"Redistribution" of wealth: A very misleading term

[Little-Acorn]

I keep hearing liberals and other socialists say they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberals think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if Barack Obama had come along just then, he might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. Barack Obama wants me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked Barack Obama exactly what the money was used for, he couldn't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is a politician's way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. He's trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing that politician is. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time some politician or forum member tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in some ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I keep hearing liberals and other socialists say they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberals think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if Barack Obama had come along just then, he might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. Barack Obama wants me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked Barack Obama exactly what the money was used for, he couldn't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is a politician's way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. He's trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing that politician is. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time some politician or forum member tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in some ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

Those like obama know they are superior and that taking our money to give to thier friends and supporters is not stealing. It is simply a matter of relieving us of that burden . We didnt build that, we didnt really earn that money and besides we are not bright enough or caring enough so we do not deserve anything unless they choose to give it to us! Thats the arrogant elitism which they have ingrained deep into thier dirty little dark souls. Many of them truly believe that we should be thanking them. Thats how delusional they are! Such people would destroy billions of decent people to feed their massive ego and fantasies. No cost is too great to pay as long as its not them paying it!!--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

What is no one wants you to fix their car? What if they feel you are too young, too old, not the right color, not the right gender or too funny looking to fix their car?
What if someone needs their car fixed and know you can do a good job, but they can get it done cheaper at the SuperGarage in the city?
What if you had an accident and are no longer able to fix cars?

It's not always simple logic.

[Little-Acorn]

What is no one wants you to fix their car? What if they feel you are too young, too old, not the right color, not the right gender or too funny looking to fix their car?
What if someone needs their car fixed and know you can do a good job, but they can get it done cheaper at the SuperGarage in the city?
What if you had an accident and are no longer able to fix cars?

It's not always simple logic.
That sound you just heard was the point of my post passing cleanly over little gabby's head with room to spare. :lame2:

[KitchenKitten99]

What is no one wants you to fix their car? What if they feel you are too young, too old, not the right color, not the right gender or too funny looking to fix their car?
What if someone needs their car fixed and know you can do a good job, but they can get it done cheaper at the SuperGarage in the city?
What if you had an accident and are no longer able to fix cars?

It's not always simple logic.

Then you suck it up and move on. Why make yourself stressed about things that really don't matter, and make them something that matters more than the original goal?

You are inserting EMOTION into a simple business transaction, casual OR professional. Playing mind games, if you will.

You are assuming something that didn't exist, and doesn't in most cases.

If the person doesn't want their car fixed by someone due to any of the above reasons, that is THEIR PREROGATIVE. They are free to spend their money with whom they choose.

Just like I prefer to spend my money (what little I have left after the government takes a steam-shovel to our accounts) at businesses who have similar conservative values as myself and my husband. This is not always possible due to my love of unusual ingredients in cooking and I don't always like to wait for orders online, so I find myself spending at the local co-op, which is a liberal-haven.

How about not worrying so much about what resides in the backs of the minds of everyone out there and just move on with living your own life?

Everyone has prejudices and preferences, and some are based on race or religion and some aren't.

Stop forcing others to think like you and suppress their own emotions and feelings to conform to yours.

[fj1200]

What is no one wants you to fix their car? What if they feel you are too young, too old, not the right color, not the right gender or too funny looking to fix their car?
What if someone needs their car fixed and know you can do a good job, but they can get it done cheaper at the SuperGarage in the city?
What if you had an accident and are no longer able to fix cars?

It's not always simple logic.

What are you talking about? Government doesn't fix your car, it doesn't guarantee that your car gets fixed, it doesn't guarantee that you get to fix cars, and it doesn't guarantee that you know how to fix cars.

Simple, inasmuch as the vast seeming improbability that the market-driven economy is by far the best solution to improving qualities of life (and getting your car fixed) is simple, logic is your friend.

[taft2012]

I keep hearing liberals and other socialists say they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberals think they can do it better. "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Little-Acorn again."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What are you talking about? Government doesn't fix your car, it doesn't guarantee that your car gets fixed, it doesn't guarantee that you get to fix cars, and it doesn't guarantee that you know how to fix cars.

Simple, inasmuch as the vast seeming improbability that the market-driven economy is by far the best solution to improving qualities of life (and getting your car fixed) is simple, logic is your friend.

Gabby had to toss in some of her liberal non-logic, feel good tripe.
ADVISING HER ON LOGIC IS A USELESS TASK. She is smarter than everybody else, just ask her.-;)-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The dem /liberal/socialists's version of "Redistribution of wealth" = we rob and take a whole lot(as much as we can get), we generously give a little of it back to our friends..
nuff said, -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

That sound you just heard was the point of my post passing cleanly over little gabby's head with room to spare. :lame2:

We're talking U2 spy-plane flyover there:laugh:

[CSM]

It occurs to me that the reason I am so opposed to liberal/Democratic ideals is that instead of redistributing wealth, I think CREATING wealth has more long term benefit for all. I particularly support the creation of wealth if it involves me personnaly!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We're talking U2 spy-plane flyover there:laugh:

Actually closer to a Mars fly by..-:laugh2:

[aboutime]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Little-Acorn again."



taft. To prove how uneducated many liberals, Democrats, progressives, and Obama voters are. They are ALL FOR the redistribution of OTHER PEOPLE'S WEALTH.

But it's hand's off, and Untouchable when it comes to them Redistributing any of their OWN Wealth.

Most of them are so nearly totally brainwashed when listening to Obama make that statement about Redistribution. They have no idea. Nor do they want to be reminded. If there is NOTHING to redistribute. They won't be getting it.
But Obama always seems to FORGET to tell them about that line "Nothing from Nothing Equals Nothing!"

[Robert A Whit]

It occurs to me that the reason I am so opposed to liberal/Democratic ideals is that instead of redistributing wealth, I think CREATING wealth has more long term benefit for all. I particularly support the creation of wealth if it involves me personnaly!

Democrats so often speak of wealth as if it is just cash.

Cash is the tool.

We can use some of our wealth to get something that is your wealth.

Cash, the tool makes it much easier is all.

Ask democrats what they have to say about Oprah Winfrey.

She is reported to be making about 450 million dollars per year. Not 4 million nor 40 million, but 450 million so you know it is not a mistype.

The Feds mostly tax cash but they do also tax wealth. The estate tax is a wealth tax imposed on the family who don't deserve it per democrats teaching.

Democrats have it all wrong.

What they ought to do is teach their kids how one obtains wealth, not this crap you steal wealth from some person that earned it only to try to hand said cash to some person who may not even work nor desire to work.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It occurs to me that the reason I am so opposed to liberal/Democratic ideals is that instead of redistributing wealth, I think CREATING wealth has more long term benefit for all. I particularly support the creation of wealth if it involves me personnaly!

the problem with the idea of wealth redistribution for me, is the notion that wealth is somehow a finite thing... like only so much wealth can exist, does exist, so it must be spread out to as many as possible.

nonsense.

[Little-Acorn]

"Redistribution" of wealth, is simply a code word for theft. All the elaborate rhetoric, is just an attempt to disguise the real nature of what the "redistributors" are doing.

[fj1200]

Gabby had to toss in some of her liberal non-logic, feel good tripe.
ADVISING HER ON LOGIC IS A USELESS TASK. She is smarter than everybody else, just ask her.-;)-Tyr

It's what I've come to expect from her; if government is good then more government is better.