Hey Joe Capitalist," . . . far-left leaders like Obama want a
large portion of voters in this country completely off the tax rolls . .
."Who is "completely off the tax rolls?"Even
the poorest of the poor pay excise taxes.And what, aside from years
of being happily propagandized into a ridiculous Right Wing mindset, would make
anyone think Obama is a "far-left" leader?Hey 2bits -" . . . Switch out Bush, put in Obama.. what really changed?"
Plenty.You don't see Obama making screwing up this
nation as Bush did do you?Clinton left Bush a thriving nation, at
peace, with solid allies, balanced budgets, and a strong economy. And Bush
DESTROYED it all.GW left Obama a nation with a giant hole where the
Twin Towers had been and a nation mired in two avoidable wars and on the brink
of financial ruin.We, under this Democratic administration, have
been pulling ourselves out of the dismal situation GW left for us.So
you can see, there's a HUGE difference between GW and Obama.
Discovering oil is like pulling out a wad of bill on the street. Suddenly you
become very interesting to other people. The world market for oil is
owned and operated by a small number of very rich and powerful people who
don't want any new competitors. We know how they treat undesirable
competitors, and his former citizens.
@ 2 Bits... Smith = Adam Smith.... it was his writings that much of capitalism
is based on.
Ernest & Tekakaromatagi are on to something.The oil company is
state run in Venezuela & Saudi.I am certain its that way in Iran
too. Lets ask the Shah?
@UtahBlueDevil,I'm not against taxes. We need them. All taxes aren't "redistribution". Education, military,
transportation, courts, police, fire, etc... (not redistribution).
Redistribution is when you take some from one person's pay check, and write
a check to another person (refunds, welfare checks, food stamps, etc).
That's "redistribution". And I'm OK with it. Just pointing
out that it already happens. So nobody needs to snicker and pretend we
don't already do it.I don't disagree with Smith (whoever
he is). We need taxes, and we need schools, police the whole works. And we
need programs to help the poor and disadvantaged, and even a little
redistribution. I'm not against it... just pointing out that we already
do it.====Left and Right aren't far apart. Some
evidence... Bush and Obama... pretty much the same. Switch out Bush, put in
Obama.. what really changed? Nothing. Democrat majority or Republican
majority... not much changes.While left and right are not far
apart... the RADICALS on both sides are WAY far apart, even from those of us in
the center, even more apart from the other sides radicals...
GaryO: "There is NO room for reality, truth, facts, and common sense in
Right Wing La La Land."If your post is truly indicative of the
liberal mindset, then you are absolutely right about conservatives being miles
apart from that ideology.But in your mind, all of us are just crazy,
right?I may disagree with a whole lot of things that liberals
believe, but I realize that there are a lot of smart and caring people on that
side of the political aisle. To label everyone who disagrees with you as stupid
idiots just isn't all that productive in my humble opinion.
UtahBlueDevil –“This just emphasizes that on maters of
common sense, left and right are usually not all that far apart.”What??!You’ve got to be kidding.Common sense is
completely inconsistent with Right Wing “Ideals.”Adam
Smith does not live in Right Wing La La Land.That is the domain of
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and 20 million others who believe as
they do.There is NO room for reality, truth, facts, and common sense
in Right Wing La La Land.
@2 bits.... it wasn't just Marx that felt this way. but also the father of
Capitalism himself who favored load balancing the need via taxes....Smith wrote ""The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards
the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.""Smith
goes on to say "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute
to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something
more than in that proportion."So it isn't just leftist and
socialist who are proponents of this system. For example Smith said this of
public education ""For a very small expence the public can facilitate,
can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people the
necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education."This just emphasizes that on maters of common sense, left and right are
usually not all that far apart.
@UtahBlueDevilI never said anybody "pays in proportion to their
benefit". That is not a reasonable expectation (strawman). I
have no problem with welfare, tax refunds, food stamps, etc.... I'm just
pointing out that we already do redistribution (in small ways) so you don't
need to get the giggles when you hear that concept.I agree we are
doing a terrible job of it too BTW.We need the programs I listed.
But it is re-distributive (no need to giggle). Any tax code that takes from
some, and gives to others.. is "re-distributive" (google
"redistribution").I'm not against any redistribution.
I'm just pointing out that we do it, every day, every paycheck. So you
don't have to giggle (like it doesn't happen in America).Many leftists feel any tax code (to be effective) MUST be re-distributive.
America's Medicare Chief said, "any health care system that is
civilized and humane must redistribute wealth" (google "Former Medicare
Chief: Wealth Redistribution - CNNNews).Leftists think the fix to
income inequality MUST be redistribution. The leftist solution to almost
ANYTHING is redistribution. Ask Marxist...Some even think oil
revenue should be redistributed (ask Chavez).
If "welfare check, refund check, etc are forms of wealth redistribution,
they are doing a terrible job. Helping the poor and those in need "to
me" is not wealth redistribution. To me, wealth redistribution is where
state policies dictate and level off income inequality. What we have is a long
shot away from that. Lets be real honest here. No one pays in
proportion to their benefit. No one. Everyone if paying into a large fund
where money is allocated. Do airlines truly pay the fully loaded coast of
managing an air transport system? Are general funds used to pay the cost of
operating the TSA and FAA? If the answer is yes, then Delta and Southwest
Airlines are too recipients of so called "wealth redistribution".
The only time you don't have what is being called wealth
redistribution as being used commonly today is when people receive in benefit
equal to what they contribute. I can't think of an example where that is
a reality. Every family with a child receives more in benefits through the
educational system then they pay. That is not wealth redistribution in my
Hey Shimalau -" tax the rich and give it to the poor? What would
that achieve? "How about just bumping back the highest tax rate
to where it was in Pre-Reagan days?"What would that
achieve?" . . . REVENUE . . . and the ability to pay our bills.Back in 1969, when the highest tax bracket 71%, this nation fought the cold
war and the Viet Nam war, paid for social projects, and sent a man to the moon .
. . AND had budget surplus because we had enough REVENUE.When Reagan
came along he reduced taxes for the highest earners from 71% in successive
stages gradually down to 28%, while raising taxes five times for the lower tax
brackets.But without that contribution from the big earners, our
revenue was much lower than it otherwise would have been. Consequently, Reagan
TRIPLED the debt.And no, it wasn't Reagan's policies that
caused the economy to rebound. It was the fact that the price of world oil
plummeted to less than 1/3 of what it had been during the Carter administration,
no thanks to Reagan.We still have low taxes for the highest earners.
WHERE are the jobs those "job creators" are supposed to create?
@UtahBlueDevil,You are right that it's not just oil.
It's a society built on centuries of class based roles, then you throw oil
wealth on top of that. Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Central America, South America,
India, Africa... have had accepted class systems for generations and
generations, then throw the instant wealth of oil money on top... and it's
no big surprise that a few families benefit... but most don't.America doesn't have that kind of class system (at least not like Saudi
Arabia, etc). Same goes for the countries reaping the oil wealth of the North
Sea. That's why America doesn't have the royal families
and oil princes they have in the middle-east (because they were already used to
and accept their class system), and oil wealth is just part of it.============As for getting the giggles at the mention of
redistribution of wealth and never seeing it happen in the USA... Ever seen
someone pay taxes? Ever seen anyone cash a welfare check, food stamps, or tax
refund check?Where do you think the funds to pay the welfare check,
refund check, etc came from? The magic government money tree?
Most of these oil rich and thus poor countries are socialist, totalitarian.
Saudi Arabia is one of them. They need property rights, the rule of law, lower
taxes, simpler tax structure, an inoffensive bureaucracy, you know what I mean.
"tax the rich and give it to the poor?"Every time I see
this, it gives me the giggles. Where oh where are the poor being handed money -
to the point that they are content with their status in life. Good grief,
sometimes rhetoric gets said so often, people actually believe this.Working in the industry, having traveled to many of these locations, oil is
the least of the reasons why their is wealth disparity. The economic conditions
only were are highlighted when oil money is brought into play - but the power
structures were very much in place before oil was a significant contributor to
wealth creation. For example, in Mexico the country has had a deep
"class" divide for generations. This has nothing to do with oil. There
was no real "middle class" in either Mexico or Brazil. That situation
is rapidly changing... and if you were to tak ea look at his data in 10 years,
the results would be much different, as attitudes towards class are changing.This is ins't oil greed... this is centuries of class systems that
are slow to change.
IMO It's not if your country has oil or not. It's whether your
country's economy is based on that oil or not.Norway
didn't necessarily manage their oil industry to balance income inequality.
It just so happens that although oil revenue is huge in Norway... they have many
other industries as well. They also have different priorities than the
countries that have been pulled apart by their oil fortunes.America
is another good example. We have a LOT of oil, but it's not what our
country and our economy is based on. It's just a small part of our GNP.But for an example of the other extreme... look to Hugo Chavez and
Venezuela. A grand concept... but it didn't work (did it)? Venezuela
still has some of the poorest of the poor, and they are still flocking to
America for economic opportunity (even though we don't promise them oil
royalties).Most Americans own oil companies. Most American oil
companies are owned by stockholders, of which the majority are mutual fund
companies. If you have any mutual funds in your IRA... you own stock in oil
FreedomFighter41, and how would you recommend that this wealth re distribution
be obtained? tax the rich and give it to the poor? What would that achieve? If
you want to confiscate the property of the producers and give to the non
producers, eventually, the producers will see that there is no reason to keep on
producing, and they will stop. then there will be no wealth to redistribute.
It's easy to critize, but how about some workable solutions? has
Marxism/communism succeded anywhere, or total socialism? what are your ideas?
Oil is only one of the many historic generators of wealth in the U.S., thus in
this context the graphic has little real meaning. In terms of the total U.S.
GDP, oil has always been only a partial contributor nationally (although
regionally it may make very large contributions).
Because the wealth is not distributed fairly. When only 1 percent
has wealth, bad things happen.But don't worry, this is already
coming here to the United States. We are quickly becoming a 3rd world Latin
America country. Infrastructure is crumbling, education suffering, and buying
power limited for the middle class, and the wealthy 1 percent control
everything. Los United States, here we come! Enjoy the ride!
Reaganomics and the repubs made it happen!
Why? Answer:Corruption.If one is wise, they budget for the busts of
the cycle. The booms then are extra. But if they were wise they would not be
Corruption and greed.
"Some oil-rich countries regularly charge little or no taxes to its
citizens, this makes rulers less accountable."Is that why
far-left leaders like Obama want a large portion of voters in this country
completely off the tax rolls?I find it interesting that the
"income inequality" crowd is not at all interested in the actual
standard of living of the "poor" in any given country, just the
difference between the wealthiest and the least wealthy. Quatar might be a
country where the poorest person is a millionaire, but because there are a lot
of billionaires the wealth disparity is high, so that is obviously worse than if
everyone were equal as thousandaires.