Redistribution of Wealth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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. [/quote]

That is still changing the subject and not answering my question. It is just asking another question about another thing, one for which I agree with you and most people would was bad.

You guys seem to think that I am in favor in all forms of wealth redistribution which is strange seeing how I clearly made my opinion on it. Im just confused by some of this.

Its like me saying I dont like baseball, for you guys who do like baseball, why do you like it? What would you change?

The answer I get back is “Football suck, and Basketball is worse”

102

About welfare- As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is that if there was any serious reform (which pretty much everyone will agree is needed, I think) will also result in millions having absolutely no source of money and left to starve and die in the streets.

While we may save money, the social and ethical cost of that is so incredibly tremendous that it’s probably unfeasible to expect people to accept it.

And that’s why the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting stupid welfare ideas. Because the alternative leads to so many people dying that it’s unthinkable.

103

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
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]

Estimates vary; but generally come in around 2 decades after the conflict ends. Consider that ours hasn’t ended yet.

104

[quote]magick wrote:
About welfare- As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is that if there was any serious reform (which pretty much everyone will agree is needed, I think) will also result in millions having absolutely no source of money and left to starve and die in the streets.

While we may save money, the social and ethical cost of that is so incredibly tremendous that it’s probably unfeasible to expect people to accept it.

And that’s why the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting stupid welfare ideas. Because the alternative leads to so many people dying that it’s unthinkable.[/quote]

Here is a question, if an acceptable time table was put in place allowing those to find other means of income, and to support those who may not have found it but are still doing what it takes to get it after, why should we support those who still choose to not fend for themselves?

105

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[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.

The chart you linked failed to account for State and Local taxes and spending.
http://www.usspending-101.com/year_spending_2013USbn_XXbs0n_30_101113

106

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

How many people here would swap places with that single mother of three for 55K a year?

107

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
About welfare- As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is that if there was any serious reform (which pretty much everyone will agree is needed, I think) will also result in millions having absolutely no source of money and left to starve and die in the streets.

While we may save money, the social and ethical cost of that is so incredibly tremendous that it’s probably unfeasible to expect people to accept it.

And that’s why the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting stupid welfare ideas. Because the alternative leads to so many people dying that it’s unthinkable.[/quote]

Here is a question, if an acceptable time table was put in place allowing those to find other means of income, and to support those who may not have found it but are still doing what it takes to get it after, why should we support those who still choose to not fend for themselves? [/quote]

That is great, in theory. We absolutely shouldn’t be helping those who refuse to help themselves.

One issue is that it requires a lot of work. For one thing, jobs are not situated in the places where poor people live. You need to be able to move them around, and that in of itself requires both a great deal of money and social cost. People like to stay where they lived for most of their lives, evidently.

But the bigger issue is that people are still lazy cunts, and those people will still die. That still means millions die in the streets, and the whole social and ethical cost remains.

And you can’t exactly just take them somewhere so that they’ll just die off the streets either. Because that reeks of totalitarianism.

108

[quote]magick wrote:
About welfare- As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is that if there was any serious reform (which pretty much everyone will agree is needed, I think) will also result in millions having absolutely no source of money and left to starve and die in the streets.

While we may save money, the social and ethical cost of that is so incredibly tremendous that it’s probably unfeasible to expect people to accept it.

And that’s why the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting stupid welfare ideas. Because the alternative leads to so many people dying that it’s unthinkable.[/quote]

Right…build a functioning economy and the problem is reduced significantly.

109

[quote]magick wrote:
About welfare- As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is that if there was any serious reform (which pretty much everyone will agree is needed, I think) will also result in millions having absolutely no source of money and left to starve and die in the streets.

While we may save money, the social and ethical cost of that is so incredibly tremendous that it’s probably unfeasible to expect people to accept it.

And that’s why the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting stupid welfare ideas. Because the alternative leads to so many people dying that it’s unthinkable.[/quote]

The alternative leads to a huge portion of their voting pool turning on them because they took away their handouts. Hunger is a powerful motivator. There is work to be had if you really want it. Now a whole bunch of illegals might end up out of a job and we might have to lower minimum wage to fit the caliber of worker the withdrawl of welfare would undoubtedly create an influx of, but they’d be fine. And those that aren’t, that’s what charity is for. Charity seems to have a much better handle on giving to those who really need and those that are just lazy.

110

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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. [/quote]

That is still changing the subject and not answering my question. It is just asking another question about another thing, one for which I agree with you and most people would was bad.

You guys seem to think that I am in favor in all forms of wealth redistribution which is strange seeing how I clearly made my opinion on it. Im just confused by some of this.

Its like me saying I dont like baseball, for you guys who do like baseball, why do you like it? What would you change?

The answer I get back is “Football suck, and Basketball is worse” [/quote]

I guess I’m confused. I thought we were talking about giving money to people for free. I suppose it depends on who the person is? Or perhaps it’s what we call the program handing out the cash?

111

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
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. [/quote]

This one really, and I mean really pisses me off.

On one hand it looks great. People’s 401k’s are back baby, yeah… Well no. QE should be causing inflation if not hyper inflation. It isn’t so one of two things is happening, we are actually in a deflationary period and going to feel the crunch right about the time 2016 rolls around a republican is in office (lol), or the vast majority of economic thought/theory is completely wrong (lol).

Inflation is a tax, a hidden tax, on everyone. And the Fed is purposely fucking doing it.

God damn it. A little inflation to “inflate away the debt” is tolerable if the economy is growing like gangbusters, but if it is stagnant, inflation is a soul sucking, hidden tax that ass rapes the ignorant and infuriates the aware.

112

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
About welfare- As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is that if there was any serious reform (which pretty much everyone will agree is needed, I think) will also result in millions having absolutely no source of money and left to starve and die in the streets.

While we may save money, the social and ethical cost of that is so incredibly tremendous that it’s probably unfeasible to expect people to accept it.

And that’s why the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting stupid welfare ideas. Because the alternative leads to so many people dying that it’s unthinkable.[/quote]

The alternative leads to a huge portion of their voting pool turning on them because they took away their handouts. Hunger is a powerful motivator. There is work to be had if you really want it. Now a whole bunch of illegals might end up out of a job and we might have to lower minimum wage to fit the caliber of worker the withdrawl of welfare would undoubtedly create an influx of, but they’d be fine. And those that aren’t, that’s what charity is for. Charity seems to have a much better handle on giving to those who really need and those that are just lazy.[/quote]

There is a difference between the world as it ought to be, and how it is. There has been public assistance programs since the early 1800s…charity has nevver been adequate to meet the need.

113

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

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

How many people here would swap places with that single mother of three for 55K a year?
[/quote]

Living a life where a complete lack of pride means that you will never have to accept any personal responsibility and you get paid for it doesn’t sound half bad if your conscience would let you do it. No one made her have those kids and had the first one caused her financial hardship instead of earned her some clubbing money, she might have kept her legs closed for the second or third.

114

Of course. Bailouts of huge institutions and a coordinated effort to get rid of any legislation that may force them to change their ways are some of the hallmarks of our economy.

The lobbying against Wall Street reform was unbelievable. It didn’t take us too long to get them propped back up AFTER we had bailed them out.

115

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[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.

The chart you linked failed to account for State and Local taxes and spending.
http://www.usspending-101.com/year_spending_2013USbn_XXbs0n_30_101113
[/quote]

You are right. Aside from that they seem to be far apart on what is actually spent on welfare by the feds. Your link says the feds spent 802 Billion this year and the other link says they spent 405. Not sure which is true.

116

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
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. [/quote]

This one really, and I mean really pisses me off.

On one hand it looks great. People’s 401k’s are back baby, yeah… Well no. QE should be causing inflation if not hyper inflation. It isn’t so one of two things is happening, we are actually in a deflationary period and going to feel the crunch right about the time 2016 rolls around a republican is in office (lol), or the vast majority of economic thought/theory is completely wrong (lol).

Inflation is a tax, a hidden tax, on everyone. And the Fed is purposely fucking doing it.

God damn it. A little inflation to “inflate away the debt” is tolerable if the economy is growing like gangbusters, but if it is stagnant, inflation is a soul sucking, hidden tax that ass rapes the ignorant and infuriates the aware. [/quote]

Amen…I grind a little of my lower set of teeth off every month as I’m recording the interest from my fixed investments.

117

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The alternative leads to a huge portion of their voting pool turning on them because they took away their handouts. Hunger is a powerful motivator. There is work to be had if you really want it. Now a whole bunch of illegals might end up out of a job and we might have to lower minimum wage to fit the caliber of worker the withdrawl of welfare would undoubtedly create an influx of, but they’d be fine. And those that aren’t, that’s what charity is for. Charity seems to have a much better handle on giving to those who really need and those that are just lazy.[/quote]

There was a news article about farmers asking for workers from the recently unemployed a while back (I think in 2009/2010 at the height of the economic panic?).

Apparently, no one responded. While we have no idea why people who were unemployed didn’t respond, we can guess.

I guess that they’re lazy cunts who think that doing farm work is beneath them, and they didn’t want to move all the way to California.

It’s all fine and great to say “hunger is a powerful motivator” and people will work if they really need to.

And I understand that people may not have responded to the ads because of the money to be had from being unemployed.

But, as I see it at least, this is all just talk. We really have no idea what’ll happen if you remove welfare.

Basically, I think what you wrote is too idealistic. I think most conservative ideals of what the welfare net does and what’ll happen if you remove it is too idealistic. I think people who think on a similar train of thought as the above think too highly of the people on welfare (as amazing as that sounds).

There is an ideal, and there is reality. The current reality is that there’s far too many people for the economy to sustain, and the options really are either cut them off and see the results of that (which may be what you predict, or what I predict), or you keep the current status quo and march into an even greater disaster in the future.

Marching into the future with the status quo is absolute insanity. I’m sure most people have heard of what happens to deers when their population becomes far too big for the environment. And yet the steps required to rein things in are so unthinkable that we have no choice but to march on with the status quo.

We have to stay on the insane path because the alternative is unthinkable. What a fucked up situation.

118

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
About welfare- As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is that if there was any serious reform (which pretty much everyone will agree is needed, I think) will also result in millions having absolutely no source of money and left to starve and die in the streets.

While we may save money, the social and ethical cost of that is so incredibly tremendous that it’s probably unfeasible to expect people to accept it.

And that’s why the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting stupid welfare ideas. Because the alternative leads to so many people dying that it’s unthinkable.[/quote]

The alternative leads to a huge portion of their voting pool turning on them because they took away their handouts. Hunger is a powerful motivator. There is work to be had if you really want it. Now a whole bunch of illegals might end up out of a job and we might have to lower minimum wage to fit the caliber of worker the withdrawl of welfare would undoubtedly create an influx of, but they’d be fine. And those that aren’t, that’s what charity is for. Charity seems to have a much better handle on giving to those who really need and those that are just lazy.[/quote]

There is a difference between the world as it ought to be, and how it is. There has been public assistance programs since the early 1800s…charity has nevver been adequate to meet the need. [/quote]

Not all public assistance is necessarily bad. Severely handicapped, orphans, and the elderly all need assistance. Now if can work and just don’t, I have no sympathy for them and could really care less what happens to them.

119

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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. [/quote]

That is still changing the subject and not answering my question. It is just asking another question about another thing, one for which I agree with you and most people would was bad.

You guys seem to think that I am in favor in all forms of wealth redistribution which is strange seeing how I clearly made my opinion on it. Im just confused by some of this.

Its like me saying I dont like baseball, for you guys who do like baseball, why do you like it? What would you change?

The answer I get back is “Football suck, and Basketball is worse” [/quote]

I guess I’m confused. I thought we were talking about giving money to people for free. I suppose it depends on who the person is? Or perhaps it’s what we call the program handing out the cash? [/quote]

I was asking originally about redistribution in the terms of social welfare but I understand why this would

I just dont get the logic that instead of defending and explaing the value of one position, people are attacking a different form of or a derivative of redistribution as a means to use the lesser of two evils argument.

Just because other things are bad, doesnt mean something else is good in relation.

120

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

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

How many people here would swap places with that single mother of three for 55K a year?
[/quote]

Living a life where a complete lack of pride means that you will never have to accept any personal responsibility and you get paid for it doesn’t sound half bad if your conscience would let you do it. No one made her have those kids and had the first one caused her financial hardship instead of earned her some clubbing money, she might have kept her legs closed for the second or third.[/quote]

You are correct from an ideological point of view. Now that you have vented; what is your practical proposal?