On the contrary. I have no interest in taking money out of the pockets of
the rich and giving it to the poor. I do have an interest in my fellow human
beings, and I would like to think that most people here have enough humanity
to give someone help if they truly need it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:51:09 -0400, DSK said:

Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid,
etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying
goose-stepping igno-fascists such as yourself. This has
nothing to do with what it really means.

A silly argument on both sides. Take a lesson from Humpty Dumpty.

The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words. It's over
whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy. Discussing what the
meaning
of "is" is may generate a great deal of heat, but it generates no light.

I wasn't the one who brought up the definition issue--Jon and Doug did
that all by their lonesomes. You seemed to have had no trouble grasping
the gist of the issue, as I presented it. Jon and Doug obfuscated the
issue with the definition game because they have no valid argument against
my original premise, that redistribution of personal wealth is a concept
loved by the left and despised by those who have achieved a degree of
success by their own lights.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
heh... ok... well, if we take away all redistribution of wealth, for
example, we would basically eliminate the super-highways in the US. We
would eliminate the military, as well.


Maxprop wrote:
I don't consider infrastructure and military expenses to be
"redistribution of wealth." In fact, I've never heard it referred to in
that manner.


You keep saying you got good grades in Econ 101, then you say ignorant BS
like this.

When the gov't takes money away from citizens and/or business, and then
spends that money on things that the citizens and/or businesses would not
have (or *could* not have) bought on their own, then that is
"redistribution of wealth.

In other words, ALL governments redistribute wealth. It is essential to
the function of government. The only question is, does this or that
particular gov't do so wisely or unwisely?

Nice obfuscation, Doug. But you and Jon know very well that's not what
the discussion is about. It's about taking money (um, that would be
*personal* wealth) from individuals and giving it to others (personal
entitlements). It's a liberal concept fostered by welfare and other BS
entitlement programs. Socialism is a rather succinct example of such
redistribution of wealth. And you liberals just love your socialist
ideology, doncha.

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should they
be allowed to starve to death on the streets? What about the unwed mother
who is 17, because she didn't have access to information about birth
control. What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute
herself to get food for herself and her child?

The odds are that the well-off person is more likely to use
infrastructure to a greater degree than those who aren't so well-off.


Exactly... which is one reason (among many) that progressive taxation of
income is inherently fair. The only question is, how steep should we make
the curve?

Some prominent democrat senators and congressmen were asked by a media
pundit some years back if a 100% marginal tax rate would be fair at the
very highest levels of income. They all replied in the affirmative. Talk
about blatant stupidity. Where exactly does the marginal tax rate obviate
the desire to excel and accumulate wealth? Of course you left-wing
numbskulls aren't concerned about such things, are ya.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying something
like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent my belief and
seems pretty stupid. You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing
numbskull comment, which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I
don't think I've called you a right-wingnut lately.


Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid,
etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying goose-stepping
igno-fascists such as yourself. This has nothing to do with what it
really means.

Only insipid, Kool Aid-drinking, Yugo-driving, liberal,
we-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do fascisti such as yourself would
obfuscate the issue with such pseudo-intellectual prattle. Of course you
have to do so, because you have no valid argument to the contrary.
Redistribution of personal wealth is a concept you leftists love, but
can't support by any logical means. If you were twice as bright as you
think you are, you'd still be stupid.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the space
program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the street, and
all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why are you only
talking about the services you don't like?

I don't know. I don't know much about dogs.

Why limit the discussion to hot-button issues like welfare. If you really
want to discuss redistribution of wealth, you need to look at the superset.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, we have specific laws and/or rules and regs that determine how
money is allocated to the military and to the infrastructure. Why are you
limiting the discussion to the more devisive welfare/social security
question??

Let's see--could it be because that was the segment of such allocations
that we were discussing?

If we were discussing pit bulls, would you infer that everything said
applied to border collies and golden retrievers, too?

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should
they be allowed to starve to death on the streets?

Of course not. Nor should they be encouraged to be homeless by programs
that do so. San Francisco's $425 per month compensation to each homeless
person comes to mind.

What about the unwed mother who is 17, because she didn't have access to
information about birth control.

Hogwash. That's akin to implying that there are crooks who are unaware of
Miranda, despite hearing it on TV a million times over the last 20 years.
Yes, there should be programs for unwed mothers, too, but not ones that
encourage such behavior as the current ones do.

What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute herself to
get food for herself and her child?

The *good* folks in Afghanistan seem to believe that's a satisfactory plan.
See above.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying something
like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent my belief
and seems pretty stupid.

It was during the Kennedy administration. JFK gave us one of the largest
tax breaks in history, reducing the marginal tax rates substantially. Some
of his House and Senate democrats disputed his move--despite that it did
pass both democrat-controlled houses--and were asked what the maximum
marginal rate should be. One reporter asked a few of them if 100% sounded
okay, to which they nodded their heads. Of course it's stupid.

You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing numbskull comment,
which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I don't think I've
called you a right-wingnut lately.

It wasn't directed at you, Jon. And yes, you've been most gracious to us
conservatives of late. My ad hominems are directed at Doug. It's probably
a futile gesture, but I'm hoping that he might begin to see the
pointlessness of name calling.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the
space program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the
street, and all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why
are you only talking about the services you don't like?

Redistribution of *personal* wealth. From one's pocket to another's. It's
a basic tenet of communism. Building infrastructure and military might is
not quite the same thing. Conservatives have no objections to military
spending, infrastructure, the space program, and such provided the
expenditures are controlled, monitored, and wise. The $200 hammers and $50
plastic caps for the legs of B-52 cockpit seats are examples of
less-than-wise, uncontrolled, unmonitored spending.

But to answer your question directly, conservatives believe that people
should take care of their own affairs unless they are unable to do so.
Before my father died, he exhausted the entirety of his estate on nursing
home care. I had to make periodic trips to the Medicaid office on his
behalf, and while there I noticed no shortage of young, healthy males and
females, many of them illegal aliens no doubt, collecting their welfare
checks at the window.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
On the contrary. I have no interest in taking money out of the pockets of
the rich and giving it to the poor. I do have an interest in my fellow
human beings, and I would like to think that most people here have enough
humanity to give someone help if they truly need it.

No argument with that. Many people need help to make it though life.
Charities do their part, and should be encouraged to do so by the government
via tax breaks, etc. Individuals should also be encouraged to help their
fellow citizens in need. But Social Security spent more than $50 million
per year in the 1970s and -80s on TV and newspaper advertising aimed at
finding people who might not be aware that they were *entitled* to SS
benefits, despite their financial status. Talk about wasteful spending.
Fortunately that program was halted.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately
more. An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to
get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes
from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing
it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I don't know. I don't know much about dogs.

Why limit the discussion to hot-button issues like welfare. If you really
want to discuss redistribution of wealth, you need to look at the
superset.

Apples and oranges. Not generic to the discussion as I began it.

Max

Sure do. When you write your check, do you leave out the part that goes to
the military and infrastructure? I'm assuming you don't mind that portion of
weath/benefit redistribution, but feel free to correct me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it
proportionately more. An example is the long commute the less well off
have to endure to get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for
these things comes from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing
it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Max

Not apples and oranges. My tax dollars support a number of wealth
redistribution areas. Perhaps you mean germane not generic? :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I don't know. I don't know much about dogs.

Why limit the discussion to hot-button issues like welfare. If you really
want to discuss redistribution of wealth, you need to look at the
superset.

Apples and oranges. Not generic to the discussion as I began it.

Max

Hold on hoss... tax breaks? Who takes up the slack when some charity gets
the tax break??? You and me. So, putting it off on a charity and then
offering the charity a tax break is a zero sum game.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
On the contrary. I have no interest in taking money out of the pockets of
the rich and giving it to the poor. I do have an interest in my fellow
human beings, and I would like to think that most people here have enough
humanity to give someone help if they truly need it.

No argument with that. Many people need help to make it though life.
Charities do their part, and should be encouraged to do so by the
government via tax breaks, etc. Individuals should also be encouraged to
help their fellow citizens in need. But Social Security spent more than
$50 million per year in the 1970s and -80s on TV and newspaper advertising
aimed at finding people who might not be aware that they were *entitled*
to SS benefits, despite their financial status. Talk about wasteful
spending. Fortunately that program was halted.

Max