AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

I wonder if he sees that as "wealth transfer?" LOL

0 Replies

Wealth REDistribution is the transfer of wealth from someone who has lawfully earned it to someone who has not lawfully earned it. That wealth, which one receives from the federal government and which one has lawfully earned, is not wealth that has been REDistributed.

For example, if one has received monthly Social Security payments since age 65 that are equal to or less than what one would have received had his Social Security payments prior to age 65 been invested in Treasury 30 year notes until age 65, then those Social Security payments are lawfully earned. On the otherhand, had the Medicare payments one received exceeded what one previously paid into Medicare, then those payments from Medicare would have been unlawfully earned.

Wealth REDistribution is theft. Those who REDistribute wealth are thieves. Those who accept wealth that has been REDistributed to them are receivers of stolen wealth.

For us to be true Americans, we must stop accepting stolen wealth, we must root for everyone to become the best they can be, and we must stop seeking to suppress those who accomplish more than we do. We are all made better off when any among us lawfully make themselves better off. We are all made worse off when any among us unlawfully make others worse off.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

damn right

**** the poor

1 Reply

@djjd62,

No, do not "**** the poor." Help the poor voluntarily by directly--not via the federal government--sharing some of your own wealth with the poor. Do not help the poor by sharing someone else's wealth with the poor. Sharing someone else's wealth with the poor is theft!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

okay, how about

eat the rich

yeah, that's it

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What, exactly, are you waiting for then, Ican?

If you feel you have standing to bring a case forward, do so. Otherwise, it's just empty talk from ya on a message board.

Patience! We are working on it!

0 Replies

@djjd62,

How about earn a living rather than steal one?

"yeah, that's it"

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Yes, ican is taking money from the Federal government without providing a service.

So am I.
However, I served my country for 24 years and receive a pension for it.

Under yours amd Icans definition, does that make me a thief?

Unless I missed something and you are just being sarcastic.
In that case, the question only applies to Ican's definition.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

YOu really don't know what you are talking about most of the time. Social security and Medicare are federal mandates, and any benefit we receive are established by the same government that took our money when we had income.

That's not a redistribution of wealth; some get more and some get less than they paid into it. Until several decades ago, blacks who paid into social security never benefited from the system, because their life expectancy was less than retirement age, and we're talking the majority of blacks.

It should work like an insurance program, but our government has failed to make the necessary adjustments in taxes and benefits for the fund to sustain itself beyond some future year when there won't be enough to pay out the benefits at 100%. They are a bunch of incompetents that only look out for themselves and their own salaries and benefits.

You are not only stupid, but ignorant of this issue.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

No, do not "**** the poor." Help the poor voluntarily by directly--not via the federal government--sharing some of your own wealth with the poor. Do not help the poor by sharing someone else's wealth with the poor. Sharing someone else's wealth with the poor is theft!

The reason that programs got created to help the poor through taxation, is that not enough people were helping the poor through voluntary action. What you presrcribe here didn't solve the problem, didn't even come close to.

And I suspect that it is not designed to, not near as much as it is designed to give you a feeling of beneficence. Republicans like the idea of a society in which they are rich, and they support the poor out of their largess. It suits their black-white view of the world, their Randian fantasies that they are inherently better than those who are worse off then themselves.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

i earn a living, and pay my taxes, no questions asked, i also consume and contribute to the economy, i try not to ask the government for anything, but appreciate that it's there if i needed it, and don't mind paying towards it

but then i'm one of those communists, oh sorry i meant on of those canadians

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The likes of ican thinks voluntary helping of the poor works, because he's never been in that situation. Many families after the depression were poor, and needed government handouts to survive. ican et al doesn't understand what it means to be a parent with children and no job. Their humanity is non-existent, and their philosophy about humanity absent from their brains.

My father died when I was two years old, and our family received government assistance. Today, all of my siblings have contributed to our society; even our children are 'professionals' and paying taxes to assist those without jobs with extended benefits to feed their families. That's what America is all about, but ican et al doesn't understand any of it. They talk about "self sufficiency" as if it's a choice in a recession. They're blinded by their own greed, and phuck those who doesn't have a job.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So am I. However, I served my country for 24 years and receive a pension for it.

Wealth REDistribution is the transfer of wealth from someone who has lawfully earned it to someone who has not lawfully earned it. That wealth, which one receives from the federal government and which one has lawfully earned, is not wealth that has been REDistributed.

You, mysteryman, have lawfully earned what the government is paying you. Therefore, you are not a recipient of wealth REDistribution.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

All those now unemployed will receive unemployment benefits. They paid unemployment insurance while they worked, but in this recession, it's almost impossible to find another job. It's up to our government in these situations to provide for the "general welfare" of our society.

This is not the redistribution of wealth; it's our society protecting others who have been impacted by this recession through no fault of their own. The majority of these people want jobs to pay their own way; that's a simple fact.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
So am I. However, I served my country for 24 years and receive a pension for it.

Wealth REDistribution is the transfer of wealth from someone who has lawfully earned it to someone who has not lawfully earned it. That wealth, which one receives from the federal government and which one has lawfully earned, is not wealth that has been REDistributed.

You, mysteryman, have lawfully earned what the government is paying you. Therefore, you are not a recipient of wealth REDistribution.

Do you support ending thing such as the Child tax deduction, mortgage tax deductions, and other items of this nature? After all, it represents savings that you didn't earn. Have you ever claimed any of these deductions?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

All you've done is post a Washington Post article. Show me where it says it's "wealth transfer?" Your definition is suspect until you provide proof.

Now that is funny!

If the evidence doesn't explicitly state a wealth REDistribution is a wealth REDistribution, then you act like you think a wealth REDistribution ain't a wealth REDistribution.

I bet none of this evidence of wealth REDistribution by the federal government actually calls that wealth REDistribution, wealth REDistribution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092800900.html
TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1424&tab=summary
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You're the one making that distinction, not me! Since you call it wealth redistribution, show us where in any of the TARP and stimulus bill where it is wealth redistribution?

Listing the legislation tells us nothing about where the wealth redistribution is occurring. You need to show us which sentence or paragraph supports your claim that they are wealth redistribution?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The reason that programs got created to help the poor through taxation, is that not enough people were helping the poor through voluntary action. What you presrcribe here didn't solve the problem, didn't even come close to.

False!

The reason that programs got created to help the poor through taxation, is that too many politicians believed "not enough people were helping the poor through voluntary action."

Roosvelt's failure to rescind both Hoover's huge income tax increase and Hoover's Smoot-Hawley tariff, is a major cause of what would have otherwise merely been a recession that private charities--like the Salvation Army, established in 1878--could have quite adequately helped people recover from. Instead, Roosevelt governed over a terrible depression 1933 up to 1941 and WWII. Furthermore, prior to 1941, Roosevelt's wealth REDistribution programs greatly reduced employment far more than it would have otherwise been, reduced the net income of those who were employed, reduced the amount of that income they could invest in 30 year Treaury Notes--or other better investments--for retirement, and greatly increased the national debt.

Think about it! There is a scary parallel between what Republican Hoover and Democrat Roosevelt did that did not work, and now what Republican Bush and Democrat Obama did and are doing that did and does not work.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, You're blind in your own stool! We still have the Salvation Army and many other charitable organizations. They are short of funds, because of this recession, and more middle class families are dependent upon them to shelter and feed them. Without government involvement, we will have those same families out in the streets of America.

You're an idiot!

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you support ending thing such as the Child tax deduction, mortgage tax deductions, and other items of this nature? After all, it represents savings that you didn't earn. Have you ever claimed any of these deductions?

False!

Reductions of the taxes some people pay is not wealth REDistribution. However, it is not securing equal protection of the law for all Americans:

Quote:

Article IV.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Only one tax, a flat tax of say 10% on gross income without any deductions, exemptions, and refunds, would be fine with me.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know