On Wealth Redistribution(Socialism)

bl33b · Dec 2, 2008

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

its just some guys opinion but its a good and fact based one, can someone who supports wealth redistribution come up with something like this?
nah probably not, i am sure i will just be flamed by liberals and especially Medicineman all on feelings and such even though i am willing to bet not a single liberal can come up with something like this. I mean thats just how liberals are, they cant see the light even when fact and numbers are placed in front of them. its kind of like talking to the wall or a rock. and yes i said talking to a liberal is like talking to a rock. so go ahead and flame on if you want most of you probably wont even read the article. but thats ok, stupid is as stupid does. ;(

Doctor Pot · Dec 2, 2008

Classic straw man argument. He beats that straw man six ways from sunday, but doesn't put a scratch on any actual modern liberal philosophy.

Liberal philosophy is not about making everyone equal, it's about making success easier for those who are less fortunate. Even die-hard liberals will admit that you're going to have people who are more successful than others.

medicineman · Dec 2, 2008

bl33b said:
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

its just some guys opinion but its a good and fact based one, can someone who supports wealth redistribution come up with something like this?
nah probably not, i am sure i will just be flamed by liberals and especially Medicineman all on feelings and such even though i am willing to bet not a single liberal can come up with something like this. I mean thats just how liberals are, they cant see the light even when fact and numbers are placed in front of them. its kind of like talking to the wall or a rock. and yes i said talking to a liberal is like talking to a rock. so go ahead and flame on if you want most of you probably wont even read the article. but thats ok, stupid is as stupid does. ;([/quote]
Quit stealing my sayings. I read enough to know it was compiled by a right wing libertarian, and hell yeah 55,000 would suit me fine. It sure as hell wouldnt suit the top 15%, even the top 25%, but you see in a democracy, the majority rules, that leaves 75% that would benefit from this, so I say, go for it. The problem with trying to institute a socialist state is: this is already an oligarcic plutochracy, and those with the gold are ruling and will not let go without a fight to the death, which would suit me fine, I'd take up arms against the rich faster that any foriegn country that has not invaded us. When I say the words "Oligarcic Plutochracy" it comes off the tongue with a gasping choking sound, like I'm being strangled by rich assholes, the same assholes that started this country's kids. The intent of the founding fathers is interpreted way differently by rich and poor. I believe the constitution is a living breathing document, one that requires constant updating to meet the needs of the nation. We need a peoples referendum to start pre-emptive wars, I'll bet there would be none of those. We need the draft, so every mothers son would have to serve, no exceptions, like switzerland. That in itself would curtail warmongering. And yes, I'm a liberal and proud of it. Just for your information: I started working at 15 and never looked back, I raised 3 kids and got a 2 year degree working two jobs and going to night school. So to you're inference that I may be a lazy asshole, I can only say fuck you very much. I looked into management as that was what my degree was in, Business management, but all I saw was a bunch of ass kissing and bowing down to your superiors, something I wasn't really cut out for, so I worked Union and made as much as most middle managers. So Yes I am a proud liberal and fuck all you libertarian assholes, is that clear enough for you?

stalebiscuit · Dec 2, 2008

Doctor Pot said:
Classic straw man argument. He beats that straw man six ways from sunday, but doesn't put a scratch on any actual modern liberal philosophy.

Liberal philosophy is not about making everyone equal, it's about making success easier for those who are less fortunate. Even die-hard liberals will admit that you're going to have people who are more successful than others.

define "less fortunate"

god i hate these buzz words, you assign sympathy into a classic reasoning debate, feelings have no place in logical argument

you mean people who arent as "successful" because they werent dealt the right hand? thats called life, and further more how do you make success easier for those "less fortunate"

well its simple, hold back the successful ones

i mean if you have a race and you put a kenya track star, versus a thirty year smoker, of course the 30 year smoker is at a disadvantage for many reasons......so to give the thirty year smoker a better chance at success you must handi-cap the kenyan track star

thats your classic liberal philosophy or do you disagree?

Doctor Pot · Dec 2, 2008

stalebiscuit said:
define "less fortunate"

god i hate these buzz words, you assign sympathy into a classic reasoning debate, feelings have no place in logical argument

you mean people who arent as "successful" because they werent dealt the right hand? thats called life, and further more how do you make success easier for those "less fortunate"

well its simple, hold back the successful ones

People have no choice, they have to compete whether they want to or not. Successful people would only be held back in terms of their incomes, not in terms of what they're able to accomplish. The most successful people make way more money than they'd ever be able to spend.

i mean if you have a race and you put a kenya track star, versus a thirty year smoker, of course the 30 year smoker is at a disadvantage for many reasons......so to give the thirty year smoker a better chance at success you must handi-cap the kenyan track star

thats your classic liberal philosophy or do you disagree?

The natural answer here is that life shouldn't have to be a competition first and foremost. It should be possible for a dad to spend time with his kids rather than spending every waking minute at work to out-compete the other guys.

TheBrutalTruth · Dec 2, 2008

Doctor Pot said:
People have no choice, they have to compete whether they want to or not. Successful people would only be held back in terms of their incomes, not in terms of what they're able to accomplish. The most successful people make way more money than they'd ever be able to spend.

And do you think that in a Socialist system there would be no competition for the reduced number of jobs available, or the more desirable jobs?

The natural answer here is that life shouldn't have to be a competition first and foremost. It should be possible for a dad to spend time with his kids rather than spending every waking minute at work to out-compete the other guys.

That's a personal choice, I don't think that such a person who chooses the former should be able to say that a person that chooses the latter should have to pay for the first person to be lazier than they are.

stalebiscuit · Dec 2, 2008

Doctor Pot said:
People have no choice, they have to compete whether they want to or not. Successful people would only be held back in terms of their incomes, not in terms of what they're able to accomplish. The most successful people make way more money than they'd ever be able to spend.

The natural answer here is that life shouldn't have to be a competition first and foremost. It should be possible for a dad to spend time with his kids rather than spending every waking minute at work to out-compete the other guys.

People have no choice, they have to compete whether they want to or not. Successful people would only be held back in terms of their incomes, not in terms of what they're able to accomplish. The most successful people make way more money than they'd ever be able to spend.

and who is to define accomplishments? newsflash to be successful you dont have to be rich, and even bigger news flash, rich people become more successful through their income. they take what they feel like risking and invest it

also, people always have a choice, some people have it harder than others, ya, but for a government or anyone else to try and level the playing field.....well it tampers with the system, it doesnt work. welfare, hand up programs, etc. most of these are failed social experiments nothing more, and you can put the blame on whatever, lack of education, racial tension, bias in the workplace, it doesnt matter, in the end we are all just people, some with god given abilities to achieve or the advantage to do so, and some wont.......it will always be that way. honestly trying to fix that is like fighting the war on drugs

The natural answer here is that life shouldn't have to be a competition first and foremost. It should be possible for a dad to spend time with his kids rather than spending every waking minute at work to out-compete the other guys.

yes it is, life is most certainly a competition, anyone who doesnt believe that is set for a life of under-achievement

you know, my dad when he was 19 (like my age) worked a full 80 hours a week for an entire year because he got his ex wife pregnant twice and had to to support my two older half brothers (both of which are now successful) he later started his own business, triad tool and die inc. and worked at it for years, he became the best at what he did in the southeast. years later, he cant work anymore, his back is shot, he put a nail through his hand, had his thumb ripped off and for what? well he put two sons through life, one has three kids and is a marine and CPA, the other an up and coming lawyer making bank. i myself am still in college as in my little brother. he now enjoys his time playing pool and poker in bars at late nights. he spent as much time as he could when he had it, but work came first.......that sir is success in its purest form

ViRedd · Dec 2, 2008

Capitalism = equals uneven outcome of wealth.

Socialism = equals even outcome of poverty.

Vi

ZenMaster · Dec 2, 2008

I agree, stalebiscuit.

Success comes to who earns it. Expecting the government to hand it to you is the most irresponsible thing imaginable.

Doctor Pot · Dec 2, 2008

TheBrutalTruth said:
And do you think that in a Socialist system there would be no competition for the reduced number of jobs available, or the more desirable jobs?

I'M NOT ADVOCATING A SOCIALIST SYSTEM! Just a system in which the government takes an active role in assisting people with fewer opportunities.

TheBrutalTruth said:
That's a personal choice, I don't think that such a person who chooses the former should be able to say that a person that chooses the latter should have to pay for the first person to be lazier than they are.

I'm not saying more people should get government handouts, just that our society should value things besides money-making capability. Doing a decent job raising kids, for instance. If life was just a competition to make the most money then no one would have kids because, you know, it's a lot easier to make money if you don't have kids mooching off you.

stalebiscuit said:
and who is to define accomplishments? newsflash to be successful you dont have to be rich, and even bigger news flash, rich people become more successful through their income. they take what they feel like risking and invest it

Most rich people I know made their money by starting a company. If you own a company, you only pay taxes on profit, so most companies reinvest most of their profits so they pay less taxes. Essentially, they don't pay taxes on the money they're investing. You ever learn anything about the economics of running a business?

also, people always have a choice, some people have it harder than others, ya, but for a government or anyone else to try and level the playing field.....well it tampers with the system, it doesnt work. welfare, hand up programs, etc. most of these are failed social experiments nothing more, and you can put the blame on whatever, lack of education, racial tension, bias in the workplace, it doesnt matter, in the end we are all just people, some with god given abilities to achieve or the advantage to do so, and some wont.......it will always be that way. honestly trying to fix that is like fighting the war on drugs

I'm not saying we should necessarily give unsuccessful people handouts, just make it easier for anyone to achieve success on their own terms.

yes it is, life is most certainly a competition, anyone who doesnt believe that is set for a life of under-achievement

I said life shouldn't be first and foremost a competition. Sure, there's a lot of competing in life, but that shouldn't be all there is to life.

you know, my dad when he was 19 (like my age) worked a full 80 hours a week for an entire year because he got his ex wife pregnant twice and had to to support my two older half brothers (both of which are now successful) he later started his own business, triad tool and die inc. and worked at it for years, he became the best at what he did in the southeast. years later, he cant work anymore, his back is shot, he put a nail through his hand, had his thumb ripped off and for what? well he put two sons through life, one has three kids and is a marine and CPA, the other an up and coming lawyer making bank. i myself am still in college as in my little brother. he now enjoys his time playing pool and poker in bars at late nights. he spent as much time as he could when he had it, but work came first.......that sir is success in its purest form

Yes, and people like your dad shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as people like Warren Buffet. My parents were really quite poor as well. But we grew up on a farm and grew most of our own food, so we got along. I admire that idea of not accepting charity, and my parents never applied for Medicaid or the free lunch program even though we could have gotten it easily. My point is if someone like your dad wanted to say, take a course on diesel mechanics so he can make a better wage working for a trucking company, the government should help him do that, perhaps by subsidizing the vocational school. Not by giving him a handout.

****** · Dec 3, 2008

bl33b said:
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

its just some guys opinion but its a good and fact based one, can someone who supports wealth redistribution come up with something like this?
nah probably not, i am sure i will just be flamed by liberals and especially Medicineman all on feelings and such even though i am willing to bet not a single liberal can come up with something like this. I mean thats just how liberals are, they cant see the light even when fact and numbers are placed in front of them. its kind of like talking to the wall or a rock. and yes i said talking to a liberal is like talking to a rock. so go ahead and flame on if you want most of you probably wont even read the article. but thats ok, stupid is as stupid does. ;(

flame u ain;t u been flamin them damn dirty liberals but someone would b wrong to say conservitives r thick as a brick

medicineman · Dec 3, 2008

This is what I don't get about rich people. They already have enough. (Define enough) Enough money is the amount it takes to meet all your needs and have some left over for emergencies, be able to put some into savings and retirement, be able to send your kids to any school you want, pay off your home before retirement, drive reasonably nice transportation, dress well, have adequate medical coverage, take at least 3 weeks vacation every year, Oh wait, that is what I was able to do working union jobs, so I guess I was rich. Now how much more does one need?? let's hear it from the rich or as I know them to be, wannabees. Do you really need a lear jet, a 60-90ft yacht, a summer home in the south of France, a 10,000++ square ft. mansion, 10-20 exotic cars??? Clue me in on what you think you really need.

Seamaiden · Dec 3, 2008

medicineman said:
This is what I don't get about rich people. They already have enough. (Define enough) Enough money is the amount it takes to meet all your needs and have some left over for emergencies, be able to put some into savings and retirement, be able to send your kids to any school you want, pay off your home before retirement, drive reasonably nice transportation, dress well, have adequate medical coverage, take at least 3 weeks vacation every year, Oh wait, that is what I was able to do working union jobs, so I guess I was rich. Now how much more does one need?? let's hear it from the rich or as I know them to be, wannabees. Do you really need a lear jet, a 60-90ft yacht, a summer home in the south of France, a 10,000++ square ft. mansion, 10-20 exotic cars??? Clue me in on what you think you really need.

First define rich, med. I think there are plenty who would consider you rich. You have multiple vehicles, care for many people within your household, and take extended vacations. You also don't have to work even one job because you enjoy something called "retirement". So, are you rich?

And then there's the idea of allowing, or being forced to allow, someone else to decide what's enough in your personal life. Why do you need even a single muscle car when we know oil is a finite resource? Why a travel trailer, won't a tent do just as well? Why the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and the flooring of your choice, when all you really need is something to keep the dirt and bugs at bay, right?

In other words, why do you get to decide what's enough and what's too much, and not someone else? I don't get that.

ViRedd said:
Capitalism = equals uneven outcome of wealth.

Socialism = equals even outcome of poverty.

Vi

So simple.

I want to point out that I dislike lumping people into [extreme] categories. I think it's important for people to be able to disagree with a mindset or ideology, yet still have some respect. Thusly, while I disagree with some principles that are strongly espoused by more extreme liberals, I will not, and can not, paint all with the same negative brush. In other words, I try to let the individual make what he or she will of the rope I give them. Knot, or noose?

medicineman · Dec 3, 2008

In other words, why do you get to decide what's enough and what's too much, and not someone else? I don't get that.
I just defined what was enough for me. I ask you to define excess. Or do you believe there is no such thing as excess. My hobby is building Muscle cars, one at a time, I build one, drive it a while, sell it, take the money and build another one. This is my last one as I'm running out of desire to lay on my back in my garage and work on cars. To me, excess is Jay Leno, don't get me wrong, I love Jay leno. He shares his passion with the world, he opens up his shop and lets us commoners drool, but really, 150+ cars is a little much. If I had his money, I'm sure I'd have a few cars I liked as that is my passion also, but Lenos car owning is the definition of excess. Now please define excess or admit there is no such thing.

ViRedd · Dec 3, 2008

Warren Buffet has donated $35,000,000 to charities through the Bill Gates Foundation. Is that "excess?"

Vi

Seamaiden · Dec 3, 2008

medicineman said:
In other words, why do you get to decide what's enough and what's too much, and not someone else? I don't get that.
I just defined what was enough for me. I ask you to define excess. Or do you believe there is no such thing as excess. My hobby is building Muscle cars, one at a time, I build one, drive it a while, sell it, take the money and build another one. This is my last one as I'm running out of desire to lay on my back in my garage and work on cars. To me, excess is Jay Leno, don't get me wrong, I love Jay leno. He shares his passion with the world, he opens up his shop and lets us commoners drool, but really, 150+ cars is a little much. If I had his money, I'm sure I'd have a few cars I liked as that is my passion also, but Lenos car owning is the definition of excess. Now please define excess or admit there is no such thing.

That's just it, though, med. You can't define excess without making it relative to something else. And that relativity can become pretty loose just when you think you've got it nailed down. So, neither can I define it outside of its context, nor can I deny its existence.

medicineman · Dec 4, 2008

ViRedd said:
Warren Buffet has donated $35,000,000 to charities through the Bill Gates Foundation. Is that "excess?"

Vi

Warren Buffet is worth is 62 Billion with a B.

1.62,000,000,000
- 35,000,000
2.61,965,000,000

So no, since he still has 61 billion, 395 million bucks left, I don't see 35 million as being anywhere near excess, in fact I consider it a pittance, A 10% tithe would be 6.2 Billion, that's 6.2 thousand million. Kinda changes when you put it into perspective, eh?

Doctor Pot · Dec 4, 2008

That's his net worth though, not his annual income. If you gave a 10% tithe, that wouldn't include the value of your house, I'm assuming.

medicineman · Dec 4, 2008

Doctor Pot said:
That's his net worth though, not his annual income. If you gave a 10% tithe, that wouldn't include the value of your house, I'm assuming.

Details, details, details. I do believe giving 35 million, although nice, is not a true tithe. That figure is not a per year figure now is it? The 35 mil that is, that is the total he has given to the Gates foundation. I read that he only pays himself 100K a year, while I'm assuming raking in tens, maybe hundreds of millions, maybe even billions. So, when put into perspective, it is a pittance.

Doctor Pot · Dec 4, 2008

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5512893

Apparently Warren Buffet is planning to give the Gates Foundation 31 billion. And apparently most of the rest of his money is going to other charities. That good enough for you?

On Wealth Redistribution(Socialism)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member