Wednesday, 19 September 2012
-
Taking From the Rich and Giving to the Poor
I was listening to a clip from 1998 where President Obama said he believed in "redistribution of wealth." Here is the link: Link
Redistribution of wealth would mean taking from the rich and the regular people and giving it to the poor or those who just don't want to work.Do you think we should take from the rich and give to the poor?
-
recommend
- recs 5
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to TheTheologiansCafe's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in TheTheologiansCafe's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (146)
70% of the federal budget is spent on assistance and government dependency programs. But apparently we aren't taking ENOUGH from the rich and giving to the poor... or something... [wtf]
"Redistribution of wealth would mean taking from the rich and the regular people and giving it to the poor or those who just don't want to work."
There are two major problems with this sentence. Can you name them?
I don't think we should. It's not the rich people's responsibility to provide for everyone else below them.
That's what Robin Hood did..but he was a thief...but really if someone is rich it means that someone is poor..so rich is too much and poor is not enough..so being rich is indecent as well as being poor..equality in wealth is the ideal to strive for...
No, I think all citizens, companies, organizations, charities, and religious organizations should alll pay tax.
LOL I listened to the tape. That isn't what he said. Oh Dan. <3
I like how we do it in my church. We all work very hard (literally!) to help the poor and needy. But in helping them with the basic needs, we also help them to become not-poor and not-needy any more. We would like everyone to be self-reliant and prosperous. Of course some people have severe needs but almost everyone can do something to better their situation. Sometimes they just need to know how and need someone to help them get going again.
the redistribution of wealth began in the early 1980s with trickle down economics. the Reagan economic adviser who pushed Reagan into that economic policy now admits it doesn't work. while between the end of WWII and the early 1980s economic growth was on parallel trend lines with the advent of trickle down economics economic growth flat lined for the middle class, dipped slightly for the poor but grew tremendously for the top 2%. the trend continued until the economic crash of 2008 just as the same growth ended with The Great Depression.
yesterday a video was released of Romney speaking to a group of wealthy donors. he didn't know he was being recorded. Romney called 49% of Americans "moochers". his *facts* on this have been seriously fact checked. the real facts are almost all of those 49% are elderly no longer in the workforce, students not yet in the workforce, people employed at low wages who pay payroll taxes but not income taxes...a republican idea...and yet they pay a higher percentage of their incomes than Romney, who by the way is refusing to release his taxes....and wounded and disabled soldiers. yeah those soldiers are moochers. maybe that's why Romney made no mention of them during his nomination acceptance speech.
ideally, no. but i also don't think we should let the poor starve in the street.
I think that EVERYONE'S basic needs should be met and then wealth should be gained after that point. People who work more should get better housing, clothes and a few vanity items, but everyone should have a place to stay, clothes and food. I don't believe anyone should be rich until everyone has the basics taken care of, truth be known.
I don't think the poor pay enough taxes though. When I was starting out, I was what you would call "poor," and I got 1,000 dollars back that did not contribute to my well-being or lifestyle at that point. My relatives took it. I could have "paid" it.
I think that the poor have it too easy, but we should still meet everyone's basic needs.
I think redistribution of the wealth is a horrible idea started to create class warfare amongst the masses in order to cover up the real problem : Government.
I don't think it's fair a person works and busts his back to make a successful business and then since I got up and did something about my social situation that I get penalized for it.
Another question I have to ask is who exactly determines what wealth gets redistributed and to whom ?
There is nothing wrong with helping a person a little bit and paying ( Reasonable) taxes but don't penalize me because I made it and someone of lower social status didn't have the ambition or the drive to do something about his or her social situation. If you think about it there are enough Government programs out there that can help a person if they have the drive an motivation to do it.
In my opinion I think with all the social programs we have created we have a class of " dependents" that are not held accountable and live off the backs of others and If anyone questions them or their decisions they are either labeled racists or self hating. my mother didn't come to this country with nothing. many years ago and worked and saved for five years to open her own business with my father to become successful and now owns a successful retail store. There was times growing up when my parents had to go on food stamps and for a short time welfare since the business was doing badly and we couldn't support ourselves but the moment we got back on our feet we stopped taking the benefits and stood on our own two feet.
The whole redistribution of the wealth thing is a horribly flawed idea even former soviet citizens have made youtube videos about it.
You ever look at those crying poverty and being poor take a ride around the NYC housing projects and count how many Lexus, Mercedes, and newer cars are in the parking lot. I used to love my work as a cashier at a local NYC supermarket and I would be greeted by a woman wearing a fur coat, caring a coach bag, with the latest IPOD paying with a food stamp card while taking her two shopping cart fulls of food to her BMW parked outside. There is more to this than meets the eye.
i forgot to mention another detail. Romney claims people who don't pay income tax, the 49% (see how that really breaks down in my comment above) are Obama voters. statistically most are likely Romney voters so Romney insulted his own base. the largest portion of Americans who don't pay federal income tax live in red States in the southeast.
@TheSutraDude - and they're going around and killing us, which is annoying. They're nickel and diming their way to nowhere. It's part of the eternal punishment-thing. That way, they can say that the conditions are fair when they are not fair. They have damaged me beyond all reason and then will scream at me to do something.
I don't think that 49% are moochers so much as 1% are hogs. They take all of the opportunities and all of the wealth and that's why we have to have welfare. I invite them to torch welfare because then we will have to rebel and demand equal pay and opportunity.
I believe that we should be a compassionate society that cares for the poor, but that assistance can start a cycle of dependency that prevents people from helping themselves or contributing to society. I believe that the wealthy can afford to pay a larger share than others can, but I also believe that we shouldn't punish the wealthy for simply succeeding where others have failed. I believe that the wealthy should help create a healthy and just society, but I also believe that more robust welfare programs lead people who should be productive to conclude that trying to be productive is not worth the trouble. Building a society means balancing a lot of competing, somewhat mutually exclusive demands, which is why government shouldn't be in the hands of extreme ideologues.
@TrainTrack - I like that view and what your church does. I've read about it, and I think it's great. :)
@Marica0701 - Bless your heart!
@Evil10 - well, people like me don't really have opportunities like that. They're limited. I'm mentally disabled, but yes, I have decent grammar. That messes everyone up. It's my memory and a few other things that are bad. Wah, wah, I know, but still.
If the government would give me a job and a standard wage, things would be a lot easier. Instead of giving us 700 a month to live on, they could give us 1,000 or so to work somewhere to the best of our ability. What happens when I go into the workforce is that people exploit me really badly. Since I can't pick up on peoples' cues or relate to them as well as others can, I end up in horrible situations. If I could exist in a place with more mentally disabled people, I would be okay. The workforce isn't setup like that, though a few works have environments like that.
This country does not always help people become independent.
I think it's wrong that people who've never worked get like more opportunities than people who have worked. They all rush ahead of me easily, and now I'm stuck being them. What's sad is that they're the ones that come at me a lot of times...
I don't know. RT wasn't interested, and I know I wasn't qualified, but hey, there are little jobs everywhere. Nobody wants to hire me either. I promise you that. Prior, I was able to hide my disability fairly well, but now I cannot hide it.
Only if Obama prances around in tights!
i think maybe there should be a limited time that a person could be on financial assistance. that way they don't get too dependent on it and can gain independence. everyone has tough times.
Yes. Before anyone can receive any money the parents of that family should get assistance in finding work first. If they cannot or simply cannot make enough to meet ends meet, then they can look into receiving some sort of assistance. I know a lot of people would be skeptical about giving money away, assuming that the people who receive the help would just blow the money on drugs and stupid things. I don't blame them. It's not like the rich are going to lose a shit ton of money out of this...What's wrong with donating to the needy anyways?
Hell, If i was rich. I would gladly give to the poor all the time. I've been down near the absolute bottom. I can easily sympathize with those who are struggling to meet ends meet. That is why a lot of the rich don't want to help. They don't even know what it's like to struggle. Worrying about having enough money for the end of the week. Being able to have enough food in the house. Why is it bad to help the less fortunate?
Free money, nice thought....but what does that do to the American Dream? Go to work, make enough over the necessary items even do without some of them to build a nest egg. Then have it taken away? By who; for who? If I am willing to give away my money, that is if I had any money in the first place, let me find who I want to give to and how much.
I believe the real method should be to encourage those with the ability to give it on their own accord. Choice is important; and I don't like the idea that we should force someone to give if they don't want to. Whether or not that makes them a horrible person is up for discussion but it's not as if (most of) these people earned their money in an illegitimate way. If there is concern over whether or not it's a good thing that people CAN make more money from certain things, then what we should be doing is changing the system entirely to appropriate the way money is earned. However, people care too much about whiny actors who earn $1000000 every week to actually think about that. But my point is, those who get rich in the United States usually did so by ways which are allowed by the system with which we live. That is NOT an illegitimate or wrong way to earn money. They used methods which are, technically, available to anyone, and stealing their money just because they earned it makes absolutely no sense. I'm all for those with money giving more of it but it's not like stealing it from them makes you a good person.
no handouts. let the wealthy give out shark loans with interest. they'll wear a unbreakable and trackable collar, so they can't flee. the only way to take the collar off is self decapitation. once the poor uses the money that they borrowed wisely and started their own business or whatever else, and becomes rich themselves, then they can be sharkies, too, and make money off of the poor people's interest $$$. they'll give them a hand to have an opportunity to get rich, too, but it isn't free.
if some food companies donate their leftover food that is still good to eat to the homeless or every dozen donuts that someone buys, 2 are donated to the needy, such as donut places,etc, then they can have free advertising that they are charitable and then maybe they'll get more business. the homeless gets donuts and the business gets good publicity and money.
no handouts. let the wealthy give out shark loans with interest. they'll wear a unbreakable and trackable collar, so they can't flee. the only way to take the collar off is self decapitation. once the poor uses the money that the