Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

[dblack]

Each of us should decide how to redistribute our own wealth, as we see fit.

Hence you miss the difference between existing wealth and access to future wealth
.

I see the difference. It's just not relevant. Unless that wealth has been gained via fraud or coercion, then it was distributed by people voluntarily - they channeled their money to the people doing what they valued most. If it's your contention that some wealth has been accumulated through corruption, I completely agree and we should remedy that.

But, if I read you right, that's not really what you're after. You want to change the existing distribution of wealth, even if it was all voluntarily collected. You want to reverse the decision of "We the People", and supplant it with mandates from government.

Golden Rule......He who has the gold, makes the rules

What does that mean to you? How does it apply to my comments?

Think about it and get back to me

Heh....That's what I figured.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Looks like the thread has been hijacked as usual, into "It's Republicans fault!" and "It's Democrats fault!".

Back to the subject:

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

Stashing $Trillions offshore, tax free, while many are destitute and our infrastructure is crumbling is OK with you?

The government collects over 100 billion a year in taxes that are supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure

Have you ever wondered where all that money is going? It ain't going to infrastructure is it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Looks like the thread has been hijacked as usual, into "It's Republicans fault!" and "It's Democrats fault!".

Back to the subject:

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

That's the way it works isn't it?

You wave a hundred dollar bill in front of a poor person and use it to justify billions going to the wealthy

When you say billions "going to the wealthy" you mean the money they make right?

No money is being taken from anyone and given to a rich guy and you know it

And as I said the wealthy have done so well under Obama because of Obama/s economic policy of printing a shit load of money and keeping interest rates artificially low

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.


*snip*."

here's a hint for you. it's about stopping the redistribution of wealth that has been done on behalf of the top .01%.

funny how that doesn't offend wingers.

So how much money is taken from people to be given to a rich guy?

How can money be taken from people who pay no income taxes anyway?

 

[kaz]

If y'all can explain why there are mega-corporations that pay little or no taxes

There aren't, they pay billions in tax after tax, you're focusing only on one tax, the corporate tax, which is actually a double tax meaning even that tax isn't actually low

If you're too ignorant to understand the premise, just keep making stupid statements.

LOL, you think corporations don't pay taxes when they pay tax after tax after tax and call others "ignorant." Funny stuff

 

[Skull Pilot]

If y'all can explain why there are mega-corporations that pay little or no taxes

There aren't, they pay billions in tax after tax, you're focusing only on one tax, the corporate tax, which is actually a double tax meaning even that tax isn't actually low

If you're too ignorant to understand the premise, just keep making stupid statements.

LOL, you think corporations don't pay taxes when they pay tax after tax after tax and call others "ignorant." Funny stuff

These idiots think businesses are taxed like individuals

 

[Claudette]

He means to rob you to support his lazy friends and cronies while pretending to care about the little people

Yup. He wants those that work to take care of the freeloaders who take every opportunity to NOT work.

He's a moron. A socialist who loves spending other peoples money to take care of freeloaders.

 

[Claudette]

If y'all can explain why there are mega-corporations that pay little or no taxes

There aren't, they pay billions in tax after tax, you're focusing only on one tax, the corporate tax, which is actually a double tax meaning even that tax isn't actually low

If you're too ignorant to understand the premise, just keep making stupid statements.

LOL, you think corporations don't pay taxes when they pay tax after tax after tax and call others "ignorant." Funny stuff

These idiots think businesses are taxed like individuals

I agree and I venture to say that numbnuts couldn't afford to pay the taxes any company in America pays.

 

[Skull Pilot]

He means to rob you to support his lazy friends and cronies while pretending to care about the little people

Yup. He wants those that work to take care of the freeloaders who take every opportunity to NOT work.

He's a moron. A socialist who loves spending other peoples money to take care of freeloaders.

Look at Bern's history the guy is a flat out failure
No wonder he wants to take money from successful people he;s still jealous of them and blames them for his inability to make something of himself on his own

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like the thread has been hijacked as usual, into "It's Republicans fault!" and "It's Democrats fault!".

Back to the subject:

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

That's the way it works isn't it?

You wave a hundred dollar bill in front of a poor person and use it to justify billions going to the wealthy

When you say billions "going to the wealthy" you mean the money they make right?

No money is being taken from anyone and given to a rich guy and you know it

And as I said the wealthy have done so well under Obama because of Obama/s economic policy of printing a shit load of money and keeping interest rates artificially low

Money they make or money they take?

They don't really produce anything. What they do is control the purse strings and decide where the money goes. Workers produce wealth. For that work, they are provided a small piece of the pie. The wealthy control how big a piece the workers get to fight over. They use the government to protect their ability to attain and maintain wealth

 

[dblack]

Money they make or money they take?

They don't really produce anything.

Then why do people give them money?

What they do is control the purse strings and decide where the money goes.

Have you ever given any thought to how important those decisions are?

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like the thread has been hijacked as usual, into "It's Republicans fault!" and "It's Democrats fault!".

Back to the subject:

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

That's the way it works isn't it?

You wave a hundred dollar bill in front of a poor person and use it to justify billions going to the wealthy

When you say billions "going to the wealthy" you mean the money they make right?

No money is being taken from anyone and given to a rich guy and you know it

And as I said the wealthy have done so well under Obama because of Obama/s economic policy of printing a shit load of money and keeping interest rates artificially low

You look at our economy as only what is paid in taxes and shown as income
Our economy is $116 trillion. That is the size of the pie we are talking about. What is given to the wealthy is labor. They use that labor in the generation of that $116 trillion in national wealth.
Those with the largest portion of the wealth are expected to contribute to the society that creates it

 

[rightwinger]

[

What they do is control the purse strings and decide where the money goes.

Have you ever given any thought to how important those decisions are?

Actually, I have

Those decisions are not that important. You are either putting your money into option A or option B. It is not a case of Option A is immensely successful and Option B is a total failure. Typically, either option will be a qualified success. The wealthy make money regardless of the option they choose and take credit for it

 

[Ame®icano]

He wants to take money from people that have worked their asses off to be successful, and give that money to those that are too lazy and stupid to do the same.

 

[Ame®icano]

Which part of his plan do you not understand? Be specific.

Go to his web site which I have done often. Look at his issues. Click on an issue. He outlines what he considers an issue then at the bottom of that page, he outlines what he'll do to fix it. Then ask yourself how he's going to accomplish those plans under our form of government. How?

Without dictatorial powers backed up by force, he couldn't impose these "plans" on our economy and society. It's all pie-in-the-sky platitudes. They don't bear scrutiny.

Here's an example: On income inequality, Bernie lists 13 ways he'll reduce how wealth is distributed. Here's just one that I've broken down:

Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes.
--Demand all you want Bernie. That's not getting laws passed.

As president, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes.
-Those profits are private property. People and corporations can do what they want with their own private property.
-A privately owned business can move jobs wherever it find the best return on its investment.

He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million.
-Taxing the same assets twice. It was taxed when it was earned. This policy is suggested over and over and it is repeatedly pointed out that it would wipe out family farms and small businesses. Congress ignores these warnings at their own peril. Wouldn't pass.

He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
-Like the guys who manage your 401k and IRA? That's taking a percentage of money out of your retirement. Won't pass.

Fantasy land.

If Bernie's vision is so great, why hasn't it been tried before? Oh yea. It has.

I like how he'll end tax cuts and subsides to fossil fuel companies.
I gotta wonder if Colonel Sanders knows how these fossil fuel companies are going to make up the difference?
Or is he depending on the stupidity of his supporters not to connect the dots?

I guess the Directors will have to sell one or two of their 20 homes.

Aaaahhh...here's one of those Colonel Sanders supporters I just mentioned.
A swing and a miss...you have two more strikes,and I dont give participation trophies.

 

[dblack]

[

What they do is control the purse strings and decide where the money goes.

Have you ever given any thought to how important those decisions are?

Actually, I have

Those decisions are not that important. You are either putting your money into option A or option B. It is not a case of Option A is immensely successful and Option B is a total failure. Typically, either option will be a qualified success. The wealthy make money regardless of the option they choose and take credit for it

Many years ago, I attended a talk by someone who'd given it a lot of thought. He was a former economic planner for the Soviet Union. The USSR tasked its most intelligent people with the problem of "controlling the purse strings and deciding where the money goes". In the end, after decades of frustration and failure, they concluded that the only way to efficiently steer labor and resources to satisfy the needs of a pluralistic economy was a distributed network of managers, each with a vested interest in successfully utilizing the resources that they were in charge of. We call that "capitalism".

 

[Skull Pilot]

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

That's the way it works isn't it?

You wave a hundred dollar bill in front of a poor person and use it to justify billions going to the wealthy

When you say billions "going to the wealthy" you mean the money they make right?

No money is being taken from anyone and given to a rich guy and you know it

And as I said the wealthy have done so well under Obama because of Obama/s economic policy of printing a shit load of money and keeping interest rates artificially low

Money they make or money they take?

They don't really produce anything. What they do is control the purse strings and decide where the money goes. Workers produce wealth. For that work, they are provided a small piece of the pie. The wealthy control how big a piece the workers get to fight over. They use the government to protect their ability to attain and maintain wealth

Take from who?

What rich guy has ever taken money from you or anyone you know for that matter?

And workers sell their time for money that's all they do if they don't like what the market will pay for their time they can increase the worth of their time or work for themselves

Believe me there are not too many people out there whose leaving a business would even be noticed

 

[rightwinger]

[

What they do is control the purse strings and decide where the money goes.

Have you ever given any thought to how important those decisions are?

Actually, I have

Those decisions are not that important. You are either putting your money into option A or option B. It is not a case of Option A is immensely successful and Option B is a total failure. Typically, either option will be a qualified success. The wealthy make money regardless of the option they choose and take credit for it

Many years ago, I attended a talk by someone who'd given it a lot of thought. He was a former economic planner for the Soviet Union. The USSR tasked its most intelligent people with the problem of "controlling the purse strings and deciding where the money goes". In the end, after decades of frustration and failure, they concluded that the only way to efficiently steer labor and resources to satisfy the needs of a pluralistic economy was a distributed network of managers, each with a vested interest in successfully utilizing the resources that they were in charge of. We call that "capitalism".

Very true

And nobody is advocating giving government control of production and resources
What is being looked at is our current government policies that are built to ensure the accumulation and protection of wealth at the highest levels

 

[Skull Pilot]

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

That's the way it works isn't it?

You wave a hundred dollar bill in front of a poor person and use it to justify billions going to the wealthy

When you say billions "going to the wealthy" you mean the money they make right?

No money is being taken from anyone and given to a rich guy and you know it

And as I said the wealthy have done so well under Obama because of Obama/s economic policy of printing a shit load of money and keeping interest rates artificially low

You look at our economy as only what is paid in taxes and shown as income
Our economy is $116 trillion. That is the size of the pie we are talking about. What is given to the wealthy is labor. They use that labor in the generation of that $116 trillion in national wealth.
Those with the largest portion of the wealth are expected to contribute to the society that creates it

No one gives their labor to anyone they all get remunerated at the rate they themselves agreed to.

And the wealthiest already pay the lion's share of taxes a fact you seem to deny

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

That's the way it works isn't it?

You wave a hundred dollar bill in front of a poor person and use it to justify billions going to the wealthy

When you say billions "going to the wealthy" you mean the money they make right?

No money is being taken from anyone and given to a rich guy and you know it

And as I said the wealthy have done so well under Obama because of Obama/s economic policy of printing a shit load of money and keeping interest rates artificially low

Money they make or money they take?

They don't really produce anything. What they do is control the purse strings and decide where the money goes. Workers produce wealth. For that work, they are provided a small piece of the pie. The wealthy control how big a piece the workers get to fight over. They use the government to protect their ability to attain and maintain wealth

Take from who?

What rich guy has ever taken money from you or anyone you know for that matter?

And workers sell their time for money that's all they do if they don't like what the market will pay for their time they can increase the worth of their time or work for themselves

Believe me there are not too many people out there whose leaving a business would even be noticed

Again you are wrapped up around the mighty dollar while you ignore how it is generated. The workers don't give dollars to the wealthy...they give labor. That labor is used to generate wealth

The rich guy takes our money by controlling how that wealth is distributed and uses the government to write laws and tax codes that protects his wealth