From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:30:28 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <BxJoqr.En7@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <BxGK7G.125@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>>>>Actually, one could say the same thing about the Republican Administrations
>>>>>by switching the words "the rich" and "the poor."  The rest sounds just
>>>>>like what criticism of the Reps did.
>>>>
>>>>On the contrary, buying the votes of the rich doesn't get you much in an
>>>>election, since there are not very many rich people.  Furthermore, there is 
>>>>a BIG difference between allowing people to keep the money THEY earned and 
>>>>forcing people to cough up money for transfer to others who DIDN'T EARN it.
>>>>It's the difference between me spending MY dollan and me spending YOUR dollar.
>>>>Get it?
>>>
>>>  Please define this concept of 'EARN' in a fashion that is independent of
>>>the social-politcal-economic system within which it is assigned, measured,
>>>transferred, and protected and then we can discuss what is an appropriate
>>>type of governmental levying and allocation of such 'earnings' in the
>>>abstract and absolute way in which you seem to want to frame the issue.
>>
>>Huh?  Do you mean in terms of that antiquated, incorrect "dielectical
>>materialism" so popular in those stagnant Communist Regimes, which by
>>any yardstick failed to function socially *or* economically.
>
>  Ahh, the old tried and true argument by association rather than fact or
>logic. That's getting pretty antiquated itself but it's a golden oldie
>of the slander-inclined.

Not exactly, if you read any of the tretises or books explaining Marxist
'theology' your arguements  sound an awful lot like the ones defining
the MArxist view of how the economy works (and how, as you implied, the
wealthy "stole" the "surplus").
No slander intended, just observation.

>>
>>When a government sets up the rules for obtaining wealth, and someone plays
>>by those rules and does well in obtaining wealth, we can safely say that
>>that person EARNED the wealth (if laws were broken, you can then say what you
>>implied - stealing, but only then).
>
>  Well, you can apply whatever words you choose, I suppose. You must be a
>disciple of Lewis Carroll. But if you're going to contribute to a rational
>discussion rather than just wave the bloody shirt of taxation you have to
>go beyond the labelling to the principles.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>IMNSHO, the "trickle-down" theory allowed the upper few percent to gain
>>>>>about 60% of the income growth throughout the 80's.  
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, they were alolowed to MAKE that money.  They didn't steal it.
>>>>Would like to see the government forbit people from making money?  Do you think
>>>>that anything other than poverty could result from the government outlawing 
>>>>economic productivity among the most able segment of the population?
>>>
>>>  On the contrary, many were able to accumulate wealth, that lead to 
>>>further wealth and growth of that wealth, under a system that favored
>>>and supported that activity. A different system might not have. Neither
>>>their efforts nor their 'goodness' are/were sufficient to achieve it
>>>themselves. Some of those methods are fair, some are foul, some are
>>>weghted in their favor and to the detriment of others. Presuming the
>>>activities and accounting are legal, the accumulation of the wealth
>>>was also, but is not the same as fair, just, or self-generated.
>>>
>>>
>>Those were the rules, so they DID EARN the money.  I just suggested that
>>perhaps the rules might be changed (taxes included) because the government
>>was favoring the 'elite.'  I am not saying that any great disservice was done,
>>just that trickle down failed to perform and create the environment that 
>>the Reps wanted : a wealthier population as a whole.
>
>  There you go again with your definition of earn. If you mean accumulated
>by legal means, I'll concede the meaning, but I won't concede the issue of
>fairness, justice, or ethics based upon such a characterizxation.

We agree then.  Good.  I did not say it was especially fair or ethical,
just that we shouldn't put labels that imply criminality if someone
'played by the rules.'  If anyone has an arguement with 'the rules'
(as you imply that you do, an I definately do) then it is better to
bitch about the government than the people who made a killing by
'playing by the rules.'


>
>>>
>>>>>By that reasoning,
>>>>>it it justifiable to tax them more (tax where the least pain and most
>>>>>gain as a society) than those without $$$.  
>>>>
>>>>What "reasoning"?  It is THEIR MONEY.  THEY EARNED IT.  You seem to think
>>>>that the government took money away from poor people and deposited it into
>>>>the accounts of rich people.  If anything, the rich have been paying 
>>>>much more than everyone else for a long long time, and it is about time
>>>>that everyone pay them back for this injustice.  I don't advocate that myself,
>>>>but it is much more consistent with your stated principle than increasing
>>>>the taxes on them.
>>
>>No, not at all.  Please refrain from overlaying your concepts on mine.  I am
>>very free market oriented, but dislike hypocricy.  The hyp. I am talking about
>>is the tax system that allows the wealthy to pay a lower percentage of their 
>>taxes than the lower.  The purpose of graduated income tax is to tax those that 
>>have money more (share the pain).  The whole purpose of allowing the rich
>>to EARN that money is that their increased purchasing power would enrich all
>>the income brackets through 'trickle down' (increased spending).  It did not
>>work, so it is justified to try something else.  I agree that their EARNED
>>INCOME is EARNED, however, taxes are not thefts.  And we KNOW transfer payments
>>don't work too well, so (I hope) that Clinton follows up on his plan and tries
>>to implement another system.  
>>
>>I am not saying that "I am rich because you are poor"  Not at all, I feel however,
>>that another system of enriching everyone needs to be tried.  I see no justice
>>or injustice at all.  Geez.  Don't put words inb my mouth! (keyboard? :) )
>
>  You also seem to have trouble keeping your respondents straight since you
>have mixed the comments of several, without any attribution.

Relax, I was not refuting *your* arguement in the above.  No big deal.

>
>>
>>>  There you go again with this absolutist concept of 'earning' that is
>>>independent of the system within which it is collected and measured. One
>>>could also make arguments that they are more dependent upon the system
>>>than the 'poor' and therefore owe it more. After all, how much of a
>>>society does one require to sucessfully sustain ones poverty ?
>>>
>>
>>Oh shut up!  You sound like some Ex-Communist trying to form theories about
>>dielectical materialism.
>
>  Oh, brilliant, well-constructed, intellectual retort. Typical response
>of the argument-impaired.

No, I was just getting a little ill at your 'relative definition of earning'
concept that was implying that someone who plays by the rules could be
stealing.  Your arguement reminded me of some of the empty tretises that
everyone in a Communist regime had to applaud as brilliant.  You would do well
to dig a few of them up (believe me, they are EASY to find) and compare
your post to them.  Uncanny, the resemblance.

[stuff about the French revolution deleted]
>>
>>Wherte do you get this whacky stuff!
>>:)
>
>   History. But I suppose I should just conjure it up like you.

Um, I meant to delete the lines and have that line not associated with your
(valid) comments about the revolution in France.  BTW please come up with 
examples where I 'made stuff up' rather than laying all kinds of blanket
statements like that (thems duelling words where I come from).


-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ ^  ^  ^
| Brent L. Irvine         |  "Love is blind ... and stupid." | {\{|}/} CLAN
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |                      -M.P.       |  {{|}} IRVINE
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+  o/|\o OF DRUM
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc