Ok, Obamaniacs (Cali)....

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

Sounds like a flat tax would fix this inequality in contribution problem.

Setting aside the many reasons a flat tax is a bad idea, this doesn't remain at all consistent with the approach you took earlier (which is that the government can't use your money to help others). A flat tax still takes your money and gives it to others. Now I am confused as to what you are wanting.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Setting aside the many reasons a flat tax is a bad idea, this doesn't remain at all consistent with the approach you took earlier (which is that the government can't use your money to help others). A flat tax still takes your money and gives it to others. Now I am confused as to what you are wanting.

Didn't mean to communicate that the government can't use my money to help others. I think the gov't should use my money to promote the public good and protect our rights, not redistribute wealth.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

Didn't mean to communicate that the government can't use my money to help others. I think the gov't should use my money to promote the public good and protect our rights, not redistribute wealth.

You still aren't being clear. Do you believe that the government CAN use your money as a "redistribution" of wealth? Set aside whether it SHOULD so we can be clear in our discussion.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You still aren't being clear. Do you believe that the government CAN use your money as a "redistribution" of wealth? Set aside whether it SHOULD so we can be clear in our discussion.

? CAN I shoot you with a gun and kill you? Sure. Yes, the government CAN redistribute wealth. I want to focus on the SHOULD.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

? CAN I shoot you with a gun and kill you? Sure. Yes, the government CAN redistribute wealth. I want to focus on the SHOULD.

That doesn't even make sense. We are clearly not talking about whether the government can illegally take your money (which you imply by suggesting that it is analogous to illegally killing me with a gun).

Does the government have the legal authority, given to it by the people, to redistribute wealth? Answer that and we can get to the SHOULD.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That doesn't even make sense. We are clearly not talking about whether the government can illegally take your money (which you imply by suggesting that it is analogous to illegally killing me with a gun).

Does the government have the legal authority, given to it by the people, to redistribute wealth? Answer that and we can get to the SHOULD.

It's like I'm Jesus and you are a Pharisee with all this. I think it unfortunately does at this point, otherwise we wouldn't have welfare, social security and the like. But I'll continue to vote for politicians who will excercise restraint in the exercising of this unholy power.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That doesn't even make sense. We are clearly not talking about whether the government can illegally take your money (which you imply by suggesting that it is analogous to illegally killing me with a gun).

Does the government have the legal authority, given to it by the people, to redistribute wealth? Answer that and we can get to the SHOULD.

why does he have to answer thqat first? Indeed, they may even collapse intot the same issue, depending on mhy he thinks they shouldn't. His point, I think, which does make some snese, is that the governemtn IS redistributing, so whether he things it is illegal is moot. It is a fact and and he thinks they shouldn't. WHy he thinks they shouoldn't can certainly be aadddressed without crossing the illegality issue, unless they do collapse.


I have bnot rfead thw whole thread, however, so maybe mine doesn't make sense.

[MikeWaters]

This thread gets me back to what I have been discussing recently: does anyone have any doubt that materialism and the love of money and things is at the root of much harm?

I am wondering why I don't hear much about it at General Conference, despite the entire Book of Mormon bein peppered with this message.

Prosperity gospel, we sneer at Joel Osteen, but frankly, I don't think we are very far removed from it.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This thread gets me back to what I have been discussing recently: does anyone have any doubt that materialism and the love of money and things is at the root of much harm?

I am wondering why I don't hear much about it at General Conference, despite the entire Book of Mormon bein peppered with this message.

Prosperity gospel, we sneer at Joel Osteen, but frankly, I don't think we are very far removed from it.

its not about the love of money.... you of course have your blinders on and its the only thing you can focus on.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

why does he have to answer thqat first? Indeed, they may even collapse intot the same issue, depending on mhy he thinks they shouldn't. His point, I think, which does make some snese, is that the governemtn IS redistributing, so whether he things it is illegal is moot. It is a fact and and he thinks they shouldn't. WHy he thinks they shouoldn't can certainly be aadddressed without crossing the illegality issue, unless they do collapse.


I have bnot rfead thw whole thread, however, so maybe mine doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure I follow where you are going with this. The reason he has to answer that question first is to delineate which debate we are engaged in. I am finding his responses confusing and contradictory, and I think it is because he is shifting from one topic to the next without even realizing it. I don't think the issues collapse into each other as neatly as you have suggested. Whether the government SHOULD redistribute wealth is a separate question than whether it has the legal authority to redistribute wealth. The point has been made by at least Venkman that the government doesn't have the legal authority to redistribute wealth, which takes us down a far different path than a debate about whether or not it is desirable.