Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (92034)	10/27/2008 9:05:42 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." I don't see where you get that. He says that the Warren Court did not exceed the restraints of the Constitution by venturing into areas such as redistribution of wealth. Which is a totally accurate statement.

To: slacker711 who wrote (92034)	10/27/2008 10:25:15 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541582

It isnt the facts in that quote that bother people, it is the implicit belief that redistribution is a good thing. I fail to understand this objection, Slacker. Redistribution is simply a given. That's what taxes do. The only consistent way to oppose redistribution would be to oppose all taxes but that's simply not possible. Moreover, progressive income taxes, in principle (but less and less in practice), are meant to tax the wealthy more as a percent of their earnings because, as the logic goes, they benefit more. That's been the principle of taxation in place in this country for longer than either of us has been alive. I gather you oppose that. Perhaps that's where a conversation should begin. As for Obama's point, it's not clear in either of these references to redistribution whether he means to improve opportunity or not. My guess is, given what I've seen of his politics, he means to spread opportunity. But there is much work to be done making the income tax genuinely progessive in practice as well as in principle; shoring up the shredded safety net; etc.

To: slacker711 who wrote (92034)	10/27/2008 10:38:25 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

slacker711; it is the implicit belief that redistribution is a good thing So what do you think of the redistribution by Bush whereby the government takes from the taxpayer and passes this money onto banks. Now the banks are taking that new found source of cash and paying off higher interest debt and buying other banks. Or how about the sugar industry in which huge subsidies by the government (taxpayer) is passed along to corporate farms? The list really is endless. steve

To: slacker711 who wrote (92034)	10/27/2008 10:42:06 AM
From: biotech_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

it is the implicit belief that redistribution is a good thing I think semantics and connotations of some words may have a lot to do with it. I agree that if one puts the word redistribution and wealth in the same sentence it is explosive, positively unamerican if there ever was such a thing - it certainly qualifies as one of his bigger gaffes. Redistribution of prosperity or even better opportunity, which is what I think he means, does not sound as terrible. And unconcentration maybe a far superior way to think of it, but is too clumsy. In any case, in light of the recent behavior of the Wall Street thugs this issue may really backfire with the Independents