It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How many of you anti-socialists bought a lottery ticket?

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   


How many of you anti-socialists bought a lottery ticket?


Last time I checked no one got punished or fined for not playing. Unlike that socialist dream of the ACA.




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1





What happens if no one buys lottery tickets? The lottery no longer exists. The community does regulate the lottery, if that weren't so they wouldn't be the driving force behind it.


Buts that like saying car production is socialist in nature " if no-one buys a car, car manufacturing stops, ergo GM or Ford support socialism " hmmm



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Socialism is the economic philosophy that wealth should be redistributed to the people.


What do you call it when millions of people's "wealth" is redistributed to just one person?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Fro your other thread...your words

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Politics is a cancer that divides the people at our cores (ourselves), especially in a political climate such as America where there are two opposing "factions" constantly bickering and arguing with one another about how their side is better than the other side.


A great example of the hypocrite calling others hypocrites...you didnt think that through did you...why are you dividing the people?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy





I agree that the lottery is socialism.

Millions put into it, and only one or two benefit from it.


How convenient that everyone forgets that most of the money goes back into social programs or charities - well they do in Australia anyway



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




If socialism is people getting stuff for free, the lottery is the most extreme form of socialism around.


NO! Voting is the most extreme form of socialism - plenty of idiots get to vote for free, without questioning why they even voted or who they voted for.

Fail again...



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




No, socialism needs people to work so those in power can take what they have.



Sounds like you defined the USA - Kleptocracy Fascist Oil-igarchy Sociliasm(cough)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Where exactly have I been a hypocrite? Have I endorsed socialism? No, I've only pointed out the misconception people have of it. Any type of political structure is prone to corruption, socialism is no different.

Read the thread in context please. Nowhere will you see me endorsing socialism, I'm just a bit sick of people claiming that our current system is so much better when it's not.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Can people win in Socialism?? If so you win the dumbest post of the week award!! If not you still win!




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What part of voluntary v. involuntary do you not get.

Most forms of government socialism are involuntary.

Not to mention, for the lottery to be truly socialist, all the collected money would have to be shared out equally among everyone who plays. That means that someone who only buys one ticket would get as much as someone who buys 20 and it would be an even share. There would be no "big winner." If there is a big winner, it is not a collective.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What is the main argument from those who are against socialism? That socialism gives people free stuff without them having to earn it. Isn't that what the lottery is? People winning money without having to earn it?

The OP was made with that argument in mind, I didn't really articulate that very well in the OP and that is my own fault, but this thread was made with the intention of pointing out that glaring misconception and the hypocrisy of those who make that argument against socialism but then go out and fund the lottery in hopes of getting free money themselves.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


What do you call it when millions of people's "wealth" is redistributed to just one person?

Ooo! OO!!

I know this one!!!!.....you call it "trickle up" economics. ..... wait...no - "trickle down"?



Like: Bank bail-outs! Right? And no corrupt Wall-Street banker ever has to pay the penalties for what they've done!!!! But they continue to reap all of the fallout rewards for their cheating.....

Right?




Did I win????

edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


Yeah, I did.
I won that one.


Wall Street - the global casino, where proceeds from the lottery/contest go only to the "winners" - not to all of the people who make it possible.


edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

What is the main argument from those who are against socialism? That socialism gives people free stuff without them having to earn it. Isn't that what the lottery is? People winning money without having to earn it?

The OP was made with that argument in mind, I didn't really articulate that very well in the OP and that is my own fault, but this thread was made with the intention of pointing out that glaring misconception and the hypocrisy of those who make that argument against socialism but then go out and fund the lottery in hopes of getting free money themselves.


You would have done better to pick on people who entered office lottery pools with the understanding to equally split any winnings.

We did do that.

My husband entered an office pool with 46 other people, and they won $4. So they all would have gotten $0.08. Instead, some argued that the one who collected the money and bought the tickets earned it for doing all the work and others made the suggestion that the $4 should be reinvested in Lotto tickets since no one expected to make money anyhow. The collective choice was to let it ride, and it is.

But that example is far more socialist. A group pooling their resources with the understanding of an even distribution of the results. They even voted on what to do with the results when they came.

And to address your point:

The problem with socialism is that we dislike the forced taking from some to give to others who often put nothing in themselves.

In this case I cited, no one was forced to put in and everyone put in the same amount. Then if there are results, everyone takes out an equal amount in turn.
edit on 16-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You do realize that our tax code is a form of socialism right? We have no choice in paying taxes, so would you feel that the authorities are justified in arresting someone for evading taxes? If so, you are pro-socialism.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

You do realize that our tax code is a form of socialism right? We have no choice in paying taxes, so would you feel that the authorities are justified in arresting someone for evading taxes? If so, you are pro-socialism.


Yes, and I don't like the tax code.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So you believe no one should pay taxes? Do you believe the public school system is evil? Do you believe public libraries are bad? And public transportation? How about those who keep the roads and infrastructure working? Should we do away with them as well?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

So you believe no one should pay taxes? Do you believe the public school system is evil? Do you believe public libraries are bad? And public transportation? How about those who keep the roads and infrastructure working? Should we do away with them as well?


Explain to me what is fair about a tax code where roughly half of the people who benefit from it pay nothing into it?

The example of socialism I gave above had everyone paying the same amount in with the idea that all would benefit equally.

Explain how the current progressive tax code makes sense in that light.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You seem to be under the impression that I endorse socialism, I don't and nowhere in this thread have I stated such a thing.

Do I think it could work? Absolutely if it is done in the right way like we see in places such as Norway and Sweden. Capitalism could also work if it were handled the right way, but as we can see it is not being handled in the right way. It has bred a society of greed and materialism/consumerism where "me" comes before "we".

So do you think we should totally get rid of all of those social programs or not?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Explain to me what is fair about a tax code where roughly half of the people who benefit from it pay nothing into it?

Everyone who has money to spend pays taxes when they spend it. (Oh - wait...sorry - except CHURCHES, and businesses that write off their expenditures as "business costs"....)
We are all (we regular wage-earners) double-taxed....we are taxed when we earn it, and again when we spend it. (well, except for the 1% - they don't pay ANY taxes. At all. Nifty scheme they have going! Right? Amirite??)
Your fantasy's (imaginary) 'roughly half' are paying plenty..... in more ways than one.







edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Explain to me what is fair about a tax code where roughly half of the people who benefit from it pay nothing into it?

Excuse the interruption......

what is fair about a tax code that allows the uber-rich to hoard their money off-shore, and short-change (or lay off/ship overseas those oh-so-lamentably-expensive jobs) their employees (who are then dependent on the system you so abhor) in the name of "profits"?

"Meh, screw those minimum wage drones!....who cares about them and their families? Nono....we are concerned ONLY with the satisfaction of our 'share-holders' - the 'investors' - not the well-being of our labor force!!! Pffttt...!!! They're a dime a dozen!! LOL. Yeah, those working stiffs, well - they can suck it. Losers. Mwahahahhaaaaa!!!!!"

Hmmm? What is fair about that?
Please? Can you explain that, please?



edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: meh. I know I'm wasting my finger-power. Carry on, everyone.....




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join