I love it when lefties let their mask down...

[Lukey]

The post got scrubbed (apparently) LOL! But Degsme listed various economic viewpoints on the Austerity Works thread and I believe there were five or six but the only two that are relevant were "capitalist" and "socialist." Capitalist was described as "believing that the few with wealth should be the only ones to have it" (more or less) which I corrected to "the only ones with wealth should be those who EARN it" while Socialist was described as someone who thought wealth should be redistributed/shared (or something along those lines). Degs or anyone else, please feel free to chime in with a more accurate recollection.

Anyway, my point is, let's go with his definitions. Which one is he and the rest of our resident lefties? Which is Obama? I think clearly, by his definition, they are (all) socialists. Thanks for the confirmation!

 

[OldGaffer]

Social Darwinism is the ticket.

 

[Craig]

The post got scrubbed (apparently) LOL! But Degsme listed various economic viewpoints on the Austerity Works thread and I believe there were five or six but the only two that are relevant were "capitalist" and "socialist." Capitalist was described as "believing that the few with wealth should be the only ones to have it" (more or less) which I corrected to "the only ones with wealth should be those who EARN it" while Socialist was described as someone who thought wealth should be redistributed/shared (or something along those lines). Degs or anyone else, please feel free to chime in with a more accurate recollection.

Anyway, my point is, let's go with his definitions. Which one is he and the rest of our resident lefties? Which is Obama? I think clearly, by his definition, they are (all) socialists. Thanks for the confirmation!

the only ones with wealth should be those who EARN it

When did you begin calling for Steve Forbes' wealth to be confiscated? And of course...this is a call for the elimination of inheritances altogether...as they are entirely unearned.

 

[OldGaffer]

the only ones with wealth should be those who EARN it

When did you begin calling for Steve Forbes' wealth to be confiscated? And of course...this is a call for the elimination of inheritances altogether...as they are entirely unearned.

That would take out 72% of the richest 400 Americans, all trust bunnies.

 

[Lukey]

the only ones with wealth should be those who EARN it

When did you begin calling for Steve Forbes' wealth to be confiscated? And of course...this is a call for the elimination of inheritances altogether...as they are entirely unearned.

Good catch Craig. Naturally, once you earn it you can do what you please with it. Give it to your progeny or to charity or to your cat. I hope you understood that I was referring (only) to the LACK of "forced" confiscation of wealth. Isuppose it would have been clearer had I said the only ones who accumulate wealth are those who earn it. Is that better? Now, can you find your way clear to address the premise?

 

[Craig]

Good catch Craig. Naturally, once you earn it you can do what you please with it. Give it to your progeny or to charity or to your cat. I hope you understood that I was referring (only) to the LACK of "forced" confiscation of wealth. Isuppose it would have been clearer had I said the only ones who accumulate wealth are those who earn it. Is that better? Now, can you find your way clear to address the premise?

So...which is it? No unearned wealth allowed...Or cool with unearned wealth? If little Stevie didn't earn it, then he didn't earn it. That's the premise I'm working on. And he's accumulated wealth that he didn't earn. Same with the Romney kids.

It's just a game.

 

[Lukey]

So...which is it? No unearned wealth allowed...Or cool with unearned wealth? If little Stevie didn't earn it, then he didn't earn it. That's the premise I'm working on. And he's accumulated wealth that he didn't earn. Same with the Romney kids.

It's just a game.

Thanks for the disclosure. I choose not to play.

 

[Craig]

Thanks for the disclosure. I choose not to play.

Sure you do. You just play according to your rules.

 

[OldGaffer]

Sure you do. You just play according to your rules.

Hereditary Oligarchy is perfectly OK, it worked for the French Aristocracy as well as the Russian Nobility, until, of course, it didnt, and they lost their heads are were stood against the wall. At what point does that happen, when the top 1% control 100% of a nations wealth? Yes? No? Maybe?

 

[Lukey]

Sure you do. You just play according to your rules.

My "rules" include debating the issues. If I notice a disconnect in someone's argument I may mention it but then once they clarify it I go right back to the debate (with their modification). You seem most intent on noting discrepancies and then just doing an end zone dance for the duration. That's the game I won't play. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Lukey]

Hereditary Oligarchy is perfectly OK, it worked for the French Aristocracy as well as the Russian Nobility, until, of course, it didnt, and they lost their heads are were stood against the wall. At what point does that happen, when the top 1% control 100% of a nations wealth? Yes? No? Maybe?

Then you better call Will Smith and tell him he's broke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Smith

 

[Craig]

My "rules" include debating the issues. If I notice a disconnect in someone's argument I may mention it but then once they clarify it I go right back to the debate (with their modification). You seem most intent on noting discrepancies and then just doing an end zone dance for the duration. That's the game I won't play. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Lukey...you're joking. You rules consist of screeching marxist at every opportunity.

Disconnects in arguments are important, because they point out the weaknesses of the argument. A scientific method applied to debate, as it were. If I can pop one balloon, then the entire argument sags. Such has been the case since the beginning. The more ballonns popped, the more sag. One of my goals here is to pop your balloons as often as possible.

Have a lovely day.

 

[DefeatObama]

The post got scrubbed (apparently) LOL! But Degsme listed various economic viewpoints on the Austerity Works thread and I believe there were five or six but the only two that are relevant were "capitalist" and "socialist." Capitalist was described as "believing that the few with wealth should be the only ones to have it" (more or less) which I corrected to "the only ones with wealth should be those who EARN it" while Socialist was described as someone who thought wealth should be redistributed/shared (or something along those lines). Degs or anyone else, please feel free to chime in with a more accurate recollection.

Anyway, my point is, let's go with his definitions. Which one is he and the rest of our resident lefties? Which is Obama? I think clearly, by his definition, they are (all) socialists. Thanks for the confirmation!

capitalism allows everyone to succeed, or fail, on their merits. socialism assures equal misery

the libs want to lump in the perversion 'crony capitalism' in with the real thing.

I guess they missed what a capitalist America has accomplished over the last 200 years relative to the history of humanity. as evidenced by the GDP of all the nations who've succeeded more than we have

 

[Lukey]

Lukey...you're joking. You rules consist of screeching marxist at every opportunity.

Disconnects in arguments are important, because they point out the weaknesses of the argument. A scientific method applied to debate, as it were. If I can pop one balloon, then the entire argument sags. Such has been the case since the beginning. The more ballonns popped, the more sag. One of my goals here is to pop your balloons as often as possible.

Have a lovely day.

Not if a simple clarification suffices to correct it. As I did here. Only those who accumulate wealth (or earn it if you will) should CONTROL it - not the government, and not the commune. That, of course, includes the ability to distribute it as they see fit. You noticed that I had ill described that concept. And now you refuse to accept the clarification. That says way more about you than it does about me. And, as for "screeching marxist at every opportunity" as I pointed out, Degsme has pegged the left as socialists. Take it up with him.

 

[Lukey]

capitalism allows everyone to succeed, or fail, on their merits. socialism assures equal misery

the libs want to lump in the perversion 'crony capitalism' in with the real thing.

I guess they missed what a capitalist America has accomplished over the last 200 years relative to the history of humanity. as evidenced by the GDP of all the nations who've succeeded more than we have

Yes, indeed. It took 60 years of the progressives increasing socialism in America before they decided that "free market capitalism" failed. LOL!

 

[Craig]

Not if a simple clarification suffices to correct it. As I did here. Only those who accumulate wealth (or earn it if you will) should CONTROL it - not the government, and not the commune. That, of course, includes the ability to distribute it as they see fit. You noticed that I had ill described that concept. And now you refuse to accept the clarification. That says way more about you than it does about me. And, as for "screeching marxist at every opportunity" as I pointed out, Degsme has pegged the left as socialists. Take it up with him.

OK...see...only...those who accumulate (or earn it) blah blah blah...It's bull manure...And all it does is show that you're an anarchist. Government has no right to blah blah blah...

Socialists and Marxists aren't the same...A man of your education knows that. As has been pointed out and as reality tells us...if you write off a loss or take your mortgage deduction...you're a socialist.


Really...you've been playing this game for 4 years.

 

[Lukey]

OK...see...only...those who accumulate (or earn it) blah blah blah...It's bull manure...And all it does is show that you're an anarchist. Government has no right to blah blah blah...

Socialists and Marxists aren't the same...A man of your education knows that. As has been pointed out and as reality tells us...if you write off a loss or take your mortgage deduction...you're a socialist.


Really...you've been playing this game for 4 years.

Lenny Bruce was awesome. Did you see the movie? Dustin Hoffman really is the best actor of our generation. I mean Deniro and Nicholson have had their moments but nobody has done the dept and breadth of what Hoffman has done. From Ratso Rizzo to Jack Crabb to David Summer to Louis Dega to Lenny to Max Dembo (remember when I went by that nic on Slate?) to Babbitt in Rain Man - no one else can do what he does to bring a character to life.

Wait a minute, can I hijack my own thread?

 

[connieb]

I completely agree.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

That would take out 72% of the richest 400 Americans, all trust bunnies.

And mostly liberals.

Very good point Mr. Gaffer

 

[Wulk]

I think that I'd disagree with your summation of "socialism". I live in a socialist country, and, there are benefits, enjoyed by all, as a result of those socialist policies.

The main one being free education, including college, and university. Why should anyone have to pay to be educated?

Of course, those who are well off, financially, perhaps don't need those benefits, but, I'm sure they are not quibbling at not having to pay £9k plus college/university fees.

Socialism, as practiced in Scotland, isn't about reducing everyone to a common wealth denominator. It's about distributing the tax wealth, that the Govt takes in, to the benefit of all - isn't that why we pay taxes etc?

As for inheritance tax; Morally, it's wrong. But, there are political reasons for restricting the amount of money/power that can be inherited.

Anyone would want the fruits of their endeavours to pass on to their descendants; that's a natural reaction. The rub comes in when that financial/power equation becomes so huge that the individuals concerned become a law unto themselves. Money equals power. Get enough of it and you are above the laws of the land.

Look at how billionaires can affect your elections. Look at how billionaires affect the lives of people living in distant lands like Palestine. Look at how Al Capone used his illegal wealth to corrupt politicians (not that they need much corrupting), judges, the police, and editors of newspapers. He virtually ran Chicago - until he was finally convicted, by the Feds, on tax avoidance. This was a man who couldn't be convicted for any of his numerous illegal activities.

If you look at Scottish, and other countries, history, you can see how certain families/clans became so powerful that they offered an alternative , in some cases imposed, rule of their own laws in opposition to those that legally existed. Clans like the Gordon, Douglas, Campbell, were, in their day, untouchables - that is the risk that exists through uncontrolled wealth. The recent economic collapse is an example - banks, etc - too big to be allowed to fail.