Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its not about redistributing wealth. Its about preventing 1% of the population from having control of 99% of the wealth. This is very common in all third world countries where the large masses are LOCKED into poverty with no way to get out,,,NEVER...why do you think the mexicans come here? You cant enslave people with chains so the "rich" must do it economically and legally....To help understand this imagine one farmer who has used his wealth to manipulate the corn market , He ends up with 235 barns full of corn and the people in the town of 20,000 end up with several bushels.....Its the same thing with money
Why? Why is it okay for some people to be parasites but not others? Are liberals afraid they're going to lose their gravy train if everyone decides to adopt liberals' belief that leeching off of the system is okay?
Lolz. Youd have to ask a liberal if they are afraid. I'm still waiting for links on your generalizations. Lets add a link where its a liberals belief that leeching off the system is ok. I dont think I'll hold my breath this time....
Thats all you can do is it? Throw out sweeping generalizations as if they are facts....
"Redistribution" by its very definition means that by someone's judgment (whose judgment??), one person has too much. Too much house, too much land, too much money, etc. The concept is socialism, but couched as "fairness". Of course it's not right that someone has more than someone else, they say.
By what standards? Who is to say what is too much, or enough? Obama said that "at some point you've made enough" money.
Who does he think he is? There's nothing in the Constitution that allows him to make that call.
OK, do you think this distribution is fair? Do you think this is fair to 90 % of the population? Do you think that the top 1 % are just somehow magically that much more super-humanly smarter, better, harder working than the other 90 % of the population? You do realize that 90 % of the population is just about everybody. What would be a fair distribution to you?
The only realistic and equitable distribution on this graph was in the '60s.
Wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.
Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.
The only people involved in the decisions that made the money "distribution" come out the way it did here, were (a) me and (b) the guy with the car. If either of us had made some other decision, he'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, and I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him.
Did the guy with the car, make a bad decision anywhere here, where some liberal could have made a better one? Did I make any bad decision here? If not, then where does some liberal get the idea that any "redistribution" (that is, changing the way the money is distributed) would improve the situation?
People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not. And both of these sentiments, are flat lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
The top 1 % owned just about as much wealth as the other 90 % of the population
It's statements like that, that give us the slightest hint why these confused liberals think there's a better way to "redistribute" our money, than I and the guy with the car did. Their math skills just plain suck.
Voters have realized that government has moved into the business of favoring one group over another, and imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving", such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this list.)
So many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others. Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".
Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.
But now that government's main function has become to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes), more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them more than they favor people not like them.
Thus do candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get, and who favor those who "need more" over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government, get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.
Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate... and people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.
And in the timeless response to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), even the people who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.
And so, one by one, they gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives, and throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position" - both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for that guy over there."
Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".
But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".
And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.
And the more people who go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, the more pressure this puts on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who desire stern-but-impartial government, to give up that desire, and follow.
There, I refuted it.
Again.
Excellent post!!!
You forgot the part where people are now voting for and expecting government to protect them from all harm regardless of whether this harm comes from a company, its product or service, to protection from having one's feelings hurt. Sadly, like you said, people's vote has changed from one of finding someone best suited to operate the government within its constitutionally authorized limits to voting for someone based on their own self interests. Also sad is that both the left and the right have been, and seem to be ever increasingly guilty of this. Look at the majority of regulations upon industry, demanded by both the left and the right, which claims to be protective in nature of the people, but is also protective of the industry it is regulating. (Crony capitalism)
The ONLY solution (in my opinion) is getting back to the strict adherence of the US and State Constitutions, modifying them via amendment where genuinely necessary, but otherwise obeying them 100%.
OK, do you think this distribution is fair? Do you think this is fair to 90 % of the population? Do you think that the top 1 % are just somehow magically that much more super-humanly smarter, better, harder working than the other 90 % of the population? You do realize that 90 % of the population is just about everybody. What would be a fair distribution to you?
The only realistic and equitable distribution on this graph was in the '60s.
Who determines what is fair... you? By what standard will you make that determination? Was it fair that Einstein was a genius and I am not? In the name of social justice, should some of Einstein's ability and intelligence have been redistributed to those who were far less capable? Should Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell have had their wealth redistributed and if it had been, do you believe they would have work so tirelessly to invent the things they invented?
You forgot the part where people are now voting for and expecting government to protect them from all harm regardless of whether this harm comes from a company, its product or service, to protection from having one's feelings hurt. Sadly, like you said, people's vote has changed from one of finding someone best suited to operate the government within its constitutionally authorized limits to voting for someone based on their own self interests.
This change in governmental nature can be traced to March 29, 1937, when the Supreme Court handed down a revolutionary decision in the case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. FDR's court-packing plan had failed, so he had been attacking, denigrating, and vilifying the nine Supreme Court justices personally, blaming them for the horrors of the Great Depression since they refused to find his big-government schemes constitutional.
Finally one justice caved to the pressure, and the 5-4 decisions against Roosevelt's dictatorial schemes became 5-4 decisions in favor. And in this case, the majority opinion invented a new definition of "Liberty".
No longer did it simply mean freedom from government interference or influence. Now Liberty had a further freedom: The freedom from the ordinary trials and perils of life. And since government's job was, of course, to protect our liberty, this meant that govt now suddenly had license to start interfering with and regulating anything that could cause us difficulty in life.
And that, of course, means EVERYTHING.
The liberals finally had what they had been seeking. Government started exploding from that day forward. In two years the Fed govt doubled in size, and has kept exploding ever since.
We are seeing the inevitable result of that change, as I detailed in the post you quoted.
Quote:
The ONLY solution (in my opinion) is getting back to the strict adherence of the US and State Constitutions, modifying them via amendment where genuinely necessary, but otherwise obeying them 100%.
It's always easy to point out the goal like this. But how do we achieve it?
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-22-2012 at 09:46 PM..
That's like saying there is nothing wrong with me robbing a bank.....they have a lot of money and I don't.
Like there is nothing wrong with big businesses who could pay more still pay min wage while the CEO is making millions. Like businesses taking business overseas because it is cheaper and putting a lot of people out of jobs. Somehow they only stealing that is talked about is from the rich yet the rich steal plenty to.
Wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.
Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.
The only people involved in the decisions that made the money "distribution" come out the way it did here, were (a) me and (b) the guy with the car. If either of us had made some other decision, he'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, and I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him.
Did the guy with the car, make a bad decision anywhere here, where some liberal could have made a better one? Did I make any bad decision here? If not, then where does some liberal get the idea that any "redistribution" (that is, changing the way the money is distributed) would improve the situation?
People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not. And both of these sentiments, are flat lies.
It's statements like that, that give us the slightest hint why these confused liberals think there's a better way to "redistribute" our money, than I and the guy with the car did. Their math skills just plain suck.
Uh... no that guy distributed his wealth to you in exchange for your services. That's how economies work.... by distributing wealth.
Do you think there would be more competition or innovation when wealth is concentrated in fewer hands or more hands?
Who determines what is fair... you? By what standard will you make that determination? Was it fair that Einstein was a genius and I am not? In the name of social justice, should some of Einstein's ability and intelligence have been redistributed to those who were far less capable? Should Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell have had their wealth redistributed and if it had been, do you believe they would have work so tirelessly to invent the things they invented?
Try again with a better analogy. But we do have this socialist education system that heinously distributes people's knowledge and intelligence to other's in hope they will become more education and knowledgeable. Oh the horror of distributing things......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
