100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Fighting poverty or punishing the poor? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Either you implying that redistribution of wealth is without regard to the rights of others, or you are implying that those who are suggesting that we redistribute wealth want the wealth for them selves. Either way your argument is false, and therefore unsound and invalid. P.S. Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar. You have not demonstrated that my argument is false. Also, wealth redistribution isn't about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. It is about giving what doesn't belong to Caesar in order to appease people with wealth envy. Federal, state and local programs are already in place to enable to poor to live. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Wed 09/17/14 12:52 PM
|
|
you cant govern peoples bodies,, bottom line,,,,
The U.S. government dictates which drugs that you are allowed to use. Honestly, this is why I figured that raising the minimum wage needs to be done in tandem with something else that redistributes the wealth. Wow! Coveting another person's wealth, eh? How Socialist that is. 
its not coveting wealth, its reviewing equitability,,,,and looking at why such a small percentage can see such a HUGE gain in income while the majority are losing,,,,,without believing that that minority is just THAT Much more 'productive' and 'hard working' It is, too, coveting wealth, because there is a difference between people not having the necessities of life and people having less $$$ than what other people have. The latter is what is driving the call to "spread the wealth". Gee I thought our founding fathers liberated this country on three founding truths "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. So how is the poor not having the ability to live an example of this? By definition to covet: 1)to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others. 2)to wish for, especially eagerly. Either you implying that redistribution of wealth is without regard to the rights of others, or you are implying that those who are suggesting that we redistribute wealth want the wealth for them selves. Either way your argument is false, and therefore unsound and invalid. P.S. Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar. by redistributing you already have violated the Rights of others! And,Screw Caesar! You really need to make an Argument,before you call others Arguments as false! Little Leftist Slogans are a Dime a Dozen! Heard them by the Bushel,growing up! Theft by any other Name is still Theft! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Either you implying that redistribution of wealth is without regard to the rights of others, or you are implying that those who are suggesting that we redistribute wealth want the wealth for them selves. Either way your argument is false, and therefore unsound and invalid. P.S. Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar. You have not demonstrated that my argument is false. Also, wealth redistribution isn't about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. It is about giving what doesn't belong to Caesar in order to appease people with wealth envy. Federal, state and local programs are already in place to enable to poor to live. Conjecture: P implies Q, where P is defined as "all redistribution of wealth" and Q is "is done without regard to the rights of others" Disproof: Definition: "redistribution of wealth" Redistribution of income and wealth or redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, charity, divorce or tort law. As there exists forms of "redistribution of wealth" that "is done with regard to the rights of others", Examlpe TAXES (paying taxes literally pays other people to do things, like build bridges, repair roads, protection, or paying people to represent us in a court of law thus as before is a form of redistribution), and CHARITY!!!! (if you believe that Charity is done without regard to the rights of others, then there is no hope for you I will quote the bible on this one "without charity I am nothing"), therefore there is no implication. I.E. P can't imply Q. Q.E.D Conjecture: "Suggesting that we redistribute wealth" implies "those people want the wealth for themselves". again P implies Q. Disproof: As before if there exists an example of P and not Q, then the conjecture is invalid. Example Mother Teresa. Q.E.D I have now proven that the argument is false. Any questions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep that's why I'm giving you the info that I know of. Sorry that you don't trust the census though. There is a certain amount of unreliability taken into account in any statistical survey. And any statistician worth their grain of salt does what ever it takes to reduce as much bias as they can. How they do this is a bit complicated and very mathy (it deals with laws of probability and normal distributions of discrete random variables). I unfortunately don't have many solutions to this problem other then redistribution of wealth. But that's an argument that is defined as "Against Capitalism", so I'm trying to find different ways. like placing an income cap on CEO's (majority of the top 1% earn their income through being CEO's). increasing the national minimum wage to $10 per hr (which will cause even more issues then you will think). A national tax on Excess profit in big businesses? we need to find a way to hit the 1% hard. Like robin hood but legally. any Ideas? I personally believe this war on the wealthy mentality would do more harm than good. Problem is that "wealthy" is defined as those making $250k+ annually. Unfortunately 250k is not all that much when taking into consideration, say, a doctor paying $3000 a month on student loans, $1,000 a month in malpractice insurance (and this is cheap insurance), and also paying the additional income tax. There is also a myth about wealthy individuals only paying 15% of their income on taxes. This is actually just dividends. If we raise this, we raise taxes average folks pay on selling their houses for a profit, or 401k (or the majority of retirement plans by that matter), which hurts the middle class. Raising minimum wage, again, hurts the middle class despite helping the poor. I personally don't believe minimum wage should be a living wage. It's supposed to be for those jobs you get in high school or early college years for a little extra spending cash. That being said, IF ANY cap is placed on administrative salaries, it should be a percentage not a limit, therefore still encouraging innovation and advancement. Maybe no one in a company should be making more than 75 times what the lowest paid employee makes. Or better yet, start small. For instance, ceo's/administrative personnel cannot get a raise unless everyone in the company gets the same percentage pay raise. But maybe this regulation is not the answer. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to lower American corporate tax rates to roughly 25%, and slap an import tax on products coming in from overseas. Instead of encouraging businesses to bring work elsewhere we should focus on getting those middle income producing jobs back over here. Maybe if fewer people were making minimum wage, the income gap would even itself out a bit. This a million times. Even when people try to talk about the 1% it isn't even the 1% getting tax breaks etc. It is more like the .001%. Even then it is often investment returns which unrealized gains are not taxed at all and people just don't understand investing. Exactly 
It's all political. Pitch one demographic against another, with the majority gaining ground. Besides, the poor are taken care of. The middle class is dwindling. It would help everyone out if we could bring more people into the middle income category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, the poor are taken care of. The middle class is dwindling. It would help everyone out if we could bring more people into the middle income category.
You are correct. The poor are being taken care of, which is why the call for wealth redistribution is flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Jerk sounds like a distant Cousin of Adolph Hitler!
That's the whole point of using the word 'sterilize' instead of 'norplant', even though norplant is not sterilization. Of course, this has nothing to do with hitler. But the propagandists got you to make that connection, by their intentionally dishonest word choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want a steak or frozen pizza, then you'd have to get a job
Oh, I would LOVE to live in a country that operated this way! This would be great! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Getting back to the topic of the OP...
The GOP jerk who made those stupid remarks has resigned from his GOP position after being scolded by other GOP members. Yes, that man made stupid remarks about poor people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, the poor are taken care of. The middle class is dwindling. It would help everyone out if we could bring more people into the middle income category.
You are correct. The poor are being taken care of, which is why the call for wealth redistribution is flawed. Actually no that is an invalid statement. The poor aren't being taken care of. If they were they wouldn't be poor, and there would be a higher amount of middle class. To take care of the poor as you say requires the redistribution of wealth, or for them to be paid more. Well you could do both if you want. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The poor aren't being taken care of.
In what nation? In the USA, the poor have all sorts of government services and programs to help them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you cant govern peoples bodies,, bottom line,,,,
The U.S. government dictates which drugs that you are allowed to use. Honestly, this is why I figured that raising the minimum wage needs to be done in tandem with something else that redistributes the wealth. Wow! Coveting another person's wealth, eh? How Socialist that is.
its not coveting wealth, its reviewing equitability,,,,and looking at why such a small percentage can see such a HUGE gain in income while the majority are losing,,,,,without believing that that minority is just THAT Much more 'productive' and 'hard working' It is, too, coveting wealth, because there is a difference between people not having the necessities of life and people having less $$$ than what other people have. The latter is what is driving the call to "spread the wealth". Gee I thought our founding fathers liberated this country on three founding truths "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. So how is the poor not having the ability to live an example of this? By definition to covet: 1)to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others. 2)to wish for, especially eagerly. Either you implying that redistribution of wealth is without regard to the rights of others, or you are implying that those who are suggesting that we redistribute wealth want the wealth for them selves. Either way your argument is false, and therefore unsound and invalid. P.S. Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar. by redistributing you already have violated the Rights of others! And,Screw Caesar! You really need to make an Argument,before you call others Arguments as false! Little Leftist Slogans are a Dime a Dozen! Heard them by the Bushel,growing up! Theft by any other Name is still Theft! You are absolutely right what he said was a statement not an logical argument, like the one you have here. I retract my statement about your argument being invalid Dodo. Instead I will say that your initial statement was invalid. As for your statement on "Theft by any other name is still theft". Okay! So since America literally stole this land from the original owners, this implies that you should give any land you have back to them and their descendants. Do you have any land? Oh and all mining and other rights are theirs as well. So oil companies and other natural resources are owned by them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The poor aren't being taken care of.
In what nation? In the USA, the poor have all sorts of government services and programs to help them. Let me rephrase. The poor aren't being taken care of well enough. However to disprove your original statement You are correct. The poor are being taken care of, which is why the call for wealth redistribution is flawed. example, during the economic downturn of 2007, the government implemented a plan to return more money to those who sent in their tax returns. As such the downturn lasted only two years as opposed to the five years that was initially suggested. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is that nobody has bothered to divide poor people into appropriate categories.
There are poor people who ... ... suddenly became poor because of a natural disaster. ... became poor as the result of an illness, injury or physical disability that rendered them unable to work outside the home. ... are poor because of the medical expenses related to taking care of a severely-ill or disabled family member. ...became poor because of a job loss. ... became poor because of a problem with substance abuse. ... became poor as a consequence of becoming incarcerated. ... are poor because of their own bad choices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is that nobody has bothered to divide poor people into appropriate categories. There are poor people who ... ... suddenly became poor because of a natural disaster. ... became poor as the result of an illness, injury or physical disability that rendered them unable to work outside the home. ... are poor because of the medical expenses related to taking care of a severely-ill or disabled family member. ...became poor because of a job loss. ... became poor because of a problem with substance abuse. ... became poor as a consequence of becoming incarcerated. ... are poor because of their own bad choices. Ummm so we should say in our laws that... "you get helped, you get helped, you get helped, you get helped, I'm sorry you don't get any help because your a junky, and you are just stupid.  Sorry that will be shot down by the supreme court the first chance it gets there. Also biblicaly
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” So if you are a christian this is invalid, as "what ever you do to the least of my people you do unto me". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Serverousprime
on
Wed 09/17/14 03:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are going to cite the New Testament parable about the sheep and goats, then please note that the parable talks about the action and inaction of individuals, not secular governments.
In the parable, the sheep are the people who share their resources directly with the poorest and weakest members of society. No secular earthly government is involved in the parable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep this is true except it's not about inaction. it's about helping people and not helping people. By saying that we shouldn't "help people" because of this or that, this applies directly. Because by of the statement "what ever you do to the least of my people you do unto me" means that if you punch a baby you punch God. and if you deny help to a junky you deny help to god.
But hey I don't expect you to believe the same way as I do I just figured I'd mention this to you so you realize there are more issues then you may think about "The poor". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Serverousprime
on
Wed 09/17/14 03:36 PM
|
|
And at least I got you to realize that even though you may not agree with someone's views. That doesn't mean that they may or may not have a valid point.
I thank you for that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original topic of this thread pertains to what the government should or should not do.
In the USA, federal, state and local governments are already helping people who cannot help themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original topic of this thread pertains to what the government should or should not do. In the USA, federal, state and local governments are already helping people who cannot help themselves. Yep and we got off topic when people flamed me for giving some ideas. So lets continue with the original topic. Any Ideas on helping the helpless? or at least helping the government help the helpless? Help me help you? Help me help you helping me help you! |
|
|
|
|
