Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[dnsmith35]

You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people.

we hate it only because it cripples the poor rather than helps them, and because it creates more of them mostly to create a dependent population of liberal voters. PLease don't be a morality bigot who thinks you're superior because you suppoprt welfare.

I support welfare....TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES. I stated earlier a study proves welfare habitation when it is extended to those who are capable of making their own way but prefer not to.

 

[dblack]

Are you telling me that a government agent, representative or what ever you want to call them, came to your house, place of work or whatever, took your money or your property and gave them to someone else while you watched or you were at least aware of who got your stuff.

Is that what you are saying?

No. Government can't be bothered with pick up and delivery. They demand that we send it to them, and pay our own shipping.

Whew. Must be a bad analogy for paying taxes.

Yea I hated it bad when my tax dollars are/were being given to warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So do I.

You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people. Along with the other poster. I understand.

You really don't. I actually believe caring the less fortunate is the right thing to do. But people have different opinions on who should be helped and how much. I don't think they should go to jail because their opinions are different than mine.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]I support welfare....TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES.

even that may be too generous though since we all get old to a point where we cant help ourselves. If you agree to put them all on welfare you encourage them to stop saving for their old age and to leech off others.

 

[dnsmith35]

]I support welfare....TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES.

even that may be too generous though since we all get old to a point where we cant help ourselves. If you agree to put them all on welfare you encourage them to stop saving for their old age and to leech off others.

I don't really think most elderly need help as much as the physically and mentally disabled, and I believe we should help them. The elderly have SS and MC and usually extended family.

 

[Contumacious]

The "conservatives" will argue that wealth redistribution is immoral EXCEPT when the federal government redistributes wealth in order to support and defend the Palestinian Holocaust.

.

 

[HenryBHough]

Used to be that natural selection would weed out the weak but modern medicine keeps the weak alive and the gene pool goes to Hell. In time everybody will be unable to survive in any natural way because the pool will be so screwed up.

It's sorta like that with redistribution - survival of the least fit.

A greater threat to humanity than a Global Warmists wildest dream.

 

[Skylar]

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

Congress actually controls spending more so than the president.
The largest deficit ever in US history was when Barack Obama was President and congress was controlled by democrats. Look it up if you don't believe me.

What Daddy refuses to recognize is, when there is a surplus IT BY LAW MUST PAY DOWN THE DEBT. Clinton did not pay down the debt. Therefore THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

Um, what law mandates this?

Worse, even if such a law existed (which I definitely question), the following of it doesn't mean that a surplus didn't exist.

Both your conclusion and the conclusion that followed it appear to be invalid.

 

[Skylar]

Used to be that natural selection would weed out the weak but modern medicine keeps the weak alive and the gene pool goes to Hell. In time everybody will be unable to survive in any natural way because the pool will be so screwed up.

It's sorta like that with redistribution - survival of the least fit.

A greater threat to humanity than a Global Warmists wildest dream.

So let me see if I follow your logic. The poor are the 'least fit'. And thus, shouldn't survive for the benefit of humanity and the gene pool?

Does that cover it?

 

[Skylar]

The "conservatives" will argue that wealth redistribution is immoral EXCEPT when the federal government redistributes wealth in order to support and defend the Palestinian Holocaust.

.

The great debate on whether or not the rich were going to get richer and the poor, poorer has been decided: yes.

Now the great debate is whether or not this is how its supposed to be.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Um, what law mandates this?

Worse, even if such a law existed (which I definitely question), the following of it doesn't mean that a surplus didn't exist.

Both your conclusion and the conclusion that followed it appear to be invalid.

This is Accounting 101. Here's a simple way for you to think about this issue.

Where did the surplus go? If it was spent on programs, then it wasn't a surplus, it was an expense. If the surplus wasn't expensed, then what happened to it? Or more generally, what do you imagine a government does with a surplus on its books? If they take in $5 billion more than they spend, where does that $5 billion go?

Pipe up in the comments if you want me to answer the questions for you.

 

[zeke]

You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people.

we hate it only because it cripples the poor rather than helps them, and because it creates more of them mostly to create a dependent population of liberal voters. PLease don't be a morality bigot who thinks you're superior because you suppoprt welfare.

Do you have any evidence of this "crippling" action that comes about when a person receives welfare? Are these people crippled because they have no job skills? No money?
No motivation? No hope? Broken leg? What part of them is crippled?

How about the number of people who receive welfare that vote. Do you have any reliable figures for the number of welfare people who vote? I ask because someone who has been crippled like you say is not likely to give a **** about any election. Hell, they can barely get out of bed being crippled.

Morality bigot? What the ****. Wasn't it you or one of your buddies who were just saying that YOU/THEY support welfare? For the "right kinds" of people? Are they "morality bigots"? Must be.

Besides that, I would change welfare much more drastically than I have heard any others propose.

And I am probably one of just a few on here that benefited from "welfare" as a kid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people.

we hate it only because it cripples the poor rather than helps them, and because it creates more of them mostly to create a dependent population of liberal voters. PLease don't be a morality bigot who thinks you're superior because you suppoprt welfare.

Do you have any evidence of this "crippling" action that comes about when a person receives welfare? Are these people crippled because they have no job skills? No money?
No motivation? No hope? Broken leg? What part of them is crippled?

How about the number of people who receive welfare that vote. Do you have any reliable figures for the number of welfare people who vote? I ask because someone who has been crippled like you say is not likely to give a **** about any election. Hell, they can barely get out of bed being crippled.

Morality bigot? What the ****. Wasn't it you or one of your buddies who were just saying that YOU/THEY support welfare? For the "right kinds" of people? Are they "morality bigots"? Must be.

Besides that, I would change welfare much more drastically than I have heard any others propose.

And I am probably one of just a few on here that benefited from "welfare" as a kid.

Do you have any evidence of this "crippling" action that comes about when a person receives welfare? Are these people crippled because they have no job skills? No money?
No motivation? No hope?

Look at the multi-generational welfare recipients. Is that an accident?

 

[Darkwind]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Care to detail the money that oil companies get that they didn't earn.

 

[Dad2three]

we hate it only because it cripples the poor rather than helps them, and because it creates more of them mostly to create a dependent population of liberal voters. PLease don't be a morality bigot who thinks you're superior because you suppoprt welfare.

Do you have any evidence of this "crippling" action that comes about when a person receives welfare? Are these people crippled because they have no job skills? No money?
No motivation? No hope? Broken leg? What part of them is crippled?

How about the number of people who receive welfare that vote. Do you have any reliable figures for the number of welfare people who vote? I ask because someone who has been crippled like you say is not likely to give a **** about any election. Hell, they can barely get out of bed being crippled.

Morality bigot? What the ****. Wasn't it you or one of your buddies who were just saying that YOU/THEY support welfare? For the "right kinds" of people? Are they "morality bigots"? Must be.

Besides that, I would change welfare much more drastically than I have heard any others propose.

And I am probably one of just a few on here that benefited from "welfare" as a kid.

Do you have any evidence of this "crippling" action that comes about when a person receives welfare? Are these people crippled because they have no job skills? No money?
No motivation? No hope?

Look at the multi-generational welfare recipients. Is that an accident?

Welfare has been capped at 5 years (lifetime) for over 15+ years now

 

[Dad2three]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Care to detail the money that oil companies get that they didn't earn.

They get SPECIFIC tax deductions that benefit ONLY their industry, one that costs US billions to the treasury as their profits hit record highs!

 

[Dad2three]

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

Congress actually controls spending more so than the president.
The largest deficit ever in US history was when Barack Obama was President and congress was controlled by democrats. Look it up if you don't believe me.

What Daddy refuses to recognize is, when there is a surplus IT BY LAW MUST PAY DOWN THE DEBT. Clinton did not pay down the debt. Therefore THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

It amazes me how ignorant some people are. Obama has been the president over the largest increase in debt in our history. $6.7 trillion in his first 6 years. Even Bush, as bad as he was, increased the debt by less than $6.7 trillion over 98years.

Got ir, to ignorant to understand the difference of a YEARLY budget with debt

Yes, Clinton had 4 years more money coming in than going out. FOUR SURPLUS BUDGETS (3 after he vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut)...

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was growing and had tax surpluses estimated to pay off the debt within 15 years. Oh wait, no that was Dubya

 

[TemplarKormac]

The "conservatives" will argue that wealth redistribution is immoral EXCEPT when the federal government redistributes wealth in order to support and defend the Palestinian Holocaust.

.

When six million Palestinians are killed, then you can call it a holocaust. This doesn't even qualify as genocide. Stop throwing words around that you have no idea the meaning of.

 

[Dad2three]

Um, what law mandates this?

Worse, even if such a law existed (which I definitely question), the following of it doesn't mean that a surplus didn't exist.

Both your conclusion and the conclusion that followed it appear to be invalid.

This is Accounting 101. Here's a simple way for you to think about this issue.

Where did the surplus go? If it was spent on programs, then it wasn't a surplus, it was an expense. If the surplus wasn't expensed, then what happened to it? Or more generally, what do you imagine a government does with a surplus on its books? If they take in $5 billion more than they spend, where does that $5 billion go?

Pipe up in the comments if you want me to answer the questions for you.

BUDGET SURPLUS. More money conning in than going out? Democratic budget surplus. See LBJ and Clinton...

 

[Dad2three]

liberals caused recent income inequality by destroying family etc!! do you understand now?

I was commenting on the way tax and regulatory law are manipulated to favor certain 'interests' - rightwinger seems to get that, but continues to support the Democrats, who refuse to do anything about it.

who supports Democrats?

Well the brain damaged, like you, generally do not!

 

[Dad2three]

Your cute little chart has nothing to do with morals, and questions about morals was your previous point.
Moving the goalpost is what I see.

"We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology. That was the change. Knowledge of history helps me"

THAT was the REASON for the chart wing nuttter!

I see that you have devolved to random insults.
I find it difficult to carry on intelligent conversation with people that seem to think insults are a part of intelligent conversation. I guess that is my weakness.

A fact isn't an insult wing nutter!!!