In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:19 PM
Actually, Otho, the definition of "redistribution of wealth" is "the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University). It is only ideologues like yourself that seek to redefine it to fit a political agenda. So, shopping at Wal-Mart or paying to have my grass cut is an economic transaction. Having a portion of my income taken by the government via taxation and distributed to another person (be it a soldier, fire fighter, student, or my unemployed neighbor) is redistribution of wealth.
Jay Wye Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 7:52 PM
I don't believe anyone here is going to get larue to see the errors and fallacies of his arguments. Ever.

he's not absorbing,he's deflecting. His "shields are up".
S211 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 3:59 PM
Lucky go live in Detroit for a year. If you survive you will come out with a different attitude guaranteed.
S211 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 3:57 PM
The flaw in your thinking is that the people that get paid by taxes then ALSO pay taxes because they are earning incomes. Redistribution does not qualify in that scenario.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:55 PM
In other words, all the reason-based arguments are ignored by you and your "compassion" that you use to justify using other people's money to "help" others is completely unpenetrated by the simple reality that those measures DON'T help and actaully make matters much worse.

rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:48 PM
Typical emotional liberal tripe. You mistake solutions-oriented people for callous, uncaring people. Liberal policies are the ones that do the most harm to the "have nots."
Steven668 Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:31 PM
Lucky, are you seriously asking us to believe that you are subject to a court order requiring you to shop at Walmart? Really?
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:29 PM
Not so fast, Otho. I seem to recall Nancy Pelosi explaining to all of us that unemployment benefits actually stimulate the economy. I believe she said we got $1.70 in return for every dollar spent on unemployment. So this must also be true for welfare payments. The botoxed one says it, and I believe it.
AliveInHim Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:27 PM
It is NOT redistribution to be taxed to pay a soldier. The military is Constitutionally mandated, since the government's primary responsibility is to protect and defend the lives of its citizens.

It IS redistribution to be forced by way of taxation to pay a civilian's living expenses.

Charity is voluntary, never forced.

And, Obamao is the one who in 1998 (and in 2008) who said that redistribution is the way he thinks this country should be run, so everyone has a 'fair shot'. So, who actually politicized the term, again...?

Otho Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:24 PM
So, my dearest Lucky, a soldier or a firefighter equates to a 5th generation welfare recipient in your eyes? How enlightening! I now know you are a totally disingenuous person who enjoys debating by changing the meaning of words constantly.

The soldier and firefighter are contributing to society by protecting them. the 5th generation welfare recipient is contributing HOW to society? Because from my perspective, it's BUMPKISS! Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero. No benefit to society.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:23 PM
And, had you a grasp of the English language, perhaps you could grasp that the key word is TRANSFER "from some individuals to others". It specifically EXCLUDES government expenditures for goods and services (including national defense, police, firefighters, etc.). Your OWN DEFINITION explicitly supports our position and obliterates the notion that all such expenditures are "redistribution". The word in the definition is "TRANSFER", not "TRANSACTION".

Do try to keep up.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:22 PM
You're hopeless. Nowhere in your definition does it mention using taxes to pay people for a service, yet you insist on adding that.
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,...