What is 'fair' wealth distribution?

BRT said:
Then promote it. And vote for public officials who promote it. The current administration has done everything within its power to undermine these values.


Of course. They want to live a lifestyle of their choosing void of consequences.


Is it? For myself (and I venture to say most in this country who lead productive, fulfilled lives), I owe my happiness, purpose, success, etc. to my Judeo-Christian values. Take a look at those around you--I bet they can pretty much say the same. If not the values of their choosing, chances are good they were passed down by parents or grandparents.

There was a time in my life when I let go of those values. Several years went by and I reached a point where I could see the road ahead, and what lay in store. If I had not returned to my Judeo-Christian values, I would have surely ended up as your groundie.

Step outside of those values: decline, and ultimately, an early death is inevitable. Take a closer look at the "least advantaged". Most often, you will find personal choices that run counter to Judeo-Christian values. It's a simple fact. Care to join me in a visit to Union Mission here in Norfolk, VA?
Click to expand...

Do you forget what you wrote?
 
Oroboros said:
I watched this Ted talk last night. Good explanation of money.

Click to expand...
This guy has drawn several erroneous conclusions. For example: he mentioned that we are unavoidably in debt. Well, we don't have to be:

(CNN) - President Obama declared on Wednesday that Democrats can be trusted on the budget because, "the last time the budget was balanced was under a Democratic president."

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
- Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate.

Read the bottom line after the jump.

Bottom Line: Democrat Bill Clinton was president the last time the federal budget was balanced, and Republicans controlled Congress.
 
BRT said:
This guy has drawn several erroneous conclusions. For example: he mentioned that we are unavoidably in debt. Well, we don't have to be:

(CNN) - President Obama declared on Wednesday that Democrats can be trusted on the budget because, "the last time the budget was balanced was under a Democratic president."

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
- Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate.

Read the bottom line after the jump.

Bottom Line: Democrat Bill Clinton was president the last time the federal budget was balanced, and Republicans controlled Congress.
Click to expand...

It seems you are speaking about the ripples.
Whereas I am pointing at the stone.

You dismiss this mans conclusions why? Debt and deficit are not the same thing.

It seems you have a perception of the world, and any information that doesn't jive with it is morphed into an opponent to be slayed.
 
Last edited:
I'm not buying what Democrats or Republicans are selling, and I doubt that most conservatives and liberals are as at odds on values questions as it's made out by blowhards on both "sides", not least because those people are entertainers and not journalists. I'm including almost everyone on TV or radio with name recognition outside of one market there.
 
Oroboros said:
You dismiss this mans conclusions why?
Click to expand...
What conclusions? That we need to start inventing our own "micro-currencies"? Bitcoin? Should we go around tearing up 20euro bills?

I'd say his argument is good for going back to the gold standard. But that isn't a new argument. I'd say that's probably why he didn't make it; because he couldn't take credit for that suggestion.
 
fall_risk said:
This is a classic example of a straw man argument: The only alternative to laissez-faire, Austrian/Chicago-school, supply-side, trickle-down, Friedman/Hayek social darwinism is obviously the end of "Animal Farm". I reject that as absurd.
Click to expand...
You call it a straw man, I call it a slippery slope.

In fact, it is not a straw man at all. I'm not arguing against something you didn't argue for (that would be a straw man). Rather, I'm predicting where this proverbial train is headed. Redistribution is socialism (or farther along that continuum, to be technically precise), and socialism, in almost every documented case, morphs into communistic dictatorship eventually.

This is more honest than anything I hear from the left. They will not come right out and say that, "In fact, there is no equality now, nor will there ever be." That's why they can't answer the question, "What ratio would be acceptable?" In their heart they know that what they want is complete equality of outcome--dollar for dollar. When the American people give them the authority to redistribute more of the wealth, that will not satisfy their aim. They will show all sorts of "facts" pointing to the unfair accumulation of wealth. They will gain support for more redistribution. That won't be enough, and on, and on the socialist snowball will roll. Ever picking up speed, support, and worst of all, size. Since FDR, we are already so much closer to socialism than this country was ever founded with the intent to be. Meanwhile, the size of the government continues to balloon--out of control. Eventually, if not already, the government will be so large that the people lose all control of it.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”
 
BRT said:
What conclusions? That we need to start inventing our own "micro-currencies"? Bitcoin? Should we go around tearing up 20euro bills?

I'd say his argument is good for going back to the gold standard. But that isn't a new argument. I'd say that's probably why he didn't make it; because he couldn't take credit for that suggestion.
Click to expand...

You said his conclusions are erroneous. I trust the TED organization to put out truth. Also I have heard the same from many very intelligent people.


You are missing my point. The monetary system as it is is debt based.
A bank creates $10 to loan out and requires $12 in repayment. But the extra $2 doesn't exist. Debt is a mathematical certainty.

I'm not speaking of my debt or my government's debt or how anyone budgets to deal with it. I'm pointing to the system of money we have now.

And no I suggest nothing about where to go next. I only want people to understand how the monetary system is set up now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom