Redistribution of wealth is not charity.

[Truthmatters]

wealth inequity is unsustainable.

It kills every country that ignores it.

Read history

why do you love theives?

Why do you want this country to die?

 

[WillowTree]

wealth inequity is unsustainable.

It kills every country that ignores it.

Read history

why do you love theives?

Why do you want this country to die?

so it will die unless we give thieves their way? is that your position? that's why you love thieves? wow.

 

[zeke]

Well you and Hubby give your money and holdings away.

Don't worry. The freeloaders and deadbeats will give your holdings and money a real good home.

Think how proud you'll be to be one of those who are curing the wealth inequality problem.

We'll wait and see how you and hubby sustain life when all your money is gone to help out the poor and downtrodden.

Ain't gonna hold my breath because you won't walk the walk. You just talk. Moron.

When the tax rates on the ultra wealth go up (and they will) will you be sending your favorite billioniare a personal check to ease their pain? Just curious. How much will you send them?

 

[Truthmatters]

Look at history.

when any country (no matter if kings or democracy) has too much wealth inequity they are distroyed by revolution.

Please go read some history

 

[WillowTree]

Look at history.

when any country (no matter if kings or democracy) has too much wealth inequity they are distroyed by revolution.

Please go read some history

so you read in a history book that thieves are good people? dang! Get a bumper sticker "Thieves are God" "In thieves we trust."

 

[DiamondDave]

grunt, how many people on this message board you think are receiving welfare as given to poorer people?

What are the regs that are keeping companies from hiring? When I talk to people that run small business's, they say the only thing keeping them from hiring is lack of business. But then I live in Ohio.
I guess around the rest of the country, demand is termendous but no one is hiring because of those regs. What regs?

And what is the correct tax rate for people in your opinion? Is it 0, 2% 5% how much?

I am sure we have ones on here dependent on government... certainly ones like Mr.Shaman cannot survive on their own...

Do you know how many regulations are put out from numerous government agencies?? The expenses that go with such regulatory compliance? And we're not just talking corporations or businesses like oil companies, power plants, steel mills, etc.. We're talking regulations on even the smallest companies.. Raw milk licenses, increased 1099 forms regulation in the healthcare reform bill that will cause huge expense to small companies, forcing calorie count labeling and testing, transfat regulations for restaurants, vehicle fuel standards, etc... the list just goes on and on and on

The correct tax rate depends on government expenditure, now don't it?? Our biggest problem is unfathomable spending that we have. If that would be put under control, eliminating bogus and redundant agencies, eliminating entitlements in all areas, etc... I could see a no-exceptions flat tax on every dollar earned by every citizen of somewhere between 10-15% being a reasonable tax (all be it strictly off the top of my head numbers)

 

[rightwinger]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

I love your post

It highlights the callous view that conservatives have towards the poor. They are not happy unless the poor suffer for their handouts. Having a place to call your own is too good for them.......Let em beg for a charity room
Being able to buy your food with dignity is too easy.......humiliate them and make them stand in a food line

The poor are meant to suffer.....that is why we need Conservatives to remind us what their proper place is

 

[Big Fitz]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

Charity can never come from the use of force. Charity requires VOLUNTARY giving. Therefore, government can never do charity.

 

[kwc57]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

I love your post

It highlights the callous view that conservatives have towards the poor. They are not happy unless the poor suffer for their handouts. Having a place to call your own is too good for them.......Let em beg for a charity room
Being able to buy your food with dignity is too easy.......humiliate them and make them stand in a food line

The poor are meant to suffer.....that is why we need Conservatives to remind us what their proper place is

So, just for the record......you think that liberals are more charitable because they want to tax people and have the government redistribute that money to people who have less? Is that what you consider charity? Because you seem to believe that conservatives who choose to give freely of their bounty to people in need hate the poor and are not charitable. Do I understand your warped view of the definition of charity?

 

[ilia25]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that Americans could become more productive than they already are? Why do you think that those receiving food stamps are not working as hard as they should?

 

[Claudette]

Well you and Hubby give your money and holdings away.

Don't worry. The freeloaders and deadbeats will give your holdings and money a real good home.

Think how proud you'll be to be one of those who are curing the wealth inequality problem.

We'll wait and see how you and hubby sustain life when all your money is gone to help out the poor and downtrodden.

Ain't gonna hold my breath because you won't walk the walk. You just talk. Moron.

When the tax rates on the ultra wealth go up (and they will) will you be sending your favorite billioniare a personal check to ease their pain? Just curious. How much will you send them?

If the tax rates go up for the rich it won't make a tinkers damn in the revenue department. There aren't enough rich to make a difference. Oh it will make idiots like you feel good but it won't matter much in the revenue department.

If Barry were serious about raising revenue then he would raise everyones taxes. The middle class is where the revenue is.

Of course Barry is merely playing his class warfare schtick. His "pay their fair" share bs.

He can't run on his sucky record and his polices ain't done squat to help the economy so lets do the old class warfare bs. Divide and conquer to a tee.

BTW I'd voluntarily send the rich just about as much as I'd voluntarily send the poor and dowtrodden.

NADA.

 

[rightwinger]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

I love your post

It highlights the callous view that conservatives have towards the poor. They are not happy unless the poor suffer for their handouts. Having a place to call your own is too good for them.......Let em beg for a charity room
Being able to buy your food with dignity is too easy.......humiliate them and make them stand in a food line

The poor are meant to suffer.....that is why we need Conservatives to remind us what their proper place is

So, just for the record......you think that liberals are more charitable because they want to tax people and have the government redistribute that money to people who have less? Is that what you consider charity? Because you seem to believe that conservatives who choose to give freely of their bounty to people in need hate the poor and are not charitable. Do I understand your warped view of the definition of charity?

No you don't

Both public assistance and private charity must coexist. It is not either or. There are many things the government is able to do that private charity cannot. Private charity must spend a major portion of it's funds just on the act of raising funds. Private charity is also more susceptible to economic swings and donations go down at the same time need goes up.

In spite of rightwing propaganda, government social programs also provide a way out of poverty with educational, job training and jobs placement programs that are unmatched by private charity

 

[miami_thomas]

wealth inequity is unsustainable.

It kills every country that ignores it.

Read history

Every form of government has the rich and has the poor. If what you say is true then every country is dead.

 

[miami_thomas]

grunt, how many people on this message board you think are receiving welfare as given to poorer people?

What are the regs that are keeping companies from hiring? When I talk to people that run small business's, they say the only thing keeping them from hiring is lack of business. But then I live in Ohio.
I guess around the rest of the country, demand is termendous but no one is hiring because of those regs. What regs?

And what is the correct tax rate for people in your opinion? Is it 0, 2% 5% how much?

There are many regulations that keep people from openning their own businesses. If we had the regulations when we first began as a country, we would have never made it to where we are today. That is a fact.

I vote for the fair tax. That way everyone pays the same tax even those that hide income. It would eliminate the need for all the paper word currently needed. No longer need tax attorneys. I say a sales tax on all things with the exception of non prepared food items.

 

[miami_thomas]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

We already have a redistribution of wealth. It has been going on for thirty years and has redistributed wealth from the middle class to the wealthy

Was that charity?

Can you please provide some examples of the middle class supporting the rich? Considering that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes I don't think your argument has much merit. Without the rich this country would be in a world of hurt.

 

[miami_thomas]

I am ultra rich (pretend with me) and I spend tens of millions of dollars getting the right person elected to office. When I get them elected, I call in my cards and let them know just what legislation I would like to see passed that would benefit both me, my friends and the Senator or Congressman that I just helped get elected. Now with the help of my Congresperson I can get legislation passed so I can legally avoid paying my taxes or obtain tax treatment that is unavailable to people with far less money.

That sceniaro happens every day in Congress, very rich people using their wealth to obtain decisions favorable to a small few of very rich people.

Tell me again how that is "fair" to the rest of us.

You can find rich on each side of every argument. That is not the driving force that the left likes to make it out to be. Does money corrupt some? Sure. Is the answer to tax the rich even more? What are you suggesting we do? You want to Lynch the rich?

 

[Bern80]

YUP...things have REALLY gotten tough for the upper crust.

Yeah, the rich have had it REALLY REALLY tough since their top tax rate has dropped over 65% since that Pinko Commie EISENHOWER was President.

Gee, MY federal taxes haven't decreased by 65% in the last 50 years like they have for the likes of Paris Hilton.


One has to wonder if you're getting paid enough by your rich leash-holders to post this tripe to offset how shitty your world becomes as a result of them getting their way.

Ummmmm no one here is complaining about how tough the rich have it. Way to try and change the subject. Could that be because you can't rationally defend wealth redistribution? Simply because someone can afford to go without x amount of dollars does not entitle you to that money or morally justified in taking it.

 

[rightwinger]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

We already have a redistribution of wealth. It has been going on for thirty years and has redistributed wealth from the middle class to the wealthy

Was that charity?

Can you please provide some examples of the middle class supporting the rich? Considering that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes I don't think your argument has much merit. Without the rich this country would be in a world of hurt.

Well, it all comes down to the Golden Rule...

He who has the gold, makes the rules

So when 95% of our tax code is written by the wealthy, for the wealthy, you get situations like with Mr Romney where most of his wealth is hidden and he pays a smaller effective tax rate than working Americans

The result has been a redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the wealthiest Americans

 

[miami_thomas]

Well you and Hubby give your money and holdings away.

Don't worry. The freeloaders and deadbeats will give your holdings and money a real good home.

Think how proud you'll be to be one of those who are curing the wealth inequality problem.

We'll wait and see how you and hubby sustain life when all your money is gone to help out the poor and downtrodden.

Ain't gonna hold my breath because you won't walk the walk. You just talk. Moron.

When the tax rates on the ultra wealth go up (and they will) will you be sending your favorite billioniare a personal check to ease their pain? Just curious. How much will you send them?

The ultra wealthy will never be touched by anything. Every country needs the wealthy. The ones that will truly be hit will be the upper middle class and the somewhat wealthy. The ultra wealthy will just hide their money or flee to another country that would welcome them with open arms. You lefties always look at the world as flat and simple with it is actually round and complicated.

 

[Bern80]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

We already have a redistribution of wealth. It has been going on for thirty years and has redistributed wealth from the middle class to the wealthy

Was that charity?

Bullshit. Please explain SPECIFICALLY how money was FORCED out of the hands of the poor and given to the wealthy. While that may be money changing hands through economic activity, that is not the forced wealth redistribution that government partakes in. I'm pretty sure you know that, but than again intellectual honesty we know is a bit much to ask of the likes of righty.