Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
it was (mostly) a joke about "redistribution"...

The whole idea of the governmental philosophy of Communism/Socialism is to take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" in hopes of "leveling the playing field"...

What many don't understand is that the top echelon of "haves" won't be affected regardless of philosophy...

The more I've thought about your transfer idea, the more I like it... Bammer's composite talent would improve...
The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).

So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.