In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:01 PM
When the government takes your money and gives it to a soldier, it is redistributing *your* money to the soldier's pocket. Same thing with teachers (State) and police/fire fighters (Local). As long as there is a societal benefit from this redistribution, then I am not sure what the problem is? Are there instances where government redistribution isn't beneficial? Sure - just look at congress about all your money that's been re-distributed to those clowns. And, if the argument is making redistribution more efficient, that's fine. Just don't insult the intelligence of your audience by pretending it's a "socialist" idea, ok?
S211 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 4:05 PM
So when the cop and/or firefighter saves your property or life are you then glad that your money was "redistributed?"
lemmi Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:23 PM
That is possibly the most convoluted example of redistribution I've ever heard, I guess what I've heard is correct, that is if you feed someone horse dung long enough the will develop a taste for it.
The same must apply to socialism.
LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:33 PM
Look, lemmi, you can't just define "redistribution of wealth" to mean only those programs you are against. Well, you *can*, but nobody will take you seriously.

If paying a soldier's salary or buying their guns and fighter jets (or building schools and roads, *isn't* redistribution of wealth, then what is it? It sure feels like the government is taking my money and giving it to other people every April with I write them a check.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:39 PM
You are the one defining the term to mean something other than what it means. By your definition, McDonald's is redistributing wealth simply by paying its employees.
LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:54 PM
How about you tell me what it is, then? If you don't call it redistribution of wealth, then what do you call it when the government takes your tax dollars and gives them to someone else? True, a soldier provides a service, but that doesn't make it *not* wealth redistribution, just wealth redistribution that you (and I) find of value. Welfare for the poor (or Pell grants for a student) aren't any different: it is still redistribution. The only difference is that you don't see a value in it where I do.

I don't mind having that argument with you, but it is absurd to try and re-define a process that is as old as government itself as something alien to our way of life.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:01 PM
It's spending on government services. There does not exist a defifinition of "redistribution" in comon use that goes beyond transfer payments - taking such revenues for the express purpose not of purchasing goods or services but giving those resources to others. What it "feels" like to you has no relevance whatsoever.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:15 PM
Once again, Lucky, YOU are the one trying to redefine the term. You're not getting this. When McDonald's pays its employees, is that redistribution of wealth? When you buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, is that redistribution of wealth?
Ron-CA Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:15 PM

Do you not understand the fundamental difference between a payment for services rendered and payment for nothing?

The soldier, policeman, and teacher all earned their salary based on their work output. The person that sits at home not working and collecting government aid is a completely different situation!
WodenofAzgard Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:22 PM
What's the source(s) for your rightwinger definition of "redistribution" and why should that definition replace common dictionary definitions? You realize the shills of the rich are once again shoveling garbage into your empty heads, right?
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:29 PM
Really? You don't see the difference between the people as a whole PAYING someone such as a firefighter for services rendered and the government simply using tax revenue and giving people money for doing nothing?
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:35 PM
You're simply a liar at this point. Not only is there nothing "right wing" about the definitions as I have used them. There is NOTHING in the dictionary that undermines the definition as I have provided it or supports yours in any way. In fact, Webster's Ninth, right here on my shelf, not only corroborates everything I've said but specifically identifies the term "redistributionist" as an "advocate of the welfare state".

Every attempt you have made to present your twisted definition as in any way resembling that in common usage or in the dictionary is, at this point, nothing less than a blatant falsehood.
LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:43 PM
Well, yes, there is a difference. And if your argument is that you believe welfare for the poor isn't a good use of government taxes, then have the intellectual integrity to say so and stop pretending that wealth redistribution is an evil socialist concept instead of a method that has been employed by every government since government came into being.

As for welfare for the poor, I happen to believe that the benefits far outweigh the abuses. Now, if you can figure out how we can stop the lazy good-for-nothings from abusing the system without taking away free school lunches, then I am behind you 100%, but I will fight you every step of the way if your "fair society" means deserving, needy citizens of my country must starve or go homeless.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:57 PM
Wow. You bastardize the definition of redistribution and then have the gall to talk about intellectual integrity? Then, of course, you engage in hyperbole, as is the custom of libs. You accuse conservatives of wanting people to starve or go homeless, when all we want is for welfare to be something used to take care of only the people who truly are incapable of taking care of themselves. Do you honestly think all the kids getting free school lunches belong to families that simply can't afford to pack them a lunch? Tell you what ...... go take away free lunch from every kid whose family gets cable or satellite TV, and you'll save a ton of money.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:59 PM
I am not responsible for your poor grasp of economic history. Yes, welfare for the poor isn't a good use of governmnet taxes, it's an economic disaster (this has nothing whatsoever to do with "belief"; it is simply a statement of economic fact. It has by absolutely NO means been around since government came into being, the welfare state being a relatively new concept in historical context.

And it isn't about "abuses"; the economic impact of taking productive resources from the economy, running through governmnet bureaucracy and then typically misallocating them (along with the inevitabvke crowding out effect) results in far LESS help for those who need it resulting in MORE hunger and homelessness.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:10 PM
Yeah, they should be eliminated (Pell Grants and federal scholarship programs being directly responsible for the massive increase in higher education costs) and subsidizes higher education particulrly for thsoe better served by technical schools and focused education while providing no definable societal benefit.

No, no, no - it has nothing to do with someone getting something for nothing. I am an economist and the economic evidence is absolutely unanimous that no such societal benefit exists and, in fact, the welfare state makes it more likely that someone would NEED a "stepping stone" than it does that such a "stepping stone" will be avaialbel for some who just needs one.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:12 PM
Governmnet intervention - including the welfare state and, yes, including Social Security (which was not "needed" when it was enacted) - is the chief CAUSE of poverty, not a viable tool for its reduction. Paying for those who have paid into the system and have acted on existing governmnet promises is necessary but the whole perverted system should be brought to an end.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:14 PM
Look, no matter how often the clueless (or deliberately ignorant) try to pretend that the common usage (not to mention the only usage in economics, history and political science) of the term "redistribution" applies NOT to the purchase of goods or services to carry out governmnetal responsibilies, but to TRANSFER PAYMENTS (taking from taxpayers to give directly to others), it will not alter reality, including the reality thats such redistribution has NEVER yielded ANY societal benefit of such transactions.
percen Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:20 PM
How could any sane-rational person want to give this Crooked-Con-Artist-Criminal-Liar another 4-yrs in the top

Prestigous-Powerful-$-Rewarding-$ Political-Govt-Law-Enforcement-Military Exec-job-position !

What kind of Moron would want to give this Crook another 4 totally-undeserved-lavish-$-yrs-world-class-$-vacationing-golf

While he promotes-supports-encourages-advocates-enables-facilitates a massive-US-Bankrupting-Destroying-3rd-world-illegal-alien-invasion, destroying the country in many other ways !

Independent, women voters, we must get rid of this Crooked-Con-Artist-Criminal-Liar !

It's time to give someone else who's qualified for the job-responsibility a try

Romney will be1000 x better than the Covert-Com-Hidden-Agenda-Obama !
The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.

Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies,...