(07-10-2012 04:45 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 04:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So you support a safety net but oppose wealth redistribution. How does that work?

So you support wealth re-distribution but oppose socialism. How does that work?

Oh, and socialism is more than government owning the means of production. And what we have isn't far from totalitarianism, which is a blend of all the worst ideas in the history of the world. People can be for a BASIC safety net and against socialism/redistribution of wealth. Most reasonable people don't mind offering a helping hand but what we have now goes WAY beyond that. I wouldn't even mind paying more in taxes if more than 5 cents to the dollar actually went to helping people. It doesn't, it goes to wars, food stamps for plasma TV's, and now a second or third generation of welfare queens. ***** you.

You forgot the overhead. Lots of overhead because, you know our gubmint is really, really efficient.

I'm not playing semantic games. I don't understand why you are railing on more "wealth redistribution" when we've been doing it on the federal level for 70+ years and you seem to be fine with it. Where do you draw the line and why?

If redistribution is theft, why do you support the current safety net? Are you not supporting theft?

No, the polls leading up to the 2010 elections were overwhelmingly overrating the GOP. Rasmussen overrated GOP governor and senator candidates by an average of 3.9%. I've posted the results on here many times.

That exit poll theory is a hoot.

(07-10-2012 04:51 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 04:45 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 04:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So you support a safety net but oppose wealth redistribution. How does that work?

So you support wealth re-distribution but oppose socialism. How does that work?

Oh, and socialism is more than government owning the means of production. And what we have isn't far from totalitarianism, which is a blend of all the worst ideas in the history of the world. People can be for a BASIC safety net and against socialism/redistribution of wealth. Most reasonable people don't mind offering a helping hand but what we have now goes WAY beyond that. I wouldn't even mind paying more in taxes if more than 5 cents to the dollar actually went to helping people. It doesn't, it goes to wars, food stamps for plasma TV's, and now a second or third generation of welfare queens. ***** you.

You forgot the overhead. Lots of overhead because, you know our gubmint is really, really efficient.

I'd really be interested in a link showing this inefficiency, it's stated like it's a universal truth but I'd like to see the evidence if possible.

(07-10-2012 07:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 04:51 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 04:45 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 04:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So you support a safety net but oppose wealth redistribution. How does that work?

So you support wealth re-distribution but oppose socialism. How does that work?

Oh, and socialism is more than government owning the means of production. And what we have isn't far from totalitarianism, which is a blend of all the worst ideas in the history of the world. People can be for a BASIC safety net and against socialism/redistribution of wealth. Most reasonable people don't mind offering a helping hand but what we have now goes WAY beyond that. I wouldn't even mind paying more in taxes if more than 5 cents to the dollar actually went to helping people. It doesn't, it goes to wars, food stamps for plasma TUV's, and now a second or third generation of welfare queens. ***** you.

You forgot the overhead. Lots of overhead because, you know our gubmint is really, really efficient.

I'd really be interested in a link showing this inefficiency, it's stated like it's a universal truth but I'd like to see the evidence if possible.

As in government inefficiency ?

Specifically, welfare and social programs.

(07-10-2012 08:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Specifically, welfare and social programs.

here is a start:

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=577371

(07-10-2012 08:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Specifically, welfare and social programs.

It is a pretty well known that private charity returns between 70 to 80 percent of it's funding to those in need. Government returns about 30%. The vast majority of government social program funding goes to middle class bureaucrat salaries and infrastructure. This alone outlines the problem in regard to efficiency.

(07-10-2012 04:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't think anyone on here is advocating or has ever advocated socialism (read: common ownership of the means of production). What most progressives want is just a level of wealth redistribution so that our poor aren't eating cat food and dying in the streets, and that means tens of millions of people gaining health insurance is a good thing.

Well, not in so many words. Maybe you or anybody else HERE haven't advocated precisely for that (semantic games) but what about your hero, Zero?

Tell me what you think candidate Obama meant when he proclaimed he was going to "Fundamentally Change" the United States?

(07-10-2012 08:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 08:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Specifically, welfare and social programs.

It is a pretty well known that private charity returns between 70 to 80 percent of it's funding to those in need. Government returns about 30%. The vast majority of government social program funding goes to middle class bureaucrat salaries and infrastructure. This alone outlines the problem in regard to efficiency.

I don't disagree. However, the reason we have the government step in is because private charity won't take care of all the poor alone. Why do you think we established these programs in the first place? You don't seriously believe there was no need for them? That the government programs gave the poor what they were already getting?

Quote:Well, not in so many words. Maybe you or anybody else HERE haven't advocated precisely for that (semantic games) but what about your hero, Zero?

Tell me what you think candidate Obama meant when he proclaimed he was going to "Fundamentally Change" the United States?

Maybe providing universal health coverage (and without taking over the industry)? 3 people die prematurely every hour because they don't have health insurance. That will no longer be the case. I'd call that "fundamental change." Or how about turning an economy losing 800k jobs/month into one with 26 straight months of private sector job growth?