Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[dblack]

True since most of Obamacares are conservative/GOP ideas, but why is the GOP trying to get rid of it then?

It's really all about the left/right crap with you, isn't it?

What do you think about the moral justification for wealth redistribution?

er, wait. Nevermind.

So YOU can't give ONE policy conservatives have been correct about either? EVER?

So... "yeah"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

True since most of Obamacares are conservative/GOP ideas, but why is the GOP trying to get rid of it then?

It's really all about the left/right crap with you, isn't it?

What do you think about the moral justification for wealth redistribution?

er, wait. Nevermind.

So YOU can't give ONE policy conservatives have been correct about either? EVER?

Reagan's tax cuts, Reagan's military buildup, the Contract with America, opposing Obama.....

 

[zeke]

I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.

Just saying.

Considering how you earned your living, and/or how your father earned his. How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

Simple: produce a product that people are willing to exchange $50 billion plus your expenses for.

Just ask Bill Gates.

One out of 315 million. Those are some good odds in Republican lala land.

 

[Dad2three]

Who wrote the 9th and the 10th amendments? Try that one on for size.

The STRONG federal rights guys? Or you mean the guy who wanted fed laws to have veto rights over states rights, Mr Madison?

Madison had nothing to do with the 9th and 10th Amendments, moron. They were added after the Constitution was adopted at the insistence of the states.

James Madison

He is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights.


Father of the Bill of Rights

Though the idea for a bill of rights had been suggested at the end of the constitutional convention, the delegates wanted to go home and thought the suggestion unnecessary. The omission of a bill of rights became the main argument of the anti-federalists against the constitution. Though no state conditioned ratification of the constitution on a bill of rights, several states came close, and the issue almost prevented the constitution from being ratified. Some anti-federalists continued to fight the issue after the constitution had been ratified, and threatened the entire nation with another constitutional
convention.



Congress was extremely busy with setting up the new government, most wanted to wait for the system to show its defects before amending the constitution, and the anti-federalist movements (which had demanded a new convention) had died out quickly once the constitution was ratified. Despite this, Madison still feared that the states would compel congress to call for a new constitutional convention, which they had the right to do.


James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

It's really all about the left/right crap with you, isn't it?

What do you think about the moral justification for wealth redistribution?

er, wait. Nevermind.

So YOU can't give ONE policy conservatives have been correct about either? EVER?

Reagan's tax cuts, Reagan's military buildup, the Contract with America, opposing Obama.....

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, tripled the debt and produced only 14 milion jobs in 8 years. Carter had 9 million in 4

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Ronnie had a 50% top rate for first 6 years too, that socialist!




Tax Cuts.

It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

NOT sure what 'success' that is

Reagan military buildup? Oh right TRIPLING THE DEBT. Don't give me the MYTH opf the fall of the USSR was on his shoulders after 40 years of other Prez's AND look to Russia today

Those other 2, aren't POLICIES!


AGAIN, ONE POLICY EVER THAT WORKED AS PROMISED?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AGAIN, ONE POLICY EVER THAT WORKED AS PROMISED?

The Republican policy, ever since Jefferson and Madison, has been freedom from liberal govt. America has had more freedom than any other country and so became the greatest country in human history. Most agree we are in decline now at a time when liberalism is at its peak having weakened our defenses, bankrupted the govt, destroyed families and schools , addicted many to welfare entitlements, permanently recessed the economy , and undermined our confidence in freedom. In fact, liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and elected Obama who had 3 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.

 

[Foxfyre]

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
Bill of Rights

Of historical note, it was George Mason of Virginia who was the most vocal and most insistant of the anti-federalists and the rights he had supported for the Virginia constitution had a great deal of influence in the content of the 10 amendments that were ultimately written by James Madison, approved by the legislature, and ratified by the states.

Some legislators were just as concerned about defining the rights out of fear they would be the only rights held sacrosanct while the spirit of the concept of unalienable rights and liberty would be infringed. They thought the government being restrained to the specific tasks assigned to it in the Constitution would serve the purpose of preserving liberty. The anti-federalists, however, wanted assurance that the government could never take away their rights. Ultimately the anti-federalists proved to be the wiser in that regard and even now, the amendments do not always protect us from an ever more bloated, powerful, authoritarian federal government.

The matter of wealth redistribution is one glaring illustration. Once the government is given license to take away property from one citizen and give that property to another, the government can do whatever it wants to do and there are no unalienable rights.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Once the government is given license to take away property from one citizen and give that property to another, the government can do whatever it wants to do and there are no unalienable rights.

well, we do always live on a slippery slope. It cant be avoided I'm afraid. I think we'd all love to help the poor with a hand up if it was really a hand up rather than a crippling lifetime entitlement. Republicans want a hand up; Democrats want crippling lifetime entitlements that buy votes and subvert our democracy.

 

[dnsmith35]

Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am

Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

WOW, IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHY DID CARTER CREATE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN RONNIE, WHO TRIPLED THE DEBT?

Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?

Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?

Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?

I guess you don't understand math bozo. 100% of nothing is still nothing. That is the standard answer to those who gloat about doubling or tripling a small number. In 8 years Reagan increased the debt almost $1.4 trillion. Peanuts compared to Bush and even fewer peanuts when compared to Obama. Get your stories straight, you are becoming a laughing stock. If you don't believe me check out this site: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Of course you have to be smart enough to use it. (very unlikely)

Now, relative to the "data" dad2three linked us to: He failed to tell us that in fact the employment figures were going up at the same rate during Ford's administration and they just continued to go up at the same rate during Carter's. Carter was lucky Ford had put us on the rise such that it continued during Carter's. He also didn't look at the continued data which shows employment went down towards the end of Carter (Stagflation Carter caused) and then Reagan came in and employment took off some more. Then Clinton came along and it went up even more.

Dad, you really need to learn how to read graphs so you won't be such a laughing stock.

One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So YOU can't give ONE policy conservatives have been correct about either? EVER?

Reagan's tax cuts, Reagan's military buildup, the Contract with America, opposing Obama.....

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, tripled the debt and produced only 14 milion jobs in 8 years. Carter had 9 million in 4

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Ronnie had a 50% top rate for first 6 years too, that socialist!




Tax Cuts.

It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

NOT sure what 'success' that is

Reagan military buildup? Oh right TRIPLING THE DEBT. Don't give me the MYTH opf the fall of the USSR was on his shoulders after 40 years of other Prez's AND look to Russia today

Those other 2, aren't POLICIES!


AGAIN, ONE POLICY EVER THAT WORKED AS PROMISED?

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, tripled the debt and produced only 14 milion jobs in 8 years.

Don't forget, expanded GDP (a lot more than Obama), defeated the Soviet Union and strangled inflation.

Carter had 9 million in 4

Yeah, he did a bang up job that one.

It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut

They were all cut. Hilarious that a left wing goofball quotes Rothbard. Of course he's a bit goofy too.

Reagan military buildup?

Yeah, the buildup that led to their fall 10 years after they invaded Afghanistan under Carter.

Those other 2, aren't POLICIES!

Contract with America is an entire list of policies, silly.

Opposing Obama is a great policy. Look at all the damage they're preventing.
No cap and trade, no card check, no endless stimulus boondogles.
If they could only force him to stop the flood of illegals.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Still harping on that?

You do realize that the strategic oil reserve is part of those subsidies so are the reduced cost heating oil programs that so many take advantage of

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

 

[dnsmith35]

It is as stupid to to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.

Reagan took office with a high of 10.8 percent which dropped to 5.3 percent under Reagan. http://Unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan. So Gee, your interpretation of statistics falls short again Daddy boy.

 

[dnsmith35]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?

Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?

Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?

You are an historic ignoramous. Carter was President when women started entering the workforce in large number (many families needed two incomes to deal with double digit inflation, and boomer women who went to college started careers).

The Labor Force Participation rate, as a result, increased from 61.6% in January 1977, to 63.9% four years later..a gain of 3.3%. By the end of Reagan's two terms, it had increased to 66.5%...a gain of 2.6%. Population growth and demographic shifts benefited them both, but Carter got the bigger hit of women flowing into the workforce.

Btw, under Obama, the Labor Force Participation rate is back down to 62.8%.

This is a real gem.

Thank you for addressing this, boedicca. I explained this very same thing to rightwinger a few years ago, i.e., the American family's response to double digit inflation and interest rates during the era of Stagflation. I also explained to him why lower rates of taxation below the prevailing threshold garner more revenue than higher rates: a slice at a lower rate of taxation from a large pie is bigger than a slice at a higher rate of taxation from a puny pie, and it's the lower rate of taxation that causes the pie to grow in the first place. Made it simple for him, but, of course, to no avail.

But there was also another factor that is not evident from Dad2three's overly simplistic penchant for "presidential-term" analyses by graph. Toward the end of Carter's last year in office, the economy was struck by yet another downturn in employment on top of years of stagflation with investment at its lowest level since 1970. This trend continued through Reagan's first two years in office before the remedial effects of his economic policies kicked in: an additional negative of roughly 2.6% to 2.8% bled over into Reagan's presidency, a lose that had to be recouped. By the end of Reagan's first term, however, just two years into the recovery, after peaking at just over 10%, unemployment was back down to roughly 7.3%., 0.2% lower than what it was at the end of Carter's term!

By the way, Reagan inherited an annual inflation rate of roughly 11.83%. At the end of his first term it was all the way back down to 4%. Investment soared, and the pressure that pushed the dramatic change in employment demographics eased.

But I'm still waiting for Dad2three to explain why he changed the terms of my observation regarding the growth of wealth into the finite sum of annual income. I'm still wondering how Dante, that master logician, failed to miss that blatantly obvious slight of hand: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-111.html#post9483439



But most of all, we're still waiting for Dad2three to explain why the naturally occurring higher returns from investment for the wealthy is evil/unfair. How that detracts from the earnings of others as if the zero-sum-game fantasy were a reality. And why it's good/fair to redistribute the wealth of some to others.

Inquiring minds still want to know.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is as stupid to to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.

Reagan took office with a high of 10.8 percent which dropped to 5.3 percent under Reagan. http://Unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan. So Gee, your interpretation of statistics falls short again Daddy boy.

Indeed. And don't forget much of Reagan's demand-side spending went to ending the failed policy of Détente and the rebuilding of a dilapidated and demoralized military, and the arming of Europe. Pay off: the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[ilia25]

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.

There is no such thing as independence. By living in a society, you are depended on other people doing their jobs and following the rules. Otherwise you won't be able to earn your money, it is as simple as that. And, therefore, the society has the moral right to take a part of your income and distribute among other members.

This is not about morality, this is about providing everyone with a decent living standards. Which, in turn, means finding the right level of inequality -- just high enough to give everyone with sufficient incentive to maximize their productivity.

 

[dblack]

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.

There is no such thing as independence. By living in a society, you are depended on other people doing their jobs and following the rules. Otherwise you won't be able to earn your money, it is as simple as that. And, therefore, the society has the moral right to take a part of your income and distribute among other members.

This is not about morality, this is about providing everyone with a decent living standards. Which, in turn, means finding the right level of inequality -- just high enough to give everyone with sufficient incentive to maximize their productivity.

Yes, yes, yes. Independence, freedom, morality, don't really exist - all are mere '''ILLUSIONS!!!!''' <cue Doug Henning theatrics>

All that matters is maximizing the productivity of der fatherland!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

By law, any surplus MUST be used to service the debt, so the answer is no. IF there is a surplus, it will be applied to the debt, and the debt will decline.

In the Clinton years. the idea that there was a surplus, but the debt rose, is simple chicanery. In basic terms, the democrats and their media are blatantly lying.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

By law, any surplus MUST be used to service the debt, so the answer is no. IF there is a surplus, it will be applied to the debt, and the debt will decline.

In the Clinton years. the idea that there was a surplus, but the debt rose, is simple chicanery. In basic terms, the democrats and their media are blatantly lying.

Thank you, Uncensored, all is well then.