VicZincs avatar
Share
2 57

I hope not! I have added to my retirement fund over the years, and I've also given to the poor. Neither of these investments should earn me a label.

If you voluntarily give money to the poor, that's not communism, it's charity. Socialism would be taking that money from someone else to give to the poor, and under communism everyone is equally poor, so you wouldn't be in a position to give.

@Maze If you voluntarily give money to the poor, that's not communism, it's charity. Socialism would be taking that money...

... except the elite. THEY still have plenty of wealth, because they get to decide how much to take from everybody else and who gets it.

@Walt_OReagun except the elite. THEY still have plenty of wealth, because they get to decide how much to take from everybody...

Yes, in socialist countries the elite are the party insiders, and they literally do get to decide how much to take from everybody and who gets it. As much sway as capitalist elites have, nobody is forced to do business with them.

Nobody calls me a commie and I give to the poor, voluntarily. The "Commie" label applies when the government takes it from people to give it to others.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2810288

You'll get no argument from me. But I do think that if you give tax money to banks, oil companies, railroads and agribusiness it is not called communism by the pundits, it is called "stimulus". If you give the same amount of money to the lowest income consumers (who will spend every penny the next week) it will be called [wrongly] communism - it is in fact socialism in both cases.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2810327

Many will say that, but we know they are mistaken.

I reckon that is part of the gap. Those with money to invest view the economy in terms of the market. Those with little or no money to invest view the economy in terms of jobs and income.
Lots of jobs right now. Income...meh....

@Carla I reckon that is part of the gap. Those with money to invest view the economy in terms of the market. Those with...

As far as being a commie? Why would anyone think that? Because you gave 100 dollars away?

@Carla As far as being a commie? Why would anyone think that? Because you gave 100 dollars away?

The tax cut gave those with a bundle of disposable income, much more to invest. While those with little got enough to....well...with everything having gone up in price,...enough to still struggle.

What's the ism that ensures the rich get richer and the poor work three jobs to get by?

This user has deactivated their account.
@2810217

Yes. I reckon so. It's just that the gap gets wider and our fearless leaders seem to be financing the heavy equipment.:)

Very interesting way of turning it around, it's funny.

That's true, the rich get richer and the poor try to survive.

The questions posed are flawed!

Why in the world would I give any money to a rich person? And I wouldn't be applauded - I would be called a fool.

And, if I gave money to a poor person, no one would call me a commie! Charitable giving is not typical of communists.

I think that the OP has simply failed in his presentation - an feeble swipe at capitalism vs communism.

@VicZinc Think what you want. Not everyone is capable of understanding parables.

You left out an important middle man in your parable, Vic, namely the politician who passes tax laws that force me to give $100 to the poor person.

And of course the politician does this not so much because he is a commie, but because he is buying the poor person's vote in order to stay in power.

@Thinkerbell You left out an important middle man in your parable, Vic, namely the politician who passes tax laws that force...

Motivation notwithstanding, the principles behind investment versus consumption are the point. Poor people spend their income thus stimulating growth from demand , rich people invest which is supposed to stimulate supply, the problem is if there is no money at the bottom with which to purchase the supply we get layoffs that exacerbate the problem. Stock markets go up at first but then they self correct. It has happened every time there is a major tax cut.

@VicZinc Motivation notwithstanding, the principles behind investment versus consumption are the point. Poor people spend...

Of course there is a correction; there always are corrections, even when there isn't a tax cut.

The question is, would the sub-par economic growth have been needlessly prolonged without the cut?

And of course, there are political motivations for tax cuts, just as there are for increasing entitlement spending, either by increasing taxes or (more likely) by increasing the debt.

@Thinkerbell Of course there is a correction; there always are corrections, even when there isn't a tax cut. The question is...

I would really like to agree with you, but as you pointed out before - tax cuts do a great job of increasing debt.

Not sure what you consider sub-par growth but I personally was happy with the growth for the Obama era and very disappointed with the contraction at the end of Bush's.

@VicZinc I would really like to agree with you, but as you pointed out before - tax cuts do a great job of increasing...

Sub-par is the 2% per annum growth we saw with Obama, as opposed to the 3% average over the last 75 years or so.
Image in content
And the contraction we saw under Bush was mostly caused by the real-estate bubble that had its origins under Bill Clinton, when mortgage loans to large numbers of non-creditworthy individuals were made possible (out of 'fairness', don'tcha know).

Along the way, the banking committee gurus in the Senate and House, liberal Democrats Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, assured us that everything was just hunky-dory with these new regulations, not to worry.

(Both since retired, on fat pensions.)

@Thinkerbell Sub-par is the 2% per annum growth we saw with Obama, as opposed to the 3% average over the last 75 years or so...

Think, you are the smartest Fairy I know!

[And, I actually know a few! Really nice - you would like them.]

@VicZinc Think what you want. Not everyone is capable of understanding parables.

I was warned about people like you;

Romans 16:17-20 ESV
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

@VicZinc And also with you.

Coming from a man that that believes only that Jesus was a man in history, and nothing more, kind of deflates any possible intention you may have had to be nice and actually makes it feel like you are mocking me and my faith.

I bother to point this out not with the hope that you will change - that ship has sailed. No, I point it out only to make sure you know that I am fully aware of what an empty vessel you really are. That your clever 'turn of phrase' is not at all clever but instead an indictment of your insincerity.

@Budwick Coming from a man that that believes only that Jesus was a man in history, and nothing more, kind of deflates any...

Not merely a man in history, my hero, and the only man I seek to emulate in my daily life.

May he be an example to all.

Yeah. Commie 4ever

This user has been banned.
@2810332

Good question, did you ask them, or are you just ranting here?

This user has been banned.
@2810542

I have to admire your reactionary stance, it is so well played.

Anonymous