[Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08

[Kai Eiselein, Editor]

How many people have received a huge windfall, think movie stars or pro 
athletes as examples, then died flat broke and deep in debt?


Comprende?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:20 PM
To: <editor at lataheagle.com>; <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>; 
<lfalen at turbonet.com>; <kjajmix1 at msn.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; 
<thansen at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08

> My premise, Kai, is:
>
> If the current "have nots" apply what little they receive in the form of a
> stimulus check to the basics (food, rent, bills, etc.), what makes you
> feel that these same people will irresponsibly splurge with a newly
> balanced redistribution of wealth.
>
> What the "have nots" done with their paltry stimulus check reflects a
> sense of responsibility.
>
> Now, do you understand?
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>> As usual, Tom, fails to grasp the conversation and tries comparing
> apples to
>> oranges.
>> I will simplify it for him.
>> Tom, a complete wealth distribution would begin with everyone on equal
>> financial footing. Over time, the finances of some would improve while
> for
>> others it would decline.
>> My premise is that most of those who were "haves" before the
> distribution
>> would manage to accumulate wealth, becoming "haves" again.
>> Of those who were "have nots" before the distribution, most would become
>> "have nots" again.
>> It is a completely different scenario than your "stimulus check"
> example, in
>> which there is no "equal footing" financially.
>>
>> Got it?> > must have created one MAJOR spark in the economy.
>> >
>> > Surprise, Kai.  It has been shown by surveys and a multitude of
> analyses
>> > that the "have nots" have used their stimulus checks on such frivolous
>> > items as food, rent, and bills, while the "haves" . . . well . . . you
>> > know.
>> >
>> > Your thoughts?
>> >
>> > Tom Hansen
>> > Moscow, Idaho
>> >
>> >> Human nature is human nature.
>> >> Chances are, most of the "have nots" would blow their windfall
>> > purchasing
>> >> things they could have never afforded before.
>> >> Without thinking of the future, many people would blow right through
> it.
>> >> Once gone, they would wind up selling many of the things they
> purchased
>> >> because they didn't save any of it for neccesities.
>> >> Many of the "haves" would see opportunities and try to make the most
> of
>> >> their windfall, gaining wealth.
>> >> It has nothing to do with the "worst" or "best" in humans. It's just
> the
>> > way
>> >> it is.
>> >>
>> >> --------------------------------------------------
>> >> From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:51 AM
>> >> To: "'Kai Eiselein, Editor'" <editor at lataheagle.com>; "'lfalen'"
>> >> <lfalen at turbonet.com>; "'keely emerinemix'" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;
>> >> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> >> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
>> >>
>> >> > Yes, of course I read it -- did you read the 6/30 The Nation issue
>> > Keely
>> >> > mentioned in starting this topic?
>> >> >
>> >> > I disagree with the hypothetical conclusion in your hypothetical
>> > scenario.
>> >> > I also don't agree with the inherent assumption of the worst of
>> > humans --
>> >> > you sound almost Hobbesian.  Sorry for not making that clear.  To
>> > expand .
>> >> > .
>> >> > .
>> >> >
>> >> > I think the odds are good that in a wealth redistribution that some
> of
>> > the
>> >> > "have nots" would cherish the change, manage the money well, and
> truly
>> >> > remember from whence they came.  In a wealth redistribution, I think
>> > the
>> >> > odds are good some of the previous "haves" would have no eye to the
>> > future
>> >> > and would soon be penniless . . . and need assistance.
>> >> >
>> >> > The difference in my hypothetical scenario & yours is that there are
>> > so
>> >> > many
>> >> > more "have nots" than "haves" that the eventual distribution of the
>> >> > redistribution would be better for the greater good and a net gain
> in
>> >> > quality of life for more.  I'm not willing to assume the worst in a
>> >> > hypothetical based on the self-serving historical behavior of some
> of
>> > the
>> >> > "haves" and their failure to consider a common good and their fellow
>> >> > countrymen.
>> >> >
>> >> > I like to think we'd have no need to redistribute wealth if we each
>> > helped
>> >> > our sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons to
>> >> > improve
>> >> > their lots in life to the best of our abilities rather than just
> what
>> > we
>> >> > think they deserve.  Nor would we likely need government safety nets
>> > for
>> >> > so
>> >> > many of our unfortunate were it not for the greed of the "haves."
>> >> >
>> >> > Altruistic Pollyanna is a name I'm far more comfortable wearing than
>> > Cynic
>> >> > Assuming Greed Trumps Good.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Kai Eiselein, Editor [mailto:editor at lataheagle.com]
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:01 AM
>> >> > To: Saundra Lund; 'lfalen'; 'keely emerinemix';
> vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you or did you not read my hypothetical scenario?
>> >> >
>> >> > --------------------------------------------------
>> >> > From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:56 AM
>> >> > To: "'Kai Eiselein, Editor'" <editor at lataheagle.com>; "'lfalen'"
>> >> > <lfalen at turbonet.com>; "'keely emerinemix'" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;
>> >> > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> >> > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
>> >> >
>> >> >> Kai wrote:
>> >> >> "I would venture to hypothesize this:  If wealth were distributed
>> > equally
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> every person, it would only be a matter of time before there would
> be
>> > the
>> >> >> "haves" and "have nots" once again."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Good grief -- what do you mean "once again"?!?!  That's how things
>> > are
>> >> >> now
>> >> >
>> >> >> .
>> >> >> . . hello!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Saundra Lund
>> >> >> Moscow, ID
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
>> > to do
>> >> >> nothing.
>> >> >> ~ Edmund Burke
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through
>> > life
>> >> >> plus
>> >> >> 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
>> >> >> outside
>> >> >> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>> >> >> author.*****
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> > Kai Eiselein
>> >> > Editor, Latah Eagle
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Kai Eiselein
>> >> Editor, Latah Eagle
>> >>
>> >> =======================================================
>> >>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >>                http://www.fsr.net
>> >>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> =======================================================
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
>> > students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
>> >
>> > - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------
>> > This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>> >           http://www.fsr.com/
>> >
>> >
>> Kai Eiselein
>> Editor, Latah Eagle
>>
>
>
> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
> students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
>
> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>           http://www.fsr.com/
>
>
Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah Eagle