Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[Ed Wood]

(this is in response to ccj and his link)

Opposed not particularly because of the unfortunate resemblance to apparently quite a few nativist slogans, though that does illustrate both a tone deaf campaign and a willingness to revel in provinciality, but because it's lazy in-group fondling that is needlessly divisive and intellectually lazy. Labeling traditional values "American" discourages evaluation of those values on their merits, alienates segments of the population and reinforces the perception that America is culturally imperialistic.

[popper]

Great pie chart hands. I don't think Romney took the particulars of the 47% into account when he made his comment. Someone on this thread, maybe you or DCZ, also made the point some time ago that it was the Repubs that proposed EITC (which at the time surprised me but sure enough was true). I don't know how many people are truly gaming the system (maybe 5% ? ) and many of them will not even vote in the election. And if they do, it is a crap shoot as to who would be the better candidate for them. Conventional wisdom says Obama but there are so many variables that they cannot be sure.

I will still vote for Romney but only because he is the lesser of two evils in my opinion.

Pop

You seems like a decent person who is keeping up with things and who is willing to consider new views and new information.

What I don't get is why you would still vote for Mitt. What does this guy have to do more then what already shown us to lose your vote ?

His policies on economics are just a third term of Bush which has been proven a total failure.
He has the same Bush Neocons as advices.
He is all over the place on the issues.
He continues to lie about things he knows are lies.
He is running a terrible campaign. Not bad but terrible.
And he is just totally unnatural in how he presents himself when he speaks. He doesn't project any presidential presence.

How is the lesser of the two?

Just asking honestly. I mean if the answer is... I have a ton of money and I want more regardless of how it hurts the country. At least that would be honest. I could respect that.

Happy to answer Hands. I think Bush made several big mistakes. He entered two wars, financed them off the books and conducted them in an amateur fashion. He passed a prescription drug entitlement that was not paid for (though Dems wanted a more expensive plan). He didn't fight hard enough against Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to stop the subprime fiasco featuring Fannie and Freddie. He didn't educate and sell the American people and congress on the need to reverse the Clinton era decision to encourage banks to lend to less than credit worthy buyers. He didn't fire Greenspan and his easy money policies which contributed greatly to the housing bubble.

I don't think Romney will make these types of mistakes. Obama has proven to me that he hasn't the slightest clue as to how to lead people, manage the economy or conduct foreign affairs.

[hands11]

I'm sure I'll catch hell for this post but it's important information in my opinion.

My son has been on the same travel soccer team going on 8 years. He is one of two whites on the team. The rest of the players are Hispanic and Black. I am good friends with all of the parents. We travel out of town together for tournaments, we eat together, we party together, and we support our boys together.

Over the last couple of years many of the parents tell me they feel beaten down. You can see it in their faces. Between escalating gas prices, food prices, stagnant wages, fear of losing their job, etc., they are one or two paychecks away from oblivion. Yet to a person they are all voting for Obama.

The foregoing reminds me of another sad story. I had the same housekeeper for 15 years. One day she told me she had saved up enough money to buy a new car. I said great and insisted that she allow me to negotiate the deal for her knowing the dealer would rip her off if given an opportunity. She was clear she did not want my help. Sure enough they put her together and two years later the car was repossessed.

My sister makes the same mistakes. People seem to prefer the misery resulting from their independent choices versus seeking help from more informed sources.

I spent 30 years in business and the one thing I learned is to always seek advice from those with more experience, more education, etc.

It's truly sad because those who can least afford to lose are the ones most likely to suffer financially from another Obama term.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my post.

Pops

Why would anyone be offended by that. You are aware. You see these people lives. You understand peoples pride to be independent. You understand how people get taken. That all awesome stuff.

Where you lose me is in your last sentence. It just doesn't add up to me. Obamas economic ideas are way better then Mitts. He is focused on growing the middle class vs tax them more and giving it to the rich so we try trickle down one more time. Admit it. Rich people know damn well trickle down is BS. It just the story they tell the masses so they can keep the dream of hitting the lottery and being rich like they are. Its how they buy votes.

Look.. Let me get even more rich and eventually it will trickle down to you so you can be rich like me. All the while upward mobility is at a record low. We don't rank anywhere near other country in upward mobility anymore. And that was one of the main pillars of the American Dream. We are exceptional. I just don't think we are exceptional at what people think we are.

[hands11]

How about this one: foreign policy fueled by nationalism and American exceptionalism is fundamentally unacceptable both functionally and morally.

That a good one. Well said.

[DCZards]

I'm sure I'll catch hell for this post but it's important information in my opinion.

My son has been on the same travel soccer team going on 8 years. He is one of two whites on the team. The rest of the players are Hispanic and Black. I am good friends with all of the parents. We travel out of town together for tournaments, we eat together, we party together, and we support our boys together.

Over the last couple of years many of the parents tell me they feel beaten down. You can see it in their faces. Between escalating gas prices, food prices, stagnant wages, fear of losing their job, etc., they are one or two paychecks away from oblivion. Yet to a person they are all voting for Obama.

It's truly sad because those who can least afford to lose are the ones most likely to suffer financially from another Obama term.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my post.

Popper, your post is not offensive but it is terribly naive. My guess is that people like the parents you describe above are supporting Obama because they know if they do lose their jobs their families will still have healthcare thanks to Obamacare. They also know that Obama and the Dems will, unlike the Repubs, continue to fully fund Pell Grants so that their kids can afford to go to college. Some of the parents you hang out with at your son's soccer games may also feel that no President could have dramatically improved the nation's wretched economy, especially a Prez who is up against Repubs in Congress who have openly vowed to be obstructionists.

Finally, these individuals may believe, as I do, that Obama's "we're all in this together" approach to governing is preferable to the survival of the fittest approach that Romney and the Repubs seem to favor.

[Ed Wood]

Or perhaps survival of those currently most privileged.

[popper]

I'm sure I'll catch hell for this post but it's important information in my opinion.

My son has been on the same travel soccer team going on 8 years. He is one of two whites on the team. The rest of the players are Hispanic and Black. I am good friends with all of the parents. We travel out of town together for tournaments, we eat together, we party together, and we support our boys together.

Over the last couple of years many of the parents tell me they feel beaten down. You can see it in their faces. Between escalating gas prices, food prices, stagnant wages, fear of losing their job, etc., they are one or two paychecks away from oblivion. Yet to a person they are all voting for Obama.

The foregoing reminds me of another sad story. I had the same housekeeper for 15 years. One day she told me she had saved up enough money to buy a new car. I said great and insisted that she allow me to negotiate the deal for her knowing the dealer would rip her off if given an opportunity. She was clear she did not want my help. Sure enough they put her together and two years later the car was repossessed.

My sister makes the same mistakes. People seem to prefer the misery resulting from their independent choices versus seeking help from more informed sources.

I spent 30 years in business and the one thing I learned is to always seek advice from those with more experience, more education, etc.

It's truly sad because those who can least afford to lose are the ones most likely to suffer financially from another Obama term.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my post.

Pops

Why would anyone be offended by that. You are aware. You see these people lives. You understand peoples pride to be independent. You understand how people get taken. That all awesome stuff.

Where you lose me is in your last sentence. It just doesn't add up to me. Obamas economic ideas are way better then Mitts. He is focused on growing the middle class vs tax them more and giving it to the rich so we try trickle down one more time. Admit it. Rich people know damn well trickle down is BS. It just the story they tell the masses so they can keep the dream of hitting the lottery and being rich like they are. Its how they buy votes.

Look.. Let me get even more rich and eventually it will trickle down to you so you can be rich like me. All the while upward mobility is at a record low. We don't rank anywhere near other country in upward mobility anymore. And that was one of the main pillars of the American Dream. We are exceptional. I just don't think we are exceptional at what people think we are.

As you and I have discussed and agreed upon in the past, I believe taxes need to be raised on everyone above a certain level. Upper middle class and certainly the wealthy will need to pay a progressively higher rate, as they should. We are in agreement on this, where we differ is that Dems won't cut spending. Not a dime. I'd be happy to do something like a 5 to 1 ration (spending cuts to tax increases) with the rich paying the bulk of tax increases.

But don't forget Hands, taxes are going through the roof effective Jan 1.

[popper]

I'm sure I'll catch hell for this post but it's important information in my opinion.

My son has been on the same travel soccer team going on 8 years. He is one of two whites on the team. The rest of the players are Hispanic and Black. I am good friends with all of the parents. We travel out of town together for tournaments, we eat together, we party together, and we support our boys together.

Over the last couple of years many of the parents tell me they feel beaten down. You can see it in their faces. Between escalating gas prices, food prices, stagnant wages, fear of losing their job, etc., they are one or two paychecks away from oblivion. Yet to a person they are all voting for Obama.

It's truly sad because those who can least afford to lose are the ones most likely to suffer financially from another Obama term.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my post.

Popper, your post is not offensive but it is terribly naive. My guess is that people like the parents you describe above are supporting Obama because they know if they do lose their jobs their families will still have healthcare thanks to Obamacare. They also know that Obama and the Dems will, unlike the Repubs, continue to fully fund Pell Grants so that their kids can afford to go to college. Some of the parents you hang out with at your son's soccer games may also feel that no President could have dramatically improved the nation's wretched economy, especially a Prez who is up against Repubs in Congress who have openly vowed to be obstructionists.

Finally, these individuals may believe, as I do, that Obama's "we're all in this together" approach to governing is preferable to the survival of the fittest approach that Romney and the Repubs seem to favor.

You make a good point DCZ as to their probable reasoning. But it is naive of them to think we can continue to finance our govt. in perpetuity while borrowing forty cents on the dollar. Eventually, probably soon, something will give and it is my soccer friends that will suffer most. It doesn't need to happen that way.

[hands11]

Or perhaps survival of those currently most privileged.

Ed brings out the 1 wood and snacks the crap out of it. Going for distance.

Now that the huge transfer of wealth has already happened ie. bottom to the top via their savings but our debt, now they want to transfer to top. Hey, I got mine.

[hands11]

Pop

"But don't forget Hands, taxes are going through the roof effective Jan 1."


Don't count on it.

I fully expect the following things to happen.

Obama wins. Probably decisively. Dems keep the Senate and the Rs lose about 8-10 seats in the house. Now if Cantor actually loses his house seat, all the better. I wish the Dems would gain enough in the house to take control again but Im not banking on that happening.

With the national election clearing showing the country does not support what the Rs are selling, the house will start to negotiate like every house prior to them used to.

They can get some stuff done in the lame duck but if they don't.. that ok.

At least the fiscal cliff will get kicked down the road 6 month during the lame duck. Thats my estimate.

Obama will try to pass the tax repeal plan but if he doesn't get what he wants, thats ok. Let the Bush cuts end. No a huge deal. By March they will have a new plan with middle income tax cuts and it will be retroactive to Jan 20th.

From here I'm not sure in what order they will attack things. Somewhere in here they will pass an infrastructure bill. Not sure if that is before or after they tackle the sequester. The Obama American jobs act will also be on the table. They will have the tax issue for the middle class behind them and the top 2% cuts will have expired.

With that finally behind them, Obama will get fully behind the Bowles Simpson plan. He will shoot for the big long term plan while the July sequester deadline come close. For me, I really like their chances to get it done then. If they are close, they will kick the sequester back a month or two like they did the dead ceiling. Just my gut, by I think they get something significant done in these negotiations. We will finally have a legit 4-5 year plan. They will do some kind of plan that is more then just the sequester cuts. I see no way the sequester kicks is as is. They won't let that happen.

Do me a favor. Bookmark this or print it and put if somewhere you can find. I would love to have this conversation with you again around Dec during the lame duck, then Jan 30th or so as they are working on the new tax bill. By March when they sign it and then again around July as they are getting closer to a Bowles Simpson.

And if 80% of these prediction are right. I would ask you to reconsider your political affiliation. Because there is no way today you would project this as the Rs plan. But by the time it all happens, I fully expect them to claim much it was their plan all along. Why, because they controlled the house. lol

By the end of next year, we will have the Obama tax plan that lets the top 2% rate go back to Clinton levels.
The sequester will never happen and their will be cuts and revenue in a longer term plan.
The Jobs Act will get passed.
So will infrastructure

For 2014. They will tackle the Dream Act and financial reform.
They will probably also try to pass a constitutional amendment to end citizens united.
We will also be out of Afghanistan
Oh, in 2014 GDP will be growing at least at 5 percent.

This is what i predict happen. Well if we are not all dead this Dec when the poles shift or the space ships return.

[popper]

Greed is omnipresent in the world. It exists in equal measure with rich and poor alike. Any society that lacks constraining mechanisms like the rule of law or spiritual enlightenment will necessarily plum the depths of greed and debauchery. China and Russia are case studies in human deprivation.

I appeal to my Democratic friends to stop their assault on religion in this country and to respect the rule of law by not appointing those who will legislate from the bench (i.e. the living constitutionalist). Then and only then will we begin to constrain the worst instincts of mankind.

[hands11]

Greed is omnipresent in the world. It exists in equal measure with rich and poor alike. Any society that lacks constraining mechanisms like the rule of law or spiritual enlightenment will necessarily plum the depths of greed and debauchery. China and Russia are case studies in human deprivation.

I appeal to my Democratic friends to stop their assault on religion in this country and to respect the rule of law by not appointing those who will legislate from the bench (i.e. the living constitutionalist). Then and only then will we begin to constrain the worst instincts of mankind.

who is assaulting religion ? Dems are not doing that. I mean I'm sure you can find some but they are not a group that has majority influence in the party.

as for legislating from the bench. We already went over this Rs do that as much or more then dems do.

[popper]

Pop

"But don't forget Hands, taxes are going through the roof effective Jan 1."


Don't count on it.

I fully expect the following things to happen.

Obama wins. Probably decisively. Dems keep the Senate and the Rs lose about 8-10 seats in the house. Now if Cantor actually loses his house seat, all the better. I wish the Dems would gain enough in the house to take control again but Im not banking on that happening.

With the national election clearing showing the country does not support what the Rs are selling, the house will start to negotiate like every house prior to them used to.

They can get some stuff done in the lame duck but if they don't.. that ok.

At least the fiscal cliff will get kicked down the road 6 month during the lame duck. Thats my estimate.

Obama will try to pass the tax repeal plan but if he doesn't get what he wants, thats ok. Let the Bush cuts end. No a huge deal. By March they will have a new plan with middle income tax cuts and it will be retroactive to Jan 20th.

From here I'm not sure in what order they will attack things. Somewhere in here they will pass an infrastructure bill. Not sure if that is before or after they tackle the sequester. The Obama American jobs act will also be on the table. They will have the tax issue for the middle class behind them and the top 2% cuts will have expired.

With that finally behind them, Obama will get fully behind the Bowles Simpson plan. He will shoot for the big long term plan while the July sequester deadline come close. For me, I really like their chances to get it done then. If they are close, they will kick the sequester back a month or two like they did the dead ceiling. Just my gut, by I think they get something significant done in these negotiations. We will finally have a legit 4-5 year plan. They will do some kind of plan that is more then just the sequester cuts. I see no way the sequester kicks is as is. They won't let that happen.

Do me a favor. Bookmark this or print it and put if somewhere you can find. I would love to have this conversation with you again around Dec during the lame duck, then Jan 30th or so as they are working on the new tax bill. By March when they sign it and then again around July as they are getting closer to a Bowles Simpson.

And if 80% of these prediction are right. I would ask you to reconsider your political affiliation. Because there is no way today you would project this as the Rs plan. But by the time it all happens, I fully expect them to claim much it was their plan all along. Why, because they controlled the house. lol

By the end of next year, we will have the Obama tax plan that lets the top 2% rate go back to Clinton levels.
The sequester will never happen and their will be cuts and revenue in a longer term plan.
The Jobs Act will get passed.
So will infrastructure

For 2014. They will tackle the Dream Act and financial reform.
They will probably also try to pass a constitutional amendment to end citizens united.
We will also be out of Afghanistan
Oh, in 2014 GDP will be growing at least at 5 percent.

This is what i predict happen. Well if we are not all dead this Dec when the poles shift or the space ships return.

I will copy and save your predictions for future discussions Hands.

[popper]

Greed is omnipresent in the world. It exists in equal measure with rich and poor alike. Any society that lacks constraining mechanisms like the rule of law or spiritual enlightenment will necessarily plum the depths of greed and debauchery. China and Russia are case studies in human deprivation.

I appeal to my Democratic friends to stop their assault on religion in this country and to respect the rule of law by not appointing those who will legislate from the bench (i.e. the living constitutionalist). Then and only then will we begin to constrain the worst instincts of mankind.

who is assaulting religion ? Dems are not doing that.

Hands, you are kidding right? If not, you can start by asking the Catholic Church. If you need further evidence I can provide reams of it tomorrow after I catch some Z's.

[fishercob]

I really enjoyed this Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Blind Side, etc) piece on Obama in Vanity Fair. He had great access. It reminded me of why I voted for Obama the first time around. He strikes me as introspective, thoughtful, calm, rational and exceptionally bright.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012 ... rack-obama

[Zonkerbl]

I'm sure I'll catch hell for this post but it's important information in my opinion.

My son has been on the same travel soccer team going on 8 years. He is one of two whites on the team. The rest of the players are Hispanic and Black. I am good friends with all of the parents. We travel out of town together for tournaments, we eat together, we party together, and we support our boys together.

Over the last couple of years many of the parents tell me they feel beaten down. You can see it in their faces. Between escalating gas prices, food prices, stagnant wages, fear of losing their job, etc., they are one or two paychecks away from oblivion. Yet to a person they are all voting for Obama.

The foregoing reminds me of another sad story. I had the same housekeeper for 15 years. One day she told me she had saved up enough money to buy a new car. I said great and insisted that she allow me to negotiate the deal for her knowing the dealer would rip her off if given an opportunity. She was clear she did not want my help. Sure enough they put her together and two years later the car was repossessed.

My sister makes the same mistakes. People seem to prefer the misery resulting from their independent choices versus seeking help from more informed sources.

I spent 30 years in business and the one thing I learned is to always seek advice from those with more experience, more education, etc.

It's truly sad because those who can least afford to lose are the ones most likely to suffer financially from another Obama term.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my post.

Pops

Why would anyone be offended by that. You are aware. You see these people lives. You understand peoples pride to be independent. You understand how people get taken. That all awesome stuff.

Where you lose me is in your last sentence. It just doesn't add up to me. Obamas economic ideas are way better then Mitts. He is focused on growing the middle class vs tax them more and giving it to the rich so we try trickle down one more time. Admit it. Rich people know damn well trickle down is BS. It just the story they tell the masses so they can keep the dream of hitting the lottery and being rich like they are. Its how they buy votes.

Look.. Let me get even more rich and eventually it will trickle down to you so you can be rich like me. All the while upward mobility is at a record low. We don't rank anywhere near other country in upward mobility anymore. And that was one of the main pillars of the American Dream. We are exceptional. I just don't think we are exceptional at what people think we are.

As you and I have discussed and agreed upon in the past, I believe taxes need to be raised on everyone above a certain level. Upper middle class and certainly the wealthy will need to pay a progressively higher rate, as they should. We are in agreement on this, where we differ is that Dems won't cut spending. Not a dime. I'd be happy to do something like a 5 to 1 ration (spending cuts to tax increases) with the rich paying the bulk of tax increases.

But don't forget Hands, taxes are going through the roof effective Jan 1.

Wait... but you asked why people vote for Obama? The alternative, as you know, is Mitt, who would NOT do what you are suggesting. Mitt, the allegedly smart person with good advice implied in your post, actually has no plan at all. What he has suggested so far doesn't even add up. Like Hands said, voting for Obama means not repealing health care, continuing to support investing in public infrastructure and stafford loans and paying for it by asking the rich to contribute their fair share in exchange for fixing medicare and social security.

I could tell a similar story, having grown up in former Ohio gov Dewine's home town. These are, ahem, "farm people" losing their land left and right. They are not wealthy, many benefit from food stamps and other traditionally dem welfare programs, do not benefit at all from the Republicans staunch resistance to raising taxes on the rich, and yet they consistently vote for Republicans, directly against their own best interests. It's obvious they vote Republican for religious and not economic issues -- none of them have any clue what the Republicans' economic policies are.

[Zonkerbl]

Greed is omnipresent in the world. It exists in equal measure with rich and poor alike. Any society that lacks constraining mechanisms like the rule of law or spiritual enlightenment will necessarily plum the depths of greed and debauchery. China and Russia are case studies in human deprivation.

I appeal to my Democratic friends to stop their assault on religion in this country and to respect the rule of law by not appointing those who will legislate from the bench (i.e. the living constitutionalist). Then and only then will we begin to constrain the worst instincts of mankind.

Um, how is preventing religious fanatics from forcing my kids' schools to abandon teaching science "an assault on religion"? How is treating women like U.S. citizens and not their husbands' and fathers' property an assault on religion? How is giving gays and lesbian couples the same legal (not religious) rights to marry and adopt kids and visit their loved ones in the hospital an assault on religion?

Popper, I beg my religious friends to stop their crusade against science, women, and fairness. Then and only then can we consider ourselves a free, rule of law based society.

[popper]

Zonk - This is a response to your last two posts. First, Obama's health care plan and various other social programs that you mention as good assumes that our country can afford them and can perpetuate them. As you know, this is mathematically impossible without hyperinflation. Where a govt. check might buy a months worth of food today it will only by two weeks worth by next year or the year after. Something will have to give soon and we can be sure that those on the lower end of the economic stratum will suffer most. As we've discussed on this thread before, if Repubs are so evil why did they propose and adopt the EITC? Why are our churches, synagogues and mosques considered to be the greatest source of charity-giving on the face of the earth. Surely you don't believe that the American people, Repub and Dem alike, are not caring and generous in their charitable contribution.

I agree that neither candidate has an economic plan that brings the budget into balance. They both need to sharpen their pencils and get to work on our long term economic problems.

Regarding teaching science in public schools I'm not aware of the issue you describe. As far as I know, all of our public schools teach science. Gay marriage is a difficult issue for me and I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

[popper]

Excerpts from article (link at bottom).


In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them. Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 15502.html

[Nivek]

Nice little trick there by Sowell, who I often agree with. He takes Obama's "redistribution" line, redefines it as "confiscating" and then tells us how bad confiscating wealth can be. Then he loops back to "redistribution" as if that's what he'd been talking about all along.

Except, "redistribution" and "confiscation" are not synonyms. Plus, Sowell doesn't get into the details (perhaps because of length restrictions), but the details are critical.

I do like his thoughts about distributing knowledge.