Who should be Hillary's running mate?

Is there any Democrat currently in view whose career would benefit from being Mrs. Clinton's running mate? or perhaps whose career would not end as a result of being in the vp spot if she is the Democratic candidate for president?

George...I said was in favor of a more equitable distribution of wealth...and I am.

Yes, so far political movements that set out to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth have not been rousing successes.

That does not mean it cannot be done...just that it has not been done successfully YET. I'd love for us to be the ones who finally make the idea work.

As for the people who, if they got "free stuff" would not work...perhaps the total amount of wealth available will be increased by them NOT WORKING. They are, by and large, the lazy and the inefficient. By forcing them to work you do damage to productivity...cutting off your nose to spite your face, so to speak.

Have you ever worked anywhere where you thought the place would run more efficiently and more productively if certain people were just locked out?

I have.

Unproductive people should not be taking up space in the work force. They do not increase productivity...and often severely impair productivity. Giving them enough to get by...as long as they stay out of the way...is the best way to maximize productivity.

As you said..."Historically the best distributions of wealth usually involve the greater production of it...".

I agree.

Keep the marginally productive out of the way...we will have greater wealth...and we can distribute it (somehow) in a more equitable way. Everyone would be the better for it...those who work will be able to get more...the rich will be able to get more...and even the lazy and incompetent can get more.

Really...a win/win/win situation.

Think about it.

Talk to me about it.

FDR's way of doing it was a rousing success. It allowed companies to make money and it allowed the workers to have a bit of the pie. Conservatives call it communism, but it's just common sense to spread it around.

I very much doubt Bill Richardson would accept a spot on the ticket. A vice president doesn't have near the opportunities for stealing and corruption as a governor of New Mexico.

I think FDR had some great ideas, Edgar...ideas that are still working to prevent people from falling off the edge in our dog-eat-dog economy.

We need more FDR's.

And at some point...the people of this country have got to get away from the boogey-man considerations about socialism and communism.

There has to be a more equitable, fairer way of distributing the great wealth of this nation than the way it is being distributed now. Capitalism and free enterprise are fine economic processes...but they are most assuredly not perfect.

I think that enabling the lazy and inefficient(as you term them) to get by without working is an obvious disincentiuve for those in the middle who work hard. The effect of this disincentive is usually to grow the lazy and inefficient population (and thereby the cost of sustaining them) to the point that the econoimic system collapses for everyone. In this way your argument is fallacious.

It is perhaps sad but true that the situation people find in life is largely (but not entirely) determined by the hand they were dealt (i.e. their genetic heritage and the situation into which they were born ), and the choices they make in their lives. In free societies such as ours (where people can keep most of what they earn) the latter factor (the choices individuals make)is happily the dominant one. The resulting economic mobility, in which individuals move up and down the economic ladder, is usually ignored by "progressives" who tend only to see the static statictics on which they can more easily develop their half-baked theories and "solutions" without having to consider the individual behavior which usually gives the lie to and trumps their ineffective authoritarian plans. .

The old Soviet era joke "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" tells you all you need to know about the exonomic failure this ultimately "progressive" system led to.

Poorly deciding who gets to hold the wealth is only a slice of the problem, our system also does a very poor job of deciding where to invest the money. The problems are connected, but the poor investments are a much bigger problem, get that wrong and the society eventually collapses.

It would work a hell of a lot better than what we have now, though I think socialism would be a better option.

We disagree here, George.

I think we could improve the overall productivity of the country with a considerably smaller workforce...if we could only find a way to more equitably distribute the abundance that would be produced by this increased productivity.

But some folk simply want to suppose that existence should be a mean thing...that everyone should have to toil...even if cutting down on the toil would mean better and more for everyone.

We just disagree, George.

What you propose is a professional working class and a professional taking class. Those who are not productive would still get an even split of the goods even though they do nothing to earn those goods?

Even split?????????????????????????

I said something about an even split?

Or are you just dreaming that up so you can say it is stupid?

You dreamed it up...and, yes, it is stupid.

And they would be "doing something to earn to earn those goods.

They would be staying the hell out of the way.

[url]Or are you just dreaming that up so you can say it is stupid?

You dreamed it up...and, yes, it is stupid.[/url]

Don't be a dick Frank.

You are going to have to define what equitable distribution is then. That seems to imply equal does it not?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-15/chipotle-manager-hillary-clinton-didn-t-leave-anything-in-tip-jar

Two things: THis again shows Hillary acting stupid politically and shooting herself in the foot for no reason at all, and secondly If I owned this place I would fire the manager for running his mouth.

Don't be a dick yourself, Baldimo.

I do not have to define "equitable distribution"...because I said "more equitable distribution of wealth."

And "more equitable distribution" does not imply equal...or as you put it earlier..."an even split."

Right now we have the top 1% owning 40% of the nation's wealth...and the bottom 80% owning 7% of the nation's wealth. The nation's top 1% own more of the nation's wealth than the bottom 90%.

We can get a "more equitable distribution" of the wealth...without even coming close to "an even split." Even the toadies of the barons like you should be able to see that, Baldimo.

Don'tcha think?

Frank you started the dickness with your response to me. Please explain how I was a dick? Was it because I told you not to be a dick? No need to be rude in your response just because you don't like being questioned.

How do you plan on dividing everything up to make it "equitable"? We have all these great #'s but I don't see you to divide it up. If I start a company and make millions due to my hard work and dedicuation, does that mean I should have it taken from me so that someone who didn't work hard and didn't do the right things in life can have a cut of what I have done?

Which barons are you speaking of?

You used the insulting term on me...I returned the favor.

Live with it.



MORE EQUITABLE!


And I will not be doing the planning...our elected officials will.

How they will do it...I have no idea.

But if it does not get done...we are going to handle it the way France and Russia did during the 18th and 20th centuries.




The ones conservative America sucks up to.

Which one's are these Frank? Don't be flipant, you have a list of those you want to see taken down. Success must be punished!

I would like to know how you would divide the spoils of your wealth wars. Do company owners get 5% of their company and the other 95% is divided up between the govt and the employee's? Success must be punished!

How do you achieve a "more equitable distribution of income" and what are the side effects of doing so? These are not simple matters,

Right now we have an increasingly modified capitalist system in which you get to keep what you earn, but are made to pay taxes to support pensions and medical care for the elderly, and pay income taxes at a progressive rate schedule on all income (i.e. those who earn more pay at a higher rate than those who earn less.. In addition those earning little get tax rebates from the earned income credit and various other programs that subsidize the relatively poor including food stamps and Medicaid. etc.

If you don't like the resulting "distributiuon", how would you "redistribute it? Who would do the redistributing and how would decisions be made about who pays and who receives? The stakes are high here and wars have been fought over such matters.

What would be the resulting effects on the behavior of those involved? To what extent would otherwise capable workers just drop out of the workforce or work less? To what extent would otherwise economically creative & productive people create and achieve less? These are significant questions in that we have seen many socialist systems that simply drifted down to uniform poverty and significantly restrained the freedom opf their people in the process. In short getting this element of the problem right has historically proven to be very difficult - far more failures than successes.

Saying achieving a more equitable distribution is a good deal easier than actually doing it. Consider for example the fiascoes associated with just the rollout of Obamacare, much less the still unfolding long term effects on the supply of hospitals and medical practitioners. Once the normal market forces are broken down, some authority ends up having to regulate nearly every aspect of the process, and so far the track record of our government is pretty dismal in this area. Bureaucratization, corruption, fraud and a significantly reduced supply of the regulated commodity or services are the normal results. The usual consequences are increased poverty and reduced individual freedom.

There you go again Baldy, lying your ass off again. Frank never said 50 50 you did in your usual shyt stirring way.

Seems pretty easy to me. make the top tax rate closer to the 80% it used to be and make the IRS budget about 500% what it is now and then we will be close.