Now that MLB is back...does anyone care?

[packs]

That's simply not true. There was no computer tax on NYC residents. The money was already collected and that's how the city chose to spend it, which is what redistribution is all about. Where did that money come from? The city's budget.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

That's simply not true. There was no computer tax on NYC residents. The money was already collected and that's how the city chose to spend it, which is what redistribution is all about. Where did that money come from? The city's budget.

Yeah, the city's budget... where the people who have more, contributed more.
And those people who contributed less... now get the benefits of those who contributed more.

Again, sounds fair!

[packs]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Yeah, the city's budget... where the people who have more, contributed more.
And those people who contributed less... now get the benefits of those who contributed more.

Again, sounds fair!

Do you support the National School Lunch Program? It provides no cost or reduced cost meals to students in public or non-profit schools who otherwise can't afford them. Again, this is a clear example of the redistribution of wealth. I personally don't think any student should go hungry. If you feel like a student who can't afford lunch doesn't get to eat lunch, it's not a perspective I agree with.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

Do you support the National School Lunch Program? It provides no cost or reduced cost meals to students in public or non-profit schools who otherwise can't afford them. Again, this is a clear example of the redistribution of wealth. I personally don't think any student should go hungry. If you feel like a student who can't afford lunch doesn't get to eat lunch, it's not a perspective I agree with.

If you feel that anyone who has less than others should automatically be given more, and that the people who have more are solely responsible for that, it is not a perspective that I agree with.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

If you feel that anyone who has less than others should automatically be given more, and that the people who have more are solely responsible for that, it is not a perspective that I agree with.

It's not automatic. It's practical as I described above with the laptop program. A student who already has a computer doesn't need to be provided with one. There is a practical reason a student without a laptop would receive one; so they can participate in the public education they are entitled to. The cost is supplanted by the tax revenue everyone pays into, not just some people.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

It's not automatic. It's practical as I described above with the laptop program. A student who already has a computer doesn't need to be provided with one. There is a practical reason a student without a laptop would receive one; so they can participate in the public education they are entitled to. The cost is supplanted by the tax revenue everyone pays into, not just some people.

It's funny that people are entitled to an education according to you, but people aren't entitled to the wealth they've earned, as you want to redistribute it.
Can you honestly not grasp the hypocrisy of any of this?

And not everyone PAYS into the system the same, but you want everyone to HAVE the same... why not just be honest and admit you want socialism?

[packs]

Every example I've provided is current government policy. And nothing about redistribution has anything to do with taking anyone's individual wealth. We are talking about how public funds are spent, which is money already collected.

Public education as a right is not my personal philosophy. This right is part of the 14th amendment.