If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   That 14 year-old video of Obama? Turns out the Republicans are good at editing   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 194
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Illinois Senate, Republican, Capitol Hill, NBC News, Mitt Romney, NBC Nightly News  
•       •       •

3875 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Sep 2012 at 10:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-20 04:35:19 PM
OK, add a few more posts than 6 as some comments were made as I was typing
 
2012-09-20 04:35:54 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.

You mean like how W froze all of the terrorists' assets? Why do you support the terrorists?


Terrorists, the wealthy. Same/same. Right?
 
2012-09-20 04:35:57 PM
I'm surprised they didn't add in something about her/sweet/can-

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-20 04:37:16 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.

No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.

His 'boobies' indicates that he believes there is a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

This is obviously not the case - the government transfers wealth, on a net basis, from the wealthy to the poor. It takes from the better off and gives to the less well off. That is the income redistribution that Obama is talking about. And before you go off on a tangent, my 'boobies' agreed that Obama's use of the term 'redistibute' shouldn't be noteworthy or cause for alarm.

There is a clearly documented net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy in this country. A massive transfer of wealth.

Your attempts to limit the discussion only to the small portion of wealth transferred by governments through social service programs is inherently dishonest.


I should also mention that even a chunk of the social service spending should rightly be considered as a subsidy to corporations and the wealthy. Companies that do not pay their employees a living wage and who depend on tax payer assistance to keep their employees housed, clothed and fed are getting their bottom line subsidized by the government.
 
2012-09-20 04:37:53 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: His 'boobies' indicates that he believes there is a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
This is obviously not the case


once more, with feeling:
s.wsj.net
 
2012-09-20 04:43:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: Do you think that Romney has received a 'government entitlement' of $4m, even though the $3m he did pay went to feed 2,091 others?

Yes. The same way if my tax bill is $2,000 and I only pay $1,000, I have not "paid my taxes" according to any sensible definition of the term.

He used portions of the tax laws - written by GOVERNMENT - that he is ENTITLED to use to save himself $4m. That he's now biatching that he paid too much, when his effective rate is about equal to mine (if Mitt makes $20m, I make 1/400th what he does), is incredibly galling no matter how many people his relative pittance helped out.

Raw dollars don't really mean much in this context, especially considering when you stack the $3m he paid in taxes against the $17m he didn't ($4m of which lies in, we'll say, "disputed" territory), or against the $100m he somehow has in his IRA (lessee...contributing a max of $6,000/month by law...Mittens is 16,000 years old?!? The fark?), the other millions in the offshore accounts, the preferential treatment that money of his that we DO know about gets...and those raw dollars stack up to millions in revenue he's creatively (and, for varying values of 'legal', legally) accounted for.

To recap: Mitt has (probably) paid everything he legally owes. Mitt has used creative accounting and some shady-but-legal means to reduce his liability. Mitt still complains about how much he paid, despite paying a rate similar to a (single) guy who makes .25% (1/400th) of his 2010 income. He should STFU and realize how far ahead he is already.


Raw dollars mean everything in this context!!! Romney is paying taxes of $3m that goes to fund whatever it funds, including food stamps. It is an obvious case of one person (Romney) subsidizing many others (you, me, and everyone on food stamps). The government, via taxation, is transferring $3m that Romney earned and spending it on the things govt spends it on, including programs that give benefits (housing, food, medical care) to those who cannot afford it and pay no income tax whatsoever!

Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.
 
2012-09-20 04:44:09 PM

TV's Vinnie: I'm surprised they didn't add in something about her/sweet/can-

[25.media.tumblr.com image 464x354]


"So, Mr. Fartbongo, you admit you're a communist. What do you have to say in your defense?"

...

"Mr. Fartbongo, your silence will only incriminate you further."

...

"No, Mr. Fartbongo! Don't take your anger out on me! Get back! Get back! Mr. Fartbongo, no!"

/Dramatization: May not have happened.
 
2012-09-20 04:55:35 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.


No one is saying the system doesn't do that. What everyone is saying is that the system is not doing it enough.
 
2012-09-20 04:58:07 PM

orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: orlandomagik: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip is quite clearly arguing that not only does the redistribution from wealthy to poor not exist, but that it is going the other way. Retread the entire post you to which you are responding.

No need, as unlike you I can actually read and understand things the first time. In his Boobies, Phillip says "Debeo Summa Credo: ...meant to acknowledge that wealth in the US is predominately transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.", where the word predominantly acknowledges the fact that yes, there is some transfer the other way around. He then goes on to say that the net effect of ALL "redistributing" activities in this country, including subsidies to corporations, tax advantages for the wealthy, and other things that conservatives conveniently leave out of their definition of redistribution in actuality benefit the rich, and proves this assertion with a graph.

His 'boobies' indicates that he believes there is a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

This is obviously not the case - the government transfers wealth, on a net basis, from the wealthy to the poor. It takes from the better off and gives to the less well off. That is the income redistribution that Obama is talking about. And before you go off on a tangent, my 'boobies' agreed that Obama's use of the term 'redistibute' shouldn't be noteworthy or cause for alarm.

How can you possibly argue that the transfer of wealth on a net basis favors the poor in light of the graph Phillip posted. And in the post 6 above this one, Phillip acknowledges that my summation of his arguments is correct, so stop trying to say differently.


The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link to a pretty table that shows how the wealthy pay a greater percentage of income tax burden than the income they take home.

Link

But that doesn't consider the fact that even taking a flat percentage of income of every level leads to a transfer from the wealthy to the poor because the wealthy have more taxable income.

Philip's chart shows the relative wealth distribution from 1983 to 2009, a finite arbitrary period of time. Wealth distribution can be affected by many other factors (rising stock market from lows of 1983 (wealthy have more in stock, by definition), immigration and globalization reducing working class wages, trends away from saving by middle and working classes, other economic factors, etc). It speaks nothing about wealth transfer via taxation/government spending.

Are you seriously deluded/dishonest enough to argue that the government, via taxation and spending, doesn't transfer income from the rich to the poor?
 
2012-09-20 05:00:23 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.


And extremely generous taxation on inter-generational wealth transfers means that Romney was able to get the kind of handouts that allow him to be rich enough today that he can insult 47% of the US.
 
2012-09-20 05:01:56 PM

Cletus C.: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.

You mean like how W froze all of the terrorists' assets? Why do you support the terrorists?

Terrorists, the wealthy. Same/same. Right?


So vote wealthy?
 
2012-09-20 05:02:38 PM

Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

And extremely generous taxation on inter-generational wealth transfers means that Romney was able to get the kind of handouts that allow him to be rich enough today that he can insult 47% of the US.


"Extremely generous" in relation to what? The term you used is "extremely subjective".
 
2012-09-20 05:05:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: Again, I don't think that is wrong. And to the extent Romney argues he is overtaxed I would disagree with him. But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

And extremely generous taxation on inter-generational wealth transfers means that Romney was able to get the kind of handouts that allow him to be rich enough today that he can insult 47% of the US.

"Extremely generous" in relation to what? The term you used is "extremely subjective".


Anything above 100% would be generous, because those handouts weren't earned on merit.
 
2012-09-20 05:05:42 PM

Biological Ali: Anything above below 100%


Fixed.
 
2012-09-20 05:11:08 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link to a pretty table that shows how the wealthy pay a greater percentage of income tax burden than the income they take home.


That actually doesn't prove that wealth is being transferred from them to the poor.

Many aspects of government spending are transfers that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. One example is the portion of the budget spent on servicing the US government's debt. As you have stated that the wealth own more stock than the poor, they also own more Treasury Bills than the poor do.

You would need to analyze the proportion of outlays that benefit the poor vs. the wealthy in conjunction with the proportion of taxes paid if you wanted to conclusively prove your point.

Of course your point itself is off base in that the government based transfers of wealth a but a tiny part of the whole picture, ans in no way change the fact that our economy has a has huge net transfer of wealth to the wealthy from the poor. Examining one insignificant mechanism of transfer in not at all illuminating.
 
2012-09-20 05:11:32 PM

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

No one is saying the system doesn't do that. What everyone is saying is that the system is not doing it enough.


Good lord. Fine, I'm going to repost what I originally said (edited to remove my accidental double negative) and let that be the end of it. If it helps, when I say 'we' below I mean governmenal via taxation and spending. I thought that was implied, as the term redistribution in this context ordinarly connotes governmental involvement, but if my lack of clarity led to us wasting our time arguing back and forth all afternoon, I sincerely apologize to all.

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Not that there was anything wrong with what Obama said in the video.

I agree. The additional comments do nothing to change the fact that he used "redistribution" in the prior sentence. This isn't "editing", it's disregarding irrelevant commentary.

Judge Obama on his sentence "I am in favor of redistribution, at least to give everyone a fair shot.".

Personally, I don't think "redistribution" shouldn't be a taboo word. We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor. We can argue about te degree to which we redistribute, and whether we want more or less, but the word itself isn't something that should be avoided or criticized.

 
2012-09-20 05:15:47 PM

Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism.

When you've gotten to the point where you're describing the socioeconomic system the US has had for its entire existence as "socialism" - maybe, just maybe it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate your debate strategy.


well that's total bullshiat.
 
2012-09-20 05:17:16 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism

[s.wsj.net image 553x369]
Socialism!


that graph has no bearing on the issue of what is and isn't socialism. Your point was dumb and you should feel bad.
 
2012-09-20 05:18:42 PM

Mrbogey: Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism.

When you've gotten to the point where you're describing the socioeconomic system the US has had for its entire existence as "socialism" - maybe, just maybe it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate your debate strategy.

well that's total bullshiat.


I'm glad you agree. Good luck coming up with a better argument.
 
2012-09-20 05:21:35 PM

Mrbogey: Philip Francis Queeg: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism

[s.wsj.net image 553x369]
Socialism!

that graph has no bearing on the issue of what is and isn't socialism. Your point was dumb and you should feel bad.


Your definition of socialism was dumb and you should feel bad.
 
2012-09-20 05:28:59 PM

Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism.

When you've gotten to the point where you're describing the socioeconomic system the US has had for its entire existence as "socialism" - maybe, just maybe it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate your debate strategy.

well that's total bullshiat.

I'm glad you agree. Good luck coming up with a better argument.


you said something so incorrect it needs no rebuttal.
 
2012-09-20 05:30:18 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: But you are denying reality if you don't acknowledge that our tax system transfers income from the wealthy to the poor.

No one is saying the system doesn't do that. What everyone is saying is that the system is not doing it enough.

Good lord. Fine, I'm going to repost what I originally said (edited to remove my accidental double negative) and let that be the end of it. If it helps, when I say 'we' below I mean governmenal via taxation and spending. I thought that was implied, as the term redistribution in this context ordinarly connotes governmental involvement, but if my lack of clarity led to us wasting our time arguing back and forth all afternoon, I sincerely apologize to all.

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Not that there was anything wrong with what Obama said in the video.

I agree. The additional comments do nothing to change the fact that he used "redistribution" in the prior sentence. This isn't "editing", it's disregarding irrelevant commentary.

Judge Obama on his sentence "I am in favor of redistribution, at least to give everyone a fair shot.".

Personally, I don't think "redistribution" shouldn't be a taboo word. We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor. We can argue about te degree to which we redistribute, and whether we want more or less, but the word itself isn't something that should be avoided or criticized.


Fair enough, if you want to argue that our government redistributes a significant amount of the tax revenue taken in to the poor, I can see where you are coming from and I would say that is a very narrow argument that doesn't really address some of the main problems our country is having at large , although to fully agree I would need to see a very detailed breakdown of revenues and expenditures and whom they benefit. I still stand by that this argument is largely irrelevant due to the fact that even with this "significant" redistribution from wealthy to poor, the poor have still decreased their total share of the wealth of this nation while the rich have greatly increased theirs -something I see to be a major problem and unsustainable in the long run.
 
2012-09-20 05:35:23 PM

Mrbogey: Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Biological Ali: Mrbogey: Redistribution of wealth is socialism.

When you've gotten to the point where you're describing the socioeconomic system the US has had for its entire existence as "socialism" - maybe, just maybe it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate your debate strategy.

well that's total bullshiat.

I'm glad you agree. Good luck coming up with a better argument.

you said something so incorrect it needs no rebuttal.


Hmm... a bare assertion containing no detail whatsoever is certainly different from your earlier claims about socialism, but I'm not sure it can really be considered a better argument.
 
2012-09-20 05:42:07 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link


The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.

Heritage is a proponent of supply-side economics, which holds that reductions in the marginal rate of taxation can spur economic growth.

In 1994, Heritage advised Newt Gingrich and other conservatives on the development of the "Contract with America", which was credited with helping to produce a Republican majority in Congress. The "Contract" was a pact of principles that directly challenged both the political status-quo in Washington and many of the ideas at the heart of the Clinton administration.

Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program. 

In other words: Your charts are bullshiat, the Heritage Foundation is a heavily biased, unreliable institution heavily weighted towards the deep-seated plutocracy that has been destroying this country for the past 30 years. Your arguments are invalid.
 
2012-09-20 06:26:21 PM
Lies and half truths in politics? That's almost as absurd as flying machines.

Humans flying, what nonsense.
 
2012-09-20 06:39:12 PM

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: The government transfers wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Here is a link

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.

Heritage is a proponent of supply-side economics, which holds that reductions in the marginal rate of taxation can spur economic growth.

In 1994, Heritage advised Newt Gingrich and other conservatives on the development of the "Contract with America", which was credited with helping to produce a Republican majority in Congress. The "Contract" was a pact of principles that directly challenged both the political status-quo in Washington and many of the ideas at the heart of the Clinton administration.

Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program. 

In other words: Your charts are bullshiat, the Heritage Foundation is a heavily biased, unreliable institution heavily weighted towards the deep-seated plutocracy that has been destroying this country for the past 30 years. Your arguments are invalid.


You just triple down on the DERP at all costs, don't you. The source as cited in the link is the IRS. Queeg's graph came from the economic policy institute, which leans left.

Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn. And theirs includes payroll taxes (allocating both employee share and employer share to the individual) that go, presumably, to fund those specfic programs where your benefit is largely derived from your contribution. If you focused solely on income taxes that pay for everything else, you'd get the heritage chart.

Link
 
2012-09-20 06:39:19 PM

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Only to you.

I thought there was a brief expiration on comments. You know, like how we can't talk about Romney's clip from WAY back in May. We certainly can't talk about anything from way back when he was governor.

Redistribution is the entire basis of taxation. Our military doesn't turn a profit, so I accept that my taxes are redistributed to pay for troops and bullets.

And government abortions? If some poor girl is so poor she can't afford her own abortion, I'd gladly pay for it myself, rather than pay for her whole kid.
 
2012-09-20 07:33:09 PM

Mrbogey:

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Your semantic obtuseness not withstanding.


And HE'S the semantic retard. Hmmm.

And every single government program in the history of the species involves some "redistribution of wealth" so every single thing the government ever does -- any government -- is socialist.

So, it follows logically that your politics are Somali Libertarian.


Or perhaps it's just "redistribution" when the money goes to pay for or buy things from or for people you don't like that it qualifies as "socialism" and all the things you like are simply government doing its job.
 
2012-09-20 08:08:11 PM

wejash: Mrbogey:

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Your semantic obtuseness not withstanding.

And HE'S the semantic retard. Hmmm.

And every single government program in the history of the species involves some "redistribution of wealth" so every single thing the government ever does -- any government -- is socialist.

So, it follows logically that your politics are Somali Libertarian.


Or perhaps it's just "redistribution" when the money goes to pay for or buy things from or for people you don't like that it qualifies as "socialism" and all the things you like are simply government doing its job.


expanding or narrowing definitions is semantic games, retard. Not all govt programs are socialism just by virtue of collecting taxes.

Christ, this site could use a better class of retard. Seriously, the partisan shills of late have been beyond typical politics thread dumb.

Seriously, are you all trying to outdo each other with these stupid statements?
 
2012-09-20 08:29:24 PM

Spartapuss: Romney has nonetheless seized upon this clip

I caught that slimy prick, RNCPRBS on Greta talking about it but does anyone have Romney's thoughts linked?


Rmoney himself has a difficult time linking his thoughts.
 
2012-09-20 08:35:13 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

Why? Do you believe that concentrating vast wealth in a very few hands is a positive for the country?


Was Obama talking about wealth redistribution or income redistribution? There is a difference, and the arguments with regard to the two are not the same.
 
2012-09-20 09:07:35 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn


Well of course they do. They're supposed to. In fact, they're supposed to pay far, far, FAR MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

Like... a thousand times more, at the very least. You know why?

www.ishkur.com

Because they have all the money, dumbass.
 
2012-09-20 09:14:16 PM

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn

Well of course they do. They're supposed to. In fact, they're supposed to pay far, far, FAR MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

Like... a thousand times more, at the very least. You know why?



Because they have all the money, dumbass.


Derp!
 
2012-09-20 09:18:56 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's an article from the CBO that supports the notion that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total taxes than income they earn

Well of course they do. They're supposed to. In fact, they're supposed to pay far, far, FAR MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

Like... a thousand times more, at the very least. You know why?



Because they have all the money, dumbass.

Derp!


How is that derp?
 
2012-09-22 01:55:21 AM

Mrbogey: LoneWolf343: Mrbogey: LoneWolf343: Mrbogey: The full clip doesn't change what was said. It only adds further thoughts on the issue.

The further thoughts proved that he wasn't espousing communism.

yes, only socialism. Specifically one of the most core and controversial aspects of it.

interesting defensive tactic you went with though.

"so·cial·ism

noun/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Policy or practice based on this theory

(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism"

I can't find "redistribution of wealth" in there.

Not since you went with the most concise and abstract definition. If I were to define Louisiana as the 18th state to join the United States of America it doesn't mean that New Orleans is suddenly part of Texas because my definition didn't include it.

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Your semantic obtuseness not withstanding.


Not my fault that you are illiterate.

Also, "redistribution of wealth?" It was recommended by Adam Smith. You know, the granddaddy of capitalism.
 
2012-09-22 07:22:12 AM

LoneWolf343: Not my fault that you are illiterate.


I know you are but what am I?

LoneWolf343: Also, "redistribution of wealth?" It was recommended by Adam Smith. You know, the granddaddy of capitalism.


I'm sure your exhaustive blog entry on it is without equal.

And in case you're unable to read the sarcasm in that, I'm, mocking this silly notion of yours that is certainly rooted in poorly formed internet diatribes.

"Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"
 
2012-09-22 09:23:12 AM

Mrbogey: "Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"


How exactly are the poor going to have money if not for the redistribution of wealth? Magic?
 
2012-09-22 06:10:35 PM

Halli: Mrbogey: "Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"

How exactly are the poor going to have money if not for the redistribution of wealth? Magic?


Please tell me this is a troll and not that you're so economically illiterate that any capital exchange is "redistribution".

When discussion redistribution, were not talking about the use of the statistical term "distribution" or derivatives there of. We're talking of a strategy whereby govt acquires and then redistibutes wealth as a means of economic balancing.

What you're doing is as derpy as saying all taxes are theft.
 
2012-09-22 07:58:50 PM

Mrbogey: Halli: Mrbogey: "Adam Smith said economies work best when the poor have money. That totally means he's cool with redistribution of wealth!"

How exactly are the poor going to have money if not for the redistribution of wealth? Magic?

Please tell me this is a troll and not that you're so economically illiterate that any capital exchange is "redistribution".

When discussion redistribution, were not talking about the use of the statistical term "distribution" or derivatives there of. We're talking of a strategy whereby govt acquires and then redistibutes wealth as a means of economic balancing.

What you're doing is as derpy as saying all taxes are theft.


Yep magic it is.

y
 
2012-09-22 09:11:10 PM

Halli: Yep magic it is.


You have to work hard to be this dumb.
 
2012-09-23 01:14:52 AM
I like this new trolling method: getting it right while getting it so horribly wrong.
 
2012-09-23 04:32:00 AM

Mrbogey: Halli: Yep magic it is.

You have to work hard to be this dumb.


Nope then I would claim everything was socialism and make really stupid claims throughout the thread.

Maybe instead of magic you were thinking trickle down economics. Those have worked so well.
 
2012-09-23 10:06:06 AM

Halli: Nope then I would claim everything was socialism and make really stupid claims throughout the thread.


You claimed that any change of aggregate wealth is redistribution of income.

What you did was just as bad as claiming everything is socialism because you defined everything in such a way as to make it socialism.
 
2012-09-23 10:38:17 AM

Mrbogey: You claimed that any change of aggregate wealth is redistribution of income.


Well it is technically correct.

Mrbogey: What you did was just as bad as claiming everything is socialism because you defined everything in such a way as to make it socialism.


So I'm just as bad as you. Shocking.
 
Displayed 44 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report