smittyoneeach's Journal: Scott Walker: "It's About Reform"

I, for one, have had enough "borrowing it forward":

"I think what we've shown in Wisconsin is that it's not about austerity--it's about reform,â Walker said. "And what I mean by that is if we just come in our state and cut things across the board that means you cut your priorities as much as you cut things that aren't quite as important. We reined in collective bargaining. We put more power back in the hands of the taxpayer at the state and the local level. I think nationally we need that same sort of reform no matter who is running for president. I'd slash the marginal tax rates for everyone across the board--go to a simpler, more flat tax."

We should hasten to add that, in stark contrast to #OccupyResoluteDesk, Walker actually has a record of, you know, reforming.
"We put more power back in the hands of the taxpayer at the state and the local level," he says. That's kind of like my notion of "redistribute power, not wealth," that the slack-jawed sycophants keep rejecting. You little knuckle-draggers stay lovely, now.

"redistribute power, not wealth,"

[fustakrakich]

And you stay funny.

Fascism - come get some!

[damn_registrars]

Scott Walker is a "midwestern" version of Ron / Rand Paul. In other words, he shares their Randian fascist philosophy that the best way to ensure his own continued economic success is to do everything possible to ensure that nobody from lower socioeconomic rungs can succeed.

Sure, he can talk all he wants about pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps - that is easy for him with nice boots that are on his feet and bolstered by people he is walking on. As for those who cannot afford boots, well he will

The trouble being

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That wealth and power are two sides of the same coin. You can't distribute one without distributing the other. You can't centralize one without centralizing the other.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Heh, it's really a one sided coin. There are hardly any words that could be more synonymous Good luck getting through to him, but I don't believe he will ever understand the nature of things.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You really have to elaborate. Power is concentrated in DC, and the wealth of future generations is redistributed. And yet you say "it's really a one sided coin".
(a) Such an object would be a sphere.
(b) How is wealth redistributable, and power not, if they are the same thing?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

How is wealth redistributable, and power not, if they are the same thing?

I never said anything like that. Those are your words. It is the same thing. One cannot exist without the other. It is an "it", not "they". And it is redistributable if we so desire. We can make the government serve us. Power/wealth is not concentrated in DC. It is funneled through DC by the people who finance the political parties. DC serves them. They are not the masters. The masters are mostly concentrated in New York, and DC follow

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

"How is wealth redistributable, and power not, if they are the same thing?"

I never said anything like that.

Ahem:

Heh, it's really a one sided coin.

Or are you going to give me the Full Damn_Registrars and claim you're not saying what you're saying?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

That's right. it is a one sided coin. They are the same thing

"How is wealth redistributable, and power not, if they are the same thing?"

That just makes no sense. It does not compute. Trying rephrasing. I said what I said, and you are intentionally trying to twist it.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Our government is in the process of redistributing wealth, but not power. For example, the GM bailout. Yet you say money and power are inseparable. Possibly your model is oversimplified.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Yet you say money and power are inseparable.

You're doing it again. I say wealth and power are the same thing. Money is just a part of it. However, it can be use to quantify it to an extent.

Our government is in the process of redistributing wealth, but not power.

No, that is wrong. There is no such hing, not on this planet anyway, maybe in a galaxy far, far away, but not here. It is maintaining the concentration of it. Not both, it. There is no "both". They are one. Any distinction simply does not exist outsi

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Thanks for that. You've clarified your point to the degree I can at least follow it, even if I still think you're substantially daft.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Well of course you would! You have built a "Berlin Wall" to lock out the truth in order to reenforce what you have been conditioned to believe. Every study has shown so far that faith trumps facts. You are proving to be the proverbial textbook case of that.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

No: knowledge is not wisdom; potential energy is not kinetic energy; boys are not girls; and wealth, while perhaps correlating substantially with power, is not the same.
We can redistribute power. The systemic collapse of the last century is not inevitable, though I can agree the effort to overcome it will be substantial.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

...knowledge is not wisdom; potential energy is not kinetic energy; boys are not girls...

All very true..

...wealth, while perhaps correlating substantially with power, is not the same.

Patently false. On an evolutionary time scale that could possibly change, but at this time it has been proven false. The evidence has rendered your postulation untrue.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

So, if you were a wealthy Dutch tulip merchant in February 1637 [wikipedia.org], and wealth is power, what were you in April 1637?
I'm willing to give you "substantial overlap", but I can't buy your exact equivalence. I just don't fancy tulips that much. Too Calvinist [calvinistcorner.com].

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I'm sorry. I don't see the relationship. It speaks nothing of any separation of wealth/power.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're suddenly wealthy, and then the market crashes. I'd contend that wealth ebbs and flows, but real power does not. Or maybe that they enjoy an electricity/magnetism relationship. I'm still nowhere convinced of your exact equivalence argument.