Redistribution of Wealth

[smh_23]

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

Paying for the military and our defense from taxation is not the same as social services and entitlement programs.[/quote]

It is different, but both are redistributive.

Look at what really happens: two dollars get paid in. One goes to welfare, the other to defense. The latter becomes part of a contract and is paid to a private company in return for their manufacturing a $17,000 drip pan for a helicopter. It was paid to a private company in return for a physical object. It was, in other words, distributed, after having first been yours (and therefore redistributed).

The former dollar goes to a welfare program for poor mothers of infants. It ends up being paid to a private company in exchange for baby formula. Again, paid to a private company in return for a physical object.

One bought defense, the other bought the alimentation of an American baby. You can certainly make the case that one of those two aims is more worthy than the other, but both are inarguably redistributive in that they take something of yours, without asking whether or not they can take it, and put it elsewhere.

[H_factor]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Redistribution is taking and putting elsewhere. It has exactly nothing to do with what’s gotten in return. You redistribute your wealth every day. Government is wealth redistribution, always and by definition.[/quote]

If you want to argue over semantics instead of address the point, that’s fine. I will just assume that you have nothing valid to say because you are fully aware that your economic ideals are indefensible.[/quote]

IT’S NOT SEMANTICS. Your wealth is redistributed anytime your tax dollars are used. ANY taxation involves redistribution. I haven’t even begun with my economic ideals I just think it’s funny that so many “fiscal” conservatives are ok with military waste.

[smh_23]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Redistribution is taking and putting elsewhere. It has exactly nothing to do with what’s gotten in return. You redistribute your wealth every day. Government is wealth redistribution, always and by definition.[/quote]

If you want to argue over semantics instead of address the point, that’s fine. I will just assume that you have nothing valid to say because you are fully aware that your economic ideals are indefensible.[/quote]

I don’t want to argue over semantics. There was nothing to argue. You were wrong.

[H_factor]

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Of course it is. It is taking wealth and giving it to someone else. Redistributing it. Also how are you defining “the like?” If I want my tax dollars to go to helping the disabled and you think the purpose is to go to twelve year wars why are you more correct? We have argued about the purpose of tax dollars since the beginning of the nation.

You aren’t more correct than me merely by asserting it. And you aren’t bothered by that waste, but you are by food stamps? Why? These so called fiscal conservatives are nowhere to be found when it comes to defense. Waste away there folks, I’ll be busy getting really angry at that broke guy! [/quote]

If you want your money to go to the disabled you can give to charity. The government’s job is not to provide charity, but to provide security and democracy. [/quote]

Of course it’s not, but that is where some of my tax dollars DO go. The same way they go trillions towards Afghanistan which I would say is not the government’s job either.

[jbpick86]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Isnt that the government trying to play a twisted version of Robin Hood?[/quote]

The story of a group of people that robbed from a tyrannical corrupt government and gave it back to the oppressed people who had their property stolen in the first place.

Funny how that story has been twisted to replace “government” with “rich people” huh?[/quote]
Not quite that twisted. That government was not elected just as no one elected the “rich people.” The Robin Hood story is more about class warfare (and racism: Saxons vs Normans). In both cases some would describe them as issues related to social class. [/quote]

Someone “elected” the rich people. By supporting whatever enterprise it was that they began that made them their money, people “elected” them to be rich. In Robin Hood, the ruling class were thieves that stole their wealth from the lowest classes. Our lowest classes aren’t having anything stolen from them. They are being given money stolen by the government from the middle and upper class. [/quote]
Well, it could just as easily be said that the ruling class was “elected” since they needed the poor, who made up the majority, to “elect” them. You can’t have a ruling class without the ruled. [/quote]
Did those that were ruled choose to support the ruling class?? No they didn’t. People choose to support many of the wealthy in our society with their purchasing power. That’s the beauty of this society, you always have a choice.

[Waittz]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

Paying for the military and our defense from taxation is not the same as social services and entitlement programs. That is a bit of a reach and I think you are trying to change the question I originally asked.

To answer your question, I am not mad. I have no issues with paying federal income tax knowing that it goes to defend our country from foreign invaders and defend our liberties, which is what our governments main job is. I am mad though, that I have to pay a larger percentage of my relative income than those who make less to do so, and that a very large portion of that does not go to defense, rather given to those who didn’t earn it so they can spend it freely on whatever they want.

I am very mad that the government takes my money from me, that I earn, and gives it to someone who didn’t earn it in the form of a prepaid credit card that they can spend my money on whatever they want without restriction or limitation. I am also mad that most of these people pay no taxes at all, or pay a less percentage of relative income penalizing me for earning more. Earning more means I give the world more value and I am paid more for it. I am being punished for creating more value to the world while others are being rewarded for creating less. That is the difference between defense spending and entitlement spending so don’t make such a reach next time. [/quote]

Well I have a problem with it and I don’t agree with it. I don’t mind helping out someone who is paralyzed with my tax dollars. You do.

It’s not a reach. You’re ok with that redistribution and I’m not. I’m ok with some redistribution and not others.

FWIW I am totally in favor of ending any payments to those who can work but won’t.
[/quote]

I do have a problem helping someone who is paralyzed with my tax dollars because I am being forced to to labor for someone else and forced into whom I have to tithe to. I give to charity on my own, why should I have to do it twice and to those I do not believe in?

Also, why should it have to be done at my expense? It isnt that I am being forced to it, it is that I am being forced to do it greater in relative earnings than someone who earns less. Why is that fair?

[smh_23]

[quote]H factor wrote:

IT’S NOT SEMANTICS. Your wealth is redistributed anytime your tax dollars are used. ANY taxation involves redistribution. I haven’t even begun with my economic ideals I just think it’s funny that so many “fiscal” conservatives are ok with military waste.
[/quote]

Yep.

Government is redistribution of wealth. All government.

The only real escape is anarchy, or something very close to anarchy (like what, if I recall correctly, Orion favors).

[jbpick86]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Redistribution is taking and putting elsewhere. It has exactly nothing to do with what’s gotten in return. You redistribute your wealth every day. Government is wealth redistribution, always and by definition.[/quote]

If you want to argue over semantics instead of address the point, that’s fine. I will just assume that you have nothing valid to say because you are fully aware that your economic ideals are indefensible.[/quote]

IT’S NOT SEMANTICS. Your wealth is redistributed anytime your tax dollars are used. ANY taxation involves redistribution. I haven’t even begun with my economic ideals I just think it’s funny that so many “fiscal” conservatives are ok with military waste.
[/quote]

Redistribution of Wealth in any intelligent conversation is understood to be, redistributed amongst private citizens and entities. By refusing to acknowledge what you know damn well the question to be, you are arguing semantics.

[zecarlo]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]
How do you know that “they” have no desire to contribute to society? How many educated, “well-bred”, gainfully employed if not wealthy, people have cheated on their taxes to avoid contributing? Every white collar criminal has tried to avoid contributing. And don’t get me started on those right-wing chickenhawks who dodged the draft so they could avoid contributing. But it’s so much better to paint the freeloaders as welfare queens and scammers. [/quote]

Because that’s what the majority of them are. That’s why its easier. Not saying that their are not white collar crooks but their numbers pale in comparison to the societal leaches that flood the local WIC and free clinics daily.[/quote]
Warren Buffet’s son gets farm subsidies.

And you mention numbers, as in number of people, but what about numbers in terms of dollars? The white collar types who leech may be fewer in number but how much does the money they steal add up to by comparison to the poor? One govt project that was the result of a favor could add up to billions. How much were they paying for a hammer or toilet seat?

[zecarlo]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Isnt that the government trying to play a twisted version of Robin Hood?[/quote]

The story of a group of people that robbed from a tyrannical corrupt government and gave it back to the oppressed people who had their property stolen in the first place.

Funny how that story has been twisted to replace “government” with “rich people” huh?[/quote]
Not quite that twisted. That government was not elected just as no one elected the “rich people.” The Robin Hood story is more about class warfare (and racism: Saxons vs Normans). In both cases some would describe them as issues related to social class. [/quote]

Someone “elected” the rich people. By supporting whatever enterprise it was that they began that made them their money, people “elected” them to be rich. In Robin Hood, the ruling class were thieves that stole their wealth from the lowest classes. Our lowest classes aren’t having anything stolen from them. They are being given money stolen by the government from the middle and upper class. [/quote]
Well, it could just as easily be said that the ruling class was “elected” since they needed the poor, who made up the majority, to “elect” them. You can’t have a ruling class without the ruled. [/quote]
Did those that were ruled choose to support the ruling class?? No they didn’t. People choose to support many of the wealthy in our society with their purchasing power. That’s the beauty of this society, you always have a choice.[/quote]
Actually they did support a monarchy and they had a choice.

[smh_23]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Redistribution of Wealth in any intelligent conversation is understood to be, redistributed amongst private citizens and entities. By refusing to acknowledge what you know damn well the question to be, you are arguing semantics.[/quote]

The CEO of Lockheed Martin is a citizen. What are you not understanding about this?

[Waittz]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Very. Not an easy read though. Goes into the history and questions the philosophy of how we ended up like this, with invisible private entities ruling us like the Fed, banks, governments etc. Its what I always think of when people talk about how the middle class have been robbed, because it was not “the rich” who did it, but rather the “Grunch”.
[/quote]

Just a guess ? is it a straw man ? Could you switch middle class in the book for toady’s wealthy ? Meaning Today’s wealthy are claiming the EVIL GOVERNMENT wants to take their money and give it to the poor [/quote]

There is no middle class really in the book, but citizens and individuals at the exploit of Goliath sized private entities. Fuller’s views were about the protection and sustainability of ‘Staceship Earth’(to steal the title of one of his books) as whole.

The book really isnt about rich versus poor. It is about these invisible entities that control the world in general at the expense and exploitation of everyone else. Things like World banks and the Fed for example.

Sorry for the side track guys, the book isnt so much on this topic as just something I thought Pitbull would enjoy.

[H_factor]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Redistribution is taking and putting elsewhere. It has exactly nothing to do with what’s gotten in return. You redistribute your wealth every day. Government is wealth redistribution, always and by definition.[/quote]

If you want to argue over semantics instead of address the point, that’s fine. I will just assume that you have nothing valid to say because you are fully aware that your economic ideals are indefensible.[/quote]

IT’S NOT SEMANTICS. Your wealth is redistributed anytime your tax dollars are used. ANY taxation involves redistribution. I haven’t even begun with my economic ideals I just think it’s funny that so many “fiscal” conservatives are ok with military waste.
[/quote]

Redistribution of Wealth in any intelligent conversation is understood to be, redistributed amongst private citizens and entities. By refusing to acknowledge what you know damn well the question to be, you are arguing semantics.[/quote]

I’m trying to get you to understand that you are coming to a different conclusion than some other people and that intelligent conversation involves you being ok with some redistribution and not others.

If you won’t acknowledge that they are the same then we can’t really move on. You’re angry because your misusing terms and I called you out on being ok with some redistribution.

For the last time…when you pay taxes and those tax dollars do not go back to you they are being redistributed. WHAT they go to is fine to argue, but I don’t like my wealth being redistributed to the war in Afghanistan and you apparently don’t like it going to citizens.

[H_factor]

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

Paying for the military and our defense from taxation is not the same as social services and entitlement programs. That is a bit of a reach and I think you are trying to change the question I originally asked.

To answer your question, I am not mad. I have no issues with paying federal income tax knowing that it goes to defend our country from foreign invaders and defend our liberties, which is what our governments main job is. I am mad though, that I have to pay a larger percentage of my relative income than those who make less to do so, and that a very large portion of that does not go to defense, rather given to those who didn’t earn it so they can spend it freely on whatever they want.

I am very mad that the government takes my money from me, that I earn, and gives it to someone who didn’t earn it in the form of a prepaid credit card that they can spend my money on whatever they want without restriction or limitation. I am also mad that most of these people pay no taxes at all, or pay a less percentage of relative income penalizing me for earning more. Earning more means I give the world more value and I am paid more for it. I am being punished for creating more value to the world while others are being rewarded for creating less. That is the difference between defense spending and entitlement spending so don’t make such a reach next time. [/quote]

Well I have a problem with it and I don’t agree with it. I don’t mind helping out someone who is paralyzed with my tax dollars. You do.

It’s not a reach. You’re ok with that redistribution and I’m not. I’m ok with some redistribution and not others.

FWIW I am totally in favor of ending any payments to those who can work but won’t.
[/quote]

I do have a problem helping someone who is paralyzed with my tax dollars because I am being forced to to labor for someone else and forced into whom I have to tithe to. I give to charity on my own, why should I have to do it twice and to those I do not believe in?

Also, why should it have to be done at my expense? It isnt that I am being forced to it, it is that I am being forced to do it greater in relative earnings than someone who earns less. Why is that fair?
[/quote]

Of course it’s not fair. All taxation is inherently “unfair.” You’re ok with being forced to give 1.35 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to the F-35? It’s done at your expense and you are forced to do it.

I think people think I’m arguing something I’m not.

I’m NOT supporting people who can work having any type of payments. I’m trying to get “fiscal conservatives” to think about some of their consistency.

[MaximusB]

Worked wonders in my state, highest redistribution of wealth and ranking last in almost every category of society.

The 2nd largest school district in the nation just gave every single kid a free iPad and keyboard, in the name of “civil rights” with the assumption that student performance will improve. Oh and the best part, neither the kids or their families are responsible if they somehow become “lost.” Cost of this boondoggle program ? $1 Billion.

[H_factor]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Redistribution of Wealth in any intelligent conversation is understood to be, redistributed amongst private citizens and entities. By refusing to acknowledge what you know damn well the question to be, you are arguing semantics.[/quote]

The CEO of Lockheed Martin is a citizen. What are you not understanding about this?[/quote]

It is really not a difficult concept.

[Waittz]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]

Redistribution is taking and putting elsewhere. It has exactly nothing to do with what’s gotten in return. You redistribute your wealth every day. Government is wealth redistribution, always and by definition.[/quote]

If you want to argue over semantics instead of address the point, that’s fine. I will just assume that you have nothing valid to say because you are fully aware that your economic ideals are indefensible.[/quote]

IT’S NOT SEMANTICS. Your wealth is redistributed anytime your tax dollars are used. ANY taxation involves redistribution. I haven’t even begun with my economic ideals I just think it’s funny that so many “fiscal” conservatives are ok with military waste.
[/quote]

Redistribution of Wealth in any intelligent conversation is understood to be, redistributed amongst private citizens and entities. By refusing to acknowledge what you know damn well the question to be, you are arguing semantics.[/quote]

I’m trying to get you to understand that you are coming to a different conclusion than some other people and that intelligent conversation involves you being ok with some redistribution and not others.

If you won’t acknowledge that they are the same then we can’t really move on. You’re angry because your misusing terms and I called you out on being ok with some redistribution.

For the last time…when you pay taxes and those tax dollars do not go back to you they are being redistributed. WHAT they go to is fine to argue, but I don’t like my wealth being redistributed to the war in Afghanistan and you apparently don’t like it going to citizens.
[/quote]

You are changing my original question on point of this post to argue something that is different in theory and philosophy than what I asked, which was in relation to social welfare services and economy.

All taxes are a redistribution yes, but you know that wasn’t what I was asking so please stick to the original topic in this form of redistribution relates to social welfare. Make a topic nonmilitary spending if if pleases you.

[jbpick86]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

That is not redistribution of wealth. Not really sure where you got that idea. Military, infrastructure and the like are the purpose of taxes. However now taxes are being used to dole out to those that have no desire to contribute to society. That is redistribution. The former is not. [/quote]
How do you know that “they” have no desire to contribute to society? How many educated, “well-bred”, gainfully employed if not wealthy, people have cheated on their taxes to avoid contributing? Every white collar criminal has tried to avoid contributing. And don’t get me started on those right-wing chickenhawks who dodged the draft so they could avoid contributing. But it’s so much better to paint the freeloaders as welfare queens and scammers. [/quote]

Because that’s what the majority of them are. That’s why its easier. Not saying that their are not white collar crooks but their numbers pale in comparison to the societal leaches that flood the local WIC and free clinics daily.[/quote]
Warren Buffet’s son gets farm subsidies.

And you mention numbers, as in number of people, but what about numbers in terms of dollars? The white collar types who leech may be fewer in number but how much does the money they steal add up to by comparison to the poor? One govt project that was the result of a favor could add up to billions. How much were they paying for a hammer or toilet seat? [/quote]

In 2010, $686 billion was spent on welfare for the poor, at the end of the Bush administration $622 billion had been spent throughout the entire War in Iraq. Now, you tell me what’s hurting us the most?

[Waittz]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Everyone in this thread supports redistribution of wealth to some degree whether they know it or not. For instance why mention food stamps but not the F-35? A massive amount of “our” wealth goes to the military. How much of your wealth have you lost in Afghanistan? How much was taken from you and why are you not mad about it?

Or is it just cool to be against food stamps?

[/quote]

Paying for the military and our defense from taxation is not the same as social services and entitlement programs. That is a bit of a reach and I think you are trying to change the question I originally asked.

To answer your question, I am not mad. I have no issues with paying federal income tax knowing that it goes to defend our country from foreign invaders and defend our liberties, which is what our governments main job is. I am mad though, that I have to pay a larger percentage of my relative income than those who make less to do so, and that a very large portion of that does not go to defense, rather given to those who didn’t earn it so they can spend it freely on whatever they want.

I am very mad that the government takes my money from me, that I earn, and gives it to someone who didn’t earn it in the form of a prepaid credit card that they can spend my money on whatever they want without restriction or limitation. I am also mad that most of these people pay no taxes at all, or pay a less percentage of relative income penalizing me for earning more. Earning more means I give the world more value and I am paid more for it. I am being punished for creating more value to the world while others are being rewarded for creating less. That is the difference between defense spending and entitlement spending so don’t make such a reach next time. [/quote]

Well I have a problem with it and I don’t agree with it. I don’t mind helping out someone who is paralyzed with my tax dollars. You do.

It’s not a reach. You’re ok with that redistribution and I’m not. I’m ok with some redistribution and not others.

FWIW I am totally in favor of ending any payments to those who can work but won’t.
[/quote]

I do have a problem helping someone who is paralyzed with my tax dollars because I am being forced to to labor for someone else and forced into whom I have to tithe to. I give to charity on my own, why should I have to do it twice and to those I do not believe in?

Also, why should it have to be done at my expense? It isnt that I am being forced to it, it is that I am being forced to do it greater in relative earnings than someone who earns less. Why is that fair?
[/quote]

Of course it’s not fair. All taxation is inherently “unfair.” You’re ok with being forced to give 1.35 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to the F-35? It’s done at your expense and you are forced to do it.

I think people think I’m arguing something I’m not.

I’m NOT supporting people who can work having any type of payments. I’m trying to get “fiscal conservatives” to think about some of their consistency. [/quote]

Because you are arguing something off topic and unasked.

I asked for people who do believe in redistribution for things like the social welfare of the country, and cited examples, to give me their opinion on why it is good. Not to get overtly defensive and change to topic to say that everything is redistribution.

Medicare, welfare, food stamps, the ACA, etc were created stemming from a belief that taking money from one source and giving it to another is good. I want to know why they think that, and since these programs were intended for good, how should they work as we all can agree there are issues in the current setup. If your response doesn’t have to do with that question please keep it to yourself.

[smh_23]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Where children are involved: they are legally barred from even attempting to become gainfully employed and, even if they weren’t, are physically incapable of caring for themselves. We are morally obligated to finance their survival if their parents can, or will, not. Unfortunately, it is far cheaper for us to simply give food stamps to the parents than it would be to take the children away.

Where children are not involved: here I am far more conservative. One argument worth looking into–and I think the major difference between a staunch anti-welfare conservative and somebody more open to the safety not can be found here, in the contrast of the personal and the macroeconomic–rests upon the notion that market economies, being as they are inherently cyclical, will always have unemployment and underemployment built in, and especially so during (inevitable) times of distress (the transient poor). Given that this is a simple fact of life, it makes sense for us to have some kind of safety net for the people at the bottom–because they are as predictable, unavoidable, and, in some strange way, integral a component of the system as are mid-level management and CEOs. Large-scale market economies like ours cannot support full employment without drastic government interference (job guarantees) or total war, so it makes some sense to account for this fact of life in some or another way. If employers are allowed to fire, lay off, and close factories–and in a market economy, they are–times will come when they will need to, and for us to ignore this inexorable eventuality would be foolish.

For the record, I am in favor of drastically overhauling welfare and going after chiselers like hounds on a blood scent.[/quote]

OP: I am reposting this because the conversation moved quickly and you may not have seen it. I am interested to hear read your response.

RE: welfare vs. military, I don’t think it’s unfair to make the point that all government activity is predicated on the confiscation of wealth under threat of criminal penalty and its subsequent redistribution elsewhere.