Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Shared Prosperity?

EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:02:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

Yes, shared among those who are willing to try, ie: work hard. The speech assumes that its listeners fall into that category, because rhetoric is designed to be appealing and flatter.

"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.

No, things are much easier if you're born to wealthy parents, for example. Equality of opportunity is an ideal & objective, not something to be taken for granted.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:05:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So when someone becomes successful and prosperous, no one else benefits? Really?
Profits don't yield more tax revenue for the government and more subsequent services for the people? Increased demand for a prosperous business doesn't create more job opportunities?

Really? This isn't socialism. This is common sense.
Sapere Aude!
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:07:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:02:19 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

Yes, shared among those who are willing to try, ie: work hard. The speech assumes that its listeners fall into that category, because rhetoric is designed to be appealing and flatter.

Let's put it this way...If I try hard to run a business, I want to keep my money, not share it.


"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.

No, things are much easier if you're born to wealthy parents, for example. Equality of opportunity is an ideal & objective, not something to be taken for granted.

Sure, things are easier. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw rich people by taxing them greatly. They earned the money, and, this being a free nation, they should be allowed to keep it. Socialism doesn't work, and I don't want my money going to someone else, especially the bums on welfare.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:10:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:05:42 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
So when someone becomes successful and prosperous, no one else benefits? Really?
Profits don't yield more tax revenue for the government and more subsequent services for the people? Increased demand for a prosperous business doesn't create more job opportunities?

Really? This isn't socialism. This is common sense.

Yes, other people benefit. But "sharing prosperity?" Read the quote:

"Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

What does it sound like his new vision is?
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:12:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:07:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:02:19 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

Yes, shared among those who are willing to try, ie: work hard. The speech assumes that its listeners fall into that category, because rhetoric is designed to be appealing and flatter.

Let's put it this way...If I try hard to run a business, I want to keep my money, not share it.


Actually, that's exactly what you want to do. You want to share it with the stores you buy things from, you want to share it with the banks you deposit it in. And this in turn creates a... Shared prosperity.

"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.

No, things are much easier if you're born to wealthy parents, for example. Equality of opportunity is an ideal & objective, not something to be taken for granted.

Sure, things are easier. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw rich people by taxing them greatly. They earned the money, and, this being a free nation, they should be allowed to keep it. Socialism doesn't work, and I don't want my money going to someone else, especially the bums on welfare.

Well, that's not true, is it. Not all rich people earned their money. Those who got it from their parents, and have done literally nothing themselves, they haven't earned their money.

However, you're right, we shouldn't outlaw rich people. Obama wants to raises taxes a little, not greatly (by 20th century standards). Socialism is neither here nor there, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:14:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:12:27 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:07:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:02:19 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

Yes, shared among those who are willing to try, ie: work hard. The speech assumes that its listeners fall into that category, because rhetoric is designed to be appealing and flatter.

Let's put it this way...If I try hard to run a business, I want to keep my money, not share it.


Actually, that's exactly what you want to do. You want to share it with the stores you buy things from, you want to share it with the banks you deposit it in. And this in turn creates a... Shared prosperity.

"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.

No, things are much easier if you're born to wealthy parents, for example. Equality of opportunity is an ideal & objective, not something to be taken for granted.

Sure, things are easier. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw rich people by taxing them greatly. They earned the money, and, this being a free nation, they should be allowed to keep it. Socialism doesn't work, and I don't want my money going to someone else, especially the bums on welfare.

Well, that's not true, is it. Not all rich people earned their money. Those who got it from their parents, and have done literally nothing themselves, they haven't earned their money.

However, you're right, we shouldn't outlaw rich people. Obama wants to raises taxes a little, not greatly (by 20th century standards). Socialism is neither here nor there, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

This is obviously bogus, what I meant was, it's not relevant to Obama without genuine substantiation.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:15:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:12:27 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:07:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:02:19 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

Yes, shared among those who are willing to try, ie: work hard. The speech assumes that its listeners fall into that category, because rhetoric is designed to be appealing and flatter.

Let's put it this way...If I try hard to run a business, I want to keep my money, not share it.


Actually, that's exactly what you want to do. You want to share it with the stores you buy things from, you want to share it with the banks you deposit it in. And this in turn creates a... Shared prosperity.

Not the kind he's calling for. That kind already exists, and has since the beginning of time. So why is this a "new vision"? It already takes place.


"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.

No, things are much easier if you're born to wealthy parents, for example. Equality of opportunity is an ideal & objective, not something to be taken for granted.

Sure, things are easier. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw rich people by taxing them greatly. They earned the money, and, this being a free nation, they should be allowed to keep it. Socialism doesn't work, and I don't want my money going to someone else, especially the bums on welfare.

Well, that's not true, is it. Not all rich people earned their money. Those who got it from their parents, and have done literally nothing themselves, they haven't earned their money.

However, you're right, we shouldn't outlaw rich people. Obama wants to raises taxes a little, not greatly (by 20th century standards). Socialism is neither here nor there, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Doesn't matter. That money was earned, even if by inheritence. It is rightfully theirs, not the government's.

He should be cutting spending, not raising taxes.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:18:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

And how would you suggest we do that? "Sharing wealth" technically takes place already, so what is this "new vision" he speaks of? By the way, it is up to Americans to fulfill their dreams, not up to the government.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:20:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:18:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I assumed "sharing prosperity" was what happened when I trade my money for something someone made or could do for me... They get money, I get material comfort, and everyone's happy.

Basically, yes, that's what comes to mind. But he claims it his "new vision for America". What you mention is not new.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:22:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:15:57 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:12:27 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:07:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:02:19 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

Yes, shared among those who are willing to try, ie: work hard. The speech assumes that its listeners fall into that category, because rhetoric is designed to be appealing and flatter.

Let's put it this way...If I try hard to run a business, I want to keep my money, not share it.


Actually, that's exactly what you want to do. You want to share it with the stores you buy things from, you want to share it with the banks you deposit it in. And this in turn creates a... Shared prosperity.

Not the kind he's calling for. That kind already exists, and has since the beginning of time. So why is this a "new vision"? It already takes place.


Yes, but as we've already established, it hasn't always existed alongside equality of opportunity. In-fact, in absolute terms, it still doesn't. So, he's calling for more of what's come before, in a context which rewards hard work to a greater extent than presently.


"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.

No, things are much easier if you're born to wealthy parents, for example. Equality of opportunity is an ideal & objective, not something to be taken for granted.

Sure, things are easier. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw rich people by taxing them greatly. They earned the money, and, this being a free nation, they should be allowed to keep it. Socialism doesn't work, and I don't want my money going to someone else, especially the bums on welfare.

Well, that's not true, is it. Not all rich people earned their money. Those who got it from their parents, and have done literally nothing themselves, they haven't earned their money.

However, you're right, we shouldn't outlaw rich people. Obama wants to raises taxes a little, not greatly (by 20th century standards). Socialism is neither here nor there, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Doesn't matter. That money was earned, even if by inheritence. It is rightfully theirs, not the government's.

He should be cutting spending, not raising taxes.

Inheriting isn't "earning" something. It's like welfare, except worse, because the recipient has usually had far more opportunities to become successful on their own.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:28:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:18:15 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

And how would you suggest we do that? "Sharing wealth" technically takes place already, so what is this "new vision" he speaks of? By the way, it is up to Americans to fulfill their dreams, not up to the government.

Obama thinks (as well as I) that people sometimes need a helping hand to get somewhere. Imagine some low income children who are trapped in an environment of poverty and drugs. They did good in school, but cannot afford to go to college, even counting the scholarships they might get. Obama's plan which caps college payments at 10% of income after they get a job, which would shatter the boundaries of income traps, would also lower costs by $50 billion a year.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:31:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:22:46 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:15:57 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:12:27 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:07:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:02:19 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:59:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:57:15 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"I believe we have to go forward," the president said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Sounds like equality of opportunity with respect to the American Dream. Ie: Meritocracy.

Your quote follows: "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

Yes, shared among those who are willing to try, ie: work hard. The speech assumes that its listeners fall into that category, because rhetoric is designed to be appealing and flatter.

Let's put it this way...If I try hard to run a business, I want to keep my money, not share it.


Actually, that's exactly what you want to do. You want to share it with the stores you buy things from, you want to share it with the banks you deposit it in. And this in turn creates a... Shared prosperity.

Not the kind he's calling for. That kind already exists, and has since the beginning of time. So why is this a "new vision"? It already takes place.


Yes, but as we've already established, it hasn't always existed alongside equality of opportunity. In-fact, in absolute terms, it still doesn't. So, he's calling for more of what's come before, in a context which rewards hard work to a greater extent than presently.

And how exactly would this work? You don't need government help to start a business, in fact, the opposite is necessary: You need as little government as possible. What I mean is, if we got rid of a lot of the useless regulations and red tape, as well as lower taxes, it would actually be easier to start a business. Stealing from large corporations and giving to smaller ones won't work. It took my Grandfather 2 years (this was the late 80's early 90's) to get all of the required permits and tax papers and whatever else necessary, to start a small two man business out of his garage. It was a simple operation that would've started off smoother without the government sticking it's nose in his business.

Yes, some government is necessary, but not the kind Obama speaks of. Let people run their businesses, let them fail and learn from it, and start again. It's worked in the past.






"Shared Prosperity"? In other words wealth redistribution...We already live in a Nation of equal oportunity.

No, things are much easier if you're born to wealthy parents, for example. Equality of opportunity is an ideal & objective, not something to be taken for granted.

Sure, things are easier. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw rich people by taxing them greatly. They earned the money, and, this being a free nation, they should be allowed to keep it. Socialism doesn't work, and I don't want my money going to someone else, especially the bums on welfare.

Well, that's not true, is it. Not all rich people earned their money. Those who got it from their parents, and have done literally nothing themselves, they haven't earned their money.

However, you're right, we shouldn't outlaw rich people. Obama wants to raises taxes a little, not greatly (by 20th century standards). Socialism is neither here nor there, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Doesn't matter. That money was earned, even if by inheritence. It is rightfully theirs, not the government's.

He should be cutting spending, not raising taxes.

Inheriting isn't "earning" something. It's like welfare, except worse, because the recipient has usually had far more opportunities to become successful on their own.

That doesn't mean the government should take it away, just to make it "fair".
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:32:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

If you put equality of opportunity before individual liberty, you will lose both. The maximum amount of political and economic freedoms will allow those born with little to have the most chance of being successful. If your government policy is equality of opportunity-or worse, equality of results-then you are basically having C decide how much A has to give to B to ensure that opportunity is equal.

This might work if you have the right man behind the wheel, or if you live in a perfect world, but I contend that any system that works or doesn't work based on who is in charge is a system with a fatal flaw built into it. The Federal Reserve was run efficiently when Benjamin Strong-a man that was by all accounts, a genius-was in charge of it, but when he died in 1927 he was replaced by men far less competent than he was and we all know what happened next.

That is just one example; you do not have to search hard to find hundreds of examples of institutions that relied on having "the right man" in order to function properly, and you do not need to search hard to see the damage done by having the wrong man in power.

There is an old saying in most capitalist countries, "three generations from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves." It means that the first generation can work hard and achieve success, and the second generation could get the education to enhance that success, but the third generation can squander that success and leave the fourth generation in a position identical to the position of the first.

That old saying only applies when you have true private losses, and true private gains. We should strive for a return to our capitalist roots, putting liberty first, because only economic and political freedom will provide the maximum success rate for the poor.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:36:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:28:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:18:15 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

And how would you suggest we do that? "Sharing wealth" technically takes place already, so what is this "new vision" he speaks of? By the way, it is up to Americans to fulfill their dreams, not up to the government.

Obama thinks (as well as I) that people sometimes need a helping hand to get somewhere. Imagine some low income children who are trapped in an environment of poverty and drugs. They did good in school, but cannot afford to go to college, even counting the scholarships they might get. Obama's plan which caps college payments at 10% of income after they get a job, which would shatter the boundaries of income traps, would also lower costs by $50 billion a year.

Interesting proposal, however, after 25 years, that debt is forgiven, or so I hear. Who pays for that? Also, a degree isn't always necessary to get a job.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:39:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:32:36 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

If you put equality of opportunity before individual liberty, you will lose both. The maximum amount of political and economic freedoms will allow those born with little to have the most chance of being successful. If your government policy is equality of opportunity-or worse, equality of results-then you are basically having C decide how much A has to give to B to ensure that opportunity is equal.

This might work if you have the right man behind the wheel, or if you live in a perfect world, but I contend that any system that works or doesn't work based on who is in charge is a system with a fatal flaw built into it. The Federal Reserve was run efficiently when Benjamin Strong-a man that was by all accounts, a genius-was in charge of it, but when he died in 1927 he was replaced by men far less competent than he was and we all know what happened next.

That is just one example; you do not have to search hard to find hundreds of examples of institutions that relied on having "the right man" in order to function properly, and you do not need to search hard to see the damage done by having the wrong man in power.

There is an old saying in most capitalist countries, "three generations from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves." It means that the first generation can work hard and achieve success, and the second generation could get the education to enhance that success, but the third generation can squander that success and leave the fourth generation in a position identical to the position of the first.

That old saying only applies when you have true private losses, and true private gains. We should strive for a return to our capitalist roots, putting liberty first, because only economic and political freedom will provide the maximum success rate for the poor.


I still don't see any specific idea on how to help the poor have a chance at success. Many private payments are too expensive for them to afford.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:41:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:36:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:28:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:18:15 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

And how would you suggest we do that? "Sharing wealth" technically takes place already, so what is this "new vision" he speaks of? By the way, it is up to Americans to fulfill their dreams, not up to the government.

Obama thinks (as well as I) that people sometimes need a helping hand to get somewhere. Imagine some low income children who are trapped in an environment of poverty and drugs. They did good in school, but cannot afford to go to college, even counting the scholarships they might get. Obama's plan which caps college payments at 10% of income after they get a job, which would shatter the boundaries of income traps, would also lower costs by $50 billion a year.

Interesting proposal, however, after 25 years, that debt is forgiven, or so I hear. Who pays for that? Also, a degree isn't always necessary to get a job.

A degree is the way to get higher wages because you have higher skills. It is necessary for America to become competitive in the global marketplace by having an educated workforce.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:44:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I still don't see any specific idea on how to help the poor have a chance at success. Many private payments are too expensive for them to afford.

There seems to be a connection between the expenses the poor can't afford, and the markets that the government has a heavy involvement in. Namely, education and health care. Every other sector of the economy has created better products at cheaper prices, but not the sectors of the economy where government has a heavy involvement. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that perhaps there is an undesired effect on the price of a good or service when the government subsidises it?
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:46:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:41:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:36:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:28:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:18:15 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

And how would you suggest we do that? "Sharing wealth" technically takes place already, so what is this "new vision" he speaks of? By the way, it is up to Americans to fulfill their dreams, not up to the government.

Obama thinks (as well as I) that people sometimes need a helping hand to get somewhere. Imagine some low income children who are trapped in an environment of poverty and drugs. They did good in school, but cannot afford to go to college, even counting the scholarships they might get. Obama's plan which caps college payments at 10% of income after they get a job, which would shatter the boundaries of income traps, would also lower costs by $50 billion a year.

Interesting proposal, however, after 25 years, that debt is forgiven, or so I hear. Who pays for that? Also, a degree isn't always necessary to get a job.

A degree is the way to get higher wages because you have higher skills. It is necessary for America to become competitive in the global marketplace by having an educated workforce.

I agree, but not every 20 year old needs one. Why not work and go to school at the same time? Also, while a degree does help an individual receive higher wages, that degree can come from any where. Doesn't have to be Harvard or Princeton or Yale. Why not a community college or a state school? My point is, if we are going to provide shady assistance to poor people, there should be a limit. I don't think anyone deserves $40,000 of tax payer money for a degree. But a community college is cheap, and state schools almost always provide good scholorships and assistance to in state students. So why for all of this radical reform? It is very unnecessary. That cap Obama wants should also be capped. Meaning, it doesn't apply to those in expensive private schools.

And again, if someone's debt is forgiven after 25 years, who is covering it? Taxpayers! I don't want to pay for someone elses tuition when I'm already going to have a hell of a time paying for my own.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 9:49:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A degree is the way to get higher wages because you have higher skills. It is necessary for America to become competitive in the global marketplace by having an educated workforce.

A degree is not the only way to get a higher wage. In fact, the price of a four year degree is making it much more beneficial for someone to go to a trade school or to apprentice. For example: you can make a decent wage by being a plumber or a welder, and you'll also have excellent job security, because those jobs can't be shipped overseas and there is a much higher demand for workers with these skills than there is a supply.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:46:05 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:41:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:36:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:28:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:18:15 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/13/2012 9:14:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Broad prosperity is another way to say it. Basically, ensure equality of opportunity so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams in the private market if they work hard and play by the rules.

And how would you suggest we do that? "Sharing wealth" technically takes place already, so what is this "new vision" he speaks of? By the way, it is up to Americans to fulfill their dreams, not up to the government.

Obama thinks (as well as I) that people sometimes need a helping hand to get somewhere. Imagine some low income children who are trapped in an environment of poverty and drugs. They did good in school, but cannot afford to go to college, even counting the scholarships they might get. Obama's plan which caps college payments at 10% of income after they get a job, which would shatter the boundaries of income traps, would also lower costs by $50 billion a year.

Interesting proposal, however, after 25 years, that debt is forgiven, or so I hear. Who pays for that? Also, a degree isn't always necessary to get a job.

A degree is the way to get higher wages because you have higher skills. It is necessary for America to become competitive in the global marketplace by having an educated workforce.

I agree, but not every 20 year old needs one. Why not work and go to school at the same time? Also, while a degree does help an individual receive higher wages, that degree can come from any where. Doesn't have to be Harvard or Princeton or Yale. Why not a community college or a state school? My point is, if we are going to provide shady assistance to poor people, there should be a limit. I don't think anyone deserves $40,000 of tax payer money for a degree. But a community college is cheap, and state schools almost always provide good scholorships and assistance to in state students. So why for all of this radical reform? It is very unnecessary. That cap Obama wants should also be capped. Meaning, it doesn't apply to those in expensive private schools.

The cap only applies to federal loans. The system has costs reduced by $50 billion dollars. And, I had in mind workers having technical skills from their local community colleges and state colleges. But, many state colleges and further classes are expensive, which is why Obama wants this option available.

And again, if someone's debt is forgiven after 25 years, who is covering it? Taxpayers! I don't want to pay for someone elses tuition when I'm already going to have a hell of a time paying for my own.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"Shared Prosperity" is another term for social welfare.

Welfare means the health, happiness, and prosperity of a population.

General means every individual within a population.

Social means the relation of individuals or groups within a population compared to the rest of the population.

Social Welfare is the health, happiness, and prosperity of an individual or group in comparison to the rest of the community.

General Welfare is the health, happiness, and prosperity of the entire community.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:22:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 11:17:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/13/2012 8:37:53 PM, EvanK wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com...

"President Obama in Chicago: Let‘s Go 'Forward‘ to a Future of 'Shared' Prosperity"

And people get mad when you refer to him as the socialist he is...smh...

"Shared Prosperity" is another term for social welfare.

Welfare means the health, happiness, and prosperity of a population.

General means every individual within a population.

Social means the relation of individuals or groups within a population compared to the rest of the population.

Social Welfare is the health, happiness, and prosperity of an individual or group in comparison to the rest of the community.

General Welfare is the health, happiness, and prosperity of the entire community.

In other words social welfare tries to increase the Welfare of an individual or group, and general welfare tries to increase the welfare of everyone.

Social welfare can be used to try to create "equal" prosperity within a population, or simply try to help some short of special interest group (such as minorities, the rich, the poor, specific industries, and so on).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:38:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 9:41:05 PM, Contra wrote:
A degree is the way to get higher wages because you have higher skills. It is necessary for America to become competitive in the global marketplace by having an educated workforce.

Tell that to all the graduates who are unemployed or employed in something not related to their degrees.

Usually, the people who go to university can be marked as more productive ex ante because they're self-selecting into university. But, with expanded access and the normalizing pressure which encourages people to go to college regardless of their personal utility functions, you lose the capacity for honest signaling that used to make degrees an advantage. You usually just end up with a bunch of useless undergrads with irrelevant degrees, or you end up with a huge surplus of skilled labor (e.g. engineers, computer scientists) because you're "producing" too much education. When you oversaturate like that, you get diminishing social returns on it. Like, you can't politically determine how many degrees total there should be, much less how many are required for specific fields. That's an economic calculation, which is what capital/labor markets are for. In the end, you just flood the market with degrees without really adding much to productivity, much less the skill sets of individual graduates. You do add a lot to their debt burdens, though.

Personally, I don't think we should have so many college students/graduates. A lot of them don't really come away with much, fewer get jobs, fewer relevant jobs, and probably fewer still remain solvent (i.e., not defaulting or going delinquent on loans). It can be a useful investment for some people, but it isn't for everyone, and trying to redirect capital/people to colleges because you have a gut feeling or something that we should maximize the quantity of higher ed outputs just leads those people to ruin.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:47:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One can't seriously want pure equality of opportunity, because that would entail depriving the rich of the resources which give them a competitive edge. It's obvious that the rich will be able to succeed easier and there is nothing that should be done to stop that; a framework needs to be created whereby everybody can succeed, not will succeed.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:48:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 11:47:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One can't seriously want pure equality of opportunity, because that would entail depriving the rich of the resources which give them a competitive edge. It's obvious that the rich will be able to succeed easier and there is nothing that should be done to stop that; a framework needs to be created whereby everybody can succeed, not will succeed.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan