Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Katzndogz]

During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them. Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?

During the Great Depression people would work for whatever they could get. You want dinner, chop wood for two hours. Sweep floors. During the Great Depression there was no such thing as food banks, pantries, welfare or any safety net at all. Americans were so willing to work that thousands of them migrated to the fields to pick fruit and vegetables. During the Great Depression, you worked or you died.

Since the Depression we made poverty comfortable.

If we replaced the social safety net with the same kind of benefits that were available during the Depression, we might again produce a great generation. What we're doing now is producing the next generation more like Greeks than Americans.

During the Great Depression there were government jobs for those that could work, there was welfare that those could not. If those things had not been put into place by FDR other types of governments were being talked about.

No there wasn't. FDR attempted to end the Depression by creating government jobs and a social safety net. That prolonged the Depression right up to WWII when the war ended it.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

 

[Dreamy]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

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?

Too many people are lazy fat flucks and the government today is breeding them.

 

[regent]

During the Great Depression people would work for whatever they could get. You want dinner, chop wood for two hours. Sweep floors. During the Great Depression there was no such thing as food banks, pantries, welfare or any safety net at all. Americans were so willing to work that thousands of them migrated to the fields to pick fruit and vegetables. During the Great Depression, you worked or you died.

Since the Depression we made poverty comfortable.

If we replaced the social safety net with the same kind of benefits that were available during the Depression, we might again produce a great generation. What we're doing now is producing the next generation more like Greeks than Americans.

During the Great Depression there were government jobs for those that could work, there was welfare that those could not. If those things had not been put into place by FDR other types of governments were being talked about.

No there wasn't. FDR attempted to end the Depression by creating government jobs and a social safety net. That prolonged the Depression right up to WWII when the war ended it.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

If we laid economists end to end they couldn't come up with a conclusion. Two economist's opinion are not noteworthy when contrasted with hundreds that see things differently.
Hoover and the Republicans were in charge of the economy from 1929 to 1932 and that should have been ample time for the economy to recover if it was prone to do so without help, but it didn't. The real question is, did FDR in his quest to balance the budget stop the New Deal too soon? Another question would the American people have waited much longer for solutions, in America, there was Townsend, Long and others creating ideas, and in Europe Hitler Franco and Mussolini creating ideas.
In any case FDR has always been rated by historians as one of America's top three presidents and Hoover as one of the bottom ones. I'll go with the hundreds of historians not the two economists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If we laid economists end to end they couldn't come up with a conclusion. Two economist's opinion are not noteworthy when contrasted with hundreds that see things differently.
Hoover and the Republicans were in charge of the economy from 1929 to 1932 and that should have been ample time for the economy to recover if it was prone to do so without help, but it didn't.

Why?

Considering that Hoover was a Keynesian who engaged in the same stimulus and redistribution programs that Roosevelt did. In fact, the make work programs such as the CCC were extensions of programs the Hoover administration started. Why do you think it's "Hoover Damn" and not "Roosevelt Damn?"

The real question is, did FDR in his quest to balance the budget stop the New Deal too soon? Another question would the American people have waited much longer for solutions, in America, there was Townsend, Long and others creating ideas, and in Europe Hitler Franco and Mussolini creating ideas.

ROFL

Yes, had he only outlawed the private ownership of property, all would have been hunky-dory...

In any case FDR has always been rated by historians as one of America's top three presidents and Hoover as one of the bottom ones. I'll go with the hundreds of historians not the two economists.

And your partisan bias has nothing to do with it...

 

[regent]

If we laid economists end to end they couldn't come up with a conclusion. Two economist's opinion are not noteworthy when contrasted with hundreds that see things differently.
Hoover and the Republicans were in charge of the economy from 1929 to 1932 and that should have been ample time for the economy to recover if it was prone to do so without help, but it didn't.

Why?

Considering that Hoover was a Keynesian who engaged in the same stimulus and redistribution programs that Roosevelt did. In fact, the make work programs such as the CCC were extensions of programs the Hoover administration started. Why do you think it's "Hoover Damn" and not "Roosevelt Damn?"

The real question is, did FDR in his quest to balance the budget stop the New Deal too soon? Another question would the American people have waited much longer for solutions, in America, there was Townsend, Long and others creating ideas, and in Europe Hitler Franco and Mussolini creating ideas.

ROFL

Yes, had he only outlawed the private ownership of property, all would have been hunky-dory...

In any case FDR has always been rated by historians as one of America's top three presidents and Hoover as one of the bottom ones. I'll go with the hundreds of historians not the two economists.

And your partisan bias has nothing to do with it...

I think most historians would say that one of FDR's goals was tosave capitalism, and he apparently did. Of course America never had laissez faire capitalism-always had govenment involvement.

 

[tooAlive]

When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..

 

[Uncensored2008]

When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..

Rand was right. There never was going to be an invasion of Soviet Armies, just the degeneracy of the nation into a system of looters, moochers, and leaches. Welcome to the Obamanation. We won't call it "communism," we'll call it "paying their fair share."

 

[NYcarbineer]

The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.

 

[Staidhup]

The fact that our legislator's passed laws that over the years resulted in forcing manufacturing off shore is the very reason the middle class has stagnated and not expanded. Maybe it's time to think before you vote. Now what you have is the very rich, shrinking middle class, and ever expanding labor pool dependent upon government handouts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.

If the people holding the wealth are government officials that is correct.
When Private citizens hold wealth it makes no difference to anyone else what is in their bank account.
There is no "share"..There is no "pie"..There is no magical pot of money from which we all draw. And the idea that if one has more then by consequence another MUST have less is patently FALSE..
By your logic, the two people who won last week's Powerball Lottery prize have TAKEN money from other people. Newsflash, It didn't cost me a DIME.
If Joe Smith gets a raise in his salary, this affects me how?
If an author writes a book that becomes a NY Times Best Seller and realizes a windfall advance on his next book, do YOU suddenly find money missing from your bank account?
If a techie guy invents a way for people to communicate via their computers and hand held devices and as a result becomes a multi millionaire, this harms others HOW?
Do you see where we are going here? Your premise is tied not to logic, but to emotion.
Somehow you and others on your side believe that somehow the fruits of the labor of others should be "shared". And that so called sharing should be enforced by government under the threat of sanctions.

 

[regent]

Again can anyone, name the nation that does not redistribute its wealth? There might be one.
Can anyone name a nation that does not take from some of its citizens and give to others?
Can anyone name a period in our history when wealth was not redistributed?
What would happen to a country that did not have a policy or program for wealth or income redistribution?

 

[Dreamy]

Again can anyone, name the nation that does not redistribute its wealth? There might be one.
Can anyone name a nation that does not take from some of its citizens and give to others?
Can anyone name a period in our history when wealth was not redistributed?
What would happen to a country that did not have a policy or program for wealth or income redistribution?

The problem is the balance is tipping against the tired beaten up earners in favor of the able bodied takers.

 

[bripat9643]

I think most historians would say that one of FDR's goals was tosave capitalism, and he apparently did.

Most historians are nothing more than paid government propagandists. Like the pinko historians, Roosevelt hated capitalism. He's the one who originated the scheme of "never letting a good crisis go to waste." He was always attacking "malefactors of great wealth," just like Obama.

Of course America never had laissez faire capitalism-always had govenment involvement.

So Roosevelt had to save America from something it never had?

That's the kind of logic only a libturd could love.

 

[bripat9643]

Again can anyone, name the nation that does not redistribute its wealth? There might be one.
Can anyone name a nation that does not take from some of its citizens and give to others?
Can anyone name a period in our history when wealth was not redistributed?

200 years ago no one could name a nation that didn't practice slavery. the fact that every government on earth is nothing more than a gang of criminals doesn't prove that criminality is just.

What would happen to a country that did not have a policy or program for wealth or income redistribution?

Boundless prosperity.

 

[bripat9643]

The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.

When you can define "too much wealth," perhaps your theory might have some credibility. Until then it's just so much mindless babble.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

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?

Making a judgment on who can earn and not earn income is often spurious. That's not really a big part of the equation for me. The big part of the equation for me is why should we create a huge dysfunctional and corrupt system that wields our money with almost no say by the people? We know it has disaster written all over it. Does anyone go to school to learn how to be Santa Claus? No. And I can tell you that the people who control these welfare programs are as corrupt as the day is long.

If we're going to have welfare, it needs to cut out the leaches. There needs to be an across the board limit. Make it $22,000. If you didn't earn it then the IRS sends you a check and you can make sure your basic needs are paid for. Some of you may say, $22,000! Well consider that we're spending $67,000 a person on these welfare programs now and it's an f'ing bargain.

 

[regent]

I think most historians would say that one of FDR's goals was tosave capitalism, and he apparently did.

Most historians are nothing more than paid government propagandists. Like the pinko historians, Roosevelt hated capitalism. He's the one who originated the scheme of "never letting a good crisis go to waste." He was always attacking "malefactors of great wealth," just like Obama.

Of course America never had laissez faire capitalism-always had govenment involvement.

So Roosevelt had to save America from something it never had?

That's the kind of logic only a libturd could love.

I don't think I ever said America had laissez faire capitalism and I can't name a nation that does, can you? After the Consitution took effect we have always had government involvement in our econony.
American does have a mixture of capitalism and socialism as do most countries.
Historians usually work for universities and colleges. FDR was of wealth and he was considered a traitor to his economic class.
If you read on FDR you might discover he pulled the plug on the New Deal because he had hopes of balancing the budget. You might also check on FDR's second bill to Congress it was a bill to reduce the budget. The Congress shot it down.

 

[Dreamy]

The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.

The redistribution of power from the people to the government is much more dangerous. That is what we are facing right now and every day that Obama and his ilk are in power.

 

[newpolitics]

The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.

When you can define "too much wealth," perhaps your theory might have some credibility. Until then it's just so much mindless babble.

The fact that you would question a sentiment that is so easily understandable and needlessly ask for a stricter definition when anyone with an awareness of the current income inequality gap could easily understand, leads me to conclude that you are one of the super rich and defending yourself form having your riches taken away from you, or, you have been convinced by neo-con agenda that being rich and wealthy is the end-all in life, and that these people exist as royalty once did in England: not to be challenged, not to be touched, no matter how much people below them might be suffering, and how much they might be causing this.

You and people who hold your sentiment are so full of shit. Go back to Carl Rove.

 

[boedicca]

^^^ Pathetic brainwashed moron.

The real word application of Wealth Redistribution is to take from people who work in order to give to politicians and bureaucrats in Washington DC. Incomes in the DC metro have grown during this Recessiocovery, while they've declined everywhere else.

It wouldn't hurt you to develop a little skepticism when somebody advocates for Wealth Redistribution. His motives are most often entirely Self-Serving.