Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (406692)	5/15/2003 4:31:40 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Re: "publicly advocates taking wealth from earners and distributing it to non-earners." >>> Isn't that the same as the Earned Income Tax Credit... approved by majorities in Congress? >>> And, what about things like the massive tariff protection US sugar producers get (a handful of multi-milionaire families), 'protecting' them from the Free Market? >>> Isn't that a form of wealth transfer to 'non-earners'? (At least, they wouldn't earn much in a free market without the government handout....)

To: Bill who wrote (406692)	5/15/2003 4:47:12 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The Elizabethan Poor Laws took money from earners and gave it to non- earners (the poor). That kind of redistribution, which aims at the support of the indigent, or a helping hand to the needy, is by no means the same as redistribution to eliminate social classes. By the way, do you know what European state first introduced Social Security? Prussia under Bismarck. Although conservative, Bismarck had paternalistic instincts and a horror of social unrest, and he also wanted to eliminate an issue from the Socialists. Smart guy. As for Barney's views of expropriation, I have never seen any evidence that he thought any such thing, and, in any event, you are indulging in pure speculation. Besides, he does not qualify on the Leninist side at all.