Distribution of Wealth

[royal_archer]

I’m not sure where you live, but in my experience, most people work hard and don’t get adequately paid for their hard labor, especially relative to their superiors. I’m sure it varies quite a bit in different parts of the country and in different industries.

I have worked in different industries in several areas of the US and it seems to be the same in most places. People who take the innitiative and work harder get moved up the chain. Those who want to put in the minimum effort get stuck in the dead end jobs.

 

[royal_archer]

If self-reliant individuals all feel the way you say they do, then debates and electionairing shouldn’t matter, and there should have been a 40-50% vote for the libertarian party (who doesn’t know what that party stands for?) All they had to do was tick the appropriate box on the ballot paper. They didn’t tick that box.

Most people are not free thinking. They vote for the party that they are told to vote for. And the media esentiall tells them to pick between the two big parties so that is what they do.

 

[cynic]

Most people are not free thinking. They vote for the party that they are told to vote for. And the media esentiall tells them to pick between the two big parties so that is what they do.

So the majority of working people are still sheep, and only a small minority are “free thinking”. This is both ridiculous and insulting (I guess intentionally so). Could it be that they just had a differing opinion to yours?

 

[royal_archer]

So the majority of working people are still sheep, and only a small minority are “free thinking”. This is both ridiculous and insulting (I guess intentionally so). Could it be that they just had a differing opinion to yours?

Yes, they theoretically could have disagreed with the third party candidates, but we won’t know because of the way the system is rigged.

For the record I do not believe I used the terms sheep or working people.

Do you think that a majority of the people who go to the polls review the positions of all parties and vote solely on which candidate best supports their possition with out regards to “electability”?

 

[cynic]

Yes, they theoretically could have disagreed with the third party candidates, but we won’t know because of the way the system is rigged.

For the record I do not believe I used the terms sheep or working people.

Do you think that a majority of the people who go to the polls review the positions of all parties and vote solely on which candidate best supports their possition with out regards to “electability”?

If enough people felt as strongly about keeping 100% of their earnings as you do (and others here), “electability” wouldn’t be an issue. Lbertaians would be the natural party of choice.

 

[royal_archer]

If enough people felt as strongly about keeping 100% of their earnings as you do (and others here), “electability” wouldn’t be an issue. Lbertaians would be the natural party of choice.

That is a false accusation about keeping 100% of earnings. I fully support gieing a decent portion of my earnings to charity and I also support constitutional/moral government activities and taxes to support them.

 

[Sailka]

And are these people actively working to get into better possitions? I have seen to many in this bucket who spend more time complaining about their situation than actually trying to improve it.

In the old days bosses would tell these people to pick up the pace and give them other feed back about their performance. Now employers are afraid to give such constructive criticism for fear of a lawsuit or fear that the people will quit and just go on welfare. Or managers are just not good managers and are trying to be “nice”.

Several errors in your ideas: (1) Real earnings of poor and middle class have declined in the last 8 years; (2) there are Millions more poor than 8 years ago; (3) There are fewer jobs available for the poor, even before the Economic collapse; (4) Men can not get on welfare; Can Not, Period. We have not had welfare for men in our country, ever. A Very common misconception by the Unpoor. (5) Managers can not be sued for ‘constructive criticism’, or reasonable management.
Far too many misconceptions about poor too lazy to work. The jobs are not here, relativelly. And far too many trucking and former Teen jobs have gone to lower pay workers.
Cutting costs is the operative Rule in business; Easiest is labor. Goes against Fairness and docial ethics concerns. Look anywhere; You’ll see the Proofs of the’new economy’ vs 2-3 decades ago. On case no one noticed, it began under the ‘pro-life’ Reagan Business administration of less manufacturing, more service, and exporting USA jobs to the Carribbean.

 

[Sailka]

Most people are not free thinking. They vote for the party that they are told to vote for. And the media esentiall tells them to pick between the two big parties so that is what they do.

I hope you don’t mean ‘told to vote for’. Almost no one is. Our system is set up as two party system, by the 2 parties. And media almost never presents the issues Of the candidates; they are busy running controversy and ‘somebody says’ and ‘will probably’ stories to sell ads. That is the News business in too many cases.

 

[cynic]

• Several errors in your ideas: (1) Real earnings of poor and middle class have declined in the last 8 years; (2) there are Millions more poor than 8 years ago; (3) There are fewer jobs available for the poor, even before the Economic collapse; (4) Men can not get on welfare; Can Not, Period. We have not had welfare for men in our country, ever. A Very common misconception by the Unpoor. (5) Managers can not be sued for ‘constructive criticism’, or reasonable management.

Ever since the mid-90’s there have been time limits on welfare in the US - at least on the unemployment benefit - thanks to the Clinton Administration, which buries the idea that the populist left will always seek to “buy” votes by creating dependency.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Here is the problem. Our government was originally established to protect our country. That was just about all the federal government was to do. Now some people with good intentions decided that they needed to make everyone pay to help the less fortunate and that a huge bureaucracy was the best way to get that job done. This approach is inheritedly flawed due to the fact that this is not what God commanded. God commanded us to bring our gifts to Him. But people who wanted to feel good about our government doing good things pushed us into believing that taking care of the less fortunate is the government’s job. It is not the government’s job, it is the job of the Church. The reason that the government’s attempt to feed the hungry and provided for the needy comes up so short is because it is being done in the power of humans and not by the power of God. The redistribution system in the United States is unholy and will always come up lacking.
When folks honor God by their gifts to His church, then God increases the gift and His church may do great things with little because these funds and volunteerism come from worship of Almighty God and are given as a sacrificial offering. That is powerful. You see each Catholic Church could very well take care of the truly needy in the community, but we willingly usurp our responsibility and hope and pray that a bureacratic mess established by men may someway give people help.
God has given us a fabulously effective plan of economy whereby everyone would be taken care of as well as everyone would be given opportunity.
Finally, socialism doesn’t work because incentive to suceed is taken away at some point in the earning curve. No person is entitled to any other persons earnings or savings. I am commanded to give and it is up to me and my Savior as to how much. I go as far as to say, that I don’t really care how the Church uses my offering because what is important is my giving. Ultimately that isn’t true because I am to be a good steward there too, but my obligation to my Savior is to give.
Peace!
Stan

Amen!
I hope you don’t mind, but I shared what you wrote here in my blog because you are so right on! I don’t know why…it just struck me.

 

[christcnection1]

Big Money Presidents Reagan and Bush W have been repeating these and many other spins, for years: The USA has the best medical system in the world (False; The French Nationalized do); etc, etc, etc. These are knowing spins, to mislead the piblic. I noticed on TV News, other sources after Natural Disasters, etc, How much other countries gave.
Anything can be googled easily now. Olympic Medals per capita yields Armenia and smallest countries. US health system ranks in the 40tjh best, although 50% per Capita more expensive than the Next most expensive.
Even the US having the most productive workers in the world is a Spin, by Removing the 4-8 week Paid vacations required in the European Union. The French had the most productive workers a couple years ago, per paid Work hours, not including vacation hours

I briefly looked on google but could not find any reputable sites or hard statistics on this issue. If you could provide a link or two that would be appreciate.

This would be a very interesting topic for a new thread. I think this information would be eye-opening for many individuals, if true.

 

[Appleby]

Should there be greater distribution of wealth in the United States? If so, what is the right way to go about it? If not, please also share your thoughts.

Do you mean “Should you be forced at gunpoint to hand your money over to me?” That’s called armed robbery, except if the government does it – the Obamination calls that “spreading the wealth around.”

The operative question is WHOSE wealth and WHO gets to “distribute” it to WHOM? Methinks you personally don’t have any wealth, and you believe that isn’t “fair” – that MY wealth, which I have earned (not which fell on my head when an angel tipped over a basket of money and I happened to be standing in the right place) should by some theory you have evolved, rightfully belong to YOU.

Please elucidate exactly whose wealth we’re discussing, and why you believe that it ought not to be retained by the person to whom it belongs.

 

[royal_archer]

Several errors in your ideas: (1) Real earnings of poor and middle class have declined in the last 8 years; (2) there are Millions more poor than 8 years ago; (3) There are fewer jobs available for the poor, even before the Economic collapse; (4) Men can not get on welfare; Can Not, Period. We have not had welfare for men in our country, ever. A Very common misconception by the Unpoor. (5) Managers can not be sued for ‘constructive criticism’, or reasonable management.
Far too many misconceptions about poor too lazy to work. The jobs are not here, relativelly. And far too many trucking and former Teen jobs have gone to lower pay workers.
Cutting costs is the operative Rule in business; Easiest is labor. Goes against Fairness and docial ethics concerns. Look anywhere; You’ll see the Proofs of the’new economy’ vs 2-3 decades ago. On case no one noticed, it began under the ‘pro-life’ Reagan Business administration of less manufacturing, more service, and exporting USA jobs to the Carribbean.

1. I didn’t say middle class earnings changed one way or another.
2. There are millions of more people and that supports my previous arguement that people are allowed to be less productive than in years past.
3. I wasn’t talking about jobs for the poor, I was talking about people getting into jobs suitable for middle class. And there are as many jobs for the poor as what people are willing to create.
4. Men can go on welfare, now there may be specific programs that are only available to women but under the general umbrella. of public assistance there are many men who recieve payments from the government based on something other than just compensation.
5. Managers can be sued. For constructive criticism. especially if the empoyee is in a protected class. And if they are fired due to performance they can sue for discrimination. Employers will lay off employees for “financial” reasons to avoid the legal problems with firing someone for poor performance. Under these circumstaces the person feels it was just bad luck or a greedy employer and they never learn the true nature of why they are unemployed.

Also remember we are in a global economy so our prevailing wages are getting closer to the global standard.

 

[Appleby]

With that logic, shouldn’t the single person have as much say in how the schools are run as the parrents?

The single person should have the right to keep her money, and the people who gave birth to the children should pay for their educations. BUT WHAT IF THEY DONT HAVE THE MONEY? you wail? Then perhaps they should not have the children until they do.

Or, you could come to me and make a case (without using a gun) as to why I ought to pay for your child to be educated in a government indoctrination centre; I just might say send her to a Catholic girls school and I will help you pay for that. But whatever I answer should be my free choice, not the forced choice of Give Me Your Money Or Go To Prison.

 

[royal_archer]

The single person should have the right to keep her money, and the people who gave birth to the children should pay for their educations. BUT WHAT IF THEY DONT HAVE THE MONEY? you wail? Then perhaps they should not have the children until they do.

Or, you could come to me and make a case (without using a gun) as to why I ought to pay for your child to be educated in a government indoctrination centre; I just might say send her to a Catholic girls school and I will help you pay for that. But whatever I answer should be my free choice, not the forced choice of Give Me Your Money Or Go To Prison.

Unfortunately these children are in a bad situation they are being raised by one or more parrents who are less than responsible and will probably be brought up in a manner where they do not learn good work ethics. It is not their fault and with out an education, they have no chance. I find it reasonable to give them an education on credit and then after the fact bill the parrents and deal with that debt as an after action.

 

[cynic]

Who says that reasonably affordable education is going to just spontaneously occurr anyway.

Since when is providing close to cost-of-supply education a profitable business, and who is going to invest in such ventures?
Me-thinks that less than half the population could probably afford private schooling for several children.

Appleby:

I think you should buy your own island. You obviously got where you are without the benefit of one bit of help from another.

 

[Caesar517]

Who says that reasonably affordable education is going to just spontaneously occurr anyway.

Since when is providing close to cost-of-supply education a profitable business, and who is going to invest in such ventures?
Me-thinks that less than half the population could probably afford private schooling for several children.

Private schooling is cheaper than public schooling and there are many private schools already who are able to sucessfully compete with the government schools.

 

[RobbyS]

Private schooling is cheaper than public schooling and there are many private schools already who are able to sucessfully compete with the government schools.

However cheap, the cost to parents must add in the taxes they must pay to the LEA.

 

[christcnection1]

Do you mean “Should you be forced at gunpoint to hand your money over to me?” That’s called armed robbery, except if the government does it – the Obamination calls that “spreading the wealth around.”

The operative question is WHOSE wealth and WHO gets to “distribute” it to WHOM? Methinks you personally don’t have any wealth, and you believe that isn’t “fair” – that MY wealth, which I have earned (not which fell on my head when an angel tipped over a basket of money and I happened to be standing in the right place) should by some theory you have evolved, rightfully belong to YOU.

Please elucidate exactly whose wealth we’re discussing, and why you believe that it ought not to be retained by the person to whom it belongs.

If you have not already, I suggest that you read through my other posts to get a clearer idea of where I am coming from. I don’t necessarily believe our views are that far off.

But to be clear, anything I think I own or have earned actually doesn’t belong to me. I believe it is God’s, and we are called to be good stewards of the resources He entrusted to us.

I hope we agree on that point, but if not, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Appleby]

I believe in moving the system of government toward what the “common good” is, assuming it’s in line with Catholic teaching. This could mean various changes, within an array of circumstances.

The Church has spoken on these issues, and has a perspective on how government should implement policies for the common good.

I do not consider the Church’s viewpoint as something that will lead to a “pit of death.” But then again, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

You are in fact wrong, but I will charitably attribute that to your extreme youth (or the fact that you have a husband with a highly paid job.) People who want to extort money from those they believe have too much and grandly decide for us what size home we NEED and how many pairs of underpants we NEED and how much of what kind of food we NEED and what, if any, entertainment we NEED, and therefore convince themselves that the rest of OUR money belongs to their friends, cronies and apparatchiks, are all too common on college campuses and always have been. I had numerous young British friends who lived off their wealthy parents and spent all their time ranting and railing against The Rich (i.e. their parents) while taking full advantage of everything The Rich handed them. Most of these people distributed NONE of their own wealth. You even see this in the politicians like the Obamination who demand that we peons fork over our money and yet their own tax returns prove they give virtually NOTHING voluntarily.

I have also worked in shelters where twentysomething girls with four children by four different men, none of whom they could pick out of a line-up, spent all their time whining that TheRich OWED them and the rest of us had the duty to force them to turn that money over. And now that it is Christmas, they are all out there demanding that we Rich people turn over iPhones, Segways, Nintendo Wii and Grand Pianos because WE OWE THEM.

Back in the 1980s I got in a war with my Lutheran congregation which had an East German pastor who spent all his time railing against The Rich – who soon departed our congregation and left it full of Needy with no recourse. (Socialists have no money.) They actually prepared a working paper that said single people did not NEED to own three-bedroom, two-bath homes; we ought to be satisfied to live in one room and turn over our money to the single welfare mom with two illegitimate children (in Georgia the law says that children of different sexes must not sleep in the same room, and a child and a parent of different sexes must not sleep in the same room).

I give plenty to charity and adhere strictly to Matthew 6 (you should read it sometime) and therefore am excoriated by the socialists like you who assume that because i am comfortable and have money left over, I must not be doing anything. This does not encourage me to do anything more.

And nowdays when street beggars ask me for change I tell thm to call Obama.