Members banned from this thread: Cypress, blackascoal, evince, domer76 and Nomad |
Interesting....the wonks were speculating during the election day. For some reason, they thought there was a sweet spot for Jones. Low turnout would hurt him....700,000 range. Very high turnout was supposed to bad as well, because it supposedly meant that republican voters would be motivated. They seemed to think that somewhere around 1,000,000 was the perfect number, with much over 1.2 million being bad.
Of course, most of them just talk to avoid dead air during a broadcast.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
katzgar (12-14-2017), Phantasmal (12-14-2017)
What do you call it when middle class paychecks purchase goods from companies that send the money overseas for labor? Wealth is distributed in a capitalist economy. The question is, where is it going?
Our economy used to be a circle, with the wealthy at the top, and the low income on the bottom. Middle class at 3 and 9 o'clock.
Everyone touched the money, and it always circled back to the top.
Now it's linear, with the money going from the bottom to the top, never to be seen again.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
No one ever asked before was the reply of one women, which further proves these women were telling the truth.
They told people, but it was local news, no national reporters had ever come to town before, running for Senate threw Moore into the national spotlight. A reporter decided to follow the local rumors about Moore, she found these women and the rest is history.
That makes little sense. If a middle class person purchases a good/service, then that is not redistribution. That is an exchange of something of value for the currency that it is worth. The middle class person in your example gets the good/service.
Money still circulates through the system. It is impossible for it to disappear as you suggest. If it did, then the companies would not have the ability to pay their employees. The employees exchange their time/effort in exchange for income/benefits. They then take that income/benefits and in turn purchase goods/services, put it in savings or invest. Obviously those that live paycheck to paycheck are not typically doing the latter two.
Redistribution, as I was discussing, is when you take money from someone and don't give them something of value in return. Instead you take the money and give it to someone else who didn't earn that money.
Redistribution is when the company takes the money that you reference, and pays employees in another country. That money is gone from this country forever.
Likewise for money spent on Chinese steel for trump's shitty buildings. Or money lost when companies ship materials to China, and have finished product shipped back here.
Redistribution.
What you classify as 'taking', is nothing more than the cost for living in the safest, most sought after society in the world. No different than the dues you pay to hang out at Mar A Lago. You really get nothing of value in return, but you spend the money anyway.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Bookmarks