Is this a politicial forum? can we debate freely?

[always]

Whether you are a liberal, a conservative, a fascist , a socialist, etc. YOU must be free to express your opinons on any political subject presented respectfully.
If this FORUM is to indeed meet the promise implied by its very title.

With this in mind I ask for your thoughts on the following remarks that are very "thoughtful" statements concerning certain politicial ideology and the resulting consequences:

1-"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity".

2- "What one person receives without working for , another person must work for without receiving."

3- "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

Very thoughtful statements , what say you?? Agree or Disagree and why.
Thank you- "always"

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Before we get started, a quick question -

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

Is that a bad thing?

 

[Pandora]

Before we get started, a quick question -

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

Is that a bad thing?

Sure it is a bad thing. It is not the governments place to take from one and give to another

 

[LooseChange]

In answer to question #1:
But you can't help the poor when you take the jobs out of the very community you want to Help?

Question #2:
And when you feel the need to hide your money in offshore accounts that makes it better right?

Question #3:
Your right the People are stupid for they don't know better since it's their government to begin with right? And they say democracy is the best thing since sliced bread. lol Keep reaching for that pie in the sky......

 

[chestnut]

Yes it is a bad thing. What gives the govt the right to take from anyone? It is not their place to take from one and give to another.

 

[always]

Yes it is a bad thing. What gives the govt the right to take from anyone? It is not their place to take from one and give to another.

Of course taking the property from one citizen and giving it to another is unconstitutional , therefore wrong! See, the government works for the people, not the people must work for the government.Our current citizens have been accepting the intrusion of government into their lives for so long they know nothing better.The federal government began confiscation of a citizens property in 1913, taking their money by a federal income tax.
It has grown now to the monster we see in Washington D.C. that controls our lives and still wants more.ie Government Control over our Health Care!
What say you?

 

[AtheismIsReality]

So its wrong for the government to take away the ability of someone to engage in insider trading in order for the rest to have a more equitable chance to compete in investing in financial markets?

 

[always]

In answer to question #1:
But you can't help the poor when you take the jobs out of the very community you want to Help?

Question #2:
And when you feel the need to hide your money in offshore accounts that makes it better right?

Question #3:
Your right the People are stupid for they don't know better since it's their government to begin with right? And they say democracy is the best thing since sliced bread. lol Keep reaching for that pie in the sky......

Actually LOOSECHANGE, why must a citizen feel a need to'hide his money" ?
If his money was earned within the law, hiding should not be necessary. If it is stolen money then we have other laws to handle the situation.

as for statement #3- Yes, democracy is the best system designed by man, Is it perfect?, no, but our constitution has provisions that can lawfully restrain all violaters. We must not allow fascism to grow and blame our Republic.
what say you?

 

[AtheismIsReality]

At the heart of the issue is that some believe that the 1% who control most of the wealth in this country should be let alone because they "earned" it.

However, we have been warned since antiquity of the dangers of wealth inequality becoming too great. Plato warned Aristotle. Rome clearly demonstrated it.

But I suppose Americans are different because we are exceptional so the laws of history do not apply to us.

As we spiral further into plutocracy, I will only laugh when the rich gut their useful idiots for their trouble. It'll be a fitting end for those who put profit over country, but were not the ones profiting.

Sieg $.

 

[always]

At the heart of the issue is that some believe that the 1% who control most of the wealth in this country should be let alone because they "earned" it.

However, we have been warned since antiquity of the dangers of wealth inequality becoming too great. Plato warned Aristotle. Rome clearly demonstrated it.

But I suppose Americans are different because we are exceptional so the laws of history do not apply to us.

As we spiral further into plutocracy, I will only laugh when the rich gut their useful idiots for their trouble. It'll be a fitting end for those who put profit over country, but were not the ones profiting.

Sieg $.

or , you COULD move TO ROME , THAT IS IN EUROPE, you know!

 

[Richard Savage]

Capitalism requires the free flow of capital. It is a market system based on capital investment, and a government system committed to capital expenditure and tax incentives to prime the pump. Once the capital starts flowing, the capitalists take your capital and convert it into their capital. Capitalism, at least from the economic perspective of the capitalist, is a capital idea!

In the same vein, it is fitting that the CEO’s - those "captains of industry" that ran their companies aground - should reward themselves with big bonuses at the expense of the American taxpayer. The robber barons of the past have nothing on their immodest greed, which would make even the most rapacious pirate blush for shame. Surely, this is capitalism at its very best.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

or , you COULD move TO ROME , THAT IS IN EUROPE, you know!

Sieg $, brother. Sieg $.

 

[Dr.Who]

Before we get started, a quick question -

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

Is that a bad thing?

Is that a hypothetical question or do you really care so little about the rights of people to own private property. I would add that private property is a basic civil right mentioned in the constitution. While many of the things that the confiscated money is being used to pay for are not.

Without the constitutional protection of private property out system will fail. Who will work for wages they can't keep? Who will repair a home they can't keep? Who will grow food they can't sell?

 

[Dr.Who]

So its wrong for the government to take away the ability of someone to engage in insider trading in order for the rest to have a more equitable chance to compete in investing in financial markets?

Regulated capitalism sets up a gov that will stop people from doing bad things. things like trampling the rights of others. When one person who did nothing wrong loses his money and it is given to another person whose rights were not violated gets it the system is not at all about rights but just about one group of people getting what they can from another group.

It is not the role of government to stop people from doing things that are not violations of others rights. Insider trading we can stop because it involves fraud. Working more productively and having more money than another is not wrong.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Is that a hypothetical question or do you really care so little about the rights of people to own private property. I would add that private property is a basic civil right mentioned in the constitution. While many of the things that the confiscated money is being used to pay for are not.

Without the constitutional protection of private property out system will fail. Who will work for wages they can't keep? Who will repair a home they can't keep? Who will grow food they can't sell?

When did I say confiscate private property?

I do have a question though, and this is concrete, how does a nation survive if the base is eroded?

We supposedly have tax credits that make it so some do not pay income tax. Is that confiscating private property? If so, what's the alternative? Squeeze people even more so they can't survive? Have even less money making opportunities because we fund a security force to keep the rabble who have an aversion to starving to death in line?

If one segment of society amasses so much wealth that it can bend the government to provide even more benefits to itself thereby curtailing the freedom of the rest of society, how is that any better than the government taking away freedom?