Originally posted by ValhallThere is no such thing as arbitrage. What the socialists amongst have forgotten is that will ALWAYS be a
fact...they can't eliminate it. Like universe winding down, there is always a loss to a win.
I invite a lot people to get over it. It doesn't mean that someone who did better than you raped you.
The moment you believe this you admit that America a land where everyone is supposed to be able to prosper has failed. If one person winning means
one person loses (and this is guaranteed in an unchecked free market) you eventually end up with a small handful of big winners and a huge majority of
losers. As long as there's inflation it's theoretically possible for everyone to win. If inflation goes up at 3% a year everyone can end up with
1-2% more wealth. Finally, it's typical in a business for those that work the hardest to be the lowest paid, especially in a service economy. Go
take a stroll through a mall some day and look at all the people working the floor of the stores for low wages. Now think about the managers above
them sitting in an office, then the owners above the managers making the most money and playing golf all day while others are doing the actual work.
I would call that rape, and we're not even getting into the idea of corporations hiring people to invent technology that they go in to make billions
with while the inventor only sees his relatively low salary. That's intellectual rape and it's practiced by corporations on a mass scale. The
people that work the hardest and make a company run are paid the least.
Originally posted by Valhall
They don't appear as anti "their" wealth. They do appear as anti-wealth and they definitely appear as pro-redistribution <=== which is
anti-wealth.
Pro redistribution isn't anti wealth. Saying someone who profits off of society should be expected to give back to that society is much different
from making policies that actually punish those who are wealthy. It's all a matter of where tax rates are set. If tax rates were set at 95% and
there were a point where you were hard capped on how much money you could make annually, that's punishment. Saying we should go back to Reagan's
tax rates (which even Reagan thought were too low by the end of this term) is hardly punishing. This all goes back to the idea of responsibility
though, if the country allows you to become a millionaire you owe it to the country to make sure people can afford the basics like having a roof over
their head and shelter. We're not even getting into having an enjoyable life where one can afford some entertainment and expect to work at above
slave wages.
Originally posted by Valhall
Of course...there's the infamous "you didn't get there on your own" speech to people who created businesses and were successful.
In fact, I don't know anybody. And that's an unequivocal ANYBODY who I have personally met in my life who gets up everyday, goes to work and makes
a living who is sitting around saying that someone with MORE than them needs to give them some of what that other person has. So it can't be the
working middle class that Obama is speaking for here, it just can't be. It's got to be someone who doesn't work, doesn't want to work, but wants
to have more.
Lets start with you didn't create that business. It's 100% correct and any business that doesn't realize that deserves to fail in my opinion for
being arrogant. It's the customers who build a business by choosing to give you money. Furthermore a business is made up of a collective of people
working at it, most businesses don't have just one employee it's a group effort. Someone else, usually in the hundreds and thousands of people (in
the case of some small businesses even millions) are collectively allowing that business owner to succeed. Business owners that don't recognize that
over estimate their self worth, under estimate others, and are well... evil.
As for the rest of that, people who need help... need help. The system is set up with 3 purposes:
1. It's there so that people on hard times have a safety net. Most people in the country simply don't make enough of a wage anymore to put away
savings for hard times. Especially not in an economy which tries to practice Keynesian economics which can be summed up as "Spend all the money,
when it runs out print more and spend that.
2. It's to lower crime. When people have something to live for they're less likely to commit crimes. Giving people a basic standard of living with
basic first world appliances like tv's, radios, microwaves, refrigerators, beds, and so on leads to people being more content with their lives and
less willing to do something illegal and harm others due to the punishment of losing that in jail (or possibly death).
3. It's economic stimulus. Food stamps are farm subsidies in reality, they're just packaged differently.
Continued again.
