"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't
recall that provision in the Constitution.


Think for half a second.

The gov't takes money away from some people in taxes, or reduces their
wealth thru inflation by printing money.

The gov't then spends money, and obviously some it finds it's way back
into the same pockets but not all of it.

Therefor, wealth has been redistributed.

Once again I'll ask you to show me where in the Constitution any of that is
provided for. Income tax, a temporary measure at the time it was incepted,
is not a provision of that document, nor is the spending that ultimately
finds its way back into some pockets. Only the creation of currency is a
provision of the Constitution, but the inflation that results is an
undesirable side-effect, not the purpose of the process.

Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a
federally-mandated administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that
administering a federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading
through the ponderous tax codes that exist today.


Do you think that Congress is ever going to willingly *simplify* the tax
code? That would be diminishing it's own power.

Nope. I don't think it will ever happen in your lifetime or mine. It's a
lofty goal, however.


If a Federal sales tax is enacted, it will be cumbersome at best. And the
sales tax is historically shown to have a downward effect on demand out of
proportion to it's numeric value.

Initially, yes, but that effect is mitigated with time. Consumer spending
recovers nicely in every case. A recent example was the institution of a
citywide sales tax in Chicago. Everyone protested, except the Mayor and his
lackeys, but ultimately the buying habits of Chicagoans resumed to
higher-than-before levels. People won't simply do without the goods they
want. They'll bitch, moan, and whine, but they'll buy.


Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from rich people
exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't aware our legal
system only worked in one direction.


If you're already rich, why rob poor people?

Avarice, greed, the desire for greater wealth? Take you pick. Drug dealers
are robbing the poor daily, and leaving them with a monkey-on-the-back
legacy to boot. The daily receipts of those dealers make my income seem
modest by comparison.

Talk sense.

I am. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

And "exploiting" poor people isn't against the law. Shucks, it's
impossible to hire anybody at the minimum wage as it is.

Oh? Have you conveniently eliminated undocumented aliens from this
discussion? Do you think Mexican immigrants--the illegal variety--work for
minimum wage by law??? Or don't you consider them "poor?" Do you fail to
see that this sort of exploitation is actually illegal?

LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off.
Most of the poor that I meet don't work at all.


Right.

I guess all the people who work in Wal-Mart (and almost every other retail
establishment) are all comfortably middle class & above.

Most are, actually. They tend to be retireds or a spouse providing a second
income for the family. Obviously some are working poor and find the
prospect of getting higher-paying employment a major roadblock, but most are
not. You watch to much Network TV.


... But that's not the point--if you wish to give examples of services
that generally benefit the rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more
that benefit only the poor, and typically at the expense of the rich and
middle classes.


You might have a hard time... of course, you're brainwashed to think that
guvmint is givin' away yore hard-earned money to all them lazy welfare
people. But it ain't so. Most federal entitlement programs benefit people
at or above median income, according to the OMB.

That makes about as much sense as curling irons for the bald.

Of course, once the Bush-Cheney administration finishes the job of firing
all the honest auditors & replacing capable career administrators with
rollover lackeys, we won't have that problem.

And you honestly believe that the Clinton administration didn't do likewise?
How about the travel bureau scandal? Politics is politics, Doug. There
ain't no good guy/bad guy in Washington.

Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits.

Maybe for some of them

Doubtful, not that I've ever applied for any, at least not since I've been
out of college and working full time.

I think you have a very mistaken idea about these programs you're
complaining about.

I don't claim to be an expert on federal entitlement programs, but I do know
that a substantial part of the US budget goes to them. And while they may
not comprise the sheer dollar amounts of corporate welfare and other such
expenditures/revenue losses, they aren't insignificant. You've tried to
paint a one-sided picture here, and it just isn't so.


You probably have too high an income to qualify for college tuition
assistance, although there are always grant & loans out there.

They must be paid back. And they charge interest. They are hardly gummint
give-aways.

You might not be able to get food stamps in your county (but you probably
could in some).

If that's the case in NC, you folks have some serious problems down thay-uh.

But AFAIK you can (if you wanted) walk into emergency rooms or county
clinics and get free health care (if you wait in line), get housing
assistance, job placement assistance, etc etc. They don't even ask what
your income is.

LOL. I'm moving to NC right now! I couldn't get any of those things here,
even if I paid off some mid-level bureaucrats.

Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing when I graduated
from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans, all of which I
paid back.


Oh, you went to college, and benefited from the knowledge accrued over
many generations of our civilization? I though you singelhandedly invented
absolutely everything you have & use, made all discoveries yourself, etc
etc.

Now, why don't you talk sense. This is a ludicrous conversation at this
point.

In other words, you have benefitted greatly from our socio-economic
system. Of course, you worked for those benefits and paid for them. OTOH
what if nobody had been willing to loan you the money in the first place?

I was poor--I had no problems obtaining loans. And I worked my way through
college, both during the summers and during the school year.

....I've thought about it at length, and I'm still unable to find and
substance to your claim that I benefit more than the poor from
governmental spending.


No you haven't thought about it, at all. You've reacted with thoughtless
indignation, misinformation, bigotry, and making bigmouth about how you
walked ten miles to school uphill both ways in the snow. Barefoot.

Nice ad hominems, Doug. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist, especially
when you are losing the debate big time.

I've heard it before, it didn't impress me then.

You have mastered the arts of obfuscation, distortion, and redirection--all
worthwhile debating techniques. You also get angry and attack your debater
when your arguments fail, which should be beneath you. That's okay,
actually--I'm growing accustomed to it.

Max