is opposing the redistribution of wealth contradicting...

[Jhhnn]

And, of course, private charity didn't fund the WPA or the CCC, which put millions of people back to work while "Job Creators" hoarded their cash...

I find it odd that you also think there were not a vast number of private charity soup kitchens throughout the US.

Your school failed you too.

Other than you just now, who claimed this? You quoted me, and I certainly did not make this claim.

I notice a trend in you, where you invent something not claimed, attack it as if it was, then claim victory...all the while saying your opponent is stupid for not agreeing with your victory. You might not notice you are doing it, so I am letting you know so you can keep an eye out for it.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Bowfinger]

Says the man who did the same thing...

You're lying again.

 

[cybrsage]

WTF are you talking about?

The topic you chimed in on. Either try hard to remember, or go back a page and read forward until you see it.

 

[cybrsage]

You're lying again.

Only if you are also lying. If you are telling the truth, so am I. I am simply doing what you are doing.

So which is it, are you also lying, or are you also telling the truth?

 

[Jhhnn]

The topic you chimed in on. Either try hard to remember, or go back a page and read forward until you see it.

I did, which is why I asked the question.

You claimed that there were numerous privately funded soup kitchens during the depression, then quoted me, claimed I denied their existence, when I did no such thing. And now you turn coy in your usual fashion, attempting to obfuscate your own misattributions.

 

[QuantumPion]

just look at the word..

REdistribution. In other words, getting YOUR money back from people who are over-compensated by manipulation or flaws in the system.

Hey guess what I agree. I am in favor of the redistribution of wealth that corrupt businessmen, unions, and politicians use, by government power, to extort from the free market. People such as Warren Buffet, whom uses political contributions to get Obama to cancel the Keystone pipeline so that his own railroad oil transportation holdings will increase in value.

 

[infoiltrator]

Two factors define a stable state, upward mobility by merit, and a healthy middle class.
Too much wealth at the top is too much power and control.
There is no conservative stability in a changing world.
The greatest threat of great wealth past a certain point is it accumulates faster than it can be spent, often without merit.

Charity is a blessing, and a lousy basis for government.

Nature, Evolution, or God, creates a wide spectrum of individuals, that thrive in different circumstances. If there are not enough species to fill each niche, species diversify to match. If all positions are filled, then diverse species or persons compete.

The object of government is not fairness or perfection. It is to provide a reasonably safe environment for as many to prosper as can do so. And to provide the balance which keeps groups from tearing down the whole thing to start over.

Most charity and government programs involve a combination of out of sight, out of site, do not bother me or trouble me. And oversight of those programs are political plums. Politicians reward support.

And a portion of food from food banks goes bank into circulation. People want what they want NOW always.

So quit your whining. The old Soviet Union embraced 100 % employment and could not produce enough food, shelter, or job satisfaction to go around.

As a major nation taxation is part of the burden we bear.
Not enough money, change jobs and get lucky. Or lose it all and lose faith in working.

Or give up your health. Security. Mobility. Whatever.

Slavery is worse than poverty. Enforced labor with no chance of "upward mobility" =?

If you do not know as much about government and politics as you do about your favorite enthusiasm why should you be a citizen?
Why should you worry about taxes?

 

[dmcowen674]

is opposing the redistribution of wealth contradicting...

Since so many rich donate to charity?

For the record I hate the govmnt takes all my money, but sometimes u have to reflect and look at the man in the mirror

So where do you hide your millions? Monaco, Burmuda?

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey guess what I agree. I am in favor of the redistribution of wealth that corrupt businessmen, unions, and politicians use, by government power, to extort from the free market. People such as Warren Buffet, whom uses political contributions to get Obama to cancel the Keystone pipeline so that his own railroad oil transportation holdings will increase in value.

You have no evidence whatsoever to believe that to be true. It's pure conspiracy theory.

I mean, really.

 

[Anarchist420]

Mostly because it's a lot less money, right?

It's not like charity made much of a dent in the Great Depression, or in previous financial collapse scenarios, either.

Throw the bums a dime- you'll feel better about yourself.

It seems unlikely that we'd be able to support the military through voluntary contributions, let alone the interstate highways system, air traffic controllers, FDA, CDC, FBI & a few dozen other beneficial Fed & State agencies, but do rave on, OK?

Considering the marginal income tax rates during the GD, I wouldn't expect a whole lot from private charities as I don't think there were deductions for charitable contributions back then.

 

[Atreus21]

The royal yours. The only way to get rich is to get money from somebody else. When those collective somebodies get it back, that's REdistribution.

Like I said, it will happen, it always happens.

Uh, wrong. Take a single economics class.

 

[billyb0b]

Since so many rich donate to charity?

For the record I hate the govmnt takes all my money, but sometimes u have to reflect and look at the man in the mirror

NO... there's a HUGE difference.

The government takes your money by force - they can put you in jail if you fail to pay taxes.

Charity is voluntary. One decides to depart with his capital that is derived from his labor if he only chooses to do so.

The VOLUNTARY exchange of goods and services is the natural state of man within a society. Involve government in it and it is perverted (i.e. S&L in the late 1980s, the current home mortgage crisis, public school tuition, healthcare).

 

[Craig234]

First, list 10 of the societies with the greatest concentrations of wealth, where there are a few rich and most are very poor.

(You won't do it, but you should to get the point). Now, ask about 'private charity' in those societies. It might be high, actually, but it's far from eliminating poverty.

Those societies tend not to have strong democracies, strong governments serving the public; rather the government tends to serve the few wealthy.

Now list 10 societies with the lowest concentrations of wealth, with strong middle classes.

What do they all have in common generally? Strong democratic governments 'redistributing the wealth'.

'Redistributing the wealth' creates wealth.

There might be an exception - there's a country in the middle east without poverty, because it has enormous oil money for a small population, but that can't be repeated.

Here's the list of the 10 countries the world bank lists with the lowest concentration of wealth:

Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belarus, Germany, Serbia.

Most of those countries have strong government involvement for the benefit of the people.

Now, there are a variety of reasons for low concentration of wealth. The good one is mentioned above, which is the one applicable to the US. Bad ones are former communist states and very poor nations where there just aren't wealthy people, but they aren't relevant to the US.

In recent decades, the US has shot towards of the top of the list of advanced economies in a number of related areas - concentration of wealth, CEO to worker pay ratio, low taxation, high percent in poverty. As the right gets its wishes - deregulation, lower taxes on the 'job creators', aka the wealthy who use the money to enrich themselves and increase their ownership of the assets in society far more than to create jobs, which actually decreases as the people have less money decreasing demand for products and services - the people are worse economically.

The right has fallen for an ideology paid for by the people who benefit from taking the people's wealth. So as they do worse, their answer is - do more of the wrong thing.

It's like the old joke, 'the beatings will continue until morale improves'.

The right-wing economic policies taking people's money will continue until the people have more money. Ain't gonna happen.

The wealth has shifted from the people to the rich perhaps more than any time in US history, and the right hasn't learned from it.

They sing the same old song, blame the liberals - the same liberals under whom the wealth shifted to the people more than any other time, from FDR to Carter.

And now the people are starting to get some clue that they're being lied to - but they are still falling for the lies, just demanding the liars be replaced.

That Bush, he lied - but if Gingrich or Romney or any other Republicans leader tells the same lies, that's ok.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

NO... there's a HUGE difference.

The government takes your money by force - they can put you in jail if you fail to pay taxes.

Charity is voluntary. One decides to depart with his capital that is derived from his labor if he only chooses to do so.

The VOLUNTARY exchange of goods and services is the natural state of man within a society. Involve government in it and it is perverted (i.e. S&L in the late 1980s, the current home mortgage crisis, public school tuition, healthcare).

You're clueless. The 'natural state' of affairs is for a few at the top to enslave everyone else and do very well. That happens whatever the form of 'government', which servers those few to keep the many in line. That's what 'small government' means to them - small government when it comes to representing the people.

The banking sector has only gone decades without a scandal and crash once in US history - at the highest point of government regulation FDR to Carter.

It was exactly when Reagan relaxed the regulations that was the direct cause of the S&L crisis soon after.

The government taking some wealth by force - under the voters' control - is what works.

You can't name one society in history that has succeeded by 'voluntary donations' without compulsary contributions because it has never happened and doesn't work.

 

[cybrsage]

The purpose of charity has never been to eliminate poverty.

 

[blackangst1]

Here's the list of the 10 countries the world bank lists with the lowest concentration of wealth:

Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belarus, Germany, Serbia.

Most of those countries have strong government involvement for the benefit of the people.

And now compare those countries with the percentage of population living below the poverty line:

Japan: 15.7%
Denmark: 12.1%
Sweden: no data provided
Czech Republic: no data provided although other sources have reported 3-8%
Norway: no data provided
Slovakia: 21%
Finland: no data provided
Belarius: 27.1%
Germany: 15.5%
Serbia: 8.8%

USA: 15.1

So, having a country with a smaller percentage of concentration of wealth certainly isnt a pancea for the collective of the population.

discard234

edit: forgot to post source

 

[MotF Bane]

The royal yours. The only way to get rich is to get money from somebody else. When those collective somebodies get it back, that's REdistribution.

Like I said, it will happen, it always happens.

That makes no sense. Are you just bring sarcastic?

.

 

[zubbs1]

NO... there's a HUGE difference.

The government takes your money by force - they can put you in jail if you fail to pay taxes.

Charity is voluntary. One decides to depart with his capital that is derived from his labor if he only chooses to do so.

The VOLUNTARY exchange of goods and services is the natural state of man within a society. Involve government in it and it is perverted (i.e. S&L in the late 1980s, the current home mortgage crisis, public school tuition, healthcare).

True except it isn't even government, its a quasi governemnt institution (Federal Reserve) that purposely creates the booms and busts by the existence of their dual mandate which oppose each other. At least if the government coined their own currency again our votes could have some impact on the strength of our currency (which all other healthy outcomes are derived from).

 

[zubbs1]

You have no evidence whatsoever to believe that to be true. It's pure conspiracy theory.

I mean, really.

Its not even a little stretch to draw such a conclusion. We live in a corporatist oligarchy where the central bank informs the corporations (mostly other banks) who inform the politicians who set policy for us to live within.

 

[zubbs1]

First, list 10 of the societies with the greatest concentrations of wealth, where there are a few rich and most are very poor.

(You won't do it, but you should to get the point). Now, ask about 'private charity' in those societies. It might be high, actually, but it's far from eliminating poverty.

Those societies tend not to have strong democracies, strong governments serving the public; rather the government tends to serve the few wealthy.

Now list 10 societies with the lowest concentrations of wealth, with strong middle classes.

What do they all have in common generally? Strong democratic governments 'redistributing the wealth'.

'Redistributing the wealth' creates wealth.

There might be an exception - there's a country in the middle east without poverty, because it has enormous oil money for a small population, but that can't be repeated.

Here's the list of the 10 countries the world bank lists with the lowest concentration of wealth:

Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belarus, Germany, Serbia.

Most of those countries have strong government involvement for the benefit of the people.

Now, there are a variety of reasons for low concentration of wealth. The good one is mentioned above, which is the one applicable to the US. Bad ones are former communist states and very poor nations where there just aren't wealthy people, but they aren't relevant to the US.

In recent decades, the US has shot towards of the top of the list of advanced economies in a number of related areas - concentration of wealth, CEO to worker pay ratio, low taxation, high percent in poverty. As the right gets its wishes - deregulation, lower taxes on the 'job creators', aka the wealthy who use the money to enrich themselves and increase their ownership of the assets in society far more than to create jobs, which actually decreases as the people have less money decreasing demand for products and services - the people are worse economically.

The right has fallen for an ideology paid for by the people who benefit from taking the people's wealth. So as they do worse, their answer is - do more of the wrong thing.

It's like the old joke, 'the beatings will continue until morale improves'.

The right-wing economic policies taking people's money will continue until the people have more money. Ain't gonna happen.

The wealth has shifted from the people to the rich perhaps more than any time in US history, and the right hasn't learned from it.

They sing the same old song, blame the liberals - the same liberals under whom the wealth shifted to the people more than any other time, from FDR to Carter.

And now the people are starting to get some clue that they're being lied to - but they are still falling for the lies, just demanding the liars be replaced.

That Bush, he lied - but if Gingrich or Romney or any other Republicans leader tells the same lies, that's ok.

Save234

The only flaw with your argumnet is that wealth is not finite with a fiat currency. Albeith land ownership is still finite, and that is the biggest transfer of real wealth that has occurred in the last century during every bust cycle. However, the richest don't hold all their assets as land so only a fraction is actual wealth.

Imagine this:
If over the last 40 years (time since gold standard was abandoned), I went from owning 10% of infinity to owning 70% of infinity, while at the same time that the other 99+% went from owning 2% of infinity to 25% of infinity, does it really matter since we all own a fraction of infinity?

 

[zubbs1]

And now compare those countries with the percentage of population living below the poverty line:

Japan: 15.7%
Denmark: 12.1%
Sweden: no data provided
Czech Republic: no data provided although other sources have reported 3-8%
Norway: no data provided
Slovakia: 21%
Finland: no data provided
Belarius: 27.1%
Germany: 15.5%
Serbia: 8.8%

USA: 15.1

So, having a country with a smaller percentage of concentration of wealth certainly isnt a pancea for the collective of the population.

discard234

edit: forgot to post source

From your source

National estimates of the percentage of the population falling below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations.

This is why discussions are so difficult. There are too many variables in play to be able to accurately compare one country's defined poverty level to another country.

 

[blackangst1]

From your source


This is why discussions are so difficult. There are too many variables in play to be able to accurately compare one country's defined poverty level to another country.

Of course, but generalites are generally true.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

Since so many rich donate to charity?

For the record I hate the govmnt takes all my money, but sometimes u have to reflect and look at the man in the mirror

The main difference is that they CHOOSE to donate, not forced to donate, that is to say their donation is a choice to redistribute wealth not a forced action.

 

[piasabird]

When you are donating to charity, you are using your first amendment rights and targeting the people you want to help or the charity that you think needs your money. When you send money through taxation, you know that at least 1/3 of that money will be wasted and tied up in government red tape. Government hires people for too much money and then wastes your money with communist and fascist paperwork and idealogical agendas.

 

[Jhhnn]

Considering the marginal income tax rates during the GD, I wouldn't expect a whole lot from private charities as I don't think there were deductions for charitable contributions back then.

So what? Taxes wouldn't have been raised to create govt programs if private charity had been adequate to the task at hand.