Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?
[/quote]

Well, in case you really don’t get it - I find it ironic that the founder of the “class struggle with evil capitalists” doctrine is some dude who lived most of his life off of his friend’s money which came from operation of a large capitalistic enterprise :slight_smile:

162

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?
[/quote]

what are you a freaking idiot, you are arguing that manual labor is the only form of work.

Trading of goods or services for a return.

when people say work read that.

welfare is giving for nothing. no return. And if you think from the standpoint of society, it is giving not only for no return, but to have to give more in the future.

163

Aw, people die. How sad. You mean like these people?:

Iraq war:

100,000 civilians dead

Vietnam War:

2,000,000 North Vietnamese civilian dead
1,100,000 NVA dead
700,000 Cambodian civilians dead
50,000 Laotian civilians dead
55,000 Americans dead

1990s Iraq embargo:

400,000 children dead

1962-1980 Guatamala:

at least 60,000 dead

Atom bombing of Japan:

~150,000 civilians dead

These were all killed by US actions. This is just more or less off the top of my head.

What was your point again?

164

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?
[/quote]

Well, in case you really don’t get it - I find it ironic that the founder of the “class struggle with evil capitalists” doctrine is some dude who lived most of his life off of his friend’s money which came from operation of a large capitalistic enterprise :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Besides the fact that it does nothing to support or refute his work, you wouldn’t find it as ironic if you understood what Marx and Engels wrote. Not being a dick, I’m serious.

165

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:If it is that easy, why does Microsoft exist?

It matters little what someone tinkers together in a garage, what metters if it reaches the customers.

Also, capitalists are only irrelevant if you believe that we have reached the maximum of what is possible.

Since this is not a valid option for us, risk taking and the exploratory nature of capitalism is indispendable.

[/quote]

Several reasons. One is that this is a very capitalist country, and the idea of cooperatives are pretty foreign to most people. It’s just not the way people do things. Secondly, it’s usually hard to find financing for something like that.

Right now, there is a lot of innovation in the area of computer software that is being restricted by companies because they can’t make money off of it. There’s nothing indispensable about a bunch of investors taking innovation hostage by demanding that it enrich them. Hell, a lot of this stuff comes from the government anyway.
[/quote]

I see you like to manipulate and play with words.

No the concept of intellectual property is done through contracts, so while some of these things may be owned at the time by the government they come from individual innovation. Someone trades their knowledge and ideas for pay or benefits.

But NOTHING comes from the government.

166

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.

If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.

Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.

And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.

And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.

So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]

k so you have 2 statements here.

  1. getting interest payment on your investment is “getting money for nothing”.
  2. those who borrow from the bank cut their employees salaries and raise prices.

so address #1 - in your example this would be barely enough to cover the inflation. however, you can still think of that as getting paid for investing into economy which in reality translates into new jobs, etc. And don’t forget that like 50% of that income is paid as taxes.

#2 - totally wrong. the primary reason for a business owner to borrow is to start/expand his operation, again thus creating jobs etc.

[/quote]

#2 doesnt make sense.

I’m not saying existing business owners take loans and then cut wages/hours and raise prices. I’m saying people take out loans and then need to pay workers less/set higher prices to make up for the high interest on the loans they took out.

So the borrowing “creates jobs”, but those jobs dont pay, or barely pay, enough for a person to live on.

167

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?
[/quote]

Well, in case you really don’t get it - I find it ironic that the founder of the “class struggle with evil capitalists” doctrine is some dude who lived most of his life off of his friend’s money which came from operation of a large capitalistic enterprise :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Besides the fact that it does nothing to support or refute his work, you wouldn’t find it as ironic if you understood what Marx and Engels wrote. Not being a dick, I’m serious.
[/quote]

It’s just funny to me that’s all. And trust me I have a pretty good idea of what communism is all about.

168

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?
[/quote]

Well, in case you really don’t get it - I find it ironic that the founder of the “class struggle with evil capitalists” doctrine is some dude who lived most of his life off of his friend’s money which came from operation of a large capitalistic enterprise :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Besides the fact that it does nothing to support or refute his work, you wouldn’t find it as ironic if you understood what Marx and Engels wrote. Not being a dick, I’m serious.
[/quote]

I think the point he is trying to get at is alot of the people who support these ideas depend on the ideas they want to destroy.

Pretty stupid lets take down the system that gave me the power.

Unless their end goal is for the power to reside with them and no one else have that opportunity. Maybe

169

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?
[/quote]

what are you a freaking idiot, you are arguing that manual labor is the only form of work.

Trading of goods or services for a return.

when people say work read that.

welfare is giving for nothing. no return. And if you think from the standpoint of society, it is giving not only for no return, but to have to give more in the future.[/quote]

Perhaps if the system wasn’t designed to screw the poor, the poor wouldn’t be trying to screw the system.

170

It has nothing to do with you unless you make more than about $300,000 a year. I’m honestly not sure how you came to the conclusion that socialists, while talking about making the rich pay their fair share, really mean they want to tax the middle and working classes more. They want the middle and working classes to be better off. They’re on your side.

[quote]Ryan my boy, you’ve missed the point. I don’t have to say anything else he’s said it all in that wacky little speech of his.
[/quote]

He said what? You still haven’t pointed anything out. What are you talking about? He did say that the top 1% earn $0.24 of every $1 paid out in the US, which is true, you can look it up. I’m not sure how stating facts makes him nutty. Please explain.

171

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.

If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.

Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.

And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.

And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.

So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]

You run a risk of not getting paid back and you are foregoing consumption.

If you feel like doing that fore free, go ahead.

I wouldnt.

172

[quote]apbt55 wrote:I see you like to manipulate and play with words.

No the concept of intellectual property is done through contracts, so while some of these things may be owned at the time by the government they come from individual innovation. Someone trades their knowledge and ideas for pay or benefits.

But NOTHING comes from the government. [/quote]

Who’s relaly the one who likes to manipulate words? Of course they come from individuals (and groups of them, but whatever…). But that also means that nothing ever comes from the private sector, either, which means you’ve done nothing to advance the dialogue at all. I’m not sure what your point is, except that your programming dictates that you have to argue with everything I say, regardless of how obvious or innocuous it is.

173

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.

[/quote]

Only, and ONLY because of socialistic programs and policies enacted by said “Capitalist” economies.[/quote]

That’s horses##t, prove it. Do you really think that big government is the only thing hurting Americans right now? I can think of something else that’s big and useless thats sucking the life out of us like a tumor.

[/quote]

Fannie and Freddie for one.

US Government pressing banks to make stated income loans to anyone breathing 9We all deserve a home) Welfare. We have the most welfare now than ever before. Much of the costs are due to government allowing illegals to get free benefits, schooling, healthcare.

Wall Street is one component only. The interference of Government and these ridiculous social programs cause financial disasters.

174

[quote]Rockscar wrote:Because I don’t like communism, socialism and what you spew I’m the shithead? LOL!

This is drivel beyond belief. You are an angry little guy when people tell you Communism sucks huh? Wow.[/quote]

I’m angry when you tell me I’m wrong, but then immediately demonstrate that you don’t have the foggiest idea what I said, meaning, your programming has taken over, and you’re not debating honestly. You’re a drone. Drones are annoying.

175

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

what are you a freaking idiot, you are arguing that manual labor is the only form of work.

Trading of goods or services for a return.

when people say work read that.

welfare is giving for nothing. no return. And if you think from the standpoint of society, it is giving not only for no return, but to have to give more in the future.[/quote]

Perhaps if the system wasn’t designed to screw the poor, the poor wouldn’t be trying to screw the system.[/quote]

Not giving things out for free is not screwing anyone.

176

News to me. What did I say?

I’m a physics student.

177

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.

[/quote]

Only, and ONLY because of socialistic programs and policies enacted by said “Capitalist” economies.[/quote]

Sorry, dumbass, Wall Street is not a socialistic program.[/quote]

Name calling? Awesome. I was not referring to wall street …Einstein.
[/quote]

I know you were not referring to Wall Street. It was a sarcastic way of telling you that you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

178

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.

If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.

Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.

And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.

And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.

So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]

k so you have 2 statements here.

  1. getting interest payment on your investment is “getting money for nothing”.
  2. those who borrow from the bank cut their employees salaries and raise prices.

so address #1 - in your example this would be barely enough to cover the inflation. however, you can still think of that as getting paid for investing into economy which in reality translates into new jobs, etc. And don’t forget that like 50% of that income is paid as taxes.

#2 - totally wrong. the primary reason for a business owner to borrow is to start/expand his operation, again thus creating jobs etc.

[/quote]

#2 doesnt make sense.

I’m not saying existing business owners take loans and then cut wages/hours and raise prices. I’m saying people take out loans and then need to pay workers less/set higher prices to make up for the high interest on the loans they took out.

So the borrowing “creates jobs”, but those jobs dont pay, or barely pay, enough for a person to live on.[/quote]

yes, interest has to be factored into the calculations of course, just like the prices suppliers, renters, etc etc charge. in reality it is pretty insignificant compared to the group health care costs for example. and once paid back - it’s done with.

it also doesn’t affect salaries of the workers as those are largely dictated by the market, you’re just making that part up. Companies expand to generate more profit, not to cut salaries of their workforce because of the interest on the loan they took to be able to expand in first place.

179

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:I see you like to manipulate and play with words.

No the concept of intellectual property is done through contracts, so while some of these things may be owned at the time by the government they come from individual innovation. Someone trades their knowledge and ideas for pay or benefits.

But NOTHING comes from the government. [/quote]

Who’s relaly the one who likes to manipulate words? Of course they come from individuals (and groups of them, but whatever…). But that also means that nothing ever comes from the private sector, either, which means you’ve done nothing to advance the dialogue at all. I’m not sure what your point is, except that your programming dictates that you have to argue with everything I say, regardless of how obvious or innocuous it is.

[/quote]

wrong, I everything comes fromthe individual, the collective is nothing without the individual, it is not the other way around.

people working together are still individuals. Just working together.

All you do is make a pointless statement and then say who ever you are arguing against just doesn’t understand how obvious it is you are right.

You and your arguments are pointless. You argue for something that cannot exist. The collective by definition needs the individual, but then you try to rob the individual. That is a an ilogical relationship and cannot work.

180

[quote]jhng wrote:
LOL up till this point I think only Ryan and Reign seems to be the level headed one here, retaliating shit ppl throw with grace I might add. Man u guys sure read a lot (and obviusly knows a lot) and btw Ryan, ur post have pique my interests in marxism again [/quote]

As you’ve probably figured out, don’t ever say anything that might remotely be construed as complimentary toward me, or be prepared to duck the shit that will immediately fly your way from the people who are objectively disagreeing with me.