1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:51 PM
That's really poor support for a very thin argument Bill. I tend to think it's really just rhetoric to cover the fact there won't actually be any support from elsewhere if welfare is removed. If you think about it I think you know that too. It's why every government has developed some kind of support system like that. Humans can be generous but for the main part, we are greedy, whether Republican or Democrat we all have an instinct of self preservation, which is all greed is. But then developing instinct is an evolution thing, and that's another subject ;-) Anyway, it's late here, pleasure discussing this with you and Fletch
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:38 PM
No, I'm after an example of how non-state support has been applied to a stricken economy with mass unemployment? Greece is a shambles, granted.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:36 PM
Hahaahahahaha oh my days, that is more arrogant and pompous than our Royal family. You sir, are deluded
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:20 PM
Never said that Gov was only way to compassion. We have many charities and support organisations and private firms supporting charitable organisations. When you're in a position like the above though. When there is a vast need for supporting the unemployed. If the country doesn't have enough surplus in the private sector, or if the private sector has moved elsewhere because there is no money in the local economy, then you've still got folks starving. Then they riot! This thought of neighbours supporting massive scale unemployment? Throw me some examples because I've just got this impression of the Waltons coming round with a basket of bread and milk.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:13 PM
and I mean both Democrat and Republican.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:12 PM
I have no argument with this. Could have put it less offensively but essentially yes, you buy our products which feeds our economy. We're all cogs on the world economy wheel though dude.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:04 PM
Haha, you guys stick to your guns, fair play. But seriously, how does a guy rely on his neighbour when a whole city loses it's industry? That simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think American politics seems to be so polarised and everyone sticks vehemently to there side. It's like you don't want to tackle the complicated bits in the middle ground. I've just given you a real life example of why tax is needed and has helped a city. Take it on board guys, don't try to shoot it down.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 6:50 PM
retrained. Some will and have taken to relying on benefits. Something you guys are perfectly right to fear. But many have gone back into work in new industries. My point still remains that you need tax to cater to these issues I've just stated because this didn't just happen in Stoke, it's happened in differing circumstances all over the world.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 6:47 PM
Bill, I think your man is bang on. But I think the reason we apply socialist policies is because we have a really in depth understanding of our society. We tend to appreciate and hold a value in supporting those less fortunate because there's a reason why they are there e.g. I live in Stoke where the economy was based on pottery and coal mining. Those industries died. That's progression. That's the economy. But there's an understanding that to retrain and find jobs for the thousands of folk who for generations haven't had to be knowledgable or intelligent to a great extent ( so haven't past that on) is difficult and needs state support in training initiatives, adult-education and plus they need money to feed their families until they are
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

fbear163 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 6:30 PM
and if you can't get them jobs then support them financially till those jobs are evident. Basically I think not everyone can help themselves. Some folks have the instinct for mining coal, then suddenly the economy expects them to use a computer and have telephone skills. Realistically, and what bears out is you create an underclass of people who have no place in society and rely on benefits. My point then, which has been my point all along really, is you NEED tax to look after these folk, they are an inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase.
1 - 10 Next