close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Fair share? Fine- How's THIS for FAIR SHARE?!?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Skyhook, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    i can agree with the last two sentences however:supergrin:
     
  2. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    I'm just telling it like it is. Sometimes the truth is like gravy and icing. Sometimes it's sour. It goes down hard. But there it is. Ain't nothing going to change it. Hyperbolic spouting about the innocent, etc. is about like a cat stretching and then going back to sleep. Because when you get right down to the ground about it... fair is not ever rationally associated with economics, taxation, govt., etc. It's all about power. Those that have it use it. Those who don't have it have to take the dumping of those who do have it... until they can get power. Then, the bottom rail goes up on top and the top rail gets a taste of living lower down. That's just the way it is. And fair is not remotely involved in the process, one way or the other.
     


  3. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    I do not idolize business. It is a convenience that serves the customer. Otherwise, it serves no purpose. There is no obligation the part of the taxpayer to privilege or subsidize business. If it can't make it, it dies. Someone else steps in and fills the demand.

    Those who make money pay taxes. Tomorrow I will pay the taxes on my properties. Big deal. Everyone who owns property does exactly the same thing. Can't see a problem with it.

    Those who make money pay taxes on their income... unless of course they are a multinational hiding their income overseas in a off-shore account. If they don't pay, strip them of assess and auction them to pay the bill. Someone else will step in and address demand. Fine. Meantime treat the pirates of commerce like pirates used to be treated when they wanted to rule the seven seas... give them the modern business/economic equivalent of a short rope and a long drop.

    Now... is that evil? What do you think? Is it evil to play hard ball with those who want to play hard ball? Is it evil to take those who ignore any supposition of right and wrong and give them a dose of what they shove down the neck of everyone else? Evil? No, not at all. Justice... of the most poetic sort.
     
  4. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    I was wrong. Yes in so many ways... you are so very wrong. You are like a blind man trying to describe an elephant.
     
  5. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,389
    4,755
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    You're a duck Bruce. Quack.

    You used to rant against Obama. Call him the squatter. I've yet to see a post from you where you two actually disagree on anything.
     
  6. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    You are blind. And... you are obviously having hearing problems.

    The squatter? He is like yourself wrong on so many things. I do not feel any obligation to treat him or you with anything except the tenderness of 80 grit sandpaper.

    Why? Because the squatter and his cabal of supporters are enemies of the state, demonstrated domestic terrorists. While you and your gang are more like the old boys who sit around sucking their inspiration from a brown bag bottle and blowing smoke... never doing anything beyond offering opinions of life blearily observed.
     
  7. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,389
    4,755
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    What do you and "the squatter" disagree on, Bruce. I haven't seen anything yet.

    Redistribution of wealth is big for "the squatter" and you're keen on it too.
     
  8. aspartz

    aspartz

    3,281
    133
    Oct 19, 2000
    Sandstone, MN 55072
    1. Fee for service:
      Anything that has a direct individual beneficiary, fee for service.
      If you want to go to the park, pay an entrance fee that supports the park service.
      Drive on a road, pay a use fee that pays for the wear and tear you do to the road. This includes EVERY vehicle, POV, transit bus, school bus and every not-for-profit vehicle.
      Ride on government owed transit, pay a ticket price that fully covers the cost to operate the system.
      Want to watch Sesame Street or listen to NPR, put up with commercials like everybody else
    2. Get the government out of business:
      Why should the government operate a transit system in the first place. I don't oppose infrastructure, but let a private company run the railroad.
      If you and you friends want nature, band together and buy the land with funds from willing donors
    Get the government back to doing only what it was founded and empowered to do. People don't mind paying for essential services like defense and safety, but balk at paying an endless stream of people who feel entitled to someone else's money due to some imagined social contract.

    ARS
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  9. aircarver

    aircarver Ride Continues Silver Member

    3. Get the government 'off our backs, and out of our pockets' ....

    .
     
  10. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    If you don't see the points of divergence, then it's time for you to see a eye doctor.

    Redistribution? No. Simply not willing to go along with the concentration of wealth in the hands of only a few individuals. That is not good for the whole of society. It is about the same as feudalism, primogeniture and similar structures. A egalitarian structure in which wealth and political power is broadly rather than narrowly held is much to be preferred. If this chafes the post-modern equivalents of Louise and little Marie (Antoinette), well that's just to bad for them.
     
  11. Good post.
     
  12. And if it's not profitable in some places to build roads or maintain post offices, or run fiber, we let them turn Third World? Won't those places turn into havens for terrorists and outlaws?
     
  13. Since Reagan the redistribution of wealth has gone from the rest of to the super rich. Say anything about that and you're accused of being a Marxists.
     
  14. aspartz

    aspartz

    3,281
    133
    Oct 19, 2000
    Sandstone, MN 55072
    Notice I said the government should build infrastructure, just not offer service.

    ARS
     
  15. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,389
    4,755
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Well, in fairness to people like me who have aptly labeled people like you and Brucev marxists, you have openly advocated here for democratic socialism.

    Your words.
     
  16. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,389
    4,755
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Show me bruce. Point out a couple of places you disagree with Obama.

    I'm beginning to wonder if it is really because Obama is black.

    In other words, REDISTRIBUTION. :upeyes:

    Brucev - there is nothing keeping you from becoming financially successful. Instead of whining about 'wingtippers' get off your butt and go produce something.
     
  17. So how does government pay for that? Most rural Post Offices aren't profitable. REC is socialistic.
     
  18. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    Bad example Hoss. The benefit of the Post office is the totality of the service. Not every portion of every business itself makes a profit, it is the sum of the parts.

    But again the Post Office is turning in to a bad example due to technology and competition.
     
  19. aspartz

    aspartz

    3,281
    133
    Oct 19, 2000
    Sandstone, MN 55072
    As long as the use of the infrastructure is NOT free, it is not socialistic. The government should not run the ISP, but can provide the trunk wires (at a fee).
    The problem comes when the government operates the ISP, and to "keep costs down" requires everyone to have an account regardless of demand or actual use.

    ARS
     
  20. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,389
    4,755
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    You don't understand. When socialists get desperate they throw out roads, bridges and police protection.

    They want to get their slimy thieving hands on your money and think that by equation common use infrastructure that they can equate the two and label you a socialist too.

    They do this because they're lying thieving scum.