LOL <3 You ;-)

Honestly, im not so left... I didn't vote NDP or Liberal in our election. I voted for Harper.

The problem with the right wing in the United States is that the Teabaggers have made them crazy. and i cant stand foxnews and it's misinformation machine.

go buy the jon stewart bill oreilly debate right now. $5.
http://www.therumble2012.com

Denied! You don't <3 me back

/me crying

are you a lady? if so, yes, i <3 the ladies.

if not, i cannot <3 you.

Im sorry you aren't comfortable with your sexuality, could it be you're in the closet????

because i dont have penises for men, im not comfortable with my sexuality? blurgh...

what's a closet?

Just what i thought haha

this thread took a turn... and im not sure where it's going next. so im just gonna go sleep.

Make sure you lock your closet!

The Walton family is worth more than 40% of Americans combined. (c. 130m people)
The Walton family members right now did not "earn" their wealth by starting a business or anything like that, they inherited one that's been run by managers since then.

But no, the rich are under attack in America, much bigger problem than America's unequal distribution of wealth and the social problems that arise from it.

(for the Waltons link http://www.politifact.com/...-own-more-wealth-bottom-/)

PP, so your answer is clearly class warfare. At least you're out in the open about it.

I could care less about who makes what, this is not a zero sum game. Them having more doesn't bring others down, so why are you worried about them?

The left plants the "hate the rich" seed very early, instead of praising successful people, they demonise them.

umm because if they'd been taxed a bit more along the way and spent it on social programs, people born to less advantaged families wouldn't be so likely to follow their parents down the road of poverty. social mobility has huge economic benefits in terms of optimal allocation of means of production.

it's not like sam walton wouldn't have built Walmart even if he'd known his kids might not be able to be richer than almost half the country. at the same time, there are a lot of public services in America which genuinely need a lot more money, and giving them this money would have massive economic benefits.

also your "class warfare" line is pretty silly. unless you're completely devoid of compassion, chances are you believe in some sort of "class warfare"

Its not silly. Your reason for taking their money is not that it will benefit the country economically. It is that they have too much money. Social programs have been a disaster and only keep a class of people perpetually at the bottom and on welfare. There is nothing to show that taking money from the Waltons, or anyone else, and giving it to others will benefit anyone over the long haul.

I wonder though, right now at this moment, where is the Waltons money? Do they have it hidden under their pillows? Under their mattresses? No, it is in the hands of other people at this very moment in the form of investments, loans, etc. Their money is in the hands of people who are working to better themselves. Your solution is to put it in the hands of people who have not done anything to deserve it. Taking their money and putting it in the hands of the unproven and incompetent will only decrease our production and remove money from where it is needed most.

http://www.theblaze.com/...y-choice-for-your-future/

Tolerance! Unity!

The only type of "tolerance and unity" the left believes in is the one where it benefits them.

My wife grew up with no money, no rich family, and she went to school, got straight A's so she could get scholarships which then paid her way through school, and graduated with a 3.94 GPA through MBA school. She has a nice job now needless to say and the Walton family certainly didn't hold her back, no rich person held her back, and no government held her back. If anything the government is taking quite a bit of our money tax wise. She brought herself to where she is in life, period. People need to be willing to work hard enough to make their way in life, we are a much lazier and entitled society then prior generations. We would rather watch nightly shows on our 50' tvs, or play video games, or watch reality tv, then to go out and make something of ourselves greater.

In America, you really work to where you are content with, and that is not a fault of any government or rich person, period.

Wow, you hit all the main talking points. Let's go through them and think logically:

1) The working with Democrats thing: Of course he did. He was in Massachusetts. He was a Republican governor who knew he could be overridden on everything he wanted if he didn't work with Democrats. This is similar to how Clinton actually pretty successfully worked with Republicans from time to time. The problem is that he now is pushing himself further and further to the right to placate the Tea Party contingent. So which Romney would show up in January if he wins? The one that's actually a pretty centrist governor or the one who panders to the far right and doesn't seem to care about working with Democrats (after all, he did say during the primary debates he'd turn down a 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue raising).

2) I've been unable to find how Massachusetts ranked prior to Romney, but it's a wealthy state with some of the best universities in the world. I'm going to bet that Massachusetts was probably pretty sound educationally beforehand. If you find something to refute that, please post it. I'm actually very curious.

3) Obama as the divisive one: I present to you Mitch McConnell, who pretty much immediately after PRes. Obama was elected (with an impressive margin of victory that at the time could certainly be considered him having a "mandate" to change things), stated his biggest goal was to make Pres. Obama a one-term president. From there, the GOP filibustered everything they could to kill legislation.
http://www.mediaite.com/...important-political-goal/

Ultimately, I'm disappointed in the first term of Pres. Obama, but I think that's due to Obama's naivete that the Republicans had any desire to work with him to make things better and the Republicans (at least McConnell and his ilk) being asshats who were dedicated to defeating Obama more than they were to fixing the problems of the country. I figure things will be better after this election either way because either 1) They'll have Obama for four more years and they won't have to worry about defeating him in the next election, nor defeating his VP (because let's be serious, Uncle Joe's not the same threat that Obama is to win an election); or 2) They'll have their own guy in there.

Either way, I figure things will get done. However, I'm still of the belief that Pres. Obama has actually done some good things and with a Congress that has nothing to lose by working with him, hopefully he'll be able to do a lot more.

4 years ago, I had hopes and dreams of making it in this world, of living and thriving.

Now, I'd just like to survive relatively easily.

For those of my generation that supported Obama, these last 4 years have been years of lost hope and no change. Obama came into office saying that he wanted to work across the aisle, but then doing just the opposite. His first agenda was to ram through Obamacare and people wonder why the Republicans hardened their positions and dug in for these last four years? Obama chose to pursue the one thing that he knew or should have known would be the most divisive legislation imaginable if done the wrong way as his first major legislative agenda. People may say that Republicans have refused to work with Obama, but those same people mistakenly equate outright surrendering of beliefs and positions as "working with Obama".

This nation was built by the collective actions of INDIVIDUALS and SMALL groups of people, not by the people collectively. Obama just doesn't understand this and has proven himself at best the second worst president in history (excluding those that were outright crooked).

I'm not sure if Romney will be the leader we need, but I'm sure he'll be closer than Obama has ever been.

Huh? Who do you think paid for those schools? Who do you think paid for that scholarship? Who's the biggest funder of university research in the US?

Do you seriously think the public schooling system as it is right now offers equal opportunities for everyone?

Equality has economic benefits, there are social benefits too.

And you aren't giving money to poor people directly, you're doing it through healthcare, education etc. that have social returns (positive externalities) while still bringing considerable economic benefits.

Seriously, you think the Waltons have the best possible allocation strategy for that capital? Like, if you had to pick six people out of 300 million to eventually manage 90 billion dollars for you, you'd pick them? It doesn't make any economic sense to say that because these guys happened to be Sam Walton's kids, they're going to allocate that capital most effectively. It makes economic sense to invest in education etc. to make sure that everyone has somewhat similar opportunities in life. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to earn money or pass it on, but if one family has more wealth than 40% of the country and the system that is supposed to provide somewhat equal opportunities and a somewhat equal way of life is not working, that's where *I'd* be trying to get the money from.

"And you aren't giving money to poor people directly, you're doing it through healthcare, education etc. that have social returns (positive externalities) while still bringing considerable economic benefits. "

Our current education system says money is not the problem. Giving money to people is not the answer to anything and never has been. Every time it is tried, it fails.

It isn't about optimal allocation for the Waltons, but the fact that the money is invested in things that help people who are bettering themselves. Where do you think their money is? In a bank? In the stock market? In bonds? etc...all of the above is better than blindly giving money to the masses. In any of the above, the money is not locked up and left unused, it is used by the people in possession of the investment. A bank makes a loan to a person starting a business, or a couple qualifying for a house. The company who was invested in now has extra capital to expand and hires more workers...etc. Would providing healthcare for someone who doesn't deserve the Waltons money help society in such a way? Somehow, I don't think so.

How is them having more money denying people an equal opportunity? Our system was not set up for equality and every society that has been has been overwhelmed with debt. Ours is based on freedom. It is exactly how we became the richest country on earth.

Your entire post is directly about equality of one thing or another, not actual benefits to society in the long run. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and that is what you are proposing. Taking money from one to give to another in the name of fairness. It doesn't take long for more Zuckerbergs to pop up and soon the wealth starts leaving en masse to protect their property.

quote]Huh? Who do you think paid for those schools? Who do you think paid for that scholarship? Who's the biggest funder of university research in the US?

Do you seriously think the public schooling system as it is right now offers equal opportunities for everyone? [/quote]

Your argument is null, she went to a private school with private funding, no public institution. Also, she was home-schooled, self-taught by a mother who wasn't any rocket scientist, any other excuses you would like to make for the people at large?

I have a lot of faith in our public schools, a small amount of kids it will fail but for those that will work hard and get good grades you WILL find your way to succeed. I am an example of it. It is one reason I am so staunch on hard work. People are not interested in investing the amount of time and effort to succeed nowadays, it is a narrative that is scary and a narrative that is bringing about the idea of government involvement.

Schools that are subpar are located in inner-cities where poverty levels are high. I have numerous family members that work in Buffalo Public Schools and they say the biggest issue is not the cirriculum or the school but the parenting. Students parents show a disinterest in seeing their kids succeed in school. These kids come to school underfed, understimulated, and show an overall lack of respect unfortunately. Unfortunately if you do not get a strong investment from your family and parents to instill an idea of working hard in school, the student is doomed from the start.

I just want to make it clear that not all left wing voters are poor and want a hand out. It wouldn't mean much for me to post a list of very rich lefties... but just know that some people vote for their financial interests... and some vote against their financial interests.

@CK: Of course the money would be invested somewhere. It's not like money spent on education goes into a black hole. It comes out in the form of teacher salaries which are spent, books etc. Healthcare? Doctor salaries, medicines etc.

I made an economic argument that the Waltons aren't the optimal allocators of that capital, you reject it saying it somehow isn't relevant that the money could earn higher returns elsewhere. Then for some reason you assume that the fact that when they invest in 0 positive externality projects it's a better use of capital than government spending on projects which have massive positive externalities. It's also a bit sad that your understanding of economics seems to be at a high school level if you STILL don't understand how inequality of opportunity can have negative economic effects.

Ok, let's try this another way:

If places in universities were assigned solely on the basis of merit as opposed to ability to pay, where do you think your wife would be today?

[quote poster=Pontius Pirate; 20569; 381034]Ok, let's try this another way:

If places in universities were assigned solely on the basis of merit as opposed to ability to pay, where do you think your wife would be today? [/quote]

She'd be exactly where she is today, most likely.

My point PP is that you advocate spending on people who haven't done anything to deserve it, I advocate loaning it to people who prove they are worthy of the investment. You advocate wasting billions, I don't. It's really simple as that.

Some reason they want a 0 positive investment? Do you comprehend english? Dude, that straw man argument is enough...everyone with a brain understood what I wrote, so yea I'm gonna leave it at that.

No, you're under the misguided assumption that all economics deals with and all we should worry about is capital. Whereas if you'd taken economics beyond a high school level you'd understand that labour and land are also factors of production and that an economic system where these resources are not allocated efficiently isn't going to work.

Spending on people who haven't done anything to deserve it? For fluffs sake, the thing I've talked most about is education. Education (up to a point, university education for everyone is probably a waste of money) is absolutely necessary in order to get the labour force to realize its full potential. Importantly, the education needs to be equal (so that talent outshines for instance ability to pay for tutors) and available to everyone so that we can best give people education up to their level of talent and have get the jobs where this education is required.

Funny how you've gone from accusing me of making a "equality based" argument to you just going "WELL THEY DESERVE THE MONEY DONT GIVE IT THOSE WHO DONT." Which one of us is waging of "class warfare" now?

.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach

here you go, laugh away

PP, what you're advocating is essentially backdoor state socialism. We already have this to a certain extent, so I'm not trying to demonize it. I'm just calling it what it is. Increasing the tax burden on the wealthy and using it to increase economic equality through various programs is, at the extreme, functionally equivalent to state socialism. Personally, I believe we should reduce the socialist character that we already have. Not eliminate it, just reduce it.
Mobster pointed out the fact that the education system is lacking interested students, more than funding. If every school system had sufficient funding, a student that shows up not interested in learning still won't learn. The reason we have the level of poverty we do is due to children not being given the drive to attempt success by their parents.

Say what you want about our education system, but for the most part if a student tries to, they will graduate. If a student tries to and has the talent to deserve them he will get good grades. If he has a diploma he will be accepted to college, it doesn't have to be a big college. The one I went to for my first two years accepts all HS graduates. You can pay for tuition at one of these colleges with a job attainable with a HS diploma.

It might take work and time, but there is no single person with the intelligence to do so that does not have the economic opportunity to receive the level of education that they want. For that matter, if you really don't think they can afford college, there is always the army and the GI Bill. I used that for my last few years of college, and they've vastly improved it since. Spend 2 years in the army and you've got damned near to the equivalent of a full ride scholarship to the most expensive in state public college.

My mother never worked, my father drove a semi-truck for my entire life. Neither attended college, hell my dad never even got a HS diploma, he got his GED a few years after dropping out. I messed around in HS, graduated a year late due to a year's expulsion with a GPA around 1.5. I now have a bachelor's degree in accounting and am in the final round of interviews for a $40k/year job as my first job out of college. Not exactly rich, but if anyone doesn't consider it more than enough, then they need to examine their sense of entitlement.

.

Why would the fiscal multiplier debunk anything he said? Government investment doesn't necessarily have a higher multiplier than private investment, assuming the money is invested...

TanX: Well, yes I am. While CK calls it "class warfare", to me it's a mixture of equality and efficiency (improving equality of opportunity).

I appreciate the fact that the situation isn't dire or anything, and that you can make it if you're good or work hard. My point is more about inequality leading to some people making it without working as hard as others, and many being filtered out because they're unable to "thrive" in a substandard educational system.

The point is more that there are clear differences in outcomes between the top and bottom in the educational system. This has an implication for average students in both systems, which in turn has an effect on the economy (lower quality students from better schools will get better jobs because they've had access to better education).

Now you might say the problem is not in the schools, it's in the families. I'd argue that that's probably not 100% true, and even if it was, the answer wouldn't be "ok, just leave it be", it would be to make the schools that have to counterweight bad parenting better at doing that. If income levels are "persistent" through generations, it's both unfair and bad for the economy in the sense that "talent" is definitely not strongly persistent through generations but if income is, it means that talent is being supressed through income.

There is certainly disparity in the k-12 system. The solution is introducing competition, modifying (in my opinion, eliminating) the tenure track system, and rewarding success.

A localized example from Democrats I think was what Michelle Rhee was trying to do in DC under Mayor Fenty. Introducing charter schools as competition, firing ineffective teachers and working local business leaders to reward those successful teachers, particularly from underperforming schools.

I work a few blocks away from the NEA and I think they're one of the biggest impediments to your stated goal of seeking equality of opportunity. Last fall their employees even protested because they weren't unionized. Yes the non-profit employees of a union protested because they weren't unionized. These folks don't envision competition as a means of ferreting out problems, they see it as a direct threat to their livelihoods. It tells you that they don't consider educating the number one goal, the consider maintaining the job regardless of the outcome as the number one goal.

You were right later when you said you want to create opportunity. Pooring money into costly new entitlements isn't create independence, it's creating dependence. And once you give, it's nearly impossible to take back.

You want more Sam Waltons? Work with venture capitalists to reform the regulatory structure to continue to encourage growth.

there isn't enough competition now? do the homework, test better than everyone else, and they'll give you money to go to college... fail to do that and you might as well become a crack addict. 12 years of education isn't worth diddly squat in the US.

i should probably shut up. can't figure out if i'm evading a ban, or if the forum is experiencing bugs.

i don't even know how to nuke McDonald's hamburgers.

.

yeah well your mother's a whore

.

It's all just a matter of ideology. Go capitalism. I don't require that the government make things fair, or easy for anyone. If you're lucky enough to start a microsoft or a facebook, then good for you, enjoy your disgustingly large net worth. If you're too unlucky to be able to have two nickles to rub together, I'm sorry, keep trying. It's not the government's job to change either of these people's situation, in my opinion. I don't believe we have a right to comfort, or ease of upward mobility, or anything beyond some basic services.

For the most part, the only thing the federal government should be paying for, in my opinion, are things like national defense. Things that are inarguably necessary, and not able to be efficiently provided by a lower level of government. There is no rational reason for the federal budget to exceed or even rival the sum of the states' budgets (not that I know if it does, I only found one source on the subject). If you were to advocate for socialization within a state, I'd be much more receptive, although still pretty skeptical. The federal government has a defined role, which it currently far exceeds. The state level is where people's choices on how to live should be determined. That's virtually the entire point of our federal system.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564556

Just came out (the date says it came out tomorrow?), but illuminates the problems I was highlighting.

TanX, ok so it's a moral stance. I mean there's not much I can do to try to convince you otherwise if the idea that things might work better (ie it would be beneficial for the economy) if provided to everyone equally doesn't do it for you and the fairness argument (why should you be responsible for parents' mistakes? is one angle to that) doesn't do it for you.

@trumper: we agree on the desirable outcome but probably disagree greatly on the methods to get there, but it's not really something I want to get into in this thread and without further reading

Lol@your sig, PP, epic!

@TanX: so you want the Canadian system (other than the fact that we have a federal criminal code and interprovincial trade barriers)?