UI benefits are bad because they aren't "paid for". Tax cuts for the rich are good even though they aren't "paid for".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But...but...I thought government's purpose was to redistribute wealth so that all may be saved collectively...

Isn't capitalism by default, a redistribution of wealth?

[Darnell 8,479]

The wealthy have a raw deal here. After all, the FDIC limit is what $250K.. oh the shaaaaaame.....

Plus don't forget the whopping 35% tax on anything over $350K. How do they live?

15% on long tern capital gains, which is where many derive their wealth, is just wrong wrong wrong.

If you are 'asking' this, for realios - then you need to study up a bit on the tax code, understand (much) about how to make deductions to income. Once yer done, go talk to a 'financial planner' or CFP in yer area. Seriously. Otherwise, sorry, it's not even enough fodder for a strawman argument, this time.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hey Legacy, Is the guy that pays you rich? :rofl: Its quite funny for ppl like you to keep demonizing the ppl that pay your wages. Does that mean your going to start callin Barry, BOSS soon? :rofl:

Edited July 14, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Hey Legacy, Is the guy that pays you rich? :rofl:

Uh why is this funny?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Uh why is this funny?

Uh figure it out!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Venture capital create jobs. Venture capital dollars are as good coming from middle class people as from rich people. 1,000 people investing $5000 is as good as an investor dumping 5 million into a company.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Uh figure it out!

Well its not even true for many people. My boss isn't wealthy, most small business owners aren't filthy rich and yet they drive job growth.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Isn't capitalism by default, a redistribution of wealth?

No. That would be socialism, or haven't you been paying attention to the heresy of Liberation Theology, like Obama and his cohorts?

To put it more succinctly, socialism postulates that there is a finite amount of wealth, and that wealth would best be distributed by some fair means. Capitalism, on the other hand, believes that wealth is created, and therefore, unlimited. Furthermore, not only is redistribution not necessary, it is actually counterproductive to creating wealth for all, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ##########

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Well its not even true for many people. My boss isn't wealthy, most small business owners aren't filthy rich and yet they drive job growth.

Filthy? Please define and why do you care?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Filthy? Please define and why do you care?

Lets just say that top 1%.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No. That would be socialism, or haven't you been paying attention to the heresy of Liberation Theology, like Obama and his cohorts?

To put it more succinctly, socialism postulates that there is a finite amount of wealth, and that wealth would best be distributed by some fair means. Capitalism, on the other hand, believes that wealth is created, and therefore, unlimited. Furthermore, not only is redistribution not necessary, it is actually counterproductive to creating wealth for all, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

If you start a business that must rely on the labor of others to produce capital and that labor is not adequately compensated, is that not redistribution? If we can place monetary value on labor, then any production model where labor is undercompensated is effectively a redistribution.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Isn't capitalism by default, a redistribution of wealth?

Hate to inform you but capitalism creates the very wealth that gives your all mighty the opportunity to spend us into poverty. Breaking the rich only makes you poorer!

If you had the ability to be filthy rich you would be. Of course your not so you sit and whine about it.

Lets just say that top 1%.

:rofl: :rofl:

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If you start a business that must rely on the labor of others to produce capital and that labor is not adequately compensated, is that not redistribution? If we can place monetary value on labor, then any production model where labor is undercompensated is effectively a redistribution.

And you don't see yourself as a Commie?

In a true free market system, the market sets the price of goods and labor, based on the principles of supply and demand. Don't they teach you kids macroeconomics anymore? Oh, that's right. The schools are much more Progressive now.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If you start a business that must rely on the labor of others to produce capital and that labor is not adequately compensated, is that not redistribution? If we can place monetary value on labor, then any production model where labor is undercompensated is effectively a redistribution.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if the individual applying for the job might have discussed wages and if the worker agreed to the wages? Your desperate replies are getting quite LAME!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And you don't see yourself as a Commie?

In a true free market system, the market sets the price of goods and labor, based on the principles of supply and demand. Don't they teach you kids macroeconomics anymore? Oh, that's right. The schools are much more Progressive now.

So then you agree that redistribution is a fundamental part of Capitalism. And since that is true, why would the business of government work any differently?