zoony Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Only the fact that you're presenting it as if that's what I want. okay, nevermind, I'm thoroughly confused. apologies if I mis-characterized your position. On a side note... I just wish those of you (not ASF of course) advocating raising taxes, especially on the wealthy, would please start calling it what it is. Wealth re-distribution. It's not "giving a little back" ( ) or "investment in populace infrastructure" or any other of those BS phrases. It's wealth redistribution. Involuntary. By the government. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Wasn't that Hannibal? Seems there's a bit of controversy in this reguard. I'd always heard that he did use elephants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Al-Ele.html In this article I will describe how Alexander came to acquire his war elephants, and what became of them under his Successors. It is frequently stated that Alexander the Great did not use elephants, and that this arm was only introduced into the west by his Successors. Such a view can be found for instance in Gaebel's recent (2002) book "Greek Cavalry Operations". The main argument in favour of this view is the speech in Curtius' Alexandrian history, where he puts the following words into Alexander's mouth: "In fact, I had such a low opinion of these animals that I did not employ them against the enemy even when I had some myself, for I well knew that they pose a greater risk to their masters than to the enemy" (Curtius 9.2.21, Yardley's Penguin translation; the scene is an altercation with his troops immediately after the battle of Hydaspes). This is backed up with the complete absence of any mention of elephants in battle accounts fighting in Alexander's service. Reread what I wrote.... I think you're right that I was wrong. But since when does a joke have to be accurate! Dagnabbed critics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 On a side note... I just wish those of you (not ASF of course) advocating raising taxes, especially on the wealthy, would please start calling it what it is. Wealth re-distribution.It's not "giving a little back" ( ) or "investment in populace infrastructure" or any other of those BS phrases. It's wealth redistribution. Involuntary. By the government. But isn't any kind of taxation "wealth redistribution"? Even a flat tax takes more money from the rich than the poor. I'm not sure what "wealth redistibution" really means other than a political slogan used to argue for lower taxes in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Back on topic. . . Karl Marx LBJ Predicto Jesus Christ Ghandi FDR Enter Apotheosis G.A.C.O.L.B. chomerics TMK9973 Gbear DCsportsfan53 DjTj China Burgold Mike Nelms Luckydevil Zen-like-Todd praise_gibbs D'Pablo Poker Packer Chump DeanCollins AsburySkinsFan Corcaigh PleaseBlitz zoony twa SkinsHokieFan Portisizzle Hitler sarge skinsfan44 Koolblue13 bschurm skinsfan89 Weganator Attila the Hun Dlogrub Satan Mass_Skins_Fan Ok, I fixed it a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 But isn't any kind of taxation "wealth redistribution"? Even a flat tax takes more money from the rich than the poor. I'm not sure what "wealth redistibution" really means other than a political slogan used to argue for lower taxes in general. It means exactly what it means. Income redistribution Take income from one and give it to another And yea, a flat tax in theory is still income redistribution, which is why we should simply stop having programs which redistribute income Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 A Enter Apotheosis G.A.C.O.L.B. chomerics TMK9973 Gbear DCsportsfan53 China Burgold Mike Nelms praise_gibbs DjTj D'Pablo Poker Packer Chump DeanCollins AsburySkinsFan Corcaigh PleaseBlitz zoony SkinsHokieFan Portisizzle sarge skinsfan44 Koolblue13 bschurm skinsfan89 Weganator Mass_Skins_Fan Attila the Hun twa Dlogrub x I can be as far right, or left, as anyone on the list. And, being an extremist, it's usually one or the other. Not much for the middle ground. You make choices, and live with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 But isn't any kind of taxation "wealth redistribution"? Even a flat tax takes more money from the rich than the poor. I'm not sure what "wealth redistibution" really means other than a political slogan used to argue for lower taxes in general. For social programs, yes. For infrastructure, no. However, the argument has been made that social programs such as public housing and welfare are an investment in our infrastructure. Which by and large is a terrible argument based on the results we've seen. However, tax dollars piped towards national defense, public works projects, and agencies of public interest are not wealth redistribution. It's nation building. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 ACW (on social tolerance issues and probably on foreign policy). A Enter Apotheosis G.A.C.O.L.B. chomerics TMK9973 Gbear DCsportsfan53 China Burgold Mike Nelms praise_gibbs DjTj D'Pablo Poker Packer Chump DeanCollins AsburySkinsFan Corcaigh PleaseBlitz zoony SkinsHokieFan Portisizzle sarge skinsfan44 Koolblue13 bschurm skinsfan89 Weganator Mass_Skins_Fan Attila the Hun twa Dlogrub x ACW (on economic issues) (and on gun control, though probably not THIS far right). Again, who is dlogrub? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 For social programs, yes. For infrastructure, no. However, the argument has been made that social programs such as public housing and welfare are an investment in our infrastructure. Which by and large is a terrible argument based on the results we've seen. However, tax dollars piped towards national defense, public works projects, and agencies of public interest are not wealth redistribution. It's nation building. ..... You said exactly what I was going to say :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 It means exactly what it means. Income redistributionTake income from one and give it to another And yea, a flat tax in theory is still income redistribution, which is why we should simply stop having programs which redistribute income What's a program that redistributes income? I assume you mean programs like welfare or social security that pay income to the poor or the elderly, but what about building roads, which pays income to contractors, or the military, which takes part of my income as taxes and pays it to General Petraeus as income? Isn't that income redistribution?The government is really one gigantic income redistribution mechanism ... There will always be people paying different amounts of taxes, and everyone will get different amounts of benefit from the government. The whole point of having a government is so that we can pool our income and redistribute it to things that we want: schools, roads, police, fire, etc. I guess my point is that criticizing "redistribution" isn't really saying anything. At the very least it's no less of a political slogan than ASF saying he opposes "trickle-down" economics. However, the argument has been made that social programs such as public housing and welfare are an investment in our infrastructure. Which by and large is a terrible argument based on the results we've seen.However, tax dollars piped towards national defense, public works projects, and agencies of public interest are not wealth redistribution. It's nation building. All you're really doing is labeling things you don't like "redistribution" and things that you do like "nation building." It's not their redistributive character that you disagree with; it's the results, as you've cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 For social programs, yes. For infrastructure, no. However, the argument has been made that social programs such as public housing and welfare are an investment in our infrastructure. Which by and large is a terrible argument based on the results we've seen. However, tax dollars piped towards national defense, public works projects, and agencies of public interest are not wealth redistribution. It's nation building. ..... That's kind of what I was thinking. If the rich are paying higher taxes and it's all going to welfare and public housing, that's income redistribution. If it's going to building parks, roads, military, ect, that's to the benefit of all, the rich are simply paying to their means to support that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Again, who is dlogrub. The answer is in the reflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Again, who is dlogrub. d-l-o-g-r-u-b-b-u-r-g-o-l-d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 d-l-o-g-r-u-b-b-u-r-g-o-l-d Ah, duh:doh: Farther right than MSF??The government is really one gigantic income redistribution mechanism ... There will always be people paying different amounts of taxes, and everyone will get different amounts of benefit from the government. The whole point of having a government is so that we can pool our income and redistribute it to things that we want: schools, roads, police, fire, etc. And this is why government should be as small as possible. Pooling income for other things (besides the obvious like nat'l defense, etc) is fine voluntarily, but not forced pooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Ah, duh:doh: Farther right than MSF?? It's his evil alter-ego, it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Once again I must ask - Why are those on the right in favor of killing and dying for this country, but are not willing to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Once again I must ask -Why are those on the right in favor of killing and dying for this country, but are not willing to pay for it? Those on the right are perfectly willing to pay for it Its the other BS (HHS, No Child Left Behind) that those on the right do not wish to pay for (even if this president has increased spending substantially in both) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 very very evil alter ego. I met him. He kicked my butt. You'd think he could take being called a ninny cowboy panty wearer, but nooooo he can't take a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 very very evil alter ego. I met him. He kicked my butt. You'd think he could take being called a cowboy panty wearer, but nooooo he can't take a joke Well, when you can call yourself like minded with the likes of Attila the Hun, Satan, Hitler and MSF, yeah, I would lay off the jokes when talking to that guy. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Fine, how about; I'm not in support of Free Market Capitalism in the hopes that the profits of the rich will eventually benefit the poor. So you're in favor of government-sponsored wealth re-distribution. Just say that. .... He may have been talking about government properly regulating wealth generation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Consider me camped in the middle. I lean left on some things, right on others. If i had to pigeonhole and say which way I lean slightly more, it's more conservative. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 All you're really doing is labeling things you don't like "redistribution" and things that you do like "nation building." It's not their redistributive character that you disagree with; it's the results, as you've cited. I'm probably not making myself clear then... because that is not the case. In the simplest of terms... taking money from me and giving it to someone else to spend = wealth redistribution taking money from me and giving it either to private business for technological developments or for the development of physical infrastructure such as bridges, roads, defense, etc... that's nation building. You honestly don't see the difference? There is nothing arbitrary about it, I assure you. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Once again I must ask - Why are those on the right in favor of killing and dying for this country, but are not willing to pay for it? Those on the right are perfectly willing to pay for it Which explains why a right wing war supporter who is 24 years old is not in the military Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 I'd consider myself right. I'm always right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Karl Marx LBJ Predicto Jesus Christ Ghandi FDR Enter Apotheosis G.A.C.O.L.B. chomerics TMK9973 Gbear DCsportsfan53 DjTj China Burgold Mike Nelms Luckydevil Zen-like-Todd praise_gibbs D'Pablo Poker Packer Chump DeanCollins AsburySkinsFan Corcaigh PleaseBlitz zoony MissU28 twa SkinsHokieFan Portisizzle Hitler sarge skinsfan44 Koolblue13 bschurm skinsfan89 Weganator Attila the Hun Dlogrub Satan Mass_Skins_Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.