Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[bripat9643]

This is the US Treasury Department website.

TreasuryDirect - Home

Individual - My Accounts

It says,



So, if you can buy bonds from the Treasury Department, then they are selling them.

Do you not filter anything?

You don't know the slightest thing about FOMC operations and how the FED controls the money supply, do you?

Do you know who owns the FED?

The federal government owns it. Any other claims are pure fiction or ignorance.

 

[georgephillip]

When it comes to "useless ticks on the ass of society" the ignorami like bripat certainly fit that description.

I suspect bripat is at least as confused as I am about whether or not it's true that the federal government doesn't borrow in any meaningful sense since it is the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

I'm not the slightest bit confused. The government both borrows and issues new money, depending on the current policy objective.

Does that mean the government is or is not the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

 

[bripat9643]

I suspect bripat is at least as confused as I am about whether or not it's true that the federal government doesn't borrow in any meaningful sense since it is the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

I'm not the slightest bit confused. The government both borrows and issues new money, depending on the current policy objective.

Does that mean the government is or is not the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

Obviously, since it's illegal for anyone else to issue dollars, the federal government has the monopoly and that "service."

 

[ShawnChris13]

I suspect bripat is at least as confused as I am about whether or not it's true that the federal government doesn't borrow in any meaningful sense since it is the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

I'm not the slightest bit confused. The government both borrows and issues new money, depending on the current policy objective.

Does that mean the government is or is not the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

The government gave the monopoly of issuing money to the Federal Reserve in 1913. So no, the government is not the monopoly on issuing money.

 

[JoeNormal]

If you look at the Iroquois Nation, you can't fail to notice that they practiced agriculture, lived in settled communities, settled their disputes and punished wrong doers. They had a system of laws and methods for settling disputes. All this occurred without government.

If you think ancient farmers practiced communal agriculture, you are mistaken. The empirical record shows that communal agriculture always leads to starvation. Agriculture can't exist without some notion of private property in terms of land.

Has it ever occurred to you that with a population density close to zero, the concept of private property is nebulous at best? So someone plants a crop and doesn't want another person to mess with it. He says, 'why don't you plant your crop over there.' It doesn't have to be on the same patch of land every year and there's no shortage of land on which to grow crops.

For most of history there was plenty of undeveloped land. Yet, people still felt the need to lay claim to specific tracts of land. One reason for that is that the areas near town are the most desirable since they are the easiest to get to. Furthermore, your belief that one tract of land is like any other doesn't hold water. Obviously, some areas have better soil, fewer rocks, better drainage, etc. Also, when a farmer works the land, he makes many improvements. He tills the soil and breaks it up. He clears the unwanted brush. He removes all the big rocks, and he often builds a fence around it to keep out animals. Do you actually believe anyone would do all that work to a plot of land and then allow someone else to squat on the results of all his hard work? Also, while there is a crop growing on it, the farmer is obviously going to want exclusive rights to it.

Your theory is obvious horseshit. Agriculture can't proceed without the institution of private property. That's how the concept came into being. It wasn't an invention of government.

Squatters rights is what I would call what you're describing. That's a whole lot less formal than 'property rights'.

 

[JoeNormal]

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

All of them. Are they producing anything? They're all sucking off younger people who work like borrowed mules to pay taxes so the greedy geezers can receive their benefits.

Your parents must be so proud.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm not the slightest bit confused. The government both borrows and issues new money, depending on the current policy objective.

Does that mean the government is or is not the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

The government gave the monopoly of issuing money to the Federal Reserve in 1913. So no, the government is not the monopoly on issuing money.

Only the government can print the currency. The task of the Federal Reserve is to maintain stability which is why it controls the issuing of the currency. In that respect the FR acts like a "check & balance" which is a good thing to have since it prevented the economy from collapsing completely in 2008.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW....

In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, how is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

Thank you for a coherent response.

But you left out a major part of that quote.


In full, that part of the Constitution says:
Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...."

"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States [and for other listed purposes]...."

In fact, the Clause is a statement of what government can spend tax money on. Not a permission to do whatever they wanted under the vague guise of "helping people". So, it is actually a restriction on government, not a broad permission. The complete clause really means, that the government can collect and spend tax money, but that anything spent to help people, must be applied evenly to the entire population, and cannot be "targeted" at certain groups.

Redistribution of wealth - where the state forces people to provide goods and services to others without compensaion.

This is involuntary servitude, specifically outlawed by the constitution.

M14S makes a good point. Govt redistribution of wealth is theft... but it is more than that. It violates the Constitution in a number of ways... by violating our rights in a number of ways.

It's good that, after more than a dozen pages of evasions and frantic subject changes by the usual leftist fanatics, a few posters have come out and actually started to discuss the subject of the thread.

Govt wealth redistribution (something Obama specifically said he wanted when he was campaigning for President) is both theft and involuntary servitude. Are there any more of our "unalienable rights" that it violates?

 

[bripat9643]

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

All of them. Are they producing anything? They're all sucking off younger people who work like borrowed mules to pay taxes so the greedy geezers can receive their benefits.

Your parents must be so proud.

Why, because I tell the truth?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

Thank you for a coherent response.

But you left out a major part of that quote.


In full, that part of the Constitution says:
Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...."

"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States [and for other listed purposes]...."

In fact, the Clause is a statement of what government can spend tax money on. Not a permission to do whatever they wanted under the vague guise of "helping people". So, it is actually a restriction on government, not a broad permission. The complete clause really means, that the government can collect and spend tax money, but that anything spent to help people, must be applied evenly to the entire population, and cannot be "targeted" at certain groups.

Redistribution of wealth - where the state forces people to provide goods and services to others without compensaion.

This is involuntary servitude, specifically outlawed by the constitution.

M14S makes a good point. Govt redistribution of wealth is theft... but it is more than that. It violates the Constitution in a number of ways... by violating our rights in a number of ways.

It's good that, after more than a dozen pages of evasions and frantic subject changes by the usual leftist fanatics, a few posters have come out and actually started to discuss the subject of the thread.

Govt wealth redistribution (something Obama specifically said he wanted when he was campaigning for President) is both theft and involuntary servitude. Are there any more of our "unalienable rights" that it violates?

 

[JoeNormal]

All of them. Are they producing anything? They're all sucking off younger people who work like borrowed mules to pay taxes so the greedy geezers can receive their benefits.

Your parents must be so proud.

Why, because I tell the truth?

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your parents must be so proud.

Why, because I tell the truth?

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

I have this conversation with my father all the time - the fact that he's sitting on $5M or so does not in any way diminish his sense of entitlement to his SS benefit.

Llike most people who support the reditribution of wealth, he cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

 

[JoeNormal]

Why, because I tell the truth?

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

I have this conversation with my father all the time - the fact that he's sitting on $5M or so does not in any way diminish his sense of entitlement to his SS benefit.

Llike most people who support the reditribution of wealth, he cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

I suspect he can and has. You just didn't want to hear it.

BTW, what are you going to do with your share of the $5M that you inherit?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

I have this conversation with my father all the time - the fact that he's sitting on $5M or so does not in any way diminish his sense of entitlement to his SS benefit.

Llike most people who support the reditribution of wealth, he cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

I suspect he can and has. You just didn't want to hear it.

Neither he nor anyone has ever presented such an argument.
Please feel free to try, should you think it piossible to do so.

BTW, what are you going to do with your share of the $5M that you inherit?

Hookers, booze and guns.

 

[regent]

Can anyone name a nation that does not have a system for redistributing the wealth? Seems that most Econ 101 books name that function as one of the responsibilities of government. There should be someplace on this earth that people that don't want government can go and exist. Of course, the first thing they would probably do is establish a government and that means taxes. We had a great thing going in America, then the founders decided to write the Constitution and bingo in that document the first power given to government was the power to tax for the general welfare.

 

[JoeNormal]

I have this conversation with my father all the time - the fact that he's sitting on $5M or so does not in any way diminish his sense of entitlement to his SS benefit.

Llike most people who support the reditribution of wealth, he cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

I suspect he can and has. You just didn't want to hear it.

Neither he nor anyone has ever presented such an argument.
Please feel free to try, should you think it piossible to do so.

This forum is rich with ample explanations if you're of a mind to hear them. I'm not going to bother regurgitating a viewpoint that I think has been expressed better by a few others yet still had no power to influence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can anyone name a nation that does not have a system for redistributing the wealth?

Fallacy: Appeal to popularity.

Seems that most Econ 101 books name that function as one of the responsibilities of government 9and other nonsense)...

Nothing here changes the fact that redistribution of wealth by the state is involuntary servitude in that the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suspect he can and has. You just didn't want to hear it.

Neither he nor anyone has ever presented such an argument.
Please feel free to try, should you think it piossible to do so.

This forum is rich with ample explanations if you're of a mind to hear them. I'm not going to bother regurgitating a viewpoint that I think has been expressed better by a few others yet still had no power to influence.

Translation: You know cannot present any such argument.
Thanks for the admission.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Can anyone name a nation that does not have a system for redistributing the wealth? Seems that most Econ 101 books name that function as one of the responsibilities of government. There should be someplace on this earth that people that don't want government can go and exist. Of course, the first thing they would probably do is establish a government and that means taxes. We had a great thing going in America, then the founders decided to write the Constitution and bingo in that document the first power given to government was the power to tax for the general welfare.

Congo, South Africa, Uganda...

 

[JoeNormal]

Neither he nor anyone has ever presented such an argument.
Please feel free to try, should you think it piossible to do so.

This forum is rich with ample explanations if you're of a mind to hear them. I'm not going to bother regurgitating a viewpoint that I think has been expressed better by a few others yet still had no power to influence.

Translation: You know cannot present any such argument.
Thanks for the admission.

Ah, yes of course. Other things I can and can't do:

I CAN lead a horse to water. I CAN'T make him drink.