The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

[PMZ]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Paying people not to work is not an investment. It's throwing good money after bad. The only thing gained by the investor is the expectation that they will continue to provide a living for someone isn't willing to do it himself.

People aren't paid for not working. We put a floor under poverty. We say that families dying in the streets or having to rely on prostitution or drug dealing or theft is unacceptable. We don't throw away people without giving them a chance.

You may disagree. Your choice. Your choice is to accept a role in our democracy, or move someplace else. It's really just that simple. You are in control but no choice is free.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Conservatives like to pretend that if you make people with a proven track record of failure, poorer, they will turn into responsible accomplished workers and will create a job for themselves.

Can you imagine anything less likely?

Not giving someone something for nothing does not make them poorer, but you've floated this particular straw man out here several times in this thread.

In answer to your question: You want to pretend that if you make people with a proven track record of success, poorer, it will motivate them to produce even more. I imagine that's less likely.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

They survive with less risk of crime.

Some kids get educated or break free of the enslavement of poverty.

They consume.

They spread less disease.

They feel at least a little better about life and help each other.

They take some pride in their community.

So if they can have all this without income now, why do we need to pay them? How is that not less expensive?

Further, if everybody likes to work, but they can't because we're paying them not to, then how does that help them have pride in their community?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Congratulations.

I don't.

Congratulations. You make it easy for them.

 

[FederalRepublic]

There are employers who make it as difficult as possible to be motivated by work. And, for people who feel that they have no options, it can seem like slavery.

But most people in the right environment respond like teams under good coaches.

Who needs coaches? They're just overpaid assholes who take all the glory. Most teams can get by just fine without them.

 

[PMZ]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Not giving someone something for nothing does not make them poorer, but you've floated this particular straw man out here several times in this thread.

In answer to your question: You want to pretend that if you make people with a proven track record of success, poorer, it will motivate them to produce even more. I imagine that's less likely.

As I said, people that I know work because that's what they believe life is about and happiness comes from. If you have friends that will do nothing unless the pay motivates them, I would look for new friends. Or perhaps you are thinking of yourself.

Somehow you got deluded into thinking that you only work for pay, but others will work for nothing.

Again, your life, your choice. You pick your job, your wife, your skills, your friends and your country. All choices have good and bad consequences. Man up. Choose and stop whining.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Most stores today substitute advertising and branding for competitive prices.

And they still don't get to tell you what price you will pay for something.

 

[PMZ]

And they still don't get to tell you what price you will pay for something.

Nobody does. You are free to consume or not. You are just not free to consume and not pay. You're looking for a free ride. There are none. You play, you pay.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

People aren't paid for not working. We put a floor under poverty. We say that families dying in the streets or having to rely on prostitution or drug dealing or theft is unacceptable. We don't throw away people without giving them a chance.

You may disagree. Your choice. Your choice is to accept a role in our democracy, or move someplace else. It's really just that simple. You are in control but no choice is free.

People are paid for not working. What do you think unemployment compensation is? People who are working don't qualify for it. Throw in disability pay for people who are perfectly capable of working and you've got the ultimate unfairness--millions of people sitting on their asses getting the paychecks that someone else (who may or may not be rich) earned.

You may think that's a good thing--that paying people not to work will motivate them to be more productive citizens. That's your choice. Maybe your grandchildren will end up on the dole. They might even thank you for your support. It won't help them get a job, but they'll be more comfortable in their poverty.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Nobody does. You are free to consume or not. You are just not free to consume and not pay. You're looking for a free ride. There are none. You play, you pay.

Unless you don't have a job, in which case it's all good. Just enjoy it. We'll pick up the tab.:beer:

 

[Oozlefinch]

Free enterprise works because it inspires people to be inventive and market driven inspired by greed.

So if I decide to quit my job and start my own computer business, that is "greed"?

If I want to charge as much as I can for my services, that is "greed"?

How many times have you given your services away? How many times have you told your boss "No, I do not want a raise, that would be greedy"?

Hypocrite.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I thought that you were an advocate for freedom? Seems like what you want is freedom for people to impose what's best for them on others with no regard for all of those others. The wild west. Afghanistan. Somalia.

Been there done that. If you ever make progress down that road here, I'm leaving.

Do you even know what Somalia was? What the fighting there was all about?

No, I did not think so. It just sounded like something to say, apparently not know what that was all about.

And been there, eh? Yea, right. You are more then welcome to leave though. Try North Korea, China, or Cuba. All are Marxist Paradises, right?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Why do you think that businesses love high unemployment. Because it restricts employee freedom.

Funny, every business I ever worked for hated times like that, because it greatly reduced the number of customers we could sell our goods and services to.

In fact, high unemployment is often the death to most businesses. Go look around Detroit, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, or Vallejo, or even worse, Reno.

I used to go to Reno fairly regularly. Now, it is almost recognizable, huge areas of downtown are now just boarded up buildings.

Yea, you are so right, businesses love high unemployment, it makes them rich.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

There must be a reason that they have to hire others to do the work. Very often it's because they don't know how.

Most of the time, it is because they are so successful they can not do it all alone.

Then the other times, it is to acquire people with skills they do not have.

For an example of the first, I will take a computer shop I worked at in Alabama. When I started, the owner employed myself and one other person. He did about 30% of the actual work, I did 70%. The other employee was a secretary-bookkeeper. He knew how to do his own books, but it was more efficient to have her do it, as well as answer phones, run the register, things like that.

I was the "heavy hitter" when it came to the hands-on work. He was a 66 year old retired motorcycle mechanic, who was doing this as a retirement job, so he could keep working (he owned the motorcycle shop next door so could easily retire to a life of leisure, but he loved to work). I was the technician from LA with 20+ years in everything from video editing systems, networking, and hardware. I did good work, and was well paid for it.

In fact, the first 5 years he ran his store he never turned a profit. He continued to do it because he was not ready to retire yet, plain and simple.

Then we have another example, the company I work for now.

The founder and CEO came from the pay phone industry. He knew how to run pay phone systems, he had worked all areas of that industry for years. But that was dying, and he decided to bid on a contract for a local county.

He hired 2 programmers he knew, and they worked out a new VOIP system. Then he hired more people, networking specialists, more VOIP, then eventually hardware fabricators, designers, and over 2 dozen programmers. Customer service personnel to handle questions and problems from customers, IT people like myself to keep everything working properly, accountants, lawyers, and all the other type of personnel you would expect in a company with over 150 employees.

Now could he do my job? No, he would not know a SUDO from a Sub Sandwich. And I think if I tried to explain the difference between SCP and TFTP his eyes would glaze over. But he does not have to know that, it is why he hired me. He also does not have to know all the intricacies of contract law, that is why he hired a lawyer, to do that for him.

 

[Slyhunter]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

As I said, people that I know work because that's what they believe life is about and happiness comes from. If you have friends that will do nothing unless the pay motivates them, I would look for new friends. Or perhaps you are thinking of yourself.

Somehow you got deluded into thinking that you only work for pay, but others will work for nothing.

Again, your life, your choice. You pick your job, your wife, your skills, your friends and your country. All choices have good and bad consequences. Man up. Choose and stop whining.

Dude you live in fantasy land.
Most jobs suck.
I work to support my family.
I hate my job. Listening to people with more money than sense complain about not getting their over priced football jersey's in 24 hours because they were too lazy and stupid to order the stuff earlier. I loved my old job but I was replaced by the internet. I can't get paid doing the things I enjoy doing so I do the things I get paid to do and try to enjoy life outside of work.

Someone has to take out the garbage. Not everyone can work their dream job.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Only because the cow, who's doing all of the work, is too stupid to object.

So you would call workers "cows" in order to maintain your disingenuous line of nonsensical drivel?

The "cow" is a business and the proceeds of the business go to the owner of the business whether he's the only person who works in the entire business or whether he hires people to perform tasks in his business. If you own the business, you own it's proceeds. If you supply the labor, you own the pay you contracted your for. Workers get what they agree to. Business owners get business profits. This is only hard to understand if you are trying really hard not to get it. No one can honestly be that stupid.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I wasn't going to do this because I'm embarrassed for you, but since you asked...

The fact that you think:

• Business owners are all rich
• They never bet more than they can comfortably afford to lose (because they don't have to)
• They have zero risk
• They accumulate wealth rather than produce it
• They don't work (because, presumably, they don't have to?)
• They never bothered to learn the skills that it takes

I've come to the conclusion that this is the result of willful ignorance. I don't think anyone could actually believe all that ignorant nonsense.

 

[Federalist]

How does removing the regulations we posted about earlier not remove a great deal of bodily protection?

It depends on the specific regulation. In my opinion, the only legitimate regulation are prohibitions against the unconsented to (or uninvited) change in the physical integrity (or use, control or possession) of another's body or property. Therefore, I would not propose eliminating any such regulations. I would, however, propose eliminating regulations that control acts not prohibited by the above.

 

[Arbo]

We need to get business out from under their current conservative management and back to growth ASAP.

Where do you come up with this claptrap? Seriously, it is some of the most insane crap this site has ever seen. .

 

[polgara]

One thing that you and I certainly agree on is the destructiveness of Bush's debt. Inflation had finally made our WWII debt payable and Bush was advised to do it. He chose not to and instead launched all of the policies that created the $17T debt.

Inflation is how that too will become payable in a few generations. But, we have to pay the debt service on his wars and tax cuts and Great Recession.

So far every indication is that the way that the whole Bush mess has been dealt with has been masterful. In fact I read the other day that Fannie and Freddie are pumping about $50B per yr into the treasury and will soon pay off our investment in saving them.

The big not surprising funding problem that we have is in our bloated unaffordable health care and health insurance non systems and their impact on Medicare.

ACA is the first drop in the bucket but hardly even a start at what's required.

And all of that in the face of the largest project ever undertaken by mankind. Energy conversion to sustainable. That will make WWII look like a walk in the park economically.

We need to get business out from under their current conservative management and back to growth ASAP.

Jobs for everyone is possible and necessary. We just need to find the imagination to do it.

Greetings, PMZ. :2wave:

I fail to see how one administration's debt is more destructive than another, which is an interesting point of view. Both parties have brought us to the edge of the cliff we are looking at. If you want to single out Bush's debt, then perhaps you can explain why Obama has already added more debt in five years than Bush did in eight years? And Obama has three years yet to spend, which he is doing. Those are facts that are easily verified. I might wish that wasn't the case, for all our sakes, but it is.

It would take more than this post to argue the other points you made in your post, so I won't bother, but until we agree that we all need to work together to handle this debt problem, we are just pointing partisan fingers and nothing gets handled, which is affecting all of us, and it's going to get worse, not better!

 

[PMZ]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

People are paid for not working. What do you think unemployment compensation is? People who are working don't qualify for it. Throw in disability pay for people who are perfectly capable of working and you've got the ultimate unfairness--millions of people sitting on their asses getting the paychecks that someone else (who may or may not be rich) earned.

You may think that's a good thing--that paying people not to work will motivate them to be more productive citizens. That's your choice. Maybe your grandchildren will end up on the dole. They might even thank you for your support. It won't help them get a job, but they'll be more comfortable in their poverty.

I see that you're upset that our recovery from Bush's Great Recession wasn't more traumatic for everyone. We could have followed Europe's austerity path to nowhere. We could have let the economy fall further. We could have recreated the Great Depression with people taking the final dive out their office window. We could have done nothing and let whatever happens happen. We could have solved the problem of falling revenue by forcing it to fall further. There are many stupid dysfunctional things that we could have done.

But the American electorate considered the state of the country in 2008 and concluded that we would, instead, put things back together. Recover. Act. Solve problems. Be responsible.

And it worked. Of course we couldn't pay Bush's $17T in unpaid war, tax cut, and Great Recession bills. We couldn't force business to hire back the American workers whose jobs they sent overseas or recruited cheap labor across the border to replace.

So we put America back on its feet and you were hoping for the conservative free fall to continue.

Why?

 

[PMZ]

Where do you come up with this claptrap? Seriously, it is some of the most insane crap this site has ever seen. .

It is different than Republican propaganda, isn't it.

 

[PMZ]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Paying people not to work is not an investment. It's throwing good money after bad. The only thing gained by the investor is the expectation that they will continue to provide a living for someone isn't willing to do it himself.

The evidence of this is......?

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Besides the loss of a potential market?

What, exactly, does "high demand" mean to you?

 

[PMZ]

Who needs coaches? They're just overpaid assholes who take all the glory. Most teams can get by just fine without them.

I rate this as the most revealing post that you've done.