"Wealth Redistribution"

I have made this conclusion several years ago after debating the local entitled Fractivist for years.  It is not clean water, alternative energy nor Utopia they seek.  It is not fracking, earthquakes nor chemicals they really detest.   On the contrary, they really prove in debates that they are basically uneducated and ignorant on the subject.  And if one were to review their existence, one will see lives of consumption and waste plus unproductive members of society.

 

No fellow landowners, it is beginning to manifest itself, as with yesterday's State Rep. Hagans bloviating at the Youngstown's Unitarian Church.  What they really want is what YOU have worked most of your life for, they want a piece of YOU.  Redistribution of wealth and the increase of entitlements is behind the scene...... all of the time.

 

Keep your eyes on how this great energy play will continue to evolve.  Yes my fellow landowners it is the continuation of the "haves" versus the "have nots."  Notice the Occupyers in Oakland and Pittsburgh.  And as our president stated to Joe-the-Plumber, "what is wrong with redistribution of wealth?"

Views: 3939

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chartist on February 5, 2012 at 3:33pm

$15 trillion in debt in the US....Pick your poison:  Tax everything into the ground or hyper inflate.....Gold is telling me hyperinflation is the solution....But then again, it always has been.

Permalink Reply by Dan on February 5, 2012 at 10:43pm

I can't refrain Ron. 

 

"As far as farming, I am a farmer.  Subsidies can be wrong but farm financial matters are in place because food production is a sacred endeavor and so is energy production, man dies without either one."

 

Here is the underlaying problem with ANY form of Govt.  No taxes, no subsidies, Oh of coarse, unless it is subsidizing MY business or my farm.  Or it's OK if my business gets a extra tax break.  As soon as the playing feild gets skewed someone down the line gets screwed.   I like peanuts but why do they need subsidized, hell I'd be eating cashews instead if peanuts were the same price.  Who with what wisdom decided peanuts should be cheaper and why?  And suger cane subsidies, thats a great one.  I can't even imagine how the US became the fattest country.....the experts tell us we are about to hit "peak fat" and we subsidized it.  Are you also suggesting energy needs subsidized.  I like your discussions and comments but I have to yell foul when I see "Marxist, socialist and communist" thrown out but

 

"Subsidies can be wrong but farm financial matters are in place because food production is a sacred endeavor and so is energy production, man dies without either one."   

                               Huh?

 

Permalink Reply by Dan on February 6, 2012 at 9:49am

Absolutley NOT!  I cut and pasted Ron's comment to disagree.  Any business should stand on it's own without subsidies.  I'm sick of folks yelling socialism in one breath and wanting something for nothing in the next breath.  We throw away about 30% of all food in the US,  We are by far the fattest country in the world ever, and we subsidize empty un-nutritious farming and foods.  We are indirectly subsidizing our current health care dilema.  Farm and other subsudies are a form of redistrubution of wealth and prop up poor practices that otherwise would generally not exist.  I went to school in a public system that was a drop site for govt. bought foods.  The govt. buys certain food products to control and generally prop up the price.  We ate veal at least twice a week.  We had veal burgers, veal steaks and veal chile and lasagna.  All to keep veal profitable to the farmer and promote chaining baby cows in place.  If veal isn't profitable to raise then raise beef cattle or pigs.  Giving businesses a hand-out is not different then handing welfare to someone capable and un-willing to work.      

Permalink Reply by Chris Todd on February 6, 2012 at 9:40pm

Dan Golaski for president!!......who's with me? I have not heard anything put so well in a long time. Thank you to everyone involved in this discussion!

Permalink Reply by Linda A on February 6, 2012 at 10:26pm

well guys, our govt subsidizes the sugar industry (outside this country, of course) to keep prices high and NOW they want to control how much sugar is in our products and how much we eat.  typical govt. - on BOTH sides of every issue just to keep us slaves...

Permalink Reply by craig on February 7, 2012 at 12:05am

If you were eating veal twice a week at a school lunch program then you can bet your bottom dollar one of the following was the reason:

1-The veal consisted of trimmings that aren't easily sold at any profitable price. Even veal 'steak' doesn't have to be steak, I bet it was formed steak from trimmings. 

2-About to go out of date product, and was frozen.

3-It really wasn't veal.

Ohh, and if you were to visit a veal farm now, you would be surprised at the changes made. What you are describing is not in practice and  hasn't been for some years now. Which is a good thing. 

#1 is my bet.....They were buying it to 'help' the veal producers sell something that is essentially a byproduct of the expensive cuts, while at the same time filling a need in the school lunch programs. Sounds good in theory.

I've been in the meat business for decades and have personally seen the products that the gov't buys....I really don't want to eat them. They are safe to eat most likely, but consist of the cheapest meats, ie trimmings that are good for nothing but possibly lunchmeat. 

On your statement about propping up prices, I can't agree with you there. The only prices they would be propping up would be the lowest value cuts, which would do very little to help prop prices received for the whole carcass. Think of it as the gov't buying what is left over after everybody else buys what they want.

I am with you on the indirect/direct subsidizing fiasco, fwiw. However, i can assure you that without some of the subsidies years ago we would not be feeding the world and most likely not being able to feed ourselves today. Essentially, Population density is driving the food processors, I digress...

Veal calfs are going to be born regardless if we are going to eat them or not. Veal calfs mostly originate as male dairy calves that are worth nothing to the dairyman. 

In a blanket statement, subsidies in general create the opposite of the intended result....just like so many other gov't programs.

Permalink Reply by Ron Eiselstein on February 5, 2012 at 11:06pm

Dan,

My sentiments exactly, I have not suggested that farming nor energy needs subsidies.  I acknowledge they exist and your last post went a little into detail about peanuts and sugar cane.....  What I tried to excite was that on a general level, food and energy always had government involvment and that the banking system for farming is quite different than let's say commercial and residential development.  This I am pointing out is because food is involved and the government has been a part of US farmings rise to feed the world.  As a new comer to energy, I am also beginning to see the governments participation in energy even from the past, and I deduce because energy is lifeblood to a society.

Permalink Reply by Dan on February 6, 2012 at 10:09am

Sorry Ron, I thought you were suggesting certain subsudies were usefull.  Everybody today wants to cut welfare and food stamps, including me (and I'm not talking about the truely handicapped and disadvantaged), but we have to cut these handouts to business also. 

Permalink Reply by gary smith on February 7, 2012 at 7:35am

tk, but when outside factors hinder thee so-called 'social goods' such as teachers unions,auto unions,croney capitalism and environmental hoaxes, it behooves us to have honest brokers prosecute and /or  stop the evnt from happening. it doesn't seem right that g.m.'s workers get 3000 dollar bonuses a year after destroying g.m.'s bond holders with a stroke of a pen.

Permalink Reply by gary smith on February 7, 2012 at 9:52am

bond holders get their money first in chapter 7.  don't defend yourself with progressives. also, read what fdr said about government unions. woops, there i go, defending myself with a progressive.

Permalink Reply by gary smith on February 7, 2012 at 7:00pm

how am i frothing? anyway, what about a response to the bond holder question? one of them was a 65 year old guy that owned a hardware store in the midwest. saved his money, put it in secured g.m. bonds. 650 grand he had. when obama was done he had 50 thousand. as far as guarding the fringe, go insult somebody else. this country is going in the tank because of your so-called good ideas.

Permalink Reply by gary smith on February 8, 2012 at 6:35am

progressive is pejorative.

RSS

advertisements