quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Do you favor the government stealing from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful?

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

I am guessing that you also agree with the odd notion that any individual's success is entirely the result of that individual's efforts alone, and that no one or nothing else contributed to that success. This notion is obviously incorrect and insupportable, as a cursory glance at any successful individual's case will demonstrate. Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want - so how their success is a uniquely individual achievement defies logic. There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'.

This kind of billionaire friendly position only makes sense if you want the already rich to get even richer and the already poor to remain so or get further impoverished, though why anyone who isn't already rich might desire such a situation also defies logic - it runs directly against the doctrine of 'enlightened self interest', a doctrine that many on the right claim as their 'inspiration'.

You of all people should understand using pejorative terms to describe things you don't agree with.
Tell me something, if the rich got that way because of government why isn't everyone rich. Keep in mind that you want to give everyone but the rich credit for them BECOMING rich.

I have no idea of how you got the idea that I was saying the rich prosper because of government. Obviously you either ignored or misunderstood the phrase "Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want ". I argued that crediting all of their success to the individuals concerned is invalid. I stated that "There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'".

"People" here refers to employees, consumers professional advisers, parents etc and "institutions" here covers anything from educational institutions, legal systems, professional assistance, etc through to government. It is plain wrong to single out any one of these and insist it alone constitutes the meaning of my words, as you have done.

It would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote instead of inventing strawman arguments.

Providing goods and services others want is how you get rich. That doesn't justify taking what they make away from them. The government would only be justified in taking their profits and redistributing it if they were somehow responsible for them getting rich. I came to that conclusion by trying to get something coherent out of your socialist rant.

PS My position is not pro billionaire it is pro success.

Am I understanding this correctly? From what I'm reading, it seems Tweak thinks that anyone who manages to be successful owes that success to those that gave them the opportunity and not from the investment of personal time and resources? And that the government is the ultimate provider of opportunity so that justifies any level of taxation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Again, there's other factors to consider.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

It's possible that Obamacare, by providing access to more effective birth control for many women, can help reduce both the number of abortions and children born out of wedlock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Again, there's other factors to consider.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

It's possible that Obamacare, by providing access to more effective birth control for many women, can help reduce both the number of abortions and children born out of wedlock.

Planned Parenthood has always been happy to prevent the birth of more minority children, free or on a sliding scale at extremely reduced costs. There are other free clinics as well... So I seriously doubt that the IRS's forcing people to patronize Obamas crony insurance buds is any serious factor

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Do you favor the government stealing from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful?

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

I am guessing that you also agree with the odd notion that any individual's success is entirely the result of that individual's efforts alone, and that no one or nothing else contributed to that success. This notion is obviously incorrect and insupportable, as a cursory glance at any successful individual's case will demonstrate. Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want - so how their success is a uniquely individual achievement defies logic. There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'.

This kind of billionaire friendly position only makes sense if you want the already rich to get even richer and the already poor to remain so or get further impoverished, though why anyone who isn't already rich might desire such a situation also defies logic - it runs directly against the doctrine of 'enlightened self interest', a doctrine that many on the right claim as their 'inspiration'.

You of all people should understand using pejorative terms to describe things you don't agree with.
Tell me something, if the rich got that way because of government why isn't everyone rich. Keep in mind that you want to give everyone but the rich credit for them BECOMING rich.

I have no idea of how you got the idea that I was saying the rich prosper because of government. Obviously you either ignored or misunderstood the phrase "Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want ". I argued that crediting all of their success to the individuals concerned is invalid. I stated that "There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'".

"People" here refers to employees, consumers professional advisers, parents etc and "institutions" here covers anything from educational institutions, legal systems, professional assistance, etc through to government. It is plain wrong to single out any one of these and insist it alone constitutes the meaning of my words, as you have done.

It would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote instead of inventing strawman arguments.

Providing goods and services others want is how you get rich. That doesn't justify taking what they make away from them. The government would only be justified in taking their profits and redistributing it if they were somehow responsible for them getting rich. I came to that conclusion by trying to get something coherent out of your socialist rant.

PS My position is not pro billionaire it is pro success.

Am I understanding this correctly? From what I'm reading, it seems Tweak thinks that anyone who manages to be successful owes that success to those that gave them the opportunity and not from the investment of personal time and resources? And that the government is the ultimate provider of opportunity so that justifies any level of taxation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Sanity, Planned Parenthood was invented to keep black population as low as possible.

http://studentsforlife.org/planned-parenthood-and-racism/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Sanity, Planned Parenthood was invented to keep black population as low as possible.

http://studentsforlife.org/planned-parenthood-and-racism/

I know, thats what I was eluding to.

They just do it sans the white hooded robes. Same political affiliation (Democrat), just not so up front about their intentions as they were in the past

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Sounded like it but she claims that is a strawman, as she does everything that questions her posts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Sounded like it but she claims that is a strawman, as she does everything that questions her posts.

If I'm correct then I can't help but sit here and wonder what she might think if she had a dominant that applied the same kind of logic to their power-exchange relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny


Am I understanding this correctly? From what I'm reading, it seems Tweak thinks that anyone who manages to be successful owes that success to those that gave them the opportunity and not from the investment of personal time and resources? And that the government is the ultimate provider of opportunity so that justifies any level of taxation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny


Am I understanding this correctly? From what I'm reading, it seems Tweak thinks that anyone who manages to be successful owes that success to those that gave them the opportunity and not from the investment of personal time and resources? And that the government is the ultimate provider of opportunity so that justifies any level of taxation?

The simple answer to your question: "Am I understanding this correctly?" is no you are not. Judging by the content of the remainder of your post, you are misunderstanding my post completely.

Can I suggest you re-read my post, taking into account the words and ideas that are actually there and ignoring the imaginary ones you are managing to discover. For instance I didn't mention taxation at all, yet you seem convinced I was saying something about taxation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

That would be because it was a "rebuttal" of my comments on taxation.

and doesn't this

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

Mention taxes?

Remember King John? Taxation to the point that it constituted theft?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny


Am I understanding this correctly? From what I'm reading, it seems Tweak thinks that anyone who manages to be successful owes that success to those that gave them the opportunity and not from the investment of personal time and resources? And that the government is the ultimate provider of opportunity so that justifies any level of taxation?

The simple answer to your question: "Am I understanding this correctly?" is no you are not. Judging by the content of the remainder of your post, you are misunderstanding my post completely.

Can I suggest you re-read my post, taking into account the words and ideas that are actually there and ignoring the imaginary ones you are managing to discover. For instance I didn't mention taxation at all, yet you seem convinced I was saying something about taxation.

That would be because it was a "rebuttal" of my comments on taxation.

and doesn't this

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

Mention taxes?

Remember King John? Taxation to the point that it constituted theft?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny


Am I understanding this correctly? From what I'm reading, it seems Tweak thinks that anyone who manages to be successful owes that success to those that gave them the opportunity and not from the investment of personal time and resources? And that the government is the ultimate provider of opportunity so that justifies any level of taxation?

The simple answer to your question: "Am I understanding this correctly?" is no you are not. Judging by the content of the remainder of your post, you are misunderstanding my post completely.

Can I suggest you re-read my post, taking into account the words and ideas that are actually there and ignoring the imaginary ones you are managing to discover. For instance I didn't mention taxation at all, yet you seem convinced I was saying something about taxation.

That would be because it was a "rebuttal" of my comments on taxation.

and doesn't this

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

Mention taxes?

Remember King John? Taxation to the point that it constituted theft?

It's the dense card. Nobody can understand her, but it's never her fault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The simple answer to your question: "Am I understanding this correctly?" is no you are not. Judging by the content of the remainder of your post, you are misunderstanding my post completely.

Can I suggest you re-read my post, taking into account the words and ideas that are actually there and ignoring the imaginary ones you are managing to discover. For instance I didn't mention taxation at all, yet you seem convinced I was saying something about taxation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Oh wait, when did it, or was it allowed to market stuff like securities?

On the capital markets side, the acquisition of Continental Illinois helped BankAmerica to build a leveraged finance origination and distribution business (Continental Illinois had extensive leveraged lending relationships) which allowed the firm’s existing broker-dealer, BancAmerica Securities (originally named BA Securities), to become a full-service franchise.[29][30] In addition, in 1997, BankAmerica acquired Robertson Stephens, a San Francisco-based investment bank specializing in high technology for $540 million. Robertson Stephens was integrated into BancAmerica Securities and the combined subsidiary was renamed BancAmerica Robertson Stephens.[31]

Hum, 1997. Who ran the administration then I wonder?

Let me get this straight, Clinton is to be blamed because he acquiesced to repub bills and 'finally' deregulated banking in signing the modification to Glass-Steagall ?

Also, even with that, none of your last 3 posts incriminate either Clinton or the banks on being allowed 9 years later to create fraudulent shit paper (nine years of further deregulation) allowing such blatant corruption and fraud.

It is you again who really wants to have it both ways. Deregulate, don't fund or set the SEC onto them, then see almost free capital created (FED) a real estate bubble, standby while trillion$ are lost on shit paper. Furthermore, it was W who quite purposefully used an obscure 1863 OCC law to STOP ALL 50 state's attys' general from stopping the fraud.

You go back and blame Clinton for doing everything the repubs and their greedy scum sponsors had been asking for, for all of these years and finally obtained including the mergers which after TARP has the remaining 6 with more assets and greater risk than pre-TARP.

Even now the repubs refuse to regulate and as a result, I understand the taxpayers are STILL on the hook for banks...too-big-to-fail. I guess hey, we can all blame Obama because after all...he is a dem pres.

Righteous man...real good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

tweakabelle
For instance I didn't mention taxation at all, yet you seem convinced I was saying something about taxation.

That would be because it was a "rebuttal" of my comments on taxation.

quote:

Rotten Johnny
I read your posts several times, tweak, without being convinced of, or trying to "imagine" anything. That's why I asked the questions. If I'm wrong, fine. But then would you try to clarify where I'm misunderstanding you?