Presidential Poll

[JCH]

You're equating wealth creation with transfer payments. That's a dangerous mistake.

Wealth is created when someone makes something that another person or persons want. At its most basic, pioneer family A grew vegetables, and pioneer family B raised livestock. A traded with B, vegetables for meat. Viola, wealth creation, and establishment of value.

For whatever reason, Pioneer family C was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to create anything that someone else wanted. Families A and B made gifts of food to family C.

Giving does not create wealth. It makes the recipient feel more wealthy, but it does not create wealth. Gifts and other transfer payments are not included in GDP by even the most liberal economists.

We need to create wealth right now. We lost a bunch (or more accurately, we were fooled into thinking we had more than we actually did).

All the redistributions transfer payments in the world are not going to create a dime's worth of wealth.

That's why the much-maligned "trickle down" theory is the only one that makes sense. Who's the best at creating wealth? The people who have done it before and the people who have the know how and experience. Give money to the lowest in the pecking order, and they will spend 100% of it. They won't use it to create wealth.

Nothing against lending a helping hand to those in need, but comparing those transfer payments to wealth creation is a dangerous misconception. Let the people who create wealth keep what's left after the already onerous taxation, and they'll be the ones to create wealth. Give more and more to those who will only spend, and you're going to have a net effect of draining wealth.

Trickle up is a wealth drain. Trickle down is a wealth creator.

Dippity Duck, you gotta be kidding, right? The trickle down theory died with Reagonomics back in the eighties. And where have you been the past 24 hours anyway? Did you miss the news that the people voted out the crowd that has proven this tired theory that has driven this great nation deeper and deeper into debt?

[David1980]

For whatever reason, Pioneer family C was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to create anything that someone else wanted. Families A and B made gifts of food to family C.

Giving does not create wealth. It makes the recipient feel more wealthy, but it does not create wealth. Gifts and other transfer payments are not included in GDP by even the most liberal economists.

They payment itself does not. However now that C was given money, and more importantly because C has to make a choice of where to spend it on, families A and B are both going to produce more to meet the higher demand. As a result they might find themself needing to expand operations, perhaps even hire C on to create the higher output.

It's the same situation as the Bush stimulus payments. Encourage economic growth by getting money out there increasing demand.

That's why the much-maligned "trickle down" theory is the only one that makes sense. Who's the best at creating wealth? The people who have done it before and the people who have the know how and experience. Give money to the lowest in the pecking order, and they will spend 100% of it. They won't use it to create wealth.

And who do they spend it on? It ends up going to the people that make things AKA the big corporations. So now the people whoa re the best at creating wealth have more money and can create jobs.

Additionally it's not like a lack of money has really caused job creation to fall. If there was the demand for it any corporation can just borrow more money. They don't do it because when they run cost/benefit analysis the interest expense doesn't create enough additional revenues. But when demand changes suddenly that equation also changes and they do perhaps take out loans and expand.

In economics demand is just as important as supply.

[joanmcq]

Y'all missed the point

of Obama's reply to Joe; the comment of 'its good when the wealth is spread around' referred to the growing disparity between the rich and everyone else, not to welfare, EIC or anything else. It referred to things such as multi million dollar golden parachutes going to executives that destroyed the companies they were leaving, while leaving the rank and file to collect unemployment. He wasn't referring to giving your tax dollars to me or mine to you as a handout, but creating conditions where we can ALL do better, especially the middle class.

And to whomever made the comment about the 'elites'...who do you think the 'elites', as defined by the right wing propaganda machine, are? YOU! Are you educated? You're elite! Are you well read? You're elite! Are you a professional? You're elite! How is Obama 'elite' and Cindy McCain isn't? Give me a break, sheeple. I'd expect more from a group of 'elites' than a bunch of regurgitated propaganda.

[BHoffman]

of Obama's reply to Joe; the comment of 'its good when the wealth is spread around' referred to the growing disparity between the rich and everyone else, not to welfare, EIC or anything else. It referred to things such as multi million dollar golden parachutes going to executives that destroyed the companies they were leaving, while leaving the rank and file to collect unemployment. He wasn't referring to giving your tax dollars to me or mine to you as a handout, but creating conditions where we can ALL do better, especially the middle class.

And to whomever made the comment about the 'elites'...who do you think the 'elites', as defined by the right wing propaganda machine, are? YOU! Are you educated? You're elite! Are you well read? You're elite! Are you a professional? You're elite! How is Obama 'elite' and Cindy McCain isn't? Give me a break, sheeple. I'd expect more from a group of 'elites' than a bunch of regurgitated propaganda.

Hi Joan - twas I who made the 'elite' comment. I meant to say "Champagne Socialist".

[joanmcq]

Whatever! what really gets my goat is the redefinition of words by constant repetition to become emotional responses...ie 'elite' who really are the elites in this country?, or 'socialist' lets please really discuss what is socialism and not use it as an insult, along with 'war on terror' (how can we have a war on emotion?) or 'pro-american parts of the country' (say what????). I mean, what is a 'champagne socialist' even? someone who is wealthy but believes they should be taxed higher because of that because it contributes to the common good? So what is the opposite...greedy selfish fat-cat?

I fear for a country that is being trained to respond to attack words without thinking, like Pavlov's dogs. I mean think about it; who is the hero in Its a Wonderful Life, George Bailey, or Mr. Potter? But now so many are elevating the take, take, take, attitude of Mr. Potter and denegrating George, who would be a 'champagne socialist'.

[BHoffman]

Paternalism scares me

Joan, please know that I respect your passion. I'm not a "sheeple", and I'm not brainwashed, and I'm not a Pavlovian cur slavering over the mere mention of words that have been used and abused. I'm actually a pretty devout Libertarian.

Please understand that some of us seem critical of Obama's ideals, but in my own case it is fear. Perhaps if you knew what my fears are, you might at least be able to react with compassion instead of disdain.

I'm afraid that our personal freedoms are going to be doled out according to the dictates of a few well intentioned souls. If we grind the agenda right down to its conclusion then this is what I see:

There will be no unemployment and no poverty and no homelessness. There will be no social inequality. There will be no economic swings. There will be no unwanted children. There will be no drug addiction or alcoholism. Health care and college will be provided to every citizen. The natural environment outside the housing/work/shopping/school/hospital compounds will be pristine. Good things, right?

How do we get there? I'm afraid that the American people will be herded into gray government housing, watching their gray government TV shows, eating their gray government food, working at their gray government jobs, going to gray government schools, riding in gray government buses, living gray lives. This is what I fear the most. It is the sacrifice of each individual for the benefit of the collective. I'm afraid we will become, as you said, sheeple. A little sacrifice now at the very top to benefit those at the very bottom sounds reasonable. If some is good, then more is better. A little more sacrificing until the top and the bottom meet in the middle, where it's nice for everybody who likes the gray. I'm afraid of the slippery slope. It has happened so many times before in history.

In any event, Joan, I have very high regard for your tax knowledge (which is how I know you best). Thanks for listening. Please understand that I respect your views, just happen to disagree and I hope we can remain on good terms. Sorry about the champagne socialist crack.

[joanmcq]

B, I wasn't trying to be disdainful...but to express my own fears. You put that well. What I see is not only a lack of analysis or thought over what they are being told on the part of a large part of the population, but a drive towards treating any such real analysis or anyone doing analysis as undesirable. We are being trained to think only as far as the slogans that are spoon fed. When I watched how fast the 'socialist' lable spread it was frightening. I fear an Orwellian society, a return of McCarthyism (we've seen the use of the 'unpatriotic' slur directed towards any criticism of the war already), a takeover of our government by evangelical christians that demand we bow to their definintions of morality. As a libertarian, you can see the amount of intrusion into privacy and loss of freedoms that have already been taken in the name of 'homeland security'. You fear us turning into Soviet Russia or Maoist China. I fear us turning into the 'christian' version of the Taliban.

[Bees Knees]

I think we are headed for the kind of democratic socialist governments that are common in Europe. Free health care. Government pensions. Expensive programs to ensure nobody is left to fend for themselves on the streets. The price for equalizing everyone’s wealth is high taxation and mediocre living conditions.

My father-in-law who worked in the health profession before retirement recently visited relatives in Germany. This one family was in a similar profession in Germany, with a much lower standard of living. The couple lived in a one bedroom apartment, owned one small car that was rarely driven, and used their bicycles to get around. My father-in-law lives in a huge house on a lake, drives an SUV, and goes on expensive cruises twice a year.

Needless to say my father-in-law is not in favor of spreading the wealth around.

Germany is not a communist country. It is a democracy, just like the U.S. and the rest of Europe. The only difference is the level of social programs their society chooses to have. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are in favor of the government having socialist programs. Social Security and Medicare are socialist programs. Social Security has been around since the 1930s. Medicare has been around since the 1960s. Nobody will ever get elected saying they want to get rid of these programs.

If you want free government run health care, or government mandated health care by all employers, fine. There is nothing wrong with wanting that. Just don't pretend its not Socialism, because it is. There is no such thing as a pure Capitalist society on this planet. Never has, never will. Socialism is not a dirty word, if that is how you feel we should run things. The issue is how well it works, and to what extent we should expand Socialist type programs. That is what is open for interpretation. Once adopted, however, like Social Security and Medicare, it will never go away.

[veritas]

I have to take exception

to calling the US a democracy. We are a Republic. Of course that form of government has been chipped away over the years. The first major carnage to our constitution was the 16th amendment. The 17th amendment was second being the popular election of US senators. This paved the way for future encroachments by the federal government into our personal lives.

At the state level Oregon started the initiatve process as part of the same progressive movement which has further moved us towards a popular democracy.

See below what John Adams thought of democracy.

[BHoffman]

Joan - we face the same fear in regards to extremists taking over the power to impose their will upon us.

[joanmcq]

Hey Bees, I was in Germany recently and conspicuous consumption is not as big a thing over there. The germans are fiscally conservative. For one thing, using credit cards is not common; you pay cash or you don't buy. And I mean cash; big wads of Euros, not debit cards. All cars are really small (alot of our SUVs wouldn't even fit down the streets and you wouldn't be able to park one anyhow), and bike use by everyone is common. You learn pretty fast to get off the bike lane on the sidewalks. Public transport, as in busses and trains is excellent; you don't need a car. Heat is expensive, so houses are smaller. And VERY fuel efficent. Also, you don't get a mortgage without 20% down. It is a different mindset.

I like the fact that our elderly are not totally destitute; if you become disabled you are not automatically begging and homeless, and if you are laid off, you have a bit of income while you look for another job. I don't like having to ration my health care because even though I make a good living and have insurance, I can't afford the copays to get all of the treatment I need. We are the only western industrial nation that does not take care of its sick, yet will call a man who pulled himself up to the highest office in the land an elitist. Maybe its very telling that Bee's father-in-law is very wealthy off the profits of our sick rather than just nicely comfortable. BTW, the only reason I have health insurance is that I have a job, rather than being solely self employed. I cannot get health insurance in the 'open' market.

[Bees Knees]

We are a democracy in the sense that through the democratic process, we elect government officials to run the government. Even to the point of amending that constitution to whatever we want it to say. The very first thing we did as a democracy was to add 5 amendments to that constitution because the original left out some things.

As to my father-in-law living well off the profits of the sick, all I can say is come visit Rochester MN sometime. Rochester is home to the Mayo Clinic. The rich and wealthy from all over the world come to Rochester to get treated for their sicknesses. It is like a United Nations down there.

Do all of these people from around the world come to Rochester because they can’t get treated in their own country? No, there is plenty of health care back in their home country. They come to Rochester because they can afford better treatment than what is possible back home in their socialized health care system.

That is the trade off between pure Socialism and Capitalism. When you spread the wealth around, everyone gets mediocracy.

[Bees Knees]

I am a Star Trek fan. I sometimes daydream about inventing Star Trek type technology. The music CD is something I thought up in my mind long before it was reality. In my youth, I was one of those who cleaned his records prior to use. I hated the cracks and pops you get from scratchy records. I would dream about using laser beams to read the groves in the record (or sealed disk) instead of dragging a sharp needle across the groves.

I’m still waiting for those royalty checks for inventing the CD in my mind as a kid. I’m not holding my breath.

Anyway, back to Star Trek technology, I also thought of how we could use transporter technology to cure diseases. The transporter decomposes matter into energy, beams it across space, and re-composes the energy back into matter. Thus, they could visit planets on Star Trek without having to land the ship.

The transporter was also the technology that de-contaminated everyone when they came back to the ship, without exposing everyone to alien disease. Of course, that didn’t always work if they didn’t know about the disease and set the filter to filter it out.

Imagine what that could do for health care. You have cancer that has spread. Surgery is not an option. You program into the transporter the type of cells you want it to filter out. You step in the transporter, you are beamed from point A to point B, and when you are re-composed, the transporter has filtered out every cancerous cell in your body. No more cancer, or aids, or the flue, or the cold, or whatever other bug is in your body causing disease.

Now imagine I get a team of scientists together to develop this technology. It will cost 100 billion dollars in research to develop it. I get my investors to chip in. After 20 years of hard work, we invent the transporter.

Except there is one problem. To re-coop my 100 billion in research dollars and make a profit, I have to charge $250,000 per patient for the 5 minutes it takes for them to walk through my transporter so that I can save their life. Government mandated Medicare says I can only charge $25,000, causing my profit projections to go beyond my ability to pay off my investors and make a profit, since my patent will expire long before I break even.

I decide I cannot afford to invent the transporter.

[veritas]

The

We are a democracy in the sense that through the democratic process, we elect government officials to run the government. Even to the point of amending that constitution to whatever we want it to say. The very first thing we did as a democracy was to add 5 amendments to that constitution because the original left out some things.


.

Our founding fathers were some real radicals.

In Federalist Paper No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argued, "[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?"

[joanmcq]

The rich come from all over to go to the Mayo clinic. And Americans flood across the border the other way to find care they can afford, like the burgeoning Mexican border dental care business. Or Thailand and India for a variety of surgeries. Sad when flying overseas and paying for hotels, etc. is a less expensive alternative for those without insurance (or for things not covered by insurance) than obtaining the same care here.