Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

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.


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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" 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.

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.

If we take more money from someone who is more well-off than someone who
is less well-off either by percentage

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.

or in a flat-tax fashion, we're basically redistributing the cost of
these vital services. Now, I think it's worth talking about if this is
viable. I don't think it is as a step toward a more fair system of
taxation.

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 you are right in that taxation is the means for such
redistribution.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

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?



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?




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.

DSK

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Dave wrote:
A silly argument on both sides.

Not at all.

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of
accuracy, on the other side we have enflamed illogic &
buzz-words. It's sort of like discussing "sailing" with
somebody who thinks that untying dock lines & motoring
around within a mile of one's slip is the ultimate in
sailing achievement & skill.



The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.
However, when one participant displays such ignorance &
prejudice that there's really no way he's going to be able
to participate, then why not just provide a little
motivation for him to do some further study before jumping
into the ring?


.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security, Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short
of a violent coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those
programs. That leaves intelligent & reasonable discussion to
the amount & specifics of these programs.

Now go ahead and accuse me of making ad-hominem attacks.
It'll make you feel better.

Regards
Doug King

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

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??

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:46:08 -0400, DSK said:

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of
accuracy, on the other side we have enflamed illogic &
buzz-words. It's sort of like discussing "sailing" with
somebody who thinks that untying dock lines & motoring
around within a mile of one's slip is the ultimate in
sailing achievement & skill.



The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.

However, when one participant displays such ignorance &
prejudice that there's really no way he's going to be able
to participate, then why not just provide a little
motivation for him to do some further study before jumping
into the ring?

You weren't listening to Humpty Dumpty.

.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short
of a violent coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those
programs. That leaves intelligent & reasonable discussion to
the amount & specifics of these programs.

I really expected the reader to understand that when I said "whether
specific laws...are wise policy" he would understand I was referring to
the
laws as presently in effect. By talking about "shedding" those programs
you
create an artificial and unnecessary dichotomy. There are, of course,
alternatives to outright repeal of those laws.

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"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.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"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.

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.


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.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
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

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:
A silly argument on both sides.

Not at all.

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of accuracy, on the
other side we have enflamed illogic & buzz-words.

Is a term a "buzz-word" only if you find it to your disliking as it is used?
You tend to define the term "fascist," my young pedant.


The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.
However, when one participant displays such ignorance & prejudice that
there's really no way he's going to be able to participate, then why not
just provide a little motivation for him to do some further study before
jumping into the ring?

When one participant has no defense for his argument, he launches into a
dispute over definitions. A familiar tactic of the intellectually bereft.

.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short of a violent
coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those programs. That leaves
intelligent & reasonable discussion to the amount & specifics of these
programs.

Or the expansion of similar programs, and the love-affair the left has with
such giveaways. It's the primary vote-getter for them, afterall. Without
the ignorant and impoverished welfare-style entitlement recipients
(generall those at the bottom of the voter food chain) the democrats would
be hard pressed to garner 25% of the popular vote.

Now go ahead and accuse me of making ad-hominem attacks. It'll make you
feel better.

No point. I've simply learned to return fire with ad hominems. It's far
easier that way, since you are so stupidly blind to your own faux pas, or at
least in a continual state of denial.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

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

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

"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.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"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