• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

PMZ said:
Employees have lots of choices. Customers have lots of choices. The electorate has lots of choices. And, they are all the middle class. The same people. Any one of those groups could shut your business down in a heart beat. Then work for, buy from, elect, your competition.

You are one. They are many. They can easily live without you. You can't live without hem.
Click to expand...

I'm going to remember this post the next time you whine about businesses not hiring people.
 
Arbo said:
Not sure which of the two PMZ is, I'd guess #2. Only due to statements made by that person leading you to believe they are incapable of success.

As to #1, that type goes right to the old saying, "Socialism is for the people, not the socialist." What they don't seem to understand is they are 'the people' too and will be forced to live the 'poor' they wish on others.
Click to expand...

I think that our $ 17 trillion, and climbing, debt will soon make the decision for us. The Fed has kept interest rates too low for too long, but what will happen to inflation when those rates rise? Most of the tax money collected will be used to pay the interest on that debt, leaving little for the social programs people depend upon. That is the scenario that scares me. When you have three or four generations living in one household that know no other life but government dependency, it won't be something good. Then the outraged hue and cry will be "Why wasn't something done to correct this?"

Greetings, Arbo. :2wave:
 
Papa bull said:
Where do you pull these idiotic assumptions from? Understanding reality doesn't equate to a "low opinion of my species". I just told you how things work in the real world. You seem to almost... ALMOST... get it. People get paid what the job they are doing is worth and the skills they have learned are what qualify them for these jobs. If the "useful skills" aren't worth much, they don't get paid much. Others, like Doctors and Lawyers get paid a lot more. Acknowledging that reality doesn't equate to a "high opinion of my species", either, by the way. Reality is just reality.
Click to expand...

Having a useful skill is a great thing. In order for a skill to be useful for making money, it must be useful to someone else who has money. That's true whether you are a business owner or a worker.
 
Federalist said:
Nope. No Somalia. I never said that I advocate anyone being allowed to make an unconsented to (or uninvited) change in the physical integrity (or use, control or possession) of anyone's body or property. I am very much in favor of government protecting the person and property of the citizen.
Click to expand...

How does removing the regulations we posted about earlier not remove a great deal of bodily protection?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

FederalRepublic said:
And when I think I'd already read the most nonsensical thing I'd ever seen, I see this little gem.
Click to expand...

You would think that it would be possible to explain what's nonsensical about it.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

FederalRepublic said:
I'm going to remember this post the next time you whine about businesses not hiring people.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that businesses love high unemployment. Because it restricts employee freedom.
 
polgara said:
I think that our $ 17 trillion, and climbing, debt will soon make the decision for us. The Fed has kept interest rates too low for too long, but what will happen to inflation when those rates rise? Most of the tax money collected will be used to pay the interest on that debt, leaving little for the social programs people depend upon. That is the scenario that scares me. When you have three or four generations living in one household that know no other life but government dependency, it won't be something good. Then the outraged hue and cry will be "Why wasn't something done to correct this?"

Greetings, Arbo. :2wave:
Click to expand...

When that time comes, it's gonna get ugly. And in the densely populated areas first.
 
PMZ said:
How does removing the regulations we posted about earlier not remove a great deal of bodily protection?
Click to expand...

Because civil and criminal laws regarding liability would still exist. Prospective punishment deters crime, no?
 
PMZ said:
Free enterprise works because it inspires people to be inventive and market driven inspired by greed. The most reliable of human emotions.

Capitalism vs socialism are both necessary economic tools. Capitalism allows wealthy people to contribute to economic growth. It works only when effective competition can be reliably maintained.
Click to expand...

In that case, why would you insist on having the government prop up failures and suppress competition?

PMZ said:
IMO what's become dysfunctional about capitalism is trading in equities. It creates no value for anyone but moves billions of dollars around the table. It is dysfunctional in that it pretends that people with zero knowledge of, or long term stake in, the business, are somehow overseeing it. The result is out of control compensation for executives.

To me, the need for regulation is intuitively obvious.

"It is explained by government interference in property rights and the market."
Click to expand...

There is no experience without this in the entire world in modern times except in tiny local markets. Free markets virtually no longer exist.
Click to expand...

So maybe it bears repeating...

"It is explained by government interference in property rights and the market."
Click to expand...
 
polgara said:
I think that our $ 17 trillion, and climbing, debt will soon make the decision for us. The Fed has kept interest rates too low for too long, but what will happen to inflation when those rates rise? Most of the tax money collected will be used to pay the interest on that debt, leaving little for the social programs people depend upon. That is the scenario that scares me. When you have three or four generations living in one household that know no other life but government dependency, it won't be something good. Then the outraged hue and cry will be "Why wasn't something done to correct this?"

Greetings, Arbo. :2wave:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Papa bull said:
If you own the cow, the milk is yours. Whether you milk it yourself or pay someone to milk it doesn't matter. It's still your milk because it's your cow.
Click to expand...

Only because the cow, who's doing all of the work, is too stupid to object.
 
FederalRepublic said:
In that case, why would you insist on having the government prop up failures and suppress competition?



So maybe it bears repeating...
Click to expand...

Regulation isn't preventing free markets. Modern business practices do.

Try going into Walmart and negotiating the price of something.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

PMZ said:
Taxes are not taken from you without your freely made decision to live here. Just like all commercial transactions, once you decide to consume, you are obligated to pay.
Click to expand...

The bolded is a fair point. However, it is most definitely not a commercial transaction. In a commercial transaction, if your money was simply taken and given to someone else (without giving you any benefit in return), you'd be able to take legal action against the other party. If Harry Reid sends my tax dollars to his brother-in-law so he can buy a party boat, I have no legal recourse because people like you have interpreted the constitution to mean that our money is his to spend as he sees fit.

Honest question: How in the world do you not see the danger in that?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

PMZ said:
Why do you think that businesses love high unemployment. Because it restricts employee freedom.
Click to expand...

Businesses don't love or hate high unemployment. They like to make money. Just like you & me. Democrats love high unemployment though. If you want more of something, subsidize it...
 
PMZ said:
It's not my data or graph. Similar analyses are all over the Internet. I would call it common knowledge.

People who deny it are just not well informed or benefiting from that reality and afraid acknowledging it will burst the bubble.

Life in this crowded overly connected world is way too problem prone and risky for anyone to afford to ignore big potential problems.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the graph...
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

FederalRepublic said:
The bolded is a fair point. However, it is most definitely not a commercial transaction. In a commercial transaction, if your money was simply taken and given to someone else (without giving you any benefit in return), you'd be able to take legal action against the other party. If Harry Reid sends my tax dollars to his brother-in-law so he can buy a party boat, I have no legal recourse because people like you have interpreted the constitution to mean that our money is his to spend as he sees fit.

Honest question: How in the world do you not see the danger in that?
Click to expand...

There is danger in that. What's the alternative?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

FederalRepublic said:
Businesses don't love or hate high unemployment. They like to make money. Just like you & me. Democrats love high unemployment though. If you want more of something, subsidize it...
Click to expand...

There is only advantage to individual businesses of high unemployment. In fact the perfect world for a particular business is growing rapidly while others are shrinking.
 
polgara said:
I think that our $ 17 trillion, and climbing, debt will soon make the decision for us. The Fed has kept interest rates too low for too long, but what will happen to inflation when those rates rise? Most of the tax money collected will be used to pay the interest on that debt, leaving little for the social programs people depend upon. That is the scenario that scares me. When you have three or four generations living in one household that know no other life but government dependency, it won't be something good. Then the outraged hue and cry will be "Why wasn't something done to correct this?"

Greetings, Arbo. :2wave:
Click to expand...

The answer will be "There were too many PMZ's who thought that wealth could be created by spending our children's future earnings to give to the unproductive." Even though I'll be saying "I told you so," it will still be very sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom