Military Spending, etc.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,966
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#21
Every time I get paid, part of my wealth gets redistributed from me to others. The more I get paid, the more gets redistributed. I pay for idiots in the government who admit to trying to stop the duly elected President of the US. I pay for those already on SS and for those on Medicare and Medicaid. I pay for midnight basketball, and for grants for professors who study inane ideas to prove things that any sane person either already knows or does not care about. I even pay for the electricity, and the salaries of senators who read HS yearbooks and discuss flatulence. And If I refuse to have my wealth distributed, then I can have all my assets taken away or I can go to jail.

So YES. anyone who makes a certain amount of income already suffers from the ravages of wealth redistribution. And those who make the most suffer the worst of it.
Then what you want is voluntary wealth distribution, so you can be as generous or as selfish as you want in response to the needs of the world and be mighty selective about it. Would you also like to have the 16th Amendment repealed, so you won't have to pay federal income tax again? But it would have to be replaced with a national sales tax. But then there would still be some who insist all required taxation is theft, so what to do? Come up with a voluntary tax system and keep your fingers crossed enough people contribute to it?

By the way, what's so bad about it after suffering the ravages of wealth distribution, if you are left being a millionaire still? At that point, it's time to count your blessings.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,966
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#22
No. In a free republic NO wealth redistribution is needed or required.

Nobody has an obligation to help anybody else. That is a religious belief. "Do unto others"

Charity is NOT wealth redistribution. It is charity. It is kinship to humankind.

wealth redistribution is taking my money and giving it to others that do not need it or deserve it.

Wealth redistribution is a marxist concept, nothing more.

I should be the only person that decides what is done with my money.

Besides --- like I've said to you 100 times already, the discussion is about HOW to do it, not whether it should be done. It should be done with free market approaches, not government management (mismanagement)

Let's talk
Private charity really is voluntary wealth redistribution. Pick out your favorite charity, or simply do it yourself, if you think you can do a better job with your generosity. I doubt your ideal of free market approaches would work out well in the real world. Businesses are motivated to make money, not go broke helping the less fortunate.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
5,971
5,779
1,743
Tulsa
#23
Then what you want is voluntary wealth distribution, so you can be as generous or as selfish as you want in response to the needs of the world and be mighty selective about it. Would you also like to have the 16th Amendment repealed, so you won't have to pay federal income tax again? But it would have to be replaced with a national sales tax. But then there would still be some who insist all required taxation is theft, so what to do? Come up with a voluntary tax system and keep your fingers crossed enough people contribute to it?

By the way, what's so bad about it after suffering the ravages of wealth distribution, if you are left being a millionaire still? At that point, it's time to count your blessings.
Yes, the 16th amendment would be great to be repealed. Currently, the tax code is only partially about raising revenue. It is more often used by the loopy left to "promote behavior" they agree with. So a sales tax would be great. That way I get to choose when I pay tax. If I don't want to pay tax, I don't buy the new vehicle or house.

And I get to choose the groups I wish to be charitable to. Instead of some one else choosing where my money goes. If you do not understand the ravages of wealth RE-distribution, then odds are you are most likely a recipient of other people's money, so rich that it makes you feel better about yourself, or a member of the political class that benefits by getting to choose who gets someone else's money.

Personally, I have no desire to send money to the most inefficient entity in the world so that a small portion of those funds actually gets to people who could use it, while most of it is eaten up by brueacrats.

Want to do it better? Eliminate the Department of Education. Take the exact same amount of money and send it back to the states, IN FULL. Have only one mandate, The states must send it to the local school boards, IN FULL. Have no "approved" curriculum, no other strings attached. Let the people closest to the students, who best understand their true needs, make the decisions.

But we can't do that, because they might teach things the Dimms don't want taught. The Left's playbook is simple. Control the children and eventually you will control everything. That is yet another reason why they hate private schools and home schools.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
5,971
5,779
1,743
Tulsa
#26
Private charity really is voluntary wealth redistribution. Pick out your favorite charity, or simply do it yourself, if you think you can do a better job with your generosity. I doubt your ideal of free market approaches would work out well in the real world. Businesses are motivated to make money, not go broke helping the less fortunate.
You are partially correct. Businesses are motivated to make money. That is why the entity exists. But the people running the business or the stock and bondholders getting a return of the profits of the business, may have motivation to help the less fortunate. I know many that do this. People that pay HUGE amounts in inefficiently spent tax dollars, but also give away 6 figures in charity every year, both locally and internationally.

So it actually does work out very well. You might want to hang around a different group of people and find out how well it does work.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
5,971
5,779
1,743
Tulsa
#27
Back to the original post and how wrong part of it was regarding the VA.

I spent a couple hours in a bar in Madison WI talking to a guy who was there to learn from the U of WI Medical center. The guy helps run a VA hospital or center in TX somewhere. He was telling me how much has changed for the better under Trump. How they are more focused on getting vets off the opiods and giving them mental training to deal with pain or injury etc. Getting them skills for the workplace if needed. How good the results they were seeing, but how there is a much greater emphasis on getting these guys back to being productive members of society instead of just giving them pills and sending them home.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,513
8,207
1,743
#28
Back to the original post and how wrong part of it was regarding the VA.

I spent a couple hours in a bar in Madison WI talking to a guy who was there to learn from the U of WI Medical center. The guy helps run a VA hospital or center in TX somewhere. He was telling me how much has changed for the better under Trump. How they are more focused on getting vets off the opiods and giving them mental training to deal with pain or injury etc. Getting them skills for the workplace if needed. How good the results they were seeing, but how there is a much greater emphasis on getting these guys back to being productive members of society instead of just giving them pills and sending them home.
I recently made a trip down to College Station to evaluate a program (part of aTm) that is doing onboarding and orientation type training for "green" employees to enter in to/get their foot in the door in the biotech/pharma industry. They actually had a class (fairly recently) of military veterans that the government paid their tuition for this 12-16 week program. None of the vets had any biotech industry experience nor did many of them have any kind of scientific background... but they all found immediate placement (well paid placement) within the industry immediately after completing the program.

It was a neat story to hear about.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,722
2,274
1,743
So Cal
#32
Private charity really is voluntary wealth redistribution. Pick out your favorite charity, or simply do it yourself, if you think you can do a better job with your generosity. I doubt your ideal of free market approaches would work out well in the real world. Businesses are motivated to make money, not go broke helping the less fortunate.
Townie... I only want one thing.... that's it, one thing.

Freedom. That's it.

Freedom from you and your central government tyranny.

Why can't I have my freedom? Why do you insist on taking my freedom from me?

That is all I want.

Can we talk?
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,050
16,371
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#33
So many of you use the word socialism to describe what you hate. Let's examine that word as it applies to politics in this country.

Those advocating more and more military spending are more often than not are Republicans. But you Republicans(or whatever the party has morphed into-which is far worse than what was the grand old party) who advocate for more military spending are definitely advocating for a form of what is commonly said to be socialism. That would be the fact that our military services are funded by taxes collected from all of us. A closer look at all the spending on the military reveals huge segments of that spending going to social programs(health care, retirement plans, etc., etc.). As a veteran myself I also conclude that there would be no Veterans Administration if there were no military spending to begin with. Thus, a whole other layer of social programs. Even though many of you Republicans who never served could care less about what happens to soldiers after they sacrifice for you and everyone else, you are supporting social programs through your advocacy for more and more military spending. So look in the mirror at your socialist face.

Let's talk about redistribution of wealth. People like me advocate for a tax code that is more favorable to millions of people instead of a tax code that favors the few. Almost all current Republicans cheered on the latest tax cuts. But that tax cut was just the latest redistribution of wealth to the few that you have applauded. No doubt about it, you have consistently supported redistribution of wealth to less than 1% of the people. You started your redistribution of wealth applause beginning with the Reagan years trickle-down economic theories. A side note is that you should have been careful what you wished for. In Kansas, such policies have ruined Kansas. And then, since many of you live in Oklahoma, you then cheered on a trickle-down policy here in Oklahoma. As usual, it has been a complete disaster here in Oklahoma. So don't take aim at Bernie Sanders or any of us who want a tax code that favors millions of people over the few. You oppose what we advocate, and in doing so, look in the mirror, you prove over and over again that your socialist face is the face you see in your mirror.
I’m going to reply at the level of what you post, here goes.
I’m rubber you’re glue
I know you are but what am I
Your post is ghey and so are you

I have many more, remember I was a child once as well, so keep posting like a 15 yr old who thinks he’s in Mensa just don’t be surprised at the replies.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,966
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#34
nope.... charity is VOLUNTARY. Wealth redistribution is not.

It is a program of government run a muck.

redistribution aims to take money from people who earned it and give it to those who did not.

Redistribution involves TAKING FROM.
That's what Goodwill does when I donate something. They are TAKING FROM ME but on a voluntary basis. Then it gets redistributed to their stores, which mostly appeal to poor people needing a cheap bargain.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,050
16,371
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#35
That's what Goodwill does when I donate something. They are TAKING FROM ME but on a voluntary basis. Then it gets redistributed to their stores, which mostly appeal to poor people needing a cheap bargain.
They may come and pick it up but they’re taking nothing. You are voluntarily giving and they are receiving your voluntary gift, there’s a huge difference.
 
Jul 20, 2018
410
116
43
Oklahoma City
#37
I’m going to reply at the level of what you post, here goes.
I’m rubber you’re glue
I know you are but what am I
Your post is ghey and so are you

I have many more, remember I was a child once as well, so keep posting like a 15 yr old who thinks he’s in Mensa just don’t be surprised at the replies.
Comparing his childish ravings to a 15 year old Mensa member diminishes 15 year old Mensa members, don't you think?


 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,966
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#39
Comparing his childish ravings to a 15 year old Mensa member diminishes 15 year old Mensa members, don't you think?


MadMau, since I assume you're strongly opposed to government imposed mandatory redistribution of wealth, what kind of resistance are you putting up to it? Nothing? Just keep on voting for the same Republicans who may not even so much as talk of doing something to reduce government welfare.