I dunno, I’ll wait to see with the fivethirtyeight guys say as the election gets closer. It’s eleven months away, after all.
Eleven months… man, you Americans are screwed up. We could call a general election today and it would be over well before the end of January.
To paraphrase Treebeard: Yes, but you are very small. No need to be hasty!
-XT
I think you and I have dif views on the meaning of “redistribution”.
Ah, right, the first time the money is stolen, it’s just “distribution”. It only becomes redistribution when someone tries to take it back.
Yes, I recognize it when it occurs either way, and you apparently don’t.
So why is upward redistribution, or whatever term you prefer to use instead for increasing concentration of wealth, not a bad thing while reversing or even slowing it is? :dubious:
Because it is our god given right to earn as much money as possible in our lives. The wealthy work hard for their cash and if they are getting richer and richer, they deserve it! When the government comes in and takes it away from the poor old rich people, and gives it to the poor, THAT’S redistribution.
LOL.
From the article:
The same Savannah Guthrie who asked Obama during a press conference after the mid-term election something like “What do you say to the people who are saying ‘you just don’t get it?’”. No, no attempt at “gotcha questions” from this “amiable” (and quite sexy) pillar of fine journalism.
If by “critics” you mean a crazy woman who came to a Town Hall discussion on health care reform with the intention of disrupting it by shouting out that Frank is supporting a “nazi plan”.
I’m not denying that Frank was likely rude and abrasive among his colleages, but this article seems hardly bias-free.
Because I think of it as an overt act to take from some and give to others.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt
All taxes do that regardless of intent.
This is what economists mean by it, let’s stick with that.
You would think, but sometimes, in their voting behavior (when they vote at all), cultural concerns trump economic.
Barney Frank is 71 years old. It’s not unreasonable to expect him to retire even without the redistricting issue.
Heck, all economic activity, period, does that.
No, I don’t think it does. The driver for capitalism is an exchange of value, where both parties come out perceiving that they are better off than before they made the deal. I have X and want Y; you have Y and want X. We exchange, and both have something they want more than what they had before. It’s the difference between an exchange and a transfer.
Regards,
Shodan
That perception thing is key. In this “exchange of value”, which party has more resources to manipulate perception? How transparent is the value of X?
In that case, then, taxes aren’t redistribution either, since I consider what I get in exchange for my taxes to be worth more than the money I spend on them. If I didn’t, I’d go off and move to some desert island somewhere.
It appears that you tried to shit in this thread and all that came out was a dainty little lady-fart.
Even so, I think an “excuse me” is in order.
I guess that works for me. It focuses on actions, policies and mechanisms … the point I was attempting to make.
It does refer to “regressive redistribution” but I don’t see any examples.
Taxes aren’t a free exchange of value, or there wouldn’t need to be laws compelling everyone to pay them. You may feel that way, but many don’t.
If you believe most people pay their taxes voluntarily, then that is an argument in favor of reducing taxes to pay only for things like defense, and expecting everyone to donate the same amount to public charities and make up the difference.
Regards,
Shodan