Redistribution of Wealth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[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]

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]

I think it happens far more than you think. I work for a public school system and see it quite frequently. That mom I was referring to, mid twenties, never had a job although nothing is wrong with her, 3 kids, makes $55,000 a year in assistance. Why would she work? You cant make it so easy that people have no reason to pull themselves out of the dirt and then expect them to do it anyway.

82

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

True, doesn’t change the fact that one years worth of welfare is greater than 6 years worth of actual war complete with semi occupation. That comes at a greater cost than our usual UN enforcer conflicts.

83

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

Where does $638/month come from? Your fantasies? In 2012 12% of taxes went to welfare. 638 times 12 equals 7656. That means the average middle class house paid 62,000 a year in taxes.

The average family income is 51,000 for an average annual tax liability of around 5,000. Divide that by 12 and get 413 for a monthly tax liability. 12% of that is fifty bucks. Exaggerate much?

84

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote and you made some good points. I think I would have less issue with welfare services if they were not bastardized. The work for welfare turning into just welfare is a good one.

If we as a society are going to have some form of wealth redistribution for social services, I wish there was a way to keep them restrictive and the money used as an investment into those receiving aid, which was the original intend. It was way past that.

And I maintain that one shouldn’t have to pay a disproportionally more amount to it just because they earn more. That logic in the Tax code is one that I don’t see having any real grounds.

85

[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]

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]

That fact that it can happen invites it to happen. Would you not agree?

86

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[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]

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]

That fact that it can happen invites it to happen. Would you not agree?
[/quote]

Perhaps, but what are you suggesting? Mandatory sterilization? How are you planning on keeping single mom with three kids from happening?

87

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[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]

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]

I think it happens far more than you think. I work for a public school system and see it quite frequently. That mom I was referring to, mid twenties, never had a job although nothing is wrong with her, 3 kids, makes $55,000 a year in assistance. Why would she work? You cant make it so easy that people have no reason to pull themselves out of the dirt and then expect them to do it anyway.[/quote]

There should never be an incentive not to work and I have never argued anything remotely the case.

88

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[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]

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]

That fact that it can happen invites it to happen. Would you not agree?
[/quote]

Perhaps, but what are you suggesting? Mandatory sterilization? How are you planning on keeping single mom with three kids from happening? [/quote]

Keeping her from having children? No, I am referring to keeping her from profiting from having children.

89

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

Where does $638/month come from? Your fantasies? In 2012 12% of taxes went to welfare. 638 times 12 equals 7656. That means the average middle class house paid 62,000 a year in taxes.

The average family income is 51,000 for an average annual tax liability of around 5,000. Divide that by 12 and get 413 for a monthly tax liability. 12% of that is fifty bucks. Exaggerate much? [/quote]

You are correct. I had a reading comprehension fail. The quote was…

Thanks for calling me out there. Maybe someone should point this post out to Obama so that he can see what an ass he made out of himself the same way I did.

90

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[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]

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]

That fact that it can happen invites it to happen. Would you not agree?
[/quote]

Perhaps, but what are you suggesting? Mandatory sterilization? How are you planning on keeping single mom with three kids from happening? [/quote]

Keeping her from having children? No, I am referring to keeping her from profiting from having children. [/quote]

I truly believe that if you have a kid you cannot support, that’s a warning. The government will help you out reasonably but you better get to work. If you have a second child that you cannot support, you have two choices, receive benefits for that child as well but only after you are sterilized, or have all benefits revoked and receive regular social service visits to make sure you are working to support your children.

91

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
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]

Not when total cost are concerned. There is a reason that tens of millions of dollars are spent lobbying our political leaders & policy makers on behalf of business & finance. The section of the US economy that needs privatization the most is the private sector.

92

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

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. [/quote]

When I say that I am in favor of a serious overhaul, I mean making the system look more like what you describe here. We’re agreed in principle here (tough we would probably differ on some of the details).

[quote]
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]

Agreed RE: owing a debt to the military, which we all by definition benefit from. I use that very argument against the extreme libertatians on this board. RE: paying bills and groceries, I don’t consider it redistribution because you aren’t directly forced to do it under threat of punishment.

93

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote and you made some good points. I think I would have less issue with welfare services if they were not bastardized. The work for welfare turning into just welfare is a good one.

If we as a society are going to have some form of wealth redistribution for social services, I wish there was a way to keep them restrictive and the money used as an investment into those receiving aid, which was the original intend. It was way past that.

And I maintain that one shouldn’t have to pay a disproportionally more amount to it just because they earn more. That logic in the Tax code is one that I don’t see having any real grounds.
[/quote]

I agree with most of this.

Also, given that it will be extremely difficult to really reform welfare so long as people who depend upon welfare can vote (which will be always), there are some solutions that we could implement right now that would seriously help in the long run. Like the child’s school attendance tied to benefits idea.

94

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

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. [/quote]

When I say that I am in favor of a serious overhaul, I mean making the system look more like what you describe here. We’re agreed in principle here (tough we would probably differ on some of the details).

[quote]
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]

Agreed RE: owing a debt to the military, which we all by definition benefit from. I use that very argument against the extreme libertatians on this board. RE: paying bills and groceries, I don’t consider it redistribution because you aren’t directly forced to do it under threat of punishment.[/quote]

Well you aren’t forced to pay taxes. You could choose to live in poverty or live off the grid. With no or little income you owe nothing in taxes. However because you choose the comfort of not living like that you owe, same as because you choose the comfort of having lights, you owe.

95

[quote]Waittz wrote:
The government’s job is not to provide charity, but to provide security and democracy. [/quote]

US military spending represents 52% of all money spent worldwide. The odds of you being struck by lighting twice in the same year are greater than you being injured in a terrorist attack. The US military defends the intersts of business and finance around the world; security is a secondary consideration.

The DIRECT cost in Irag was 280 million/day. Everyday for 10 years. All on borrowed money. That represents the lifetime earning of over 1/2 million americans at the median level. It doesn’t include replacing military equipment/care for veterans/interest/ etc. Against a sovereign nation that didn’t attack us first.

96

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Well you aren’t forced to pay taxes. You could choose to live in poverty or live off the grid. With no or little income you owe nothing in taxes. However because you choose the comfort of not living like that you owe, same as because you choose the comfort of having lights, you owe.[/quote]

Almost no one would agree with you that this is a legitimate choice. It’s like saying that old men who die of prostate cancer had the choice to off themselves in their 40s and avoid the medical troubles altogether.

97

[quote]Waittz wrote:
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]

O.K.
How about bailing out the banks and finance sector in early 2008. All public money given to the private sector…when the time came for all the free market capitalist to walk the walk, they became socialist…what about how the market reacts every time a QE taper is hinted at, if that is not free public money (all borrowed by the way) being redistributed I don’t what is.

98

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

True, doesn’t change the fact that one years worth of welfare is greater than 6 years worth of actual war complete with semi occupation. That comes at a greater cost than our usual UN enforcer conflicts.[/quote]

That chart you linked to seems to contradict your claim.

99

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
…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. [/quote]

Google ‘poor house system’ or ‘indentured servitude’ these are a couple of the methods used in previous times. Would you say they are preferable approaches?

100

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:
The government’s job is not to provide charity, but to provide security and democracy. [/quote]

US military spending represents 52% of all money spent worldwide. The odds of you being struck by lighting twice in the same year are greater than you being injured in a terrorist attack. The US military defends the intersts of business and finance around the world; security is a secondary consideration.

The DIRECT cost in Irag was 280 million/day. Everyday for 10 years. All on borrowed money. That represents the lifetime earning of over 1/2 million americans at the median level. It doesn’t include replacing military equipment/care for veterans/interest/ etc. Against a sovereign nation that didn’t attack us first.

[/quote]

The highest estimated total cost of the Iraq War spread over the next 50 years with insurance and veterans benefits and the like was from Brown University and it hit around 6 trillion, including not just Iraq, but Afghanistan and operations in Pakistan. Between 2003 and 2012, we spent 4.529 trillion on welfare programs not including Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or the interest that has accumulated on the loans necessary to pay that debt.