I'll defend it!
When most modern liberals, like myself and Obama, talk about redistribution of wealth we aren't talking about it on as large of a scale as most "free market" fanatics think. No one is talking about everyone earning the same wages for whatever they do, competition is one of the things that keeps an economy strong, and it is essential to maintain that. What we want to do is statistically end poverty for all WORKING Americans and their families.
LOL... Oh THANK YOU for this... It illustrates the point perfectly. It should be noted that many leftists will demand that you're only pretending to be a leftist to prove the point that Hussein Obama is a Marxist taking advantage of the addle-minded 'independent, moderate, centrist, progressives'
You've established that Hussein is just like you... You've stated that you believe that Hussein wants the same thing that you want; to end poverty and to do so with JUuuust enough socialism to get the job done; you've said that you and Hussein aren't trying to stifle competition and nationalize the means of production where all citizens are converted to 'workers' paid scale salaries...
But here's the problem with that: THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF SOCIALISM THAT WILL END POVERTY: THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF REDISTRIBUTIVE ECONOMICS THAT WILL REDUCE POVERTY... PERIOD. Left-think, which is what you're espousing here, seeks to eliminate NEED... AND THERE IS NO END TO HUMAN NEED! Left-think erroneously confused equality with FAIRNESS... Of course you can't define fairness synonymously with equality, but that doesn't seem to stop you people from chronic usage wherein 'FAIRNESS' is paramount OVER equality; which is to say that the left doesn't give a RIP about people having equal rights and equal opportunity to pursue the fulfillment of their lives; the left demands that it IS NOT FAIR that two people with equal rights and equal opportunities did not realize EQUAL OUTCOMES... and that is simply ABSURD.
Yet this is the cornerstone on which the entire premise of redistributive economics, AKA: MARXISM, rests.
It is no secret that poverty is one of the leading causes of crime in this country. Impoverished people are also more prone to disease and unwanted pregnancies because they can't afford medical treatment or contraceptives. All of these things, along with hurting the poor themselves, also hurts American society as a whole: our homes/cars are broken into, more people turn to illegal means (drug trafficking, etc.) to make money, disease is more prevalent, and our cities and schools are over-crowded.
False... The fact is that most people around the PLANET, let alone in the US, who live in poverty DO NOT ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Thus poverty does not 'cause' crime... what causes crime is people deciding to commit crimes; which is to say that people reject the idea that they re not ENTITLED to the belongings of another; what causes crime is that SOME PEOPLE decide that THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR... THEY HAVE A NEED... THE OTHER PERSON HAS THE MEANS TO FILL THAT NEED... AND THEY HIJACK THAT MEANS... THE VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON OF MEANS. Now the distinction between the two individuals, the one with the need and the one with the means may and often is nearly indiscernible; the difference of one guy on the MLK has $5.00 and the other one NEEDS that $5.00; but they're both walking down the MLK and they both broke as HELL, living in the same damn HOUSE, so to speak.
Your rationalization that poverty causes crime is invalid logically, you're just assuming that because crime is higher in areas where poverty is highest, that poverty causes crime.
My thinking on this is that violent crime is caused by a failure to understand the responsibilities inherent in our God given human rights; the failure to vigilantly guard against the exercising of one's rights to the detriment of another... thus those people committing violent crime do not accept their responsibilities and look to others, on many levels, to service their needs.
Now the left will claim that those people don't have the opportunities that other people do... the answer to that is a simple "BULLSHIT!" The opportunity is there, because it is everywhere in the US. People accept that which satisfies them... and they generally accept poverty because they don't BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE! They're taught that they are in poverty because someone ELSE has taken their opportunity... That the ethereal "RICH" are rich because THEY STOLE THE OPPORTUNITY FROM THOSE IN POVERTY... And THAT is what the left teaches them... That is the message that YOU HAVE JUST BROUGHT... That what we need to do is to spread the wealth around, so other people can be happy.
The idea behind the sort of "redistribution" that liberals talk about is to combat the cause of these problems, rather than just inanely battling the effects while ignoring the root of the problem. If your boat has a leak in it are you just going to frantically bail out water, or are you also going to try to find the source of that leak so you can plug it?
Again... I must call BULLSHIT! here... And I don't mean to say that you are not ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you're attacking the root cause and not the effects; I mean that you're DEAD WRONG. In that redistributive economics does absolutely NOTHING BUT treat the effect and to EMPOWER THE CAUSE. Marxism tells the proletariat that they are in poverty because the man is keepin' the brother down... that he needs to keep the Brother down because it is the brother (exchange worker for brother, toss in a German accent and this is almost verbatim...) that does all the work and if the brother climbs up, there will be no one around to do his work for him so he needs the brother to be hurtin,' so the brother will be willin' to work cheap... Its a lie and it's a lie of the damnable variety; it's a lie on many levels.
First, Labor is
not zero sum; meaning that all labor is NOT one value and is NOT static... In a free market, labor is fluid... and its cost is subject to its supply, just like everything else. Where the value of the labor (Unskilled; highly skilled and specialized) which is sought is plentiful, that labor is cheap... where the value of labor which is sought is rare, that labor is pricey. Now with that said, we must recognize that this principle is immutable; meaning it is an incontestable, natural, relentless, unchanging fact; and when we understand THAT, we recognize that unskilled labor is usually vastly more plentiful than highly skilled, specialized labor and for the Brother to be recognized as a higher value; for the brother to REALIZE more for his labor, the INDIVIDUAL Brother has to increase his skill level; where he moves from the plentiful CHEAP ASS LABOR... to the highly sought, rare HIGHLY SKILLED, SPECIALIZED, very pricey labor... Which is precisely how millions upon tens of millions of people born into poverty move up and out of poverty every day, in every way.
Crime will always exist, but by helping people attain the minimal means to feed, house, and care for themselves, we can all but eliminate need-motivated crime, thereby preventing thousands (possibly millions) of young people from becoming career criminals.
"
Need-Motivated" You nor any other movement, ideology or popular whimsy is going to resolve anything which is need-motivated.
The problem is that you people reject the idea of personal accountability.
You accept crime as an excuse; you believe that your position regarding 'need-motivation' is a function of high enlightenment; it's most decidedly not; it is a function of disregard for the rights of others.
I can imagine coming home after taking my Father's car without permission and explaining to him that
'need-motivation' was the basis of my disrespecting him, his rules and his trust.
No doubt he would have sought to resolve my need, by motivating me to need his foot to be removed from my ass and for my future transportation needs, which would not have included the potential option of the Mercedes...
Redistributing wealth creates a better quality of life for EVERYONE. Less poverty for those previously afflicted, and less fear of our property being stolen for the rest of us. Think of it as a "Please, don't rob/mug me" tax.
ROFL... Yeah, I can see that working. "Please don't rob me Mr. Punk, here's a free living and in the unlikely event that you find yourself in need while you're enjoying the product of other people's labor, feel free to express your need and we'll pour more cash on you... because your needs supersedes the rights of others."
I have a better idea; Mr. Punk if you try to mug me, I'll put two holes in the middle of your chest which will rip your life sustaining organs to shreds, killing you fairly close to instantly; I know you're a bad ass, so I've taken the time and suffered the expense of acquiring the "Need Motivated-Anti-Bad-Ass Suppressor."
Either get your shit together Mr. Punk... or we'll end your sorry ass. OH! Just one more thing: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO TAKE THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER MAN'S LABOR AND WHEN YOU DO SIR, YOU FORFEIT YOUR OWN RIGHT. Which we will collect on the spot; as a result of our sacred duty to defend our lives and those of our neighbors from your unjustified threats...
Now go find gainful employment, increase your skill set until it becomes of a sufficient value that you're able to live a life which you find fulfilling and stop being such a DICK! Or
we'll kill your ass for your failure to respect the rights of others.
And, for all of you saying that "the rich suffer" from this sort of plan... Is that a joke?
What right do you have to the product of another man's labor?
I'm not arguing that the burden is placed on them, but do you really want to use the word "suffer"?
What right do you have to the product of another man's labor?
I mean, maybe this plan makes it so a young business exec can only get a new car every OTHER year, but do you really call that suffering?
What right do you have to the product of another man's labor?
Even compared to the hunger pangs of the 4 starving children that money went to feed, house, and clothe?
What right do you have to the product of another man's labor?
The parents of those children are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; just like everyone else. They're free to pursue the fulfillment of their own lives.
IF they find themselves unable to feed their children; then they can 'need motivate' themselves to ask for charity from those with the means to help them; those who WILLFULLY provide assistance... who likely will ask them to take measures to change their lives so that THEY CAN SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN; they will hold them accountable for their behavior so that their children will not suffer from their own PERSONAL FAILURES.
Your problem is that YOU DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO ASK FOR HELP! YOU WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO BE ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF OTHER PEOPLES LABOR WHICH IS PRECISELY THE SAME PERSONAL FAILURE AS THE NEED MOTIVATED PUNK...
Here's a CLUE:
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR. PERIOD!
