Redistribution of Wealth?

bwray

bwray

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
471
The information below was received from a democratic friend of mine by email. We discuss politics in the Cantina, but not usually at this level of detail. I was just wondering about peoples reactions, especially on the issue of "redistribution of wealth", which is usually a catch phrase leveled at Democrats for seeking to move money from rich to not so rich. It seems clear that money is actually being redistributed in the other direction, and, based on other data, has been for some time. This is consistent with the fact that the income ratio of rich to poor has been increasing for years. Warren Buffet (worth $30 billion, the second richest person in the world), investment guru and Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, commented in a recent interview that, with respect to redistribution of wealth, "the rich are winning". This is surely an important issue in everyone's life. So whadaya think?



Decisions about the federal budget effect all of us more than perhaps anything else Congress does—we're literally all in this one together.*

It should be*called*the "reverse Robin Hood" budget because it takes Bush's*habit of robbing from the poor and middle class to pay back his wealthy*and corporate supporters to new heights. Here are*some of the highlights of how Bush's plan would effect us all:

Social Security: Bush is trying to use the budget to sneak through his old $700 billion dollar plan to privatize Social Security and immediately slash benefits by $6.3 billion dollars.

Health Care: Bush would slash Medicaid by $13.7 billion over 5 years, abandoning millions of young, elderly, poor and disabled Americans who depend on Medicaid as their health care option of last resort.

Education: Bush is pushing for the largest cut in the history of the Department of Education, and to completely eliminate the Perkins loan, a vital program for college students in need.

Child care: Bush wants to kick 400,000 children out of child care programs for low income working families.

Budget busting tax breaks for the rich: Bush's budget would only continue to explode the deficit by giving away over $900 billion dollars to richest 1% of the population over 10 years.

Deeper debt: Bush wants to give so much away to millionaires that even after his service cuts the annual deficit would grow by almost $200 billion dollars

Please*consider this*issue*seriously and reach out to our*representatives—speak out and make our Democracy better! We don't have to take this any more.
 
In my experience in 21 plus years of being a public employee is that when Democrats are in if there is some sort of a mandate you will have the money and employees to deal with it. If the budget is cut the people that are cut loose are the mid to upper management people, the bean counters that earn a lot of money but don't do a lot of the work. This does not impact the work that much. You might not get any big raises, but your job won't get any harder.

However with the GOP if some new mandate passes you will not get the money to deal with it and you just get backed up. Also rather than totally eliminate a program or aspect to a program they will leave it in place but not fully fund it. This causes stuff to get backed up and makes working conditions worse. Also they rely on attrition with regard to cost savings and what ends up is the line level employees who have to bear the brunt of doing more with less end up quitting and the bean counters get to keep their jobs. So the people who are doing the work not only get it from the public, who is not getting the service they deserve, but also from the enraged bean counters!
 
Okay...so, let's do all the things it's claimed Bush suggests, except for additional tax incentives (ever notice how phraseology can affect how you feel about an issue?) for the wealthy.

J
 
Bill -

I already got this email. That should tell you what I think of the issue. ;-)

But for a more detailed approach... I have seen some "hard" evidence by economists on the dangers of isolating wealth in a very small portion of society, thereby heavily stratifying the majority's ability to participate extensively in the free market economy. Which, last time I checked, was what pretty much the only thing that keeps us as a country ticking.

Unfortunately, I deleted the email with those links. Anybody, from either side of this discussion, have links to economists' (I am not interested in what a "talking head" has to say on this unless armed with numbers) findings on this phenomenon?

By the way, munk, I will save you the trouble: I prefer the title, "heavily armed liberaltarian." Just for the record.
 
hollowdweller said:
However with the GOP if some new mandate passes you will not get the money to deal with it and you just get backed up. Also rather than totally eliminate a program or aspect to a program they will leave it in place but not fully fund it. This causes stuff to get backed up and makes working conditions worse. Also they rely on attrition with regard to cost savings and what ends up is the line level employees who have to bear the brunt of doing more with less end up quitting and the bean counters get to keep their jobs. So the people who are doing the work not only get it from the public, who is not getting the service they deserve, but also from the enraged bean counters!
Click to expand...

That's funny... sounds like what happens in the private sector too, every time the Repubs get control of the Administration, House, and Senate.
 
I say if you are gonna cut a program CUT IT.

Take some of the money you saved and use it to pay off the debt, or strengthen some other program, but don't cut a program to the point it doesn't work and then have the public expect it to work and the employees have to deal with the fallout when it doesn't.
 
brokenhallelujah said:
But for a more detailed approach... I have seen some "hard" evidence by economists on the dangers of isolating wealth in a very small portion of society, thereby heavily stratifying the majority's ability to participate extensively in the free market economy.
Click to expand...

I was hoping my post would turn up more detail, both for myself as well as for other interested forumites. Maybe apropriate links will be located as the matter is discussed. I think we all hear enough spin on both sides of the issue. Thanks.
 
Spectre said:
Okay...so, let's do all the things it's claimed Bush suggests, except for additional tax incentives (ever notice how phraseology can affect how you feel about an issue?) for the wealthy.

J
Click to expand...

That, at the very least, would be a good start.:thumbup:
 
Anyone who thinks that greater and greater concentration of wealth is not a serious problem for a society needs to study history, starting with the period 1930-1940. It leads to class warfare, which is the basic policy of some politicians, politics for most politicians being solely the search for power rather than service of the common good. We, as a society, had BETTER find a way to expand the middle class rather than see it continue to shrink.


Having said that, the number of persons employed by the federal government has increased during every administration during my adult lifetime - D or R. The proportion of those federal employees in the non-military segment is higher today than at any time in my adult lifetime.

The total portion of the GNP devoted to the support of government - at all levels - has increased steadily during my adult lifetime to its present, record level.

"Enough" spending is never attained when what is being spent is other people's money.


The founder of my party said:

"I am not a friend to energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"The natural progess of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

"I predict futire happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
 
Whats that old saying ? " The Rich keep getting richer "

This has always been presented to me as being cyclic . it seems to me that the wave in the cycle keeps getting larger . I respect that money talks . It talks more in its own interest of late as if money has taken on its own identity and that this identity rules more of us each day .I am trying to opt out . The question with opting out is that the basic principal is sound . It is what we choose to do with it . Prosperity is good . Greed in and of itself is good . Up till now greed has been self defeating or at least within control of its own destruction . As money takes on more of its own identity this identity is harder to destroy . In truth it lies within ourselves .
 
Thomas Linton said:
Having said that, the number of persons employed by the federal government has increased during every administration during my adult lifetime - D or R. The proportion of those federal employees in the non-military segment is higher today than at any time in my adult lifetime.
Click to expand...

So do you think that is because the size of the government keeps growing or do you think that it is because the population is increasing and a corresponding increase in gov't employees are needed to provide services???

For instance the number of people receiving Social Security Disability and SSI is at an all time high and also these people are being put on the rolls at an earlier age than ever before.
 
Here are a few interesting articles. Let's also keep in mind as we discuss this that it isn't a problem isolated to the U.S., but is a worldwide phenomenon. I am, of course, more concerned with what is happening in my own backyard, but in this case, the golden rule and Ockham's razor point out similar paths.

In my opinion, of course.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/quality/2006/0123dissent.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2005/1222inequgains.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2004/0615millionaires.htm
 
hollowdweller said:
So do you think that is because the size of the government keeps growing or do you think that it is because the population is increasing and a corresponding increase in gov't employees are needed to provide services???

For instance the number of people receiving Social Security Disability and SSI is at an all time high and also these people are being put on the rolls at an earlier age than ever before.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right about the increase in population and retireees.

And having worked at a place that downsized for twenty-one consecutive years (total of 64% reduction - then did some big staff cuts, I have more than a slight exposure to the impact of those still trying to get the work done. My department went from 19 line and 17 support to 5 line and 4 support in nine years. But at least the total quantity of work to be done by the department increased. (Not that it actually got done, you understand. Everyone just did what they could -- pretending to do all -- and the organization pretended the work was getting done properly. Does that sound familiar, HD?)

BUT:

>If they are being put "on the roles at an earlier age than ever before," why is that my problem? Is there now an entitlement to ever-earlier retirement even as the working population dereases as a % of total population? That simply will not work. (But there is no problem in the distant future that cannot be put off by the political class today.)

>Whatever the "problem" is, it is not a decrease in the "share" going to government. The government "share" of the pie keeps increasing, under D's or R's.

>We have now reached the stage that not taking money away from a citizen is called "giving away" the people's money. The logic of this is that all property belongs to the government and the government decides how much one gets to retain. (The same rationale underlies the confiscatory "eminent domain" laws that take the homes of the modest to benefit the wealthy and the government.)

>In another example of newspeak, slowing the increase in spending for a govenment program is called "cutting spending."

>Another newspeak rule: increases don't count. Only decreases count. So increases in outright grants that (only) partially offset phase out of Perkins Loans are not part of the discussion.
 
Sounds very familiar.

Speaking of budget cuts I just found this. Apparently there IS some money for some new programs:D

" In its 2007 budget, the Bush administration asks for $15 million to fund random drug testing of students—if approved, a 50 percent increase over 2006. Officials from the federal drug czar's office are crisscrossing the country to sell the testing to school districts. "
http://www.slate.com/id/2138399/


Let freedom ring!:rolleyes:
 
Thomas Linton said:
Anyone who thinks that greater and greater concentration of wealth is not a serious problem for a society needs to study history, starting with the period 1930-1940. It leads to class warfare, which is the basic policy of some politicians, politics for most politicians being solely the search for power rather than service of the common good. We, as a society, had BETTER find a way to expand the middle class rather than see it continue to shrink.
Click to expand...

What amazes me is the number of people who seem oblivious to the fact that this is even happening. It's a lesson in how effective the tactic of distraction can be. Hopefully this thread will provide info that can enhance awareness.
 
BWray, If you are interested in the econnomic policies dealing with the disparity between rich and poor you should read Joseph Stiglitz.

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

Anyone who believes that america pracitces free market capitalism is deluding themselves. The US treasury department uses the IMF to force developing markets open to manufactured and technological goods from western countries when local industries are not developed enough yet to compete. Meanwhile rich nations keep agricultural products from poor countries out. Developed countries have a competative advantage when it comes to manufactured goods and technology so they claim to practice free market policy and force everyone else to follow suit, destroying any hope of local development in these sectors. Developing countries have a competative advantage in the agricultural sector due to low labor costs so rich countries protect their own agricultural sectors. That is not free market capitalism.

Gord
 
Grob said:
BWray, If you are interested in the econnomic policies dealing with the disparity between rich and poor you should read Joseph Stiglitz.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I bookmarked his homepage.
 
Eductional spending per pupil K-12 in constant Dollars (Source: U.S.D.E.)

1960 $2100
2000 $7000

Federal aid to higher education (Source: The College Board)

1983-1984 $28.4 billion
2003-2004 $122 billion

The "cuts" go on and on ---------- in the SAT scores.
 
bwray said:
What amazes me is the number of people who seem oblivious to the fact that this is even happening. It's a lesson in how effective the tactic of distraction can be.
Click to expand...

Oblivious to what? Huh? Ooh, look, The Simple Life is on... :p

"The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses!" -- Juvenal, Satires
 
Congress makes the laws.

They don't support the people, only in it for themselves.

We could start by taking away Congress' EXCLUSIVE retirement program. Full pay for life! Make them come under the Social Security Plan. See how fast things would change.

Congress should NOT be exempt from any law they make.!
Ever notice how many laws are passed with the disclaimer, EXCEPT for Congress .

I have had the opportunity to watch alot of CSPAN in the last few years. Congress is not very productive and spend alot of time patting each other on the back OR tearing at each others throats. Of course, preceding their comments by 'My Friend from----' Senate protocol , don't you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top