As the US election comes down to the wire, I thought I'd put my two cents into the mix. I have a very good friend in the US who is a McCain supporter, so she sends me most of what I use on this blog that relates to the election. Thanks Irene!! A real live American Republican prospective, not what we see from the MSM.
I bet you didn't think of it this way----Redistribution of Wealth
Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered in a
local newspaper...
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read
"Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I
laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the
coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him
that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He
stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to
redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless
guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the
server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless
guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I
realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn,
but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn
even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in
concept than in practical application.
(and you thought YOU would get more money?!*)
Listen to this for the music alone:
I can't vote, but my American friend can, and I suspect she's going to vote McCain.
45 comments:
If you really want to talk redistribution of wealth, you should be looking at the Bush Admin. They just gave $700 billion from the middle class to the wealthiest 1% on Wall Street.
Did you know McCain was a POW? Unbelievable....so qualified....
Not sure where to begin really. I'll just pick out one simple thread from that mass of hatred, lies, misrepresentation, idiocy and photoshopping.
Wealth distribution. The US is a society in which some people starve to death and die for lack of access to health care whilst others spend $150,000 on clothes for an election campaign. Is that the society you want to fight for? Would Jesus?
Do the jobless, however lazy, the homeless, however drink sodden and the 'illegals', however illegal, have no right to life?
How to fix this? They need money. Where from? From the super rich. That's the source that can be tapped with the least damage to society.
When to stop tapping this resource? Obviously before the point when everybody has the same amount of money.
It's hardly fair to expect Joe the Plumber, even if he isn't really a plumber (which he isn't) and even if he doesn't pay his taxes (which he doesn't) and even if he does earn $250,000 (which he does) and even if his name isn't really Joe (which it isn't), to work 60 hour weeks to pay for some crack head's home cinema system.
Is this what Obama is proposing? Of course it isn't. So why are you claiming that he is?
Everybody has a right to life. Everybody has a right to work hard and receive a better life than others as a consequence. This is what Obama is proposing.
Feel free to argue about the finer points of how much wealth needs to be re-distributed and to and from whom, but if you're seriously suggesting that no re-distribution needs to take place then you reveal yourself to be evil plain and simple. And yet you call yourself a Christian. What's that about 'false witness'? Shame on you.
Oh sweet serendipity! Just been pointed to this little gem in the new yorker:
The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
Google, you're an idiot.
Alaska, like Canada to a large degree, owns the minerals under its lands.
The "people" own the oil. So when the government of Alaska leases the rights to BP, Exxon, etc. the people get the benefits of the money paid fo rthe rights and the royalties.
So the wealth is being distributed to the owners thereof, principally on a per capita basis, not being re-distributed.
Two letters and a hyphen, but a huge difference (at least in the real world).
"Google, you're an idiot."
I disagree. But I'm open to you trying to prove your case. To find out we'll have to have a discussion about the reasons you give for your assertion.
"Alaska, like Canada to a large degree, owns the minerals under its lands."
Correct. As do the lower states of the US. Are you suggesting that all wealth that results from the exploitation of natural resources should be equally shared amongst the population? What about that which is generated from the natural resources of the people themselves? (I'm thinking things like intelligence, ingenuity, work ethic etc.)
"The "people" own the oil."
Which people exactly? Do you mean the people who originally settled the land? Or the people who happen to live there now? Or anyone who might happen to live there at any point in time when the resources are exploited?
"So when the government of Alaska leases the rights to BP, Exxon, etc. the people get the benefits of the money paid fo rthe rights and the royalties."
Sure. Seems right and proper to me.
"So the wealth is being distributed to the owners thereof, principally on a per capita basis, not being re-distributed."
Incorrect. The Alaskan people 'distributed' the wealth, in the form of untapped mineral resources, amongst themselves when they laid claim to it. They are now re-distributing it, in the form of cash profits, to external investors like BP in exchange for a share of those more liquid pardon the pun) assets which can be traded for alternative commodities such as cars, food, lingerie, shingles and Tylenol.
"Two letters and a hyphen, but a huge difference (at least in the real world)."
I don't see what difference it makes at all to be honest. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.
Congress gave the money for the bailout. And to think the bailout is being hoarded by banks or used for severance pkgs and bonuses.
Reminds me of the billions local govts at all levels, in both the USA and Canada have received for projects, only to be spent on other things.
I'm actually going to disagree with you on this one, google. I'd buy crank's argument that this is not redistribution of wealth.
That said, it's without a doubt collective ownership which is, by definition, communism. That's not to say Alaska, or Canada or anywhere is communist, but that at least in some regards, they practice communist ideals.
And I'm fairly certain when I say that "redistribution of wealth" would go over a hell of a lot better in the US than "communism".
Google, nice to see that Obama thinks everyone has a right to life. Does that mean he has changed his mind on letting failed abortion babies receive help, instead of letting them die.
Redistribution of profits earned is different than redistribution of wealth.
Americans are in for a big shock if O wins next week and puts all his plans in place.
Funny how many of his supporters have twisted what he is saying and planning. And it is also scarry how many of those supporters say, I hope he is lying about socialism.
"I'd buy crank's argument that this is not redistribution of wealth."
Why? I'm not sure it matters though. Distribution or re-distribution; what's the difference?
The fact remains that the distribution of wealth in the US (in the sense of who has what) is unfair. A few people have ridiculous amounts of money and a few people have almost none.
Of course nobody wants to live in a society where there's no incentive to contribute or to better oneself but some people here seem to be suggesting that the status quo is a just and fair one.
I find it difficult to understand how anyone can honestly say that is what they believe.
So I'll ask the question again. Does anyone here think Sarah Palin (or Michelle Obama for that matter) should be spending vast sums of money on designer wardrobes when people are dying of starvation in the land they purport to represent?
"Does that mean he has changed his mind on letting failed abortion babies receive help, instead of letting them die."
Non sequitur. If legislation is in place that allows for the abortions you refer to above to take place then those failed abortions should not be helped unless the legislation were to be immediately repealed. Helping them acknowledges that the legislation is flawed in the first place.
The question here is whether such abortions should be attempted in the first place. I think not. If Obama thinks they should then I would like to hear his justification for that position. It would have to be very very good.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with helping homeless people. Would you like to get back on topic?
I am on topic, you said that O agrees everyone has a right to life. Check out his vote on the legislation talked about when he was a senator in Illinois.
His redistribution of wealth is similar to the NIMBY attitude of many dogooders. When the Kennedy's and Pelosi, and other rich democrats start walking the walk instead of just talking I will believe them.
You will never get americans or canadians to willingly give up their opportunities and wealth just so someone with no skills, ambition or get-up-and-go can continue to take without so much as a thank you.
What if O's great plans results in many companies and small businesses to just close up and move to somewhere they are welcome.
We have seen what redistributing marks has done to the education system. High achievers get lower marks and they are given to the lower achievers.
maryT: Where do you think Congress got the money? In the pot at the end of the rainbow?
Do you enjoy universal health care? This is a form of 'wealth distribution', is it not?
And what about this conspiracy of yours regarding 'redistribution of marks' in the education system. I don't follow....
Off topic, but seeing the resident moonbats are here, spewing thier socialist tripe, let's see what Suncor has to say about how much profit they will be making even with $60 oil and a low dollar.
Hey S.Q. and company.....what's with this $85 per barrel 'break even' crap you were crowing about a couple of weeks ago, hmmm?
CALGARY — Suncor Energy Inc., which last week rolled out massive spending cuts because of the credit crisis and slumping oil prices, said it will earn C$28 for every barrel of oil it produces should crude trade at US$60/barrel and Canadian dollar hover around US78 cents.
Under the same scenario, Suncor’s cash flow netback would be about C$34 a barrel. At US$60 per barrel of oil, the realized price in Canadian dollars is $77. Then, on each barrel of oil, Suncor takes a $4 discount because of the quality of its crude, pays $4 in royalties, hands over $35 in operating costs, and then eats about $6 in non-cash charges.
“This is not a case of us not being able to make money at [US$60 per barrel]. There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings and panic out there in the market on that,”
Um, SQ, why do you always seem to end your comments with a sarcastic and unwarranted crack? It negates whatever argument you've made. You are quite right about the bailout in the states - it's unconscionable. As for McCain - he is a war hero and is respected as such. Most of our leaders have no qualifications, whatsoever except for the ability to raise campaign dollars and lie through their teeth.
Google, if that is what Obama is proposing, then he is unclear in his delivery. From what I've read of his policy and his speeches, he sounds like a strong socialist to me.
As for Palin's expenditures - if she was a man, the issue would not come to light. Unfortunately, female politicians are still judged on their appearances. Hillary, for example, wears pants because she has issues with her legs - and she is criticized for wearing pants all the time.
I say, who cares what they wear and how much Palin spent - it was not tax dollars so it is none of anybody's business.
"I am on topic, you said that O agrees everyone has a right to life."
In the context of the wealth distribution of the US. We're not talking about abortion rights here. It's almost as though you're trying to divert attention away from the thing we're discussing...
"His redistribution of wealth is similar to the NIMBY attitude of many dogooders."
Question: Will Senator Obama's personal wealth be increased or decreased by his proposed tax legislation?
"You will never get americans or canadians to willingly give up their opportunities and wealth just so someone with no skills, ambition or get-up-and-go can continue to take without so much as a thank you."
This is known as throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are people with genuine and justifiable needs who are suffering. I'm not talking about spongers and scroungers. I'm talking about the basic human rights of having food, shelter and health. If you think people would rather die of starvation and hypothermia in a cardboard box than go to work then you are somewhat divorced from reality.
So, I'll ask the question one last time: Do you think the current distribution of wealth in the US, which results in some people dying whilst others shop endlessly for Jimmy Choo's, is acceptable?
This is the stumbling point we're at. Answering 'yes' leads to the inescapable conclusion that wealth needs to be re-distributed. Answering 'no' leads to a very unsavoury indictment of your character. Give us an answer and continued discussion may have some value. Otherwise we're just wasting bytes.
"What if O's great plans results in many companies and small businesses to just close up and move to somewhere they are welcome."
And what if all those homeless junkies and drunken bums suddenly get enough resources and dignity to start their own businesses? Until you have some facts to back up that kind of statement you're just tossing out random FUD.
I agree with Crank. My late father was a mining engineer and I spent the early years of my life in mining towns. Big mining company comes in - strips the earth of its minerals - pays its management big bucks - exploits local workers and the resources - then bails.
Sarah Palin did the right thing - her country was the source of enormous profits for oil companies (many of which are foreign owned) so why should her state's citizens not benefit from the windfall? No taxes - wonderful idea. Alberta was like that before the GST. Manitoba had no sales tax before the NDP.
Obama would take Alaska's wealth and distribute it to other states much like we do in Canada.
Oh, and to bring up universal health care - please, that is not what we're talking about. Has Obama mentioned anything about copying our health care system? Not to the best of my knowledge.
Hunter - sorry if my grammar and spelling aren't their best - I'm squeezing this in between crises at the office.
EofE: Sarah Palin did not start the oil revenue distribution plan. This goes back to the '80's.
Also, if you gave money to support a political party, would you be happy to see $150k spent on clothes? This has nothing to do with her being a woman. She just didn't have the 'proper' outfits for campaigning.
Quote: "Also, if you gave money to support a political party, would you be happy to see....."
Hmmm, let's see now....how about a fake presidential seal and those fake Greek columns? Jetting to Germany for an "ich bin ein berliner" moment? Word has it, Obama's election night party and the lead up to it will cost in excess of one million dollars. Is all this 'value for the dollar'?
So I guess it's ok for 'your guy', huh?
You're a hypocrite, south qweebek.
SQ - when I give money to my party, I give it unconditionally. I am sure that the men are also clothed out of donations, as well. I really don't worry much about where it goes when I donate. Think about it - the party most likely collected millions in campaign donations. I don't think 150k is more than a blip. The media just jumped on this because she's a woman. Come to think of it - Obama sure is well-dressed. I wonder who paid for his clothes.
So, I'll ask the question one last time: Do you think the current distribution of wealth in the US, which results in some people dying whilst others shop endlessly for Jimmy Choo's, is acceptable?
Sorry, the question doesn't add up. First of all - if somebody works hard and amasses a fortune, good for him. If he wants to buy Choos (no apostrophe for a plural), then he can buy Choos - whatever they are.
Health care is a whole other issue. We should all pay an equal health premium for a universal health care system. Then, if somebody wants to buy Choos, he can.
EoE - "Most of our leaders have no qualifications, whatsoever"
Whereas most of ours have significant qualifications.
See here for details.
EoE - "Big mining company comes in - strips the earth of its minerals - pays its management big bucks - exploits local workers and the resources - then bails."
Sounds like you think this is a bad thing.
"Obama would take Alaska's wealth and distribute it to other states much like we do in Canada."
Sounds like you think this is a bad thing as well.
And yet one is the opposite of the other. The first is a case of a minority hoarding resources. The second is a case of a minority sharing resources.
eskimo - "Word has it, Obama's election night party and the lead up to it will cost in excess of one million dollars. Is all this 'value for the dollar'?"
Absolutely not. It's a complete waste of money. But make your mind up. Are you suggesting this party is a good thing? Or a bad thing? Are you saying the campaign is morally justified in throwing this party? Or not?
Do you think the current distribution of wealth in the US, which results in some people dying whilst others shop endlessly for Jimmy Choo's, is acceptable?
EoE "Sorry, the question doesn't add up."
Why not? It's a perfectly straightforward question. You just don't want to answer it because you can't answer it without admitting your position is untenable. We're done here.
"First of all - if somebody works hard and amasses a fortune, good for him."
That sounds like a 'yes' to me though. We're definitely done.
"If he wants to buy Choos (no apostrophe for a plural)"
Quite right. But an apostrophe is required for a possessive. Which is why I put one in there. You can have your eggs back now. They're not sucked.
Google - you said "we're definitely done". Great. Thank you. Now, the rest of us can have a sensible discussion. Your replies to me contained a couple of contradictions so, I pretty well dismissed them. Google, your writing style and content remind me of somebody I encountered on another blog - not a friendly blog, to be honest. I dismissed that commenter, as well.
Hunter - your blog sure attracts some interesting commenters. LOL.
I see Canadian Cynic is in love with me! Sorry, "I'm just not that into you", guy/girl/it, whatever you are.
Now, tell me how is wealth re-distribution not socialist? Robin Hood should have been strung up like the lefties have strung up Sarah Palin, in effigy. Take from the rich and give to the poor, the lefty mantra.
Maybe you should check out Alberta Liberal Supporter, we have a 10% flat tax, works for us. Ooops, those "progressive" Conservatives in Alberta, who would have thunk, us knuckle dragger's would support anything like that. How about Ontario/Quebec would they support it?
Republicans are switching to Obama. Hugo Chavez and Hamas have endorsed Obama? Al-Qaeda has endorsed McCain.
Obama looks poised to win by a landslide anyway.
Liberal Supporter, I have given you and the CC crew a lot of chances, but that last post was out of line. Go back to CC, it loves you.
Every time CC links to my site, the intelligence level of posters drops because liberal trolls just don't know how to debate without name calling.
Go debate with yourselves on CC's site.
I'm going to let that comment stand so my readers can see what a true Liberal Supporter is all about!
Need I say more? HA!
Need I say more. You are a comment deleter.
The lowest form of being in blog land.
So typical of the right wingers. Delete the comment that points out the truth. The truth you cannot stand to hear.
Then leave up the comment that complains about your inability to deal with the truth.
Grow up hunter.
Dissent is the highest form of honour. Censorship? Not so much.
It's not censorship when you remove idiotic rambling comments of no service to anyone.
Re:
"... I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more."
It's quite a logical conundrum your friend was in - deciding who deserves the ten dollars more... the waiter who 'earned' it or the homeless man who 'deserved' it. I guess it never occurred to your friend that panhandling is work. I mean a guy who's taken the time to make a cardboard sign, with copy designed to elicit a laugh in exchange for money is kind of organized - working it, no?
And I'm guessing too, your friend never considered the waiter's expectation of a tip, in fact the whole tradition of tipping the waiter as a result of an industry that refuses to distribute its profits among its employees, paying servers minimum wage (sometimes less) and passing the cost along to the consumer. Yes, the soup du jour is five dollars, ten if you'd rather not have it in your lap.
redistribution of wealth eh? Let's face it. Your friend didn't like the waiter's Obama tie.
Liberal Supporter - the lowest form of life in the blogosphere is NOT the blog host who deletes comments. There is a world of difference between dissent and trash. Trash has no place in adult discussion. If you want to see trash, there are a few other blogs to troll. Name-callling, word games, personal insults, hyperbole are not dissent or even valid points. If Hunter deleted your comments they were probably vile, pointless, or both. In any case, if you want your comments to stand, don't write what the host deems offensive or pointless.
Am I the only one who notices that the new Lib and lefty mantra is "truth". They all seem to use that word a great deal. On almost all non-CPC blogs, they talk about telling the "truth". Well, either I am the only Canadian with vision or this much-vaunted "truth" is actually a lie clothed a jacket called "truth".
"On almost all non-CPC blogs, they talk about telling the 'truth'."
As opposed to CPC blogs? What do they talk about? The video for this post is so far to the right it's completely skewed. Not even the music validates it - it's trashy! But not truth trashy like South Park. That's a good show. I recommend it.
Post a Comment