Welfare for the Rich: Republican Style

[Patroklos]

Because I only make $10,000 a year, jackass.

By choice. I could make more than 10K a year mowing lawns. A lot more. After school.

You realize that is only around $200 a week, right?

Unless there are some extenuating circumstances you want to tell us about, your pity party stops here. Especially since you still spurge on internet access, which alone sould be eating up 10% of your self declared yearly income.

 

[JollyRoger]

$83 bucks a month for internet access?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yippee, tears of indifference. Now let me tell you how my family did it. The house I would come to call home my entire life was a fixer-upper. When we moved in, it was kind of a mess. We poured our own concrete. We retiled the bathrooms. We redid the living room carpet. We did it, on our own nickel. And no, we were not rich.

Here's the problem with charity. You can give somebody a concrete floor or a new car or a new house or something, but who's going to maintain it? A concrete floor will probably last forever, as far as I know, but most other things don't. When you give free soup to the hungry, you feed them once. Once the soup is eaten, nothing improves--they are still homeless and eight hours later they'll be hungry again. What you need to do is get them employed, so they can provide food (and shelter) to themselves; then they no longer depend on the government for anything. That's how you improve the human condition: people have to produce stuff. Charity doesn't.

I'm sorry that the observation "poor people are poor" is so very offensive towards you, but I am really not sure what any of that considerable little rant had to do with what I said. When was this about charity? Or your home life? My comment consisted of nothing more than an agreement that those in true poverty are rather more than just "quite poor", as much as our privileged positions- and that includes you, if we are to speak relatively, which is to say, accurately- may allow them to blur somewhat. You read far more into my rather glib little post than I could ever have intended.

 

[Kerozine]

Always a reason behind everything.

N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart

More than $70 billion in wealth left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008 as affluent residents moved elsewhere, according to a report released Wednesday that marks a swift reversal of fortune for a state once considered the nation’s wealthiest.

Conducted by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, the report found wealthy households in New Jersey were leaving for other states — mainly Florida, Pennsylvania and New York — at a faster rate than they were being replaced.

• Rutgers University economists say it could take seven years to recover from recession

“The wealth is not being replaced,” said John Havens, who directed the study. “It’s above and beyond the general trend that is affecting the rest of the northeast.”

This was not always the case. The study – the first on interstate wealth migration in the country — noted the state actually saw an influx of $98 billion in the five years preceding 2004. The exodus of wealth, then, local experts and economists concluded, was a reaction to a series of changes in the state’s tax structure — including increases in the income, sales, property and “millionaire” taxes.

“This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth,” said Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and president of Verizon New Jersey.

The report was commissioned by the state Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of New Jersey to study the effects of wealth migration on charitable giving after executives noticed more affluent philanthropists were moving away. Wealth includes assets such as real estate, stocks, bonds, 401ks, mutual funds and vehicles.

But economists say there are many other implications for the state’s financial health.

Wealthy residents are a key driver for everything from job creation and consumer spending to the real estate market and the state budget, said Jim Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. In New Jersey, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more than 40 percent of the state’s income tax, he said.

“That’s probably why we have these massive income shortfalls in the state budget, especially this year,” he said.

Until the tax structure is improved, he said, “we’ll probably see a continuation of the trend, until there are no more high-wealth individuals left.”

He added the report reinforces findings from a similar study he conducted in 2007 with fellow Rutgers professor Joseph Seneca, which found a sharp acceleration in residents leaving the state. That report, which focused on income rather than wealth, found the state lost nearly $8 billion in gross income in 2005.

Findings from the Boston College report show that about 302,780 households left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008, only slightly lower than the 323,350 households that moved into the state. However, the average net worth of the departing households was about 70 percent higher, at $618,330.

Those who left were also more likely to be older and more educated, with jobs as entrepreneurs or in the finance and professional industries, the study found. Those replacing them tended to hold management or support jobs in the manufacturing industry. The study analyzed data from three main sources: The Federal Reserve’s Survey on Consumer Finances, the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service.

Experts pointed to an abundance of anecdotal evidence to support the numbers. Ken Hydock, a certified public accountant with Sobel and Company in Livingston, said in this 30-year-career he’s never seen so many of his wealthy clients leave for "purely tax reasons" for states like Florida, where property taxes are lower and there is no personal income or estate tax. In New Jersey, residents pay an estate tax if their assets amount to more than $675,000. That’s compared to a $3.5 million federal exemption for 2009.

Several years ago, he recalled, one of his clients stood to make $60 million from stock options in a company that was being acquired by another. Before he cashed out, however, the client put his home up for sale, moved to Las Vegas, and “never stepped foot back in New Jersey again,” Hydock said.

“He avoided paying about $6 million in taxes,” he said. “He passed away two years later and also saved a huge estate tax, so he probably saved $7 million.”

Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Christie’s administration said the report is just another reminder of the difficult tasks ahead.

“It’s the consequence that we’ve been talking about for so long, of the spending and taxing habits that we’ve all experienced,” said Mike Drewniak, a spokesman for Christie. “It’s the sort of thing that we feel the need to stop so we can get New Jersey back on a prosperous path.”

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/02/nj_loses_70b_in_wealth_over_fo.html

 

[Richard Cribb]

I conclude that I will have to do some work myself to get my question answered satisfactorily. Young people nowadays...

I'd say "don't make me laugh", but that would be a lie. I did. Because I'm damn near the only guy on this entire web site who does understand socialism. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.

Understanding something is not to parrot a phrase found in some dictionary.
You have demonstrated, in a most comprehensive way, that you have no idea what socialism is. But don't worry, I will not educate you, I hate doing things for free. That would be charity.

BK, according to you you are the only person who understands anything. But reading your posts... maybe you should start a poll.

Please start it. Know what option I will vote for.

 

[BasketCase]

Understanding something is not to parrot a phrase found in some dictionary.

My definition of socialism was not found in any dictionary anywhere. I wrote it.

I examined the literature (yes, I swallowed my bile and managed to actually read Marx and Engels--not fun), I slogged through all the foul socialist crap that's out there. I went looking for the things socialists acutally want. And then I composed it down into a definition--avoiding, you may have noted, the use of long words that people might not be able to spell or would have to look up in a dictionary. Wading through Marx and reading all that "redistribution of the production of the bourgeoise by the proletariat" was worse than trying to read War and Peace backwards.

I'm sorry that the observation "poor people are poor" is so very offensive towards you, but I am really not sure what any of that considerable little rant had to do with what I said. When was this about charity?

YOU made this about charity. When you wrote that post about a guy being ecstatic over getting a new concrete floor in his house. You made the bed, you sleep in it.

Yes, I do consider poverty offensive. But charity is not the solution. Once given and used up, the receiver is no better off. Giving the poor the means to produce for themselves--that's the solution. It allows them to stop being poor without depending on the government, or on rich people, or on you.

 

[Richard Cribb]

My definition of socialism was not found in any dictionary anywhere. I wrote it.

Whatever you do for living and provided you do it reasonably well, for your own sake stick to it, lad. You have no future in comedy.
That definition is the standard one. Just for fun I googled it. First hit: Wikipedia. Then about 598 000 more....

I examined the literature (yes, I swallowed my bile and managed to actually read Marx and Engels--not fun), I slogged through all the foul socialist crap that's out there. I went looking for the things socialists acutally want. And then I composed it down into a definition--avoiding, you may have noted, the use of long words that people might not be able to spell or would have to look up in a dictionary. Wading through Marx and reading all that "redistribution of the production of the bourgeoise by the proletariat" was worse than trying to read War and Peace backwards.

I suppose what you are trying to say is that you are either to lazy or to dim to study such a topic. Guess that is what regular doses of corporate media and reactionary blogs do to you.

YOU made this about charity. When you wrote that post about a guy being ecstatic over getting a new concrete floor in his house. You made the bed, you sleep in it.

Yes, I do consider poverty offensive. But charity is not the solution. Once given and used up, the receiver is no better off. Giving the poor the means to produce for themselves--that's the solution. It allows them to stop being poor without depending on the government, or on rich people, or on you.

Taking over the means of production, you mean?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I examined the literature (yes, I swallowed my bile and managed to actually read Marx and Engels--not fun), I slogged through all the foul socialist crap that's out there. I went looking for the things socialists acutally want. And then I composed it down into a definition--avoiding, you may have noted, the use of long words that people might not be able to spell or would have to look up in a dictionary. Wading through Marx and reading all that "redistribution of the production of the bourgeoise by the proletariat" was worse than trying to read War and Peace backwards.

So what did you read?

 

[Yeekim]

You have demonstrated, in a most comprehensive way, that you have no idea what socialism is.

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.

That definition is the standard one. Just for fun I googled it. First hit: Wikipedia. Then about 598 000 more....

And yet you say that definition is not correct enough?

 

[Richard Cribb]

And yet you say that definition is not correct enough?

If you absolutely have to comment on my posts, please read more carefully.
I never questioned that definition, I questioned his understanding of the topic. This I did in the context of his activity in this thread as well as several in the past.
Everybody can repeat a definition on anything from some deuced dictionary. That they don't necessarily have any insight in the thing defined, should be evident.

 

[Yeekim]

If you absolutely have to comment on my posts, please read more carefully.
I never questioned that definition, I questioned his understanding of the topic. This I did in the context of his activity in this thread as well as several in the past.
Everybody can repeat a definition on anything from some deuced dictionary. That they don't necessarily have any insight in the thing defined, should be evident.

Without any particular wish to fight for dignity of BC (he has written a good share of nonsense in this thread), I am not sure whether one can speak about "understanding socialism" as if there was some universally accepted canon to it. We are, after all, discussing a something that has so far never been observed in reality (or rather, "No True Scotsman" effect seems to apply). Therefore we don't have facts, we only have (wildly diverging) theories, dreams and speculations.

Your idea of socialism as you last described it, seemed to be completely identical with latest election platforms of our very much right-wing parties, as you may remember me noting. I could have voted for you myself.
I asked you to elaborate a bit on how do you actually envision your "Norwegian Socialism" to work, but you never got around to doing it - which is a pity.

 

[Richard Cribb]

First of all, sorry for writing so much, but I am busy.
You know, there are people whom I never dignify with a reply. A few of them are to be found on this thread, including that rabid one who can't even spell my username correctly. Be careful so that will not get you into said cathegory.
Allow me also to quote something another person wrote in this very thread:

You fundamentally fail to understand what socialism is, BK. We are not calling for vastly increased private charity, we are calling for a change in the structure of society so charity is redundant.

You see? Before me even. And a simple, yet comprehensive analysis of the topic in question as well. Just wonder why you didn't feel any urge to comment on that one instead of indulging in useless pedantry with me. Room for speculation here.

Without any particular wish to fight for dignity of BC (he has written a good share of nonsense in this thread), I am not sure whether one can speak about "understanding socialism" as if there was some universally accepted canon to it. We are, after all, discussing a something that has so far never been observed in reality (or rather, "No True Scotsman" effect seems to apply). Therefore we don't have facts, we only have (wildly diverging) theories, dreams and speculations.

Of course one can talk about understanding socialism as the quote above demonstrates. It just doesn't mean what you seem to imply here. Any ideological system can be understood or misunderstood. I thought that was trivial.
Can't remember having said that socialism never was practically applied either. Only that it was so under unfortunate, inadequate conditions which had certain unfortunate consequences. Also minus point for bringing in one of those fasionable fallacies. We can do perfectly well in discussions without demonstrating how clever we are, or if we really need that find some classics.
But this doesn't mean that everybody can define it in any way they want. I know this is what is pretty much going on nowadays, for obvious reasons, but I am not going to have any of it. In the past I lectured about these things. And I still hold certain standards. Humpty-Dumpty may not apply.
I must allow myself to digress a little as well. it seems to me that there is something disturbing in how the American middle class are brought up, they are probably too molly-coddled to steal a most excellent term also used by the poster above. It is like since their mother told them how special they are, they just have to make their presence felt, whether they have something valuable to contribute with or not. Manners and knowledge are not prerequisites. This at least
could explain the behaviour of the person you did not gallantly fight for as well as a few others.

Your idea of socialism as you last described it, seemed to be completely identical with latest election platforms of our very much right-wing parties, as you may remember me noting. I could have voted for you myself.
I asked you to elaborate a bit on how do you actually envision your "Norwegian Socialism" to work, but you never got around to doing it - which is a pity.

Here is where the dignifying part comes in, I am afraid.
While I have all the understanding in the world for the need of Estonian politics to radicalise (which will only happen when the current crisis are well over) I very much doubt that your right-wing parties are supporting socialist politics. I then must suppose that this is an attempt to display some ridicule or condescence. I approve it not.
Also; I didn't really remember you asking me for anything then. Which, provided it is true, is a good thing since I already explained above I don't do charity and right now I am working on something that somebody else will pay me for. But I do remember that you came with one stereotypical diatribe which any reactionary newspaper or blog would proudly sport. That is the sort of thing I never care to comment upon.
So quid pro quo, dr.Lecter. If you want me to describe in detail a political position I must have expanded on at least ten times previously (Had a whole thread even before it was destroyed by the molly-coddlees), then you must do something in return. How about making that PM-quiz?

 

[Yeekim]

You see? Before me even. And a simple, yet comprehensive analysis of the topic in question as well. Just wonder why you didn't feel any urge to comment on that one instead of indulging in useless pedantry with me. Room for speculation here.

A one-sentence statement which could mean about anything suddenly becomes a "comprehensive analysis"? It felt more like somewhat cheap way of sidestepping a particular accusation. Let me rephrase it like I feel all many "socialists" really mean it:
"We are not calling for vastly increased private charity, we are calling for a change in the structure of society so charity is redundant."
one possible translation
"We are not really interested in how we could give the society ourselves. We are primarily interested in how we could force somebody else to give to the society."
I didn't comment on that because I didn't feel like starting a fight about it and because I hope Ralph personally is better than that.

Of course one can talk about understanding socialism as the quote above demonstrates. It just doesn't mean what you seem to imply here. Any ideological system can be understood or misunderstood. I thought that was trivial.

Just to clarify, do you think that truly "understanding socialism" also requires that it must be considered a good idea or are you willing to leave this point open for discussion?

We can do perfectly well in discussions without demonstrating how clever we are

I appreciate the irony.

But this doesn't mean that everybody can define it in any way they want.

The definition this all was about was the standard one, wasn't it?

Here is where the dignifying part comes in, I am afraid.
While I have all the understanding in the world for the need of Estonian politics to radicalise (which will only happen when the current crisis are well over) I very much doubt that your right-wing parties are supporting socialist politics. I then must suppose that this is an attempt to display some ridicule or condescence.

:shrug: not at all. And I am not insisting they support socialist politics, merely that socialist and populist rhetorics can occasionally be interchangeable, if the former are not properly explained.

Also; I didn't really remember you asking me for anything then.

To brush up your memory, here is your post I was referring to. This thread simply reminded me of it.

So quid pro quo, dr.Lecter. If you want me to describe in detail a political position I must have expanded on at least ten times previously (Had a whole thread even before it was destroyed by the molly-coddlees), then you must do something in return. How about making that PM-quiz?

The quiz weighs heavily on my conscience, but I suppose I am not close to your record in stretching deadlines yet? Not that I am set on beating it. I'll try my best.

 

[Richard Cribb]

A one-sentence statement which could mean about anything suddenly becomes a "comprehensive analysis"? It felt more like somewhat cheap way of sidestepping a particular accusation. Let me rephrase it like I feel all many "socialists" really mean it:
"We are not calling for vastly increased private charity, we are calling for a change in the structure of society so charity is redundant."
one possible translation
"We are not really interested in how we could give the society ourselves. We are primarily interested in how we could force somebody else to give to the society."
I didn't comment on that because I didn't feel like starting a fight about it and because I hope Ralph personally is better than that.

The topic in question was how one particular poster understood or not understood socialism, not a discourse on socialism in general. In that context, it is comprehensive.

Just to clarify, do you think that truly "understanding socialism" also requires that it must be considered a good idea or are you willing to leave this point open for discussion?

My opinion is irrelevant here, but of course certain people will consider socialism a bad idea. Otherwise the world would have looked different.
I also notice that you are not "shy" of starting a fight with me. Worthy of speculation that also.

I appreciate the irony.

I however don't appreciate having my sentences cut in half, thereby distorting its meaning.

The definition this all was about was the standard one, wasn't it?

Yes. The problem only ensued when he first claimed it to be his own original invention, and then followed up with some of his usual nonsense.

:shrug: not at all. And I am not insisting they support socialist politics, merely that socialist and populist rhetorics can occasionally be interchangeable, if the former are not properly explained.

As can conservative, liberal and fascist rhetorics, for instance. That is trivial. Also, as I see it populist is not a dirty word.

To brush up your memory, here is your post I was referring to. This thread simply reminded me of it.

Ah, october last year...
Can't remember why, but I usually have my quite good reasons for discontinuing activity here for periods. This is of a strictly personal character, and as such something that is not of public concern.

The quiz weighs heavily on my conscience, but I suppose I am not close to your record in stretching deadlines yet? Not that I am set on beating it. I'll try my best.

Now you are not. See above.
I am not insisting that you or anybody make it. But then I am not insisting, in a thread about American Republicans, that anybody should explain in some detail their political ideology. And if anybody asks me about such a thing, I will demand something back from them.