Morality of Wealth Redistribution

^^^ 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.

I can easily turn that around and say it is you who is the pathetic brainwashed moron. It just so happens that my position actually reflects reality, whereas your reflects an idealism that is inherently subjective and based off of your skewed values. Had you any skepticism with regards to your own beliefs, perhaps you might demonstrate some credibility.

BTW, you obviously took way more from my post than I even implied. You are arguing a straw-man. I was simply addressing income inequality among citizens, not any fouls that may exist in the handling of our money. However, I would think that instead of coping out and saying "gov't is the enemy!," and therefore concluding that less government is better, how about actually trying to fix government. The ultimate paradox of the republican party lies in their "great dead leader", Reagan, who, while running for the presidency, said that government is the problem. This makes him the biggest hypocrite ever. He is running for something he thinks is a problem. The only way he could have remained sincere in his words was if he took himself out of office to "lessen government," instead, he stayed, spent, started wars, and expanded government. Oh, the irony coming from republicans in their reverence for this man.
 
Last edited:
Your reality? The reality of pea green with envy small-mindeness that begrudges the wealth accumulated by people who get an education, work hard, and manage to earn more than $200K per year?

No thank you, I'll stick with my own perception and values.
 
Your reality? The reality of pea green with envy small-mindeness that begrudges the wealth accumulated by people who get an education, work hard, and manage to earn more than $200K per year?

No thank you, I'll stick with my own perception and values.

Wealth begets wealth. It's not as if their children start at the same level as everyone else. To posit a level playing field is what is idealistic. I understand even the rich have to work hard, even though they get a mile head-start, but the amount of income today is greater than it has ever been in this country, and if you don't see that as a problem, then you are either selling yourself out to an ideology, or are one of the rich.
 
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?

Yeah.. The USSR. The western European socialist nations.
The USSR was the ultimate in failure.
The EU countries are buried in their socialist policies which have become unsustainable.
The kind of wealth redistribution you people prefer is called "confiscation".
 
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?

That is not even close to accurate. I cannot believe you took the time to post that bullshit.
And THAT is all I will say to your nonsense.
Listen, get the fuck out of here. Your drive by nonsense posts are annoying.
You are a fart in the wind.
 
Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.

Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.

Most people know about supply and demand, and the left points to a "world market" to explain the extreme prices of gasoline. But 40% increase in domestic production due to the easing of restrictions under Bush make this a bit questionable.

Another common saying in economics is "what the market will bear." Gasoline prices are more set by what the market will bear than by supply and demand. Prices go up until driving habits change and reduce profits, then they come down. Oil constantly tests the boundaries of how far the market will stretch.

Cutting subsidies to oil companies will have very little effect on the price at the pump, as it won't alter what the market will bear.

So why subsidize them?

The oil companies are NOT subsidized. The explanation has been posted. Pay attention.
 
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?

Didn't we also have institutions for our disabled? Hospitals for them to live in rather than forcing them on the streets to fend for themselves?
No.
Go read your history. People were living in tent cities. Shacks. Their cars. Out on the streets.
Men lined up for work everywhere it was available. They uprooted their families and traveled cross country to find work where ever it could be found.
The Hoover Dam project( Originally called "Boulder Dam") was manned almost entirely by people out of work. They lived in close to unbearable desert heat. The work days were long and full of hazards. The pay was not so good. But it was a JOB.. And that was all that mattered. An income so a man could support his family. Back then it was a matter of duty and pride. Men supported their families or suffered the shame of failure.
Today, there is no shame. There is no failure. Government made poverty not only comfortable but desirable by creating the entitlement mentality.
 
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.

The Great Depression STARTED in 1929 with the Market crash. Christ what the hell do they teach in history classes anymore!
 
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?"




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.
Historians have opinions on past events. Economists use real data to produce factual statements.
Ever wonder why there are economists in government, in the markets, even in business..
But where are the historians? Oh they are hiding on university campuses writing research papers at the expense of those paying college tuition.
Actually the capitalist system was saved by the Legislative Branch when it passed laws governing all trading activity on the stock and bond markets.
How the SEC Protects Investors, Maintains Market Integrity, and Facilitates Capital Formation (Securities and Exchange Commission)
 
Last edited:
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?

Didn't we also have institutions for our disabled? Hospitals for them to live in rather than forcing them on the streets to fend for themselves?
No.
Go read your history. People were living in tent cities. Shacks. Their cars. Out on the streets.
Men lined up for work everywhere it was available. They uprooted their families and traveled cross country to find work where ever it could be found.
The Hoover Dam project( Originally called "Boulder Dam") was manned almost entirely by people out of work. They lived in close to unbearable desert heat. The work days were long and full of hazards. The pay was not so good. But it was a JOB.. And that was all that mattered. An income so a man could support his family. Back then it was a matter of duty and pride. Men supported their families or suffered the shame of failure.
Today, there is no shame. There is no failure. Government made poverty not only comfortable but desirable by creating the entitlement mentality.

I think you are seeing the Great Depression as a uniform period from 1930 to the end. But it was like two depressions both bad but the one under Hoover was asking for trouble. Under FDR low paying government jobs became available welfare was taken over by the federal government and hope came to America.
The one thing that I saw and remains with me is the feeling of superiority people with a job seemed to feel over one without a job. People that had been out of work for years when they finally got a job would make comments about the lazy shiftless people that didn't have jobs.
There is a reason the people elected FDR four times. Those reasons are hard to convey to people that never lived through that era. But historians that have studied the period see it somewhat in the same light as the people that lived it. The historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. I agree.
 
Letter: There's no right to redistribute wealth

Posted November 27, 2012
Larry Viles, Knoxville

---
Perhaps he has confused the U.S. federal government with charity, an institution many of his fellow citizens choose to contribute to, and he is certainly free to do so. Perhaps he has confused the U.S. Constitution with the Communist Manifesto.

Letter: There's no right to redistribute wealth » Knoxville News Sentinel

c4_const.jpg.pagespeed.ce.4Q6SIdLJpx.jpg
41LDNGxnXCL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
 
Didn't we also have institutions for our disabled? Hospitals for them to live in rather than forcing them on the streets to fend for themselves?
No.
Go read your history. People were living in tent cities. Shacks. Their cars. Out on the streets.
Men lined up for work everywhere it was available. They uprooted their families and traveled cross country to find work where ever it could be found.
The Hoover Dam project( Originally called "Boulder Dam") was manned almost entirely by people out of work. They lived in close to unbearable desert heat. The work days were long and full of hazards. The pay was not so good. But it was a JOB.. And that was all that mattered. An income so a man could support his family. Back then it was a matter of duty and pride. Men supported their families or suffered the shame of failure.
Today, there is no shame. There is no failure. Government made poverty not only comfortable but desirable by creating the entitlement mentality.

I think you are seeing the Great Depression as a uniform period from 1930 to the end. But it was like two depressions both bad but the one under Hoover was asking for trouble. Under FDR low paying government jobs became available welfare was taken over by the federal government and hope came to America.
The one thing that I saw and remains with me is the feeling of superiority people with a job seemed to feel over one without a job. People that had been out of work for years when they finally got a job would make comments about the lazy shiftless people that didn't have jobs.
There is a reason the people elected FDR four times. Those reasons are hard to convey to people that never lived through that era. But historians that have studied the period see it somewhat in the same light as the people that lived it. The historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. I agree.
I think not.
FDR extended the Great Depression by creating huge deficits.
FDR got elected 4 times for a number of reasons and not one of them had anything to do with greatness.
But for our entry into WW II the Great Depression would have lasted well into the 1950's.
BTW, FDR was adamantly opposed to US Involvement in WW II.
 
When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..

170px-Hammer_and_sickle.svg.png
But the problem with that perception is there was no wealth to redistribute when the communists came to power in Russia -- and that is why they were able to come to power.

In today's America there is no shortage of wealth. The problem is it has been diverted upward to a small segment of the population who are hoarding it. And redistribution of that wealth does not mean reducing those hoarders to poverty but rather leaving them somewhat less wealthy.

So the notion that communism could arise in America is simply absurd. Just give some thought to which nations have turned to communism as a means of survival. In every example those nations were totally devoid of wealth.
 
if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?
 
Last edited:
if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?

Depends on the welfare and the assets. My son's on disability. He can't have more than $2000 in the bank. He can however have a house and one car. He doesn't, but he can. Of course, somehow he'd have to pay for it on $445 a month plus $200 in food-stamps.
 
No.
Go read your history. People were living in tent cities. Shacks. Their cars. Out on the streets.
Men lined up for work everywhere it was available. They uprooted their families and traveled cross country to find work where ever it could be found.
The Hoover Dam project( Originally called "Boulder Dam") was manned almost entirely by people out of work. They lived in close to unbearable desert heat. The work days were long and full of hazards. The pay was not so good. But it was a JOB.. And that was all that mattered. An income so a man could support his family. Back then it was a matter of duty and pride. Men supported their families or suffered the shame of failure.
Today, there is no shame. There is no failure. Government made poverty not only comfortable but desirable by creating the entitlement mentality.

I think you are seeing the Great Depression as a uniform period from 1930 to the end. But it was like two depressions both bad but the one under Hoover was asking for trouble. Under FDR low paying government jobs became available welfare was taken over by the federal government and hope came to America.
The one thing that I saw and remains with me is the feeling of superiority people with a job seemed to feel over one without a job. People that had been out of work for years when they finally got a job would make comments about the lazy shiftless people that didn't have jobs.
There is a reason the people elected FDR four times. Those reasons are hard to convey to people that never lived through that era. But historians that have studied the period see it somewhat in the same light as the people that lived it. The historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. I agree.
I think not.
FDR extended the Great Depression by creating huge deficits.
FDR got elected 4 times for a number of reasons and not one of them had anything to do with greatness.
But for our entry into WW II the Great Depression would have lasted well into the 1950's.
BTW, FDR was adamantly opposed to US Involvement in WW II.

If the Great Depression could have ended earlier why not under Hoover, he had some years and during those years little happened. But Hoover did realize that something had to be done, so he did the usual conservative bit and had money set aside to help business. He was elected four times because the people wanted him as president. A number of anti-FDR posts rave that FDR slipped America into WWII with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Ever read of the American isolationists?
Well this leads no place, new history keeps emerging.
One more question, however, how did our entry into WWII end the Great Depression?
 

Forum List

Back
Top