President Obama, Investment is a good thing

Mark,

I think this is a good post.  The point you made about rewarding success being a good thing is in direct conflict with the core beliefs of this Obama administration though... It seems as though anyone who is successful is going to be penalized and taxed in an attempt to create "a level playing feild" as they always like to say.  This does not work, it will not work and is not fair.

It seems almost like they are trying to remediate the "bad debt" with new debt.  How can the outcome be anything good with that type of mentality?

DW

Why is it redstribution of wealth if rich people pay more taxes than poor people or more money is given to poor people versus rich people? Its simply propaganda that fits one sides ideology and nothing more. Just as these ridiculous arguments that because someone is rich that somehow they are not only more sucessful but also smarter or better able to capitalize and while that argument fits capitalistic theory it has nothing to do with real world scenarios. Anyone who has studied this area knows that theory is one thing and the real world another. Just because someone is rich doesnt mean they worked harder or are smarter. It doesnt mean anything other than they have more money and more power.

Shane- Talk about changing the subject. Come on into the bullpen and let someone else play leftfield for a couple of innings.

I was remarking on the word choice in your first part "reasons why Obama's ideology of re-distributing the wealth is producing headwind"

And then I was commenting on what Donald said above and put the two together. Sorry if that wasnt clear but I was making a very valid point because if that is Obama's ideology then surely you are speaking of an opposing idealogy. My point was also that since the first part is clearly propaganda any further argument would no longer make sense unless I could deconstruct the first part and since the first part is clearly from one view I was representing an opposing view.

Also capitalism in the sense of "anyone who is successful is going to be penalized and taxed in an attempt to create "a level playing feild" assumes too much. Which was also my point in my first comment that obviously people who are rich do not necessarily deserve to be nor is that the only sign of success. Capitalism works well in theory and in books but neglects social theory and when you combine the two you have a much better glimpse at our world. Neglecting social theory is just plain negligent because obviously race, sex, education, etc all play an arguably greater role in determining whether a person is successful or not. So to further explain my point you cant just argue for capitalism on its own because then it is just theory. As I said earlier as soon as its applied to the real world it falls apart.

Thank you Mark - I look forward to ordering your book.

Shane, Your post is sure hard to understand.  You stated that Capitalism works well in theory and in print only... this is NOT true.  If left unmolested by the Government it works very well.

You also state that just because a person has money doesn't mean they worked harder or smarter... I could not disagree with you more.  Everyone I know who has money HAS worked harder & smarter to get to where they are.  I give you the example of My mother inlaw & my wife, both fled communist Cuba when Fidel took over, they both arrived here in America with nothing, not even being aable to speak English.  Through hard work, and intelligence, they both own businesses, houses, investment properties and a great way of life.  Capitalism at it's best.  This is the American way applied to "real life" as you put it.  Not just in theory or on paper.  I came here to Active Rain to learn, but in this case Sir, I hope I was able to help educate you.

DW

There are just as many examples of people who worked as hard or harder were as smart or smarter who did or did not make it were poor or became rich. Saying its one way or the other is just a myth. The majority of rich people in this country are rich because of inherited wealth and not because of their own doing. The opposite is presented as fact because that fits with the ideology of those in power. This perception is perpetuated and presented as propaganda to support that ideology. Its the myth of the American dream. Its a myth. (I know thats a lot of P's)

If you want to talk about propoganda, you need to look at all the social programs this country has run, each with the promise of taking the "less fortunate" and raising them up.  It is all the same ideology... this false Robin Hood theory.  Lets take away from those who earn $$ and give it away to those who do not.  This never works, no matter what socialist spin they put on it, or what liberal organization pushes it.... welfare is just that, welfare.  You never see those who rely on government handouts ever rising to the top.  They are at the bottom due to compalcency and comfort.  Like I illustrated to you in my above reply, I showed you real live example of people who are self made!  I know many business owners who DID NOT have wealth handed to them, but through hard work and determination acheived wealth.  These are the people I associate with.  One of the rules of successful people is this.... spend time with other successful people.  This is the Golden rule!

So Shane, I again strongly disagree with your statement that most people in this country with money have it because they inherited it.  It is just not true. Sounds like a cop-out.  Just like years ago when I worked in Correctional institution, everyone who was locked up blamed everyone else for their own current state of affairs, it is the whole "I am a victim" state of mind.

Bottom line....... Capitalism works for those who want to work!

DW

This is from 1997 but is just as true today http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/course/rich.htm

Look at the list of Forbes wealthiest and you can clearly see that it is inherited wealth. Even the ones you assume are not such as Bill Gates clearly started with a silver spoon. There is no proof where those statistics are but I am positive they are true, were true then and its an even worse situation today.

"Lets take away from those who earn $$ and give it away to those who do not. "

That is the myth. And it is clearly untrue because of what I just pointed out above. Rich people did not earn it. They accumulated wealth because they started with more wealth. The rich get richer. Thats why that is a saying.

Yes some people in this country achieve great things. I never denied that. But just as many fail who tried as hard or harder. With your argument its like saying Paris Hilton is where she is at because she is such a great actress or that Ryan Seacrest is the best TV personality. How can you possibly argue that either of these people are where they are at because of their own doing? Sure some rich people are there because of hard work and many poor people worked even harder only to be held back because of different social issues or just plain being unlucky. If you completely ignore social issues you are simply not being honest.

Ok, I am begining to see your point of reference now.  Paris Hilton?  Ryan Seacrest?  I knew that liberals were very much wrapped up in Hollywood, but try to concentrate on more pertinent people, those who are your everyday people who worked their way up to where they are.  You can talk about Paris if you insist, her $$ comes from her family, she herself did not work hard to create it, this point I concede, but I also beleive, that the Government has no right to come take what she has, and give it out to those whom they see fit to own HER wealth.  Like I told you earlier, the people who I know that are wealthy, and I know many, did NOT get it through inheritance, they got it from hard work.

Shane, Are you wealthy?  Do you have wealthy friends?  Are the only wealthy people you know those who listed above (Paris, Ryan & Bill).  I am trying to give you examples of real people who I know that for a fact began with nothing.  I have 1st hand knowledge of these people enjoying the fruits of their labor.

It is obvious to me that you and I will continue to disagree, and frankly this is getting old.  So in closing let me just say this. I dont believe that the government should be in charge of where my hard earned money goes.  I do not beleive the Government should be in the business of playing Robin Hood and rewarding those who have either under acheived or overextended.  I do believe that paying my fair share is expected.  But I also know that a very small % of people pay a very large % of the total taxes collected in this country. I know that this current addministration is going try to get that small number of people who pay so much, to pay more... and that is just not right.

DW

Shane, if its any consolation I totally understand what you are saying.  Trust me, you will never convince the naysayers they are wrong.

Mark - Investment is a key component of our economy and the more taxes we incur the less money we will have for investment - that means fewer jobs.

I think it matters what your definiton of wealth is. Bill Gates- now there is a guy who did not inherit his. Hollywood stars- none there. Most worked for it as did sports stars and music stars.

Do you suppose it is possible that Obama's intentions may be to accomplish BOTH...create jobs AND encourage private investment? It seems to me he is having to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the "fairness" issue. Since when is capitalism "fair"? Or life for that matter? Some jerks wil get bailed out and some good folks will go down. But capitalism as defined in America ensures that we all get a crack at pulling ourselves back up again. I think I'll give him more than 50 days to accomplish whatever he can before I start "Rushing" him. Great post! Obviously stimulated thought and that's why I'm on AR!