America is not broke...

You realize of course that even if you confiscated all the wealth of those 400 it wouldn't make a dent in this year's deficit. Originally Posted by pjorourke

As it is now, if you'd confiscate all the wealth of those 400, the govt would turn around and spend it plus 40%. THAT'S THE ISSUE.

I claim that premise is unrealistic. Originally Posted by discreetgent

So is the whole discussion, but its my premise and I'm standing by it.

So is the whole discussion, but its my premise and I'm standing by it. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Heh, similar to healthcare where my premise is any solution has to include universal healthcare and you won't accept that premise lol But the discussion is still fun.

Hey, I see that your new governor in Florida is having some issues with the legislature there. It would be amusing to see a Republican governor have his vetos over-ridden by a Republican dominated legislature (and that would be true as well if they were all Democrats).

Heh, similar to healthcare where my premise is any solution has to include universal healthcare and you won't accept that premise lol But the discussion is still fun.

Hey, I see that your new governor in Florida is having some issues with the legislature there. Originally Posted by discreetgent

We never defined "universal healthcare".

But don't change the subject -- answer my question. The "great unwashed" now have an average net worth of $100K and the swells have $20B each -- all numbers in today's dollars.

We never defined "universal healthcare". Originally Posted by pjorourke

You never agreed with my definition, similar to my not agreeing that your question as phrased is anything but fantasy.

I did answer your question, not my fault you didn't like it.

Its no more fantasy than what Doove proposed.

Hmm, I see where Doove posed there was a problem, I missed where he proposed a solution other than his retort about buying power, I assume if he did you will provide me with the link.

ps PJ the notion that another country would invade us is laughable, unless you mean with illegal immigrants. Originally Posted by discreetgent

IDK, given the fact that GWB and Colin Powell sold the idea to the United Nations after 9/11.

Currently, I think there are a handful of countries that might take on the challenge: China; Pakistan; Iran. Probly the only one that could be successful is China, and that is due to sheer numbers.

To quote Ms. Thatcher "the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money". To me that about sums it up.

To quote Ms. Thatcher "the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money". To me that about sums it up. Originally Posted by Rakhir

Good line: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1090306&postcount=5

Looks like the shock therapy Mrs. Thatcher's heirs have given UK isn't working quite like they hoped.

Hmm, I see where Doove posed there was a problem, I missed where he proposed a solution other than his retort about buying power, I assume if he did you will provide me with the link. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Its here: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=20

But its flawed. Doove doesn't seem to understand the difference between wealth and income.

You never agreed with my definition, similar to my not agreeing that your question as phrased is anything but fantasy.

I did answer your question, not my fault you didn't like it. Originally Posted by discreetgent

You asked me to propose a "universal healthcare" plan that had to meet an unrealistic/unaffordable set of specs. I said I couldn't do it.

That is conceptually quite different than asking you to respond to a hypothetical question based on a premise that you thought was unrealistic. The idea with a premise is that you can't question its reasonableness -- its a given.

A long time ago I took a class called Utopias.We discussed people on a dessert island with no money, just skills to trade. There were members of the class that tried to say that everyone should share equally. However, we learned that when some members came up with good ideas or were willing or able to do certain tasks that others were willing to give up privileges to those people to keep them doing those things as long as they got the benefits. Also we learned that some women were willing to befriend those that let them enjoy those benefits and were willing to share in return.
There was a group that insisted that what they did was as important as the rest but there were a not enough that agreed and so did not share. They did not get many women to join them nor the benefits. They were always playing on emotions to try and get the others to split equally, but the women insisted that they wanted to be with the creators of the better lifestyle .

The turning point is when you want to take from the contributors until there is no more gain to contributing and the people on the island fail.

By the way, who is going to say that hot ladies on this site need to give money to lazy women that don't take care of themselves and that dove must be with ugly women half the time just to spread his money around.

A long time ago I took a class called Utopias.We discussed people on a dessert island with no money, just skills to trade. Originally Posted by oden

A long time ago I took a class called "Economics". We discussed how - in the real, non-utopian world - markets are never the simplistic, perfectly efficient models you learned about in high school and how thinking that they are leads you to economic ruin. Among the things we talked about was how women sometimes choose to hook up with a guy because he's nice looking or a decent person rather than because of how much money he makes.

BTW, the guy who taught that class went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Cheers,
Mazo.