Spread The Wealth

[flip]

What does Obama mean when he says spread the wealth? Every since I've been alive, I've heard how the 50's were the Golden Age of the US. We actually manufactured things and just about anyone who wanted to work could. Most people made enough money that they could support 2 or more children, buy a house, build a hot rod and had time to go surfing to. All the money was spread out more evenly between blue collar and white collar employees. Everyone made enough money to live comfortably. Now, the majority of people make just enough to pay their bills while those in management take exorbitant amounts of the generated income (mi8llions). Now they keep it all to themselves. So, if that's what Obama means when he says "Spread The Wealth" then that's not socialism at all. If what we have really ended up with is no longer a 'real' republic, but in truth an Oligarchy, then spreading the wealth is exactly what the lower and middle classes need if they have any chance of being anything other than a slave. Don't give me 38000 a year while you reach in and take 10 mil.

[Spidey]

Well…the way government “spreads the wealth” is not by getting companies to “fairly” pay their employees. The reason most people only have enough to “pay the bills” is another problem altogether.

I don’t want the government taking money from one person and giving it to another in the guise of “fairness” they aren’t smart or honest enough.

[Will Robinson]

What it really means....or what it really ends up as to be more precise...is the middle class pays the tab for the lower class and the rich buy exemptions from the politicians they support.
So Obama can wrap himself in the Robbin Hood costume so all the idiots will love him and vote for him but what he says and what he does are not the same.

If there was a handbook written for 'How to be Successful in American Liberal Politics' the one line synopsis would read:
Tax the middle class to pay for what you say you are making the rich pay for and make enough of the middle class believe it is the other party's fault when they feel the bite of your policy.

If you are poor you buy into the class warfare.
If you were middle class and policy pushed you into poverty you join the group think of the poor.
Win/Win for liberals.
All they need to do is avoid pissing off the rich too much.

The handbook for conservatives has morphed into a copy of the liberal book so don't look there for relief...

[flip]

Well, all I can say is that to me, it seems that every time he says it he does actually seem to be appealing to 'someone' and in truth it really is or only defense. I don't hear anyone else saying it but him, and every time he does it seems to wash out as being socialist when i fact i think that's being dishonest as hell. He's right. In these days and times, the only thing that's gonna help the middle and lower classes is to make more money. At least a little above subsistence level so you at least have a chance to move forward. If spread the wealth means that corporate america has to quit taking home 25 million dollar bonuses over and beyond their salaries, and take that 25 million to raise the salary of every single person in that works in that company, then I support it. In my opinion, that's the total opposite of socialism, that's American to raise the standard of living of your neighbors. Maybe a better way to say it would be to "spread the profit". No, I'm not dumb enough to think Obama will actually change anything, but at least he is pointing in the right direction.

[CUDA]

Well…the way government “spreads the wealth” is not by getting companies to “fairly” pay their employees. The reason most people only have enough to “pay the bills” is another problem altogether.

I don’t want the government taking money from one person and giving it to another in the guise of “fairness” they aren’t smart or honest enough.

I agree. the Governments idea of spreading wealth is stealing from the "rich" and buying the allegiance of the lower income by making them think that they are looking out for you, just so the pandering politician can stay in power, and then it"s Ground Hog day all over.

[flip]

Ok. I guess, but what are your thoughts on an evener distribution of wages throughout the workplace?

[CUDA]

honestly I think it should "start" with a flat tax. remove ALL loops holes. it would give Business owners "less" reason to cook the books and try to hide income.. you base the business taxes off the gross income with a larger deductions for wage earners under 75K or 100K taxes and a 100% + tax on all wage earners of over 250K. kind of like the NBA with their luxury tax.

[flip]

Honestly, adjusting taxes is the only chip the government still has left in the game. I more wondering along the lines of what kind of accountability should be placed on the Oligarchs that are raping and pillaging this country.
Do you think it's fair that the top guy at GM gets millions of dollars of income, and the lowest guy gets only 20 grand? Considering the way the game is constructed anyways. They print money backed by nothing, then create even more empty money by charging interest on the original fake money, then they amass great amounts of fake money that they created, which ultimately results in them being in power. They should be made to disperse more of that fake money so that everyone gets some use out of it. That's the real problem in this country, people vote for others they think will represent the majority, when in reality all politicians follow big money, seeing as they have none of their own. The Oligarchs got billions of dollars in bailout money, which was put on our tab by the politicians that work for them, and no one wants to force them to invest it in the people that live in this country? That's what I hear in Obama's voice when he says "Spread the Wealth".

[Spidey]

Words…

When I see actions that create jobs, and raise the standard of living for people…then I will give credit, where credit is due.

[flip]

Oh hell Spidey I don't really expect Obama to do anything. I'm just trying to narrow down the problem. It always amazes me how people blame the President for everything, and in the next breath agree that the real power structure is as Woodrow Wilson states here:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

If this is true then all the banter about Obama and Palin is senseless as everyone's hope is focused towards those unable to accomplish anything. The pressure has to turn from the impotent politicians as implied in the above quote, and directed towards those that are really in charge: "government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

[Sergeant Thorne]

If spread the wealth means that corporate America has to quit taking home 25 million dollar bonuses over and beyond their salaries, and take that 25 million to raise the salary of every single person in that works in that company, then I support it. In my opinion, that's the total opposite of socialism, that's American to raise the standard of living of your neighbors. Maybe a better way to say it would be to "spread the profit". No, I'm not dumb enough to think Obama will actually change anything, but at least he is pointing in the right direction.

Just what has he done that could even be imagined to accomplish such a thing?! You call offering lip-service for fair wages pointing in the right direction? And while our economy is causing jobs to be exported like escape pods from a burning space cruiser. You give the man too much credit.

[flip]

No, what I'm saying is that Obama's cry to "Spread the Wealth" is being misrepresented as a move towards Socialism. Instead, it seems more to me that he's calling it exactly as it is. That the ones really in charge of the money, which isn't the government anymore thanks to woody, should spread it around to everyone. I happen to agree with that and I am no socialist. We made terms for those elected and made provisions of how money was to be handled. The Federal Reserve destroys all that. If we had kept the cap that relying on the Gold Standard provided there is no problem. Now, by being able to "makeup" your own currency, control all aspects of it, and then amass huge amounts of it, provides you the tools needed to usurp power from the Federal Government. The rules have completely changed but people keep playing by the ones they learned in High School. Rules that no longer exist.

[Will Robinson]

Flip I think you are assuming he is sincere instead of realizing he is just pandering. Look at how he told us that the caddillac insurance benifits needed to be taxed because the rich guys were getting all this great health care at the expense of the middle class. Once elected he gives an exemption to the democrat union members from his tax!!! So was he right in identifying the people getting the tax free benifits need to be taxed or not?!? Principle or pander?!? that is only one example, he has others. He has been consistently full of crap.

He, and all politicians, will change their position 180 degrees at the drop of a hat to win power and the media doesn't objectively shame them out of office for it because the media is partisan, they turn a blind eye to it because they think defeating one side or the other is more important than demanding the truth at all costs.

Our system has been thoroughly corrupted and as long as we accept the false premises each side of the two-headed monster use to keep us voting for the status quo the longer they will choose to manipulate us instead of represent our best interests.

As for the wages. I think if the market supports a ceo getting paid a lot then that is fine but corporate welfare and other forms of tax exemption for the rich should be completely stopped. If the government is going to step into it it should NOT be to micro manage all compensation. That will kill the free enterprise system. The government could perhaps find a way to support a minimum standard relative to the gross product/revenue of a company. that is about as far as it needs to go. A sort of mandated profit sharing scheme. And something like that should REPLACE unions.

And of course you need to include my standard solution of no lobbyists, no campaign donations above a minimum and by registered voters only... and a flat tax or FairTax to cut the politicians off at the knees from selling favors for all sorts of exemptions / corporate welfare needs to be implemented as well or else any good idea we get moving forward will be circumvented by those kind of back room deals.

Obama is just as guilty of thriving on and creating those kind of deals as any republican in history and any talk he gives about "fairness" while rejecting the kind of reforms I'm talking about is pure bullfeces. Just go back and listen to some of his speeches from the three years leading up to his election and you will think he has been possessed. He's full of ★■◆● and nothing more, he doesn't give a ratts ass about us and never did.

[flip]

Heh no, I have no false hope in any of them and your right, if you listen to them they never directly lie. They also usually will declare exactly the right thing that needs to be done. Then nothing happens, or worse something does, because these ideas normally mean taking from corporations and giving to the constituency.

No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

NO LONGER has a real sense of finality doesn't it? From that point on, the ones in power were no longer subject to majority rule having circumvented our system of checks and balances by gaining control over the ability to create wealth. Still all I hear is how Obama should do this or that Palin would have been a better choice. At least Obama knows who's really in charge, because most the ★■◆● I hear today assumes that he is.