Redistribution of Wealth

You know if the mods had not of renamed my thread you could probably find it under Ronald (COCK SUCKING ) Reagan :slight_smile:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Yes they are , it is still continuing today .

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/karl_marx_2016

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_day_our_freedom_died

these are a couple places to start if you want to know my opinions

The loss of freedom is huge and because private enterprise demands UNREASONABLE searches and seizures it is OK . Some how America went from being a Government that takes the best from all forms of Government now We are a crony capitalistic society

Every one wants a free market . Believe it or not so do I . Every one thinks I should except half of it . I don’t because the half that is being offered is the half that does not benefit me (THE MIDDLE CLASS) It benefits the wealthy
[/quote]

Pitbull, have you ever read the Grunch of Giants by Bunkmister Fuller? [/quote]

no ,is it good ?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Yes they are , it is still continuing today .

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/karl_marx_2016

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_day_our_freedom_died

these are a couple places to start if you want to know my opinions

The loss of freedom is huge and because private enterprise demands UNREASONABLE searches and seizures it is OK . Some how America went from being a Government that takes the best from all forms of Government now We are a crony capitalistic society

Every one wants a free market . Believe it or not so do I . Every one thinks I should except half of it . I don’t because the half that is being offered is the half that does not benefit me (THE MIDDLE CLASS) It benefits the wealthy
[/quote]

Pitbull, have you ever read the Grunch of Giants by Bunkmister Fuller? [/quote]

no ,is it good ?
[/quote]

Very. Not an easy read though. Goes into the history and questions the philosophy of how we ended up like this, with invisible private entities ruling us like the Fed, banks, governments etc. Its what I always think of when people talk about how the middle class have been robbed, because it was not “the rich” who did it, but rather the “Grunch”.

I believe in distribution of wealth.

People always need a boogeyman that they can point fingers at.

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Yes they are , it is still continuing today .

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/karl_marx_2016

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_day_our_freedom_died

these are a couple places to start if you want to know my opinions

The loss of freedom is huge and because private enterprise demands UNREASONABLE searches and seizures it is OK . Some how America went from being a Government that takes the best from all forms of Government now We are a crony capitalistic society

Every one wants a free market . Believe it or not so do I . Every one thinks I should except half of it . I don’t because the half that is being offered is the half that does not benefit me (THE MIDDLE CLASS) It benefits the wealthy
[/quote]

Pitbull, have you ever read the Grunch of Giants by Bunkmister Fuller? [/quote]

no ,is it good ?
[/quote]

Very. Not an easy read though. Goes into the history and questions the philosophy of how we ended up like this, with invisible private entities ruling us like the Fed, banks, governments etc. Its what I always think of when people talk about how the middle class have been robbed, because it was not “the rich” who did it, but rather the “Grunch”.
[/quote]

I will try and remember it when I am looking for my next book

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Isnt that the government trying to play a twisted version of Robin Hood?[/quote]

The story of a group of people that robbed from a tyrannical corrupt government and gave it back to the oppressed people who had their property stolen in the first place.

Funny how that story has been twisted to replace “government” with “rich people” huh?

[quote]Waittz wrote:
I would kindly ask that any liberal on this forum please explain to me in their own words why the redistribution of wealth is a good thing for the economy and well being of man. I am refferring to the general concept of, and would like to hear your views on the current methods of attempting this by our government with things like welfare, food stamps, ACA and more. Do you think these methods work and why? Do you see flaw? What would you change and why? Why should the economy trickle up instead of down?

I would also kindly ask that other conservatives respect their position and keep this FLAME FREE. I consider myself a free market capitalist, and I am geniunly curious to the answers here, not to berate or demean, but to understand their point of view so please let’s keep it clean. [/quote]

Do you not support redistribution of wealth? I would think a liberal answer to this is just the same as a conservatives.

Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:
I would kindly ask that any liberal on this forum please explain to me in their own words why the redistribution of wealth is a good thing for the economy and well being of man. I am refferring to the general concept of, and would like to hear your views on the current methods of attempting this by our government with things like welfare, food stamps, ACA and more. Do you think these methods work and why? Do you see flaw? What would you change and why? Why should the economy trickle up instead of down?

I would also kindly ask that other conservatives respect their position and keep this FLAME FREE. I consider myself a free market capitalist, and I am geniunly curious to the answers here, not to berate or demean, but to understand their point of view so please let’s keep it clean. [/quote]

Do you not support redistribution of wealth? I would think a liberal answer to this is just the same as a conservatives.[/quote]

No, I do not but I will also agree I am a bit extreme in my views on this which is why I am trying to understand the other side’s point of view.

Where children are involved: they are legally barred from even attempting to become gainfully employed and, even if they weren’t, are physically incapable of caring for themselves. We are morally obligated to finance their survival if their parents can, or will, not. Unfortunately, it is far cheaper for us to simply give food stamps to the parents than it would be to take the children away.

Where children are not involved: here I am far more conservative. One argument worth looking into–and I think the major difference between a staunch anti-welfare conservative and somebody more open to the safety not can be found here, in the contrast of the personal and the macroeconomic–rests upon the notion that market economies, being as they are inherently cyclical, will always have unemployment and underemployment built in, and especially so during (inevitable) times of distress (the transient poor). Given that this is a simple fact of life, it makes sense for us to have some kind of safety net for the people at the bottom–because they are as predictable, unavoidable, and, in some strange way, integral a component of the system as are mid-level management and CEOs. Large-scale market economies like ours cannot support full employment without drastic government interference (job guarantees) or total war, so it makes some sense to account for this fact of life in some or another way. If employers are allowed to fire, lay off, and close factories–and in a market economy, they are–times will come when they will need to, and for us to ignore this inexorable eventuality would be foolish.

For the record, I am in favor of drastically overhauling welfare and going after chiselers like hounds on a blood scent.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Isnt that the government trying to play a twisted version of Robin Hood?[/quote]

The story of a group of people that robbed from a tyrannical corrupt government and gave it back to the oppressed people who had their property stolen in the first place.

Funny how that story has been twisted to replace “government” with “rich people” huh?[/quote]
Not quite that twisted. That government was not elected just as no one elected the “rich people.” The Robin Hood story is more about class warfare (and racism: Saxons vs Normans). In both cases some would describe them as issues related to social class.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

Ding ding ding. My wealth was redistributed to Cheney’s buddies throughout the aughts–and for a cause far less admirable than the one where babies get free milk.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Of course it is. It is taking wealth and giving it to someone else. Redistributing it. Also how are you defining “the like?” If I want my tax dollars to go to helping the disabled and you think the purpose is to go to twelve year wars why are you more correct? We have argued about the purpose of tax dollars since the beginning of the nation.

You aren’t more correct than me merely by asserting it. And you aren’t bothered by that waste, but you are by food stamps? Why? These so called fiscal conservatives are nowhere to be found when it comes to defense. Waste away there folks, I’ll be busy getting really angry at that broke guy!

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Isnt that the government trying to play a twisted version of Robin Hood?[/quote]

The story of a group of people that robbed from a tyrannical corrupt government and gave it back to the oppressed people who had their property stolen in the first place.

Funny how that story has been twisted to replace “government” with “rich people” huh?[/quote]
Not quite that twisted. That government was not elected just as no one elected the “rich people.” The Robin Hood story is more about class warfare (and racism: Saxons vs Normans). In both cases some would describe them as issues related to social class. [/quote]

Someone “elected” the rich people. By supporting whatever enterprise it was that they began that made them their money, people “elected” them to be rich. In Robin Hood, the ruling class were thieves that stole their wealth from the lowest classes. Our lowest classes aren’t having anything stolen from them. They are being given money stolen by the government from the middle and upper class.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Redistribution is taking and putting elsewhere. It has exactly nothing to do with what’s gotten in return. You redistribute your wealth every day. Government is wealth redistribution, always and by definition.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

Paying for the military and our defense from taxation is not the same as social services and entitlement programs. That is a bit of a reach and I think you are trying to change the question I originally asked.

To answer your question, I am not mad. I have no issues with paying federal income tax knowing that it goes to defend our country from foreign invaders and defend our liberties, which is what our governments main job is. I am mad though, that I have to pay a larger percentage of my relative income than those who make less to do so, and that a very large portion of that does not go to defense, rather given to those who didn’t earn it so they can spend it freely on whatever they want.

I am very mad that the government takes my money from me, that I earn, and gives it to someone who didn’t earn it in the form of a prepaid credit card that they can spend my money on whatever they want without restriction or limitation. I am also mad that most of these people pay no taxes at all, or pay a less percentage of relative income penalizing me for earning more. Earning more means I give the world more value and I am paid more for it. I am being punished for creating more value to the world while others are being rewarded for creating less. That is the difference between defense spending and entitlement spending so don’t make such a reach next time.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Of course it is. It is taking wealth and giving it to someone else. Redistributing it. Also how are you defining “the like?” If I want my tax dollars to go to helping the disabled and you think the purpose is to go to twelve year wars why are you more correct? We have argued about the purpose of tax dollars since the beginning of the nation.

You aren’t more correct than me merely by asserting it. And you aren’t bothered by that waste, but you are by food stamps? Why? [/quote]

If you want your money to go to the disabled, give it to charity. Tax dollars should be used for the running of the government, which includes the military. If you don’t like what the government is doing, vote differently. The government should not however be in the charity business. They have proven that they suck at it.

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

Paying for the military and our defense from taxation is not the same as social services and entitlement programs. That is a bit of a reach and I think you are trying to change the question I originally asked.

To answer your question, I am not mad. I have no issues with paying federal income tax knowing that it goes to defend our country from foreign invaders and defend our liberties, which is what our governments main job is. I am mad though, that I have to pay a larger percentage of my relative income than those who make less to do so, and that a very large portion of that does not go to defense, rather given to those who didn’t earn it so they can spend it freely on whatever they want.

I am very mad that the government takes my money from me, that I earn, and gives it to someone who didn’t earn it in the form of a prepaid credit card that they can spend my money on whatever they want without restriction or limitation. I am also mad that most of these people pay no taxes at all, or pay a less percentage of relative income penalizing me for earning more. Earning more means I give the world more value and I am paid more for it. I am being punished for creating more value to the world while others are being rewarded for creating less. That is the difference between defense spending and entitlement spending so don’t make such a reach next time. [/quote]

Well I have a problem with it and I don’t agree with it. I don’t mind helping out someone who is paralyzed with my tax dollars. You do.

It’s not a reach. You’re ok with that redistribution and I’m not. I’m ok with some redistribution and not others.

FWIW I am totally in favor of ending any payments to those who can work but won’t.