How can liberals "redistribute wealth" when it was never "distributed" to us in the first place?

[Skull Pilot]

Again and again we hear liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%. What do you think his tax cuts did? Why did we suddenly go from a surplus to over 3 trillion in debt. Try to think it through.

So letting people keep more of their own money is now redistribution?

And it isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it's spending

Yes, all money is the people's money, Deanie's a Marxist

One, you didn't answer the question:

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%. What do you think his tax cuts did? Why did we suddenly go from a surplus to over 3 trillion in debt. Try to think it through.

And two, Just like a company or your house, what happens if you don't support it?

Do you always have to explain the most obvious to these tards?

He let people keep more of their OWN money he didn't take money from anyone and give it to someone else

By definition redistribution is taking from one and giving to another. Allowing a person to keep what is rightfully his is not redistribution

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's why Liberals enjoy a 100% Economic Fail rate

 

[kaz]

Again and again we hear liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%. What do you think his tax cuts did? Why did we suddenly go from a surplus to over 3 trillion in debt. Try to think it through.

So letting people keep more of their own money is now redistribution?

And it isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it's spending

Yes, all money is the people's money, Deanie's a Marxist

One, you didn't answer the question:

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%.

Begging the question. I directly addressed this fallacy. Not taking someone's money is not distributing money to them.

Your Marxism aside, the top 1% earn 20% of the money and pay 40% of the taxes ...

... and the 1% got lower percentage tax cuts than anyone else.

And economically you're wrong. Taking money from the employers of lower class workers actually harms them as losing your job doesn't make you richer.

Other than that you were spot on ... LMAO

 

[rdean]

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

I think that they use the term "redistribute" to foster the idea that wealth if initially randomly distributed, with some getting more than their fair share and some getting less. Then the obvious solution is to "redistribute" the wealth to achieve a fair outcome.

Randomly distributed? Who ever said that besides you?

Republicans see that in China, people make $172 a month and want that here.

 

[rdean]

Again and again we hear liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%. What do you think his tax cuts did? Why did we suddenly go from a surplus to over 3 trillion in debt. Try to think it through.

So letting people keep more of their own money is now redistribution?

And it isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it's spending

Yes, all money is the people's money, Deanie's a Marxist

One, you didn't answer the question:

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%.

Begging the question. I directly addressed this fallacy. Not taking someone's money is not distributing money to them.

Your Marxism aside, the top 1% earn 20% of the money and pay 40% of the taxes ...

... and the 1% got lower percentage tax cuts than anyone else.

And economically you're wrong. Taking money from the employers of lower class workers actually harms them as losing your job doesn't make you richer.

Other than that you were spot on ... LMAO

It's not even about distribution. It's about what's fair. When someone like Carly Fiorini can get tens of millions to just go away and stop killing the company, something is wrong. This is redistribution.

 

[kaz]

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%. What do you think his tax cuts did? Why did we suddenly go from a surplus to over 3 trillion in debt. Try to think it through.

So letting people keep more of their own money is now redistribution?

And it isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it's spending

Yes, all money is the people's money, Deanie's a Marxist

One, you didn't answer the question:

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%.

Begging the question. I directly addressed this fallacy. Not taking someone's money is not distributing money to them.

Your Marxism aside, the top 1% earn 20% of the money and pay 40% of the taxes ...

... and the 1% got lower percentage tax cuts than anyone else.

And economically you're wrong. Taking money from the employers of lower class workers actually harms them as losing your job doesn't make you richer.

Other than that you were spot on ... LMAO

It's not even about distribution. It's about what's fair. When someone like Carly Fiorini can get tens of millions to just go away and stop killing the company, something is wrong. This is redistribution.

Fiorina did no such thing, she was in a really tough job. But your begging the question aside, no one hired her other than by choice. Your comparing to government using force is categorically preposterious

 

[my2¢]

I'm amazed at the twisted fucked up stories they make up to convince themselves they are actually entitled to the money someone else works to earn.

This is why I think we should only tax dead people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%. What do you think his tax cuts did? Why did we suddenly go from a surplus to over 3 trillion in debt. Try to think it through.

So letting people keep more of their own money is now redistribution?

And it isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it's spending

Yes, all money is the people's money, Deanie's a Marxist

One, you didn't answer the question:

Bush redistributed it to the top 1%.

Begging the question. I directly addressed this fallacy. Not taking someone's money is not distributing money to them.

Your Marxism aside, the top 1% earn 20% of the money and pay 40% of the taxes ...

... and the 1% got lower percentage tax cuts than anyone else.

And economically you're wrong. Taking money from the employers of lower class workers actually harms them as losing your job doesn't make you richer.

Other than that you were spot on ... LMAO

It's not even about distribution. It's about what's fair. When someone like Carly Fiorini can get tens of millions to just go away and stop killing the company, something is wrong. This is redistribution.

No it is not.

That money was paid to her as part of a negotiated severance settlement. It was not taken from anyone then given to her.

And the term "fair" is completely arbitrary therefore meaningless

 

[Little-Acorn]

Republicans see that in China, people make $172 a month and want that here.

As you can see, when liberals lose the debate, they start telling silly lies instead.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's not even about distribution.

TRANSLATION: I guess liberals have gotten their clocks cleaned in the subject of the thread, so I'll try to change the subject instead.

It's about what's fair. When someone like Carly Fiorini can get tens of millions to just go away and stop killing the company, something is wrong.

TRANSLATION: I didn't get enough of it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Fiorina did no such thing, she was in a really tough job. But your begging the question aside, no one hired her other than by choice. Your comparing to government using force is categorically preposterious

It's all the liberals have.

If they had to stick to things that made sense, they'd have nothing to say at all.

Gee, that would be terrible, wouldn't it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If redistribution f wealth is so wonderful, why does the government have to get involved? Why don't these liberals gather amongst themselves and redistribute their wealth sans government ?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Again and again we hear liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

 

[JQPublic1]

Again and again we hear liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

Didn't you post this same BS a year ago word for word? I schooled you then and I will do it again. First of fall $100 is chump change, it isn't wealth. People who make 30,000 dollars a year don't have wealth. The wealth liberals are talking about redistributing is that enormous perpetual wealth in the hands of the top 10%. After the guy who "earned" it (and I say that loosely) dies he passes that wealth onto his kin and offspring who in succession do that same. None of the subsequent "owners" of that legacy wealth has "earned" it. You have already indicated that it is wrong for people to get money they didn't earn. Following your lead, I now join the chorus of people who want that hoarded trillions put back into the economy to be redeemed through higher wages, philanthropy, and preventative government programs that can help to stave off eventually eliminate poverty.

 

[regent]

If redistribution f wealth is so wonderful, why does the government have to get involved? Why don't these liberals gather amongst themselves and redistribute their wealth sans government ?

Only the Iroquois can do that. But that brings up the next question, does any nation besides the Iroquois not redistribute their wealth?

 

[Little-Acorn]

First of fall $100 is chump change, it isn't wealth.

TRANSLATION: The point of the OP has gone completely over my head.

 

[JQPublic1]

First of fall $100 is chump change, it isn't wealth.

TRANSLATION: The point of the OP has gone completely over my head.

No, you need to make a more applicable analogy. The $100 analogy sucks.

 

[Meathead]

First of fall $100 is chump change, it isn't wealth.

TRANSLATION: The point of the OP has gone completely over my head.

Indeed! But he was never the sharpest tack to begin with.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If redistribution f wealth is so wonderful, why does the government have to get involved? Why don't these liberals gather amongst themselves and redistribute their wealth sans government ?

They want to "redistribute" your wealth, not their own. And they want to "redistribute" it to people who will turn around and then vote for them, in hopes they will "redistribute" more to them.

"Redistribute", in this context, is just a long word meaning "steal".

 

[Little-Acorn]

Republicans see that in China, people make $172 a month and want that here.

As you can see, when liberals lose the debate, they start telling silly lies instead.