Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[M14 Shooter]

This forum is rich with ample explanations if you're of a mind to hear them. I'm not going to bother regurgitating a viewpoint that I think has been expressed better by a few others yet still had no power to influence.

Translation: You know cannot present any such argument.
Thanks for the admission.

Ah, yes of course. Other things I can and can't do:
I CAN lead a horse to water. I CAN'T make him drink.

You also cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
Good that you recognize this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All governments redistribute wealth. It is what governments do.

Only if you use the term out of context, which means you're trying to avoid the point.

And, even if true, the appeal to popularity so created does not translate into a sound argument for state-created involuntary servitude.

 

[itfitzme]

Translation: You know cannot present any such argument.
Thanks for the admission.

Ah, yes of course. Other things I can and can't do:
I CAN lead a horse to water. I CAN'T make him drink.

You also cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
Good that you recognize this.

Since when is any one forced to provide goods and services w/o compensation?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah, yes of course. Other things I can and can't do:
I CAN lead a horse to water. I CAN'T make him drink.

You also cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
Good that you recognize this.

Since when is any one forced to provide goods and services w/o compensation?

The state does this every day through the redistribution of wealth, and has done so since it began said redistribution.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a jackass because I'd like to see the people who've contributed to the system all their lives get the benefits they need? See, this is why right wingers are having trouble attracting new members to your club. You guys are a bunch of stingy, crotchety assholes who most real humans would avoid like the plague.

They contributed only a small fraction of what they collected. Furthermore, politicians spent all the money they contributed. Young people certainly aren't to blame for that. The old people currently collected vote in all the politicians who pissed away the Social Security trust fund.

The "crotchety stingy assholes" are the greedy geezers who voted in politicians who guaranteed them that young people would be made to work like borrowed mules their entire lives to pay for current benefits for retirees. Why young people would ever vote for Democrats is beyond me. It takes an incredible amount of brainwashing to produce such a collection of servile gullible suckers.

Are your parents on kidney dialysis or something? Most people contribute more than they receive but as with all forms of insurance, they should consider themselves fortunate if that's the case. You should be thanking your lucky stars that you don't have to pay for their apparently astronomical medical expenses. In the old days, that's what kids did.

What makes you think my parents are getting dialysis?

Social Security isn't insurance. It's a Ponzi scheme. That's all it will ever be, until the day it collapses.

 

[bripat9643]

So those nations have no system for redistributing wealth? Everyone keeps what they have and that ends the process? Do those three countries have money, if so, for what purpose?

You seem to believe that redistribution of wealth to have money. That simply isn't the case. You don't even need to have government money. We had money issued by private banks in this country until the Federal Reserve was created.

So is this money or whatever redistributed or not? If it is redistributed what is the system by which it is redistributed?

"Redistribution," in the political sense, means taking money by force from 'A' and giving it to 'B.' So the answer is "no." It isn't "redistributed."

 

[bripat9643]

You don't know what "not selling them." means, do you?

If you know anything about economics, you sure haven't demonstrated it.

You're splitting hairs. The point isn't worth debating. The bottom line is that the FED increases the money supply by selling bonds.

Then why are you debating it?

I read what you post. It is either correct or it ain't. If you say something like "not selling them.", then I assume that is what you mean.

So, what is your point about the Feds open market operations? Yeah, they buy and sell bonds. So? You clearly don't understand how the money supply functions.

Yeah, the Fed manages the money supply, duh! Their suppose to. GDP keeps climbing. How do you think the money supply is going to grow to account for an ever increasing poplation and GDP? Magically?

The Fed indirectly affects the supply and demand for money. Private banks, businesses, and household create money through borrowing.

Oh, look, month to month, the percent change in CPI is all over the place.

It is as high as .75, as low as about -.3, on a month to month basis, in the near past.

As a yearly average, it is from as high as 4% to as low as 1%, recently.

Last I checked, it has averaged from 2 to 2.5% yearly.

So, what's your point? That you are clueless as to how and why money management is what it is? Cuz, so far, all you've suggested is that you have moronic unstated assumptions. Do you really believe that inflation can be held to absolute zero? Is that it, you have some conspiracy theory?

Other than venting your spleen and spewing a lot of shallow personal attacks, did your post have a point?

 

[bripat9643]

1.) I'm not a libertarian.

2.) Does anyone have any comments that are actually related to the subject of the thread (govt redistribution of wealth being theft, and examples showing theft and non-theft)?

"Income redistribution" is, exactly, theft. It is the direct violation of one of the most fundamental rights man has: The right to possess property he has justly acquired. Without that right, man is no more than an animal.

Someone who seeks to "redistribute" anyone's income other than his own, is merely a common thief.

And a government that seeks to do the same, is equally a thief. Multiplied by the number of people whose income it tries to "redistribute".

Yeah, except your missing that;

a) The economy itself is the process of re-distributing scarce resources. Raw materials are located one place. People get them and redistribute them to another place. People combine them into goods and redistribute those to other places. Money starts at one place, central banks. It is redistributed by people to other places, other banks, businesses, households, financial institutions, government agencies.

That isn't redistribution in the sense of government programs. "Redistribution" means taking money or property from one person by force and giving it to another. Buying and selling doesn't constitute "redistribution." The former exchange is based on compulsion. The later is purely voluntary.

b) The money supply isn't an individually owned tool. It is a social tool, a public good. It has no primary use except in that it is passed from one person to another in exchange for another good or service. It has a secondary purpose of being a store of value but only for a limited amount of time. No matter how long it stores value, this secondary purpose is meaningless without it being an medium of exchange. It's primary function is in exchange and it losses value if it isn't used for it's primary function. To retain value for longer, it has to be invested, another exchange.

Of what relevance is this to his post?

c) Those little boxes on your paycheck that read "State tax", "Federal Tax", "FICA" aren't an accouting of what you own. They are an accouting of the monies that belong to the state and federal government.

ROFL! That has to be one of the dumbest claims ever posted in this forum. They are in fact an accounting of money that belongs to you that government has decided to take from you by force. The idea that the government "owns" part of your gross pay is the most servile bootlicking conception of taxation I've ever encountered.

It is disposable income that sets the level at which labor is provided, not the gross amount.

Wrong again. Your gross pay plus your benefits is what determines the cost of employing you. That is what determines whether you will be employed or not.

When taxes are increased and decreased, the long run shift in the labor supply curve settles at the same position where disposable income is the same.

Nope. It settles where your gross pay matches the demand for your labor, not where it matches your net pay. It's hard to believe they taught you this stuff in college. The economics department has obviously decayed to the point where its nothing but a brainwashing mill pumping government propaganda into its victims.

How can it be any different? It is obvious that $100 with a ten percent tax has the exact same utility as $90 and no tax. Both purchase the same amount of goods.

True, but in the former case I get all the goods. In the later case some useless tick on the ass of society gets a share of them. So they both don't have the same utility to me. Try looking at economics from the point of view of the individual actor instead of lumping people into "macro" categories, and then you might have a chance of learning the truth.

The difference between the two has nothing to do with how much can be purchase but how much common gov't services are provided in support of other common goods that make the economy work.

The important difference is that the amount the person who earned the money is left with is lower. Who gives a fuck if some bureaucrat can spend your $10 buying cell phones for welfare queens? How does that do you any good?

I get it, it always feels like paying taxes is money I might have. In reality, it is obvious that this isn't the case. This isn't to say that when rates change, there isn't some effect on output. There is, in the short run.

It obviously is the case. Taxes are money that you earned but the government takes.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need government and taxes. But it isn't a perfect world.

These are all pretty obvious and objective facts.

a) The economy is about redistributing scarce resources, including money.

b) The money supply is a social tool, a public good.

c) $100 with a ten percent tax is identical in utility as $90 and no tax.

d) The economy isn't perfect.

Again, (c) is obvious horseshit. It's not identical in utility to me. The role of money in the economy is irrelevant to this discussion. Money is not a scare resource. In fact, fiat money is not a resource at all.

That's all for today, class.

 

[georgephillip]

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

All of them. Are they producing anything? They're all sucking off younger people who work like borrowed mules to pay taxes so the greedy geezers can receive their benefits.

They produced the younger people who are working like borrowed mules because both generations were ignorant of the long term cost of for-profit health insurance. When will you stop sucking the capitalist tit (or whatever?)

 

[georgephillip]

You don't know the slightest thing about FOMC operations and how the FED controls the money supply, do you?

Do you know who owns the FED?

The federal government owns it. Any other claims are pure fiction or ignorance.

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not 'owned' by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution."

FRB: Who owns the Federal Reserve?

Which of the above lies do you believe?

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

Do you think today's younger workers toiling like borrowed mules have the same democratic input into Federal Reserve policies as contemporary rich and predatory money lenders do?

 

[bripat9643]

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

All of them. Are they producing anything? They're all sucking off younger people who work like borrowed mules to pay taxes so the greedy geezers can receive their benefits.

They produced the younger people who are working like borrowed mules because both generations were ignorant of the long term cost of for-profit health insurance. When will you stop sucking the capitalist tit (or whatever?)

Wrong. The politicians lied about the costs, just like they always do, just like the Democrats lied about the cost of Obamacare.

Shame on you for blaming the victims.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Translation: You know cannot present any such argument.
Thanks for the admission.

Ah, yes of course. Other things I can and can't do:
I CAN lead a horse to water. I CAN'T make him drink.

You also cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
Good that you recognize this.

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah, yes of course. Other things I can and can't do:
I CAN lead a horse to water. I CAN'T make him drink.

You also cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
Good that you recognize this.

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

As I have explained many times, the claim that our government is "by the people" is propaganda. It certainly isn't "by the people" of the Confederacy who had it rammed down their throats at gunpoint.

Furthermore, no one has the right to force someone else to pay for their pet causes, not even a majority. If 'A' and 'B' vote to take the property of 'C,' it's still theft. Nothing about government or majority vote changes the essential nature of the transaction.

Apparently you believe these ridiculously shallow and easily debunked excuses for theft is what was being asked for.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You also cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
Good that you recognize this.

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

As I have explained many times, the claim that our government is "by the people" is propaganda. It certainly isn't "by the people" of the Confederacy who had it rammed down their throats at gunpoint.

Furthermore, no one has the right to force someone else to pay for their pet causes, not even a majority. If 'A' and 'B' vote to take the property of 'C,' it's still theft. Nothing about government or majority vote changes the essential nature of the transaction.

Apparently you believe these ridiculously shallow and easily debunked excuses for theft is what was being asked for.

NYC is clearly a fan of involuntary servitude - so long as he gets to choose who is forced into it.

 

[bripat9643]

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

As I have explained many times, the claim that our government is "by the people" is propaganda. It certainly isn't "by the people" of the Confederacy who had it rammed down their throats at gunpoint.

Furthermore, no one has the right to force someone else to pay for their pet causes, not even a majority. If 'A' and 'B' vote to take the property of 'C,' it's still theft. Nothing about government or majority vote changes the essential nature of the transaction.

Apparently you believe these ridiculously shallow and easily debunked excuses for theft is what was being asked for.

NYC is clearly a fan of involuntary servitude - so long as he gets to choose who is forced into it.

That's true of all libturds, isn't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I have explained many times, the claim that our government is "by the people" is propaganda. It certainly isn't "by the people" of the Confederacy who had it rammed down their throats at gunpoint.

Furthermore, no one has the right to force someone else to pay for their pet causes, not even a majority. If 'A' and 'B' vote to take the property of 'C,' it's still theft. Nothing about government or majority vote changes the essential nature of the transaction.

Apparently you believe these ridiculously shallow and easily debunked excuses for theft is what was being asked for.

NYC is clearly a fan of involuntary servitude - so long as he gets to choose who is forced into it.

That's true of all libturds, isn't it?

Of course. None of them have even tried to argue otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

NYC is clearly a fan of involuntary servitude - so long as he gets to choose who is forced into it.

That's true of all libturds, isn't it?

Of course. None of them have even tried to argue otherwise.

The libturds claim they posted a justification for organized plunder, but they are all of the lame variety like NYC posted. They were all easily debunked. No one has ever posted a justification that stands up to even the most cursory examination.

 

[georgephillip]

All of them. Are they producing anything? They're all sucking off younger people who work like borrowed mules to pay taxes so the greedy geezers can receive their benefits.

They produced the younger people who are working like borrowed mules because both generations were ignorant of the long term cost of for-profit health insurance. When will you stop sucking the capitalist tit (or whatever?)

Wrong. The politicians lied about the costs, just like they always do, just like the Democrats lied about the cost of Obamacare.

Shame on you for blaming the victims.

What costs did the politicians lie about?
Are you sure it wasn't insurance company lobbyists who wrote the lies?
Why do you shamelessly shill for corporations?

 

[bripat9643]

They produced the younger people who are working like borrowed mules because both generations were ignorant of the long term cost of for-profit health insurance. When will you stop sucking the capitalist tit (or whatever?)

Wrong. The politicians lied about the costs, just like they always do, just like the Democrats lied about the cost of Obamacare.

Shame on you for blaming the victims.

What costs did the politicians lie about?
Are you sure it wasn't insurance company lobbyists who wrote the lies?
Why do you shamelessly shill for corporations?

They lied about everything. When Medicare was launched in 1965, Part A was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990, but ended up costing $67 billion. When Medicaid’s special hospitals subsidy was added in 1987, it was supposed to cost $100 million annually, but it already cost $11 billion by 1992. When Medicare’s home care benefit was added in 1988, it was projected to cost $4 billion in 1993, but ended up costing $10 billion.

The lies Democrats told about the cost of Obamacare are too numerous to list.

When have politicians ever not lied about the cost of the programs they are trying to foist on the public?

 

[georgephillip]

Wrong. The politicians lied about the costs, just like they always do, just like the Democrats lied about the cost of Obamacare.

Shame on you for blaming the victims.

What costs did the politicians lie about?
Are you sure it wasn't insurance company lobbyists who wrote the lies?
Why do you shamelessly shill for corporations?

They lied about everything. When Medicare was launched in 1965, Part A was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990, but ended up costing $67 billion. When Medicaid’s special hospitals subsidy was added in 1987, it was supposed to cost $100 million annually, but it already cost $11 billion by 1992. When Medicare’s home care benefit was added in 1988, it was projected to cost $4 billion in 1993, but ended up costing $10 billion.

The lies Democrats told about the cost of Obamacare are too numerous to list.

When have politicians ever not lied about the cost of the programs they are trying to foist on the public?

Do you have any links for the big numbers you posted?