"John H." wrote in message
...

You need to change your hearing aid batteries. The redistribution O'Reilly
talked about is the redistribution Obama talks about continuously. The
middle class tax cut (which we know is bull****) would be financed by an
upper income tax increase.

If that's not redistribution, what is. Obama's answer to O'Reilly's
question was, "We can afford it." Why should those who have earned their
money give it away?



This is one of the most important faults of the left wing, semi-socialist
Obama economic theory.

A person (or persons) who go out and create something of value don't do so
at the expense of those that don't or can't.
There is no finite amount of value or wealth to be "grabbed". It is
created.

Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a redistribution
of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is socialism or communism,
plain and simple.

Eisboch

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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


That's bogus.

For one thing, a "perfect score" of 1 means that a single person .....
actually a group ..... has all the wealth, stated in terms of income.
A score of 0 means everybody is equally wealthy .... income wise.

Yet, as the score goes up over the years, the "middle class" is
disappearing. Where did they go?

Well, some slipped into poverty obviously and those need to be helped. But
the others didn't drop off the planet.
They moved upward.

Eisboch

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:36:42 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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


That's bogus.

For one thing, a "perfect score" of 1 means that a single person .....
actually a group ..... has all the wealth, stated in terms of income. A
score of 0 means everybody is equally wealthy .... income wise.

Yet, as the score goes up over the years, the "middle class" is
disappearing. Where did they go?

Well, some slipped into poverty obviously and those need to be helped.
But the others didn't drop off the planet. They moved upward.

Eisboch

I think you are misunderstanding the coefficient. The Gini index isn't
perfect, but it does make clear, that the redistribution of wealth is
towards the rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...oefficient.svg

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:36:42 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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


That's bogus.

For one thing, a "perfect score" of 1 means that a single person .....
actually a group ..... has all the wealth, stated in terms of income. A
score of 0 means everybody is equally wealthy .... income wise.

Yet, as the score goes up over the years, the "middle class" is
disappearing. Where did they go?

Well, some slipped into poverty obviously and those need to be helped.
But the others didn't drop off the planet. They moved upward.

Eisboch

I think you are misunderstanding the coefficient. The Gini index isn't
perfect, but it does make clear, that the redistribution of wealth is
towards the rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...oefficient.svg



Maybe I am. But, doesn't it also indicate that the bulk of the middle class
are also becoming "richer"?
Not all. But the bulk. Otherwise, if the middle class disappears, did
they *all* fall into poverty or did they simply die off? Nope.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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


That's bogus.

For one thing, a "perfect score" of 1 means that a single person .....
actually a group ..... has all the wealth, stated in terms of income.
A score of 0 means everybody is equally wealthy .... income wise.

Yet, as the score goes up over the years, the "middle class" is
disappearing. Where did they go?

Well, some slipped into poverty obviously and those need to be helped.
But the others didn't drop off the planet.
They moved upward.

Eisboch



You know, games can be played with numbers, making them add up to support
whatever POV or agenda one is promoting.
Taking a step backwards, though, as we sit here 8 weeks from the election,
my thinking is beginning to solidify.
As stated before, I am not a registered anything. I try, as best as I can,
to keep an open mind, evaluating candidates in terms of who would be best as
POTUS for the current set of conditions. To this end, I had an initial
level of interest in Obama, simply because I thought that at this period of
history and world events, he would likely be best to repair the damage done
to this country's reputation in the global scene. I still think that is
true.

However, this attribute is more than offset by another factor, being his
extreme left wing philosophies and demonstrated support for socialistic
programs .... even socialists politicians.

This election is historic in many ways. First African-American president
...... or first female Vice President. Neither of those factors mean
anything to me however.

What is far more historic and pivotal, IMO, is the critical choice of
marching towards socialism with vigor, or swallowing the lumps and keeping
our traditional form of a unique government with an attempt to improve it
even more. To that, I have no doubt in which way to cast my vote. I'd
like my children and grandchildren to continue to have some level of
personal freedom and opportunity. We don't need to become a European styled
Socialist Democracy.

Eisboch

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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


Oh .... BTW, this theory also, by default, assumes a finite amount of
income or wealth to be distributed.
That simply is not the case.

Eisboch

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:26:20 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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

That "redistribution" BS should be turned upside down by the Dems,
given what I always hear about the "middle class" not even keeping up
with inflation while "the rich get richer."
But they have turned into a "wealthy" Yuppie party, and have no balls.
Their base won't get fired up or expanded as long as they have cable
TV and food on the table.
All this "redistribution of wealth" talk is pure political bull****
anyway.
Bottom line is everybody fights for economic spoils. Who wins the
fight is determined by their fighting heart, ambition, love of money,
or survival.
Used to be workers wanted better work conditions and more money
for food on the table, so they organized and raised hell. Now they
watch cable TV if they get frustrated.
But if they get hungry and can't afford cable TV, watch out.
In the end all the "redistribution" talk is pure bull****, whether
from Eisboch or Harry. Most people get exactly what they deserve.
But remember - that's just my current opinion.
I am flexible, and perfectly willing to flip-flop.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:26:20 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



Fair taxes on that earned or created wealth is fine. But a
redistribution of wealth by government edict is not. To do so is
socialism or communism, plain and simple.

Eisboch

LOL, that would depend on which way the wealth is being redistributed,
wouldn't it?

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...efficient.html

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

That "redistribution" BS should be turned upside down by the Dems,
given what I always hear about the "middle class" not even keeping up
with inflation while "the rich get richer."
But they have turned into a "wealthy" Yuppie party, and have no balls.
Their base won't get fired up or expanded as long as they have cable
TV and food on the table.
All this "redistribution of wealth" talk is pure political bull****
anyway.
Bottom line is everybody fights for economic spoils. Who wins the
fight is determined by their fighting heart, ambition, love of money,
or survival.
Used to be workers wanted better work conditions and more money
for food on the table, so they organized and raised hell. Now they
watch cable TV if they get frustrated.
But if they get hungry and can't afford cable TV, watch out.
In the end all the "redistribution" talk is pure bull****, whether
from Eisboch or Harry. Most people get exactly what they deserve.
But remember - that's just my current opinion.
I am flexible, and perfectly willing to flip-flop.

--Vic


Well, I sincerely hope you flip rather than flop.

Eisboch

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:20:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:




Well, I sincerely hope you flip rather than flop.

All depends on how hungry I am.

--Vic