UI benefits are bad because they aren't "paid for". Tax cuts for the rich are good even though they aren't "paid for".

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

So then you agree that redistribution is a fundamental part of Capitalism. And since that is true, why would the business of government work any differently?

OMFG!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

OMFG!

It's like teaching a dog to pee in the toilet.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's like teaching a dog to pee in the toilet.

Come on, Bill. You can do better. Come up with a counter argument or concede my point;. You claimed that government redistributes wealth (an old Right Wing talking point whenever taxing the wealthy comes up) and I argued that redistribution is a fundamental component of Capitalism. Are you up for the intellectual challenge or are you going to pretend my argument is too beneath you to deserve an intelligent response?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's like teaching a dog to pee in the toilet.

Hes such a VICTIM! Just throw him a food stamp and a housing subsidy and maybe he will cheer up.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

Here in Amorica the relatively poor like to defend the wealth of the rich few in the hopes that one day they too might be fabulously wealthy. That is the Amorican dream!

also in america, the relatively poor like to attack the rich thinking they'll get a slice of the pie from redistribution of the wealth.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hes such a VICTIM! Just throw him a food stamp and a housing subsidy and maybe he will cheer up.

Fifty years of Progressive education, and this is what it has come to: They have so twisted the meanings of words, that they can no longer participate in an intellectual discussion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fifty years of Progressive education, and this is what it has come to: They have so twisted the meanings of words, that they can no longer participate in an intellectual discussion.

Whenever you are losing an argument, you go off on a tangent or resort to personal insults. You did this with HAL whenever he challenged your arguments over Global Warming. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Whenever you are losing an argument, you go off on a tangent or resort to personal insults. You did this with HAL whenever he challenged your arguments over Global Warming. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

The funny thing is when they start insulting a person's background instead of focusing on the topic and without actually knowing that person's background it comes across as extremely ignorant.

For instance. I did not go through the public school system. I went to a private, conservative religious grade school and high school. I did go to a state university but it was in the Midwest and it was also fairly conservative. Yet on many points I agree with you, and therefore they would probably also label me as a "brain-washed through education" progressive, which is quite far from reality.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Sousuke

[^_^ 5,021]

The funny thing is when they start insulting a person's background instead of focusing on the topic and without actually knowing that person's background it comes across as extremely ignorant.

For instance. I did not go through the public school system. I went to a private, conservative religious grade school and high school. I did go to a state university but it was in the Midwest and it was also fairly conservative. And yet on many points I agree with you, and therefore they would probably also label me as a "brain-washed through education" progressive.

librul college boy

[SMR 368]

Come on, Bill. You can do better. Come up with a counter argument or concede my point;. You claimed that government redistributes wealth (an old Right Wing talking point whenever taxing the wealthy comes up) and I argued that redistribution is a fundamental component of Capitalism. Are you up for the intellectual challenge or are you going to pretend my argument is too beneath you to deserve an intelligent response?

No, businesses do not redistribute wealth; they create it. That is the fundamental difference. At the beginning, the business owner may have nothing (He may have some capital, but let's assume he gets a loan). The worker also has nothing (he has the potential to work but that is not wealth and can't be considered as such since it only becomes something under certain conditions). They get together and make an agreement to work together to create wealth. That agreement states how they will split the wealth (usually it says the worker gets some set amount and the owner gets the rest). But at no point is the wealth being redistributed. It's simply being created and allocated.

Governments do not create wealth. They tax one group of people and give to another. That is simple redistribution.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, businesses do not redistribute wealth; they create it. That is the fundamental difference. At the beginning, the business owner may have nothing (He may have some capital, but let's assume he gets a loan). The worker also has nothing (he has the potential to work but that is not wealth and can't be considered as such since it only becomes something under certain conditions). They get together and make an agreement to work together to create wealth. That agreement states how they will split the wealth (usually it says the worker gets some set amount and the owner gets the rest). But at no point is the wealth being redistributed. It's simply being created and allocated.

Governments do not create wealth. They tax one group of people and give to another. That is simple redistribution.

Wealth - anything that has utility and is capable of being exchanged or appropriated.

Redistribute - reallocate, distribute anew.

In your example someone provides wealth to a financial institution with the promise of interest. The institution distributes the wealth to others through loans with interest payments attached.

By definition every economy in the world requires the passing of wealth between hands. I believe that is what El Buscador is getting at.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No, businesses do not redistribute wealth; they create it. That is the fundamental difference. At the beginning, the business owner may have nothing (He may have some capital, but let's assume he gets a loan). The worker also has nothing (he has the potential to work but that is not wealth and can't be considered as such since it only becomes something under certain conditions). They get together and make an agreement to work together to create wealth. That agreement states how they will split the wealth (usually it says the worker gets some set amount and the owner gets the rest). But at no point is the wealth being redistributed. It's simply being created and allocated.

Governments do not create wealth. They tax one group of people and give to another. That is simple redistribution.

They are making this stuff up as they go along. If they don't like the terms of art, they just redefine them to fit their vision of the world.

'Redistribute' means government, representing society in general, takes the excess production, and distributes it to where it is lacking. Perhaps that is a notable endeavor, but it has nothing to do with the free market. It is antithetical to the free market. It can corrupt the free market, as greed, and the accumulation of personal wealth, is the force that drives the market.

[Heracles 417]

also in america, the relatively poor like to attack the rich thinking they'll get a slice of the pie from redistribution of the wealth.

Middle America is poor, but for reasons discussed in the other thread now closed, they are not aware of it. I understand the wealthy wanting to pay no taxes and #### the country for their own gain. What I don't get is the average Joe the plumbers cough cough that are relatively poor versus their equivalents in Canada, Australia, Europe etc sticking up for them. Once again had these people traveled and actually seen their equivalents rather than listen to Rush, they'd wake up.

Don't know about you but if I was a laborer, I'd rather earn the $5k to $10k a month they earn in AUS than the $2K they get here.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Booyah!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Whenever you are losing an argument, you go off on a tangent or resort to personal insults. You did this with HAL whenever he challenged your arguments over Global Warming. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

HAL could speak the language. You can't. That is the difference.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

HAL could speak the language. You can't. That is the difference.

By language you mean personal attacks?