Is it moral to have this much of the world's resources?

[Anguille]

Charities can and do successfully but the bite on patrons for more money when they need it, and patrons usually will respond. ...

In a perfect world.

 

[DiamondDave]

I don't think they're all that inefficient. The military, VA, medicare, social security, roads, sanitation, schools, police, etc....it all works pretty well.

Promoting the general welfare of individuals does promote the general welfare of the country.

Guaranteeing everyone sex does too.... giving everyone $30,000 does too... but neither those, nor taking over the personal responsibility of individuals, even for their own "welfare", is not the responsibility of government... nor should it be

And maybe you should actually look at the efficiency of govt spending on military, schools, etc sometime... the waste, red-tape, corruption, etc, is staggering

 

[Ravi]

Guaranteeing everyone sex does too.... giving everyone $30,000 does too... but neither those, nor taking over the personal responsibility of individuals, even for their own "welfare", is not the responsibility of government... nor should it be

And maybe you should actually look at the efficiency of govt spending on military, schools, etc sometime... the waste, red-tape, corruption, etc, is staggering

I'm sure it is. That doesn't mean a private company would do a better job. There would certainly be less accountability.

I'm not advocating guaranteeing everyone sex or giving everyone $30,000 and I'm also not supportive of our current welfare system. But I disagree that it isn't the government's responsibility. If we as a people say that it is, it is. And I haven't seen anyone doing much to get rid of it.

 

[Toro]

Yes.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm sure it is. That doesn't mean a private company would do a better job. There would certainly be less accountability.

I'm not advocating guaranteeing everyone sex or giving everyone $30,000 and I'm also not supportive of our current welfare system. But I disagree that it isn't the government's responsibility. If we as a people say that it is, it is. And I haven't seen anyone doing much to get rid of it.

It is not in the purpose of the government as we were founded... just because something is a popular whim, does not mean it is right to do.... and THAT is precisely why we are NOT a democracy, but a representative constitutional republic with democratically elected officials... to protect against the whim and/or tyranny of popular whim... to preserve liberty

And you don't see much to get rid of it... because f the corruption that is the handout system.. the basic buying of votes of those receiving the handouts, to keep the system intact... and the lack of challenge by those who understand that that is not the purpose of our government

 

[Ravi]

It is not in the purpose of the government as we were founded... just because something is a popular whim, does not mean it is right to do.... and THAT is precisely why we are NOT a democracy, but a representative constitutional republic with democratically elected officials... to protect against the whim and/or tyranny of popular whim... to preserve liberty

And you don't see much to get rid of it... because f the corruption that is the handout system.. the basic buying of votes of those receiving the handouts, to keep the system intact... and the lack of challenge by those who understand that that is not the purpose of our government

I don't think the welfare system has ever been put to a popular vote, it was enacted by Congress so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea it doesn't fit in with our way of government.

I'd like to point out that the buying of votes is nonsense and nothing more than a scare tactic to keep people with your beliefs voting for Republicans. If it was anything else, the Republicans had many years to scrap it.

 

[midcan5]

I don't think the welfare system has ever been put to a popular vote, it was enacted by Congress so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea it doesn't fit in with our way of government.

Welfare is one of those wonderful ideas that occasionally strike peoplekind and allow us to move forward ever so slowly. LBJ through the genius of his persuasive personality and I'm sure much backdoor promise, made it possible for poverty to decrease in this country as it never had before. If there is a heaven Johnson has a high place there.

I often wonder how a nation that was founded on freedom and sharing became the social darwinist republican place it is today. Wingnuts are everywhere. Consider that both Eisenhower and Nixon wanted universal healthcare and you soon see how far down we have fallen as a nation.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

 

[AllieBaba]

How on earth can it be "immoral" to have a lot of resources?

 

[DiamondDave]

Uh... show me in the founding documents where this country is based on sharing or socialism?


We'll be waiting a LONG time

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Declaration of Independence - TEXT

 

[midcan5]

How on earth can it be "immoral" to have a lot of resources?

"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer

 

[AllieBaba]

Peter Singer is one of the biggest shit piles on the face of the earth.

 

[midcan5]

"The Walton family, heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune and one of the wealthiest families in the United States, eventually could receive an estimated tax break of $32.7 billion under a proposal in the budget that President Bush submitted to Congress. The Waltons would win from a repeal of the inheritance tax. In fact, the top 1 percent of income earners would continue to benefit from tax breaks in the budget.The losers: seniors on Medicare, veterans seeking health care, home owners struggling to pay heating bills, grandchildren stuck with cleaning up all the red ink Bush has spilled... It is a "disastrous budget" Senator Bernie Sanders told the White House budget chief at a Senate hearing. The senator lamented what he called the budget's "lack of moral values."

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

Meanwhile employees at walmart earn peanuts.

 

[Gunny]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?


"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

What kind of lame-ass guilt trip is this? "Is it moral ...?" Sure it is. It's just as moral for us to make do with what we have as it is for anyone else to do the same, just as it's just as moral for us to look out for our own self-interest the way others do. The only one's bitching are the ones that for whatever reason, don't have, and want to convince us they are entitled to just "have."

And they find perfect mouthpieces for their skewed arguments in people like you.

 

[Taco]

All this whining abut 'socialism', yet other countries do it just fine, and achieve standards of living surpssing our own. And, they manage not to turn into a bunch of system sucking leeches.

Anyone read much about the miraculous economic turnarounds in Ireland or Finland?

Largely thanks to socialism. And ya know what? They don't pay THAT much more in taxes than we already do.

Nevertheless, they now have raging good economies.

All the crap you read here about socialism...is based on people's fantasies.

Total imagination and testosterone.

What you call socialism, is really things like social programs...not 'government ownes everything'....free University in Ireland has helped boost the quality of their high-tech workforce immensely. The Celtic Tiger is now a force to be reckoned with. And they didn't do it by praying to the fickle god's of 'trickle down economics', which is some idiot's pure fantasy.



Time to retire yourselves, donosaurs. The rest of us don't care that you don't care about the rest of us. Evolve, or get the fuck outta the way.

 

[CSM]

All this whining abut 'socialism', yet other countries do it just fine, and achieve standards of living surpssing our own. And, they manage not to turn into a bunch of system sucking leeches.

Anyone reas much about the miraculous economic turnarounds in Ireland or Finland?

Largely thanks to socialism. And ya know what? They don't pay THAT much more in taxes than we already yo.

Nevertheless, they now have raging good economies.

All the crap you read here about socialism...is based on people's fantasies.

Total imagination and testosterone.

Time to retire yourselves, donosaurs. The rest of us don't care that you don't care about the rest of us. Evolve, or get the fuck outta the way.

Really? Hmmm...this old dinosaur does not give a crap what you think....get bigger teeth and move me out of the way if you think you can. Otherwise, quit whining.

 

[Taco]

Got nothing to do with whining.

I know.

Truth hurts.

But you should read about those two countries, and how they did it.

Unless of course you're comfortable playing pretend against the "boogy man" called socialism.

which is retarded.

 

[editec]

I never thought of that.

What do you think is the fairest and most logical way to tax people?

Fair and logical are not the same thing.

Fair is everyone pays exactly the same amount of taxes and gets exactly the same services.

So fair (in the simplistic sense of the word, I mean) is just not possible.

But logical?

A system of progressive taxation appears to me to be the only logical choice.

Why?

Well poorer one is the less money one has to pay taxes into the system (assuming you want to allow people enough money to live, I mean) , and so it falls upon the back of the wealthier to pay for the government which both rich and poor alike need to keep society civil.

So while it is not fair that Paris Hilton has to pay more taxes than I do, it is the only logical solution to the problem of taxation that I can think of.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the problem has to do more with this

Haves and Have-Nots: Income Inequality in America : NPR

the rich getting much richer, everyone else staying the same or even earning less. have those people really worked that much harder to to get more? has everyone else worked less? call me crazy, but i think that if America is getting 'richer' some of it should go to the other 99%, not just the top 1%. is simply taking all the $$ and redistributing it the way to go? no. but the system sure seems to be broken or at least highly skewed

here we go again.

If everyone else but the rich are getting poorer then how come there are more first generation millionaires in America every year?

Only in America by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

Record number of millionaires - May. 25, 2005



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of millionaires in America reached record highs in 2004, hitting 7.5 million, according to a new survey.

That represented a gain of 21 percent, the largest jump in the number of U.S. millionaires since 1998, according to the survey by the Spectrem Group, a Chicago-based research firm.


I'll tell you why. There are still some people who believe they can be successful and they sacrifice for it. they work harder than most, save and invest more than most and you think that somehow makes them evil. Shouldn't we be emulating these types of achievers instead of vilifying them?

 

[CSM]

Got nothing to do with whining.

I know.

Truth hurts.

But you should read about those two countries, and how they did it.

Unless of course you're comfortable playing pretend against the "boogy man" called socialism.

which is retarded.

SO anyone who is not a socialist is retarded? Wow, that is really mature.

You wouldn't know the truth if it was being pumped up your ass with a fire hose.

I rather like the idea of EARNING what I have and getting to keep it. I do not want nor do I like some idealist twerp telling me how I should think or feel. I do not like or want someone else telling me how I should spend income I have EARNED based on some crackpot scheme they cook up about "truth" and "fairness".

 

[sealybobo]

here we go again.

If everyone else but the rich are getting poorer then how come there are more first generation millionaires in America every year?

Only in America by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

Record number of millionaires - May. 25, 2005



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of millionaires in America reached record highs in 2004, hitting 7.5 million, according to a new survey.

That represented a gain of 21 percent, the largest jump in the number of U.S. millionaires since 1998, according to the survey by the Spectrem Group, a Chicago-based research firm.


I'll tell you why. There are still some people who believe they can be successful and they sacrifice for it. they work harder than most, save and invest more than most and you think that somehow makes them evil. Shouldn't we be emulating these types of achievers instead of vilifying them?

Because a million aint what it used to be?

And average Americans are going further into debt because our pay hasn't gone up but the cost of living has.

Even people that make $400k a year should vote for Obama, because if McCain gets in, they won't have jobs for very long. Unless they move to China or India. My brother is one of them. He works for a big auto supplier and is a vp. He makes $400k and is voting for Obama. THATS HOW BAD THINGS ARE!!! And if he doesn't vote for Obama, his wife is.

So anyone making under $100K that votes for McCain is a fool because your job/company is next.