(06-30-2012 01:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 11:12 AM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  LOL that the thinkers on this forum can't acknowledge that income is redistributed throughout the economy by free market forces

Nobody fails to recognize that money changes hands in a free market economy, or in any economy for that matter. But money exchanged for value is earned, not distributed and certainly not redistributed. Redistribution is moving earned money from the person who earned it to some other person who didn't. Free markets don't do that.

The main deficiencies of the left are in failing to comprehend the difference between earning and distributing money, or the importance of investment to earning.

Give me a citation that shows the definition of "distribute" = "handout". Beer "distributors" "distribute" beer to retail outlets...does that mean they're giving it away? The prefix re- means to repeat, so when the retailers sell it to customers, they're redistributing it...in accordance with free markets. You can be opposed to government social programs but if your argument is based on loaded language instead of sound reasoning, you might get called out on it.

(06-30-2012 03:17 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 01:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 11:12 AM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  LOL that the thinkers on this forum can't acknowledge that income is redistributed throughout the economy by free market forces

Nobody fails to recognize that money changes hands in a free market economy, or in any economy for that matter. But money exchanged for value is earned, not distributed and certainly not redistributed. Redistribution is moving earned money from the person who earned it to some other person who didn't. Free markets don't do that.

The main deficiencies of the left are in failing to comprehend the difference between earning and distributing money, or the importance of investment to earning.

Give me a citation that shows the definition of "distribute" = "handout". Beer "distributors" "distribute" beer to retail outlets...does that mean they're giving it away? The prefix re- means to repeat, so when the retailers sell it to customers, they're redistributing it...in accordance with free markets. You can be opposed to government social programs but if your argument is based on loaded language instead of sound reasoning, you might get called out on it.

So you're saying that all money is simply "distributed" and there is no distinction between money that is earned or exchanged for value and money which isn't? Because that's the distinction that I'm making, not the one you are attempting to mischaracterize.

(06-30-2012 03:17 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 01:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 11:12 AM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  LOL that the thinkers on this forum can't acknowledge that income is redistributed throughout the economy by free market forces

Nobody fails to recognize that money changes hands in a free market economy, or in any economy for that matter. But money exchanged for value is earned, not distributed and certainly not redistributed. Redistribution is moving earned money from the person who earned it to some other person who didn't. Free markets don't do that.

The main deficiencies of the left are in failing to comprehend the difference between earning and distributing money, or the importance of investment to earning.

Give me a citation that shows the definition of "distribute" = "handout". Beer "distributors" "distribute" beer to retail outlets...does that mean they're giving it away? The prefix re- means to repeat, so when the retailers sell it to customers, they're redistributing it...in accordance with free markets. You can be opposed to government social programs but if your argument is based on loaded language instead of sound reasoning, you might get called out on it.

Wow, a semantic gymnast in our midst.

Now, while you're on a roll, tell me the difference between voluntary and coerced.

Quote:Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich. The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

(06-30-2012 11:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Robert, you have company.

Where do these idiots keep coming from?

I am really happy to see more informed and intelligent people on this board to offset you dumb ass teabaggers. Unfortunately, like most of us intelligent and informed we quickly give up talking rationally to you idiots and just start calling you idiots because you can't think and reason so it becomes a waste of time to even try. In the end, we come here to read your posts and get our comedy for the day. You are our entertainment.

(06-30-2012 05:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich. The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

I love how you cons are worried about Obama redistributing wealth when over the last 40 years the wealth of this country has been redistributed to those who can afford to buy gov't. Cons, just tools of the oligarchy.

(06-30-2012 05:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 11:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Robert, you have company.

Where do these idiots keep coming from?

I am really happy to see more informed and intelligent people on this board to offset you dumb ass teabaggers. Unfortunately, like most of us intelligent and informed we quickly give up talking rationally to you idiots and just start calling you idiots because you can't think and reason so it becomes a waste of time to even try. In the end, we come here to read your posts and get our comedy for the day. You are our entertainment.

STFU Idiot.

(06-30-2012 05:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 11:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Robert, you have company.

Where do these idiots keep coming from?

I am really happy to see more informed and intelligent people on this board to offset you dumb ass teabaggers. Unfortunately, like most of us intelligent and informed we quickly give up talking rationally to you idiots and just start calling you idiots because you can't think and reason so it becomes a waste of time to even try. In the end, we come here to read your posts and get our comedy for the day. You are our entertainment.

Irony, thy name is Robert.

(06-30-2012 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow, a semantic gymnast in our midst.

Now, while you're on a roll, tell me the difference between voluntary and coerced.

To these fools there is no difference. They feel it is their "duty" to allow the government to redistribute their incomes to others.

(06-30-2012 05:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow, a semantic gymnast in our midst.

Now, while you're on a roll, tell me the difference between voluntary and coerced.

To these fools there is no difference. They feel it is their "duty" to allow the government to redistribute their incomes to others.

News Flash: Gov't has already been redistributing wealth from poor to rich for a while.

(06-30-2012 05:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich. The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

It's a nice opinion piece by an anonymous writer from a source that has no academic nor critical-analysis standing, and ignores the wealth-distributing effects of economic activity and nature.

(06-30-2012 07:29 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 05:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow, a semantic gymnast in our midst.

Now, while you're on a roll, tell me the difference between voluntary and coerced.

To these fools there is no difference. They feel it is their "duty" to allow the government to redistribute their incomes to others.

News Flash: Gov't has already been redistributing wealth from poor to rich for a while.

How does the government take from people who pay no taxes?

(06-30-2012 07:40 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 05:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich. The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

It's a nice opinion piece by an anonymous writer from a source that has no academic nor critical-analysis standing, and ignores the wealth-distributing effects of economic activity and nature.

OK, how do you define it?

(06-30-2012 08:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 07:29 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 05:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow, a semantic gymnast in our midst.

Now, while you're on a roll, tell me the difference between voluntary and coerced.

To these fools there is no difference. They feel it is their "duty" to allow the government to redistribute their incomes to others.

News Flash: Gov't has already been redistributing wealth from poor to rich for a while.

How does the government take from people who pay no taxes?

Who doesn't pay taxes?

(06-30-2012 08:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 08:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 07:29 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 05:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow, a semantic gymnast in our midst.

Now, while you're on a roll, tell me the difference between voluntary and coerced.

To these fools there is no difference. They feel it is their "duty" to allow the government to redistribute their incomes to others.

News Flash: Gov't has already been redistributing wealth from poor to rich for a while.

How does the government take from people who pay no taxes?

Who doesn't pay taxes?

Illegals, welfare queens, gang bangers, prisoners, etc don't pay income taxes but get a free ride on ours. Also, illegals and many other groups utilize black market services and don't pay sales taxes.

I'm willing to be you pay less taxes than a guy who makes a million bucks but use more government services than he does.

(06-29-2012 10:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 09:25 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  equality, fairness, and cooperation

It's pretty hard to oppose equality, fairness, and cooperation. But those words have different meanings to the left and the right.

To conservatives and libertarians, equality means equality of opportunity; to the left it often means equality of outcomes. And whether you claim to favor redistribution of income or not, you're always going to have to redistribute a lot of income to get equality of outcomes.

Same with fairness. It's not unfair every time someone does better than someone else. It wasn't unfair that the Heat beat the Thunder. They were the better team. Any result other than their winning would have been unfair.

As for cooperation, it takes two to cooperate. And right now, on the national scene, at least, neither party is cooperating. Neither has made a serious effort to cooperate for many years, going back to the nineties if not before.

So, those are great things to be for. But be sure to define your terms correctly before proceeding.

I consider myself more fiscally conservative than liberal but I'm quite socially liberal... Equality, in economic terms, to me means equality of opportunity - freedoms in economic opportunities with government regulation to ensure equal opportunity can be protected; economic fairness means no monopolies squeezing the little guy out of the picture. Cooperation is what needs to happen - and what did happen, with the extension of lower student loan interest rates and infrastructure improvements... after outcry for GOP not supporting the Democrat-sponsored bills. I think we should all be able to agree that lower student loan rates are better for this country at this point... and infrastructure improvements are needed to keep the country moving towards the future. That's what the country needs - moving forward...

Shovel ready infrastructure jobs

Have heard that **** too many times.

and student loans are a trillion dollar bubble. the sad thing is the return on all those dollars is bunch of the useless classes taken

(06-30-2012 08:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 07:29 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 05:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow, a semantic gymnast in our midst.

Now, while you're on a roll, tell me the difference between voluntary and coerced.

To these fools there is no difference. They feel it is their "duty" to allow the government to redistribute their incomes to others.

News Flash: Gov't has already been redistributing wealth from poor to rich for a while.

How does the government take from people who pay no taxes?

1.) Everybody that works and/or spends money pays taxes.

2.) When gov't allows companies to send jobs over seas while selling products here with no penalty, the gov't just took from the people.

You are so focused on the less fortunate, when over the past 40 years they have gotten poorer.

(06-30-2012 09:13 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You are so focused on the less fortunate, when over the past 40 years they have gotten poorer.

No they haven't.