Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[thereisnospoon]

...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor??? Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!

You might want to ask the citizens of Denmark about that. Denmark is considered the happiest place on Earth. And Denmark is a socialist nation -- as are most Scandinavian countries.

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

What does that do to your theories about socialism?

And who says we are guaranteed to be kept "happy"?
We have the right to "pursue happiness"..We are not guaranteed it.
If you want to walk about with an ear to ear grin on your face, then by all means, pack your shit and move to Denmark.
By the way. Considered to be the happiest place on earth by WHOM?

 

[thereisnospoon]

You might want to ask the citizens of Denmark about that. Denmark is considered the happiest place on Earth. And Denmark is a socialist nation -- as are most Scandinavian countries.

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

What does that do to your theories about socialism?

I always enjoy hearing about the Danes when discussing socialism.

Walking around Denmark, asking random people if they're happy or not is definitely a great way to measure the effectiveness of socialism. But just a quick question;

How many people did they survey? Do those people know what it's like to like in a more capitalistic environment?

A man that has only ever eaten at McDonald's may tell you the food is great; but he has no idea what food has the potential to taste like in a 5-star restaurant.

Do a Google search on keywords, "Denmark - Happiest Country." You will find opinions derived by many equally credible sources in addition to CBS News, which you choose not to believe.

Re: your reference to comparison with a capitalistic environment: What exactly do you mean by a "capitalistic environment?" And how do you think it differs from a socialistic environment? Do you believe the Danes don't have jobs, cars, computers and television, comfortable homes, etc? What is it you feel is so good about capitalism the Danes are lacking?

What the Danes don't have is endless war, a divisive social atmosphere, stressful emphasis on acquiring money, a significant percentage of homeless and/or impoverished citizens, a massive prison census, a shamerfully inadequate health care system, and an exceptionally high unemployment rate.

Denmark is a VERY SMALL country with a largely homogeneous population. It has a small economy, virtually no natural resources and not much in the way of industry.
The people are of one generation after another who have lived in this tiny country and have most likely never been outside of Scandanvia.
It is for all intents and purposes a socialist utopia. It works for tiny countries with stable obedient populations with a high consciousness of duty to Country.
Socialism as we have witnessed with the abject failure of the USSR cannot work in countries with large diverse populations.
Perhaps if the US had 320 million blonde haired blue eyed people of the same heritage who have been trained one generation after another that individualism is a rejected concept, it may work.
Copenhagen awaits you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

^^^
To be fair, historians have their use. To be realistic, many if not most of them have hidden agendas.

Most of them don't know jack squat about economics, but they believe they're qualified to pontificate on economic issues like the cause of the Great Depression.

Any historian who believes "Robber Baron" is a legitimate economic term automatically unmasks himself as nothing more than a scumbag propagandist.

Pontificating is about all they do. One school on economics publishes its theories and another school their theories and another school.... And the theories differ. Of all the Social Sciences I would put economics as the softest of the soft. Have they written a tried and true manual yet on how to avoid depressions/recessions, have they written a manual on how to recover from depressions/recessions? Keynes is still all we have.
Economists are great at figuring out why they think things happened, after the fact stuff. But that's what historians do also.
I sympathize with economists they are dealing with a subject that has so many variables that it will take another 100 years to be able to predict with some accuracy. Is Say's law still held to be a law? As for historians they write of the past, much easier and much more accurate.

Yet you are 100% convinced that socialism is THE path to prosperity.
Facepalm.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..

But the problem with that perception is there was no wealth to redistribute when the communists came to power in Russia -- and that is why they were able to come to power.

In today's America there is no shortage of wealth. The problem is it has been diverted upward to a small segment of the population who are hoarding it. And redistribution of that wealth does not mean reducing those hoarders to poverty but rather leaving them somewhat less wealthy.

So the notion that communism could arise in America is simply absurd. Just give some thought to which nations have turned to communism as a means of survival. In every example those nations were totally devoid of wealth.

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

I t was a tropical paradise with a corrupt and cruel government headed by an elite ruling class.
It became a very poor desolate place run a by a small elite ruling class.
At one time Cuba was the largest nation on Earth. The Capital was in Havana,, the Government in Moscow and the people were in South Florida.

 

[Againsheila]

Okay - you want to be like Denmark?

Then 90% of the U.S. population will have to be of 100% Danish (or we could substitute Nordic) descent. And 80% of the population will have to be Lutheran.

What Denmark has is a very homogenous society in terms of race and religion - and a small population. That is hard to translate into a large country with a long history of immigration from around the world.

Oh, and their birth rate is very low and propped up by Islamic immigration. Check back on your paradise in 20-30 years.

Our birthrate is very low and is propped up by over immigration both legal and illegal. What's the dif?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Okay - you want to be like Denmark?

Then 90% of the U.S. population will have to be of 100% Danish (or we could substitute Nordic) descent. And 80% of the population will have to be Lutheran.

What Denmark has is a very homogenous society in terms of race and religion - and a small population. That is hard to translate into a large country with a long history of immigration from around the world.

Oh, and their birth rate is very low and propped up by Islamic immigration. Check back on your paradise in 20-30 years.

Our birthrate is very low and is propped up by over immigration both legal and illegal. What's the dif?

320 million vs 5.54 million...A diverse US population vs a virtually homogeneous population of just 2% ethnic minorities.
An emphasis on the individual in the US vs groupism among the Danes.
Case closed.

 

[newpolitics]

Wealth begets wealth. It's not as if their children start at the same level as everyone else. To posit a level playing field is what is idealistic. I understand even the rich have to work hard, even though they get a mile head-start, but the amount of income today is greater than it has ever been in this country, and if you don't see that as a problem, then you are either selling yourself out to an ideology, or are one of the rich.

In your worldview, yes. If the government taxes away the income from people who work so that they cannot save and invest, then only the already wealthy will retain (some) of their wealth.

Most of the wealthy people I know, (and that's quite few), are self-made. I'd prefer to maintain a system which enables others to join them as opposed to government sponsored spoils allocation and rent seeking cronyism.

I'm not challenging the fundamental nature of our economic system, or advocating pure socialism. So, don't jump to such an extreme simply because we don't agree. I am simply pointing out the facts of income inequality that we are seeing, and can attribute this to capitalism in its current form (unregulated, crony capitalism and an insistence on free markets as the cure for everything) as being the cause. The rich will amass wealth in ever fewer numbers, consolidating the money supply into fewer hands, leaving the rest out to dry. Whether or not these people "earned" this becomes irrelevant. Capitalism creates a tipping point where once you become wealthy enough, amassing more and more wealthy becomes easier and easier, because you already have the pieces in place to make investments, etc.. There needs to be a certain amount of socialism mixed in with our policies to correct this. Otherwise, our country will become a plutocracy, which is basically already is, but even more so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay - you want to be like Denmark?

Then 90% of the U.S. population will have to be of 100% Danish (or we could substitute Nordic) descent. And 80% of the population will have to be Lutheran.

What Denmark has is a very homogenous society in terms of race and religion - and a small population. That is hard to translate into a large country with a long history of immigration from around the world.

Oh, and their birth rate is very low and propped up by Islamic immigration. Check back on your paradise in 20-30 years.

Our birthrate is very low and is propped up by over immigration both legal and illegal. What's the dif?

320 million vs 5.54 million...A diverse US population vs a virtually homogeneous population of just 2% ethnic minorities.
An emphasis on the individual in the US vs groupism among the Danes.
Case closed.

Yep. The country of Denmark occupies a land area smaller than New York State and has a population of less than New York City. To try to compare the USA with that is to compare the capabilities of a mouse with that of an elephant.

 

[MikeK]

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Cuba had one export product; sugar. And as you've partially indicated most of the plantations were owned by rich Americans who had Batista in their pockets. Its only other industries were gambling and prostitution, both of which belonged to and were controlled by the American Mob. The vast majority of Cubans were impoverished. So I don't know where you get the idea that Cuba was anything close to being a wealthy nation. If it was the communist revolution there couldn't have gotten off the ground because the people would have no need for it.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

Wealth is a relative term. The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy. Our embargo has a lot to do with that.

Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of peons and patrones and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of. More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.

Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed. The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on protective government.

Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat. But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of terrorism, kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.

 

[Wiseacre]

Our birthrate is very low and is propped up by over immigration both legal and illegal. What's the dif?

320 million vs 5.54 million...A diverse US population vs a virtually homogeneous population of just 2% ethnic minorities.
An emphasis on the individual in the US vs groupism among the Danes.
Case closed.

Yep. The country of Denmark occupies a land area smaller than New York State and has a population of less than New York City. To try to compare the USA with that is to compare the capabilities of a mouse with that of an elephant.

They eat little fishes for breakfast, how happy can they be?

Besides, lately they're economy is pretty close to recession territory.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Cuba had one export product; sugar. And as you've partially indicated most of the plantations were owned by rich Americans who had Batista in their pockets. Its only other industries were gambling and prostitution, both of which belonged to and were controlled by the American Mob. The vast majority of Cubans were impoverished. So I don't know where you get the idea that Cuba was anything close to being a wealthy nation. If it was the communist revolution there couldn't have gotten off the ground because the people would have no need for it.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

Wealth is a relative term. The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy. Our embargo has a lot to do with that.

Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of peons and patrones and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of. More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.

Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed. The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on protective government.

Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat. But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of terrorism, kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.

Apparently your knowledge or pre revolutionary Cuba is limited to.......ZERO.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Cuba had one export product; sugar. And as you've partially indicated most of the plantations were owned by rich Americans who had Batista in their pockets. Its only other industries were gambling and prostitution, both of which belonged to and were controlled by the American Mob. The vast majority of Cubans were impoverished. So I don't know where you get the idea that Cuba was anything close to being a wealthy nation. If it was the communist revolution there couldn't have gotten off the ground because the people would have no need for it.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

Wealth is a relative term. The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy. Our embargo has a lot to do with that.

Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of peons and patrones and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of. More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.

Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed. The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on protective government.

Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat. But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of terrorism, kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.

Google Image Result for http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/55/84/40/havana-street-life.jpg

Google Image Result for http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IU68rPUOcso/0.jpg

Life in Castro's Cuba

 

[Foxfyre]

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Cuba had one export product; sugar. And as you've partially indicated most of the plantations were owned by rich Americans who had Batista in their pockets. Its only other industries were gambling and prostitution, both of which belonged to and were controlled by the American Mob. The vast majority of Cubans were impoverished. So I don't know where you get the idea that Cuba was anything close to being a wealthy nation. If it was the communist revolution there couldn't have gotten off the ground because the people would have no need for it.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

Wealth is a relative term. The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy. Our embargo has a lot to do with that.

Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of peons and patrones and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of. More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.

Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed. The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on protective government.

Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat. But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of terrorism, kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.

Apparently your knowledge or pre revolutionary Cuba is limited to.......ZERO.

Pre-revolution Cuba was no more paradise than any country is if you look at every aspect, but it was far far superior to the Cuba under Castro. The anti-Batista propaganda put out by Castro has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by many leftists who desperately want to believe that Communist Cuba is superior to what it replaced. It isn't. Batista was certainly no angel, but Cuba was a much happier place with more opportunity over all and was an American vacation destination before the revolution.

Here is a good concise synopsis of what pre-Castro Cuba was like. As in all countries, there was good and bad. But for those ordinary Cuban citizens who lived under both regimes, there is no question that given the choice, they would have taken the corrupt and self-serving Batista over Castro.

Cuba Before Fidel Castro / Contacto Magazine

As an aside, my uncle who lives here in Albuquerque was very well acquainted with Cuba pre Castro. And has told us many stories of those days. And he was the Braniff pilot who flew Batista out of Cuba when Castro took over.

 

[Immanuel]

...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor??? Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!

You might want to ask the citizens of Denmark about that. Denmark is considered the happiest place on Earth. And Denmark is a socialist nation -- as are most Scandinavian countries.

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

What does that do to your theories about socialism?

That is simply because people who have given up their freedoms and been forced into slavery and have been in that capacity all their lives behave like the "SIMS" characters in the computer games.

Would you really want to have the government setting not only your salary but also the quota you must fill in your daily work and not have any opportunity to better yourself?

On second thought, you are a big union supporter... you probably would.

Personally, I'd rather not be so "happy" that I walk around like a person stupified by drugs all day long.

By the way, it seems you will get your wish, because that is exactly the direction Obama and crowd are pushing us.

Immie

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Cuba had one export product; sugar. And as you've partially indicated most of the plantations were owned by rich Americans who had Batista in their pockets. Its only other industries were gambling and prostitution, both of which belonged to and were controlled by the American Mob. The vast majority of Cubans were impoverished. So I don't know where you get the idea that Cuba was anything close to being a wealthy nation. If it was the communist revolution there couldn't have gotten off the ground because the people would have no need for it.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

Wealth is a relative term. The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy. Our embargo has a lot to do with that.

Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of peons and patrones and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of. More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.

Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed. The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on protective government.

Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat. But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of terrorism, kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.

The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista

That's why the average Cuban with a car still drives a car bought under Batista. LOL!

At least he has free healthcare, to ease the pain of that boot stamping on his face...forever.

 

[tooAlive]

Wealth is a relative term. The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy. Our embargo has a lot to do with that.

Okay, it's obvious to me you have no idea what you're talking about. Luckily for you, some of us do. This is just a tiny bit of information to point out that life in Cuba today is an absolute nightmare. So listen up;

Did you know Cuba has two different currencies? The Cuban Peso and the CUC.

One CUC (Same value as USD) is worth about 27 Pesos. The government pays workers in Pesos, and the minimum monthly salary in Cuba is 120 pesos, while the maximum is 600 pesos made normally by doctors. For the sake of this argument, lets say our average worker earns 300 pesos a month, which is pretty good.

Since Cubans are paid in Pesos, we'll need to convert that amount into CUC. 300 / 27 = $11 CUC.

That's $11 to feed yourself or even your family.

Walk into any government owned store to buy your groceries or things for the home, and you'll find stuff at roughly the same price you'll find at a Wal-Mart here.

Tell me, how much food can you buy for $11 at Wal-Mart? Do you think you could survive a month off $11? Things cost the same, so if you can't do it here, why would it be any easier in Cuba?

That's less than Cubans made back in the days of Batista, with all the exploitation going on as you say. And that was over 50 years ago. Can you imagine that? Who do you think they'd rather be under?

Oh, but they have free healthcare! At least they're not dying right?

Okay, lets say there's an elderly woman that needs to go to one of the larger hospitals a few provinces away for treatment. How will she get there? Do you think she can walk a few hundred miles?

No silly. She has to take a car. How much do you think that ride will cost her? Considering prices of fuel are pretty much on par with the rest of the world, she'd be expected to fork out about $60 for this trip. The ride back is usually included, as most of the time these independent chauffeurs will wait for the person at the hospital.

So, that's $60 for a trip to the hospital. Lets assume the trip was much closer, and the driver is someone she knows and gets a "hook-up." Half off, $30. The average salary a month is $11! How will she even be able to afford $30 for a ride to the hospital, let alone $60! Oh, and not to mention an elderly woman will definitely NOT be making anywhere near that much from her retirement, which makes things even more unimaginable.

She can't even afford the ride to the hospital!

I'm only grazing the tip of the iceberg here buddy. Because once you get to the hospital, the conditions would shock you. I know, I just got back from there 6 months ago. Had to take my grandfather there for some procedures. I think he was better off just staying home.

Now, lets go back to the issue of food, clothes, ect.

You may argue that Cuba has a shortage, right? Due to the embargo? Yes, Cuba has a shortage for the government-provided rations only. There's basically nothing being given out by the government anymore.

But, if you have the $$$, you'll be fine because there's plenty of stuff. Food, brand-name clothing, shoes, cars, ect.. Oh, but how much can they buy with $11 a month? You tell me. And in case you don't believe me, here are a few pics of the average grocery store in Cuba.

Bay Area's business ties to Cuba could grow - SFGate

Travel Outward: Lessons From Cuba: What Can We Learn From Cuba's Two-Tier Tourism Economy

But can Cubans shop there? Yeah.. until they spend their $11. Then they have to wait till next month. Here's where they get their rationed food:

Empty. And that pic is pretty old, just imagine how much better things have gotten.

If you think people in Cuba have it better now, you are very, very wrong. There's nothing better about how things are now. Not their healthcare system, not anything. The Cuban government is a prime example of one of the biggest mass-exploitations we've ever seen.

And again, that's just the tip of the iceberg buddy. Maybe I'll write another post about how the government is even further exploiting the doctors being sent to other countries..

 

[tooAlive]

And don't even bother comparing them to Haiti, because the Haitians are much better off.

The fact that they have a higher per capita GDP means nothing to tell you the real distribution of wealth. Haitians are paid much better than Cubans. And Cubans were beyond better off with Batista.

The only ones that are better off now are Castro and his pig, sitting on $4 billion. Exploited from the Cuban people.

 

[American_Jihad]

Obamacare’s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth

January 6, 2014 by John Perazzo

For all the attention Obamacare has drawn in recent weeks, few observers have noted that the law is having the unexpected, yet most welcome, effect of transforming scores of millions of Americans, virtually overnight, into generous benefactors of the less fortunate. A real-world example—representative of countless millions of similar situations—will make this crystal clear:

Let’s say that you are a healthy, hardworking 54-year-old single adult in San Francisco earning $45,960 per year—the income level at which federal Obamacare subsidies from your fellow taxpayers are no longer available to help you pay your monthly health-insurance premiums. As a San Francisco resident, you are permitted to choose from among 16 separate Obamacare-compliant insurance plans. Four of these are so-called “Bronze” plans, low-level policies whose average premium will cost you $453 per month, or $5,436 per year. In exchange for those premium payments, a Bronze plan will cover 60% of your medical expenses—that is, after you meet the $5,000 out-of-pocket annual deductible. For this priceless peace of mind, you can thank Obamacare—the Democratic Party’s gift to a grateful America.

Let us contrast your case with that of Joe, another 54-year-old single individual in San Francisco, who happens to be an obese alcoholic and longtime drug abuser with little ambition and no history of ever having held a full-time job for very long. Joe currently earns $15,860 per year, which is just above the income level that would have made him eligible for Medicaid. Because Joe doesn’t qualify for Medicaid, Obamacare stipulates that he must now purchase his own health insurance—thereby proving that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric of conservative naysayers, no one gets an undeserved free ride under Obamacare.

...

This, in a nutshell, is the exquisite beauty of Obamacare: It is redistribution … er, um, er … It is neighborliness on a scale never before seen in this country. And many millions of Americans are poised to reap its glorious benefits! As a form of shorthand, you can simply refer to these fortunate millions as “Democrats,” in honor of the party of benefactors that is, at this very moment, purchasing their eternal political allegiance with your dollars. Take pride in the fact that this wonderful arrangement is but one aspect of the “fundamental transformation” of America that our president is so faithfully pursuing, true to his word. At its essence, it is an arrangement designed to take from certain individuals according to their ability to pay, while giving to other individuals according to their need—a profoundly neat and elegant formula if ever there was one. It almost makes you wonder if anyone else has ever thought of anything like it before.[1]

NOTE:

[1] A central principle of Marxism, popularized by Karl Marx himself, is this: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Obamacare?s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Clementine]

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.

No private companies should be subsidized. Also, whenever the government redistributes money, a lot of it disappears as it goes through Washington because they need money to pay all the bureaucrats.

If people are able to work, they need to do something to earn money. If they can't find a job, then they can work for taxpayers. There are so many elderly who can't mow or shovel snow in the winter. We should expect something in return for giving up our earnings to the able bodied.

I think if we started doing that, many would figure they might as well get a real job if they have to work for what they get.

 

[GreenBean]

Obamacare’s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth

January 6, 2014 by John Perazzo

For all the attention Obamacare has drawn in recent weeks, few observers have noted that the law is having the unexpected, yet most welcome, effect of transforming scores of millions of Americans, virtually overnight, into generous benefactors of the less fortunate. A real-world example—representative of countless millions of similar situations—will make this crystal clear:

Let’s say that you are a healthy, hardworking 54-year-old single adult in San Francisco earning $45,960 per year—the income level at which federal Obamacare subsidies from your fellow taxpayers are no longer available to help you pay your monthly health-insurance premiums. As a San Francisco resident, you are permitted to choose from among 16 separate Obamacare-compliant insurance plans. Four of these are so-called “Bronze” plans, low-level policies whose average premium will cost you $453 per month, or $5,436 per year. In exchange for those premium payments, a Bronze plan will cover 60% of your medical expenses—that is, after you meet the $5,000 out-of-pocket annual deductible. For this priceless peace of mind, you can thank Obamacare—the Democratic Party’s gift to a grateful America.

Let us contrast your case with that of Joe, another 54-year-old single individual in San Francisco, who happens to be an obese alcoholic and longtime drug abuser with little ambition and no history of ever having held a full-time job for very long. Joe currently earns $15,860 per year, which is just above the income level that would have made him eligible for Medicaid. Because Joe doesn’t qualify for Medicaid, Obamacare stipulates that he must now purchase his own health insurance—thereby proving that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric of conservative naysayers, no one gets an undeserved free ride under Obamacare.

...

This, in a nutshell, is the exquisite beauty of Obamacare: It is redistribution … er, um, er … It is neighborliness on a scale never before seen in this country. And many millions of Americans are poised to reap its glorious benefits! As a form of shorthand, you can simply refer to these fortunate millions as “Democrats,” in honor of the party of benefactors that is, at this very moment, purchasing their eternal political allegiance with your dollars. Take pride in the fact that this wonderful arrangement is but one aspect of the “fundamental transformation” of America that our president is so faithfully pursuing, true to his word. At its essence, it is an arrangement designed to take from certain individuals according to their ability to pay, while giving to other individuals according to their need—a profoundly neat and elegant formula if ever there was one. It almost makes you wonder if anyone else has ever thought of anything like it before.[1]

NOTE:

[1] A central principle of Marxism, popularized by Karl Marx himself, is this: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Obamacare?s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth | FrontPage Magazine

The Scenario unfolding in our time was predicted and plotted years ago - It's known among the Liberal-Progressive Sociofacists as the Cloward- Pliven Strategy

The Cloward–Piven strategy was outlined in 1966 by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system devoid of a work ethic, "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". The strategy was outlined in a May 1966 article in The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".


In their article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling class only used welfare to enslave the poor, that by providing a social safety net, the rich were able to hold a bay what they viewed as the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Poor people [The Proletariat] can only advance when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward stated in 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

Cloward and Pliven pointed out that the number of Americans subsisting on social services probably represented less than half the number who were actually eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand what they viewed as entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, theoretically would be "a profound financial and political crisis" - basically an initiating domino that would eventually lead to the economic collapse of the USA and leave Humanity ripe for the ensuing onslaught of Marxism or other illogical derivatives of it.

Rudolph Giuliani, while serving as NY City Mayor attempted to expose Cloward-Pliven in the late 1990s. As part of his drive for welfare reform he accused the militant scholars by name and cited their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage.