(07-05-2014 09:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:27 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It only means what fits your rhetoric.

So you can't make any substantive argument against any of the points I made?

It just isn't worth the effort. Money and resources are constantly being transferred from one segment of society to another. The average consumer picks up the tab more often than not. I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share and reaping a disproportionally large benefit than I am by the poor reaping some benefit from it and not being able to put in much of a share. You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-05-2014 02:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:28 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:22 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 12:48 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  How is that supply of firewood coming? I wouldn't want you giving out half way through the winter and freezing to death on us.

That's a stupid analogy.

Because Yes I need firewood but no I didn't get the firewood for free.
I either cut it down from the trees on my property, paid for it with currency or bartered something I had to trade for it.

We should all be providing goods and services to each other as we function as a society, paying for them via barter or with currency. No one should be getting their firewood for free. The person asking for their firewood for free would be run out of Dodge on a rail as a freeloader.

I guess you don't have a clue as to what that meant. Think about it.

You need others to help you get through the winter. I don't.

I am the ant. You are the grasshopper.
Ask Aesop if you don't have a clue what I mean.

You must not see all the ways you get help making it through the winter. If you fall down the mountain and break your arm and Grizzly Adams happens by and sets the arm, cooks up some bear meat, brings in and keeps the fire going while you mend you make it. If he is setting traps 20 miles away when you fall you freeze to death in your cabin. The illusion of the self sufficient hero is a myth. It rarely existed in the frontier 200 years ago, it does not exist at all today.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So the analogy now is Grizzly Adams providing me rescue services?

What happened to the free firewood analogy?
You must've realized that your first analogy about getting free firewood was an example of socialism so you've switched the narrative but I'll play along...

If Grizzly Adams rescues me out of his own charity, that's great and kind of him. It is his free will and choice to do so or not do so. If he doesn't and I die so be it.

However, Grizzly Adams should not be forced by the government to provide me rescue services.

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:27 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It only means what fits your rhetoric.

So you can't make any substantive argument against any of the points I made?

It just isn't worth the effort. Money and resources are constantly being transferred from one segment of society to another. The average consumer picks up the tab more often than not. I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share and reaping a disproportionally large benefit than I am by the poor reaping some benefit from it and not being able to put in much of a share. You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

FAIR SHARE in your statement says everything anyone ever wanted to know about you.

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It just isn't worth the effort. Money and resources are constantly being transferred from one segment of society to another. The average consumer picks up the tab more often than not. I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share and reaping a disproportionally large benefit than I am by the poor reaping some benefit from it and not being able to put in much of a share. You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

No, we define redistribution differently.
When I pay someone an amount of money and in return receive something that is worth that amount of money to me, then that is not redistribution regardless of the relative wealth of the people involved or the extent to which my seller is profiting. That holds true whether I'm paying $500,000 for a home or $50,000 for a BMW or $5 for a Big Mac and a coke.
When something is handed out to someone in exchange for nothing, that is redistribution.

I am not categorically opposed to redistribution, a view that you must attribute to me in order to sustain the allegation you make, so you are simply off base there. I am on record frequently as favoring Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder probate, coupled with French Bismarck health care, which would involve significant redistribution of income. They would just define the parameters such that the expiration of benefits as incomes rise would not form such a barrier to upward mobility as exists currently. You should be aware that I have favored these things, and therefore you should be aware that the allegation you make regarding my lack of care for the poor is categorically false. It will be interesting to see whether you have sufficient integrity to offer a retraction and an apology.

I understand your predicament. It is indeed difficult to argue agains the proposals I'm making, and particularly to defend the current system against such proposed changes, so you try to deflect by mischaracterizing the nature of my comments.

As for the "wealthy not putting up their fair share," what is their fair share? And how is that defined? What references do you have to support your conclusion? Are you aware that compared to average conditions in the rest of the developed world, the wealthy are putting up a larger share here, and getting less in return? Does that knowledge change your rant any?

Better yet, let's first do this as a hypothetical. I don't want to get into a he said/she said type of argument, so let's first establish where we differ and then work on it. Suppose hypothetically that it is true that the "rich" pay more and get less here than elsewhere. If that is the case, would you argue that they are paying more than, less than, or about the same as their fair share? Let's clarify first whether we agree or disagree on that point, and then we can address the issue of whether the underlying factual premise is correct.

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:27 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It only means what fits your rhetoric.

So you can't make any substantive argument against any of the points I made?

It just isn't worth the effort. Money and resources are constantly being transferred from one segment of society to another. The average consumer picks up the tab more often than not. I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share and reaping a disproportionally large benefit than I am by the poor reaping some benefit from it and not being able to put in much of a share. You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wow. You really do play the victim card HARD. Again, go check the tax code, who's paying what? And what percentages?

(07-05-2014 03:06 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 02:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:28 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:22 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  That's a stupid analogy.

Because Yes I need firewood but no I didn't get the firewood for free.
I either cut it down from the trees on my property, paid for it with currency or bartered something I had to trade for it.

We should all be providing goods and services to each other as we function as a society, paying for them via barter or with currency. No one should be getting their firewood for free. The person asking for their firewood for free would be run out of Dodge on a rail as a freeloader.

I guess you don't have a clue as to what that meant. Think about it.

You need others to help you get through the winter. I don't.

I am the ant. You are the grasshopper.
Ask Aesop if you don't have a clue what I mean.

You must not see all the ways you get help making it through the winter. If you fall down the mountain and break your arm and Grizzly Adams happens by and sets the arm, cooks up some bear meat, brings in and keeps the fire going while you mend you make it. If he is setting traps 20 miles away when you fall you freeze to death in your cabin. The illusion of the self sufficient hero is a myth. It rarely existed in the frontier 200 years ago, it does not exist at all today.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So the analogy now is Grizzly Adams providing me rescue services?

What happened to the free firewood analogy?
You must've realized that your first analogy about getting free firewood was an example of socialism so you've switched the narrative but I'll play along...

If Grizzly Adams rescues me out of his own charity, that's great and kind of him. It is his free will and choice to do so or not do so. If he doesn't and I die so be it.

However, Grizzly Adams should not be forced by the government to provide me rescue services.

You are just not following. There wasn't ever any free firewood in the analogy. In the frontier you didn't survive without cutting enough wood to make it through the winter. If you couldn't keep up you died. On the frontier people were very self-reliant though not totally so. We aren't on the frontier. That was the point of the analogy. Sorry that you didn't follow. Grizzly Adams is an analogy to illustrate that even on the frontier you had to help one another, or you died. Again sorry if you didn't follow. I hope this helps you out.

(07-05-2014 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It just isn't worth the effort. Money and resources are constantly being transferred from one segment of society to another. The average consumer picks up the tab more often than not. I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share and reaping a disproportionally large benefit than I am by the poor reaping some benefit from it and not being able to put in much of a share. You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

No, we define redistribution differently.
When I pay someone an amount of money and in return receive something that is worth that amount of money to me, then that is not redistribution regardless of the relative wealth of the people involved or the extent to which my seller is profiting. That holds true whether I'm paying $500,000 for a home or $50,000 for a BMW or $5 for a Big Mac and a coke.
When something is handed out to someone in exchange for nothing, that is redistribution.

I am not categorically opposed to redistribution, a view that you must attribute to me in order to sustain the allegation you make, so you are simply off base there. I am on record frequently as favoring Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder probate, coupled with French Bismarck health care, which would involve significant redistribution of income. They would just define the parameters such that the expiration of benefits as incomes rise would not form such a barrier to upward mobility as exists currently. You should be aware that I have favored these things, and therefore you should be aware that the allegation you make regarding my lack of care for the poor is categorically false. It will be interesting to see whether you have sufficient integrity to offer a retraction and an apology.

I understand your predicament. It is indeed difficult to argue agains the proposals I'm making, and particularly to defend the current system against such proposed changes, so you try to deflect by mischaracterizing the nature of my comments.

As for the "wealthy not putting up their fair share," what is their fair share? And how is that defined? What references do you have to support your conclusion? Are you aware that compared to average conditions in the rest of the developed world, the wealthy are putting up a larger share here, and getting less in return? Does that knowledge change your rant any?

Better yet, let's first do this as a hypothetical. I don't want to get into a he said/she said type of argument, so let's first establish where we differ and then work on it. Suppose hypothetically that it is true that the "rich" pay more and get less here than elsewhere. If that is the case, would you argue that they are paying more than, less than, or about the same as their fair share? Let's clarify first whether we agree or disagree on that point, and then we can address the issue of whether the underlying factual premise is correct.

I think you are missing my point all together. The burden has disproportionately shifted to the working/middle class. As far as economic policies you have advocated in the past, I honestly don't keep up with who says what on here.

(07-05-2014 04:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think you are missing my point all together. The burden has disproportionately shifted to the working/middle class. As far as economic policies you have advocated in the past, I honestly don't keep up with who says what on here.

So, I guess you don't have sufficient integrity to apologize or retract?

Let me get this straight, you don't know what I've posted, but you somehow knew enough to make the allegations that you did? How did you manage that?

(07-05-2014 04:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think you are missing my point all together. The burden has disproportionately shifted to the working/middle class. As far as economic policies you have advocated in the past, I honestly don't keep up with who says what on here.

No, haven't missed any point.

Disproportionately? By what standard? What would be proportionate? When did it become disproportionate? Is it disproportionate in Europe, where the income tax rates hit the middle class much harder and they rely on a consumption tax for around 40% of total tax revenues? If that's not disproportionate, but it is disproportionate here, how do you make such a determination?

(07-05-2014 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think you are missing my point all together. The burden has disproportionately shifted to the working/middle class. As far as economic policies you have advocated in the past, I honestly don't keep up with who says what on here.

So, I guess you don't have sufficient integrity to apologize or retract?

Let me get this straight, you don't know what I've posted, but you somehow knew enough to make the allegations that you did? How did you manage that?

I don't keep up with all of Owls various positions on issues. What, do you keep index cards on everything I've posted? It is a bulletin board for gosh sakes. I'm not really sure what you want an apology for? Me saying that you made your definition fit the rhetoric? If I've upset you then okay. I'm sorry.

(07-05-2014 04:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think you are missing my point all together. The burden has disproportionately shifted to the working/middle class. As far as economic policies you have advocated in the past, I honestly don't keep up with who says what on here.

No, haven't missed any point.

Disproportionately? By what standard? What would be proportionate? When did it become disproportionate? Is it disproportionate in Europe, where the income tax rates hit the middle class much harder and they rely on a consumption tax for around 40% of total tax revenues? If that's not disproportionate, but it is disproportionate here, how do you make such a determination?

It feels right. Or good.

Or some other unsubstantiated emotion.

(07-05-2014 04:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't keep up with all of Owls various positions on issues. What, do you keep index cards on everything I've posted? It is a bulletin board for gosh sakes. I'm not really sure what you want an apology for? Me saying that you made your definition fit the rhetoric? If I've upset you then okay. I'm sorry.

If you're not going to keep up, then don't go making unfounded attacks.

Capiche?

(07-05-2014 04:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't keep up with all of Owls various positions on issues. What, do you keep index cards on everything I've posted? It is a bulletin board for gosh sakes. I'm not really sure what you want an apology for? Me saying that you made your definition fit the rhetoric? If I've upset you then okay. I'm sorry.

If you're not going to keep up, then don't go making unfounded attacks.

Capiche?

attacks, what attacks? I think you are taking this way too serious.

(07-05-2014 04:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  attacks, what attacks? I think you are taking this way too serious.

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.

Remember posting that?
Since you don't remember what I have posted, where did you get that idea?

(07-05-2014 04:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  attacks, what attacks? I think you are taking this way too serious.

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.

Remember posting that?
Since you don't remember what I have posted, where did you get that idea?

That isn't an attack! Good grief man. That is contrasting our positions. If it isn't correct then correct it.

(07-05-2014 05:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That isn't an attack! Good grief man. That is contrasting our positions. If it isn't correct then correct it.

So you don't know what my position is, but you can contrast it with yours?
How do you manage that?

No, that is not contrasting our positions. That is contrasting your position with a position that you falsely attributed to me, without knowing or bothering to know the truth.

ETA: Remember that if you choose to respond to mptnstr's post below.

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share

Define fair share.

How in the world can you justify taking from a person something that he worked for, earned, or otherwise owns and give it to a person who had nothing to do with it? If I did that I'd be charged with robbery.

You want fair? How about Welfare queens and homeless people clean parks and highways in an effort to earn their free handouts?

(07-05-2014 04:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:06 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 02:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:28 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:22 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  I guess you don't have a clue as to what that meant. Think about it.

You need others to help you get through the winter. I don't.

I am the ant. You are the grasshopper.
Ask Aesop if you don't have a clue what I mean.

You must not see all the ways you get help making it through the winter. If you fall down the mountain and break your arm and Grizzly Adams happens by and sets the arm, cooks up some bear meat, brings in and keeps the fire going while you mend you make it. If he is setting traps 20 miles away when you fall you freeze to death in your cabin. The illusion of the self sufficient hero is a myth. It rarely existed in the frontier 200 years ago, it does not exist at all today.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So the analogy now is Grizzly Adams providing me rescue services?

What happened to the free firewood analogy?
You must've realized that your first analogy about getting free firewood was an example of socialism so you've switched the narrative but I'll play along...

If Grizzly Adams rescues me out of his own charity, that's great and kind of him. It is his free will and choice to do so or not do so. If he doesn't and I die so be it.

However, Grizzly Adams should not be forced by the government to provide me rescue services.

You are just not following. There wasn't ever any free firewood in the analogy. In the frontier you didn't survive without cutting enough wood to make it through the winter. If you couldn't keep up you died. On the frontier people were very self-reliant though not totally so. We aren't on the frontier. That was the point of the analogy. Sorry that you didn't follow. Grizzly Adams is an analogy to illustrate that even on the frontier you had to help one another, or you died. Again sorry if you didn't follow. I hope this helps you out.

We are interwoven into a society of people who provide goods and services and pay each other the value of what they need/want. We do rely on things created by others. Your survival skills in the modern world are predicated on your preparing yourself to be a contributor who provides something of value in return for a wage or payment.

In my world, everyone pays or works for what they want and/or use and pays taxes for basic services that the government provides including emergency services, roads, public education, etc.

In your world, everyone gets no more than a fair share decided by some governing body (the ACA for example) and they pay taxes for the government to provide more than just basic services, with the government forcing some to pay a large percentage of their earnings in taxes if they are deemed wealthy and some to pay nothing, taking from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

(07-05-2014 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That isn't an attack! Good grief man. That is contrasting our positions. If it isn't correct then correct it.

So you don't know what my position is, but you can contrast it with yours?
How do you manage that?

No, that is not contrasting our positions. That is contrasting your position with a position that you falsely attributed to me, without knowing or bothering to know the truth.

ETA: Remember that if you choose to respond to mptnstr's post below.

It was based on your previous posts on this thread, not your posts over time. You are really nit picking.

(07-05-2014 05:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share

Define fair share.

How in the world can you justify taking from a person something that he worked for, earned, or otherwise owns and give it to a person who had nothing to do with it? If I did that I'd be charged with robbery.

You want fair? How about Welfare queens and homeless people clean parks and highways in an effort to earn their free handouts?

So you oppose taxation?