CDZ redistribution of wealth

[forbegos]

I believe in capitalism but not in crony capitalism. The system is not perfect at all but its the best we've got until now. Socialism's problem is that it goes against the basic human nature of personal gain. Socialism would work if personal gain was not our primary human motivator to grow and become better, but instead the betterment of the society as a whole. Unfortunately that is not real and thus socialism fails. What they say is true: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".

 

[emilynghiem]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No, it's not. That's just a rationalization for tyranny.

ok----it is not the WHOLE PURPOSE----just the major purpose.
My statement was a bit over the top. Tyranny happens when the STRONG ----control and oppress the weak

Dear irosie91
1. I agree with the "equal protection of the laws" but that goes for weak and strong, rich and poor.
Nobody deserves to lose liberties without "due process of laws" regardless of someone's class or status.
The point of the Constitution includes (a) separation of powers and checks and balances so power is not abused within the system (b) protecting democratic due process of petitioning to redress grievances, including free speech free press and right of assembly, and not abusing govt to impose judgment punishment or deprivations of rights and liberties until it has been proven someone committed a crime and was convicted of it lawfully (c) protecting individual rights and liberties from infringement, including religious freedom beliefs and creed (and later adding race and disability, etc.) from discrimination <-- on that point, because people disagree by beliefs on what is meant by the powers authorized to govt under the Constitution, if we dn't agree, our beliefs should be equally protected and not imposed on each other by govt.

2. for the "equitable distribution of wealth"
that is a political belief, that is not in the Constitution.

One of my friends says it is a part of "promote the general welfare" in the preamble.
But even that is questionable.

Microlending combined with business training, and fair trade cooperatives that teach management to workers to own their own companies and corporate distribution, instead of handouts
is MUCH more sustainable and effective in the long run than depending on welfare.

So there are BETTER ways to "promote welfare" WITHOUT getting people dependent on govt
or charities for "welfare".

irosie91 you are welcome to your own political belief, but like Shariah law, if others don't
want to be under that political system then imposing it through govt is DISASTROUS.

Please treat it like you would the beliefs in Islam, that if others don't believe in it,
then it is unconstitutional to force them under it by govt mandates and regulations.

This is the case with "forced redistribution of wealth"
Not everyone believes in that and certainly don't agree with govt being in charge of it.

The successful groups that have uplifted the poor on a sustainable basis use free market enterprise approaches of
* microlending
* business training
* fair trade cooperatives
* even building businesses like Paul Newman's that create jobs for people while giving the profits to charity
Completely by FREE MARKET so people have a choice.
If a business model has better ETHICS and helps the poor, then people CHOOSE to support that model.
It does NOT have to be "forced through govt" which has the opposite effect.

You would not want Islam, Christianity or any other BELIEF system "forced on you through govt"
You and I would fight for FREE CHOICE of what religions we want to support, fund or participate in.
If we don't agree, we want the right NOT to fund THAT system.
Same with this idea of govt used to force redistribution of wealth.
No, the people have the right to be represented on tax issues,
because of "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"
and "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny"

I learned these principles of Govt in eighth grade history.
So any child or adult should be able to grasp them, if we bothered educating the public
on the responsibilities and limits on govt.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't see, and thus won't frame, the matter of so-called "wealth redistribution" as one of right or wrong.

You really don't see it?

I don't know what you do in your life for work. But today, I built a computer. This involves placing the hard drive into the case, and twisting a screw. Placing a computer board into a case, and twisting 6 screws. Placing a DVD into the case, and twisting 2 screws.

Then doing the high skilled labor of "plugging it in" on those items.

Now, as you can rightfully imagine, I don't get paid much. I don't expect to get paid much given the decade of education required, and intense training needed to master the art of "twisting the screw"....... with power tools.... "push the button" (required vocational training for that).

Point being, assuming you do something more advanced, and likely get paid more, are you seriously suggesting that if the government confiscates money from you (because obviously you are privileged), and gives it to me (because I quit college and have no plans to go back).... you don't see any moral problem with that?

Because by all means, send me a check. I'd like 5% of your wages, thanks.

Now the difference between the story I just outlined to you, and "wealth redistribution" that left-wingers support, is that it not only includes people like me who are at least working, but it also includes people who haven't even bothered to wake up in the morning, and do *ANYTHING*.

And you really can't see a "right and wrong" aspect of that? Because if a person broke into your house, and stole your stuff, and on the way out said "I'm poorer. This is wealth redistribution", I betcha you'll see something morally wrong with that. The only difference is that they vote for someone to steal your stuff for them. They are called "politicians".

 

[BULLDOG]

I believe in capitalism but not in crony capitalism. The system is not perfect at all but its the best we've got until now. Socialism's problem is that it goes against the basic human nature of personal gain. Socialism would work if personal gain was not our primary human motivator to grow and become better, but instead the betterment of the society as a whole. Unfortunately that is not real and thus socialism fails. What they say is true: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".

That's why most systems are a combination of the two. Neither system is workable if used exclusively.

 

[forbegos]

I believe in capitalism but not in crony capitalism. The system is not perfect at all but its the best we've got until now. Socialism's problem is that it goes against the basic human nature of personal gain. Socialism would work if personal gain was not our primary human motivator to grow and become better, but instead the betterment of the society as a whole. Unfortunately that is not real and thus socialism fails. What they say is true: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".

That's why most systems are a combination of the two. Neither system is workable if used exclusively.

Interesting, which systems can you name that are a combination?

 

[BULLDOG]

I believe in capitalism but not in crony capitalism. The system is not perfect at all but its the best we've got until now. Socialism's problem is that it goes against the basic human nature of personal gain. Socialism would work if personal gain was not our primary human motivator to grow and become better, but instead the betterment of the society as a whole. Unfortunately that is not real and thus socialism fails. What they say is true: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".

That's why most systems are a combination of the two. Neither system is workable if used exclusively.

Interesting, which systems can you name that are a combination?

All first world countries. Ours is a good example.

 

[forbegos]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

 

[BULLDOG]

I believe in capitalism but not in crony capitalism. The system is not perfect at all but its the best we've got until now. Socialism's problem is that it goes against the basic human nature of personal gain. Socialism would work if personal gain was not our primary human motivator to grow and become better, but instead the betterment of the society as a whole. Unfortunately that is not real and thus socialism fails. What they say is true: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".

That's why most systems are a combination of the two. Neither system is workable if used exclusively.

Interesting, which systems can you name that are a combination?

Here are a few that most people would recognize

 

[forbegos]

I believe in capitalism but not in crony capitalism. The system is not perfect at all but its the best we've got until now. Socialism's problem is that it goes against the basic human nature of personal gain. Socialism would work if personal gain was not our primary human motivator to grow and become better, but instead the betterment of the society as a whole. Unfortunately that is not real and thus socialism fails. What they say is true: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".

That's why most systems are a combination of the two. Neither system is workable if used exclusively.

Interesting, which systems can you name that are a combination?

Here are a few that most people would recognize

Socialism does not equal public programs, some of them stupid, but not the case anyhow.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in capitalism but not in crony capitalism. The system is not perfect at all but its the best we've got until now. Socialism's problem is that it goes against the basic human nature of personal gain. Socialism would work if personal gain was not our primary human motivator to grow and become better, but instead the betterment of the society as a whole. Unfortunately that is not real and thus socialism fails. What they say is true: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".

That's why most systems are a combination of the two. Neither system is workable if used exclusively.

Interesting, which systems can you name that are a combination?

Dear forbegos You are right that too many of these systems are failing, economically if not politically.
If you want examples of combined systems that were jacked to fail
1. when our Social Security system is controlled by govt (not fully owned, but controlled by govt not by people directly, so it is a "combination" and not pure socialism or pure redistribution)
then the govt borrowed from it, and "redistributed" those resources elsewhere without paying it back.

2. our ER and hospital systen was set up where "nobody could get turned away from medical care"
because of the cost of this, estimated in the billions per year not paid back,
this argument was used to push for the insurance mandates that were another "combination"
of taxes and health care mandates of people forced to pay into govt health care or pay fines to govt.
Where the exchanges are "managed" and "regulated" by federal govt
(again a combination, not fully owned by govt but so controlled that the people have no say and no representation though the mandates require that we pay under this system, claiming it's still free choice)

These things fail where people no longer have a direct say in systems that our money and labor
is regulated under, a "combination" of govt controlled "redistribution" where people "supposedly"
have representation, but due to conflicts of interest and political hackery, we really don't have that leverage.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

 

[forbegos]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

To me it is basic math, I can understand spending increase in previous obligations the first years of his term, but the fact that he hasn't stopped that after 8 years tells me he doesn't really care about deficits and he cares more about social programs. To me that is a BIG MISTAKE in basic economics.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

To me it is basic math, I can understand spending increase in previous obligations the first years of his term, but the fact that he hasn't stopped that after 8 years tells me he doesn't really care about deficits and he cares more about social programs. To me that is a BIG MISTAKE in basic economics.

I would take it a step further: If Obama and Democrats really care about social programs such as
universal care, this should be set up independent outside of govt; use political party networks
and systems of elections, fundraising and voting on policies to set up Single payer universal care directly.
Shift the social programs to the party to organize and manage with no objections or obstructions,
since their whole party is united behind a platform voted on by their members and leaders.

There would be no opposition if it were set up by party.
If the leaders won't push for this, the members ought to if we really care for democratic access to such programs. I've been pushing for this for years, even funding and supporting plans myself. But I'm up against
the majority of Democrats and liberals who are conditioned to keep depending on party and politicians.
So all the money and authority is given away to politics, instead of investing directly into development
these programs with the resources and labor, taxed by govt that wastes it. cut out the middle man, and DIY

 

[BULLDOG]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

To me it is basic math, I can understand spending increase in previous obligations the first years of his term, but the fact that he hasn't stopped that after 8 years tells me he doesn't really care about deficits and he cares more about social programs. To me that is a BIG MISTAKE in basic economics.

Again, the deficit has been cut in half during his presidency. He couldn't just stop paying the previously made bills. We are obligated to pay them. All he can do is reduce the number of new bills, which he has done more than any other recent president.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Exactly how have his actions increased the debt?

 

[BULLDOG]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

To me it is basic math, I can understand spending increase in previous obligations the first years of his term, but the fact that he hasn't stopped that after 8 years tells me he doesn't really care about deficits and he cares more about social programs. To me that is a BIG MISTAKE in basic economics.

I would take it a step further: If Obama and Democrats really care about social programs such as
universal care, this should be set up independent outside of govt; use political party networks
and systems of elections, fundraising and voting on policies to set up Single payer universal care directly.
Shift the social programs to the party to organize and manage with no objections or obstructions,
since their whole party is united behind a platform voted on by their members and leaders.

There would be no opposition if it were set up by party.
If the leaders won't push for this, the members ought to if we really care for democratic access to such programs. I've been pushing for this for years, even funding and supporting plans myself. But I'm up against
the majority of Democrats and liberals who are conditioned to keep depending on party and politicians.
So all the money and authority is given away to politics, instead of investing directly into development
these programs with the resources and labor, taxed by govt that wastes it. cut out the middle man, and DIY

So you're proposing dividing our country into two separate entities, each with it's own rules and goals. How very republican of you.

 

[Andylusion]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

If left up to Capitalism, not a single sub-prime loan would ever have been made. Government pushed sub-prime loans. You leave loans 100% the responsibility of individuals, and you won't have a single sub-prime loan ever made.

 

[Andylusion]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

To me it is basic math, I can understand spending increase in previous obligations the first years of his term, but the fact that he hasn't stopped that after 8 years tells me he doesn't really care about deficits and he cares more about social programs. To me that is a BIG MISTAKE in basic economics.

I would take it a step further: If Obama and Democrats really care about social programs such as
universal care, this should be set up independent outside of govt; use political party networks
and systems of elections, fundraising and voting on policies to set up Single payer universal care directly.
Shift the social programs to the party to organize and manage with no objections or obstructions,
since their whole party is united behind a platform voted on by their members and leaders.

There would be no opposition if it were set up by party.
If the leaders won't push for this, the members ought to if we really care for democratic access to such programs. I've been pushing for this for years, even funding and supporting plans myself. But I'm up against
the majority of Democrats and liberals who are conditioned to keep depending on party and politicians.
So all the money and authority is given away to politics, instead of investing directly into development
these programs with the resources and labor, taxed by govt that wastes it. cut out the middle man, and DIY

So you're proposing dividing our country into two separate entities, each with it's own rules and goals. How very republican of you.

You are demanding everyone be required, at the point of a gun, to support an economic system that has failed for a 100 years now, and doomed to impoverishment and starvation..... how authoritarian and dogmatic of you.

This country was supposed to be a Republic. Not a social-economic enslavement camp, run by self-righteous ideologues.

 

[Andylusion]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

lol....

You people. Yeah, the deficit was cut in half..... AFTER he jacked it up to 1.4 Trillion. Hey, vote for me. I can blow up the deficit to 3 trillion, and then "Cut it in half!" down to 1.5 Trillion. Praise my amazing leadership. Do you not see how stupid that sounds?

And by the way, don't tell me "Obama didn't do that". Because he most certainly did. Obama voted in favor of the exact same spending bills, that Bush signed into the law. He is 100% a guilty as Bush on this issue. No excuses. Excuses are for children.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ours doesn't seem to be working very well, I find much of the 2008 crash was due to crony capitalism, and now Obama's socialists policies are making the future of this country even worse by increasing our debt to exorbitant levels.

Is he increasing debt, or is the debt increasing because of previous obligations coming due? My understanding is that the only way debt increases is though deficit spending. Our deficit has been cut in half. What is he spending more on that doesn't increase the deficit?

To me it is basic math, I can understand spending increase in previous obligations the first years of his term, but the fact that he hasn't stopped that after 8 years tells me he doesn't really care about deficits and he cares more about social programs. To me that is a BIG MISTAKE in basic economics.

I would take it a step further: If Obama and Democrats really care about social programs such as
universal care, this should be set up independent outside of govt; use political party networks
and systems of elections, fundraising and voting on policies to set up Single payer universal care directly.
Shift the social programs to the party to organize and manage with no objections or obstructions,
since their whole party is united behind a platform voted on by their members and leaders.

There would be no opposition if it were set up by party.
If the leaders won't push for this, the members ought to if we really care for democratic access to such programs. I've been pushing for this for years, even funding and supporting plans myself. But I'm up against
the majority of Democrats and liberals who are conditioned to keep depending on party and politicians.
So all the money and authority is given away to politics, instead of investing directly into development
these programs with the resources and labor, taxed by govt that wastes it. cut out the middle man, and DIY

So you're proposing dividing our country into two separate entities, each with it's own rules and goals. How very republican of you.

You are demanding everyone be required, at the point of a gun, to support an economic system that has failed for a 100 years now, and doomed to impoverishment and starvation..... how authoritarian and dogmatic of you.

This country was supposed to be a Republic. Not a social-economic enslavement camp, run by self-righteous ideologues.

I'm doing what?