1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

71% of Democrats Believe in Redistributing Wealth

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Jun 3, 2011.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Or my alternative title, today's Democrats are yesterday's Bolsheviks. I mean, wow, just wow. I knew it was bad but 71%??? What does it mean? It means that people like hand outs, people are saying the hell with merit and hard work, it means that... wait, let me find this part, oh yeah, here it is: 31% of Americans believe we have TOO MANY rich people!!!!

    I mean, wow.   http://bit.ly/lwoB4u

    By the way, by RICH, we mean anyone making 250K per household.
  2. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    Not surprising, unfortunately.

    I'm not sure how, but we REALLY need to change the mentality back in this country to one of work and reward for that work. Not reward for non work and punishment for working hard.
  3. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    It's too late. After decades of indoctrination in the schools, we're getting more and more young people who buy into this crap. Corporations are evil, the rich don't do enough for the poor, and why should I have to work for everything I want?

    It's sickening.
  4. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    So how do you feel about Robber Barons?
    Their socio-economic adventures were taught when I was in public school, but I don't remember any definitive explanation of how a few wealthy individuals did not end up owning the entire country, at least from my point of view.
    There were anti-trust laws, as they were called, that broke up big companies into little ones, not unlike the break-up of the phone company a few decades ago.
    One obvious way to distribute the wealth is to divide it equally among your children. Without growth, each generation's share dwindles until they are just regular people.

    I think the survey doesn't actually tell who believes in redistributing the wealth, it really tells you whether those groups think their wealth will be increased or decreased by such re-distribution.
  5. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    For me, the eye-opener is 43% of independents think taxes on the wealthy is the way to go. Add that to the Democrats and you have a real mentality problem.

    What ever happened to the idea of hard work and the rewards of the sweat of your own labor?

    I can certainly understand supporting those who cannot help themselves because of situations completely beyond their control but if you are able-bodied then do not expect government hand-outs to carry the day.
  6. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    There's nothing wrong with getting paid more if you work longer or harder or smarter than others.
    Likewise there's nothing wrong with being paid for your popular idea or your dad's longer hours, harder work, smarter methods, and popular ideas.
    Some people choose to sweat so their kids won't have to. Some serve with the intent that their kids won't have to.

    But don't try to tell me that a huge income proves anybody worked hard to get it.
    Exceptions like the lottery are too easy to prove.
    IMHO, hiring people who give you what you want and firing the ones who don't is a tough as riding in a shopping cart in the cookie aisle and telling your mommy which cookies you like. Not what you want? Throw a tantrum. That deserves a big fat pay check, oh yeah, right.

    Government exists to protect property. If you have more property, you use more protection. It's as simple as that.
    If I have 1 acre of land and Mr. Moneybags next door has 10,000 acres, whose land takes more time to protect?
    If I have $1000 in a bank and Mr. Monebags has $1,000,000,000 whose money costs more to protect?

    How does anybody ignore this simple relationship?
    I suppose you want to say that welfare programs and education and parks and so forth are government hand-outs that aren't part of defending Mr. Moneybags wealth, but in fact they are.
    Despite all the nostalgia about the past, the world was a more dangerous place without those things.
    Paying for education, food stamps, etc etc is just a cheaper alternative than hiring a legion of quasi-military supercops to protect Mr. Moneybags wealth from hordes of the unwashed.
    1 person likes this.
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    The ratio of CEO pay versus the worker's pay does not help the idea of less redistributon of wealth. When you can work hard and the end result is at age 52 you find your job moved to India the idea of working hard and succeding seems like a fairy tail. To work had all your life and then the company who promised you retirement and health benefits walks on those promises the allure of working hard being its own benefit begins to lose its shine. When the military are promised free health care after retirment and then made to pay for it the promises offered by our government seem like the bait and switch of the most contemptible infomercials.

    All of which makes it easier to understand those who want redistribution of the wealth. It would help their cause if they actually came up with a way to do so that would not destroy the wealth they want some of.
  8. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    Explain, please. And keep in mind that the Government is under no obligation to protect a specific individual's property, else you could sue said government for not protect you from have a laptop stolen. Government exists to protect society at large, not individuals, and I've got court cases to back that up.
  9. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    It's the individuals in the society that constitute "at large".
    Your argument is like claiming FedEx doesn't have to deliver packages overnight becauses it can't guarantee success 100% of the time.
    (They'll refund your money if they fail, I believe).
    Our government has reimbursed individuals for violating their rights, yes?
  10. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    Unforunately the modern progressive movement (i.e. American socialists) can be summed up in one line from a song, later used in the opening of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie.

    The end goal is not to feed all the poor but to get rid of the rich so everyone is the same. If the line in the song ended with "Till there are no poor no more"...that may be a worthy goal. Alas it's all about class warfare and getting handouts from the government taken from "the rich".

    Cool song, written by one of the greatest rock guitarists, Alvin Lee. But sums up what today's hard core Democrat has become.

  11. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    I simply don't buy that's the view of the majority of Democrats, Independents, or even Republicans that favored wealth distribution in the poll. Thinking the rich should pay some more is not the same as saying take it all.

    And nice post Kluge. The notion that someone should be rewarded for working hard, being innovative, etc., is absolutely correct. But there's also the notion that those who get great rewards owe the society that provided them the opportunity to succeed. No one succeeds in a vacuum. That success is in part built on the back of the educational system, the country's infrastructure, the regulatory system, the civil protection system, and so on. Without that in place, the "rich" would need to spend their own money for those things, which might even be so much to overcome that they wouldn't be rich.

  12. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    You're free to believe what you will of course. One reason so many believe it's fine to take more from some, while 49% pay nothing. Your opinion is not unique today.
  13. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Well, I guess that succinctly frames the debate: some view it as taking, others view it as being owed.
  14. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Of course, "Rich" are classified as any household that make 250K a year.

    Mike, I'll be gone from this country when it comes to the Bolshevik revolution here. I am sure I won't be the only one. Then you can take from your fellow Democrats. Not unlike what happened in Russia 1920 on.
  15. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    I don't define it as that and doubt there will ever be substantially higher taxes on those that make 250K, even up to 500K. (Substantially higher meaning more than a 5% tax increase.)

    Since we're going for hyperbole, Kristof had a suggestion (satirical, of course) in one of his latest columns of a place with low taxes, etc. :)

    I'm not a Democrat, have been a registered Republican since when I first started voting.

  16. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    That's what Obama and Democrats in Congress define it as.

    Sorry, I don't read OpEd of NYT. Kristof had a great following when he was trumping up crowds about Sudan. Then he saw a shiny object and stopped. Just like the rest of Hollywood and the media.

    Ok. So is Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic. If you catch my drift.
  17. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Which means nothing when it comes to what would be a compromise tax increase.

    I don't catch your drift. I was simply pointing out that it's can be unreliable to lump everyone together based on preconceived notions. Seems to be happening more and more, everywhere.
  18. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    being it is these two branches who increase (or cut) taxes, I beg to differ.

    I'm going by what you write here, Mike, I don't know you outside this sandbox.
  19. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    So take what I write at face value, not some preconceived notion that everyone falls into one extreme or the other (wants to raise taxes? oh my God, a socialist democrat!).

  20. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    It's not quite that simple. The poor don't figure in. They don't have any money and they aren't going to get any money other than a pittance.

    And the rich aren't being taxed out of existence at all. The transfer of wealth is from the middle class to the moneyed class. The US is becoming more like Mexico, a small upper class with most of the wealth, a large under class of peons, and a very small middle class, getting smaller because they're being taxed out of existence, and because their jobs are vanishing.

    So IMO the redistribution of wealth is from middle class to upper class, and those middle class people losing their money are joining the poor lower class.

Share This Page