[quote]zecarlo wrote:
That government was not elected just as no one elected the “rich people.” [/quote]
Right, like I said, corrupt and tyrannical.
Not really. Social class warfare would be lower classes v upper classes. This is lower class against the ruling class, government. Just because the government was corrupt and held all the power (resources) doesn’t make them not the government.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
You asked why the redistribution of wealth was a good thing for the economy. I pointed out that pretty much everyone on here supports it and pointed out why. Pointing out logical inconsistencies is an important step towards getting both sides to realize how wrong they are in many cases. In fairness I am not a liberal.
It was not my intention to derail with my original post, that happened when everyone got all up in arms because “hey we need the wars!”
[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]
Yes, but he provides a service for his earnings. Getting paid for preforming a service is not redistribution of wealth. That is tax dollars being put towards their intended purpose, paying for a critical service. Redistribution is taking wealth from people and redistributing it for no other purpose but wealth sharing.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[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?[/quote]
Why in the HELL would we not be pissed about both?!
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[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?[/quote]
The Iraq War. The costs of that war will affect us for a long time. We will still be paying for that war for years. Now, if you want to get into the American troops who lost their lives or were crippled because of that war then those costs are immeasurable. And those costs bother me the most.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
You asked why the redistribution of wealth was a good thing for the economy. I pointed out that pretty much everyone on here supports it and pointed out why. Pointing out logical inconsistencies is an important step towards getting both sides to realize how wrong they are in many cases. In fairness I am not a liberal.
It was not my intention to derail with my original post, that happened when everyone got all up in arms because “hey we need the wars!”
[/quote]
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[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]
Yes, but he provides a service for his earnings. Getting paid for preforming a service is not redistribution of wealth. That is tax dollars being put towards their intended purpose, paying for a critical service. Redistribution is taking wealth from people and redistributing it for no other purpose but wealth sharing.[/quote]
First example: my money taken from me by force and exchanged for a physical object (drip pan) in service of the notion that it is a moral good to equip and field a formidable standing army that can protect United States citizens.
Second example: my money taken from me by force and exchanged for a physical object (baby formula) in service of the notion that it is a moral good to provide for the nutritional requirements of infants who are United States citizens and whose nutritional requirements would otherwise not be provided for.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[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?[/quote]
The Iraq War. The costs of that war will affect us for a long time. We will still be paying for that war for years. Now, if you want to get into the American troops who lost their lives or were crippled because of that war then those costs are immeasurable. And those costs bother me the most. [/quote]
I am no fan of the war, however, all the welfare increases Obama has instituted are permanent. They will be effecting us for longer than the effects of this war and to a much greater degree. I have no love for the Iraq war either, Afghanistan yes. However, the fact still remains that welfare for the poor is one of the single most crippling things to our economic security. The average middle class house will spend $638 a month on Welfare for the poor in 2010.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[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]
Yes, but he provides a service for his earnings. Getting paid for preforming a service is not redistribution of wealth. That is tax dollars being put towards their intended purpose, paying for a critical service. Redistribution is taking wealth from people and redistributing it for no other purpose but wealth sharing.[/quote]
First example: my money taken from me by force and exchanged for a physical object (drip pan) in service of the notion that it is a moral good to equip and field a formidable standing army that can protect United States citizens.
Second example: my money taken from me by force and exchanged for a physical object (baby formula) in service of the notion that it is a moral good to provide for the nutritional requirements of infants who are United States citizens and whose nutritional requirements would otherwise not be provided for.[/quote]
First Example: Benefits you in that you have a well supplied military. Not redistribution, just calling on you to support something that you draw a benefit from.
Second Example: No benefit to you. Redistribution of your wealth to a mother is to irresponsible to not get pregnant with a child she cannot afford first, and to lazy to work a sufficient number of hours to care for the child.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies? [/quote]
Payment for services rendered. What services do the poor render to earn the hundreds of billions forked out to them annually?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies? [/quote]
Payment for services rendered. What services do the poor render to earn the hundreds of billions forked out to them annually?[/quote]
Well this is making a lot of assumptions. Number one that we are getting a good deal on payment for the services rendered by our defense companies. Why don’t you read up on the F-35 and tell me about what they are doing to earn that? You don’t mind getting bent over on that because at least they are providing a service? Are you this nice if you went out for a meal and it was disgusting?
As for the poor I have no idea. Like anything else it’s a case basis. You won’t find ANYONE more angry about someone who can work that won’t. Welfare is not merely filled with those situations though. You’re using numbers with stuff like medicare, medicaid, etc. What good is a 93 year old woman in a hospital who doesn’t have any money and is being supported by tax payer dollars? What SHOULD happen to her? Our tax dollars provide for her. Right or wrong I’m just asking.
I’m in no way shape or form going to defend giving tax dollars to people who will not work, but the thing is I don’t think you’ll find many people like that who would defend it. I DON’T mind my tax dollars going towards kids well being in situations where individuals cannot help them. Ideally I would like to search for non government solutions to these problems, but in the here and now that is nowhere near feasible.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
First Example: Benefits you in that you have a well supplied military. Not redistribution, just calling on you to support something that you draw a benefit from.[/quote]
“Not redistibution.” Wrong. Redistribution. The money was mine. It was taken from me. It was put elsewhere. Redistribution. Stop arguing against the dictionary.
[quote]
Second Example: No benefit to you. Redistribution of your wealth to a mother is to irresponsible to not get pregnant with a child she cannot afford first, and to lazy to work a sufficient number of hours to care for the child. [/quote]
It isn’t to the mother, it’s to the infant. Or is it she who is eating the formula?
Very many people consider the alimentation of a defenseless baby to be as much a good (or even more of a good) than the purchase of a vast and extraordinarily expensive machine of war. You don’t. People disagree when it comes to morality–go figure.
I say that you have a moral obligation both to contribute to defense and to contribute to the alimentation of American children whose alimentation is otherwise not provided for. Say you are walking in the wilderness and come upon a wolf that is about to kill and eat a human infant. You have a loaded pistol and you’re a good shot. Say you choose not to intervene, and you let the child die.
I say that you have committed a moral iniquity. (I bet you do too.) I say this because I consider it a self-evident moral axiom that you must defend the defenseless from imminent harm when and where you can (and within reason: this doesn’t obligate you to donate kill yourself and donate your blood to a child in need of a transfusion). We can’t feed every baby in the world, but we can feed the American babies that wouldn’t otherwise be fed, and we therefore have a moral obligation to do so. Failure to do so is ultimately a punishment not of the mother, but of the child. And the child is incapable of being culpable for anything.
In sum: yes, both are absolutely and indubitably redistribution. And, in my view, both fulfill a moral obligation.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies? [/quote]
Payment for services rendered. What services do the poor render to earn the hundreds of billions forked out to them annually?[/quote]
Well this is making a lot of assumptions. Number one that we are getting a good deal on payment for the services rendered by our defense companies. Why don’t you read up on the F-35 and tell me about what they are doing to earn that? You don’t mind getting bent over on that because at least they are providing a service? Are you this nice if you went out for a meal and it was disgusting?
As for the poor I have no idea. Like anything else it’s a case basis. You won’t find ANYONE more angry about someone who can work that won’t. Welfare is not merely filled with those situations though. You’re using numbers with stuff like medicare, medicaid, etc. What good is a 93 year old woman in a hospital who doesn’t have any money and is being supported by tax payer dollars? What SHOULD happen to her? Our tax dollars provide for her. Right or wrong I’m just asking.
I’m in no way shape or form going to defend giving tax dollars to people who will not work, but the thing is I don’t think you’ll find many people like that who would defend it. I DON’T mind my tax dollars going towards kids well being in situations where individuals cannot help them. Ideally I would like to search for non government solutions to these problems, but in the here and now that is nowhere near feasible.
[/quote]
Wrong. My numbers exclude programs for the elderly like Social Security and Medicaid. And to your 93 year old woman example, if she or her spouse was a contributing member of society, then they paid their dues and she should be given acceptable care, but if she was a non-contributor (I’ll give exception to those unable to work like the severely mentally handicapped or those with severe disabilities) then I am sorry but she should not be given anything in return because she earned nothing.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
First Example: Benefits you in that you have a well supplied military. Not redistribution, just calling on you to support something that you draw a benefit from.[/quote]
“Not redistibution.” Wrong. Redistribution. The money was mine. It was taken from me. It was put elsewhere. Redistribution. Stop arguing against the dictionary.
[quote]
Second Example: No benefit to you. Redistribution of your wealth to a mother is to irresponsible to not get pregnant with a child she cannot afford first, and to lazy to work a sufficient number of hours to care for the child. [/quote]
It isn’t to the mother, it’s to the infant. Or is it she who is eating the formula?
Very many people consider the alimentation of a defenseless baby to be as much a good (or even more of a good) than the purchase of a vast and extraordinarily expensive machine of war. You don’t. People disagree when it comes to morality–go figure.
I say that you have a moral obligation both to contribute to defense and to contribute to the alimentation of American children whose alimentation is otherwise not provided for. Say you are walking in the wilderness and come upon a wolf that is about to kill and eat a human infant. You have a loaded pistol and you’re a good shot. Say you choose not to intervene, and you let the child die.
I say that you have committed a moral iniquity. (I bet you do too.) I say this because I consider it a self-evident moral axiom that you must defend the defenseless from imminent harm when and where you can (and within reason: this doesn’t obligate you to donate kill yourself and donate your blood to a child in need of a transfusion). We can’t feed every baby in the world, but we can feed the American babies that wouldn’t otherwise be fed, and we therefore have a moral obligation to do so. Failure to do so is ultimately a punishment not of the mother, but of the child. And the child is incapable of being culpable for anything.
In sum: yes, both are absolutely and indubitably redistribution. And, in my view, both fulfill a moral obligation.[/quote]
I agree with the part about it is our obligation to support the child. However, the person who became impregnated with a child with no means to care for it should then be forced to repay the debt that her child incurs. It shouldn’t be money just given away. It should be a loan with heavy penalties to the mother if not repaid.
And to the first point. It is essentially forcing you to pay your debt, and you do have a debt to the government with regards to the military and the infrastructure that you use. Now if you consider, your light bill or paying for groceries to be redistribution as well then fine, you can call it redistribution.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies? [/quote]
Payment for services rendered. What services do the poor render to earn the hundreds of billions forked out to them annually?[/quote]
Well this is making a lot of assumptions. Number one that we are getting a good deal on payment for the services rendered by our defense companies. Why don’t you read up on the F-35 and tell me about what they are doing to earn that? You don’t mind getting bent over on that because at least they are providing a service? Are you this nice if you went out for a meal and it was disgusting?
As for the poor I have no idea. Like anything else it’s a case basis. You won’t find ANYONE more angry about someone who can work that won’t. Welfare is not merely filled with those situations though. You’re using numbers with stuff like medicare, medicaid, etc. What good is a 93 year old woman in a hospital who doesn’t have any money and is being supported by tax payer dollars? What SHOULD happen to her? Our tax dollars provide for her. Right or wrong I’m just asking.
I’m in no way shape or form going to defend giving tax dollars to people who will not work, but the thing is I don’t think you’ll find many people like that who would defend it. I DON’T mind my tax dollars going towards kids well being in situations where individuals cannot help them. Ideally I would like to search for non government solutions to these problems, but in the here and now that is nowhere near feasible.
[/quote]
Wrong. My numbers exclude programs for the elderly like Social Security and Medicaid. And to your 93 year old woman example, if she or her spouse was a contributing member of society, then they paid their dues and she should be given acceptable care, but if she was a non-contributor (I’ll give exception to those unable to work like the severely mentally handicapped or those with severe disabilities) then I am sorry but she should not be given anything in return because she earned nothing. [/quote]
Please share the sources for where your getting your numbers then because most of them count SS and Medicare or tax credits for low income families.
It’s not usually just the here is a government check type thing that most people think when they think of welfare. Most welfare things are more along the lines of housing, energy assistance (heating in the winter), etc.
However (again) I am angered by any type of help for those who don’t need it and we should be working to reduce our spending in all levels of government from defense to welfare and everything in between.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies? [/quote]
Payment for services rendered. What services do the poor render to earn the hundreds of billions forked out to them annually?[/quote]
Well this is making a lot of assumptions. Number one that we are getting a good deal on payment for the services rendered by our defense companies. Why don’t you read up on the F-35 and tell me about what they are doing to earn that? You don’t mind getting bent over on that because at least they are providing a service? Are you this nice if you went out for a meal and it was disgusting?
As for the poor I have no idea. Like anything else it’s a case basis. You won’t find ANYONE more angry about someone who can work that won’t. Welfare is not merely filled with those situations though. You’re using numbers with stuff like medicare, medicaid, etc. What good is a 93 year old woman in a hospital who doesn’t have any money and is being supported by tax payer dollars? What SHOULD happen to her? Our tax dollars provide for her. Right or wrong I’m just asking.
I’m in no way shape or form going to defend giving tax dollars to people who will not work, but the thing is I don’t think you’ll find many people like that who would defend it. I DON’T mind my tax dollars going towards kids well being in situations where individuals cannot help them. Ideally I would like to search for non government solutions to these problems, but in the here and now that is nowhere near feasible.
[/quote]
I would venture to say that, if for the poor was privatized, and rewards for having children that cannot be taken care of ceased to be given, the number of children that the government had to fund would decrease dramatically.
Quick question, how much do you think a single mother with no job (even though she is perfectly capable) with 3 children should be given in assistance each year?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies? [/quote]
Payment for services rendered. What services do the poor render to earn the hundreds of billions forked out to them annually?[/quote]
Well this is making a lot of assumptions. Number one that we are getting a good deal on payment for the services rendered by our defense companies. Why don’t you read up on the F-35 and tell me about what they are doing to earn that? You don’t mind getting bent over on that because at least they are providing a service? Are you this nice if you went out for a meal and it was disgusting?
As for the poor I have no idea. Like anything else it’s a case basis. You won’t find ANYONE more angry about someone who can work that won’t. Welfare is not merely filled with those situations though. You’re using numbers with stuff like medicare, medicaid, etc. What good is a 93 year old woman in a hospital who doesn’t have any money and is being supported by tax payer dollars? What SHOULD happen to her? Our tax dollars provide for her. Right or wrong I’m just asking.
I’m in no way shape or form going to defend giving tax dollars to people who will not work, but the thing is I don’t think you’ll find many people like that who would defend it. I DON’T mind my tax dollars going towards kids well being in situations where individuals cannot help them. Ideally I would like to search for non government solutions to these problems, but in the here and now that is nowhere near feasible.
[/quote]
I would venture to say that, if for the poor was privatized, and rewards for having children that cannot be taken care of ceased to be given, the number of children that the government had to fund would decrease dramatically.
Quick question, how much do you think a single mother with no job (even though she is perfectly capable) with 3 children should be given in assistance each year?[/quote]
Society should probably take her children away as they are in an unfit home. The children should be provided for as they did nothing wrong, just lost the parent lottery.
I also think the above happens far less than you think. Not to say it doesn’t happen…just probably at a significantly lower rate.
And sometimes the mother is working. Raising three kids on your own comes at a significant cost. She would need a very good job to support all her expenses.
Obviously single mom and three kids is far from ideal and we should be figuring out ways to keep that from happening. I’d suggest personal finance, sex education, and contraceptives as ways to start.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, Mr. Semantics, what term would you prefer us to use for the governments redistribution of wealth to those of the lower class? Maybe then we can move the conversation forward and around this complete stall tactic by someone without a valid point.[/quote]
Redistribution of wealth is fine.
What term would you use for the government’s redistribution of wealth to fortune 500 companies? [/quote]
Payment for services rendered. What services do the poor render to earn the hundreds of billions forked out to them annually?[/quote]
Well this is making a lot of assumptions. Number one that we are getting a good deal on payment for the services rendered by our defense companies. Why don’t you read up on the F-35 and tell me about what they are doing to earn that? You don’t mind getting bent over on that because at least they are providing a service? Are you this nice if you went out for a meal and it was disgusting?
As for the poor I have no idea. Like anything else it’s a case basis. You won’t find ANYONE more angry about someone who can work that won’t. Welfare is not merely filled with those situations though. You’re using numbers with stuff like medicare, medicaid, etc. What good is a 93 year old woman in a hospital who doesn’t have any money and is being supported by tax payer dollars? What SHOULD happen to her? Our tax dollars provide for her. Right or wrong I’m just asking.
I’m in no way shape or form going to defend giving tax dollars to people who will not work, but the thing is I don’t think you’ll find many people like that who would defend it. I DON’T mind my tax dollars going towards kids well being in situations where individuals cannot help them. Ideally I would like to search for non government solutions to these problems, but in the here and now that is nowhere near feasible.
[/quote]
Wrong. My numbers exclude programs for the elderly like Social Security and Medicaid. And to your 93 year old woman example, if she or her spouse was a contributing member of society, then they paid their dues and she should be given acceptable care, but if she was a non-contributor (I’ll give exception to those unable to work like the severely mentally handicapped or those with severe disabilities) then I am sorry but she should not be given anything in return because she earned nothing. [/quote]
Please share the sources for where your getting your numbers then because most of them count SS and Medicare or tax credits for low income families.
It’s not usually just the here is a government check type thing that most people think when they think of welfare. Most welfare things are more along the lines of housing, energy assistance (heating in the winter), etc.
However (again) I am angered by any type of help for those who don’t need it and we should be working to reduce our spending in all levels of government from defense to welfare and everything in between. [/quote]
On this chart it is Medicare and Medicaid is included as part of Healthcare so it is not included. It says that in a couple of places and goes into deeper explanation.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I am no fan of the war, however, all the welfare increases Obama has instituted are permanent. They will be effecting us for longer than the effects of this war and to a much greater degree. I have no love for the Iraq war either, Afghanistan yes. However, the fact still remains that welfare for the poor is one of the single most crippling things to our economic security. The average middle class house will spend $638 a month on Welfare for the poor in 2010. [/quote]
Please tell me when was America not involved in a conflict . The world is our Empire