Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[boedicca]

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

Then what do you call the concentration of the federal government spending over 25% of GDP?

 

[Againsheila]

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?

It didn't. Our selling arms to the allies got us out of the great depression. Only when they ran out of money did we enter the war.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Social programs are only "good" when they are temporary in nature unless the person is proven incapable of providing financial needs.
Unemployment insurance is a great example of a "good" social program.
Food Stamps, AFDC etc. etc, is a great example of a failed program.

AFDC? That program was elimiated during the Clinton Administration (see TANF), Some military families recieve WIC and there is nothing 'good' associated with American citizens not having enough to eat.

I think you need to find another hobby; posting here requires at least some basic knowledge which, sadly, you do not have.

 

[MikeK]

...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor??? Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!

You might want to ask the citizens of Denmark about that. Denmark is considered the happiest place on Earth. And Denmark is a socialist nation -- as are most Scandinavian countries.

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

What does that do to your theories about socialism?

 

[bripat9643]

^^^
To be fair, historians have their use. To be realistic, many if not most of them have hidden agendas.

Most of them don't know jack squat about economics, but they believe they're qualified to pontificate on economic issues like the cause of the Great Depression.

Any historian who believes "Robber Baron" is a legitimate economic term automatically unmasks himself as nothing more than a scumbag propagandist.

 

[regent]

^^^
To be fair, historians have their use. To be realistic, many if not most of them have hidden agendas.

Most of them don't know jack squat about economics, but they believe they're qualified to pontificate on economic issues like the cause of the Great Depression.

Any historian who believes "Robber Baron" is a legitimate economic term automatically unmasks himself as nothing more than a scumbag propagandist.

Pontificating is about all they do. One school on economics publishes its theories and another school their theories and another school.... And the theories differ. Of all the Social Sciences I would put economics as the softest of the soft. Have they written a tried and true manual yet on how to avoid depressions/recessions, have they written a manual on how to recover from depressions/recessions? Keynes is still all we have.
Economists are great at figuring out why they think things happened, after the fact stuff. But that's what historians do also.
I sympathize with economists they are dealing with a subject that has so many variables that it will take another 100 years to be able to predict with some accuracy. Is Say's law still held to be a law? As for historians they write of the past, much easier and much more accurate.

 

[tooAlive]

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

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.

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

 

[tooAlive]

...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor??? Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!

You might want to ask the citizens of Denmark about that. Denmark is considered the happiest place on Earth. And Denmark is a socialist nation -- as are most Scandinavian countries.

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

What does that do to your theories about socialism?

I always enjoy hearing about the Danes when discussing socialism.

Walking around Denmark, asking random people if they're happy or not is definitely a great way to measure the effectiveness of socialism. But just a quick question;

How many people did they survey? Do those people know what it's like to like in a more capitalistic environment?

A man that has only ever eaten at McDonald's may tell you the food is great; but he has no idea what food has the potential to taste like in a 5-star restaurant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?

No, not even close.

If you have a car, you have more than $2K in assets.

 

[Foxfyre]

if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?

No, not even close.

If you have a car, you have more than $2K in assets.

You can own your home and still qualify for SSDI and food stamps. Medicaid does consider personal assets in most states, but in most states you can own some major assets and still qualify for at least some Medicaid, etc. Also single parents can get WIC and qualify for child care credits even though they own a house and car and there are many other benefits available in various states for low income families.

And you can own lots and lots of stuff and still get welfare. I work in a program in which we work directly with welfare families to help them learn to budget and provide options for getting training, getting a G.E.D. or whatever they need to get on their feet and work themselves out of poverty. A great many want no part of it. They don't WANT out of their current situation. But some do.

It is instructive though how 'rich' America's 'poor' can be though. When you walk into a home of a welfare mom and observe the modern appliances, flat screen TV, Play Station for the kids, and other amenities, you can see how it would be so easy not to try to get off welfare. We pray together a lot and some of our prayers focus on our being able to get past feeling judgmental about it. Nobody knows the heart or fears of another person. But it is a fact that except for some of the hard core homeless, our poorest citizens are wealthy compared to the poor in most of the world. And many of our poor have absolutely no incentive or practical reason to want to escape their 'poverty'.

 

[boedicca]

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.

In your worldview, yes. If the government taxes away the income from people who work so that they cannot save and invest, then only the already wealthy will retain (some) of their wealth.

Most of the wealthy people I know, (and that's quite few), are self-made. I'd prefer to maintain a system which enables others to join them as opposed to government sponsored spoils allocation and rent seeking cronyism.

 

[MikeK]

...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor??? Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!

You might want to ask the citizens of Denmark about that. Denmark is considered the happiest place on Earth. And Denmark is a socialist nation -- as are most Scandinavian countries.

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

What does that do to your theories about socialism?

I always enjoy hearing about the Danes when discussing socialism.

Walking around Denmark, asking random people if they're happy or not is definitely a great way to measure the effectiveness of socialism. But just a quick question;

How many people did they survey? Do those people know what it's like to like in a more capitalistic environment?

A man that has only ever eaten at McDonald's may tell you the food is great; but he has no idea what food has the potential to taste like in a 5-star restaurant.

Do a Google search on keywords, "Denmark - Happiest Country." You will find opinions derived by many equally credible sources in addition to CBS News, which you choose not to believe.

Re: your reference to comparison with a capitalistic environment: What exactly do you mean by a "capitalistic environment?" And how do you think it differs from a socialistic environment? Do you believe the Danes don't have jobs, cars, computers and television, comfortable homes, etc? What is it you feel is so good about capitalism the Danes are lacking?

What the Danes don't have is endless war, a divisive social atmosphere, stressful emphasis on acquiring money, a significant percentage of homeless and/or impoverished citizens, a massive prison census, a shamerfully inadequate health care system, and an exceptionally high unemployment rate.

 

[boedicca]

Okay - you want to be like Denmark?

Then 90% of the U.S. population will have to be of 100% Danish (or we could substitute Nordic) descent. And 80% of the population will have to be Lutheran.

What Denmark has is a very homogenous society in terms of race and religion - and a small population. That is hard to translate into a large country with a long history of immigration from around the world.

Oh, and their birth rate is very low and propped up by Islamic immigration. Check back on your paradise in 20-30 years.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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.

"Diverted" another class warfare buzz term. See below.
Only thing is there are no laws which can pass constitutional muster that would satisfy your insatiable desire for the possessions of others.
Newsflash....It's not yours. It never was intended to be yours. You cannot have it.
If you want more, go earn it yourself.
You people have changed your narrative from simple taxation to outright confiscation.
Confiscation based on a hatred of a certain class of people. A hatred which can only be defined as bigotry.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Umm the escape hatch is locked. Now, respond to the request. "Define too much wealth"..
No one is interested in your opinion of the request. Only your direct response to the request.
Your answer should contain one thing....An AMOUNT.

 

[thereisnospoon]

if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?

Hardly the point. Most people on public assistance are gaming the system and have found it pretty easy to evade the law.
For example. Far left politicians have sen fit to make it illegal for a school system to check income eligibility for students claiming free or reduced price meals.
As witnessed by yours truly..Dateline 1990...Hilton Head Island SC..
I am in line behind two very well dressed black women each with an overflowing cart of groceries. It was Sunday so I gave them a hall pass on the nicer looking clothing.
The pay with a combination of cash and Food Coupons..
Now I am a bit put off. I pay for my items. I see these two women getting in to their OWN luxury vehicles. One a Cadillac the other a Lincoln. Neither car was more a than a few years old.
Amazing. Here we have liberals who weep for the poor. They champion social safety nets.
The deny with vitriolic reactions when told there are people gaming the public assistance rolls.
I saw it and still see it every day. People on some kind of public assistance driving nocer cars than I , a working and producing person could ever afford. Of course, I don't take out 25% interest auto loans so I can have "A nice ride"....
Anyone who ignores the great taxpayer ripoff that is the lack of government enforcement of the laws prohibiting welfare and other public assistance frauds, is a FOOL and a LIAR.

 

[thereisnospoon]

^^^ 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.

Define "income inequality".
Please provide a link to any written policy whether it be by law or by public perception that income should be representative of "equality".

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

"hoover "had some years"....Hmm ok, this is where one of you libs fail to cover your tracks..
So Herbert Hoover was according to you, fix the economy in one term. Now let me get this straight..It was Hoover's watch, correct?
Ok. So why is it Herbert Hoover had that duty and responsibility and failed while ( fast forward to the present) the current President has had THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME to fix the economy but has not, and you people excuse Obama from any responsibility AND you have a ready made excuse namely "it's Bush's fault"?
Sorry Charlie Tuna....What's good for the Goose...

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

It didn't. Our selling arms to the allies got us out of the great depression. Only when they ran out of money did we enter the war.

You are living in a Parallel Universe.
Prior that little incident at the Pearl Harbor Naval base our involvement in WW II was what?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Social programs are only "good" when they are temporary in nature unless the person is proven incapable of providing financial needs.
Unemployment insurance is a great example of a "good" social program.
Food Stamps, AFDC etc. etc, is a great example of a failed program.

AFDC? That program was elimiated during the Clinton Administration (see TANF), Some military families recieve WIC and there is nothing 'good' associated with American citizens not having enough to eat.

I think you need to find another hobby; posting here requires at least some basic knowledge which, sadly, you do not have.

Call it whatever you wish. It's all the same. Entitlements.
Oh, the federal government should reduce the wages of every non essential cushy job holding federal employee and give it to soldiers in combat as part of their pay. TAX FREE.
Then shit can every single federal employee that has a non essential do nothing redundant job.
Even poorer people can have plenty to eat if they used their brains just a little bit.
The problem is government entitlements have made poverty and dependency into a way of life.