Redistribution of wealth

If you work hard and are good at something that society views as worth only $40,000, you make $40,000. If you work hard and are good at something that society views as worth $400,000, then you make $400,000. The luck comes in with what it is you're good at and how that fits in with what society values. It doesn't mean the $400,000 guy works harder than the $40,000 guy.

. Originally Posted by Doove

Doove you are talking to some brick walls. They think Warren Buffet would be rich in the cave man days. Not the best hunter or the strongest but the guy who was born with poor vision but was good with stock market numbers. They think he would be as rich 1000 years ago as he is today. Even Buffet knows this to be false. Conseratives by nature want to control things, it makes them feel better to think they have some sort of mortal control. You are exposing one of their main fears (control), they will stick their head in the sand like a ostrich before thinking they might not be in charge of their total destiny.

They do not understand that had they been born in the Middle East, most likely they would be Muslim........

Good Luck with this discussion.

Life is choices. Make bad ones you probably won't win even with hard work. Make good choices and work hard, you might win. How is that so difficult to understand? Originally Posted by pjorourke

The right choice is sometimes just a matter of luck.

Being born wealthy is not a choice.

Are you now coming around to understand how inhiertance is just a form of welfare?

Doove you are talking to some brick walls. They think Warren Buffet would be rich in the cave man days. Not the best hunter or the strongest but the guy who was born with poor vision but was good with stock market numbers. They think he would be as rich 1000 years ago as he is today. Even Buffet knows this to be false. Conseratives by nature want to control things, it makes them feel better to think they have some sort of mortal control. You are exposing one of their main fears (control), they will stick their head in the sand like a ostrich before thinking they might not be in charge of their total destiny.

They do not understand that had they been born in the Middle East, most likely they would be Muslim........

Good Luck with this discussion. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF, meet brick wall!!! I don't know any conservatives who advocate control. However, I know a lot of them that advocate free will.

The right choice is sometimes just a matter of luck.

Being born wealthy is not a choice.

Are you now coming around to understand how inhiertance is just a form of welfare? Originally Posted by WTF

Being born wealthy is blind luck, but working hard is a choice. Those who CHOOSE to work hard are rewarded. Those who CHOOSE not to work hard are thus rewarded relative to their productivity.

Poor people are there because they either choose to be there or by circumstance. There are safety nets for those there by circumstance and they have plenty of options available to them to lift themselves back up. If they CHOOSE not to pursue those options, it is not society's problem.

They think he would be as rich 1000 years ago as he is today. Even Buffet knows this to be false. Originally Posted by WTF

And i would guess that Tom Brady knows he wouldn't be as rich as he is if he were born in Finland, and had to become the best ski jumper in the world. But not this gang.

Conseratives by nature want to control things, it makes them feel better to think they have some sort of mortal control. You are exposing one of their main fears (control), they will stick their head in the sand like a ostrich before thinking they might not be in charge of their total destiny.

I disagree. I think they simply want to convince themselves they're rich only because they deserve to be, and the poor are poor only because they deserve to be. For reasons that i think are pretty self evident, given their constant bitching about their tax dollars being used to assist poor people. Oh, they'll rationalize it by claiming the best way to help poor people is to not help poor people. But why stop there? Why not also argue that the best way to help poor people is to cut their own tax rates? I'll give them credit for the brilliant convenience of their argument, but that's about it.

Just for the record, I'm not rich.

Just for the record, I'm not rich. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You mean you're not really P.J. O'Rourke?

Well maybe I am then.

Well maybe I am then. Originally Posted by pjorourke

But he doesn't live in Florida...

I'm wealthy. I have many homes.

"Correcting capitalism" does not involve redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth is socialism. Correcting capitalism is establishing some rules and parameters on the system.

We had a capitalist system in the 40's, back when government checks to people amounted to <5% of expenditures. Now its >50%. That is creeping socialism that is now getting full blown and strangling the system. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So, we should not have bailed out your rich banks, insurance companies and auto industries. We should have let the chips fall where they may. If they went bankrupt, they went bankrupt. This would be socialism for the wealthy.

Being born wealthy is blind luck, but working hard is a choice. Those who CHOOSE to work hard are rewarded. Those who CHOOSE not to work hard are thus rewarded relative to their productivity.

Poor people are there because they either choose to be there or by circumstance. There are safety nets for those there by circumstance and they have plenty of options available to them to lift themselves back up. If they CHOOSE not to pursue those options, it is not society's problem. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Hey, DFW, ever hear of the "working poor?" Your idea that anyone who works hard will get out of being poor is just plain wrong. There are scads of poor people who work hard every day, but never make enough to get out of poverty. If you think people are dying to stay in that position, you're an idiot. They're trapped in that position as if they were in jail. To say the working poor are there because they choose that is just plain ignorant. The working poor generally don't have education. They spend their whole lives in minimum wage jobs (who the rich get richer off of), their kids have a HS education (if they're lucky) b/c they can't AFFORD to go to college. Not b/c they don't want to, but b/c they can't afford to. Your idea of the poor is so wrong you need to be educated. It is quite evident that your idea of the poor is from a wealthy person's (relatively) perspective. There's an old native American concept that you shouldn't criticize until you've walked a mile in another person's moccasins. Same concept as the book, "Black Like Me." I dare you to spend a year (or even a month) in a minimum wage job with no other income, paying rent, utilities, groceries and other necessities, and still get ahead.

As a matter of fact, I doubt you'll take me up on that challenge, so I just challenge you to just put numbers to it. In your area, figure out what the take home would be in a minimum wage job, subtract the monthly necessities (don't even think about health insurance b/c most of the working poor don't get that at work), then throw in a monthly emergency about 4 times a year that brings inordinate health care bills, and see what the net income you have to work with to "get ahead." I think you'll find the net is a negative number.

Just for the record, I'm not rich. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I call bullshit! I've never seen anyone more interested in promoting the agenda of the wealthy on the backs of the poor. You wouldn't do that if it adversely affected you.

Being born wealthy is blind luck, but working hard is a choice. Those who CHOOSE to work hard are rewarded. Those who CHOOSE not to work hard are thus rewarded relative to their productivity.

. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

You do not get it.

There are millions of people that work hard and are not rewarded. Life is not fair. There is nothing that says, hard work = monetary reward.

Is it better than the alternative? I think so but you first have to base your beliefs in reality to understand facts. I believe that hard work is better than welfare. You believe that hard work is always rewarded. It is not. If it were, a 16 hour a day ditch digger would be the highest paid. Or a combat soldier.

I argues that welfare is bad generally, generally bad. Welfare for the poor and welfare for the wealthy.

I believe that one should earn their money. You feel that the wealthies off spring should not have to earn their money. What you wind up with is people that have not earned their money controlling politicians with undue influnce on elections/education. You then wind up with folks like you who are convoluted in their beliefs. They believe welfare is bad .....except for the rich.

You are a product of the system.

Poor people are there because they either choose to be there or by circumstance. There are safety nets for those there by circumstance and they have plenty of options available to them to lift themselves back up. If they CHOOSE not to pursue those options, it is not society's problem. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Look up the definition of a Hobson Choice



Here is a random question.
Do you believe that Wisconsin teachers/state workers should pay a larger % of their health care costs?

Anyone , feel free to answer.
.

You do not get it.

No actually you are the one that doesn't get it.
The only choice, or hobson's choice you would offer in these matters are your opinion, period, end of story. You are not offereing anything other than a liberal ideology. Your side of the aisle offers dependancy, it creates more poor people by taking from the middle class, or the rich as you would call us.

Grow the f**k up...

Life isn't fair? We have a right to PURSUE happiness. If we choose not to PURSUE that happiness, who's fault is it that they get stuck in a cycle of dependency? Is it their fault or the asshole politicians who only offer a Hobson's Choice?

To prove it's the dems who only offer one choice, you may want to look at the light bulbs on the store shelves or the "green technology" choice. Those behavioral "nudges" are the ideas of the left, not the right. Originally Posted by WTF

.

So, we should not have bailed out your rich banks, insurance companies and auto industries. We should have let the chips fall where they may. If they went bankrupt, they went bankrupt. This would be socialism for the wealthy. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I am not a fan of crony capitalism (e.g., the GM bailout, any of the "green" investments, or WTF's hated stadium deals). But I have explained repeatedly that the bank bailouts were a liquidity problem, not a problem with financial loses. (TARP for banks is actually making money for the government.) You apparently are too thick to understand the difference.

I call bullshit! I've never seen anyone more interested in promoting the agenda of the wealthy on the backs of the poor. You wouldn't do that if it adversely affected you.

Yeah you are right. I'm as wealth as Croesus, but I just pretend to be poor so I can waste my day trying to subvert knuckleheads like you.

The Tax system will probably never be to a point where it makes everyone happy. I work hard and do not mind paying my fair share. I do agree with
heidilynnla that it seems that many who pay nothing seem to get money back. My problem wi not the taxes as much as it is the fact that those who never pay seem to be the best at using all the benefits!

Really? That 35% last year sure didn't feel like nothing, and then state and local taxes. I did all the math a little while ago every 1.00 I earn 52 cents goes to tax.

Believe me theres no escaping this absurd situation unless you are low income. Originally Posted by randomuser10

I'd be very curious to see your math. I make well into the six figures almost every year, pay probably $25 - 45k in property taxes, pay some Texas franchise tax, and I doubt my bill is that high (although I do get a depletion allowance for some of my income).