Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:04:31 -0700, "Charles Momsen"
wrote this crap:

Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?



Easy question. And just like Jeopardy, I shall answer in the form of
a question.

Who are liberal idiots?




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

Charles Momsen wrote:
Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?


Hmmm, sounds like you're comparing the Obama and McCain tax plans. How
about if we look at McCain's plan? In the Bush cuts, the top 1% (over
roughly $200K) got a 3.4% while the middle class was "bought off" with
about 1.5%. Now McCain wanted to repeat this with a 0.5% cut for the
middle class, but a 1.6% cut for the rich. If we look at the super-rich
(top 0.1%, over about $500K) the Bush cut was 5%, and the proposed
McCain cut was 2.1%.

Thus the net of the two cuts is 2% (of total income) for the middle
class, 5% for the rich, and 7.1% for the super-rich. Why is this not
the rich being selfish? Why is this not socialism in reverse? What
would that be called- Feudalism?

Before the Rush Limbaugh crowd starts ranting about how the top X% pays
99% of the taxes, let me remind you that the top 60-70% actually pays
about the same percentage of their income after you include the state
and local taxes. The rest of the population is in school, the military,
or jail.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
Charles Momsen wrote:
Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?
Hmmm, sounds like you're comparing the Obama and McCain tax plans. How
about if we look at McCain's plan? In the Bush cuts, the top 1% (over
roughly $200K) got a 3.4% while the middle class was "bought off" with
about 1.5%. Now McCain wanted to repeat this with a 0.5% cut for the
middle class, but a 1.6% cut for the rich. If we look at the super-rich
(top 0.1%, over about $500K) the Bush cut was 5%, and the proposed McCain
cut was 2.1%.

Thus the net of the two cuts is 2% (of total income) for the middle class,
5% for the rich, and 7.1% for the super-rich. Why is this not the rich
being selfish? Why is this not socialism in reverse? What would that be
called- Feudalism?

Before the Rush Limbaugh crowd starts ranting about how the top X% pays
99% of the taxes, let me remind you that the top 60-70% actually pays
about the same percentage of their income after you include the state and
local taxes. The rest of the population is in school, the military, or
jail.


Nope, I'm asking a straight forward question.

You done of very poor job of trying to address the first half while
completely ignoring the second half.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your tv, sells it and uses the
money to feed the poor did he commit a crime?

Are you being selfish for wanting your tv back?

Are you being selfish in demanding the burglar be prosecuted?

Is it not a crime if you can easily afford a new tv?

Charles Momsen wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message ...
Charles Momsen wrote:
Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?
Hmmm, sounds like you're comparing the Obama and McCain tax plans. How
about if we look at McCain's plan? In the Bush cuts, the top 1% (over
roughly $200K) got a 3.4% while the middle class was "bought off" with
about 1.5%. Now McCain wanted to repeat this with a 0.5% cut for the
middle class, but a 1.6% cut for the rich. If we look at the super-rich
(top 0.1%, over about $500K) the Bush cut was 5%, and the proposed McCain
cut was 2.1%.

Thus the net of the two cuts is 2% (of total income) for the middle class,
5% for the rich, and 7.1% for the super-rich. Why is this not the rich
being selfish? Why is this not socialism in reverse? What would that be
called- Feudalism?

Before the Rush Limbaugh crowd starts ranting about how the top X% pays
99% of the taxes, let me remind you that the top 60-70% actually pays
about the same percentage of their income after you include the state and
local taxes. The rest of the population is in school, the military, or
jail.


Nope, I'm asking a straight forward question.

No, you asked a rather abstract question. Until you add specifics, the
question of "ownership" is vague. For instance, if you don't pay your
taxes do you deserve to own anything?


You done of very poor job of trying to address the first half while
completely ignoring the second half.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your tv, sells it and uses the
money to feed the poor did he commit a crime?

Is that what you're really talking about? If so can you give an example
of of a case where someone claimed it was not a crime?


Are you being selfish for wanting your tv back?

Are you being selfish in demanding the burglar be prosecuted?

Ah! So you're advocating for prosecuting BushCo.


Is it not a crime if you can easily afford a new tv?


So, do you have a real point?

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
Charles Momsen wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message ...
Charles Momsen wrote:


Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?


Nope, I'm asking a straight forward question.

No, you asked a rather abstract question.

Usually abstract questions have fairly simple, concise answers. That's
because they deal with principles, not specifics.


Until you add specifics, the question of "ownership" is vague.

Once you understand the meaning of "selfish", which I think you do, the
answer is quite obvious. I believe you know the answer but are trying these
contortions to evade it.


For instance, if you don't pay your taxes do you deserve to own anything?

If you don't own anything, why pay taxes?






You done of very poor job of trying to address the first half while
completely ignoring the second half.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your tv, sells it and uses
the money to feed the poor did he commit a crime?

Is that what you're really talking about? If so can you give an example
of of a case where someone claimed it was not a crime?

I tried to be a bit more specific since you had difficulty with
abstractions. I'm just trying to see if you recognize the abstraction of the
principles of law and property. If someone tried to explain the universe to
you, would you ask for at least two examples?



Are you being selfish for wanting your tv back?

Are you being selfish in demanding the burglar be prosecuted?

Ah! So you're advocating for prosecuting BushCo.

No, I'm just trying to understand why people who earn something and want to
keep it are labelled "selfish" and those who haven't earned it but want it
aren't "selfish".



Is it not a crime if you can easily afford a new tv?


So, do you have a real point?

Yes Jeff, I do. Those people who want something they haven't earned are
beyond selfish, they are greedy. They form a majority (mob) and go and take
want they want by force, claiming it is for the betterment of all (but
really themselves). They claim that those who actually create the wealth are
selfish or even worse but yet they hold no moral standard to themselves. My
point is that the original question was intended to show hypocrisy of their
statements and actions. I also believe you knew what my point was it's just
that you had no argument against it. People are selfish and they act in
their own best interest. The problem here is that those "generous" people as
opposed to those "selfish" people are acting in their very short term best
interest - just like polluters do. Dump a barrel of PCB's in the river, no
one will notice and you make a hundred extra bucks. A few years or decades
down the road lawsuits arrive or the polluter's kid is born with a deformed
head, was it worth the hundred bucks?

One more question for you - what was your point?

"Jeff" wrote in message ...

So, do you have a real point?

I would hope so, you've been arguing against it for some time and with great
effort.