Redistribution not a good policy for class grades, U.S. economy

Last time I checked the President doesn’t make the laws. Congress does. Even if Obama becomes President and proposes a redistribution of wealth, he can’t do jack shit until Congress passes legislation through the House and Senate. In the meantime do yourself a favor Judy and take a refresher course on U.S. government and civics. You’re assertions are an embarrassment to U.S. citizens everywhere.

This letter writer’s analogy is so full of holes I don’t know where to start. Where is the parallel between the impact people that earn poor grades have on the whole university versus the socioeconomic impact people with low incomes have on all of society?

This argument that Obama’s tax plan is socialism is down right stupid and it’s intellectually dishonest for the purpose of swaying voters that can’t dissect (untangle?) the deceit. We all relish the plenty of socialized systems like the mail, police, fire, schools, roads, military, and so on. But, oh dear lord, let’s not tax more heavily those that make more than $250K, that would be socialism, a redistribution of wealth. What a dishonest and convenient argument.

History has proven one thing: left to their own devices, the wealthy will hoard their wealth to the point of destroying the socioeconomic fabric which provides the supply and demand of goods to establish wealth. I would expect a “supply chain management” professor to grasp this simple tenet.

So let me get this straight, you are advocating that we hand out more money to the poor? The welfare system is beyond abused. We have people having more children simply for the increased welfare payment and people coming up with all kinds of factitious injuries in order to fall onto the disability payout system. It’s ridiculous how much welfare and disability is handed out to those that are just plain too lazy to find a job. How about people get off their lazy asses and start working for a paycheck instead of depending on everyone else to hand everything to them.

I think we should have a complete free-market economy without any government. That way, I can build my own roads, hire police on an as-needed basis and negotiate with several doctors for the best price to fix me when I get sick.

/sarcasm

It’s getting ridiculous with the socialism thing. He’s not advocating socialism; he’s just adhering to the progressive tax structure that we’ve always had in modern times. In fact, all he’s proposing doing is returning it to what it was under Bill Clinton, when it wasn’t for the benefit of the wealthy elite. True socialism is the fact that — oh, I don’t know — we just nationalized banks in order to save some Wall Street douchebags who probably had professors just like Ms. Whipple in b-school, professors who obviously had a clear focus on ethics.

There are plenty of good reasons to vote for BO and there are plenty of good reason to not. The people l responsible for launching this whole socialism smear makes it transparently clear they, in fact, think the American people are idiots. Morons.

And somewhere, Joe McCarthy’s ghost is smiling. Damn commies.

This is a terrible analogy. Then again, she is a “supply chain management professor” which translates to someone incredibly uncreative with both the written word and numbers.

I think a better analogy for capitalism would be this. Suppose there are people doing all the homeworks and tests and they eventually get a 4.0 GPA. However, the people are forced by the state to hand their gpa to the bosses (i.e. speculators, CEOs, and all the worthless parasites). So the students end up with nothing and the boss, who did nothing, got the 4.0 gpa.

Obama is not a “socialist”.

Actually I had a class that did that with grades!

Of course the grading was not fair to begin with in that test. Which is at least a somewhat better comparison to income in reality.

In our current reality, hard work does not guarantee a good “grade”, whereas many with good “grades” don’t do all that much work at all, instead choosing to get good “grades” through the hard work and suffering of those working hard and still receiving a bad “grade”… actually that sounds strangely more like what you described. Not fair at all right?

Steve:
“We have people having more children simply for the increased welfare payment and people coming up with all kinds of factitious injuries in order to fall onto the disability payout system.”

And your proof of how widespread this is, is where?
Have you attempted to fake a disability to receive from the “disability payout system”? I mean, it’s SOO easy, and you get so much from it, why wouldn’t you? Fuck, why aren’t all of us out there collecting from this “disability payout system” (which system specifically would you be referring to btw? So, I know which one to go scam.)
Do you know anything, without suddenly rushing to look it up to cover up your ignorance, about social welfare? Like maybe about work requirements for receiving “hand outs” like TANF? Food stamps. EIC.
Or how those lazy asses collecting SSD had to work and pay into the system just like everyone else in order to collect any amount from it?

Conversations like this bring about lots of talk about “class warfare” in which people foolishly assume that the “have nots” will one day conquer the “haves” by force. Instead of that scenario, I foresee those of us who work hard, pay our taxes and our bills, and obey the law law getting really fed up with the existence of those who are subsidized by their tax dollars. I have been saying for several weeks that I believe Obama will win this election. Hopefully his socialist policies will wreak just enough havoc on the wallets of productive Americans that they will learn their lesson by 2012.

If you need proof you should spend some time working in Detroit. It won’t take long before you see first hand all the stories people have as to why they need more disability, welfare etc. Unless all your limbs are severed off, you can find A job. It may not be the job of your choice, but that’s life. Get off your ass and find some work, even if it’s not what you had hoped for.

If progressive taxation is socialist (and really the issue really regards the progressiveness of the taxation system of the US), then the US has been socialist since at least Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency. Ironically, supporting progressive taxation is thus actually a conservative position (in the non-ideological sense of the word), as it is support for maintenance of the established system. As always, beware those who make arguments that betray utter and complete ignorance of the political and economic history of the country.

Please don’t use an analogy that comes from an old Republican joke to support your candidate.

I think most, if not all of you, posting here are completely oblivious to Ms. Wipple’s meta-argument. Clearly, the President’s duties revolve around the execution of the legislation written by the House/Senate. Hence the executive & legislative branches of our federal government. In contrast, the court systems are in place to review the legality and validity of the legislation. This system of “checks and balances” would seem to provide some form of stability and ensure that the federal government was the ultimate example of equity for all. But only freshman James Madison students (just teasing, kids!) and the foolhardy believe in the infallibility of this system within the political climate of post-wat America. Since the Great Depression, America’s political landscape has devolved into a false dichotomy of two overrepresented parties, creating a sort of political schism in the US, without leaving much room for alternative ideals or opinions. What that means is that the ideals of a President are political powerful, and far reaching. While the President does not write legislation, he IS the head of his political party, which WILL introduce legislation into the House and/or Senate. Much of that legislation will likely be created from input by the President or his Cabinet, working in collaboration with party colleagues in the House & Senate. Furthermore, the President may veto bills passed through congress. Though the bicameral congress may override those vetoes, that legislation (especially if it was hotly contested) will have lost considerable momentum if its sent back to legislation, and will more often than not be amended, or abandoned, rather then pushed back through another vote. More so, if there is a tie in voting in the Senate, its the Vice President (who will often share the same values and sentiments of the President) who casts the tie breaking vote. This further blurs the line between Executive and Leglislative branches of government, and creates an undeniable corellation between the President’s ideals and his influence on legislation. And as if the waters weren’t muddied enough, guess who nominates Supreme Court justices (who are responsible for determining the validity of legislation, thus cementing or destroying its practical application!)? The President! And who approves or rejects those candidates? The Legislators! The majority of whom (thanks to our backwards two party system) are often (but not always) from the same political party that is headed by the President! Saying that the President has no hand in writing laws is like saying the rancher doesn’t give us beef, because he didn’t butcher the cow, he just created land for it, bred it, raised it, sold it, and shipped it.

So, if a presidential candidate feels that America should redistribute wealth, what impact would he have on making that dream a reality? He, or his cabinet, could solicit a party-loyal cabal in the House to introduce legislation. If it passes the House, it enters the Senate. The Senate then only needs to tie the vote, allowing the VP (an extension of the President, mind you) to cast the tie breaking vote. The President then signs the very legislation that he championed into law, he has effectually written his own legislation. And if its challenged in the Supreme Court, there may not be much opportunity for reversal, as the President will have likely also appointed a member or two (who will typically espouse the President’s same ideals), thus cementing the legal validity of that legislation. And THAT is how a President can “create” laws. And if you think that this is a far-reaching, spotty argument, I have two words for you: PATRIOT ACT. That’s the reality of the situation. Deal with it.

Now, moving on to the specific argument against “Wealth Redistribution” and “Welfare”. Since there is little opportunity to discuss these topics without invoking heated emotional arguments, I’ll do my best to keep this short and simple. As a Constitutional Libertarian, I wholeheartedly believe that this is an area that should fall under the soverignity of the individual states, and NOT the Federal Goverment. I could go on for hours about the ridiculously overbearing presence the federal government, and its continued assault of the constitution, states’ sovereignity, and civil liberties (both the liberals and neocons are equally responsible), but its not the point I want to make. Rather, my point is about the systematic abuses and the short-sightedness of social welfare programs and the proposed redistribution of the wealth through taxation. Social welfare systems are a necessary safegaurd to ensure more equal access to the high quality of life that is standard in the western world. They help those most in need, and provide those who cannot provide for themselves. But they are only meant as temporary assistance. Where these programs fall short is in the lack of support the relative educational and rehabilitation programs that are requisite in transitioning someone from dependence on these welfare programs. Say what you will about those who may want to abuse the system; I feel that if welfare was strongly regulated (at the state level, of course!) and subject to strict enrollment terms, and combined with compulsory compliance with educational/rehabilitative programs (no unemployment unless you learn a job skill/no foodstamps unless you learn lifestyle or budgeting skills), we’d see a near eradication in the abuses of our social welfare programs. But welfare and “Wealth Redistribution” by taxation are only social bandaids: temporary solutions to quell the hemmoraging. What they will not do is fix the fundamental flaws and inequities in our education and sociocultural systems. So if either candidate wants to really “Fix” America, I suggest they look at re-establishing the soverignity of the states, and then push for fundamental, sweeping reforms in our education systems. If they want to redistrute wealth, don’t write out checks to the poor or overtax the wealthy, just remove the disparities in per-student funding across all school districts within a state. Create a more level playing field in which all students may participate. I know there will always be cries of “Foul” (“I make more money, why should some of my money go to a poor school-district who’s tax base don’t pay very much at all?”). My only response to that is “Deal With It”. You chose to put your kids in a state-administered public school, and your state’s constitution allows for taxation without apportionment, as it is the most equitable way to ensure propriety with State funds. And be honest, your wealth is derived, at least in some part, from all socio-economic classes, either in the production or consumption of your goods or services. Poor people either make or buy your stuff, time to give something back. What could possibly come from a strong, equitable educational system? A more intellectually or vocationally qualified workforce? Reduced poverty, and subsequently, reduced crime rates? Increased human capital into the American economy? None of those things sounds bad to me! So there it is. Fix education, and you can fix the economy and close the disparity of the classes by elevating the lower classes without truly penalizing the upper classes. I’m not a scholar, or an eduator, but rather, a business man. I know that business is driven by the human element; I feel nothing provides a greater Return On Investment than a highly skilled (intellectually or vocationally) workforce. Since I want to make money, I’ll gladly invest in education. A strong workforce provides a much greater return than any mutual fund, security, or capital acquisition. If you need proof of this, take a look at America’s post-war economic boom. Hopefully someday this idea will catch on (along with my other ideals of civil libertarianism, federal reductionism, states’ soverignity, and fiscal conservancy), but its not a near-term solution, nor is it “sexy”, so I am not holding my breath. Not so long as the Fourth Estate (the media) continues its propagation of the false dichotomy of the two-party political system in America. But a guy can dream. Also, America got it wrong. Obama and McCain don’t have the wherewithal to fix America. Dr. Ron Paul was the man for the job, and he still is, even if he isn’t going to be the President… this year. Stay Strong RP! We’ll mature as a nation and be ready in ’12!!!!

Wow, and I thought I was cynical there Liberty! And then there was this little gem that I thought was a real hoot….

“Dr. Ron Paul was the man for the job, and he still is, even if he isn’t going to be the President… this year. Stay Strong RP! We’ll mature as a nation and be ready in ’12!!!!”

My goodness were you high when you wrote this? Ron Paul is 73! Do you honestly think America would vote a 77 year old into office come 2012?

“Ron Paul is 73! Do you honestly think America would vote a 77 year old into office come 2012?”

They just might if Barack Obama’s socialist plans are implemented quickly enough to kill the economy by then….the question is would he run?

So, I take it you don’t like the grades in your classes to be graded on a curve?

How do you think you passed all those classes? Come-on! Worst analogy ever!

“If you need proof you should spend some time working in Detroit.”

Been there, done that. Nice to see you can’t back up your claims with any real facts, steve. And when you say you worked in Detroit… Di you work for social services in Detroit? Because it doesn’t sound like it. In fact, I’ve yet to see any evidence from your posts that you have even a basic understanding of the social welfare in this country, and how it opperates. Like…. you know, something as simple as answering my question as to what “disability payout system” you were referring to?

I am shocked, a conservative professor on the campus of MSU! Look out, liberals will be protesting and “shouting down” the professor at her next class. Also, I have to say that was one of the better columns I have read in the SN in a long while.

The arguement is simple, but justified. Obama believes in wealth distribution. He believes the government has the right to take money from high wage earners and give it to poor people. Its a fundamental belief of Obama.

This is obviously a horrible philosphy, and takes away the incentive to work hard and create capital. Despite what liberals will tell you, not everyone making $250K or more are “CEO fat cats”. They are hard working Americans who just want to be left alone by the government. Its fundamentally not fair that all of their hard work gets taxed away upwards to 50%. Plus, it does nothing to create jobs because people don’t have the incentive to start new businesses.

All in all, I gave Obama a fair shake this election, in all honesty. However, this redistribution of wealth issue has clearly pushed me over to the McCain camp.

The sad thing is that poor Liberty is so wrong on so many things. First off, it was a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT adding Income Tax, thus it’s constitutional. Second, states DO handle their own welfare programs. Money might come from the Feds but it is up to the states to determine their own programs. Third, do you remember Proposal A in 1994? That was an amendment that put the state in charge of school funding and was designed to help level the playing field. And again Liberty, while you successfully outlined the federal system of the US government, you left out a couple of key things regarding the Supreme Court. It’s a lifetime appointment! Thus, the president doesn’t always get the court he wants. And in reality you need 60 votes in the Senate to prevent a filibuster so getting a tie and simply having the vice president break the tie is next to impossible in this day and age.

And yes I agree Nick K. Worst analogy ever! And Ken you’re right too. Even Greenspan admitted last week that people left to their own devices will ultimately wreck the whole system.

Funny that you ask that Erin, as a matter of fact I do work with social services on a regular basis. I work in an inner city health clinic where 100% of our clients are on Medicaid or have no coverage at all (most of the time it’s because they are too lazy to fill out the Medicaid paper work).

Don’t blame Obama for the economy, it’s already been killed by your conservative socialist party.

This is obviously a horrible philosphy, and takes away the incentive to work hard and create capital.
Well, it’s a horrible philosophy that has been in existence for decades. As someone noted above and which not a single poster has disputed, Obama is going to increase taxes to the same levels as we had during the Clinton administration.
Despite what liberals will tell you, not everyone making $250K or more are “CEO fat cats”.
And despite what Dan and conservatives will tell you, no everyone who makes less than $250K is lazy and looking for a handout.
What I don’t understand is that assuming those in the $250K bracket* are hard working Americans who just want to be left alone by the government*, they must have worked their way up to that income level. Which means that they benefited from having lower taxes as they worked hard to acheive their dreams. Now that they have benefited from the progressive system, they label it as socialism. It’s really just a continuation of the new Republican party mantra of privatizing profit and socializing loss and risk.

When did they start hiring idiots as faculty members at MSU?

“…new Republican party mantra of privatizing profit and socializing loss and risk.”

Ding, ding, ding, the winner is Tim.

If the GOP wants to sling words around like “socialist” then let us call the new Republican party what it is: fascist.

And I don’t mean fascist in the “coffee house I don’t know what fascism is” way, I mean:

“The nation is seen in fascism as a single organic entity which binds people together by their ancestry and is seen as a natural unifying force of people. Fascists promote the unification and expansion of influence, power, and/or territory of and for their nation.”

The spreading of Christian ideals to countries that are sovereign and yearning for freedom… who’s policy platform is that?

“Fascism appealed both to collectivism, and populism along a basis that promoted nationalism. Fascism made populist appeals to the middle-class, especially the lower middle-class by promising the protection of the middle-class and small business and small property owners from communism such as by promising the protection of private property and an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business.”

Goodness… where I have heard these things before? Was it at a McCain stump speech…?

“Fascism also tends to be anti-intellectual. The Nazis in particular despised intellectuals and university professors. Hitler declared them unreliable, useless and even dangerous. Still, Hitler has been quoted as saying “When I take a look at the intellectual classes we have – unfortunately, I suppose, they are necessary; otherwise one could one day, I don’t know, exterminate them or something – but unfortunately they’re necessary.”

Creationism, climate change skeptics… who needs science, right neo-cons… err, I mean fascists.

“Third-position economics…”

The growing demand among neo-cons for a pure free-market, unregulated economy is arguably the epitome of the “beyond communism and capitalism” ideals of third position economics.

All I have to say is thank god most of you are still in college, and still have time to learn about the real world. It’s a shame that Judy is in the real world, and still hasn’t learned anything.

I keep seeing comments about lazy people just wanting a hand out. What about the single mother that is working 3 jobs and still not able to make ends meet? Don’t you think she almost deserves a little help? I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem with welfair as it currently is, but to act like everyone on welfair is just pumping out more babies so they can keep thier lazy, freeloading lifestyle is just ignorant.

And for those worried about taxes going up, the government can only fund itself in 2 ways, taxes, and borrowing. Do you want to keep going further in debt to countries like China? And, how much more money do you really think the world is going to lend us?

If we want, want, want, then we need to start paying for it.

The mail system is not a socialized system. You pay for your stamp.

Why isn’t eveyone taxed at a flat rate. Then if you make more, you will pay more. Its pretty simple amd eliminates a whole wasteful sector of our uncompetitive, wasteful govt.