Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Foxfyre]

While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.

While I think your starting point/ending point works for some conservatives and liberals, I don't think it works for the majority of them.

I notice that a lot of conservatives talk about liberals wanting to take take take. I think the majority of liberals are more interested in the processes of government being fair - no discrimination, children getting an equal education, a woman's right to choose (I'm anti-abortion though)...things like that.

Unless you continue to call me a me a moron (a reference to a different thread..) you'll find that I'm usually pretty agreeable and enjoy debate in the form of a conversation and not a vulgarity contest. I can, however, turn the switch if I need to.

I consider myself conservative in my own personal life, but I'm a libertarian politically. When I run for office I doubt I will get the support of the Republican party, namely for my stance on drug use and gay marriage.

I do maintain that the starting/ending point works for most liberals, I don't think its all encompasing. When I say starting/ending point i think a large part of the problem is that Liberals, generally, do not like the idea that there are losers. Personally, I'm fine with someone being a loser. If someone can't make it in life and winds up starving, I'm ok with that. Now would i give the guy a loaf of bread? Sure. Do I actually want to see anyone die? No, of course not... that's ridiculous but I have less of a problem with him dying than I do forcing someone else to partake in charity.

When it comes to children, it is harder to take that stance but I feel that you have to make a choice. If you are not willing to violate a human beings ability to reproduce (you got 2 kids taken away from you, you're on SSI/welfare/food stamps/section 8... and we won't snip your tubes???) then you must be wiling to allow kids to suffer the consequences of their parents actions. Again, do I want to see it? Of course not. I do a lot of volunteer work and give money to various organizations that help kids and provide for education/living expenses of orphens and wards of the state, but again... my tolerance for seeing another person be forced to give to a charity (the government entitlement programs) is zero.

I do not see government as a good purveyor of fairness. It is a great idea, and I wish it could work. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... I think that's what I'm saying. I just don't think the government is the right avenue to do things. I mean look at Katrina, people that were dependent on the government for help? How'd that turn out? Even 911, the only "success" in the whole tragedy was when people did exactly what the government told us not to do in the case of a hijacking. My faith in the government to do anything to make people dependent on it, and not eventually screw it up royally is zero.

Mike

Your personal convictions re drug law, gay marriage, science, global warming, etc. etc. etc., ANY of the hot button issues, will not hurt you with mainstream Republicans UNLESS you are one who presumes to ram your personal philosophy down everybody else's throat. True conservatives don't condemn anybody for their thoughts, beliefs, convictions, cultural conditioning but judge people on the level of freedom they are willing to allow in the thoughts, beliefs, convictions, cultural conditioning etc. of everybody else.

(I don't consider those who condemn people purely on their beliefs to be true conservatives or libertarians as I think a true conservative or libertarian is one who affords everybody unalienable rights and not just those with certain ideological propensities. The others who would deny freedom to those they disagree with aren't conservatives. Or moderates. Or even principled liberals. They are wingnuts. As often as not also numbnuts.)

I always wonder though why kids of parents who actually support and parent their kids and try to give them some advantages in life are less worthy of our care and concern as those who don't have parents who give a damn about them. It makes no sense to me to reward bad parenting by giving their kids more stuff and denying any reward of any kind to parents who actually parent.

Seems to me if you want good parenting, you reward good parenting and take the kids away from those who won't do that for their kids.

 

[Vanquish]

From Vanquish, I'm just going to address this part instead of reposting the whole enchilada.

" We're not thinking too differently, truth be told. Welfare statistics do show a larger than ideal repeat rate (25% of women repeat within 1 year, 42% repeat within 2). However raising taxes on the wealthiest members does work as part of a long-term solution. Why? Because of the simple fact that to get the surpluses we need to lower our debt, cutting alone isn't going to be enough. Massive cuts + taxes are the only way to make sure that what we've got coming in = more than we have going out. Anyone who opposes any and all taxes for any reason isn't being realistic. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils...which is what our dire situation has put us in. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face...and let America go to shambles...or are you going to suck something up that might be somewhat unfair, but necessary? "


Some conservatives are totally unwilling to raise taxes just as some liberals are totally unwilling to cut spending. From my end (cons), I can see the point of increasing revenues, but I also see that if you give a democrat more money he/she will spend it rather than pay down the debt/deficits. And spend it unwisely too, the argument for another stimulus package would be easier to make if Obama and the dems had done a better job of spending the last one in a more effective manner. I am just not willing to give these guys more money to waste, especially when I see that it's really inconsequential to the overall problem. Show me a more fiscally responsible gov't first, then get back to me about raising taxes.

I mean c'mon, when you're running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you want to get 70-80 billion in new revenue from a tax hike on the 200k+ earners, that's nothing. Obama and the dems are so not serious about spending cuts - no serious budget since God knows when, totally unwilling to put entitlement benefits on the table or that God Damn high speed rail that hemorrages money. It's not like I want to do it all at once, like Bachmann and some TP idiots that didn't want to raise the debt ceiling. That was really irresponsible IMHO, but I understand the position.

" If cuts won't be enough...and taxes are required...who are you going to tax? Taxing the poor and middle class would make the economy worse! "

Agreed, but many say taxing the rich people who provide the lion's share of investment money to start new businesses isn't a good idea either. I mean, look at the current situation, banks aren't lending money unless you've got a sizeable investment behind you. That money has to come from rich people, AND higher taxes also discourages foreign investments too. So - IMHO raising taxes on anybody at this point in time is suicidal for the economy.

" I disagree that taxes are a disincentive to achievement. People arent going to stop trying to gather wealth just because they're taxed. Type A people will never stop working, achieving, and striving. No one is ever going to say, "the government takes too much. Id rather just starve." I will concede the opposite though - there are some people who are willing to STOP working because they have decided that the lifestyle that government assistance affords is enough for them. But the reality is that most welfare recipients get MEAGER amounts and would rather be off the rolls to work at a better job. (Studies show that part of the problem is that the jobs welfare recipients can get usually have no benefits and dont improve their living conditions..no matter how hard they work) "

Too much hyperbole here, of course not everyone is going to stop working or investing because of a tax hike, the question is how much of a disincentive would it be? Why take the risk of doing anything to disincentivize new business? Now THATs cutting off your nose to spite your face. IMHO, we need to restructure our tax code and reduce the tax rates to become more competitive world wide. Hell, we don't need a tax hike to raise revenues, we just need to revitalize our economy. And a tax hike is a step in the wrong direction.

That's fair. I think a proposal for 3$ in spending cuts for 1$ in revenue was pretty fair. I'd prefer 5 or 8 to 1 though. Only after those cuts have been implemented first would the revenues begin.

Dems aren't the only ones who spend. While they do, so do cons. And TARP was Bush's attempt at making sure that his legacy wasn't a terrible economic collapse.

Businesses are sitting on lots of cash right now. On a debit/credit analysis, big business is looking good. It's federal government economic uncertainty that's the question according to S&P/Moody's/Bloomberg. That's got to be job one. Shoring up the government - at least in terms of process.

Until the world finds economic equality...businesses will always go where it's cheaper.

 

[Wiseacre]

From Vanquish, I'm just going to address this part instead of reposting the whole enchilada.

" We're not thinking too differently, truth be told. Welfare statistics do show a larger than ideal repeat rate (25% of women repeat within 1 year, 42% repeat within 2). However raising taxes on the wealthiest members does work as part of a long-term solution. Why? Because of the simple fact that to get the surpluses we need to lower our debt, cutting alone isn't going to be enough. Massive cuts + taxes are the only way to make sure that what we've got coming in = more than we have going out. Anyone who opposes any and all taxes for any reason isn't being realistic. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils...which is what our dire situation has put us in. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face...and let America go to shambles...or are you going to suck something up that might be somewhat unfair, but necessary? "


Some conservatives are totally unwilling to raise taxes just as some liberals are totally unwilling to cut spending. From my end (cons), I can see the point of increasing revenues, but I also see that if you give a democrat more money he/she will spend it rather than pay down the debt/deficits. And spend it unwisely too, the argument for another stimulus package would be easier to make if Obama and the dems had done a better job of spending the last one in a more effective manner. I am just not willing to give these guys more money to waste, especially when I see that it's really inconsequential to the overall problem. Show me a more fiscally responsible gov't first, then get back to me about raising taxes.

I mean c'mon, when you're running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you want to get 70-80 billion in new revenue from a tax hike on the 200k+ earners, that's nothing. Obama and the dems are so not serious about spending cuts - no serious budget since God knows when, totally unwilling to put entitlement benefits on the table or that God Damn high speed rail that hemorrages money. It's not like I want to do it all at once, like Bachmann and some TP idiots that didn't want to raise the debt ceiling. That was really irresponsible IMHO, but I understand the position.

" If cuts won't be enough...and taxes are required...who are you going to tax? Taxing the poor and middle class would make the economy worse! "

Agreed, but many say taxing the rich people who provide the lion's share of investment money to start new businesses isn't a good idea either. I mean, look at the current situation, banks aren't lending money unless you've got a sizeable investment behind you. That money has to come from rich people, AND higher taxes also discourages foreign investments too. So - IMHO raising taxes on anybody at this point in time is suicidal for the economy.

" I disagree that taxes are a disincentive to achievement. People arent going to stop trying to gather wealth just because they're taxed. Type A people will never stop working, achieving, and striving. No one is ever going to say, "the government takes too much. Id rather just starve." I will concede the opposite though - there are some people who are willing to STOP working because they have decided that the lifestyle that government assistance affords is enough for them. But the reality is that most welfare recipients get MEAGER amounts and would rather be off the rolls to work at a better job. (Studies show that part of the problem is that the jobs welfare recipients can get usually have no benefits and dont improve their living conditions..no matter how hard they work) "

Too much hyperbole here, of course not everyone is going to stop working or investing because of a tax hike, the question is how much of a disincentive would it be? Why take the risk of doing anything to disincentivize new business? Now THATs cutting off your nose to spite your face. IMHO, we need to restructure our tax code and reduce the tax rates to become more competitive world wide. Hell, we don't need a tax hike to raise revenues, we just need to revitalize our economy. And a tax hike is a step in the wrong direction.

That's fair. I think a proposal for 3$ in spending cuts for 1$ in revenue was pretty fair. I'd prefer 5 or 8 to 1 though. Only after those cuts have been implemented first would the revenues begin.

Dems aren't the only ones who spend. While they do, so do cons. And TARP was Bush's attempt at making sure that his legacy wasn't a terrible economic collapse.

Businesses are sitting on lots of cash right now. On a debit/credit analysis, big business is looking good. It's federal government economic uncertainty that's the question according to S&P/Moody's/Bloomberg. That's got to be job one. Shoring up the government - at least in terms of process.

Until the world finds economic equality...businesses will always go where it's cheaper.

Agreed.

 

[Foxfyre]

From Vanquish, I'm just going to address this part instead of reposting the whole enchilada.

" We're not thinking too differently, truth be told. Welfare statistics do show a larger than ideal repeat rate (25% of women repeat within 1 year, 42% repeat within 2). However raising taxes on the wealthiest members does work as part of a long-term solution. Why? Because of the simple fact that to get the surpluses we need to lower our debt, cutting alone isn't going to be enough. Massive cuts + taxes are the only way to make sure that what we've got coming in = more than we have going out. Anyone who opposes any and all taxes for any reason isn't being realistic. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils...which is what our dire situation has put us in. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face...and let America go to shambles...or are you going to suck something up that might be somewhat unfair, but necessary? "


Some conservatives are totally unwilling to raise taxes just as some liberals are totally unwilling to cut spending. From my end (cons), I can see the point of increasing revenues, but I also see that if you give a democrat more money he/she will spend it rather than pay down the debt/deficits. And spend it unwisely too, the argument for another stimulus package would be easier to make if Obama and the dems had done a better job of spending the last one in a more effective manner. I am just not willing to give these guys more money to waste, especially when I see that it's really inconsequential to the overall problem. Show me a more fiscally responsible gov't first, then get back to me about raising taxes.

I mean c'mon, when you're running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you want to get 70-80 billion in new revenue from a tax hike on the 200k+ earners, that's nothing. Obama and the dems are so not serious about spending cuts - no serious budget since God knows when, totally unwilling to put entitlement benefits on the table or that God Damn high speed rail that hemorrages money. It's not like I want to do it all at once, like Bachmann and some TP idiots that didn't want to raise the debt ceiling. That was really irresponsible IMHO, but I understand the position.

" If cuts won't be enough...and taxes are required...who are you going to tax? Taxing the poor and middle class would make the economy worse! "

Agreed, but many say taxing the rich people who provide the lion's share of investment money to start new businesses isn't a good idea either. I mean, look at the current situation, banks aren't lending money unless you've got a sizeable investment behind you. That money has to come from rich people, AND higher taxes also discourages foreign investments too. So - IMHO raising taxes on anybody at this point in time is suicidal for the economy.

" I disagree that taxes are a disincentive to achievement. People arent going to stop trying to gather wealth just because they're taxed. Type A people will never stop working, achieving, and striving. No one is ever going to say, "the government takes too much. Id rather just starve." I will concede the opposite though - there are some people who are willing to STOP working because they have decided that the lifestyle that government assistance affords is enough for them. But the reality is that most welfare recipients get MEAGER amounts and would rather be off the rolls to work at a better job. (Studies show that part of the problem is that the jobs welfare recipients can get usually have no benefits and dont improve their living conditions..no matter how hard they work) "

Too much hyperbole here, of course not everyone is going to stop working or investing because of a tax hike, the question is how much of a disincentive would it be? Why take the risk of doing anything to disincentivize new business? Now THATs cutting off your nose to spite your face. IMHO, we need to restructure our tax code and reduce the tax rates to become more competitive world wide. Hell, we don't need a tax hike to raise revenues, we just need to revitalize our economy. And a tax hike is a step in the wrong direction.

That's fair. I think a proposal for 3$ in spending cuts for 1$ in revenue was pretty fair. I'd prefer 5 or 8 to 1 though. Only after those cuts have been implemented first would the revenues begin.

Dems aren't the only ones who spend. While they do, so do cons. And TARP was Bush's attempt at making sure that his legacy wasn't a terrible economic collapse.

Businesses are sitting on lots of cash right now. On a debit/credit analysis, big business is looking good. It's federal government economic uncertainty that's the question according to S&P/Moody's/Bloomberg. That's got to be job one. Shoring up the government - at least in terms of process.

Until the world finds economic equality...businesses will always go where it's cheaper.

Agreed.

Except. . . . .

When Reagan agreed to a tax increase early in his presidency in return for $3 of spending cuts for every new dollar in taxes, we got the taxes but no spending cuts.

When George H.W. Bush broke his 'no new taxes' pledge in his third year in office and agreed to $1 in taxes for $3 in spending cuts, taxes on the rich even, we got the taxes that almost destroyed our domestic boat and private plane building industries. We got none of the spending cuts.

The current so-called deficit reduction plan recently passed by Congress pushes all tax cuts into future Congresses and accomplishes essentially none now. Just what do you think the odds are that we will get those future tax cuts. This 'super congress' that is supposed to come up with all these additional cuts is the biggest smoke and mirrors scam our government has ever insulted our intelligence with.

We DO NOT want to give Congress any additional money to spend or give them ANY excuse or justification for spending more money. We need to start now to put the government on a strict reduced diet until it has shrunk to the size it has to be and no more.

 

[Chris]

That's fair. I think a proposal for 3$ in spending cuts for 1$ in revenue was pretty fair. I'd prefer 5 or 8 to 1 though. Only after those cuts have been implemented first would the revenues begin.

Dems aren't the only ones who spend. While they do, so do cons. And TARP was Bush's attempt at making sure that his legacy wasn't a terrible economic collapse.

Businesses are sitting on lots of cash right now. On a debit/credit analysis, big business is looking good. It's federal government economic uncertainty that's the question according to S&P/Moody's/Bloomberg. That's got to be job one. Shoring up the government - at least in terms of process.

Until the world finds economic equality...businesses will always go where it's cheaper.

Agreed.

Except. . . . .

When Reagan agreed to a tax increase early in his presidency in return for $3 of spending cuts for every new dollar in taxes, we got the taxes but no spending cuts.

When George H.W. Bush broke his 'no new taxes' pledge in his third year in office and agreed to $1 in taxes for $3 in spending cuts, taxes on the rich even, we got the taxes that almost destroyed our domestic boat and private plane building industries. We got none of the spending cuts.

The current so-called deficit reduction plan recently passed by Congress pushes all tax cuts into future Congresses and accomplishes essentially none now. Just what do you think the odds are that we will get those future tax cuts. This 'super congress' that is supposed to come up with all these additional cuts is the biggest smoke and mirrors scam our government has ever insulted our intelligence with.

We DO NOT want to give Congress any additional money to spend or give them ANY excuse or justification for spending more money. We need to start now to put the government on a strict reduced diet until it has shrunk to the size it has to be and no more.

Not happening.

Most of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....three things Americans believe in.

 

[Bern80]

If distribution of wealth gets so lopsided that it becomes an impediment to a healthy economy and society, then a failure to redistribute wealth is IMMORAL.

The question, the burning question that we ought to be asking ourselves (only we don't because most of us are so damned braindead from propaganda that it doesn't occur to us) is HOW to BEST DO THAT in a way that is both MORAL and effective?

Now authentic capitalism seems like a good way to do that, but the end game of authentic capitalism tends to be the root of the problem to begin with.

This is really a problem in pretty much every economic system devised by man.

Money BEGATS more money and then that money is turned into power which eleminates even the possiblity of having a fair and just economic system.

Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Agreed.

Except. . . . .

When Reagan agreed to a tax increase early in his presidency in return for $3 of spending cuts for every new dollar in taxes, we got the taxes but no spending cuts.

When George H.W. Bush broke his 'no new taxes' pledge in his third year in office and agreed to $1 in taxes for $3 in spending cuts, taxes on the rich even, we got the taxes that almost destroyed our domestic boat and private plane building industries. We got none of the spending cuts.

The current so-called deficit reduction plan recently passed by Congress pushes all tax cuts into future Congresses and accomplishes essentially none now. Just what do you think the odds are that we will get those future tax cuts. This 'super congress' that is supposed to come up with all these additional cuts is the biggest smoke and mirrors scam our government has ever insulted our intelligence with.

We DO NOT want to give Congress any additional money to spend or give them ANY excuse or justification for spending more money. We need to start now to put the government on a strict reduced diet until it has shrunk to the size it has to be and no more.

Not happening.

Most of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....three things Americans believe in.

Americans can believe 2+2=5, that doesn't make it so.

 

[dblack]

Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.

Exactly. And the thing is, I'm fairly certain that's going on. If those upset about wealth disparity set their focus on stopping all the illicit gains, all the corruption, all the 'corporate welfare' and tax loopholes - they'd find a fair share of eager allies among libertarians and conservatives. Seems like a missed opportunity.

 

[Bern80]

Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.

Exactly. And the thing is, I'm fairly certain that's going on. If those upset about wealth disparity set their focus on stopping all the illicit gains, all the corruption, all the 'corporate welfare' and tax loopholes - they'd find a fair share of eager allies among libertarians and conservatives. Seems like a missed opportunity.

I agree with doing those things, but I don't think doing so equals wealth redistrubution and I don't believe it to be stealing on the part of corporations. I guess, if anything, it's politicians stealing from people for the benefit of corporations and ultimately themselves.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.

Exactly. And the thing is, I'm fairly certain that's going on. If those upset about wealth disparity set their focus on stopping all the illicit gains, all the corruption, all the 'corporate welfare' and tax loopholes - they'd find a fair share of eager allies among libertarians and conservatives. Seems like a missed opportunity.

I agree with doing those things, but I don't think doing so equals wealth redistrubution and I don't believe it to be stealing on the part of corporations. I guess, if anything, it's politicians stealing from people for the benefit of corporations and ultimately themselves.

The liberal political establishment uses class warfare as a means to pit the people against each other while they themselves( politicians) "take" from everyone.
It's a straw man process. Create an enemy, use falsehoods and half truths and the result is people start believing the rubbish. Meanwhile those doing the spreading walk off with pockets lined with the producers cash.
Pretty good job, if you can get one.

 

[American_Jihad]

Doha-ing It Again​

By Jeffrey Folks
11/29/12


The latest United Nations conference on climate change opened Monday in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Once again, delegates will be at it predicting warming temperatures, melting ice caps, rising oceans, and a general end-of-the-world scenario. And once again, the climate change vultures who stand to make a buck -- or billions of bucks -- off U.S. taxpayers will be in attendance, urging global carbon taxes, income redistribution, and the creation of an all-powerful climate bureaucracy.

The problem, for the climate change vultures at least, is that there is less and less evidence of man-made climate change. This year, as in years past, most of us living in the eastern U.S. are enjoying a rather idyllic autumn, with sunny days and pleasantly seasonal temperatures. The near-term forecast is for slightly above-average temperatures and moderate rainfall. It appears that this winter will be little different from most winters past.

Actually, all of 2012 was a pretty benign year. There was distinctly less tornado activity than in years past. One hurricane struck the U.S. mainland -- a category one causing little wind damage (though flooding low-lying coastal areas where one would expect flooding). A serious drought continued in the western U.S., similar to though less extreme than earlier droughts of the 1930s and 1950s. All in all, a year with no evidence of man-made climate change.

So why are the climate change types meeting in Doha at all, and why is the U.S. sending representatives? Surely not because they actually believe that human activity is significantly altering the earth's climate. And not because they think they could change things if it were. They are meeting because climate change continues to be one of the left's leading avenues for global governance. Instead of calling it the U.N. Conference on Climate Change, Doha should probably be called the Global Left's Conference on How to Take Over the World.

---


How many bottles of fine wine will be consumed by the climate change conferees at Doha? How many kilos of caviar will be devoured? How many "escorts" will be employed to entertain delegates, all at taxpayer expense? And what plans are being proposed to make these bureaucratic perks permanent? These are the questions that really need to be posed at Doha. Better yet, forego meeting altogether, and eliminate the need to ask.


Read more: Articles: Doha-ing It Again

 

[Wiseacre]

The plain truth is that the democrats get a lot of money from the environmentalists. The republicans are pro-business, which makes them the natural enemies of the greenies. None of which has anything to do with redistribution of wealth. Why are you hijacking my thread, or resusitating it? Start your own.

 

[American_Jihad]

The plain truth is that the democrats get a lot of money from the environmentalists. The republicans are pro-business, which makes them the natural enemies of the greenies. None of which has anything to do with redistribution of wealth. Why are you hijacking my thread, or resusitating it? Start your own.

My apologies W, I seen this in the OP:

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

and thought I'd give the thread a bump...

Sorry...

A_J

 

[Moonglow]

The plain truth is that the democrats get a lot of money from the environmentalists. The republicans are pro-business, which makes them the natural enemies of the greenies. None of which has anything to do with redistribution of wealth. Why are you hijacking my thread, or resusitating it? Start your own.

Your doing a fine job of hijacking your own thread.

So, what conclusions can we draw? On unemployment, for example, Mitt Romney has been claiming that, as a former businessman, he knows how to create jobs. (How? So far, he’s kept that a secret.) But the spreadsheet says that, over the past half-century, the unemployment rate has fallen under Democratic presidents and risen under Republicans. This remains true even if you assume a one-year lag in the time it takes for a president’s policies to take effect.

Which party’s presidents have done better with the most important statistic, which is GDP -- basically the size of the economy? Incredibly, it’s a tie! Applying a one-year lag, the Democratic presidents surge ahead by a minuscule 0.01 percent. Inflation? A straight comparison shows that Democrats have done a better job, but the one-year lag gives lower inflation to the Republicans.

Republicans win on lower taxes -- no surprise there -- but lower spending (the stat I’d been dreading) goes to the Democrats. Put it all together and neither party has anything like a monopoly on economic virtue, even when defined in strictly conservative terms. I’m sorry for this anticlimactic result, but numbers don’t lie.

Which Party Is Better for the Economy? Neither!: Michael Kinsley - Bloomberg

 

[Darkwind]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Allowing any company to keep what it earns is NOT a subsidy. I don't know how many times you people have to be told this.

Answer the question.

Is there any morality in wealth redistribution?

 

[Moonglow]

The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.

 

[Darkwind]

The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.

It says no such thing.

 

[MikeK]

Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.

How does the $800,000,000,000 bailout of the banking industry with taxpayer funds fit into that neat little equation?

What do the multi-millionaire corporatist propagandists like Limbaugh and Hannity have to say about that? What would they be saying if Obama had disbursed that same sum to aid distressed mortgage holders, to house and feed the homeless, to pay off the outlandish student loan balances, to buy health insurance for all those who need it but cannot afford it, to repair the infrastructures of depressed neighborhoods and dying towns, and so forth?

And what about George W. Bush's profligate spending spree which wiped out the projected surplus he inherited from the Clinton Administration and caused the deficit we're now faced with?

You ignore these things as if they are irrelevant and you focus on government's assistance to the poor in your complaint. Does it ever occur to you that you might be just a bit brainwashed by right-wing propaganda?

And that's not an insult, it's a serious question.

 

[tooAlive]

The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.

Jesus talked about giving to the poor, freely. That is, out of your own good-will.

They collected taxes in those days, and yet he mentioned nothing about having the government do it for you. I find it quite interesting when people quote Jesus and the Bible claiming they teach socialist principles. When in fact, they do anything but.

 

[MikeK]

The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.

Jesus talked about giving to the poor, freely. That is, out of your own good-will.

They collected taxes in those days, and yet he mentioned nothing about having the government do it for you. I find it quite interesting when people quote Jesus and the Bible claiming they teach socialist principles. When in fact, they do anything but.

Jesus was talking about the spirit of charity, not the means of implementing it. Keep in mind the vast differences in social structures between then and now. Today, the method of caring for the poor is different but the motivation for doing it (spirit) is the same. It, along with everything else, is simply more complicated.

Whether or not the spirit of charity, i.e., "good will," attends the modern means of giving to the poor, while there are some who would let a beggar starve rather than toss him a coin the vast majority would not. So in spite of the comparative complication in caring for the poor, the intention and the spirit remain constant.