Comments on: Maybe you want "redistribution" after all?

By: Jeremy Sawyer

Jeremy Sawyer — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:49:02 +0000

Lets say $500,000 were awarded to every adult American citizen & 25,000 per child. we would still be saving money.

axctually the program your talking about is to only people who have paid their taxes for the past 5 years and are over 18,which constitutes to about a third of our country.and it was only 200,000$.people need to actually state facts and not what they heard.
and on another note if you guys are over 35 then you actually remember capitalism as it should have always been.Its not socialism were in but marxism,socialism is only the median point to total communism.and if you look closely what are they doing?700 billion bailout not to those who need it, but to those greedy elites who are saying hey i need more money because i need to upkeep my greedy habits and distance myself from the lower class.in this recession you'll see 2 things,one the middle class will be gone and quicker then you think,and 2 a total controllinbg from the government.It's already been established that yes the president does have as much if not more power then the other 2 parts of our gov. and if you think obama is going to help.lol. As soon as he was elected he brought his actual ties to the open.He spent more money then any other 2 president elects combined.And his policy for change?All i've seen is his views on college football and healthcare.And the healthcare he is talking about?Canada implemented 30 years ago and is so horrible it can take some up to 3-6 monthes to get a medical visit in let alone someone in dire need

By: Arachnae

Arachnae — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:23:18 +0000

Lets say $500,000 were awarded to every adult American citizen & 25,000 per child. we would still be saving money.

Where did people get this math? If you have 700 billion dollars to throw around, you can give half a million dollars to about 1.4 million people. There are 300 million+ people in the US. To give all of them a half-million would cost fourteen TRILLION dollars. That's the size of the entire US economy.

By: Rock, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Rock, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:00:07 +0000

** Sandra.... your concept is cheesy AND full of holes! pardon the punn....

the system you mock has been in place for many years in many countries and the PEO is just tweeking the percentages!

get the facts before you whine....

By: Rob Pulsipher

Rob Pulsipher — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:54:23 +0000

The problem is covetousness on the part of the American people. This is what causes us to elect people who say they will spread the wealth around. However, once they get to office, what they really do is take money from everybody, and fund feel-good social programs, but all the while building in special interests for the powerful elites. (Think: Why are there lobbyists in Washington? Do you think they deal only with greedy, capitalist republicans? Or do they negotiate with democrats too?) So, everyone gets a token government handout, pays far more in taxes than they get out (with the exception of really poor, lazy, worthless people who don't pay anything in taxes), and lose our freedom in the process, all the while the very wealthy are sitting at the top, glutting themselves on the labor of the people. A buck cannot make a round trip to Washington without a bureaucratic bite being taken out! A large government is not transparent. A truly free market economy has a real, trickle down effect. A corrupt government creates a trickle up. You can't have a socialist government that isn't corrupt. That is the lesson we should have learned from the communists. Their whole system failed. It doesn't work!

By: Terra Hoskins

Terra Hoskins — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:47:32 +0000

Well, is it a free market if the government keeps tinkering around with interest rates? In or out, but it's the hybrid of the two that isn't working.

By: Sergei Daghlovsky

Sergei Daghlovsky — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:43:19 +0000

Lets distinguish between short-term and long-term remedies. The market does not function fully efficiently – and we knew that since long time ago., so unfettered free market policies are obselete. Redistribution of our current assets is also completely naive but it is equally naive to treat the rich on the same terms as with the rest. Taxing the rich for now might work, but the Obama administration has to go beyond that to, in McCain's words, 'create wealth and spread opportunity' for the people who need them most because it's eventually going to be about the ability to sustain themselves in the long run.

By: Joanne, Syracuse, NY

Joanne, Syracuse, NY — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:25:19 +0000

The issue of redistribution was born from the fact that great wealth, i.e. the greedy banks and the mortgage scam artists CEOs, were not fair, in the bailout, didn't have intention to give up bonus monies in the millions at the cost of those losing their homes, their jobs, and their dignity. This issue of redistribution became essential to the survival of the middle class. Free market society is what we all wanted, it didn't work.

By: Shah Riyahd

Shah Riyahd — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:12:44 +0000

Lets think about it another way. Had the money for the bailout been distributed to the working people of the U.S. surely we would be in a different state. Lets say $500,000 were awarded to every adult American citizen & 25,000 per child. we would still be saving money. People would pay off debts, buy cars, homes, finance there childrens educations, save for retirement, invest in the stock market, start new businesses or just spend it. Either way the economy wins. But we would also need legislation preventing price gouging so that values of items and property rise at a normal rate. The trickle down effect has evidently not worked, but the fact is that if we can afford to give Billions of dollars to the Greediest Americans who will do all they can to hord it, than we could have taken an approach that would benifit all Americans.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:07:44 +0000

Everyone wants redistribution of wealth.......as long as they are on the receiving end. How would the waitress feel if I told her she did a great job but I was going to give her tip to the homeless man outside who needs it more than she does? I bet she wouldn't like it then!

By: Larry L.

Larry L. — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:04:28 +0000

Your "friends" Tim,are Socialist,and you maybe too,if you agree with them.Capitalism in our country drives the financial engines of the rest of the world,it is why we are the world leader in about everything.The problems we are having right now is because our politicians have allowed Socialism to creep in to our Capitalistic economics,and forced banks to loan money to people that were not credit worthy,and the government (Freddy,Fanny)"said" that backed the loans–they couldn't,so here we are-if we don't get off track,and let bad management fail,bite the bullet that Socialism has already caused,we'll be fine in time.

By: E.Adolphe

E.Adolphe — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:50:32 +0000

I don't think that it is a redistribution but a sence of fairness, as far as the financial banking systems are concern it's had been a fraund on how the treat the middle class working people of America, the unregulated contracts, the first time home owners whom are left holding the empty bags.