Here you go Midas.

New one about the National Debt @ Berkley from the same kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rDahs4cmuc&feature=player_embedded

I got in an argument with a Liberal English teacher once. I forget what it was about, but the guy told me I was a moron and threw me out of the class for the day. The very next day I went and pulled the facts and threw it on his desk in the middle of that class period.

Comparing grades to income is stupid. Grades are a function of ease of classes and work ethic. Income is more of a function of where you live and what field you work in. A marine in Afghanistan works a far harder job than a New York City call girl, yet the call girl will make several times what the marine will make; does the call girl work harder? The very fact that the WSO's resident writer can post this with the implication that Income is related to GPA shows how delusional certain people are.

I found it hilarious when the girl in the Berkeley video proposed to raise the corporate tax rate. Does she not know the United States has one of the highest rates already?

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about Obamacare alternatives, but Michael Steele is kind of a moron.

Is anyone missing the simple fact that people can survive without GPA points, but that without at least a moderate level of redistribution you would be condemning a huge proportion of the population to homelessness and starvation?

eokpar02, you're argument is retarded and does nothing to disprove the GPA/income analogy. How can you look beyond the simple premise that what you work hard for (grades or income) should not be excessively distributed to people who are unwilling to work as hard. Who are you to argue that a marine works harder than a call girl? Sure, the battlefield is arguably more dangerous (although you could argue that sleeping with sketchy men could lead to precarious situations (i.e. STDs, murder/abuse, loss of self-worth, etc.) but prostitution is the oldest profession for a reason and one of the best analogies for capitalism (supplyinh a service that meets a demand for a profit).

awm55,

Why do you liberals always have to be so literal. Sure, you cant eat or live on your GPA but the premise of rewarding hard work and sacrifice is the same. No one is arguing against a moderate level of redistribution but what you liberals want is an excessive amount and a pound of flesh.

The purpose of the government and its social programs is to provide a safety net for those individuals who persistently try to improve their situations but may falter. The purpose is not create a system of incentives that rewards lazy idiots who thought it was better to skip class to smoke weed and buy an iphone when they cant afford to pay rent.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

You have to do jack shit to fail out of school, and failing out of school is not the same thing as being homeless and starving due to a lack of money.

Most homeless people are drug addicts or have serious mental illnesses. How many sane rational homeless people do you meet? You think they are homeless because they are lazy, that is moronic.

And accepting the fact that a moderate level of redistribution is necessary to run a capitalist economy within a western democratic framework is not liberal, its common fucking sense.

Redistribution leads to the decay of society. People say its some shit about helping society, what a load of shit. The very idea is to foster class warfare. The "I am entitled to what he has because he has more than I do." Thats the idea they had in Greece, that worked out well for them didnt it?

Interesting analogy. Sort of a legit one, too. Because think about: the same reasons people give for poor people being poor (parents' socio economic background, other random societal factors--we know all the "excuses," as it were--not trying to imply they are or are not legitimate excuses, so don't get pissed at me), are also reasons people might get bad grades. The difference is, people who would be against redistribution of GPA see school as more meritocratic than society. I see this as a dangerous argument though -- where do you draw the line? Redistribution of wealth only solves the symptoms of greater problems we have in society, merely redistributing wealth might make some peoples' lives better, but it perpetuates cultural and societal problems we already have.

What if the rich just accepted the tax increases to pay for social welfare programs etc. under the stipulation that the recipients of such welfare need to send a thank you card once a year as well as kiss the feet of the rich whenever they see them in public. Perhaps a free shoe shine from all recipients on demand?

EVERY developed country in the world operates some kind of redistributive policy.

Apparently it's not all that easy to be a hooker:

http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234078,00.html

(the initial mentioned marines are separated, not dead)

http://www.mccscherrypoint.com/healthpromotion.htm

This video explains the concept of redistribution of resources perfectly. It is the EXACT same concept at work as in the income argument: taking from those who are deemed to have an "excessive" amount of something and redistributing it to those that "don't have enough." Why are some of you guys even arguing this? Of course a GPA isn't money, but the concept holds: Taking from people who have worked hard for what they have to give it to someone else is not right, be it GPA, income, etc.

Exactly. It's a fucking analogy. No one is arguing that GPA can buy you food or water.

Great video. Great analogy. Someone commented earlier that this doesn't work because GPA isn't currency. Well to college students it kind of is... that's the most valuable thing you have as an undergrad. The analogy works because college kids feel the same way about GPA as working people do about income.

I fancy myself an independently minded citizen, who is basically a fiscal conservative and social liberal. When it comes to the topic of wealth redistribution, I definitely side with the Republicans. However, I don't believe this would be such a hot topic of debate if the middle class had a future. Back in the 50s, 60s etc, when we produced things in this country, parents of humble means didn't leverage themselves to the hilt to put their kids through college because they could live a fine middle class life working at a steel mill or at an auto plant. Once the global economy changed and those jobs left, I'm not sure what jobs exist as a replacement. Something with real estate or construction maybe? Oh wait... right.

I'm not saying it's the job of the rich to come up with a solution. I believe the only way for a solution to really take hold and be successful is for it to be dictated by social/market forces, not the government.

I love how people have to explain the analogy in the clip. A 10 year old could could figure it out, its not complicated. But it is stupid and not comparable.

My stock response has always been either "I don't think about it much, mostly just try and do my job," or "feel for you, but I don't think anyone is paid based on what they deserve in the economy" (which is totally true, deservingness is a social and psychological concept). Nice of you to pick up the tab though, classy.

The analogy is totally flawed, a better example in my opinion on the dangers of collectivism, central planning and subsidization is the housing policies of a number of schools as well as meal plans, but hey do what you can.

Jesus Christ! When will you finally understand that a lot of us aren't partisan hacks! Is someone criticizing gov't run health care, you shouldn't start attacking the republican alternative. We're trying to argue principle here. Just because someone criticizes a liberal position, doesn't mean they support the conservative position. You make this same error over and over again on this forum, and it honestly gets kind of old (and turns a seemingly interesting conversation about policy into a stupid conversation about partisan politics).

How is GPA not liquid? Any teacher could easily change grades in an Excel spreadsheet...

Good point, but let me get a little nit picky anyway haha. Productivity and competition might be functions of working and, therefore, wages might be a function of working hard too.

Also, good clarification on productivity with the revenue comment. A lot of people get confused about productivity. For example, is Michael Jordan and the best lacrosse player in the world might be equally skillful/productive in their respective sports. So why does MJ make more? Because people value his output more (i.e. people enjoy consuming is productivity more than the lacrosse player). In other words, VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE!

It is not necessarily irrelevant. You're right that it's simplified, but that's the whole fucking point. Explain to me why we should redistribute wealth, but not many other things? If you can't come up with a solid, logical answer to that question, then you miss the whole point of the video and, therefore, the whole point of the argument (and actually, this whole topic, in general).

Let's assume (for simplicity) that all homeless people are drug addicts. Why does that give you the right to take my money and give it to them? Furthermore, what gives you the right to take my money and pay politicians, beauracrats, and poor people who are not homeless (nor drug addicts)?

Way to back up your statement with any common sense...

First: Doesn't GPA influence income? If so, than doesn't GPA indirectly by food, water, and health care?

Second: That overlooks the issue anyway. What principle says it's okay to redistribute stuff that buys food, water, and healthcare, but not other stuff? By your logic, why don't we just cut out the middleman (money) and redistribute healthcare, food, and water directly?