Source of the Moran quote: Jim Moran - “This simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it” Virginia Virtucon

If any of you people who still don't believe the Demoncrats are about wealth redistribution, read what a Demoncrat said about wealth redistribution:

"The American worker has produced more per person at any time, but it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem because we have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth."

Let's leave aside the FACT that "the American worker has produced more per person at any time" really means the American worker has been forced to do more work in the same amount of hours for the same money or less money. Productivity is a code word for "companies are getting more work out of their employees without increasing wages or benefits." Let's focus on the last part of Moran's statement:

"...we have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth."

So, the notion that people should be able to keep the money they earn is simplistic? Antipathy toward redistributing wealth is something we should object to?

Ah, yes, it's all about punishing people (and corporations) for making money and wanting to steal that money from them in order to give it to the all-sacred worker. It's just another way of saying "communism."

The founding fathers intentionally did away with the silly notion of aristocratic titles at least in part to get away from all this class warfare crap. Leave it to the Democrats to approach closer and closer to communism through their class warfare.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Let's not. It is an important point.

True...

No, I think the point is exploitation and control, and the current state of the economy and serial bailouts are bringing the inequalities to the forefront. As the quote says, people are working harder and longer, yet are seeing their buying power erode at the same time the government is transferring wealth from the national treasury and giving it to the corporations responsible for this mess. High-paid executives continue to live lavish lifestyles while an increasing number of working families are struggling to pay their bills.

No, a system that exploits the many for the benefit of the few is.

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

You have it right, Lumara. Anytime there is THIS much of a gap in income, it leads to instability and tension, historically speaking.

If we want to argue about wealth potentially being redistributed via artificial means, then let's also talk about the wealth certainly being concentrated via articial means.

Somehow, the way the big dogs have rigged the game in their favor at the expense of the rest of us is applauded as a wondrous thing.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Very well put Skerlnik,

It was wealth redistribution when the republicans decided to give all the advantages to the wealthy in the hopes that they would share(trickle down).

Now here we are and they haven't shared( no trickle down) so its times to stop giving to the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

__________________
Walt Whitman
"I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced anywhere in the past, under opposite influences."

Democrats in Congress were just as responsible for these advantages (a significant portion of the U. S. tax code). A flat tax (such as Steve Forbes endorses) and eliminating all deductions and loopholes would resolve all of this.

Frankly, I don't buy into all that trickle down nonsense (okay, manure does trickle downward). But who the hell are you - or anyone else for that matter - to think that you're somehow entitled to even the smallest portion of someone else's wealth?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Democrats, indeed, are to beheld responsible, as well. Or, more accurately, for also passing the legislation that the lobbies write for them. And perpetuating bad policy that encourages inequity to the point of obscenity.

Good point. The rich corporations and profiteers need to be curbed in their thefts! Finally, we agree!

But more seriously, though, gains that are obtained via a rigged system, or perhaps even outright extortion of the people is not as black and white, in my mind, in terms of validity, and I have no qualms about addressing that through policy of some sort. So, you bet, we are ALL perhaps entitled to ill-gotten gains back, in theory.

The government should not be in the business of aiding and abetting, which in my opinion is what an overly laissez-faire stance does.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

As you know, I am more in favor of progressive taxation. Earn more, consume more, pollute more, etc....you simply owe more.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Yeah, screw the rich. The top 1% owns 40% of the country's wealth; I'm sure they can deal with some slightly higher taxes.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Essentially, Rep. Moran endorses the statist view, which goes something like this: The government prints the money, therefore the government owns the money supply; and since it does, the government--which is to say, the benefactor state--is entitled to dole out that money in the way it deems most prudent and decent.

As far back as 1999, syndicated columnist George Will touched upon this way of thinking, with the following words:

"Democrats seem to believe this: Government frames society, providing laws, physical infrastructure and human capital (education, particularly) that fuels commerce. Therefore government is responsible for all economic outcomes, and the economy is essentially government property. Therefore a dollar of surplus revenue devoted to a tax cut is a government dollar 'spent.'"

A trenchant observation from Will, as usual.

They also pay 60% of the taxes, and thus, are already overtaxed given their share of the national wealth (since a "fair share" would be 40% of taxes).

I make slightly over one hundred grand, my wife makes over sixty grand. We both worked through college, took the low-paying jobs (as a JO I was pulling down a little over $2500 a month after OCS) offered to newly-minted college grads, and we both have gone on to earn a pretty comfortable living. What exactly do we owe society that a poor person doesn't? We have earned everything we have, from our house to our vehicles, and silverspooners we are not.

Who the hell do you think you are to decide that I can deal with higher taxes? Are you waking up and going to my job everyday? Did you stand 8 hour watches on deck? Did you stand that watch and then go on to work an 8 hour day, and then spend 2 of the 8 "down" hours writing fit reps, memos, and emails? Did you work a full-time job in college? Exactly how in the hell could you POSSIBLY know what I, or anybody else can "deal" with? Moreover, how is that your business?

If you want equality, treat people equally. It's not my job to subsidize the lives of others, and it isn't the government's place to tell me that it is.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".