"Redistribution of wealth is evil"

[GreenPartyVoter]

So says my brother-in-law.

He was in a fighting mood and I was not. Wanted to know why we need a public broadcasting station. (Just get rid of it, he says)

Wanted to tell me over and over that redistribution of wealth is evil .. over and over.. that CEOs are entitled to their money and the government is not. And that if the workers under a CEO don't like being shortchanged they can find a job elsewhere.

And that of course the DOD needs a huge budget. They are the most important part (and about the only useful part) of our government. Pointed out how useful the nukles were that we used to end WWII. :eyes:

And that we should have school vouchers.

Finally I told him I needed to get back to work and kicked him out in a friendly sort of way. Unfortunately I never win these battles. I rarely come up with salient responses to what he has to say and even when I do they don't register with him.

I told him he ought to talk to my dad about this stuff. He thinks he can hold his own, saying he's debtated with the best of them. But I really don't think he'd want to go toe-to-toe with dad because a) he could never hold his own and b) it would be awkward seeing as how this is an older in-law. (I don't like debating my fil.. respect for elders and all that.)

anyway, i didn't do our side proud tonight.

i'm so sorry!

[norml]

1. No, taxing the poorest people at the same rate as the richest people is

evil, and it's not very good for business, or society.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. But then he trotted out the we're stealing the rich guy's money

thing again. :eyes:

[norml]

6. And he wants to steal the poorer people's money.

His ideology doesn't want to get rid of taxes, his ideology wants to shift the taxes off of those who are richer onto those who are poorer. His taxes are theft BS won't fly.

[norml]

12. They sell this garbage the same way they sell the rest of their agenda

by promising that Big Money, Low Low Prices, and Jobs Jobs Jobs will come trickling down if only we remove most of the taxes, and regulations on the biggest businesses, and the richest people. Their agenda is all about getting rid of public services, protections, benefits, and rights. While such things can be overdone, the greatest prosperity the world has ever known has been during the times when we have had good public services, protections, benefits, rights, and a system of progressive income taxation, where the richer pay at a higher rate than the poorer. This makes it easier for those who are poorer to have spending money to stimulate the economy, and to better their lot. The economics of the evil movement that calls itself conservative are very bad for business, and very bad for society.

[LiberallyInclined]

46. the way that * always said it during his campaigns made me INSANE...

he'd go about defending his tax-cuts by saying something to the effect of: "...if i'm a rich person, and i get more wealth thru tax-cuts, "maybe" i'll go out and start a business and create more jobs..."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

ummm...isn't the whole idea of capitalism something called "supply & demand"? without a demand, you don't need a supply- supply doesn't create demand- it's the other way around. someone recognizes a need(demand), and finds a way to fill(supply) that need.
* never worked an honest days work in his entire life, and has never had to "earn" his money, so it's no wonder that he doesn't understand the basic principles- in his world, the money grows on trees.

sometimes i just have to shake my head and laugh- i only hope that i live long enough to see it all come tumbling down.

[blurp]

19. To understand you have to think about what money means

Money is a way of handling the problem of reciprocity among a large number of people with many different skills.

Think about what money means: you present to a person your money and that person performs a task for you or gives you some object.

Later, they bring that money back to you expecting you to do something for them. You perform a task for them or give them an object and the cycle repeats.

It's not obvious that reciprocity is at work because the money moves through so many hands and the cycle it follows may include hundreds of people.

Consider hamburger flipper Joe. Joe is paid for making hamburgers. He provides the service of making hamburgers, collects money for this, and uses that money to get other people to perform services for him. Later, that money will eventually come back to him and he will perform his service again and the cycle will repeat. Joe makes a burger for the barber who cuts the hair of the farmer that grows food for the teacher that educates Joe at the community college.

In effect, money allows people to help each other. (Too bad they don't often recognize this.)

Now consider redistributive taxes. Joe makes hamburgers as before, but a portion of the money he's given by his customers is taxed away, say through payroll taxes.

Later, those that received Joe's money bring it back to Joe and request their hamburger. Joe performs his service and collects the money. Of course, this money is also taxed and the cycle repeats.

This difference from before is that Joe is essentially making free hamburgers. Oh, he doesn't know this. All his customers' money looks the same. He doesn't know what portion of that money was taxed from him and what customers it was given to. But the effect is still the same.

Joe is performing a free service to simply get back the money that was taken from him in the first place. And it happens over and over again.

Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing. It turns out that this form of helping people (giving them money directly) is very effective in spreading the burden throughout the economy. But it must be remembered that the spending of tax money by such people puts real demands on the productive portion of the economy. Those that don't produce will have to be served as well as those that do and someone has to perform that extra work.

Now the neat thing about all this is that it doesn't just apply those on welfare or other forms of government assistance.

Consider the military establishment. Taxes mean you're forced to serve them. Just what do you get back from them? Just how productive are they?

And what about the rich that get income from interest on the national debt?

Those are forms of redistribution, too.

[Mnemosyne]

44. I liked the way that you explained that concept blurp!

So many forget that sometimes the simplest explanation is the most effective to be heard and understood.

Thanks so much. :toast:

Are you an economist or do you just play one on tv?

:evilgrin:

:kick:

[blurp]

56. Thank you

No, I'm not an economist, but I've spent a bit of time studying such things.

What I've learned is that you can't get too bogged down in the abstractions and graphs and jargon. Economics is about human behavior and choice.

So always ask yourself, what are people actually doing and why, and what are the consequences of what they do, and what are the real world consequences of their choices and actions?

What in the physical world is actually happening as a result?

[oscar111]

59. "hamburger" errors corrected

biggest error, is that making hamburgers for redistributed-money-customers,

is a drain "on producers".

Vast sums of US wealth today are sitting idle in the Swiss bank basement accounts of billionaires as gold bars.

redistribution to injured US producers, would let those injured get a hamburger. THen, as that restores their health, they again PRODUCE.

Nowhere is that a drain "on producers". It ups production.

Idle wealth is correction of error number one.

2. Old, Weak and Sick.. OWS. Helping them with a free hamburger is indeed a drain on producers. Humans, real humans, do not want to see human suffering. We do this because we are civilized, not brainless savages like Limbaugh and Hitler.

3. free hamburges to poor college students. Not a drain, as this makes them higher producers for 45 years.
Pell grants etc are redistribution.

4. free hamburgers from the middle class' tax money {similar to the point one above, from the idle wealth in point one}... to rehab injured workers. Not a drain, it restores production for decades by that worker. Free healthcare is the real life hamburger i am talking about.

So most of the "free hamburgers" are not a drain at all. They up production. Only burgers to the OWS are a drain, a drain that keeps us civilized. Most tho, are burgers that up production. Just as gov spending ended the Great Depression's absence of production. Back then, Joe had no burger customers. Joe starved. Redistribution came to his rescue.

[hfojvt]

73. except there are many holes in that

redistribution does not hurt producers. Often it produces jobs which otherwise would not be there. For example, some of miner Joe's taxes goto pay for safety inspections and regulations for mines which not only provide jobs for inspectors but have the added benefit of reducing accidental deaths of miners. Government spending produces, or funds the production, of real goods and services (roads, water purification, garbage pick-up, fire protection, schools, etc.) for which there is a real public demand.
A major problem since the 1930s, and perhaps before - has been over-production. The shoe factory, which is now largely automated can very easily make more shoes than it can sell. When that happens, it lays off workers. Then those workers cannot buy furniture because they have no jobs. So the furniture factory lays a bunch of people off too, and those unemployed workers cut back on their spending because they have no income and jobs become even harder to find, because not only is the furniture factory not hiring, but 100 people who used to work there are now looking for work.
And this ripples through the entire economy. So the furniture worker is better off if some of his tax money goes to pay unemployment compensation to the non-working shoemaker so he/she can keep buying furniture, which will dampen that ripple effect.

[blurp]

84. You simply give examples where Joe gets something back for his taxes

There is a difference between taxes that pay for legitimate services and taxes that redistribute.

Garbage pick-up, fire protection, etc, are example where Joe gets a service for his money.

There is nothing wrong with that. I don't claim that all taxes are redistributive. Taxation is often just a way for large numbers of people to pay for a service they all enjoy.

The unemployment compensation issue is interesting. In a sense it's an example of forced saving and not redistribution since the money for the compensation ends up coming from workers that both pay and receive money from the system.

[Debs]

76. No We're Not

Taxes are the cost of a society. We pay for food. We pay for electricity. We pay for society. Suppose a city had a huge park where delicious berries grew. Citizens were allowed to pick these berries. The City however built an expensive irrigation system, paid for security to keep them from being stolen by thieves. Pathways to make them easier to get to. Weeding to maximize their abundance. Organic means to keep them from being eaten by bugs and birds. To pay for this they expect the citizens to give them one basket of berries for each seven they pick.(This is from Peter Singer an ethicist) This is NOT theft, your brother like many Republicans want a free lunch. Society makes a huge investment on everyones ability to make money. Education, an efficient transportation system. A state of the art communication system including satellite communication. A safe environment to make money in. The CEOs benefit a lot more than working people from these investments. They benefit not only from THEIR education but from the education of their workers. Saying being taxed on this is theft is whining for paying your fair share of the costs of these investments. Its like someone refusing to pay their electricity bill saying Edison is stealing his money expecting him to pay for the electricity he used. A bogus argument that cannot withstand a seconds moral scrutiny

[DuaneBidoux]

117. Tell him that 70 years ago (after a great depression) we figured out that

those who most benefit from the system should be expected to pay the most. After all, think of this: if I have 50 large businesses being protected by the military why shouldn't I pay 50 times more than one guy who has no business and is in fact poor, and has nothing for the military to protect? If the commerce department negotiates a trade agreement that protects my millions of dollars in earnings why shouldn't I pay a larger share for that Commerce dept. than someone who has gotten no benefit from the Commerce dept. and its negotiations?

If I have 50 businesses and they are receiving fire protection across the board, and one guy has a little mobile home what are the chances of a fire in one of my 50 businesses vs. one guy's mobile home? I am getting, by the very definition of my wealth, 50 times the protection.

Are you telling me that Bill Gates, who has benefited from the greatest capitalist system in the world owes not one bit more than someone who has not reaped such benefits?

Try some of those on for size. It also might help if he read a little history and understood how much (not for everyone all the time but for some) of that "rich" man's money was stolen. Asked him when the last time was his credit card company, or phone company, or utility company ever made an error in his favor? And then ask, if they're truly honest, if they're not stealing, wouldn't you expect some errors in your favor?

I could go on.

[Telly Savalas]

118. Those rich guys earned their money using infrastructure I helped pay for.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Not only that, it's stupid

There's three reasons that we tax the rich more.

1) Poor people can't afford to pay taxes, rich people can.

2) Taxing poor people more would make them more dependent on those social services that the Republicans hate.

3) Taxing poor people isn't a good source of income for the government. Collecting 20% of a 20,000 doesn't do us any good. Collecting 20% of a 2 million dollar salary actually has uses.

[kodi]

102. investment wealth is taxed at a lower rate than labor

that is immoral.

[FreedomAngel82]

114. Huh

and here I thought Jesus said to help the poor and give up your riches. Hm. Maybe I have a different Bible.

[minnesotaDFLer]

3. if he thinks like that

then just ignore him, let him know that his views arent ok with you.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Trouble is my hubby feels the same way. Lucky for me he

hates confrontation so he very rarely talks about politics or religion. Otherwise we would never be able to live with each other.

[keith the dem]

4. Don't worry

There is no way to win or change a mind like that. The peace of your family may be more important.

The pity is that he, and his small minded intelligent cohorts, will probably suffer more harm under the right wing than most of us at DU.

[minnesotaDFLer]

18. are u kiddin me

when they seize control we'll all be in deathcamps

[keith the dem]

78. Point taken

BUT WE AIN'T GOING SILENTLY!

[minnesotaDFLer]

98. too bad!!!

we're all ANTI-GUN!!!

[Bozita]

7. Does he have a clue as to events over the last 5 years in Washington?

Unless he's one of the richest of the rich, he's been getting robbed.

Sounds like he's happy about it too.

[LostInAnomie]

8. What does he do for a living?

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. apprentice meat cutter in a grocery store

[Bozita]

30. What's his personal vision for the next 10 years? 20?

google this: Walmart meatcutters union Texas

find this:

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/041305LB.shtml


    Wal-Mart contends that unions make retailers inefficient and has successfully resisted their formation at its 3,000 U.S. stores. This year, the company announced it would close a Canadian store that had recently voted to organize, saying the Quebec outlet was not profitable. In 2000, shortly after 11 Wal-Mart meat cutters in Texas voted to be represented by the UFCW, the company announced it would pre-package meat and eliminate meat cutter jobs company-wide.

[LostInAnomie]

31. Ha Ha perfect, maybe he should take a look at...

... "The Jungle" and take a look at the situation he would be in right now if the government hadn't redistributed wealth to protect the public.

[newportdadde]

93. An apprentice meat cutter?

lmao. Is that a 12 buck an hour job? I love people like that who make maybe 30k fighting the good fight for millionares.

Tell him those CEOs really appreciate his support. He does realize for every dollar they hide in offshore account or dont pay in corporate taxes he is helping make up the difference.

[blurp]

9. Fundamentally unfair

Suppose two people help each other build houses for themselves. Before, they were homeless. Now they each have a house.

Most people would agree that a house is a form of wealth.

Now suppose a third person comes along to claim his share of the wealth.

Is that fair?

Now I'm not against the wealthy paying more in taxes. They have more to protect, after all.

[Lindacooks]

14. False logic

We're not talking about static items, we're talking about paying a price to live in a free and HEALTHY society.

Nothing is free - everything has to be paid for. And this country is all about the COMMON GOOD. That means that those who can pay, PAY, or the entire country suffers. As we are now seeing.

[blurp]

33. No, this is about wealth.

Wealth is not the same as income.

The original poster talked about redistributing wealth, not income.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

107. Don't hide in terminology

Aren't nearly all taxes applied only on wealth going from person A to person B? (And therefore being the income of person B?)

[manic expression]

45. You can cite unrealistic comparisons all you want....

most of the "rich" in countries do not "build" that which they own. It is almost always done by others who are paid virtually nothing and go to live in a terrible home after working on a house they could never dream of even living in for a night.

Two people who were homeless would find it very nearly impossible to live in a respectable house without being simultaneously screwed by the fortunate.

Here is another situation to show what it truly what it boils down to: A man owns a very large mansion, built and kept clean by the dirt poor. He pays these people very little for their work, but allows them to sleep outside at night, at a price. The entire property represents a nation, and it is right for the people to demand a fair share of that property.

[blurp]

52. Then who built the house?

You talk as if the mansion just appeared out of thin air. Who built it and why?

And what is a "fair share" of that property? If I improve some property, by adding a house for example, what is fair about others demanding a share of it?

And where did these people come from? Is their existence enough to justify a claim on what I have?

[U4ikLefty]

55. perhaps slaves or undocumented workers???

[blurp]

58. What slaves? And undocumented workers do get something in return.

Undocumented workers don't work for free.

They're given money and that money has to be earned by someone else.

And remember, to those providing goods and services, the money of an undocumented worker is still green.

So what is the problem?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blurp]

63. Open MY eyes?

It is not slavery. It is trade. Undocumented workers perform tasks for people. Those people give the workers money. The workers trade that money for goods and services. It's a big circle of trade.

That money that is "earned" by someone else is actually made OFF OF those exploited workers.

What is the problem? YOU AND YOUR DISGUSTING BELIEFS.


I should have known I was dealing with a Marxist.

Hey, do you believe in astrology and alchemy, too?

[manic expression]

104. Yes.

It is slavery. Denying one ownership of the land that they work on is wrong and it equals slavery. Paying someone just enough to survive (food and board only) is slavery. It would do you well to know that if those workers are only given enough money for survival and nothing else, that fits the definition of slavery. Workers are virtually bonded to their employers, and are endlessly exploited by them. There is no "trade" here, just mistreatment and denial of any justice or equality.

I should have known I was dealing with an ignorant, heartless person.

Hey, why not try to generalize and put meaningless labels on me some more? Call me what you want, but it won't make you any less wrong.

[manic expression]

60. Have you ANY idea of the world?

Most of the time, wealth comes from the family one belongs to, and it is almost a feudal position (in all but name). It was probably built by poor people, exploited by their employer and given almost nothing for their work. The employer was surely rich prior to this, and uses it for his own benefit while others live in standards not fit for animals.

I was also using a metaphor, the mansion is the country. The resources are wrongly hoarded by few, while others are left with almost nothing.

A "fair share" is what one SHOULD have. Simple. If someone works well, they should receive FAIR PAY. For example, people in sweatshops make clothes they could never afford to pay for if they saved up their money for their ENTIRE LIVES. How wrong is that? They should be able to wear the clothes they make, or the equivalent of that.

What YOU HAVE is not what YOU SHOULD HAVE. If you make people work "your" land when they can barely feed themselves, that is wrong and they deserve more. I would say they deserve an equal amount as you, or perhaps more, considering the hardships you have forced upon them. If someone works on a house that you will live in luxury in, while they do not have a working roof, again, that is wrong and they deserve more. They deserve their FAIR SHARE. That is all I am demanding.

[blurp]

66. Anyone that is a Marxist at this point isn't living in the real world

[manic expression]

103. Oh, really?

First of all, putting a label on someone and then dismissing their ideas because of it is the pinnacle of ignorance, and I can safely say that you have reached it.

Secondly, I admire Che (and Paul Kagame if you haven't noticed - not quite a Marxist) because he is a symbol of change. He fought for something better, and succeeded.

Thirdly, you should read Marx before you write it off. Equality is what is being demanded and little else. Your calling me a Marxist, a Communist, a Socialist or a brownshirt because I want justice is irrelevant. I will demand the same things no matter the label placed upon me by hopeless people.

Oh, and by the way, I do not support the Maoists in Nepal, so thanks a lot for making a foolish generalization.

[Vladimir]

111. Why don't you support the Maoists in Nepal? n/t

[manic expression]

112. A few reasons

they are responsible for many atrocities, and I do not think they have the best in mind for the people. Another thing is that the democratic process in the country cannot continue if the Maoists continue to fight. Also, the Maoists do deal with dissent brutally and are repressive, and they are suppressive of religion (from what I hear), and this is horrible in my view.

I also completely oppose the power of the King. I support the democratic movement which will ultimately be the way to betterment.

[Vladimir]

113. Fair enough

I mean you could be right, I just felt like asking you a far-left question to break up the boredom of the far-centre ones you have been fielding on this thread.

I think their methods are questionable, although being the insurgent element of the struggle I am willing to give them a certain benefit of the doubt, but I think that this democratic process you speak of is a bit nebulous. Certainly the Maoists seem to have a fair amount of popular support, since they are by all accounts growing in numbers, which makes me wonder what the ordinary Nepalese think of the Maoists. But then I am reminded of that old communist joke: "How do you deal with Trot infiltrators in a Stalinist party? Send in a Maoist to eat the Trots." So you could well be right about them not acting in the interests of the people, I don't really know enough about Nepal for any meaningful class discussion. I'm just in the mood for provocativeness...

[Vladimir]

94. If the third person is homeless

it is absolutely fair, and any civilized society should enforce their claim...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

108. I think we're talking with Stingy from the Lazy Town kid's show.

If you have a 4-year old who always wants you around when s/he's watching TV you'll know who I'm talking about.

[Vladimir]

110. LOL! n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

106. The third person just ask for help for building HIS house

Then the first two speak in unison, "I've got mine, fuck you."

And then they smear him by falsely claiming he wanted a share of their wealth without doing nothing.

[area51]

10. "Redistribution of wealth is evil"

If the "redistribution of wealth is evil", then why is he in favor of the poor & middle class getting their wealth redistributed to the rich?

[siliconefreak]

11. Sociology

The larger the gap between the haves and have-nots, the worse-off society will be. It really is that simple.

[oscar111]

21. 225 starved to death in NYC, early '3O's

how would your brother have society protect the OWS ? {old, weak and sick -- those who have reason to say "ow!"}

Charities and churches have never in history been up to the task. Witness right here in amereica, the thirties. U. of Houston's online digital history project, documents the deaths in NYC, which used hospital records to show starvation deaths in NYC, early thirties. Many more doubtless died of hunger across the nation.
Thousands? tens of thousands?

So the gov is needed to protect the OWS from the effects of maldistribution.

Starvation and Maldistribution is the evil.
Health and Redistribution is holy.

Again: Redistribution is holy.

Problem is "how to protect the OWS?" Many people have no family due to being very old {or only a disfunctional family, possibly one or two lunatics or jailbirds}. They must look to charities, church, or the gov.

The charities and church have never been up to the task. {the churches told RR when RR said "the churches will house the homeless {that i created by ending 2/3rds of housing vouchers}".... churches replied "we have our hands full now, without any more from you"}.

Charities and churches cannot do it, so gov must step in. That is one of the lessons of the thirties. Just one.

Tell your brother in short:
==================================
to protect the old, weak and sick from a repeat of the thirties' starvation of 225... when charities and churches failed... the gov must do the holy work of redistributing help to the old, weak and sick. Churches and charities are failing today -- A million have to live on a piece of sidewalk.
---- Redistribution is the holy thing to do. Maldistribution is evil, since starvation is evil. Redistribution is holy.

Your brother raised many Limbaugh points. This should answer one of them. {if you want a bible quote, see my sig below. Nothing in the bible trumps the direct words of Jesus}

[blurp]

35. Poor logic

The larger the gap between the haves and have-nots, the worse-off society will be. It really is that simple.

This is a poor standard by which to judge societies since it produces absurd results when applied.

For example, this standard suggests that a society where everyone is equally poor is just as good as a society where everyone is equally rich.

That's ridiculous. Therefore the standard is a poor one by which to measure societies.

[oscar111]

42. poor logic corrected by oscar

blurp,, our esteemed correspondent.... when one does as the standard suggests.. namely reduce the gap between hi and low,

one ends up with a midpoint -- not a hi point nor a low point.

one ends up with middle class, not all rich nor all poor.

so the logical result of the standard is middle class.

What is wrong with middle class? Seems desirable to me.

nothing "ridiculous" there.

Reduce the gap. Good logic, good ethics. What would Jesus say? Matt. 19: 21.... see sig for exact verse.

[manic expression]

43. Not so...

if a certain country is not as rich as another, but shares its menial wealth equally to all its people, that society is much more fair and advanced than the society which hoardes the money and power to a few and screws all the rest.

So, I guess Feudal states are more advanced as societies as say, true democracies if they produce more...:sarcasm:

[blurp]

49. What matters is what people have to do to satisfy their needs

Wealth distribution is irrelevant.

If I have the basic necessities of life, then why should it matter to me how much wealth my neighbor has?

Sure, I may WANT more, but why should the wealth of others even bother me?

And that's all the gap standard is, a complaint that someone else has more.

Like I said, it's an absurd standard because it predicts that a society where everyone is dirt poor is just as good as a society where everyone is rich.

[manic expression]

54. Wow...

Wealth distribution is important and essential to a society. To say otherwise is purely foolish.

So you want SOME people to be perfect sages and live on the basic necessities, while their neighbors swim in wealth? Why do you expect some people to not care for not only necessities but real needs (by your standards, eating white rice and drinking water 24/7 is a-ok and anyone who doesn't like it is a complainer), and furthermore not even be bothered by the fact that their countrymen are living extravagantly? Simply the worst idea I have heard of in a long time.

Sure, someone may WANT access to basic medical care, for example, but why should the fact that others have access to the best surgeons while I have no way to even see a nurse bother me? :crazy:

Why should the wealth of others bother you? Let me think...maybe it's because IT IS UNFAIR. To have some people hoard the wealth and power in a society, while others (sometimes the majority) languish in abject poverty is patently WRONG. Also, to think that those who are subjected to injustice and unnecessary discomfort (an understatement) should just stop caring that they are denied what is rightfully theirs is COMPLETELY WRONG. I cannot put into words how unbelievably mistaken you are.

Yeah, people who want ownership of the land they work on are just complaining; people who would like water that is relatively safe to drink while others live off of the finest bottled water are whiners; people who are frustrated when they and their children go to bed hungry every night while others feast and waste food excessively are just cry-babies.... :eyes:

You're partially right, it IS a complaint that someone else has more: and it is a COMPLETELY CORRECT COMPLAINT THAT SHOULD BE MET.

As a society, one is JUST as advanced if everyone is dirt poor as if everyone is rich. It is not as good, but it is the EQUALITY that is being judged, not the living standard. Justice is at question, not luxury.

[blurp]

62. All your anger is simple envy

Keep playing "you got it, I want it" and you'll be miserable for the rest of your life.

And people don't hoard wealth. Wealth must be created. And yes, it is fair that those that create wealth get to have the benefit of that wealth. There is nothing unfair in that. If you redistribute this created wealth you can be sure there will be little to redistribute next time.

Sure, someone may WANT access to basic medical care, for example, but why should the fact that others have access to the best surgeons while I have no way to even see a nurse bother me?

There are always limits to resources available, including nurses. Choices must be made. Just how do you decide who gets allocated a nurse? By drawing lots? By pulling numbers from a hat?

You think that by simply giving people more money that more nurses are going to fly out of Bush's behind to fill the need?

Yeah, people who want ownership of the land they work on are just complaining; people who would like water that is relatively safe to drink while others live off of the finest bottled water are whiners; people who are frustrated when they and their children go to bed hungry every night while others feast and waste food excessively are just cry-babies

I don't deny they are in a tough position, but it's asking a lot to demand the wealth that others have created on the grounds that one can't control one's reproductive habits. That's is unfair.

Or maybe I can bring my kids to your house and you can share your wealth? How much you got in the fridge? Oh, we don't believe in contraception or abortion, so little sally will be popping out another little mouth to feed. I'm sure you can help.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

75. people don't hoard wealth?! wealth must be created?!

i agree with you about one thing: you are not an economist.

[blurp]

80. Microsoft must have a software mine somewhere

Oh sure, if you're lucky you might trip over a nugget of gold somewhere, but most of the wealth in the world had to be created.

For many people, their homes are their greatest source of wealth. They don't come into existence by magic.

Of course, to people that know nothing about economics, it must all seem like magic.

[noiretextatique]

92. bush created no wealth

yet he is wealthy. he got his wealth by inheriting it like other trust fund babies and ne'er-do-nothings born into rich families. that's also an example of hoarding wealth. i stand by my statement regarding your limited knowledge of economics.

[blurp]

95. Besides the point

yet he is wealthy. he got his wealth by inheriting it like other trust fund babies and ne'er-do-nothings born into rich families. that's also an example of hoarding wealth.

2/3rds of the millionaires in the US are self-made. Bush obviously is not, yet even in his case someone at some point had to create that wealth.

If you have problems with parents giving their wealth away to their idiot children, that's fine. I agree. So does Warren Buffet. He even makes his kids pay interest on money they borrow from him.

i stand by my statement regarding your limited knowledge of economics.

I accept that there is always more to learn.

[noiretextatique]

99. very few people are self-made

i would not consider anyone who received any government funding "self-made." you made a claim about wealth being created and not hoarded...i gave you examples that disprove your claim. wealth is created in all sorts of ways that do not contribute to the well-being of a society. people who make money by creating pollution that damages the health of the ecosystem we all need to live are but one example.
as we have seen many times now, it's US, the taxpayers who get stuck footing the bill for cleaning up the mess for pollution caused by the creation of private wealth.

[Porcupine]

90. The old "rich create the wealth" arguement

It's tired, it's old and it is wrong. The rich HARVEST the wealth from those weaker or less powerfull than they are. Historically this was periodically corrected by the poor harvesting the heads of the rich on occasion followed by brief periods of reform.

Taxation and redistribution of wealth by democratic governments is a compromise whereas the rich keep most of their wealth along with their heads. Where democratic principles and methods break down (vote fraud, oligarchy) societies simply return to the direct method of wealth redistribution. There are several examples of this cycle at work in South America. That's why the wealthy south of the border have to drive armored Chevy Suburbans.

It's cheaper to tax the rich than protect them from a hostile populace.

[Vladimir]

96. As for wealth creation, how much Marx

have you read? Just wondering...

[siliconefreak]

71. You're ignoring social science

The sociological angle:

In a society where people feel like they're basically in the "same boat" as their fellow citizens, you'll find more respect and more empathy than in societies with large gaps between the rich and poor.

The psychological angle:

Individuals who see that their fellow citizens are more similar than different are happier than individuals who see vast differences between themselves and their neighbors.

"And that's all the gap standard is, a complaint that someone else has more."

You seem to be suggesting that someone who can hardly pay his bills should be just as happy as the guy down the street making $200K per year, or that if someone doesn't make more than the minimum wage and he's upset about it - too bad - it's his own damn fault. Is that what you're saying?

If so, well... How Republican of you.

What's your definition of "the basic necessities of life" in the richest nation on the planet?

[blurp]

79. Envy is no "social science"

Your angles are nothing more than the statement that many people get upset when they see someone else doing better than they are.

That's simple envy and it's a waste of emotional energy.

You seem to be suggesting that someone who can hardly pay his bills should be just as happy as the guy down the street making $200K per year, or that if someone doesn't make more than the minimum wage and he's upset about it - too bad - it's his own damn fault. Is that what you're saying?

No. I'm not saying anything is anyone's fault. Most of us do the best we can.

What I'm saying is that people need to stop looking at what their neighbors have to determine whether or not they should be happy with what they have. It's silly.

Yes, it's quite possible to be happy and not make $200k per year.

Frankly I find it very sad to find people, especially here, that think they have to have a lot of money to be happy.

[siliconefreak]

85. So, we disagree

I always thought it was a fundamental Democratic principle that vast differences in income and wealth should be discouraged. I certainly still agree with that.

In fact, I don't think I've ever come across anyone in the Democratic Party who doesn't believe this..

[blurp]

97. Well, there's always a first time.

I always thought it was a fundamental Democratic principle that vast differences in income and wealth should be discouraged. I certainly still agree with that.

In fact, I don't think I've ever come across anyone in the Democratic Party who doesn't believe this..

I suppose I've envied enough in the past to realize it's a waste of time.

Differences in wealth don't matter to me. What matters is people having what they need and living good lives and being happy.

If some get wealthy, then good for them. I don't see it as exploitation.

This whole Marxist class conflict crap just encourages hate. Most of the progress in the world hasn't come from class conflict. It's come instead from class cooperation.

[noiretextatique]

101. unions didn't happen because of cooperation

people organized in unions to force employers to pay fair wages and benefits, and to provide safe working conditions.
it's not "envy" to want to work in a place where you don't die because your employer won't invest in training or new equipment.
check out the history of the diamond mining in africa and tell me if you still think the people don't get rich because of the explotation of diamond workers. and the coal industry. or the sugar industry.
or farming.

[manic expression]

105. Oh, please!

It's not envy, it is simply necessity. People who would like to own the land they work on are not envious of the more well-off, they are appalled at how much they are wrongly denied and how much others wrongly have. If a starving man steals bread, is he envious?

I do not care about happy, I care about reasonable standards of living and treatment. I care about equality in society and government. That is what is the topic, not being happy because of incomes. Many people need the means to a better life (to say the least), and it is only right that we help them in achieving this.

[charlyvi]

13. Is he very religious?

I ask that because he thinks of redistribution of wealth as "evil". I could understand if he said unfair or wrong, but evil seems like he's talking about it as a moral thing, rather than an ethical position. Sounds like something Dobson or Robertson would say.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Extremely religious, and adamant that taxes don't count as helping the

poor becuse he didn't give the money freely as he would to a church charity.

[LostInAnomie]

41. That is absolute horse shit and they know it.

The people who say that wouldn't donate anymore money to church than they did before. They just say that because they know there isn't a chance in hell that the will ever have to prove it.

[Lindacooks]

15. Tell him Jesus says he's wrong.

There are hundreds of Bible verses telling us to take care of the poor, widows, orphans, and aliens. Jesus constantly condemns the rich and says that those who do not help the poor are condemned to hell.

[misanthrope]

17. "How much easier it is...

...for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

Not much ambiguity there.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. I tried that.. but he said that jesus was a capitalist not a socialist

and I said say what?!

But he was already out the door and waving goodbye *grrr*

[Igel]

87. That's an anachronism.

Jesus was neither. Both both sides handily quote to shove him into their particular little slots. Why it's important that he sided with a political economic theory that wasn't applicable for 1700 years after his death, or with one that didn't evolve until 1800 years after his death, has always been a mystery to me.

I guess it's not important to be on Jesus' side, but to have Jesus on your side.

[misanthrope]

16. Well, your brother-in-law...

...is about to get his wish.

From Salon.com:
According to the Washington Post's page 1 story today, "A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as 'Sesame Street,' 'Reading Rainbow,' 'Arthur' and 'Postcards From Buster.'"

-snip-

"In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which passes federal funds to public broadcasters -- starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million."

-snip-

If both the GOP cuts were enacted, it would mean the effective end to American public broadcasting as we have known it for the last 35 years. "The appropriation subcommittee zeroing out of public broadcasting funding is part of a GOP one-two punch to kill PBS and mortally wound NPR," Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and a public broadcasting advocate, tells War Room.


Folks, the CPB is vital to the survival of public broadcasting in smaller markets. The umbrella group was created by Congress to not only promote public broadcasting in Washington, but also as a fundraiser to help produce programming. The CPB is really important to smaller market radio and television outlets that can't raise as much money from local donors.

They're doing it, y'all. They're effectively squashing dissent.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. This topic is what started the whole conversation.. he didn't see

any reason for PBS and NPR to exist... that they are a drain on our financial resources.

[Iris]

28. Having an educated population is a drain on financial resources?

Jeez. Has he even watched PBS or listened to NPR?

Not onlty that, but I think most of the funds for PBS & NPR come from corporate and listener donations. The last Republican-led Congress also cut the budgets drastically.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. They are too liberal for him (He likes hannity and savage and coulter)

I pointed out that most of the funds come from corps, which is why pbs news is sounding more and more like the news on other corp owned channels like cbs and nbc and abc.

"Those are liberal too!"

I told him that they aren't liberal to a REAL LIBERAL, therefore he cannot make that statement. I am a true liberal and I denounce them as not being liberal.

[Iris]

32. Well, he missed his chance. The Tucker Carlson show was cancelled.

If he is a Fox-a-holic, then there's really no point in trying to enlighten him.

[oscar111]

37. You pay ch 6 $18 at grocer, for every $1 tax to PBS channel

you pay for ch 6 by buying at the grocer.. eg buy soap.. and the soap company buys ad time which is all the revenue for ch 6. Ch 6 air time is more lavishly done, so it ends up costing 18 times an equal minute on the threadbare PBS station.

these figures are from twenty years ago. PBS now gets less tax dollars, so the ratio now is "over 18 to one".

Ch 6 is the waste of money. PBS is a bargain.

All ads are a huge waste and they mislead to boot.

In a rational society, no ads.. guidance in purchaces would all come from CONSUMER REPORTS.

[JanMichael]

20. Great Wealth plus Poverty is Evil.

So there.

[Iris]

25. Money is a LIMITED resource.

When it gets grubbed up by 1% of the population, there's less to go around for everyone.

[SharonAnn]

57. No. It's labor that creates wealth. Think about it. Until somebody works

there's no wealth created.

If I have a million dollars, I can use it to buy food if someone is willing to WORK to provide me the food. I can use it to grow food if I'm willing to WORK the land. I can have a house if someone is willing to WORK to build me one, or if I'm willing to WORK to build one. I can buy the materials to build the house if someone is willing to WORK to saw the lumber for me, create the cement blocks, make the shingles, etc. Or I can WORK to do it myself.

If I was rich and had a million dollars and no one WORKED, they'd be worth nothing.

If I was poor and was willing to WORK, my work would be worth something.

[blurp]

65. The best part of what you said was

If I was rich and had a million dollars and no one WORKED, they'd be worth nothing.

Excellent point especially in light of the social security issue.

[Lex]

27. Corporations should be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE of taxes

.
just like everyone else.

They shouldn't be getting tax breaks if others aren't. That's Corporate Welfare.

That's one thing you can tell him next time.

[Sgent]

36. Well....

I don't think corporations should be taxed at all... but that's another discussion.

I proabably have a lot in common with your BIL in some ways, in that I'm against mass redistrubtion of wealth as it has been performed in this country in the past.

That being said, I think there should be a floor beyond which noone should go below. That floor to me would include at a minimum food, safe, up to code shelter, the availability of transportation, healthcare, and daycare if working. I oppose vouchers as an idea, but support them for schools/districts which are utterly failing.

All of the above said however, I don't believe in the tax rates which existed (90%) before the Kennedy and Reagan tax reforms. You have to provide some incentive to produce.

[blurp]

38. I agree. No taxes for corps.

Just make shareholders pay taxes directly on whatever profit the corp makes.

[VPStoltz]

34. I never lose

"discussions" like this because I make sure to read, read, read about this piece of crap in D.C. and so much of it is repeated it sticks. Strangely, when Reagan started using the "trickle down" theory, it was another way of saying redistribution. Only, this method involved those at the bottom getting very little and having to work their asses for it.
The whole idea that those at the top "earn" their wealth is positively absurd. Most wealth is either inherited or capital gains earned for shareholders by the working class.
And as far as the use of nukes goes, read up a little on the end of WWII. The Japanese were near an end and basically incapable of doing what the war advisor told Truman. The bombings in Japan were of questionable purpose.

[lonestarnot]

39. The ownership society.... they fucking think they own us... that should

fire up some dumbshits!

[Mnemosyne]

40. Don't worry about it Green, trying to

help change such distorted reasoning, and he is believe it or not (hell, you're at the DU, you know this!), you may never succeed in opening his mind to clarity. But never give completely up, as your next words may brighten his tunnel (vision)! :hi: :hug:

Thanks for trying, effort and heart mean more here.:yourock: :woohoo:

And I hope your Dad kicks his ass, verbally that is!:evilgrin:

[nolabels]

47. Life is unfair

Reasonable people have a reasonable government. It's only a matter of how you and your meat cutting relative look at it. Speaking in tongues is more about keeping your sanity than the communication it elicits.

Don't worry anyway, they will never survive unless they can kill all of us and everybody that that knows anything about us :-)

[Skip Intro]

48. Its not like "they" don't have their own ****, they wan't to tell us,

you and me what we can and can't have too.

Its like somebody walking onto your yard and changing the landccaping to their tatses, without your permission, which they obviously wouldn't recognize anyway..

I bet he, and the rest of those who belive what he said, would change their mind damn fast if they had to figure out how to keep the lights on and buy food and medicine next week. That digoxin that keeps you from a heart attck isn't as important making sure Dick Cheney and co. gets every tax break he can.

Did he follow up with a speech on w's "culture of life" afterward?

[Hello_Kitty]

50. "of course the DOD needs a huge budget"

Well OK, who's interests are most protected by our military actions? Poor and middle class people? I don't think so. Why then, shouldn't the wealthy finance the military at a rate commensurate with the protection they receive from it? That's sure as hell not what's happening now. You and I and future generations of regular folks are going to pay for it, not Paris Hilton.

Point out to him that WW2 was paid for by a tax increase on the wealthy, in addition to war bonds. Ask him why he thinks CEOs should get a tax break when there's a war going on.

[U4ikLefty]

53. The entitled hate the idea of redistribution of wealth

because it means a redistribution of their power.

[wtmusic]

64. I have to agree

Taking the collective wealth of millions of Americans (and their children, and their children's children) and redistributing it into the pockets of billionaires truly *is* evil.

[leftofthedial]

67. people who value their money over other people

are evil

[Carolab]

68. You can always follow up in an e-mail.

Wanted to know why we need a public broadcasting station. (Just get rid of it, he says) We need public broadcasting so that we can get the facts that we, the people, need to make informed decisions. Publicly supported and funded media owe have no special obligations to corporate interests.

Wanted to tell me over and over that redistribution of wealth is evil .. over and over.. that CEOs are entitled to their money and the government is not. CEOs are entitled to a salary and benefits commensurate with their contributions, the same as any other worker in any other company.

And that if the workers under a CEO don't like being shortchanged they can find a job elsewhere. Not bloody likely, since the tax cuts and the higher incomes being paid to CEOs are draining the life's blood out of companies in the U.S., and outsourcing is draining our jobs to cheaper overseas workers.

And that of course the DOD needs a huge budget. CEOs should be taxed at the same rate relative to their income as lower-paid workers, because they too use the services that public money buys--including a huge defense budget.

They are the most important part (and about the only useful part) of our government. Pointed out how useful the nukles were that we used to end WWII. (Hiroshima? Nagasaki?) Ugh. I wouldn't even dignify that one with a response. Does he know Pearl Harbor was LIHOP?

And that we should have school vouchers. Does he think the children of the CEO should be entitled to the same amount of vouchers as the children of poor children? Or does he just imagine they will attend expensive private schools instead?

[Stirk]

69. Tell him Jesus would disagree.

I seem to remember alot of his teachings were about helping the needy.

[oscar111]

70. middle class society is superior to gobble/starve societies; reduce GAP

replying to glorp's idea that reducing the gap between the rich and poor is bad.

Middle class societies are superior to gobble/starve societies.

Norway is rated by UN as the top quality of life nation. It is rated superior to the US. A better place to live. {our lifespan is 25th, behind all scandanavian nations}

reduce the gap. Live better. The starve of gobble/starve is unacceptable.

"a series of reverses" can bring your brother down into the starve layer, as long as a starve layer is there.
eg, his family is wiped out in a drunk driver head-on collision, and he is paralyzed neck down.

Then his church falls apart. His supporting parents die of old age. His kid is injured at work, and needs help too, so no longer helps him.

Penniless, your brother must move to a cheaper town, where no neighbor knows him and so none help him. In short.. a series of reverses leave him in need of gov dollars. Redistribution.

A series of reverses can humble anyone at all... Look at Napoleon. Look at Hitler -- Master of all Europe, then cornered by an army howling for his blood a hundred yards away from hitler's bunker. The End.

No one is safe as long as a 'starve layer" in a gobble/starve society exists. Middle class is the better design... Norway.

[NMMNG]

74. It's all about the "redistribution of wealth"

The rich use tax cuts, loopholes, creative investing, corporate welfare, donations to politicians in order to get laws passed in their favor, etc. to ensure that the wealth of the poor and middle class will get redistributed into their pockets. Then they whine when somebody comes along and wants to spread a bit of it back around.

[noiretextatique]

77. the redistribution of wealth is evil

it was evil when reagan accelerated it, and it's continued to be evil since then. bush's father called reaganomics "voodoo economics" and he was right...it's no different now.
government needs money to operate and what reagan did and what bush is doing is reducing government revenues (with the taxes cuts) while spending obscene amounts of money on defense. the result is also the same as it was with reagan: huge budget deficits.

the belief that giving the wealthy more money so that they will invest it is just that: a belief. trickle-down didn't work under reagan, and it is not working now, at least not for working people. when the party's finally over, guess who will be paying for it? you me, and your brother-in-law.

[Deja Q]

81. I just made a post unwittingly talking about that situation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3839443

Excerpt:

Meanwhile, the state runs a lottery. Fools pay $1 just so they won't win a prize they think they're going to win. They all basically pay so one person can live in luxury. Why not pay into a system that EVERYBODY can get at least the basics from? I refuse to play the lottery for that alone. This isn't socialism, this is basic humane decency, especially when those who make us squabble and scratch for jobs are less than human themselves?

Sounds like redistribution to me.

[Kerrytravelers]

82. Nothing to apologize for. This guy sounds like he wanted a fight.

You didn't give it to him. I never gave in to my evil bil. I't snot worth it. They are so set in their ways, they won't listen to reason. I would simply say next time:

"It is clear from your behavior and your vote that you like war. It is clear from mine that I prefer peace. What would happen if they gave a war and no one came? You're about to find out."


... and then---- walk away. Don't give him to satisfaction of spreading his hatred around in your presence. Leave the place completly. If he's at your home, open the door and point the way out. DO NOT LET YOURSELF BE VERBALLY ATTACKED BY THIS GUY. I don't care who the hell he is.

My bil said Democrats wouldn't be allowed in his church (he was a minister there.) I said he wouldn't be welcomed in mine. We actually discuss the teachings of Jesus, not who we're all suppose to hate this week. I got tired of having little shut ups prepared for this jackass all the time. Mr. kt and I finally decided it was time say good bye and no longer deal with these people. We have very limited contact with his family and we're actually much happier. You do not have to take abuse because of some arbiturary "relationship" society makes us think we have to form.

These people are so full of hate and anger. My bil was like that. Nothing pleasant about the guy. Spewing hate and venom all the time. All this anger gave him at heart attack and he was dead at 33. When we attended that funeral, the presideing chaplin gave a "join this church or burn in hell" speech. People from his fther's workplace all attended the funeral (my fil use to work in a Native American health care center, many people practived the faiths of their tribes. There were also many Muslims at his workplace. Can you imagine how insulting that memorial service was?) Unbelievable. Even in death, his last wishes made him an asshole.

[patrice]

83. . . . . because . . . . ?

"Redistribution of wealth is evil, because it harms people by making them "weak"."

They are weak anyway, because almost no one can make wealth without many many others. When your brother-in-law can produce everything he has completely by himself, he can talk about the redistribution of wealth being evil.

Greed is what makes you Weak, greed for anything: stuff, power, "God", status, experiences, material possessions. Greed is an Addiction; you can't survive only on what is necessary; literally, CANNOT LIVE, with only the basics. This is Weakness.

Greed makes you Weak, therefore "Free Market" Capitalism is Evil. That's the Deconstructed position opposite from what your brother-in-law says; the truth is somewhere in between the two (at any given moment - but then that's another issue).

BTW, there is no such thing as a "Free Market" remind your brother-in-law of all of the SUBSIDIZATION of "wealth" in this country.

[SmokingJacket]

86. The faulty assumptions he makes are legion:

1. He assumes that possession of money is a God-given right. Actually... no. Money has no meaning separated from a society. You alone on your desert island with bags of money are NOT rich. The very *existence* of rich people depends on the *existence* of the not-rich. Therefore, in my opinion, rich people are morally obligated to make sure the not-rich are not suffering in service of their wealth. That means paying taxes to ensure, at the very least, a strong safety net.

2. He ignores the fact that exploitation of people is wrong. If you are in the desert, and a man who has only a twenty dollar bill to his name is dying of thirst, is it okay to charge him $20 for a glass of water? After all, he's willing to pay it, right??

NO. Because it's wrong to exploit people's suffering. People are willing to work minimum wage because they can't find any other work; they're willing to go without health benefits even though they work 40 hours a week, because they have no better choice. Getting rich off of DESPERATION is the true evil here.

[LiberalAndProud]

88. I agree with your brother.

Let's talk about redistribution of wealth ...

CEOs of large companies -- enron for example -- take huge salaries and obscene bonuses. Shareholders and pensioners take it in the shorts.

Delta Airlines make contracts with employees for pension plans as part of (an IMPORTANT part) of their compensation and break the contract in bankruptcy court.

Predatory lenders make usurious loans to people of limited means. Banks take usurious fees.

I could go on, but suffice it to say REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IS EVIL.

[Igel]

89. You need to establish what the terms mean before you can begin

to argue. Even just reading the posts above, I spot a lot of different definitions of "evil" and "redistribution of wealth".

By an act of Divine (Im)Providence, on Jan. 1 everybody in a small, isolated, American community (say, I don't know, Santa Monica) wakes up with precisely $50k in assets; after six months of trading and working they won't all still have $50k. Some will have more, some less. (a) Assume taxes are collected semi-annually. The state collects taxes at the end of the 6 months based on what's owned. The better-off pay more--even assume a flat tax, it doesn't matter. (b) Assume the state then decides that there are people who can't pay rent. The state decides to subsidize rent with surplus taxes. (c) After 3 years, the wealth disparaties have grown. The state decides that this is unconscionable, and enacts a tax policy that specifically takes money from the top 10% for the purpose of giving it to the lowest 10% income-recipients, so that the latter get hefty refunds. (d)

I could call any of the changes preceeding a, b, c, or d "redistribution of wealth" or "income redistribution", without doing violence to the term's meaning, even before thinking about any moral implications of the term.

I could claim that the distribution of wealth on 1/2 was evil: it didn't reflect inherent talents or cultivated abilities. Or that the quickly resulting imbalances are evil, since they lead to envy. Since some of the taxes don't go to what a consensus would say is absolutely necessary, the taxes are evil between (a) and (b), and that the rent subsidy between (b) and (c) demotivates people who would otherwise work harder to make rent. I could say that the increased wealth disparaties after 3 years are evil, or that the state acting to take money that it doesn't need to take from the top 10% and giving it to the bottom 10% is evil. If somebody challenges me, and says that objecting to having the state give money to the poor is un-Christian, I could ask where Christ says that Caesar should be in charge of helping the poor, or where it says helping the poor isn't an individual, but a collective, duty. Or, since something like an embryonic church (and the actual church later) helped coordinate charity, that this is mixing church and state--Caesar wasn't noted for helping the poor, but the church was.

I could argue many things; some I might choose to argue, some I wouldn't. You could argue many things. But until you can agree on what's evil, and what aspect of wealth redistribution is to be discussed, you can argue forever and never actually be in the same argument.

[The Whiskey Priest]

91. Of course I suppose he would think

It quite alright for the rest of us to support the upper classes with our taxes.....for the government to pick and choose winners in the economic game.....and of course when you follow the system to an end result you have a moneyed class of nobility.

[raysr]

100. Poor stupid

43%'ers.

[barbaraann]

109. Randi Rhodes said something interesting about this recently.

She said (paraphrasing) that wealth doesn't trickle down, it squirts out. She explained that people only let go of money when they have to--when pressure makes it squirt out.

I thought that was a pretty clever way to obliterate the "trickle down" theory!

[DuaneBidoux]

115. Tell him he's right, redistribution of wealth is evil, and CEOs should be

ashamed of themselves.

[Dr Fate]

116. So when do I get my $$$ back that was "redistributed" to Iraqis????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[lonestarnot]

119. kick