Class War Illustrated

[Foxfyre]

Charity is voluntarily giving your own time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

Charity is NOT giving the other person's time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

And therein is your primary difference between modern American conservatism and modern American liberalism.

 

[G.T.]

Charity is voluntarily giving your own time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

Charity is NOT giving the other person's time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

And therein is your primary difference between modern American conservatism and modern American liberalism.

Which is why "Welfare" is not called "Charity," but good rant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Charity is voluntarily giving your own time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

Charity is NOT giving the other person's time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

And therein is your primary difference between modern American conservatism and modern American liberalism.

Which is why "Welfare" is not called "Charity," but good rant.

Really? Well please enlighten me. Tell me the difference between the two.

 

[8537]

Remind us again how you are not an anarchist, reverend?

Now there wouldn't be an ulterior motive in your pretty little Table O' Crap, would there?

He's pointing out (correctly) the direction our discourse is being pushed. Rather than so immediately calling it 'crap,' you should take an honest look at it and revisit who the dopes getting your votes are really advocating for. It's actually quite obvious - Not you.

As one who understands economics, I am a staunch advocate for incentive to investment. Tax incentives for the wealthy are one of the smartest things any economy can ever do.

I also understand that most humans are too petty, too lazy, and too jealous to understand the basic concepts that drive their own success and failures.

So then as "one who understands economics", your thesis would be that when taxes for the wealthiest portion of the population are cut, economic investment increases and when they are raised, economic investment decreases?

And that investment benefits "petty, lazy, jealous" folks who just don't understand this?

 

[MitchMan]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

so you think rich people are on a par with poor in this county ? no special treatment ? WOW

are you rich ?

Generally, every person's income and wealth that they have is theirs and does not belong to the state. That's not legally in dispute, which is to say that most all the time it is legally theirs. The problem is that our economic system is skewed and biased in a way that allows the wealthy to consistently acquire more than their equitable share of income and wealth, legally. Because of this failure of the existing economic system, the only equalizer, so to speak, is a progressive income tax and inheritance tax. Obviously, the tax rates are not progressive enough (nor is the estate tax rate enough) as, particularly since that immoral bozo Reagan's administration and his efforts have exacerbated the situation such that the wealthy keep getting even wealthier and the poor and the middleclass still keep getting poorer ands poorer.

As far as how much money a person should get and should not get, that can't be answered by a specific dollar amount, if that is your question. But the answer is that, for sure, the few at the top have in inordinate amount of the nation's income and wealth while the rest lack an inordinate amount of income and wealth and the easily available stats point that out in spades. It is not necessary to answer your question with an objective amount certain. The answer is in a resolution to the builtin bias of our economic system that would produce a much more equitable compensation level and price level that would then result in a more even level of wealth and income in this country such that there would not be such a lopsided concentration of income and wealth that there is now. And whatever the resultant levels of income and wealth that would be, that would be your answer. What is known is that currently the top 1% own 37% of the wealth and the top 10% own 71% of the wealth. Fixes to our system that would appropriately and systematically result in lower incomes at the top and increase incomes for the rest would be improvements to the economy and for the country as would rolling back certain prices where the cost to produce is far lower than the prices offered and currently obtained. Not saying the everyone should earn exactly the same, not saying that. In a a society as large as ours is, there is room for some appropriate level of disparity in incomes and wealth, but not the current massive disparity that we currently have. So, looking for a certain dollar amount of income limit is not the answer and really not even relevant, but achieving an appropriate market driven economic system that results in more parity is what is desperately required, now!

Private property is fine and is certainly desirable. The right to ownership of property, per se, is not in dispute. Though, certain things that are defined as property need to be revisited and modified legally. For instance, patents and copyrights need to be modified, the length of time that they are allowed to be kept in force in particular. The time period is much to long. Covenants not to compete need to be modified. And, to the extent that current property rights are applied in such a way that allows for legal monopolistic practices by business to go on legally also should be revisited so that such monopolistic behavior can be much reduced or completely eliminated....now! Also, certain things that are subject to protection by patent or copyright should be revisited and possibly eliminated from such protection, or at the very least, protection should be reduced.

BTW, earnings and income are not the same. Earnings are only a subset of income. There are many things that are income that are definitely not earnings. Even the IRS points this out. And, statistically, for the record, the wealthier a person is, the less earnings they have and the more 'unearned income' they have. This is particularly true with the top 1% of taxpayers.

 

[G.T.]

Charity is voluntarily giving your own time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

Charity is NOT giving the other person's time, talent, labor, or property to help another.

And therein is your primary difference between modern American conservatism and modern American liberalism.

Which is why "Welfare" is not called "Charity," but good rant.

Really? Well please enlighten me. Tell me the difference between the two.

One is charity, one is not voluntary which is the antithesis of what "charity" means.

 

[Jarhead]

Which is why "Welfare" is not called "Charity," but good rant.

Really? Well please enlighten me. Tell me the difference between the two.

One is charity, one is not voluntary which is the antithesis of what "charity" means.

And the difference between the two to the recipient?

 

[Foxfyre]

Which is why "Welfare" is not called "Charity," but good rant.

Really? Well please enlighten me. Tell me the difference between the two.

One is charity, one is not voluntary which is the antithesis of what "charity" means.

So if charity is not voluntary then we can't call it charity?

So if I give a person $20 voluntarily, that is charity.

So what is it if the government takes my $20 away from me, uses $10 or $15 for its expenses in taking it away from me, and then gives whatever is left to a person?

 

[G.T.]

Generally, every person's income and wealth that they have is theirs and does not belong to the state. That's not legally in dispute, which is to say that most all the time it is legally theirs. The problem is that our economic system is skewed and biased in a way that allows the wealthy to consistently acquire more than their equitable share of income and wealth, legally. Because of this failure of the existing economic system, the only equalizer, so to speak, is a progressive income tax and inheritance tax. Obviously, the tax rates are not progressive enough (nor is the estate tax rate enough) as, particularly since that immoral bozo Reagan's administration and his efforts have exacerbated the situation such that the wealthy keep getting even wealthier and the poor and the middleclass still keep getting poorer ands poorer.

As far as how much money a person should get and should not get, that can't be answered by a specific dollar amount, if that is your question. But the answer is that, for sure, the few at the top have in inordinate amount of the nation's income and wealth while the rest lack an inordinate amount of income and wealth and the easily available stats point that out in spades. It is not necessary to answer your question with an objective amount certain. The answer is in a resolution to the builtin bias of our economic system that would produce a much more equitable compensation level and price level that would then result in a more even level of wealth and income in this country such that there would not be such a lopsided concentration of income and wealth that there is now. And whatever the resultant levels of income and wealth that would be, that would be your answer. What is known is that currently the top 1% own 37% of the wealth and the top 10% own 71% of the wealth. Fixes to our system that would appropriately and systematically result in lower incomes at the top and increase incomes for the rest would be improvements to the economy and for the country as would rolling back certain prices where the cost to produce is far lower than the prices offered and currently obtained. Not saying the everyone should earn exactly the same, not saying that. In a a society as large as ours is, there is room for some appropriate level of disparity in incomes and wealth, but not the current massive disparity that we currently have. So, looking for a certain dollar amount of income limit is not the answer and really not even relevant, but achieving an appropriate market driven economic system that results in more parity is what is desperately required, now!

Private property is fine and is certainly desirable. The right to ownership of property, per se, is not in dispute. Though, certain things that are defined as property need to be revisited and modified legally. For instance, patents and copyrights need to be modified, the length of time that they are allowed to be kept in force in particular. The time period is much to long. Covenants not to compete need to be modified. And, to the extent that current property rights are applied in such a way that allows for legal monopolistic practices by business to go on legally also should be revisited so that such monopolistic behavior can be much reduced or completely eliminated....now! Also, certain things that are subject to protection by patent or copyright should be revisited and possibly eliminated from such protection, or at the very least, protection should be reduced.

BTW, earnings and income are not the same. Earnings are only a subset of income. There are many things that are income that are definitely not earnings. Even the IRS points this out. And, statistically, for the record, the wealthier a person is, the less earnings they have and the more 'unearned income' they have. This is particularly true with the top 1% of taxpayers.

I agree with this post 1,0000% except that I'd add that our spending as a Government IS grossly mis-managed.

 

[G.T.]

Really? Well please enlighten me. Tell me the difference between the two.

One is charity, one is not voluntary which is the antithesis of what "charity" means.

So if charity is not voluntary then we can't call it charity?

So if I give a person $20 voluntarily, that is charity.

So what is it if the government takes my $20 away from me, uses $10 or $15 for its expenses in taking it away from me, and then gives whatever is left to a person?

Well that depends. Did that person ever pay taxes before? Will that person ever pay taxes again?

As far as I know, Welfare's not ruled by the SCOTUS as UnConstitutional, so . . . . . I'd call it the Government doing its job.

 

[Foxfyre]

One is charity, one is not voluntary which is the antithesis of what "charity" means.

So if charity is not voluntary then we can't call it charity?

So if I give a person $20 voluntarily, that is charity.

So what is it if the government takes my $20 away from me, uses $10 or $15 for its expenses in taking it away from me, and then gives whatever is left to a person?

Well that depends. Did that person ever pay taxes before? Will that person ever pay taxes again?

As far as I know, Welfare's not ruled by the SCOTUS as UnConstitutional, so . . . . . I'd call it the Government doing its job.

Spoken like a committed liberal.

 

[G.T.]

So if charity is not voluntary then we can't call it charity?

So if I give a person $20 voluntarily, that is charity.

So what is it if the government takes my $20 away from me, uses $10 or $15 for its expenses in taking it away from me, and then gives whatever is left to a person?

Well that depends. Did that person ever pay taxes before? Will that person ever pay taxes again?

As far as I know, Welfare's not ruled by the SCOTUS as UnConstitutional, so . . . . . I'd call it the Government doing its job.

Spoken like a committed liberal.

I don't buy into any idealogies. It's like they're all Conspiracy theorists of what the other side is or does. It's like they're all 5 fucking years old.

 

[MitchMan]

I am always amazed at the smugness and unfounded certainty of those coolaid drinkers who repetitiously espouse the following con montra:

As one who understands economics, I am a staunch advocate for incentive to investment. Tax incentives for the wealthy are one of the smartest things any economy can ever do.

First off, genius, only a portion of profits and income saved by such tax breaks is ever invested in anything that produces employment or increases real productivity, even Milton Friedman said that. These tax breaks serve more intensely to exacerbate the already economically unhealthy lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top, especially at a time like this. What is really needed now, genius, is more money in the hands of consumers and to do something about the lopsidedness of wealth and income in this country. The problem right now is not production, genius, it is lack of demand. We are only at 70% of our production capacity right now, you think we need more production capacity? Wow, you have to stop listening to your con leaders such as Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. You know that these people are ignorant, stupid, and lack higher education, don't you?

I get a kick out of the people that say, wow the economy wil improve when we give tax breaks to the wealthy. BTW, is it a good economy if the GDP increases along with an increase in corporate profits and increases in wealth by the top 5% while the compensation level of wage earners in the bottom 85% decreases along with a decrease in their wealth? Genius, would that be a good economy to you? To me, that would not be a good economy. A good economy is one where an increase in GDP and average wages (especially at the bottom) increase and wealth for the bottom 60% increases while wealth at the top increases very, very modestly. Now that's a good economy. Actualy, at times like these, if our economy were structured whereby a recovery rewards the bottom 85% (particularly from the bottom up within that bottom 85%) while rewarding the the top modestly then perhaps a bit more on a sliding scale as parity between rich and everybody else is brought to within healthier and more equitable proportions, that would be a very desirable economic structure, it would be very, very healthy for the economy, and it would be the "smartest thing an economy can ever do".

I think that my smarter thing is smarter than your smarter thing, mini 14, and my smarter thing is much more moral, fair, socially benefiting, and healthier, too.

 

[Jarhead]

One is charity, one is not voluntary which is the antithesis of what "charity" means.

So if charity is not voluntary then we can't call it charity?

So if I give a person $20 voluntarily, that is charity.

So what is it if the government takes my $20 away from me, uses $10 or $15 for its expenses in taking it away from me, and then gives whatever is left to a person?

Well that depends. Did that person ever pay taxes before? Will that person ever pay taxes again?

As far as I know, Welfare's not ruled by the SCOTUS as UnConstitutional, so . . . . . I'd call it the Government doing its job.

You can not define a noun with a verb.

Welfarew is not an action....so whereas you consider it government doing its job....that is fine...but I am curious what you see welfare as if it is not charity.

What should the recipient consider it?

(the answer to that is likely the best way to define welfare)

 

[G.T.]

So if charity is not voluntary then we can't call it charity?

So if I give a person $20 voluntarily, that is charity.

So what is it if the government takes my $20 away from me, uses $10 or $15 for its expenses in taking it away from me, and then gives whatever is left to a person?

Well that depends. Did that person ever pay taxes before? Will that person ever pay taxes again?

As far as I know, Welfare's not ruled by the SCOTUS as UnConstitutional, so . . . . . I'd call it the Government doing its job.

You can not define a noun with a verb.

Welfarew is not an action....so whereas you consider it government doing its job....that is fine...but I am curious what you see welfare as if it is not charity.

What should the recipient consider it?

(the answer to that is likely the best way to define welfare)

It is Foxfrye stating that charity is *only* Voluntary. I'm saying, by his standard then, Welfare is not charity as it is not voluntary.

 

[Jarhead]

Well that depends. Did that person ever pay taxes before? Will that person ever pay taxes again?

As far as I know, Welfare's not ruled by the SCOTUS as UnConstitutional, so . . . . . I'd call it the Government doing its job.

You can not define a noun with a verb.

Welfarew is not an action....so whereas you consider it government doing its job....that is fine...but I am curious what you see welfare as if it is not charity.

What should the recipient consider it?

(the answer to that is likely the best way to define welfare)

It is Foxfrye stating that charity is *only* Voluntary. I'm saying, by his standard then, Welfare is not charity as it is not voluntary.

He is correct.

So what do we call welfare seeing as to the recipirent it is no different than charity...but by definition, it is not charity?

It is an interesting question and quite possiboly would be a valid argument in a court of law.

Although...do not get me wrong....I have no issue with welfare. It has bec9me a way of life and it keeps our poor living at a much higher standard of living than any other country's poor....

But on the flip siude, I do not believe it is necessary as I am confident Americans would never let a neighbor starve.

 

[G.T.]

You can not define a noun with a verb.

Welfarew is not an action....so whereas you consider it government doing its job....that is fine...but I am curious what you see welfare as if it is not charity.

What should the recipient consider it?

(the answer to that is likely the best way to define welfare)

It is Foxfrye stating that charity is *only* Voluntary. I'm saying, by his standard then, Welfare is not charity as it is not voluntary.

He is correct.

So what do we call welfare seeing as to the recipirent it is no different than charity...but by definition, it is not charity?

It is an interesting question and quite possiboly would be a valid argument in a court of law.

Although...do not get me wrong....I have no issue with welfare. It has bec9me a way of life and it keeps our poor living at a much higher standard of living than any other country's poor....

But on the flip siude, I do not believe it is necessary as I am confident Americans would never let a neighbor starve.

Well you'd be wrong. An over abundance of starving poor is what lead to welfare.

 

[MitchMan]

While spending may certainly be mis-managed by government in many instances, I would much rather have them do the management than Wall Street or big business. You see, their mission is only self-interest through successful legal exploitation. Big business does not have at its core an interest in the betterment of society while the government is elected by we the people and their ostensible mission is to serve the people. We the people simply have to pay attention to our vote and who and what we vote on. The better voters we are the better government will do their job; there is a direct relationship there. We have no such control over big business, small business, or Wall Street.

 

[G.T.]

While spending may certainly be mis-managed by government in many instances, I would much rather have them do the management than Wall Street or big business. You see, their mission is only self-interest through successful legal exploitation. Big business does not have at its core an interest in the betterment of society while the government is elected by we the people and their ostensible mission is to serve the people. We the people simply have to pay attention to our vote and who and what we vote on. The better voters we are the better government will do their job; there is a direct relationship there. We have no such control over big business, small business, or Wall Street.

But the Government has been infiltrated by big business and one hand is simply feeding the other. They are in bed.

 

[Jarhead]

While spending may certainly be mis-managed by government in many instances, I would much rather have them do the management than Wall Street or big business. You see, their mission is only self-interest through successful legal exploitation. Big business does not have at its core an interest in the betterment of society while the government is elected by we the people and their ostensible mission is to serve the people. We the people simply have to pay attention to our vote and who and what we vote on. The better voters we are the better government will do their job; there is a direct relationship there. We have no such control over big business, small business, or Wall Street.

to the contrary...

We can only control who is in office...but we can not controil what they do while in office.

We can easily control any business we want....basic economics. We dictate price and we dictate who stays in business and who goes out of business.

You have a very starnge mindset.