Redistribution of wealth is not charity.

[Foxfyre]

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.

Okay, so I give you $10 to buy food, that is charity? I will agree with that.

How about I take $10 away from Harry and give it to you for food. Is that charity?

But if I subsidize your housing with $10 so that you won't have to pay so much for rent, that is not charity? It is now redistribution o wealth?

Or more accurately, I take $10 of Harry's money and use it to subsidize your housing so that you don't have to pay so much for rent and that is not charity? It is redistribution of wealth?

Perhaps you could make the distinction of the difference to me (or Harry) whether you call it charity or redistribution of wealth.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Redistribution of wealth is not charity.

You are correct. It's theft.

Charity is a matter of choice.redistribution is communism and theft.forced and imposed.

 

[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?

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.

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

 

[miami_thomas]

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

And America was built to stop that by making it so every man can make it rich. You see when you are looking at history you are looking at rich but it was not the fact they were rich but that they ruled the poor and the poor had no chance of making it anywhere. The fact is your argument is too simple as it does not take all into account. If you take money from the rich and give it away all you do is deflate the value of the money you are giving away. If you deflate the value of the dollar, the whole country suffers. The fact is there will always have to be the poor and rich. It will always, always, always exist. There is nothing any of us can do. But at least in America the rich and poor can change. It is up to each person to either make or lose there wealth. A lot of the ultra rich support the left because they want to be assured their place in society and not have it at constant risk.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

No.. you WANT that to exist... it is not that it MUST exist in a free society...

If government programs have provided a way out.. why is it that the %'s and amount of people in poverty have increased greatly since government programs were put in place?? With all the vast monies the government at every level puts into poverty programs, you would think there would be less or no poverty... that is NOT the case.... It is merely nothing more than a big enough dog treat to keep the recipients alive and salivating for more... and to get more they have to vote for those who will provide it

 

[Bern80]

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

No it hasn't. Simply paying different tax rates or a lower rate than someone else does not mean money is being taken from the middle class person that pays a high tax rate and being given to the wealthy person with a lower effective tax rate.

The problem is you libs don't understand that all income is the same. There is a reason for that and it isn't because the rich wrote the rules it's because it is the most logical way to do it. If Romney derived income via a 9-5 job like most americans, he would be taxed at the same rate as most americans. But Romney derives most of his income from investments. And investments are taxed at a lower rate than income from a job. No, not because the rich wrote the book, rather because it is illogical to tax someone 30% on their return on investment. If you did there would little incentive for people to invest at all. And the reality is small businesses, large businesses and the creation of new products and jobs are dependent on investment. Hence why return on investment is taxed at a lower rate.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

because god forbid people should be able to protect their own investments ... and please name the rule that is different for a low or middle class person in terms of the protection of their investments

And please name the rule that prevents anyone in any class from having the freedom to strive for more all on their own accord.. please show the rule that making it harder for 'working class Americans' to save, invest, accumulate, invent, or whatever else

We'll be waiting

 

[midcan5]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208125-another-question-for-republicans-8.html#post4816166

The phrase 'redistribution of wealth' is just a way the corporations and big money keep the puppets of the right dancing their puppet jig. If the wealth of a nation belongs to the nation, it belongs to the citizens of the nation. The only way wealth is created is in a nation, in a society, so it follows from both a secular and a religious position that the spoils belong to all. If some have more it is not because they are more than one citizen, and it is not because they have created something from nothing. Only one person is presumed to have done that. It always amazes me how the right wing dances to the money man or woman.

See link above it covers the topic.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

 

[rightwinger]

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

No.. you WANT that to exist... it is not that it MUST exist in a free society...

If government programs have provided a way out.. why is it that the %'s and amount of people in poverty have increased greatly since government programs were put in place?? With all the vast monies the government at every level puts into poverty programs, you would think there would be less or no poverty... that is NOT the case.... It is merely nothing more than a big enough dog treat to keep the recipients alive and salivating for more... and to get more they have to vote for those who will provide it

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty through those government programs you hate so much. In addition to providing a basic safety net of food, shelter and healthcare, anti-poverty programs have provided education, low cost childcare, jobs programs that have provided a path out of poverty

Private charities provide a band aid to those in need. They do not offer a way to escape poverty.......if they do, I ask the same question to you. Why are so many people poor if we spend so much on private charity?

 

[DiamondDave]

No.... your premise is wrong.. your wealth belongs to you.. you know... private property rights (things you socialists hate).... You do not get to rob Peter to pay Paul by your mighty governmental hand for your own touchy feelings

fuck off Midcan with your hippie commune bullshit

 

[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.

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

What you call suffering I call motivation. Obviously you do not have children or if you do they are spoiled rotten brats. You have to motivate most people. If you just give certain people everything, they will never fight to get out on their own. Humiliation can actually be a very, very good motivator. It can drive people to want to not have to do that anymore. Your problem is you are too afraid to tell someone what they need to hear. They need to know it is not right to live off others. They need to be told to get out and make a life for themselves. This country is suffering because of pansies like you that want to treat the criminals with compassion. The types that want to give the poor everything so they can stay happily poor just so you can feel good about yourself. That is not the way to raise children and that is not a way to run a country.

 

[Bern80]

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.

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

No it's that you want to change the definition of redistribution of wealth. I asked you to be specific as to how that occurs and like I thought, you can't do it. REDISTRIBUTE means to take from one and give to another. I ask AGAIN what is being forceably taken from the middle class and given to the rich?

And the 'rules' for the rich are not to the detrimant of the poor. The same rules for starting a business apply to both. The same tax rules apply to both depending on how their income is derived. Your excuses are just that, excuses. Excuses for why some are wealthy and some are not because the last thing on earth a liberal will do is blame him or herself for the financial position they're in.

 

[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.

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?

Because I grew up in poor neighborhoods and had family members on welfare. I know what I speak of. No one was trying to find work. They were all more than happy to live off others. When they needed money for say a TV they either sold food stamps or did jobs under the table to get the money to buy them.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

No.. you WANT that to exist... it is not that it MUST exist in a free society...

If government programs have provided a way out.. why is it that the %'s and amount of people in poverty have increased greatly since government programs were put in place?? With all the vast monies the government at every level puts into poverty programs, you would think there would be less or no poverty... that is NOT the case.... It is merely nothing more than a big enough dog treat to keep the recipients alive and salivating for more... and to get more they have to vote for those who will provide it

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty through those government programs you hate so much. In addition to providing a basic safety net of food, shelter and healthcare, anti-poverty programs have provided education, low cost childcare, jobs programs that have provided a path out of poverty

Private charities provide a band aid to those in need. They do not offer a way to escape poverty.......if they do, I ask the same question to you. Why are so many people poor if we spend so much on private charity?

More and more %'s and numbers are on the programs./.. PERIOD... nobody has said nobody has come from poverty... hell, I did... I came from a very poor household.. collecting cans for meat money, etc... but my grandparents never took a single dime of public assistance to raise me

Charity is SUPPOSED to be a temporary boost... not some ever running machine that keeps pumping hings to you when you do not provide them for yourself for years and years and years... it is up to motherfucking YOU to take the strides to get yourself out... work 2 or 3 jobs.. stay after work to learn.. take classes... get certifications.. impress the boss... take on projects... switch jobs.. join the military for training... borrow materials from others in the field you wish to expand in and study or practice on your own.. the LIST GOES ON....

Why are there so many poor with the the ever increasing social programs run by government??.. more and more every single fucking year...

Now... ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASKED to back up your assertions

 

[midcan5]

...fuck off Midcan with your hippie commune bullshit

LOL Such a heart, such a soul, such profound insight - we exist for a second, glad you're spending it so splendidly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...n-of-wealth-is-not-charity-4.html#post4818764

 

[Bern80]

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

No.. you WANT that to exist... it is not that it MUST exist in a free society...

If government programs have provided a way out.. why is it that the %'s and amount of people in poverty have increased greatly since government programs were put in place?? With all the vast monies the government at every level puts into poverty programs, you would think there would be less or no poverty... that is NOT the case.... It is merely nothing more than a big enough dog treat to keep the recipients alive and salivating for more... and to get more they have to vote for those who will provide it

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty through those government programs you hate so much. In addition to providing a basic safety net of food, shelter and healthcare, anti-poverty programs have provided education, low cost childcare, jobs programs that have provided a path out of poverty

Private charities provide a band aid to those in need. They do not offer a way to escape poverty.......if they do, I ask the same question to you. Why are so many people poor if we spend so much on private charity?

Because the answer is the single thing that liberals refuse to acknowledge. That changing any situation first takes commitment on the part of the individual. Liberals HATE personal accountability. The refuse to acknowledge that people can control their outcomes. When people are poor it's not fault of the poor person in a liberal's eys. You don't get that. Thus you will never get that there is not amount of money that will rid us completely of people who are poor and in poverty.

 

[miami_thomas]

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

Nope a lot of people stop giving to charity because they expect the government to take care of the poor. And they do but do it in the lazy expensive way. Right wing propaganda is funny it really is. Sure there is some good out of it but the problem is there is a lot of bad to come out of it as well. I’m not saying government can not continue some things but it has to be in a way that does not make is so that someone can live happily off someone else for the rest or their lives. There has to be motivation for some to get out there and do something, anything.

 

[DiamondDave]

...fuck off Midcan with your hippie commune bullshit

LOL Such a heart, such a soul, such profound insight - we exist for a second, glad you're spending it so splendidly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...n-of-wealth-is-not-charity-4.html#post4818764

Glad to see you did not try and come back with more of your false premise and went right for where I called and cussed you out for your hippie like communistic stance

Kumbaya Midcan.. Kumbaya... go talk about my foul language to your community organization meeting or your drum circle

 

[DiamondDave]

no.. You want that to exist... It is not that it must exist in a free society...

If government programs have provided a way out.. Why is it that the %'s and amount of people in poverty have increased greatly since government programs were put in place?? With all the vast monies the government at every level puts into poverty programs, you would think there would be less or no poverty... That is not the case.... It is merely nothing more than a big enough dog treat to keep the recipients alive and salivating for more... And to get more they have to vote for those who will provide it

millions of americans have escaped poverty through those government programs you hate so much. In addition to providing a basic safety net of food, shelter and healthcare, anti-poverty programs have provided education, low cost childcare, jobs programs that have provided a path out of poverty

private charities provide a band aid to those in need. They do not offer a way to escape poverty.......if they do, i ask the same question to you. Why are so many people poor if we spend so much on private charity?

because the answer is the single thing that liberals refuse to acknowledge. That changing any situation first takes commitment on the part of the individual. Liberals hate personal accountability. The refuse to acknowledge that people can control their outcomes. When people are poor it's not fault of the poor person in a liberal's eys. You don't get that. Thus you will never get that there is not amount of money that will rid us completely of people who are poor and in poverty.

bingo...

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals reject charity and rely on redistribution because charity is not really redistributive.

You can take $10.00 from Harry and give it to John because John is sick and can't work. That's charity. Taking $10.00 from Harry and give it to Sally because Sally doesn't feel like working isn't charity it's redistribution. Redistribution requires no justification. It is a simply stated "I want".