Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

That's a very pretty and colorful line graph, but seeing the data from which it was produced would be much more meaningful. Can you provide that data in its' entirety? Then, we might be able to draw some rational conclusions.

While overall the 1% seems to do quite well overall, it looks like they experience some much larger down turns than the remaining 99% when things go bad.

Oh, and you might want to look at some of the data available at: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42870

 

Surely: http://cbo.gov/publication/42729

What would you like to discuss?

 

Personally, I don't see a problem worth discussing. Figure 18 comes closest to providing some useful data, but if we could only get Federal, State, and local government deficit spending under control we might begin to make some progress.

Does it anger you when those with wealth acquire more wealth? It doesn't bother me at all, and looking at the cbo link I showed previously, I'm thankful for the 1% who not only pay their fair share of taxes, they also make up for those who pay none at all.

"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

 

The problem is the unearned advantage of the wealthy. Something you apparently refuse to acknowledge. Why do you have a problem with fairness?

 

Anybody ever watch inside job? It's about the deregulation of wall street and how it caused the economic collapse of 2008

 

Would Ron Paul have supported the deregulation of Wall Street?
Even if you accept the argument that he is better than our current President, if Ron Paul causes economic collapse in 2013 or 2014, (but not as severe as Obama might allegedly do), that still not good enough!

 

How do you draw the conclusion that a persons wealth is unearned?

Wealth can provide some advantages, but is usually acquired by employing other advantages or abilities.

I have no problem at all with fairness, when properly defined and applied.

 

I would accept the argument that most anyone would be better than our current President, and have no fears at all of Ron Paul contributing to an economic collapse in 2013 or 2014, but instead am keeping an eye on the EU, Greece and France in particular, and how the U.S. is going to become involved in the name of preventing MAED on the backs of both current and future U.S. taxpayers.

If every country responds by printing more fiat currency, increasing their money base, while keeping the exchange rates from fluctuating widely, it will provide the appearance of a recovery taking place, while prices and the cost of living will increase for everyone, and of course the rich will get even richer on paper and acquired property, allowing the escalation of class envy and class warfare.

 

I foresee many riots in the near future, especially around November

Does anybody remember the fifth of November?....

 

Indie

Well looking back I posted the race metaphor in post 1211, you post about the ‘cripple’ and breaking legs in post 1213 and then Roo posted his grandmother story in 1219.

So it seems the leg breaking was your idea.

All I said was that it seemed to gives an insight into your thinking that you instantly thought of violence rather than a peaceful solution.

 

Indie

But can the opinions be defended from criticism, I am and have always been happy to explain and defend by ideas, you on the other hand seem to be using every evasion trick in the book to get out of even addressing the criticisms of your ideas.

LOL – knowledge, be it academic or empirical is just a tool the real question is do the ideas, theories or opinions that come out of experience stand up to scrutiny can they be defended from criticism? As pointed out many times and obvious from your post is that you seem unable to defend your ideas in any rational or reasonable way.

 

Indie

Again I’d say the thing to look at is - are the arguments being set out in the main good or bad ideas? Can they stand up to scrutiny; can they be defended in any rational or reasonable way?

I don’t think your ideas are very good because others and I have explained (often at length) why we think they seem deeply if not mortally flawed. And you rather than addressing those criticisms seem intent on evasion (often claiming criticisms don’t exist or that they are not worthy of a reply).

Exactly my point (just above) – ignore or dismiss – but the problem is that things don’t go away just by ignoring or dismissing them.

 

Indie

We have been through this many times before - you seem to think in terms of outcome without realising that were there are two groups with the same potential where one is advantaged and the other disadvantaged there outcomes will be very differently because of that disparity.

To go back to the race metaphor again –

It is like having a race between two runners of equal potential but one has to carry a 100lb sack of potatoes while the other is unencumbered or that one runner is given a 50 meter head start in a 100 meter race.

You then stand at the winning line and praise and reward the winning advantaged runner while lambasting the other disadvantaged runner as not putting in enough effort.

It’s an unfair race that’s rigged in favour of the advantaged.

But as I’ve pointed out your argument to the question - Is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

Is yes because ‘life is unfair’ and ‘shit happens’.

 

Indie

Is the child responsible for the actions of its parents; is that child responsible for being born into disadvantage?

And let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population but nobody knows which half. (*)

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they may not be inclined to go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’.

It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not. Some might help out of compassion and for the good of society but others might think ‘I’m all right jack’ and decide it’s none of their business if others suffer - something I’m sure they wouldn’t think if they didn’t now they wouldn’t be effected.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Indie

This also comes up against the old self serving con game of the deserving/undeserving.

It was argued that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no reason to give assistance to the disadvantaged (see also the Social Darwinist argument above).

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

The problem again being that the praised responsible people are often the same lambasted irresponsible people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

 

This, along with your "grass is greener" quit, is utter bullshit.

It is quite impossible to "earn" the vast sums of money that we're talking about, there is nothing that these people are doing, or maybe that has ever been done, that justifies that. All I ask is that they be trimmed back to a point that will not effect their quality of life, unless quality of life is determined by your bank balance. They wouldn't have to sell even ONE yaht to make me happy, just pay a fair portion up to people who need it more than they do.

What downsides are you talking about these people's wealth giving them? Maybe they don't have enough time to visit all of their vacation homes yearly? Maybe their rent-boy scandals just keep leaking out and tarnishing their evangelical jeebus-lubbin appearance?

Surely you don't think that the rate at which the earnings of the wealthy grow or cease to is a HARDSHIP, given that they still never have a decrease is quality of life, while people in america STARVE and experience malnutrition and violence, and the best you can do is tell them to blame their parents?

 

Bal:

This forum seems to be your lifeblood. When you make numerous posts I only skim over them, so if you really wish to receive a response try to be more concise in a single post.

On your race analogy, change the 100 lb sack of potatoes to 100 lbs of money. Now the person with the wealth is at a disadvantage in your race.

Now, would you like to begin anew, with perhaps a little effort toward the maintenance of civility? And, if you wish to throw in labels, at least have the decency to define them fully and clearly. I sometimes wonder why every thread here is not labeled Left vs Right.

 

If what you claim you are responding to is bullshit, why then do you heap more upon it rather than try to clean up the mess?

Pay is what one receives for their labors. The needs of people are purchased with the pay which results from their labors. Needs provided by any other means are the result of charitable efforts. And I think I already asked how you define fair, did I not?

Look at your line chart to see the downsides I was referring to.

How many, if any, people are you aware of in America who are starving or suffering from malnutrition? And assuming 'them' is in reference to the child, I've not suggested the child blame the parents, although I think the parents should blame themselves rather than transfer blame to society or the richer members of society.

This is the problem with our 'progressive' tax system. Those who pay very little or no taxes at all see taxation as 'the means' of providing not only their needs, but an increasing number of their wants as well. People would look at taxation much differently if everyone had to pay taxes, and each time they were increased everyone would pay more.

 

Indie

LOL – the return of one of you evasion tricks – if I explain at length you demand I be more concise and if I’m concise you proclaim I’m too simplistic and demand explanation.

The result being the same - you refusing to address the criticisms being raised.

So you’d reward one runner for not having to put in any effort? I mean a 100lb bag of money is likely to be more than the winner of the race would receive as a prize. So the one already rewarded has basically ‘won’ without having to race. And if there is a third runner you could have a situation where one runner wins the race and is rewarded, one puts in nearly as much effort but receives little or nothing and one puts in no or little effort at all but gets more than the winner.

Oh and another evasion trick you’ve used before – claiming you’re not replying out of righteous indignation at you opponents ‘rudeness’ or other supposed misdemeanour.

Indie I know all your evasion tricks, but ask yourself this why do you need to employ them why don’t you just address the questions and criticisms raised and if you can’t why can’t you?

 

Indie

To repeat - Is the child responsible for the actions of its parents; is that child responsible for being born into disadvantage?

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population but nobody knows which half. (*)

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they may not be inclined to go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’.

It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not. Some might help out of compassion and for the good of society but others might think ‘I’m all right jack’ and decide it’s none of their business if others suffer - something I’m sure they wouldn’t think if they didn’t now they wouldn’t be effected.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)