Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Selfishness is not always a bad thing. It sometimes motivates people to well for others. I completely agree. "Selfish" motivates and drives innovation. In any system, "Selfish" should be checked and balanced by strategic regulation and redistribution of wealth. There is nothing wrong with paying back into the system that makes a selfish entity rich. Such redistribution of wealth via taxes keeps the overall system strong. Knowing that you are a Conservative, I would expect you to disagree with the second part, and you should if you are properly playing your part in the system. The bottom line is that no sustainable system can be fully Capitalist or Socialist. Thus, the ebb and flow between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I completely agree. "Selfish" motivates and drives innovation. In any system, "Selfish" should be checked and balanced by strategic regulation and redistribution of wealth. There is nothing wrong with paying back into the system that makes a selfish entity rich. Such redistribution of wealth via taxes keeps the overall system strong. Knowing that you are a Conservative, I would expect you to disagree with the second part, and you should if you are properly playing your part in the system. The bottom line is that no sustainable system can be fully Capitalist or Socialist. Thus, the ebb and flow between the two. Taxes were never ever meant to be a redistribution of wealth. They are meant to provide money to the government to provide basic services to the public. Not to provide money for the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Taxes were never ever meant to be a redistribution of wealth. They are meant to provide money to the government to provide basic services to the public. Not to provide money for the public. But you're talking about pre-WWII United States... The United States that ran on ideals, and a sense of community... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 But you're talking about pre-WWII United States... The United States that ran on ideals, and a sense of community... And who says we can't return to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Taxes were never ever meant to be a redistribution of wealth. They are meant to provide money to the government to provide basic services to the public. Not to provide money for the public. The wealth is being redistributed through government programs. The public receives benefits through these programs. The programs are paid for by all taxpayers, proportionate to how much each earns in the system. Tomato, tomato...or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 And who says we can't return to that? You conservatives are so naive and idealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The wealth is being redistributed through government programs. The public receives benefits through these programs. The programs are paid for by all taxpayers, proportionate to how much each earns in the system. Tomato, tomato...or am I missing something? And I will repeat, that's not what taxes were originally meant for. As soon as you used the word programs you deviated way away from the original purpose of taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 And who says we can't return to that? We literally can't. The New Deal politics brought too much pork barreling in around that time. It changed the political agenda of the United States, and we've since become a world power. Taxes no longer means a method for providing government with funds to provide basic security. Taxes now stands for collecting money for the greater good of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The wealth is being redistributed through government programs. The public receives benefits through these programs. The programs are paid for by all taxpayers, proportionate to how much each earns in the system. Tomato, tomato...or am I missing something? You're implying that wealth redistribution is a basic service provided to the public by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 And who says we can't return to that? Why would you even want to!? Do you suppose Eisenhower's America longed for the 1890's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 You're implying that wealth redistribution is a basic service provided to the public by the government. I'd say it amounts to about the same thing because taxes are paid in proportion to how much one earns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Why would you even want to!? Do you suppose Eisenhower's America longed for the 1890's? That's not the point at all. It's about ideologies. Not returning to some crappy era dominated by stagnant foreign policy. Eisenhower's America didn't long for the 1890's because the 1890's saw a heavily different political movement run by party machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The wealth is being redistributed through government programs. The problems begin when the government programs take away any incentive for individuals on the lower end of the income spectrum to advance themselves personally or professionally. When you are given things simply because you can't afford them, then why bother trying any harder? This is the problem most conservatives have with the idea of redistribution of wealth. And before you start getting on me about not being compassionate, let me reiterate: I want to help the helpless. I don't want to help the clueless. Not to mention...take a look around. You wonder why unemployment keeps going up despite this administration's best efforts to stop it at 8%? In part because the line has been cleanly drawn by this administration on those earning $200K and above. THEY are the ones who are going to be taxed for things like health care. To make matters worse, none of these "wealthy" people have any idea just how bad it's going to be. They only know the WH is spending like a drunk sailor while using embarrassing phrases like "saved or created," and when someone says "How are you going to pay for this?" the response is "Taxing people making over $200K a year." So these "wealthy" people are freezing their spending (either personal or corporate) until they know how much more they're going to have to pay into the system with things like health care and cap-n-trade. When spending freezes, so does the economy, and when the economy freezes, so does hiring. Moronic concepts like Cash for Clunkers is a temporary fix to make it look like the economy is growing...but it's not working. It's pretty clear to most anyone who is not a die hard liberal: this country is about to be balls-to-the-walls FUBAR'ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The problems begin when the government programs take away any incentive for individuals on the lower end of the income spectrum to advance themselves personally or professionally. When you are given things simply because you can't afford them, then why bother trying any harder? This is the problem most conservatives have with the idea of redistribution of wealth. And before you start getting on me about not being compassionate, let me reiterate: I want to help the helpless. I don't want to help the clueless. Not to mention...take a look around. You wonder why unemployment keeps going up despite this administration's best efforts to stop it at 8%? In part because the line has been cleanly drawn by this administration on those earning $200K and above. THEY are the ones who are going to be taxed for things like health care. To make matters worse, none of these "wealthy" people have any idea just how bad it's going to be. They only know the WH is spending like a drunk sailor while using embarrassing phrases like "saved or created," and when someone says "How are you going to pay for this?" the response is "Taxing people making over $200K a year." So these "wealthy" people are freezing their spending (either personal or corporate) until they know how much more they're going to have to pay into the system with things like health care and cap-n-trade. When spending freezes, so does the economy, and when the economy freezes, so does hiring. Moronic concepts like Cash for Clunkers is a temporary fix to make it look like the economy is growing...but it's not working. It's pretty clear to most anyone who is not a die hard liberal: this country is about to be balls-to-the-walls FUBAR'ed. Then move somewhere where you can better make ends meet. You need the system more than the system needs you, so maybe you should respect the overall health of the system and all those who comprise the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Then move somewhere where you can better make ends meet. You need the system more than the system needs you, so maybe you should respect the overall health of the system and all those who comprise the system. You do realize that is the number one fallacy in the relationship between citizens and their government? The very second this myth becomes widely debunked, is the second you start to see a form back to real democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 That's not the point at all. It's about ideologies. Not returning to some crappy era dominated by stagnant foreign policy. Eisenhower's America didn't long for the 1890's because the 1890's saw a heavily different political movement run by party machines. Homey, I understand you're learning this stuff in school and you're really excited about it. I admire that. But the point was that regardless of what's going on, we shouldn't ever be striving for the past. There's literally no end to the reasons why the past is unobtainable, positive and negative, but from a basic point of view, looking to the past does nothing to achieve progress. Isn't progress the name of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Homey, I understand you're learning this stuff in school and you're really excited about it. I admire that. But the point was that regardless of what's going on, we shouldn't ever be striving for the past. There's literally no end to the reasons why the past is unobtainable, positive and negative, but from a basic point of view, looking to the past does nothing to achieve progress. Isn't progress the name of the game? Homey, it was my point. How could you say what the point was? The point was about ideals. It had nothing to do with striving for the past. You need to think beyond the hip and cool Democrat platform to see that change is not always good. And if you think I'm learning about basic American history my last year of an undergraduate program then you're probably more of a moron than I ever thought before. And don't try and talk down to me again, you have already shown us that your intelligence (and arrogance for that matter) is not at a level where you can brandish insults based on age. Edit: And Weren't you the one who once tried to counter an argument with me by making fun of "Swingers"? Didn't you explain that you were only a few years older than me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 You do realize that is the number one fallacy in the relationship between citizens and their government? The very second this myth becomes widely debunked, is the second you start to see a form back to real democracy. Your assertion that we live in a true democracy is a fallacy in itself, but whatever. Don't confuse democracy with a Capitalism. I'm saying that neither a fully Capitalist or fully Socialist economy can be healthy or sustainable. Each side needs the other. A snapshot of our economic policy. tax laws, etc... reveals Capitalist and Socialist aspects. It moves back and forth between the two extremes over time. Getting back to the South Park theme, you're a little bit country and I'm a little bit rock-and-roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Why would you even want to!? Do you suppose Eisenhower's America longed for the 1890's? Why would I want to return to the country being run on ideals and a sense of community? Oh I don't know Beav, it just sound kind of neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Getting back to the South Park theme, you're a little bit country and I'm a little bit rock-and-roll. He shocked Santa's balls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts