freedom to succeed, not guaranteed to succeed. Equal opportunity, not equal results.


and now we have this gallop poll which says only 13% of "national adults" are in favor of doing what Obama wants to do, yet, with the economy as the #1 concern for the voters, Obama is still leading in the polls.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Ameri … onomy.aspx

Stupidity and a lack of quality informed liberal voters comes to mind. Maybe issues and not race or good looks,or celebrity, should be what motivates voters after all, this year.

Hardly the bottom line. No minded the wealth being spread to the rich the past 8 years.

whose wealth? The poor had no wealth to spread around, so pretty much that does not make sense.

You remain uninformed as usual. Or informed with blinders on. Back to work people. nothing to see here.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Hardly the bottom line. No minded the wealth being spread to the rich the past 8 years.

whose wealth? The poor had no wealth to spread around, so pretty much that does not make sense.

You remain uninformed as usual. Or informed with blinders on. Back to work people. nothing to see here.

I am? how so? If the poor had wealth to steal the nthey would not have been poor in the first place, and you would have to say we were stealing from the rich. Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am? how so? If the poor had wealth to steal the nthey would not have been poor in the first place, and you would have to say we were stealing from the rich. Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

It's not stealing if it's legally sanctioned through representative democratic elections. Get over it. It happens already, always has and always will. Get used to it.

It is stealing when it is done for no other reason than to give to someone else, and not done to support the functions of govt. It is wealth redistribution nothing more.


Is this sentence the only thing you have read of mine on this page that you wanna dispute?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is stealing when it is done for no other reason than to give to someone else, and not done to support the functions of govt. It is wealth redistribution nothing more.

Is this sentence the only thing you have read of mine on this page that you wanna dispute?

Wealth redistribution in the interests of kickstarting a paralysed economy, which ultimately will benefit everyone. In case you hadn't noticed spending money is becoming increasingly thin on the ground of late. It being all tied up in capital is no good. People need to spend on goods to promote growth and thereby entice people to employ their capital in expansion and growth. At the moment that ain't happening. It's not stealing, it's sensible government. When things improve the tax bands can shift in the opposite direction I'm guessing. It's not stealing because the government of your nation, whether you like it or not, is responsible for protecting your civil, financial and property rights. What it giveth with one hand it can taketh away with the other, when necessary to ensure the whole nation doesn't slide into the abyss. You can call it stealing but that's because you have a hunter-gatherer stand alone mindset. What brought man out of hunter-gatherer living was the realisation that they could work together for mutual betterment. I don't expect you to understand or acknowledge this. All you're concerned with is you, and you think that a self-centred ethos will result in an efficient utopian society. I'm afraid that that's just ludicrous. Life isn't that simplistic.

The only real potential flaw in this Obama move is that he will simply boost inflation, which is obviously counter-productive. Ultimately this tax money will find it's way back into the pockets of the fat cats anyway - this is just an exercise in circulation of capital as far as I can see.

In the words of Congressman Barney Frank, "There are plenty of rich people we can tax heavily". Pffff. What a load of shit. If that's the case, get ready for the middle class to feel the full brunt of unemployment. If this is something that Barack Obama sees necessary to be done, well this isn't the time to do it. My father's business employs over 250 workers. Once taxes have been raised, what capital will be left to maintain the salaries of 250+ workers? We're talking about layoffs, jobcuts, and conserving capital to the max. In an economy under levels of distress that we haven't seen for decades, this is not what needs to happen right now.

Last edited by dan673 (2008-10-25 10:43:58)

lowing wrote:

I am focusing too much on money? I see, well then if money is just not so important, then stop endorsing taking it from people that have it. I love how money is not important yet you all seem to know what to do with other peoples, and tell me how unimportant money is so I shouldn't have a problem just giving some more of it away.

I'd bring back the barter system if I could convince more people to support it.  Right now, we have a system based more on bullshit (speculation) than on actual material worth.

lowing wrote:

Education is fine Turquoise, the problem is the lack of moral character, that is prevailing in our country. The problem is, Americans are more and more emulating a sense of entitlement over a sense of responsibility. The problem is, parents are NOT raising their kids properly with respect and true guidance.

...and a large part of that is the result of rampant consumerism in this country.

lowing wrote:

Once again you guys want to blame everyone and everything for personal problems over blaming the individual. Now, people are poor because of bad education systems, it could not be because they simply didn't attend.


You did not address my post in the slightest Turquoise please do so,

I will also ask you to tell me how nessessary a factory worker is without a factory to work in. The rich provide the jobs and pay us to work for them. They assume YOU wanted to work for them since YOU asked them for a job, and was probably excited to beat all hell when you got hired. The truth is you are not that important to a company nor I, if we quit there will always be someone there to take our places. Or have you ever noticed how unemotional a company is compared to an individual when a job is granted, lost, or enhanced?

You think you are important to a company, nope, YOU need them, THEY need anyone.

I'll be honest, lowing.  The people I respect the most live off of the land.  They don't need companies to employ them, and they don't even need to go to the store very often because they can find what they need in nature.   The further we get away from that, the less we value the environment and people in general.

So, in a way, I can agree with you -- just not for the reasons you'd expect.  Maybe we really should move away from tax schemes and even corporate power structures altogether.  If we went back to learning how to live in the wild, we'd be a lot more adaptable.  Don't mistake this as a full rejection of technology -- I would just prefer if we'd be less consumerist and more survivalist.

Admittedly, my own life is a demonstration of what it is to be part of the system.  As you said, my company could easily replace me without a second thought.  But I have to seriously ask myself and everyone else if that's really the life you want to lead.  Maybe I really have chosen the wrong path.  If we submit ourselves as slaves to corporations, we can only expect to remain dependent on people that care very little about our long term needs.  All they really care about is profit.

So, overall, we have developed a system that supports a lifestyle that may be convenient, but is it really healthy?  Look at the direction we're going in with respect to obesity.  Look at how cancer rates have gone up considerably in the last few decades.  Look at how respiratory illnesses like asthma have risen as a direct result of air pollution.   Autistic births have skyrocketed.

So yeah...  maybe I'm choosing the wrong battle here.  I'll tell you what...  Keep your money.  The rich can keep theirs as well.  I should probably care a lot less about what others do with their money and figure out a way to ween myself off of this corrupt system.

I think lowing needs to read Das Capital.  Yes lowing, if you read it you will turn into a pinko commie.

It gives insight into the integral worker/capital/commodity relationship that lowing seems to have minimal understanding of.  Maybe after you read that (or at least the cliffs notes on it) I can recommend another book for you.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I think lowing needs to read Das Capital.  Yes lowing, if you read it you will turn into a pinko commie.

It gives insight into the integral worker/capital/commodity relationship that lowing seems to have minimal understanding of.  Maybe after you read that (or at least the cliffs notes on it) I can recommend another book for you.

Even if he read the more 'lowing-palatable' Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith he might begin to post things that show some semblance of an understanding of economics.

CameronPoe wrote:

dan673 wrote:

In the words of Congressman Barney Frank, "There are plenty of rich people we can tax heavily". Pffff. What a load of shit. If that's the case, get ready for the middle class to feel the full brunt of unemployment. If this is something that Barack Obama sees necessary to be done, well this isn't the time to do it. My father's business employs over 250 workers. Once taxes have been raised, what capital will be left to maintain the salaries of 250+ workers? We're talking about layoffs, jobcuts, and conserving capital to the max. In an economy under levels of distress that we haven't seen for decades, this is not what needs to happen right now.

Have you seen your country's budget deficit? Where has the responsible 'paying your dues' gone there? $600bn bailout? Who will pay for that? You tax those with very little disposable income and they will definitely be consigned to the gutter. You tax those with heaps of disposable income then these people stand less of a chance of being consigned to the gutter and those with less disposable income will continue to have money to spend on the products that the capital-owners produce, thereby maintaining demand although with reduced profit margins. Either way you're fucked. Somebody has to take the hit, there will be a few steps backward taken and then the nation will march forward again in a new and better direction. It's time to take your medicine.

The overall debt is apparently irrelevant to the anointed one, as he has not produced a whit of a policy that speaks to how he's going to pay for existing obligations plus his ~$1T in NEW spending. There isn't enough money at the top 5% to pay for anything close to that.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-10-25 12:25:27)