The 99% Halloween.

reply to post by sirhumperdink

Dear sirhumperdink,

I think the issue of "fairness" has been moved to the front of the discussion, because of the numerous times "fair share" has been used as a justification for redistribution. If "fairness" is taken out of the equation, what's the justification for redistribution?

That brings us to your economic points. First, I disagree that the drive among the rich is to hoard their money. That would be a foolish thing to do. Investors are looking to increase the money they have by making profitable investments, or at least try to make enough to ward off inflation so they don't lose money. If there are good investments to be made in the US, the rich will make those investments. If there aren't, they'll look elsewhere, but invest they will.

Second, if lots of money is printed, causing inflation, the value of any horded money falls just as quickly as any other money. Inflation hits everybody at the same rate. It's a hidden, flat tax with no consideration for your wealth or lack of it.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Concerning your fear that we will "overfish" the economy, I don't see it. It's not as though there's only so much "value" or wealth in the pond. People who provide things that are wanted, at an affordable price, benefit the consumer and themselves. We, as a nation, and even as a world have become steadily richer as people have added value through their brains and their muscles. - C -

reply to post by celticdog

Dear celticdog,

Thanks for the question. I appreciate having you here.

If there is only one cake what are the other kids suppose to do.

That's important, because there isn't just one cake, there are as many cakes as people want to buy. After all,

He may have bought the cake but how much cake can he really eat

which means the baker has the fat kid's money and can buy the ingredients for the next cake. Were the other kids broke? If not, it was their choice to buy something else. If they were broke, then you have the situation we face in the world today. If people were really concerned about taking care of the poor, we'd be sending our money to Africa, or at least sending our cakes.

I have noticed this, the Republicans have this attitude of not sharing make the most money at any cost and they are the most religious types yet they do give the most to charity(tax purposes maybe). It seems they are torn.

I think Republicans would say that they like helping out and giving money to people, but they don't like it being taken from them for that purpose. There is no moral value in having your money taken from you and given to the poor, but there is much value in donating it freely. I would encourage everyone to do more of the giving, and the government to do less of the taking.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
reply to post by charles1952

 

LOL - great video Charles and it does push home a very good point.

Now, to make things fair - where was the kid with the 4978 trucks full of candy that he refused to share "because he worked hard for it" - the same kid that owns "Cadbury" and "Pepsi-Cola".

We can surely agree that money and candy are 2 different animals when discussing this point.

We both know candy does not buy food, clothing, warmth, shelter of any other necessity - only money does that.

Substitute the candy for Lego, X-box games of any other kids "possession" and they will react the same way.

Redistribution of "Massive" (read 100's of Billions of $$$ with a B) wealth should be considered so this stops..........

Because the vast majority of those that have it most certainly did not work hard for it - unless "working hard" is code for exploiting the many for the benefit of the few.

And I am not talking about the average Joe who happens to earn a good wage either - I am talking about the mega wealthy of this planet whom and owned and controlled money for a very very long time - those are the target of this point I am making

edit on 30-10-2012 by Sublimecraft because: added last comment

I wonder how much that photographer was paid for that picture?

If the philosophy can be summed up by a child.

then chances are, the philosophy is childish.


Now, lets consider the video in a more adult context:
The candygiver is representative of the government..they give candy to the kids (citizens).
So, the argument then is that no matter who you are, the government is meant to give you stuff.

You want a actual conservative view of halloween? focus on the guy sitting in his car with no candy, and when someone comes up asking for candy, they simply say "get a job you parasite!".
Which is far more accurate.

If you want a proper representation of this however, it would be one kid with all the candy because he convinced the parents to give it all to him to distribute, and he wants to keep it all for himself and only his friends.

But it was a fun video bound to make the simple minds excited and praise it as something relevant.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Dear SaturnFX,

Thanks for the response. My perceptions about the video seem to differ from yours, care to talk about it?

The candygiver is representative of the government..they give candy to the kids (citizens).
So, the argument then is that no matter who you are, the government is meant to give you stuff.

The candy giver and the child can better be seen as a business and a customer, or, better yet, as a performer and a customer, certainly not the government.

The child puts on a costume, comes to where you live, and puts on a performance. Then the giver exchanges something of value for the performance. It's identical to a singer, a sports team, or a politician. As a "giver," I have spent some years not answering the door, and many years giving more candy to kids with better costumes. I appreciate the extra effort they put into it and reward them accordingly. They work harder, they get more.

Clearly the government is the person who takes from one and gives to another. If you missed that, I have to reconsider your other opinions on the matter. But, I suppose, you just didn't take into consideration the man who did the redistributing. I think you should.

You want a actual conservative view of halloween? focus on the guy sitting in his car with no candy, and when someone comes up asking for candy, they simply say "get a job you parasite!".
Which is far more accurate.

But you seem to have temporarily forgotten that conservatives give much more money to chariity than other groups. Further, the liberal does not suggest that the solution is for him to give some of his money, the solution is to take it from others.

If the philosophy can be summed up by a child.

then chances are, the philosophy is childish.

If even a child can recognize fairness, what have we done to ourselves that we no longer can?

With respect,
Charles1952

Sorry,

Didn't read everyone's responses... But I thought if it is mentioned before, I'll mention that this is my opinion too. And if it hasn't been mentioned before, here's some new points to think on.

We can't agree on "fairly sharing the candy/Xboxes/money".... So, let's agree not to fairly share it and give unfair advantages to those who we approve of - at the outset.

There was a movie I watched some time back that had a line that went like this:

The law is there to protect the historical acquisition of wealth of those wealthy who prove strong enough to resist losing, regardless of how it was historically acquired, and as lawyers you and I are here to ensure that those who have earned it continue by whatever means they have historically done so - without which they should be compensated for their lost potential revenues.

Calling anything that is currently done "unfair" is simply a means to re-jig the equation to better suit one's needs and self-interests. If the middle class is "allowed" to do such things, then so are the upper class - and cheating is ok, as long as you can "get away with it" - the means justifies the ends and increasingly so over time.

My schpeel is full of oxymorons, but I'm guessing you will figure that out.... and say so. Just thought I'd add this for the discussion to become colourful.

Did they edit the part where this guy got his butt kicked by a mob of angry parents?

He makes a good point and good lessons for the kids if you put this in the right perspective. Obama and Hillary Both state the rich should pay not more, But their fair share of taxes. They Do NOT pay a fair share as is the point of the lesson. The rich and big business gets tax breaks no one else gets. 2/3 of corporations don't pay Any taxes at all. Is this fair? No.

He didn't bother to explain this to the kids. He's manipulating impressionable minds with half truths.

I was the 1%. I spent Halloween working in my house knee deep in sheetrock mud. Still waiting for my candy. LOL

reply to post by sirhumperdink


You totally missed the point and are returning back to a "life should be fair for everyone" ideology. Fact is, life isn't fair. Thinking that man, being as flawed as we are, can make it fair through government is hilarious.

Government doesn't change human behavior, it just pushes it in another direction.

But this is the beauty of America. Most people can't change their social status overnight, but we can control what happens in the future. Laying a foundation for our kids to build upon is how you become successful, and THAT is the American dream. NOT instant gratification.

So, those kids in communities with less candy, if they work hard, can one day take THEIR kids trick or treating in a neighborhood that hands out full size candy bars.

reply to post by SaturnFX


No, you're wrong. Apply that logic to ANYTHING in life and it doesn't work.

If you want a liberal example, here it is:

All the kids go out trick or treating - they all meet up somewhere and give a certain amount of candy to a centralized candy bucket. The elected leader of that candy bucket then delegates responsibility to an unelected candy beuracracy that will decide how to distribute the candy fairly back to the kids. While they decide, the candy gets old and stale, maybe some ants and mice nibble on the pile. 7 months later, they finally distribute the candy to kids, some are happy, others are upset. The kids who collected the most candy are upset because they got back less while the kids who had less got more. So next year, the kids who had the most candy decide it's not worth getting as much candy if they're going to get so little back. And vice versa, the other kids won't want to collect more candy because they know theyll get a lot back anyways. Year after the year the candy in the pot gets smaller and smaller. until there is nothing left.

So in the end, you have the simple, naive mind which believes people will do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do. Good luck with that.

"Life isn't fair" - Poor rich people!

"Government pushes" - in your direction? Quick everybody follow that guy!

"Work hard" - to lose your money, if you can please.

Originally posted by f4rwest
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

No, you're wrong. Apply that logic to ANYTHING in life and it doesn't work.

If you want a liberal example, here it is:

All the kids go out trick or treating - they all meet up somewhere and give a certain amount of candy to a centralized candy bucket. The elected leader of that candy bucket then delegates responsibility to an unelected candy beuracracy that will decide how to distribute the candy fairly back to the kids. While they decide, the candy gets old and stale, maybe some ants and mice nibble on the pile. 7 months later, they finally distribute the candy to kids, some are happy, others are upset. The kids who collected the most candy are upset because they got back less while the kids who had less got more. So next year, the kids who had the most candy decide it's not worth getting as much candy if they're going to get so little back. And vice versa, the other kids won't want to collect more candy because they know theyll get a lot back anyways. Year after the year the candy in the pot gets smaller and smaller. until there is nothing left.

So in the end, you have the simple, naive mind which believes people will do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do. Good luck with that.

Whereas the conservative would have the same exact setup, but with the difference being the committee gives the candy to the top guy, hopeing that the kid with the most candy will sort of spill his bucket now and then and let the others grab for a piece of the trickle down candy corn.

So in the end, you have the greedy, stupid mind which believes -rich- people will not be greedy just because its the right thing to do. Good luck with that.

My understanding is fully aware of the greed in humanity. It will enforce a social safety net..if the rich grump about paying taxes..guess what..they wont suddenly desire to not be rich. what a absolutely stupid comment. Take a moment just to consider how profoundly stupid it is..truely window licking, helmet wearing stuff.

I was making a million a year, but they took out 300k in taxes! So, I showed them, I am now making 30k a year and they are taking out barely 7k a year. whoot..I win! erm..wheres my limo?

derp

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Dear SaturnFX,

Thanks for the response. My perceptions about the video seem to differ from yours, care to talk about it?

Not really, because its a childish example..you cannot explain this in terms children can comprehend..
If you could, then the liberals already won:
aka, sharing.

So...yay, its a funny and cute little meme, and surely the very uninformed voter public will find relevance, but again, stick a kid sharing his sandwich with someone whom doesn't have one and voila, your example is trumped.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Dear SaturnFX,

"Sharing" doesn't trump my example, it supports it. Conservatives, and people in general, like to share, they do it more than liberals. What they don't like is somebody coming in and taking their sandwich.

I am certain that you have more wealth than I do. I may ask you to give me some of it, and you may say yes or no. That's all perfectly acceptable. But if i take it from you, or hire someone to take it from you, that's not sharing any more.

See the difference?

With respect,
Charles1952

I remember when I would go trick or treating with friends, after we got back home with our big bags of candy, we would sit in a circle and pour all of our candy into a pile in the middle. Then we would take turns one at a time picking our favorite candy. That way we all got to get the candy we liked the most. Redistributed, but in a fair way that was self managed by the participants.

Originally posted by BritofTexas
On a side note. How lazy are those kids parents? Parking in a circle to hand out candy instead of walking their neighbourhoods.

edit on 31-10-2012 by BritofTexas because: (no reason given)

It's not exactly about laziness. This is a common practice put on by churches and schools for various reasons. One of the main reasons is that it's just safer. All the parents get together and plan this. Most everyone knows everyone else. There's no threat of knocking on the wrong door and having some angry guy/gal do something bad or kids getting candy that has bad things in it (ie: razors, needles, drugs, whatever). That's really the main reason for trunk or treat. I have a friend who has two kids in elementary school. The school did a trunk or treat early on the day of Halloween. Later that day, most of the parents took their kids around the neighborhood. Hopefully you see my point.

As far as this video goes, I think it speaks volumes. Most of the rich got their money from working hard. They made a plan to earn the money and keep the money by sound investments. Investments which actually keep the money flowing. Granted, there are the rich that are in the spotlight for less-than-honorable actions in how they made their money (ie: bankers, politicians, etc.). These guys should be the ones having to pay up, if anything. And maybe people in the entertainment industry who have ludicrous amounts of money thrown at them for whatever they do. I'm not talking about the lower echelon entertainers, but people who are extremely well renowned and can make a quick buck off of doing something like playing a concert or starring in a movie. The lower echelon guys have to invest their money wisely to ensure financial security. Look at Ric Flair, for example. And I use him because I'm a huge wrestling fan and I've been seeing a lot of the financial struggles he's been going through. He did NOT invest his money wisely. Between spending like he's got an endless pocket book and lawsuits for his own stupidity, a guy who should be rolling in the dough is sitting with his bank account dangerously close to E for a man of his fame.

And another point that I've seen brought up that makes sense to me is that if you raise the taxes for a certain income level, it's going to make it awfully hard for someone to rise above that ceiling. Imagine you have a business that's booming. You're making a lot of money. And suddenly, you've made enough money that puts you in a tax bracket with the heightened taxes and you're suddenly having financial issues because you've been hit with a butt-load of taxes just because you make a certain income. Sure, you can make the money back if your business is booming. But there is going to be some scrambling to figure out how to make up for the change. And what if you happen to hit that tax bracket then your business suddenly takes a nose dive? With the losses you'll be back down a tax bracket, but you'll have to come up with a great plan to try and beak that ceiling placed above you that is disallowing you to make more money.

That makes sense to me and I would like someone to give me a different perspective on it. I'd like to see it a different way because, right now, looking at it makes me think the future will suck for people trying to become wealthy and have financial security and be able to have a large estate to pass on to their offspring.

Yeahh, this analogy isn't quite so accurate. For starters, we could make the distribution more accurate... let's say there are 100 kids and 100 pieces of candy. Next, we have the first 5 kids walk up and take 70 pieces of the candy... NOW we can discuss the rest of it