Random Politics & Religion #01

{Edit rule} t('.'t)

{Mod who made Edit rule} t('.'t)

Character assassination? Are you falling to sleep to Law and Order or something?

Now I am what? Regressing to grade school arguments.. Was really hoping the New and Improved P&R would end the constant foot stomping.

How so?

Well you can stop at any time, you seem to be the only one confused as to what we were talking about.

I am well aware of what is going on. Saev just schooled all of you and the only thing you guys have to stop him is snarky comments, mockery, character assassination, and complaining about his post length..
Next thing we know someone will say he has small hands.

Skeweled.

He dribbled out more crap no one here has ever said. Also, mind you, many of us are on his blist so what's the point of arguing?

It's an attempt at attacking me emotionally via negative group social pressure. Basically, group bullying. Every last one of them has argued for wealth redistribution in the past, typically via social programs that place a disproportionately large burden on those who do not benefit from them. I point that out and they vehemently deny it because "wealth redistribution" has some pretty negative emotions attached due to historical precedent. Thus they argue emotionally and not rationally.

Obamacare is wealth redistribution.
Medicare is wealth redistribution.
Food stamps are wealth redistribution.
Welfare is blatant wealth redistribution.

Subsidiaries can be wealth redistribution depending on who the benefactors are, though typically it's not.
National defense spending (Military / NSA / CIA / DHS / ect..) is not wealth redistribution.
Justice spending (FBI / Police / Courts / ect..) is not wealth redistribution.

Scholarship's could be wealth redistribution if the primary contributors are wealthy and the primary benefactors are not.

Every charity is wealth redistribution.

There is a pretty clear pattern that forms. Wealth redistribution is taking money for at a disproportionate rate from higher earners and using it to provide benefits to those of lessor earning potential. That is why it's called a progressive tax system. The opposite, taxing lower earners at a higher rate is known as a regressive tax system and is generally viewed as bad.

Wealth redistribution can either be voluntary or involuntary. Charities are voluntary wealth redistribution, a wealthier individual is voluntarily giving a part of their wealth to those of lessor economic status. Tax's and government funded social programs are involuntary wealth redistribution. Wealthier people are forced, at gun point, to give part of their wealth to the government so that it can then give it to those of lessor economic status.

A note about the definition of "at gun point". Anything involving the law is at gun point. The power of the state to enforce laws and only possible if the agents of the government have the power of sanctioned violence. This is known as justified homicide and every police officer has it. If Mr Burns doesn't want to pay taxes, police officers show up to take Mr Burns away. If Mr Burns refuses to go away, those police officers can subdue and even kill him. Thus the government has the power to point a gun at Mr Burns head and demand he hand over his wealth for redistribution. Now they like to ask nicely first, dress up the demand in bureaucratic themes with forms and papers, make it seem non-personal, but ultimately they are still using the power of violence to extract wealth from Mr Burns at a disproportionately higher rate then they do Mr. and Ms. Simpson.

I dunno lol. But you guys love to quote and argue with/about him even though he has you blocked... Fairly certain a specific word exists for that behavior. I'ma go look it up and edit this later!

Please do. Apparently school is in session lol.

Here it comes.

Show me a post that any of us conservatives have posted that says we do not care about others. I'll wait..

Graydon Carter

Show us a post that says anything like this:

Progressive version of caring about others:
Make the rich do it.

Correct version of caring about others:
I'll get off my lazy butt and do it myself.

It doesn't bother me, I find it humorous. I often discuss the posts of the individuals here with my more scholarly friends. The posters who frequently use emotional and hateful attacks just get blocked after they've demonstrated they are incapable of holding a rational discussion. Their opinions and contributions are worthless and as such I don't waste my time or mental energy with them.


That's an emotional attack. They aren't rationally arguing that you are selfish, but instead attaching a positive emotional to themselves while attaching the converse on you. They goal is to make you feel defensive, draw you away from their weaker positions while also validating that position. The worst thing you can do in a such situation is to respond directly, instead just point and laugh as you've already won.

Anyone who must resort to such emotional manipulations has already conceded their position as indefensible. Their only option is to make you "feel bad". So don't "feel bad", instead laugh and carry on.

Wow, Guess I was wrong because that one time, in that post, someone said something. fml

Sure, I'll show you two as soon as you show me one of what I asked first. Again.. I'll wait..

We already have a whole pile of strawmen so what's one more, I guess!

Don't forget entertaining!

I get banned when i do that.. So I just ask them to prove it and they never do. So I get to win twice!

+2

I can understand your standpoint on this, and I have no intention of changing it, but I think I can perhaps clarify the progressive viewpoint more accurately for you:

1) Most taxes are, in theory, designed to alleviate the burden of negative externalities (such as pollution). This disregards income taxes, which are something I think we'd both agree makes little sense in principle, though some methods of generating that income ought to be taxed.
2) The money spent to fund public services and programs is usually not wasted or futile, while having a net positive impact for everyone, which ultimately includes those being taxed by creating a stronger economy.
3) The economic solutions proposed by progressives (namely Bernie) consist of more than just taxing higher income brackets, and the idea is really to increase the consumer base through fiscal stimulation. Bank regulation (bringing back Glass-Steagall type policy) is a pretty good example of this.