It is a hard pressed argument to suggest that providing for schools, education and infrastructures is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution is better reflected in the various entitlement programs and our complex tax code.
It is a hard pressed argument to suggest that providing for schools, education and infrastructures is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution is better reflected in the various entitlement programs and our complex tax code.
Your taxes—that is, your “wealth”—gets taken by the government and is used to fund—that is “redistributed”—various programs and services, such as public education, which are for the benefit of all. In theory, this is the idea behind all taxes from the beginning of time.
In the case of public education, buildings are constructed and maintained, food is subsidized, supplies are bought, salaries are paid and assistance is given (grants and all, particularly in college).
I think you might be trying to limit “wealth redistribution” to a very limited definition, rather than what the term actually means. When you say “socialism” and “wealth redistribution,” what you really appear to mean is “welfare.” Welfare—by which I mean public income and housing assistance—is a program funded by wealth redistribution, but it isn’t the only kind. Anything paid for by taxes falls under this category—even the military.
Here’s the reference from Billy Miller’s favorite bookmark, Wikipedia:
It is a hard pressed argument to suggest that providing for schools, education and infrastructures is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution is better reflected in the various entitlement programs and our complex tax code.
Your taxes—that is, your “wealth”—gets taken by the government and is used to fund—that is “redistributed”—various programs and services, such as public education, which are for the benefit of all. In theory, this is the idea behind all taxes from the beginning of time.
In the case of public education, buildings are constructed and maintained, food is subsidized, supplies are bought, salaries are paid and assistance is given (grants and all, particularly in college).
I think you might be trying to limit “wealth redistribution” to a very limited definition, rather than what the term actually means. When you say “socialism” and “wealth redistribution,” what you really appear to mean is “welfare.” Welfare—by which I mean public income and housing assistance—is a program funded by wealth redistribution, but it isn’t the only kind. Anything paid for by taxes falls under this category—even the military.
Here’s the reference from Billy Miller’s favorite bookmark, Wikipedia:
The term is limited because most people do not view schools and infrastructure as wealth redistribution. The funds are not taken and redistributed to others. Instead they are taken to provide services used by all. Most people would associate entitlement programs as a far more relevant example of wealth redistribution.
The term is limited because most people do not view schools and infrastructure as wealth redistribution. The funds are not taken and redistributed to others. Instead they are taken to provide services used by all. Most people would associate entitlement programs as a far more relevant example of wealth redistribution.
“Most people”? Who is this supposed majority? I seriously doubt you can back up that assertion that “most people” think it means public income assistance, which is what you claim it means, even though it doesn’t.
So, say welfare programs if you mean welfare programs. It’s a perfectly good phrase, and I think you’ll find your points are less muddy.
It’s like how people say “socialism” when they mean “communism,” even though the two aren’t the same thing. Or “capitalism” and “democracy,” which have almost nothing to do with each other, but are frequently used as synonyms by people who like to sound smart, but actually come across as wildly ignorant.
I mean, if we’re going to use pretend definitions, can we at least use pretend words too? Otherwise, this is really going to be really confusing.
travelah said: “The term is limited because most people do not view schools and infrastructure as wealth redistribution. The funds are not taken and redistributed to others. Instead they are taken to provide services used by all. Most people would associate entitlement programs as a far more relevant example of wealth redistribution.”
Good points Mr t. But let us have compassion for Steve. He is a genx-er, brain-washed by socialist professors who never had to go out in the marketplace and support a family the normal way. The professors’ intellectually like socialism, but think they will not be affected by it’s tenacles of high taxation and regulation. WRONG. Everyone will pay a lot more to support the messiah Obama’s programs.
Of course, basic government services are a tradition here, and are not a redistribution of income. Redistribution, socialism, takes place when the private property of working pepople is confiscated and given to those who do not work. Welfare, “entitlements”, fall into this category. Not police, fire, and schools.
Steve, where did you go to college? Warren Wilson? And are you really the offspring of the living Elvis Presley? Everyone knows he is still alive. Where is he now? We are all curious, you know.
The term is limited because most people do not view schools and infrastructure as wealth redistribution. The funds are not taken and redistributed to others. Instead they are taken to provide services used by all. Most people would associate entitlement programs as a far more relevant example of wealth redistribution.
“Most people”? Who is this supposed majority? I seriously doubt you can back up that assertion that “most people” think it means public income assistance, which is what you claim it means, even though it doesn’t.
So, say welfare programs if you mean welfare programs. It’s a perfectly good phrase, and I think you’ll find your points are less muddy.
It’s like how people say “socialism” when they mean “communism,” even though the two aren’t the same thing. Or “capitalism” and “democracy,” which have almost nothing to do with each other, but are frequently used as synonyms by people who like to sound smart, but actually come across as wildly ignorant.
I mean, if we’re going to use pretend definitions, can we at least use pretend words too? Otherwise, this is really going to be really confusing.
I did not state anything about “welfare programs” I stated entitlement programs. Do you know what those are? My points are perfectly clear when you recognize that entitlement programs cover everything from social security to home mortgage interest deductions (as well as other tax code gimmicks) and yes, food stamps and section 8 housing vouchers. They do not include spending on schools and infrastructure unless we point to programs such the Head Start program which is income based. Wealth redistribution is by definition taking from one group and redistributing to other groups. I pay to support schools and benefit from that support. That is not a redistribution of my wealth. I use public libraries. I drive on highways and I depend on the defense capabilities of our government. In other words, funding essential services is not wealth redistribution.
Now, a sliding scale tax code (I hesitate to use progressive for there is nothing progressive about it) constitutes a redistribution of wealth because it takes more from one group proportionately in order to give it to people who have not earned it. That redistributes my income to somebody else with no benefit received on my part. THAT constitutes wealth or income redistribution. When you begin to grasp those definitions you might be able to see through the fog you create when you confuse essential social services with social redistribution.
As for what “most people” would view as wealth redistribution, take a good scientific poll and see.
But let us have compassion for Steve. He is a genx-er, brain-washed by socialist professors who never had to go out in the marketplace and support a family the normal way. The professors’ intellectually like socialism, but think they will not be affected by it’s tenacles of high taxation and regulation.
So what do/did you do for a living, oh hard working namvet??
And why is he not banned yet Steve? He call people names, makes off-topic rants. what, exactly does it take?
Or do you just enjoy him being kind of like your retarded pet?
trav- it is a great discredit to you and your credibility to have namvet buddying up next to you.
possy said: “And why is he not banned yet Steve? He call people names, makes off-topic rants. what, exactly does it take?”
LOL, talk about a person talking off-subject and being a pest on these hallowed forums. Possy, I do hope you are resting comfortably under your troll bridge this fair evening. When the socialist revolution comes to pass, perhaps the good commissars who give out the bennies will take pitty on your sorry self and give you shelter. Until then, be well my friend and buck up! Good is always around the corner!
Those who long for some mythical socialist utopia and cannot make it here in the USA as it is, are to be pittied. Poor souls. Like the Sinatra song New York New York, if you can’t make it here, you can’t make it anywhere. We have opportunity and freedom. A lot more than socialist countries have. God bless America!
Steve, you must be a Warren Wilson graduate, considering your ignorant understanding of socialism. Once more, this country was set up on libertarian principles with small government. Originally, government provided military, police, fire protection for the common good.
According to Wikipedia, “Socialism refers to “public” (read government) control and ownership of the means of production...and the redistribution of wealth. And the government is owned by the voters, since we select the representatives who run the government. So far, that is. If a government becomes socialist, it often steals more and more power from the people until the entire paradigm is reversed.
Socialism is the opposite of the original US Constitution charter. And therefore, it is un-American.
Folks who live in glass houses ought not throw rocks. William is really big on proclaiming the limited intellectual capacity and level of knowledge of others. Where does he stand on this point? Any opinions? The rule of thumb seems to be, when somebody finds it expedient to put others down it’s due to a deep seated inferiority complex. Hummmm.
Steve, you must be a Warren Wilson graduate, considering your ignorant understanding of socialism.
You really, really need to get some education on the subject, Billy. I mean, you don’t even appear to understand what the term means, even in the literal sense. I suggest you ask your Social Studies instructor to fill you in. A lot of these guys are more than happy to take a few extra moments to inform a young man such as yourself. There might even be an AP credit in there for you, lil’ buddy.
And, no, I didn’t go to Warren Wilson. I’d look horrible in dreadlocks.
Good points Mr t. But let us have compassion for Steve. He is a genx-er, brain-washed by socialist professors who never had to go out in the marketplace and support a family the normal way.
Actually, I was mostly educated in South Carolina by repressive, openly racist, badly informed conservatives. Many of them beat their wives and kids, and few of them had any respect for women, foreigners or anyone who wasn’t willing to blame everything on a liberal, gay or minority agenda. They were all deathly afraid of paying a dime more than they had to in taxes. Looking back, they were all a bunch of cowards with little more than rhetoric and fear as weapons, hiding behind patriotism and religion to justify their petty, greedy, violent needs and beliefs.
And they all hated me, even as a kid, because it was pretty easy to see them as the scared, deeply wounded adult babies they really were. They got really defensive when they were called out on it. They said the most idiotic things to back up their arguments. They banded together when I pointed out the obvious flaws in their thinking, the obvious hypocrisies and self-serving denials. It was like trying to debate with agitated baboons.
I’ve got a lot of experience talking to that kind of person.
William P Miller - 28 July 2008 06:26 PM
The professors’ intellectually like socialism, but think they will not be affected by it’s tenacles of high taxation and regulation. WRONG. Everyone will pay a lot more to support the messiah Obama’s programs.
We’re already mostly a socialist country. Do you know what percentage of your tax dollar goes to public-assistance programs? As much as half, depending on who you ask. You’re bickering over the few things that aren’t socialist, rather than the many things that already are.
William P Miller - 28 July 2008 06:26 PM
Of course, basic government services are a tradition here, and are not a redistribution of income. Redistribution, socialism, takes place when the private property of working pepople is confiscated and given to those who do not work. Welfare, “entitlements”, fall into this category. Not police, fire, and schools.
Oh, well if it’s “tradition” that it’s not socialist, we’ll all have to play along.
I suggest you learn what the terms you are using actually mean, and not what Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage think they mean. Your distinction isn’t accurate, it’s arbitrary. It’s not socialist because some imaginary “tradition” says so? Seriously, read up on this stuff. I’m schooling you left and right, and I’m hardly Howard Zinn.
Of course, you probably don’t want to support America’s socialist agenda by using the public library ("Welfare, ‘entitlements,’ fall into this category. Not police, fire, and schools."), so you should really buy your books. And don’t user the pinko Post Office to have it mailed to you. And don’t drive to pick it up, as the DMV and DOT don’t fit your definition, either—better safe than sorry. And pay cash, because the FDIC is also a socialist protection racket, and banks who use it are likely commies.
Did anyone see the Daily Show last night? The “Red State Blue State” bit with John Oliver was pretty much every conversation on the internet these days.
William P Miller - 29 July 2008 12:36 AM
possy said: “And why is he not banned yet Steve? He call people names, makes off-topic rants. what, exactly does it take?”
LOL, talk about a person talking off-subject and being a pest on these hallowed forums. Possy, I do hope you are resting comfortably under your troll bridge this fair evening.
I have never been banned from these forums. Nam vet has been banned, though, along with Vinnie Tomatoes. Both of whom I am willing to put money down are you. If I’m wrong, please prove it. And, now, it appears your newest incarnation (William P. Miller, which magically appeared durring the Agent Miller Episode “Debate")
William P Miller - 29 July 2008 12:36 AM
When the socialist revolution comes to pass, perhaps the good commissars who give out the bennies will take pitty on your sorry self and give you shelter. Until then, be well my friend and buck up! Good is always around the corner!
Those who long for some mythical socialist utopia and cannot make it here in the USA as it is, are to be pittied. Poor souls. Like the Sinatra song New York New York, if you can’t make it here, you can’t make it anywhere. We have opportunity and freedom. A lot more than socialist countries have. God bless America!
Again with the weird, twisted comparison to Obama and Socialism. There is NOTHING SOCIALISTIC about Obama!
It would be great if their was an intelligence test to post on here.
I think Steve is right. I think he’s a High School kid with little parental involvement.
But let us have compassion for Steve. He is a genx-er, brain-washed by socialist professors who never had to go out in the marketplace and support a family the normal way. The professors’ intellectually like socialism, but think they will not be affected by it’s tenacles of high taxation and regulation.
So what do/did you do for a living, oh hard working namvet??
And why is he not banned yet Steve? He call people names, makes off-topic rants. what, exactly does it take?
Or do you just enjoy him being kind of like your retarded pet?
trav- it is a great discredit to you and your credibility to have namvet buddying up next to you.
How is the fallacy of guilt by association a discredit to anybody? There are some things I agree with Mr Miller on and other things I strongly disagree. Now as far as engaging in the ad hominem (which you are objecting to), you have done the very same thing. The administrator of the forum is engaging in acute condescension yet is a participant in a heated thread. Who moderates the moderator and who is defining what is unacceptable behavior?
The administrator of the forum is engaging in acute condescension yet is a participant in a heated thread. Who moderates the moderator and who is defining what is unacceptable behavior?
Who watches the watchmen?
I’m not really moderating anyone for what they say, travelah. If someone was obviously just attacking another poster without some reason or point, or using hate speech or making threats, I’d ban them. But, as long as we’re all following the rules and the intention behind the rules, there’s no reason we can’t all talk like adults—which includes being sarcastic and not taking each other too seriously.
