A sad day for America

[Geo]

Who cares wealth redistribution is the goal regardless of the consequences.

Let's put the scary labels/connotations of socialism and wealth redistribution aside for a sec and have a serious talk...

I'm no economist but I thought that in a capitalist society that money is never really made, it is just moved around some. It is always redistributed- No?

The argument that I hear on a daily basis is that it isn't right that the government is initiating policies that are unfairly "redistributing" money away from the rich and toward the poor (you know- the lazy people who won't work for it).

The problem with this argument is that for the last three decades, the laws, policies, regulations (or lack thereof) were such that the money was redistributed upward- meaning, the richest of the rich were able to take advantage of laws that favored them so they could get even richer. The folks in the lower echelon didn't have the same advantages proportionately speaking.

My thought is- if you weren't against the wealth redistribution when it worked for you then why are you against it now when it works for someone else less fortunate?

 

[Alicia Leonard]

Let's put the scary labels/connotations of socialism and wealth redistribution aside for a sec and have a serious talk...

I'm no economist but I thought that in a capitalist society that money is never really made, it is just moved around some. It is always redistributed- No?

The argument that I hear on a daily basis is that it isn't right that the government is initiating policies to that are unfairly "redistributing" money away from the rich and toward the poor (you know- the lazy people who won't work for it).

The problem with this argument is that for the last three decades, the laws, policies, regulations (or lack thereof) were such that the money was redistributed upward- meaning, the richest of the rich were able to take advantage of laws that favored them so they could get even richer. The folks in the lower echelon didn't have the same advantages proportionately speaking.

My thought is- if you weren't against the wealth redistribution when it worked for you then why are you against it now when it works for someone else less fortunate?

 

[30ashopper]

The problem with this argument is that for the last three decades, the laws, policies, regulations (or lack thereof) were such that the money was redistributed upward- meaning, the richest of the rich were able to take advantage of laws that favored them so they could get even richer. The folks in the lower echelon didn't have the same advantages proportionately speaking.

My thought is- if you weren't against the wealth redistribution when it worked for you then why are you against it now when it works for someone else less fortunate?

What on earth are you talking about? We provide lower income folks and their kids with free healthcare, free education, free food, welfare payments, free job placement and training, loan assistance and money to pay for private schooling, disability insurance, unemployment payments, retirement savings, retirement financial assistance and subsidised healthcare, and we even write these folks a respectable check in April to help them out, plus a whole myriad of other government services all designed to help those who don't make a lot of money, (yet) achieve something with their lives. How are these folks disadvantaged in your view? I just don't see it Geo.

As far as redistribution goes, relax, we already redistribute trillions to pay for all these services! The thing we want to avoid is a social model where if you punish people who succeed by redistributing all they make to those that don't, you remove the incentive to succeed. I just do not understand why liberals can't wrap their heads around that simple concept - it's so intuitive.

 

[Here4Good]

What on earth are you talking about? We provide lower income folks and their kids with free healthcare, free education, free food, welfare payments, free job placement and training, loan assistance and money to pay for private schooling, disability insurance, unemployment payments, retirement savings, retirement financial assistance and subsidised healthcare, and we even write these folks a respectable check in April to help them out, plus a whole myriad of other government services all designed to help those who don't make a lot of money, (yet) achieve something with their lives. How are these folks disadvantaged in your view? I just don't see it Geo.
.

No, we don't. We pay for those things for the completely destitute, not for the working poor. If you have one tangible asset, if you make above minimum wage, if you aren't living in your car, you are not eligible for those things. Sure, you can scam the system, but I still believe that all welfare cheats suck less out of the the system than the two CEO's of failed banks that walked out with hundreds of millions of dollars of our money. You can scam any system.

Geo isn't talking about handouts to the destitute, he is talking about public policy that make upward mobility possible - that levels the playing field between the have-it-alls and the I'd-like-to-have-something-somedays.

Do you realize how many of the working poor (or even the working lower middle class) do not apply for Medicaid or food stamps or public housing because they don't want the stigma, and want to make it on their own, and they don't want to live in Section 8 housing?

Do you realize what kind of subsistence existence you are describing, having to check in the with the government for everything you need, so that you can live in a crappy place (yeah, they are crappy, don't tell me they're not) and get your $400 worth of grocery chits and stand in line every day for some other nitwit to ask you 40 questions you've already answered? Do you really think that's what Americans want, and what they aspire to?

 

[Geo]

The whole "liberals can't wrap their heads around a simple concept" and "what on earth am I talking about" rubs me a little wrong. Let's chat without being snarky, pls?

My post wasn't intended to make you think I was refering to (or forgetting about) social programs. It was about tax and economic policies and lack of regulation.

 

[30ashopper]

No, we don't. We pay for those things for the completely destitute, not for the working poor. If you have one tangible asset, if you make above minimum wage, if you aren't living in your car, you are not eligible for those things. Sure, you can scam the system, but I still believe that all welfare cheats suck less out of the the system than the two CEO's of failed banks that walked out with hundreds of millions of dollars of our money. You can scam any system.

Define working poor and I will be more than happy to provide a list of free or subsidized services tax payers provide. Lets also try and avoid all the pointless populist comparisons to bank CEOs, ok? That has a tendancy to derail threads.

Geo isn't talking about handouts to the destitute, he is talking about public policy that make upward mobility possible - that levels the playing field between the have-it-alls and the I'd-like-to-have-something-somedays.

Who are these "have it alls" you speak of and how do they prevent the have nots from, oh, I don't know, attending school?

Do you realize how many of the working poor (or even the working lower middle class) do not apply for Medicaid or food stamps or public housing because they don't want the stigma, and want to make it on their own, and they don't want to live in Section 8 housing?

Amen to them! Proof we have not lost the idealism that makes this country great!

Do you realize what kind of subsistence existence you are describing, having to check in the with the government for everything you need, so that you can live in a crappy place (yeah, they are crappy, don't tell me they're not) and get your $400 worth of grocery chits and stand in line every day for some other nitwit to ask you 40 questions you've already answered? Do you really think that's what Americans want, and what they aspire to?

What are you asking for HereForGood? I don't understand what the problem is. What should we do instead, just mail big fat checks out and abolish all these tedious social systems?

 

[Alicia Leonard]

No, we don't. We pay for those things for the completely destitute, not for the working poor. If you have one tangible asset, if you make above minimum wage, if you aren't living in your car, you are not eligible for those things. Sure, you can scam the system, but I still believe that all welfare cheats suck less out of the the system than the two CEO's of failed banks that walked out with hundreds of millions of dollars of our money. You can scam any system.

Geo isn't talking about handouts to the destitute, he is talking about public policy that make upward mobility possible - that levels the playing field between the have-it-alls and the I'd-like-to-have-something-somedays.

Do you realize how many of the working poor (or even the working lower middle class) do not apply for Medicaid or food stamps or public housing because they don't want the stigma, and want to make it on their own, and they don't want to live in Section 8 housing?

Do you realize what kind of subsistence existence you are describing, having to check in the with the government for everything you need, so that you can live in a crappy place (yeah, they are crappy, don't tell me they're not) and get your $400 worth of grocery chits and stand in line every day for some other nitwit to ask you 40 questions you've already answered? Do you really think that's what Americans want, and what they aspire to?

Thank you. There is a a section of America that works every day and makes too much for any help what-so-ever, but make too little to be able to afford health care because it is priced out of their reach. This bill actually helps the working class, not those that are already covered by having a poverty level income. The rich get tax breaks, I'm thankful that someone cared enough to try and help me get affordable insurance. I know according to many I don't count, my life is not worth fighting for or saving if I get sick or get hit by a car, but for every one of them, there is one of me out there that felt like yesterday, at least the fact that I was born a woman can no longer be held against me when trying to purchase health care.

 

[30ashopper]

The whole "liberals can't wrap their heads around a simple concept" and "what on earth am I talking about" rubs me a little wrong. Let's chat without being snarky, pls?

My post wasn't intended to make you think I was refering to (or forgetting about) social programs. It was about tax and economic policies and lack of regulation.

It's more out of frustration. I do not understand why people are so frustrated with our current social model. It works, well.

 

[Geo]

One more thing I meant to include (I can't edit posts from my iPhone),,,

I don't believe that if you punish the rich that they have less incentive to succeed. Generally, the rich are highly motivated to find a way around it (cut costs, drive revenue, find a loophole, etc).

But I do believe that if the poor believe they can't succeed that they can lose incentive to try...

 

[30ashopper]

Thank you. There is a a section of America that works every day and makes too much for any help what-so-ever, but make too little to be able to afford health care because it is priced out of their reach. This bill actually helps the working class, not those that are already covered by having a poverty level income. The rich get tax breaks, I'm thankful that someone cared enough to try and help me get affordable insurance. I know according to many I don't count, my life is not worth fighting for or saving if I get sick or get hit by a car, but for every one of them, there is one of me out there that felt like yesterday, at least the fact that I was born a woman can no longer be held against me when trying to purchase health care.

In this situation aleonard, w/added subsidized healthcare, is there any other assistance you think you will need? If not, hey, we've solved the last of our problems and can move on. Lets parrrrty!