Even Some College Students Are Starting to Get It

[stebo0728]

Although I think the analogy stands pretty well on its own, not as a direct correlation, but as a mind-set indicator, lets shake it up a bit.

First, the presumption that the following were possible:

Instead of just GPA points being redistributed, lets say through some miracle of science, that actual intellectual ability were transferable, and that a petition were forwarded that would allow for actual IQ to be transferred from the overly brilliant, to the pitifully mundane. Would you be down for giving the "less fortunate" a hands up by giving them intellectual ability at the expense of your own?

[stebo0728]

And as an aside, involving college. Either now, or in your undergrad classes, did you ever have those habitual "hey lemme barow a peuncil" folks? Never to return it, never to bring their own in the future, always bumming off those who actually cared to prepare for class. How annoying were they?

[heliochrome85]

Although I think the analogy stands pretty well on its own, not as a direct correlation, but as a mind-set indicator, lets shake it up a bit.

First, the presumption that the following were possible:

Instead of just GPA points being redistributed, lets say through some miracle of science, that actual intellectual ability were transferable, and that a petition were forwarded that would allow for actual IQ to be transferred from the overly brilliant, to the pitifully mundane. Would you be down for giving the "less fortunate" a hands up by giving them intellectual ability at the expense of your own?

i prefer to live in reality. if you need a miracle of science to make your analogy work, then your analogy simply does not work.

[IBCoupe]

So, actually shackling ballerinas in order to compensate for the dancing abilities of your average white person? No, I don't buy into that caricature of leftist thinking, and I don't think that's what progressive taxation actually does. You might have a parallel if we actually were handing cash out, but save for a few programs (2% of the federal budget) that's not what we're doing, and even where we are, it's arguably seen as a way to avoid costs associated with increased crime and decreased health among the poor - you're still getting a benefit from direct hand-outs.

Making a bogie-man out of America's poor is a time-honored conservative tradition, but it has never really made much sense.

[stebo0728]

and yes, the republicans DO want the poor to die

...

i prefer to live in reality.

Sure about that last part big guy?

[stebo0728]

Making a bogie-man out of America's poor is a time-honored conservative tradition, but it has never really made much sense.

Everyone needs a boogie man in their opposition, the left make boogie men of productive job creating rich people. If we make boogie men out of poor people, I guess we're no better.

Still, even with all your smoke and mirror benefits, the point still remains, we have compromised our love of liberty, at the individual level, to the whim of the collective.

[heliochrome85]

Making a bogie-man out of America's poor is a time-honored conservative tradition, but it has never really made much sense.

Everyone needs a boogie man in their opposition, the left make boogie men of productive job creating rich people. If we make boogie men out of poor people, I guess we're no better.

Still, even with all your smoke and mirror benefits, the point still remains, we have compromised our love of liberty, at the individual level, to the whim of the collective.

who lives in reality now?

[bigbadberry3]

Can someone define redistribution of wealth?

[IBCoupe]

Still, even with all your smoke and mirror benefits, the point still remains, we have compromised our love of liberty, at the individual level, to the whim of the collective.

Okay, now pull the other one.

[szh]

So, actually shackling ballerinas in order to compensate for the dancing abilities of your average white person? No, I don't buy into that caricature of leftist thinking, and I don't think that's what progressive taxation actually does. You might have a parallel if we actually were handing cash out, but save for a few programs (2% of the federal budget) that's not what we're doing, and even where we are, it's arguably seen as a way to avoid costs associated with increased crime and decreased health among the poor - you're still getting a benefit from direct hand-outs.

Making a bogie-man out of America's poor is a time-honored conservative tradition, but it has never really made much sense.

I guess making a bogie-man out of America's rich is a time-honored socialist/liberal tradition then?

Lot less rich people to argue or fight, I suppose ... makes them an easy target.

Z

[stebo0728]

Can someone define redistribution of wealth?

Actually, redistribution of wealth is a misnomer, whether intentional or not. What is occuring is actual just distribution of wealth. The re- prefix would denote that wealth was origninally distributed, and to redistribute it means you consider the original distribution to have been in error. Wealth is not originally distributed, it is earned, for physical or intellectual labor. Government has seen fit to collect taxes from some, and give either direct distributions, or unfair tax breaks to others.

[IBCoupe]

I guess making a bogie-man out of America's rich is a time-honored socialist/liberal tradition then?

I guess.

Lot less rich people to argue or fight, I suppose ... makes them an easy target.

Z

As opposed to the poor, who have no time or resources to devote to fighting back.

[IBCoupe]

Can someone define redistribution of wealth?

Actually, redistribution of wealth is a misnomer, whether intentional or not. What is occuring is actual just distribution of wealth. The re- prefix would denote that wealth was origninally distributed, and to redistribute it means you consider the original distribution to have been in error. Wealth is not originally distributed, it is earned, for physical or intellectual labor. Government has seen fit to collect taxes from some, and give either direct distributions, or unfair tax breaks to others.

Even semantically-speaking, as you're trying to do, I don't think this works. Wealth is distributed, whether you want to say it is or not. Just because it's distributed according to earnings doesn't mean it's not distributed. This seems like a falsity meant to cast aspersions upon people seeking a tiered tax system (especially the "means you consider the original distribution to have been in error" bit).

Wealth gets around. By the process of getting around, it is distributed. That's what "distributed" means. There. Lesson completed.

EDIT:
Here's some additional learning. Stebo, you're right if you only see "to distribute" to mean the following dictionary definition:

1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.

In that light, distribute is something that happens from a central location, by a central actor. But you're plainly wrong if you see "to distribute" to also mean:

2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.

This speaks to a more decentralized and, dare I say, natural sense of the word "distribution." That's the one I'm employing. "Redistribution of Wealth" is a perfectly fine way of describing the act of putting your thumb on the scale of economic achievement.

[szh]

Lot less rich people to argue or fight, I suppose ... makes them an easy target.

Z

As opposed to the poor, who have no time or resources to devote to fighting back.

They have no need to ... no one is trying to take anything from them.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Except for their existing public services, and except for those wanting a national sales tax or a flat tax, sure.

[heliochrome85]

They have no need to ... no one is trying to take anything from them.

Z

of course not. they are just supposed to be able to afford life in america on their own. good thing they all have access to affordable health care, paid sick days, high quality education, nutritious food, and political clout.

there are parts of the US that would pass for pakistan. you know this to be true.

[stebo0728]

Except for their existing public services, and except for those wanting a national sales tax or a flat tax, sure.

Wait wait, please dont try to make the argument that failing to give is the same as taking away.

[stebo0728]

Even semantically-speaking, as you're trying to do, I don't think this works. Wealth is distributed, whether you want to say it is or not. Just because it's distributed according to earnings doesn't mean it's not distributed. This seems like a falsity meant to cast aspersions upon people seeking a tiered tax system (especially the "means you consider the original distribution to have been in error" bit).

Wealth gets around. By the process of getting around, it is distributed. That's what "distributed" means. There. Lesson completed.

EDIT:
Here's some additional learning. Stebo, you're right if you only see "to distribute" to mean the following dictionary definition:

1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.

In that light, distribute is something that happens from a central location, by a central actor. But you're plainly wrong if you see "to distribute" to also mean:

2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.

This speaks to a more decentralized and, dare I say, natural sense of the word "distribution." That's the one I'm employing. "Redistribution of Wealth" is a perfectly fine way of describing the act of putting your thumb on the scale of economic achievement.

Ok, thanks for summing that up, but I still denounce the idea that wealth is originally [divided or given out in shares, dealt out, or allotted]. But actually, its funny you throw number 2 in there, because by his and admission, that exactly Obama's goal in re-[spreading, scattering] wealth.

And who in the hell are you to stick your thumb on the scale of economic achievement? Might chum of you to actually to refer to it that way, as it actually sheds a bit more light on the sinister nature that drives "progressivism".

[stebo0728]

They have no need to ... no one is trying to take anything from them.

Z

of course not. they are just supposed to be able to afford life in america on their own. good thing they all have access to affordable health care, paid sick days, high quality education, nutritious food, and political clout.

there are parts of the US that would pass for pakistan. you know this to be true.

So are some people so functionally devoid that they cannot negotiate terms of employment for themselves, or are you actually a supporter of forcing an employer to pay more for a service than its actually worth? Value has no basis in need, value has basis in what you have to offer in return for payment. Need has no place in the marketplace, if someone's need increases, he needs to increase his own value to match.

[heliochrome85]

So are some people so functionally devoid that they cannot negotiate terms of employment for themselves, or are you actually a supporter of forcing an employer to pay more for a service than its actually worth? Value has no basis in need, value has basis in what you have to offer in return for payment. Need has no place in the marketplace, if someone's need increases, he needs to increase his own value to match.

when you decide to use english, let me know. i have no idea what exactly you are trying to say.

[AZhitman]

Right, but I think what you guys are missing is that in life, wealth is compensation for your efforts, right?

In education, we don't need grades. There is no fundamental requirement for them. We could have an educational system without it. Your efforts in school are rewarded by increased knowledge and talent.

Grades are for other people to see. Grades are not for you. The fundamental difference between grades and paychecks is that grades are a tracking mechanism, whereas paychecks are a reward. The problem with redistributing paychecks is that it's unfair. The problem with redistributing grades is that it's retarded.

You can make an argument against progressive taxation without using nonsensical, dumbass analogies. Please do.

Your arrogance is leaking out again. Grades, in many cases, directly correspond to paychecks. Even in the not-so-direct correlation, they provide increased opportunities and exposure. You yourself have railed on about the plight of the underclass and their lack of opportunities (and the fast-tracking of the "well-heeled").

So, let's not be calling something a dumbass analogy just because it doesn't correspond with YOUR view of how an argument should be presented.

I DO concur with your fundamental assessment of the "problems" inherent in both ideas.

Now I'm gonna go read the rest of the thread, where someone probably already addressed this.

[AZhitman]

the reality is that if you are born black, male and in the bronx, you have little if any chance of making it in this world.

No.

Now, if you're born addicted to crack with no arms and no legs and your heart on the outside and a cleft palate and a rare congenital blood disorder, you have little if any chance of making it in this world.

Let's not be perpetuating pity. Hell, *I* couldn't swing the kind of scratch you're dropping on med school, so are you somehow more privileged than I? I should just crawl in a hole, collect my welfare check, and let Uncle Barack support me, because some foreign-born ingrate TOOK MY SPOT IN MED SCHOOL. *RAAAGE*

Looks silly, doesn't it? Yeah. So knock it off. We all play the cards we're dealt, and the government isn't responsible for fixing that.

BTW, there was a time, not so long ago, when being brown, myopic and from another country pretty much meant you're screwed in Amurrica. Money isn't the only thing keeping you from feeling screwed, is it? Exactly. You're living proof that the "pity" case isn't accurate.

and yes, the republicans DO want the poor to die.

If that were the case, you'd be issued a box of hypodermics full of pool acid and told to "Get to work."

I'm not a GOP'er, but I think that's patently absurd (and bumper-stickery as all hell).

wanna show me all the jobs bills they have pushed through? how about all the PRO-MIDDLE CLASS bills they have pushed through.

Ah, yes. The panacea for all things, a bill. How about leaving people the hell alone? I'll employ more people if the Left will leave my income alone and quit whining about how mean I am.

[AZhitman]

As opposed to the poor, who have no time or resources to devote to fighting back.

Really?

If that were true, daytime television would cease to exist. So would lottery tickets. And 70% of cigarette sales. Oh, and half of p0rn.

"No time". "No resources."

Yes, poor people... this is what the Left thinks of you. You have nothing to offer.

Who wants the poor to die, again?

[bigbadberry3]

Reading these arguments is great. Everyone likes to accuse everyone and no one feels like trying to find a solution cause it's easier to rage on.

[stebo0728]

Reading these arguments is great. Everyone likes to accuse everyone and no one feels like trying to find a solution cause it's easier to rage on.

No the point is, the left wants to squeeze blood out of a turnip to help the poor, that the right argues the government has no business helping, at least not at the sacrifice of anyone else's liberties.

[bigbadberry3]

Reading these arguments is great. Everyone likes to accuse everyone and no one feels like trying to find a solution cause it's easier to rage on.

No the point is, the left wants to squeeze blood out of a turnip to help the poor, that the right argues the government has no business helping, at least not at the sacrifice of anyone else's liberties.

Liberties=monies?

[stebo0728]

liberties = your right to your life, and your property

property seized at the point of a gun, to pay for modest funding of government as it should behave, partially understandable

property seized to be given to someone else, in order to "rebalance" an perceived unfairness, not acceptable

but property never seized at the point of a gun, much better, taxes paid if and only if you consume products on the market (ie a consumption tax), thats the fairest form of taxation for a free society

[S13_love]

Liberties=monies?

Liberties = Enjoying various social, political, or economic rights and privileges?

[stebo0728]

Liberties=monies?

Liberties = Enjoying various social, political, or economic rights and privileges?

Liberties = enjoying freedoms, and not having other enjoying the unearned at your expense

[AppleBonker]

Liberties = enjoying freedoms, and not having other enjoying the unearned at your expense

I think the argument is that the rich are doing this as well. It just isn't as traceable. I can easily calculate the amount of dollars paid in taxes from the rich that end up paying out to the poor in various ways. It is much harder for me to calculate what the rich have taken from the poor in order to advance their own wealth.

Holy smokes this isn't so black or white. There is a middle ground here. Arguing that the wealthy do not benefit at the hands of the poor is categorically untrue. At the same time, arguing that the poor are not benefiting from subsidies from the wealthy is also categorically untrue (though I don't know that any one has tried to make that point). Hell, I've been the beneficiary of some wealthy peoples' money as well: I went through a fantastic public school system that was probably funded primarily from taxes on the wealthiest 1% of the population. (Note: my parents are far from poor, but they definitely do not fall within that top 1%).