Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[USwings]

All you're saying is that all governments are nothing more than a gang of criminals.

To use a Romney, I'm saying what I said.
What does a gang of criminals have to do with the redistribution of wealth?

"Redistribution of wealth" is a criminal act.



How would that prove it's not a criminal act?

Are governments involved or not involved in redistribution process?

Again, how would that prove it's not a criminal act?

Does America redistrubute its wealth?
Is the government involved?

Again, how would that prove it's not a criminal act?

You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.

 

[regent]

All you're saying is that all governments are nothing more than a gang of criminals.

To use a Romney, I'm saying what I said.
What does a gang of criminals have to do with the redistribution of wealth?

"Redistribution of wealth" is a criminal act.



How would that prove it's not a criminal act?

Are governments involved or not involved in redistribution process?

Again, how would that prove it's not a criminal act?

Does America redistrubute its wealth?
Is the government involved?

Again, how would that prove it's not a criminal act?

How would you prove it is a criminal act? Well you would look in the laws of all our governments so I'll wait. When you find it let us know.

 

[Againsheila]

Does that include corporate welfare?

Yes... all welfare/entitlement should be stopped.. the government is not your mommy, not your nanny, and not your cash cow.. it was never constitutionally charged to be so

I have long proposed a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the federal government's ability to give money or benefits of any kind to anY special interest whether people, demographics, businesses, socioeconomic groups, countries, or whatever unless the same benefit was given to all regardless of their race, ethnicity, demographic, socioeconomic standing. So if you give Joe the Plumber something you have to give it to Warren Buffet too. That would eliminate almost all of the graft and corruption in the political process at the federal level and would give us public servants again instead of career politicians controlling the process.

And, as the Founders intended, the states and local governments could do whatever they pleased in the area of social services, and there would be a hell of a lot more money available for the local charities.

I think that depends. States that provide more for the poor and disabled would be inundated by the poor and disabled from states that don't provide the same benefits. Believe it or not a lot of people have moved into our state to collect welfare. They don't of course come here for disability benefits because while we provide a lot to welfare moms, we are 50th in what we provide to the truly disabled, a sin IMO.

 

[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.

Jesus said none of the LAW was abolished by him but fulfilled by Him....part of the Law required their citizens to give to the poor, provide for the needy....as example they were required to not harvest or sell all of the fruits and veggies that they grew but to let the needy come in to their fields to feed themselves....There were tithings required by the Law which are taxes....that required their givings....The Law was their government, a Theocracy....but still government....


When the rich man asked what he could do to be 'saved' he told the man to give up everything he had and give it to the needy...

What Jesus is saying is that in order for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven he must do away with the love of material possessions he has and give to the poor.

Jesus taught us that money wasn't evil; the love of money was, and would consequently prevent us from obtaining what is truly important in life.

That doesn't mean capitalism is evil. At all. Capitalism is simply the freedom to profit from your efforts and natural abilities. Nobody is entitled to what you work for; each man is ultimately responsible to provide for himself and his family.

And from Jesus' teachings, he was encouraging us to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Capitalism and helping the needy have no problem co-existing together. One of them is simply an economic system that promotes freedom, and the other is simply what you do with the wealth you acquire.

You can support Capitalism and not love money. You simply support the freedom to acquire wealth, and do with it as you see fit.

 

[MikeK]

Oh Goodie.. That means my white lightning ethanol biz is gonna grow like Exxon Mobil..

You just gotta cut SUBSIDIZING crap. The downfall of the plan would be that EVERYONE qualifies for solar subsidies. And everyone who is on welfare needs to qualified according to need testing. This is the LARGEST bipartisian agreement --- and we ought to RAM IT so far up Congress's ass that they can't fart til it gets fixed..

Re: the bolded segment of your (above) comment: During and for awhile after WW-II, my late aunt worked for the New York City Department of Social Services as a Home Economics Instructor. She taught groups of welfare recipients how to cook nourishing meals from food packages her agency distributed to the poor. Back then public assistance to the poor was called Home Relief. I believe it was changed to Welfare in the early sixties.

One thing I recall my aunt saying is every application for Home Relief was investigated for legitimacy and level of need. So I fully agree with your comment. But I was not aware the same circumstances do not currently apply, as your comment seems to suggest. Are you saying that presently anyone who applies for public assistance is given money with no verification of need?

If so, how do you know that?

Also, the New York City Home Relief agency operated out of store-front centers located in depressed neighborhoods. If someone legitimately needed assistance with rent the claim was investigated and the rent was paid directly to the landlord. Most food items were distributed by the agency, delivered if necessary, and vouchers were issued for redemption at local butchers (like food stamps).

That system was understandably more practical than mailing out monthly checks. But I read that the old system would not be cost-effective today.

What do you think?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have long proposed a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the federal government's ability to give money or benefits of any kind to anY special interest whether people, demographics, businesses, socioeconomic groups, countries, or whatever unless the same benefit was given to all regardless of their race, ethnicity, demographic, socioeconomic standing. So if you give Joe the Plumber something you have to give it to Warren Buffet too. That would eliminate almost all of the graft and corruption in the political process at the federal level and would give us public servants again instead of career politicians controlling the process.

And, as the Founders intended, the states and local governments could do whatever they pleased in the area of social services, and there would be a hell of a lot more money available for the local charities.

i have to agree. are we truly equal or not? most social, employment and economic programs say we are not. If we are all truly equal, then lets be equal. that goes for congress too. they need to live by whatever plans they legislate for us.

Oh Goodie.. That means my white lightning ethanol biz is gonna grow like Exxon Mobil..

You just gotta cut SUBSIDIZING crap. The downfall of the plan would be that EVERYONE qualifies for solar subsidies. And everyone who is on welfare needs to qualified according to need testing. This is the LARGEST bipartisian agreement --- and we ought to RAM IT so far up Congress's ass that they can't fart til it gets fixed..

No I don't want the federal government means testing anything. I want the federal government to be `100% impartial in everything they do. If the welfare family gets subsidized housing, then Warren Buffet gets subsidized housing in the same amount. If Exxon Mobil gets a million dollar tax break, then I get a million dollar tax break because I also run a business.

If an Albuquerque YMCA gets a federal grant to build a building--yes, you guys helped us build one--then every city gets a federal grant to build a building.

And so on.

That is the ONLY way to take corrupted politics out of the equation.

The states and local governments can take care of the welfare needs of their people, and if there isn't so many trillions going to Washington to be swallowed up in the federal bureaucracy before some is redistributed, then the states and local governments will have a lot more money at their disposal to create whatever sort of relief system or utopia the people want to have.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Fairness, Redistribution of Wealth and The Bible I have done my research which is in direct opposition to your claim.
Now, you will provide a rebuttal with facts or links to them, that support your claim.
You don't get to make drive by posts and then not get called on them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

The banks already repaid their portion of the bailout.

What would they be saying if Obama had disbursed that same sum to aid distressed mortgage holders

Yes, that portion of the bailout will never be repaid. Neither will the auto portion.

And what about George W. Bush's profligate spending spree

Bush spent way too much. Liberals wanted to spend even more.
Obama showed they could do it. When will Obama reduce spending?
Now is his chance. I expect he'll fail, again.

 

[bripat9643]

You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.

Your first error is in believing that only that which is illegal is a crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Any form of taxation that takes more from one person than it does from another is a redistribution of wealth. If redistribution of wealth is immoral, then there is virtually no functional government that can be perceived that wouldn't be fundamentally immoral.

 

[regent]

You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.

Your first error is in believing that only that which is illegal is a crime.

Oh no, I make up new crimes every day, the problem is enforcing them. No one seems to care that I declared it a crime to belch on subways, people continue belching. Have you had better luck enforcing your laws?

 

[USwings]

You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.

Your first error is in believing that only that which is illegal is a crime.

I made no error, Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

So unless someone died and made you king, you just repeated your error several times.
Maybe your intention is to water down our language so that criminal act means something you don't like. If that's the case, I would say your use of the words criminal act is a criminal act.

 

[bripat9643]

You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.

Your first error is in believing that only that which is illegal is a crime.

I made no error, Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

ROFL! Yeah, right. So the Nazis committed no crimes when they put Jews in gas ovens? Is that really your position on the issue?

[So unless someone died and made you king, you just repeated your error several times.
Maybe your intention is to water down our language so that criminal act means something you don't like. If that's the case, I would say your use of the words criminal act is a criminal act.

What error? I'm not the one who believes that it's impossible for the government to commit a crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes... all welfare/entitlement should be stopped.. the government is not your mommy, not your nanny, and not your cash cow.. it was never constitutionally charged to be so

I have long proposed a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the federal government's ability to give money or benefits of any kind to anY special interest whether people, demographics, businesses, socioeconomic groups, countries, or whatever unless the same benefit was given to all regardless of their race, ethnicity, demographic, socioeconomic standing. So if you give Joe the Plumber something you have to give it to Warren Buffet too. That would eliminate almost all of the graft and corruption in the political process at the federal level and would give us public servants again instead of career politicians controlling the process.

And, as the Founders intended, the states and local governments could do whatever they pleased in the area of social services, and there would be a hell of a lot more money available for the local charities.

I think that depends. States that provide more for the poor and disabled would be inundated by the poor and disabled from states that don't provide the same benefits. Believe it or not a lot of people have moved into our state to collect welfare. They don't of course come here for disability benefits because while we provide a lot to welfare moms, we are 50th in what we provide to the truly disabled, a sin IMO.

The poor vote. The truly disabled usually do not most especially the mentally disabled and therefore aren't as attractive to 'help' as are the poor. That is a huge part of the corruption in the system.

I don'tknow how we get around that but the answer is somewhere within the social contract and private benevolence inspired by public awareness. And yes, once the federal goernment got out of the welfare business, the more generous welfare states would likely be inundated by freeloaders looking for the best deal. Which would likely encourage the governors to get together to adopt a more or less sensisble uniform system to deal with the matter.

In my former town, all of us running social agencies did that. People who had been hitting us all and really working the system were required to check in first at a central clearing station where they would provide positive ID and be willing to undergo a police background check. That immediately weeded out easily more than half of the freeloaders who had been working the system. The rest were provided immediately food or other assistance as their situation warranted and/or were sent to the appropriate agency for additional assistance. In that way we were able to get a great many people who had simply fallen on hard times back to productivity and self reliance. Once we started giving food and gasoline vouchers instead of cash and offered help to get off whatever substance they were addicted to, we helped many others to break addictions and regain productivity for themselves.

To me that is true charity. It is making sure nobody who is hungry goes without food or that nobody who needs clothing does not receive it, etc., but it was also a system to help people regain their confidence and will to escape poverty rather than encouraging and making them more comfortable to remain in it..

 

[bripat9643]

You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.

Your first error is in believing that only that which is illegal is a crime.

Oh no, I make up new crimes every day, the problem is enforcing them. No one seems to care that I declared it a crime to belch on subways, people continue belching. Have you had better luck enforcing your laws?

So it's impossible for the government to commit a crime so long as it passes some bill saying its behavior is legal? What about if it said rounding up communists and executing them was a legal government function? How about if it says that black people can be the property of other people? How about if it says that the government can put undesirables like Jews into gas ovens?

I just love it when fascist assholes like you show their true colors.

 

[bripat9643]

To me that is true charity. It is making sure nobody who is hungry goes without food or that nobody who needs clothing does not receive it, etc., but it was also a system to help people regain their confidence and will to escape poverty rather than encouraging them and making them more comfortable to remain in it..

Taking money from one person by force and giving it to another is not charity. It's theft.

 

[bripat9643]

Any form of taxation that takes more from one person than it does from another is a redistribution of wealth. If redistribution of wealth is immoral, then there is virtually no functional government that can be perceived that wouldn't be fundamentally immoral.

I wouldn't argue with that statement. Taxation is theft, no matter how it's done.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.

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.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals being losers feel someone needs to make things even in life, so they have turned to the Federal Govt to do it for them.

Their neighbor went to college and became a doctor while they didn't and make less, well the Feds need to step in and tax him more than them to even the playing field. It is just "unfair" the doctor has so much disposable income each month compared to them living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[Foxfyre]

Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.

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.

That is the typical conservative justification for oil subsidies, but you are as wrong as are the liberals who accuse the oil companies of receiving obscene benefits at the taxpayer' expense. The dirty little secret is that the largest outlays from the oil subsidies are simply another form of welfare to the poor and a whole bunch of the rest goes to development of green energies so beloved by recent administrations.

. . . .The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love

So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody — not even Bill McKibben — wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies . . . .
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes