CDZ redistribution of wealth

[9aces]

If you're saying it's been cut in half because he almost doubled Bush's last budget....I guess.

These are not previously made bills. These are the bills that have been laid down by appropriations bills HE signed. No appropriations bills...no money.

The only bills laid down by previous administrations are the interest on the debt.

No. The deficit has been cut in half. That includes the bills he signed into law. You really should look for documented facts instead of just believing all the right wing lies.

We are looking at the facts. You are the ignorant one here.

Obama signed the budget. It's his budget from the instant he signed it on.

Moreover, he voted in favor of the massive spending as Senator, before he was president. He voted for it, he owns it.

Even more, he has continued every single massive spending policy for years after Bush was gone. He continued it, it's now HIS policy.

I don't care how you look at it, or what mental gymnastics you jump and twist around it, Obama is 100% guilty. Only a brainless idiot would conclude otherwise.

So how do you explain the deficit being cut in half?

He jacked it up to $1.4 Trillion (or more), first. Anyone can cut the deficit in half, after you triple it to begin with.

He didn't have time to increase it as fast as it increased. The rocket like rise at the very first of his presidency was the result of the previous administration's mis-management.

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

 

[Bern80]

It depends. All it depends on is whether the transfer was voluntary between all parties involved. If so, that's okay. If it has to be taken by force, it is not okay.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. The deficit has been cut in half. That includes the bills he signed into law. You really should look for documented facts instead of just believing all the right wing lies.

We are looking at the facts. You are the ignorant one here.

Obama signed the budget. It's his budget from the instant he signed it on.

Moreover, he voted in favor of the massive spending as Senator, before he was president. He voted for it, he owns it.

Even more, he has continued every single massive spending policy for years after Bush was gone. He continued it, it's now HIS policy.

I don't care how you look at it, or what mental gymnastics you jump and twist around it, Obama is 100% guilty. Only a brainless idiot would conclude otherwise.

So how do you explain the deficit being cut in half?

He jacked it up to $1.4 Trillion (or more), first. Anyone can cut the deficit in half, after you triple it to begin with.

He didn't have time to increase it as fast as it increased. The rocket like rise at the very first of his presidency was the result of the previous administration's mis-management.

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

 

[Andylusion]

We are looking at the facts. You are the ignorant one here.

Obama signed the budget. It's his budget from the instant he signed it on.

Moreover, he voted in favor of the massive spending as Senator, before he was president. He voted for it, he owns it.

Even more, he has continued every single massive spending policy for years after Bush was gone. He continued it, it's now HIS policy.

I don't care how you look at it, or what mental gymnastics you jump and twist around it, Obama is 100% guilty. Only a brainless idiot would conclude otherwise.

So how do you explain the deficit being cut in half?

He jacked it up to $1.4 Trillion (or more), first. Anyone can cut the deficit in half, after you triple it to begin with.

He didn't have time to increase it as fast as it increased. The rocket like rise at the very first of his presidency was the result of the previous administration's mis-management.

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

Which Obama voted, and supported. No excuses. Childish excuses need to end. Grown up time.

 

[BULLDOG]

So how do you explain the deficit being cut in half?

He jacked it up to $1.4 Trillion (or more), first. Anyone can cut the deficit in half, after you triple it to begin with.

He didn't have time to increase it as fast as it increased. The rocket like rise at the very first of his presidency was the result of the previous administration's mis-management.

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

Which Obama voted, and supported. No excuses. Childish excuses need to end. Grown up time.

Childish excuses like " he didn't clean up bush's mess fast enough"?

 

[Andylusion]

He jacked it up to $1.4 Trillion (or more), first. Anyone can cut the deficit in half, after you triple it to begin with.

He didn't have time to increase it as fast as it increased. The rocket like rise at the very first of his presidency was the result of the previous administration's mis-management.

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

Which Obama voted, and supported. No excuses. Childish excuses need to end. Grown up time.

Childish excuses like " he didn't clean up bush's mess fast enough"?

..... or like "He voted for it... he supported it..... he continued it..... BUT IT'S STILL BUSH'S MESS!"

Children always blame shift.

That's the difference between the right-wing, and the left-wing. I don't see many right-wing people on here going "Bush had nothing, as in nothing, at all to do with any of the debt at all period".

Never seen a right-winger say that yet.

We don't deny Bush's involvement. We just don't give everyone else a childish blanket excuse.

The left-wing.... that's all they have done on this thread, is give excuses.

Adults and children on the forum.

Adults..... and children.

 

[BULLDOG]

He didn't have time to increase it as fast as it increased. The rocket like rise at the very first of his presidency was the result of the previous administration's mis-management.

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

Which Obama voted, and supported. No excuses. Childish excuses need to end. Grown up time.

Childish excuses like " he didn't clean up bush's mess fast enough"?

..... or like "He voted for it... he supported it..... he continued it..... BUT IT'S STILL BUSH'S MESS!"

Children always blame shift.

That's the difference between the right-wing, and the left-wing. I don't see many right-wing people on here going "Bush had nothing, as in nothing, at all to do with any of the debt at all period".

Never seen a right-winger say that yet.

We don't deny Bush's involvement. We just don't give everyone else a childish blanket excuse.

The left-wing.... that's all they have done on this thread, is give excuses.

Adults and children on the forum.

Adults..... and children.

No dumb ass. The stimulus, which worked, but not as good as it would have if it had been larger, was in response to the bush financial collapse. Not the cause of it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's funny is in reality pure unregulated capitalism redistributes all the wealth to the 1%. It would be wonderful if at least 10-15% of this country could have a chance to open up a business and create/hold on to wealth.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

Which Obama voted, and supported. No excuses. Childish excuses need to end. Grown up time.

Childish excuses like " he didn't clean up bush's mess fast enough"?

..... or like "He voted for it... he supported it..... he continued it..... BUT IT'S STILL BUSH'S MESS!"

Children always blame shift.

That's the difference between the right-wing, and the left-wing. I don't see many right-wing people on here going "Bush had nothing, as in nothing, at all to do with any of the debt at all period".

Never seen a right-winger say that yet.

We don't deny Bush's involvement. We just don't give everyone else a childish blanket excuse.

The left-wing.... that's all they have done on this thread, is give excuses.

Adults and children on the forum.

Adults..... and children.

No dumb ass. The stimulus, which worked, but not as good as it would have if it had been larger, was in response to the bush financial collapse. Not the cause of it.

Again, adults look at the claims, and the results, and determine based on those facts, whether or not something worked.

Obama's own economic advisory board, declared that without the stimulus, unemployment would peak at 8%, and then recover.

WITH the stimulus bill, they claimed the unemployment rate would peak at 6%, and then recover. Moreover, they claimed the recession would peak by 2010. Did it?

Why... no it did not. Again, children blame shift.... adults look at facts.

Unemployment went over 10%, and did not peak until 2010, and really didn't fall much until 2011. Moreover, it was one of the slowest recovery ever recorded after a recession.

Facts - Right-wing
Blame shifting - Left-wing

Further, you could look at Canada. Canada didn't have the stimulus bill we had. Their "stimulus" bill was mostly symbolic. Less than 1/10th the relative size of ours, and 1/3rd of is was income tax cuts.... even "for the rich".

Interestingly, they peaked out at 8% unemployment, and get this.... their recovery started in 2008.

Huh.... what a shock.... totally shocked.

Again...... Facts = RW.... Blame shifting = LW.

The stimulus didn't do anything to stop, or fix the recession. If anything, it's likely the stimulus made the recession worse. There is no evidence it succeeded in anything, except increase the debt. Which was the foundation of this discussion. Whose fault is the debt.... and Obama supported the stimulus. So he is 100% just as guilty as Bush.

Now you want to talk about the origins of the sub-prime crash, we can do that. But I can tell you right now, it doesn't change anything in this argument.

 

[Andylusion]

What's funny is in reality pure unregulated capitalism redistributes all the wealth to the 1%. It would be wonderful if at least 10-15% of this country could have a chance to open up a business and create/hold on to wealth.

I would assume that you agree that out of all the countries in this world today, the US has the longest history of having a fairly low-level of regulation, and only limited restraint on Capitalism.... yes? Would you agree with that?

Moreover, we as a country, started from absolute scratch, as a colony of world powers that had existed for hundreds, or thousands of years before us. And yet today we have a standard of living equal to, if not greater than, any of those civilizations. I would assume you agree with that?

Further, we as a country have CREATED more of the worlds ultra wealthy, than any other economic system in place, anywhere else in the world.

My parents are millionaires. All they did was save an invest. That's it.

I have a greater net worth myself, than most of the people I know who earn far larger paychecks than I do. The only difference between me and them is.... I save money, and I don't borrow. No credit cards. No car loan. I put money in my IRA in stocks. That's it.

Now my question for you sir.... how do you explain that?

If the implication you made, that people can't create wealth, and don't have a chance to open a business, and hold on to that wealth were true........ How do you explain a drunk, whittling duck callers behind his house, driving his beat up pickup truck around to stores to sell them, ends up a multi-millionaire and a TV show?

How do you explain an unemployed Mexican without a work permit, now CEO of his own company, and a multimillionaire?

The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News

How do you explain Maria De Lourdes Sobrino who started making deserts from her home, and now Lulu's Deserts is sold in Walmart?

Lulu's Dessert

How do you explain Marcelo Claure, who started BrightStar in 1995, now 58# on Forbes largest private companies?

How do you explain all these and hundreds of other examples? How did these people all miss the liberal left-wing memo?

You're an old poor drunk white guy in the sticks.... you can't start Duck Commander and be a millionaire!
You're a poor unemployed uneducated Mexican immigrant.... you can't start a company selling drones!
You're a middle age woman.... You can't start your own desert company!

None of you can make a business... create wealth.... and keep it!

Apparently they missed your memo dude! How do you explain that?

 

[BULLDOG]

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

Which Obama voted, and supported. No excuses. Childish excuses need to end. Grown up time.

Childish excuses like " he didn't clean up bush's mess fast enough"?

..... or like "He voted for it... he supported it..... he continued it..... BUT IT'S STILL BUSH'S MESS!"

Children always blame shift.

That's the difference between the right-wing, and the left-wing. I don't see many right-wing people on here going "Bush had nothing, as in nothing, at all to do with any of the debt at all period".

Never seen a right-winger say that yet.

We don't deny Bush's involvement. We just don't give everyone else a childish blanket excuse.

The left-wing.... that's all they have done on this thread, is give excuses.

Adults and children on the forum.

Adults..... and children.

No dumb ass. The stimulus, which worked, but not as good as it would have if it had been larger, was in response to the bush financial collapse. Not the cause of it.

Again, adults look at the claims, and the results, and determine based on those facts, whether or not something worked.

Obama's own economic advisory board, declared that without the stimulus, unemployment would peak at 8%, and then recover.

WITH the stimulus bill, they claimed the unemployment rate would peak at 6%, and then recover. Moreover, they claimed the recession would peak by 2010. Did it?

Why... no it did not. Again, children blame shift.... adults look at facts.

Unemployment went over 10%, and did not peak until 2010, and really didn't fall much until 2011. Moreover, it was one of the slowest recovery ever recorded after a recession.

Facts - Right-wing
Blame shifting - Left-wing

Further, you could look at Canada. Canada didn't have the stimulus bill we had. Their "stimulus" bill was mostly symbolic. Less than 1/10th the relative size of ours, and 1/3rd of is was income tax cuts.... even "for the rich".

Interestingly, they peaked out at 8% unemployment, and get this.... their recovery started in 2008.

Huh.... what a shock.... totally shocked.

Again...... Facts = RW.... Blame shifting = LW.

The stimulus didn't do anything to stop, or fix the recession. If anything, it's likely the stimulus made the recession worse. There is no evidence it succeeded in anything, except increase the debt. Which was the foundation of this discussion. Whose fault is the debt.... and Obama supported the stimulus. So he is 100% just as guilty as Bush.

Now you want to talk about the origins of the sub-prime crash, we can do that. But I can tell you right now, it doesn't change anything in this argument.

Canada's problems were not as extensive as ours were.

 

[9aces]

We are looking at the facts. You are the ignorant one here.

Obama signed the budget. It's his budget from the instant he signed it on.

Moreover, he voted in favor of the massive spending as Senator, before he was president. He voted for it, he owns it.

Even more, he has continued every single massive spending policy for years after Bush was gone. He continued it, it's now HIS policy.

I don't care how you look at it, or what mental gymnastics you jump and twist around it, Obama is 100% guilty. Only a brainless idiot would conclude otherwise.

So how do you explain the deficit being cut in half?

He jacked it up to $1.4 Trillion (or more), first. Anyone can cut the deficit in half, after you triple it to begin with.

He didn't have time to increase it as fast as it increased. The rocket like rise at the very first of his presidency was the result of the previous administration's mis-management.

Actually the rocket rise was all things he signed for. The 2009 budget, the Stimulus Package, etc.

All needed because of mismanagement from before.

So you're saying the Democratic congress, which had control of congress is responsible? Including one Barrack Hussein Obama? Gotcha.

You did know who actually spends the money right?

 

[Andylusion]

Which Obama voted, and supported. No excuses. Childish excuses need to end. Grown up time.

Childish excuses like " he didn't clean up bush's mess fast enough"?

..... or like "He voted for it... he supported it..... he continued it..... BUT IT'S STILL BUSH'S MESS!"

Children always blame shift.

That's the difference between the right-wing, and the left-wing. I don't see many right-wing people on here going "Bush had nothing, as in nothing, at all to do with any of the debt at all period".

Never seen a right-winger say that yet.

We don't deny Bush's involvement. We just don't give everyone else a childish blanket excuse.

The left-wing.... that's all they have done on this thread, is give excuses.

Adults and children on the forum.

Adults..... and children.

No dumb ass. The stimulus, which worked, but not as good as it would have if it had been larger, was in response to the bush financial collapse. Not the cause of it.

Again, adults look at the claims, and the results, and determine based on those facts, whether or not something worked.

Obama's own economic advisory board, declared that without the stimulus, unemployment would peak at 8%, and then recover.

WITH the stimulus bill, they claimed the unemployment rate would peak at 6%, and then recover. Moreover, they claimed the recession would peak by 2010. Did it?

Why... no it did not. Again, children blame shift.... adults look at facts.

Unemployment went over 10%, and did not peak until 2010, and really didn't fall much until 2011. Moreover, it was one of the slowest recovery ever recorded after a recession.

Facts - Right-wing
Blame shifting - Left-wing

Further, you could look at Canada. Canada didn't have the stimulus bill we had. Their "stimulus" bill was mostly symbolic. Less than 1/10th the relative size of ours, and 1/3rd of is was income tax cuts.... even "for the rich".

Interestingly, they peaked out at 8% unemployment, and get this.... their recovery started in 2008.

Huh.... what a shock.... totally shocked.

Again...... Facts = RW.... Blame shifting = LW.

The stimulus didn't do anything to stop, or fix the recession. If anything, it's likely the stimulus made the recession worse. There is no evidence it succeeded in anything, except increase the debt. Which was the foundation of this discussion. Whose fault is the debt.... and Obama supported the stimulus. So he is 100% just as guilty as Bush.

Now you want to talk about the origins of the sub-prime crash, we can do that. But I can tell you right now, it doesn't change anything in this argument.

Canada's problems were not as extensive as ours were.

That is true. Funny, given the fact they have a far more relaxed, and less regulated banking system. In fact, many regard Canada's banking system to be one of the least regulated in the world.

Maybe those thousands on thousands of banking regulations that you claim should have prevented the sub-prime crash, and supposedly will prevent a future crash, are in fact causing the crashes?

 

[SingleVoyce]

What's funny is in reality pure unregulated capitalism redistributes all the wealth to the 1%. It would be wonderful if at least 10-15% of this country could have a chance to open up a business and create/hold on to wealth.

Actually, pure, unregulated capitalism would result in the wealth concentrating in the hands of far less than 1%. Is there anybody who actually believes that pure, unregulated capitalism is a workable system?

 

[Andylusion]

What's funny is in reality pure unregulated capitalism redistributes all the wealth to the 1%. It would be wonderful if at least 10-15% of this country could have a chance to open up a business and create/hold on to wealth.

Actually, pure, unregulated capitalism would result in the wealth concentrating in the hands of far less than 1%. Is there anybody who actually believes that pure, unregulated capitalism is a workable system?

No evidence to support such a claim. Tons that contradict it.

 

[SingleVoyce]

What's funny is in reality pure unregulated capitalism redistributes all the wealth to the 1%. It would be wonderful if at least 10-15% of this country could have a chance to open up a business and create/hold on to wealth.

Actually, pure, unregulated capitalism would result in the wealth concentrating in the hands of far less than 1%. Is there anybody who actually believes that pure, unregulated capitalism is a workable system?

No evidence to support such a claim. Tons that contradict it.

I'm not familiar with this contradictory evidence. Can you provide me with a reference?

 

[Andylusion]

What's funny is in reality pure unregulated capitalism redistributes all the wealth to the 1%. It would be wonderful if at least 10-15% of this country could have a chance to open up a business and create/hold on to wealth.

Actually, pure, unregulated capitalism would result in the wealth concentrating in the hands of far less than 1%. Is there anybody who actually believes that pure, unregulated capitalism is a workable system?

No evidence to support such a claim. Tons that contradict it.

I'm not familiar with this contradictory evidence. Can you provide me with a reference?

Pretty much everywhere. Haiti, USSR, Cuba, Egypt, Switzerland. Everywhere in the world could be used a counter evidence to your claim.

Now obviously, there is 100% pure capitalist system, and there isn't any 100% pure socialist system. Even Communist Russia got 1/4th of their food from capitalist for-profit farms, because Communist collective farms sucked so bad, they couldn't even feed their own workers, let alone export food as they had in the years leading up to the revolution.

But take Haiti. Haiti has horrible anti-capitalist laws, that don't even respect property. It is hiddeously difficult just to get clear title on property in Haiti. Which is why 5 years later, and billions of aid dollars flowing into Haiti, they still haven't rebuilt large sections of even the capital city.

Contrast that with the wealthy government elite of Haiti. If you look at the top 1% of Haiti, all of them are either in government, connected to government, or family of government. Socialism at it's finest.

Cuba, same thing. Egypt, same thing.

Do even know why the the Arab spring happened? Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia was operating a vegetable cart, without proper license or permit. Because his act of unregulated capitalism was illegal.... they confiscated his cart. That's when he went to the police station and set himself on fire. His family would starve without him able to sell the vegetables his family grew.

Regulation is what allowed only those members of the government to sell their products, while preventing anyone else.

Then when you look at the opposite side..... Switzerland, Estonia, Hong Kong, Singapore. Places where more people share in the wealth of the country.

Did you know Switzerland is one of the top least regulated, most capitalist countries in the world? Corporate tax rate of 8.5%, tariffs on imported goods nearly 0%, freedom of investment, and strong property right protections. Switzerland is ranked 5th, on the economic freedom index, compared to the US at 12th.

Based on the relative comparison of dozens of different countries, with varying degrees of socialism, and capitalism, clearly the more capitalist the country is, the more people can share in the wealth. The less capitalists it is, the less they share in the wealth.

 

[DonaldFG]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Because socialism always fails which is the top down model.

-Geaux

Hmm, actually it is just the reverse. Socialism is bottom up if properly implemented. Any top down attempt is doomed to fail due to corruption at the top.

 

[9aces]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Because socialism always fails which is the top down model.

-Geaux

Hmm, actually it is just the reverse. Socialism is bottom up if properly implemented. Any top down attempt is doomed to fail due to corruption at the top.

Which is why it will never work. Someone always has to be in charge.

 

[Andylusion]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Because socialism always fails which is the top down model.

-Geaux

Hmm, actually it is just the reverse. Socialism is bottom up if properly implemented. Any top down attempt is doomed to fail due to corruption at the top.

Which is exactly why it will never work. You can't get people form the bottom, to voluntarily give up their rights to property. That's why it must be enforced at the point of a gun, by people in government.

No socialist state has ever been implemented without lethal force. Castro, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao.

Even so called 'democratically elected' socialists used violence to achieve their goals. Hugo Chavez had his militias patrolling the streets terrorizing people who opposed him.

There is no example of a socialist system that didn't resort to violence, because when you tell people they have to give everything they have, to everyone else who hasn't earned it, they refuse.

Now you can have communes with-in a capitalists system. That can happen. Branch Davidians in Waco Texas, lived in a commune. Those communes have a lousy lousy track record. Jones Town was a commune. Where you see these bottom up socialized societies working? I don't see many.... not many at all...