In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:59 PM
There are two fundamental issues at play, here. The first is your intellectual dishonesty in trying to separate redistribution of wealth into separate buckets (one that you approve of and the other that you don't). The second is that your idea of a "fair society" is one where children starve, families go homeless, and our economy collapses due to an un-educated workforce simply because you are offended by the abuse in the system.
Jay Wye Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:50 PM
I don't believe anyone here is going to get larue to see the errors and fallacies of his arguments.

he's not absorbing,he's deflecting. His "shields are up".
The_Nerd_Warrior Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 5:47 PM
That's beyond foolish.

Welfare and Military payments could not be more different.

The military actually WORKS for its pay - putting lives on the line for it, in fact. It's also, as RS said, a constitutionally justified and in fact mandated government function.

Welfare recipients are paid merely for the privilege of being poor. I'm sure that's terribly hard work, and the constitution makes it oh-so-clear that that's what government funds are for.

Don't even try to pretend that your argument makes sense. Your idea of a 'fair' society would have *everyone* starve, go homeless, and collapse the economy.
S211 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 4:03 PM
A simpler argument is who is going to pay for it? We can't afford it. Now what?
S211 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 4:00 PM
Well there is dumb AND dumber.
S211 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 4:00 PM
Oh yes that is what the founding fathers, true conservatives, had in mind. Surely.
Kimberly Stinson Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:35 PM
Securing our unalienable rights is the purpose for which citizens have an obligation to fund the government.

Seizing the property of citizens for purposes other than this violates our unalienable right to own property. Government can only derive it's "JUST" power from the consent of the governed. Governments do not now, nor have they ever had authority to exercise unjust power. Theft cannot be rationalized by a majority vote.

This country has twice fought a civil war over this issue. Will it take a third to get this idea through your thick skull?
Kimberly Stinson Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:33 PM
Securing our unalienable rights is the purpose for which citizens have an obligation to fund the government.

Seizing the property of citizens for purposes other than this violates our unalienable right to own property. Government can only derive it's "JUST" power from the consent of the governed. Governments do not now, nor have they ever had authority to exercise unjust power. Theft cannot be rationalized by a majority vote.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:31 PM
"Tell me you are just helping spread the propaganda to people who are dumber than you."

I think that's a small audience.
PhillupSpace2 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:18 PM
SURELY you don't actually believe what you just wrote! Tell me you are just helping spread the propaganda to people who are dumber than you.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:17 PM
We are not responsible for your own intellectual dishonesty. It is nothing less than an inexcusable falsehood at this juncture (as it has pointed out frequently enough) for including all government expenditures, rather than just transfer payments as "redistribution". Ther simply does not exist - and never has - a definition of the term consistent with your usage. Nor are we responsible or the delusion that the alternative to such a system is that "children [or anyone else for that matter] starve". the basic concept of "crowding out" (easily oooked up) demonstrates that absent government charity there would be vastly MORE resources available - and more effciently allocated - to prevent children starving.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:12 PM
You forgot a few things. In a conservative's mind, a fair society is one in which all the water and air is polluted, children work in factories 15 hours a day before they starve to death, and old people are simply put out onto the street for trash pickup.
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,...