kane

The other day I was talking to a friend of mine and we were debating the stimulus plan and some of Obama's ideas/views. He tells me he is very much against the "redistribution of wealth" that Obama is implementing. We then have the following conversation:

Me: "When they sent out the stimulus checks last year did you cash yours and spend the money?"

Him: "Yeah."

Me: "That is a redistribution of wealth. 75% of all taxes paid in this country are paid by the top 5% of earners. That means 75% of that check came from the rich and was given to you. You cashed it and spent it. Which means you partook in the redistribution of wealth."

Him: "So."

Me: "So you can't rail against something and then do exactly what you are railing against. You can't say you are against the stimulus, then take the money (even though those checks were sent out under Bush). That is being a hypocrite.

He still insists I am wrong and that the decision was made already when the checks were sent so there was no harm in him cashing it. It made me laugh at the hypocrisy.

This entire thing came back to mind because I just read that the Gov. of Texas who railed against the stimulus plan has a non-profit organization that just took 250K in stimulus money.

Here is the story.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.4c1bfc9.html

Sly

I disagree with you.

Everybody pays taxes in. I don't think we should feel what you are saying if we get that money back.

And yes, you can take advantage of a program and still think it is bad for the country as a whole. Is it hypocritical? Yeh, maybe. Would you be stupid for not taking advantage of a program that you are eligible for, that in theory you helped pay for, while everyone else takes advantage of it? Yeh.

I thought Cash for Clunkers was insane. Though I would be an idiot to not take advantage of it.

__________________
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

Wanted: CCBill pay sites for sale

kane

I guess part of your answer was my point to him. If people rail against things, but then use them does it not send a message to the powers that be that we really do want this so continue as you are?

To me it is no different than saying "don't smoke" then walking around the corner and lighting up a cigarette.

Of course in reality it would be impossible to avoid everything you disagree with. For example you might be anti-socialism, but still send your kids to public school simply because you can't afford to send them to private school and are unable to home school them.

SleazyDream

skufty has bad breath today

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

TheDoc

Based on this argument.... the stimulus money was used to rebuild roads, bridges, help schools, etc .. in every state.. so using them would be supporting the stimulus plan.

Which is crazy..

It's pretty well known that the richer you are the less % of tax that you pay, even if the amount paid is a bigger amount.

The poor man, while making less money he pays in less, but on average pays a higher % of money, than even the 10% top earning people. The value of money is clearly different.

Thus the stimulus check is not a hand down, but repaying back of the over taxed dollars and allowing those who can't benefit from lower taxes, a chance to do so.

__________________

baddog

It is not a redistribution of wealth. If he did not pay taxes he would not have received it.

kane

Sure it is. If he paid even $10 in taxes he would have gotten the check. In his case he is married and has 3 kids so the check was for around $2,400 of which around $1,800 came from the top 5% of earners. If you put a tiny amount into the pot and a rich person puts a huge amount into the pot then everyone takes an equal amount back out of the pot, that is redistributing the wealth.

kane

My argument with him was basically that you can't be 100% anti socialist and live in this country. If you use the roads, school system, fire, rescue etc it is all paid for by tax dollars. Most of those tax dollars come from the rich. If you use any of those items you are partaking in a socialist policy. When you partake in something you are then giving your approval of said policy.

If a person was truly against it they would at the very least have to pull their kids out of public school and either home school them or send them to private school. But of course that never happens. It seems like a lot of people think it is good to be against the government's socialist spending if you don't like it or need it, but if it is something you benefit from suddenly it is okay.