Redistribution of Wealth is Perfectly Fine

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (129 posts)

80
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
Right?
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Any redistribution of anything without earning it is wrong. The problem goes much deeper when it comes to the disparity between those that have escalated their wealth through loopholes and weakened trade laws. The earning power of the middle class has gone down now that a globalization initiative is in full swing. If looked at in an impartial light it can be worked out by changing some trading practices. When Eisenhower was President the tax rate for the rich was over 90%. The fifties and sixties enjoyed the greatest rise to the middle class this country has ever seen. Now that the rich are taxed at a average rate of 11%-15%, we have seen the quickest decline of the middle class since the great depression. What is the answer?
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wealth redistribution should be the concerns of every citizen through the taxation he has agreed to, (through the process of creating issues and voting.) The rich should have a say in how much they are taxed. They should agree to what they will be taxed before they earn their wealth. Do they agree?
  Yes.
  By living here and earning here.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The poor in America have TOO MANY entitlements. It is time to reduce such entitlements. Again, make them WORK, WORK for what they want. Reduce welfare to the bare minimum. Institute more stringent and severe workfare programs. Get them off welfare and make them productive members of society. The rich and affluent DON'T OWE anything to the poor. Let the poor WORK, if not, STARVE! When people are desperate, they will learn and want to work for their upkeep! There is so much socioeconomic entitlements and welfare fraud, it isn't even funny! CUT OFF WELFARE ENTIRELY, I SAY and LEAVE THE RICH ALONE!
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah they have done a bang up job of securing almost all the wealth. The poor are not eating up the profits. Wall Street is selling junk and getting bloated by the phony paper the government feeds them. Talk about welfare. Pick on the poor as it is easy and requires no imagination as to the real culprits who are fleecing the Treasury.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, let the poor work or else riot and give the withholders a bloody nose.
  
  Welfare is a capitalist scam to keep the poor suppressed and compliant.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do you think everyone in the middle class is on the take? You speak about the poor and their entitlements but leave out what used to be the biggest segment in the country, the middle class. They are the consumers and they drive the economy. The rich won't invest in a thing unless there is a demand for it. The rich have a distinct advantage. Either by the efforts of a few or directly themselves they have effectively had a hand in reducing taxes on themselves and easing trade restrictions over the last 40 years whereby they have accumulated massive amounts of wealth. This is not rocket science. Just look at the information out there. The jobs have left in the biggest scam on the American worker ever. The corporations have fed us the cheap goods we desire at the cost of our jobs. The corporations have raked in the profits at humongous rates.
  Your answer is do nothing and the capitalist system will straighten the whole thing out in the long run. Well we are in debt up to our ears and the Fed is buying all the junk bonds and derivatives to pad Wall Streets pockets. Talk about welfare. Giving billions away for nothing in exchange.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  rhamson:
  I am considering what you are saying. Do you think if the rich were taxed at the appropriate rate, without being reduced for the sake of trickle down economics, everything would go back to normal? Maybe that standard tax rate is the check the rich need... Since some of them seem to be prone to abusing their wealth and power. But you know, not all of them! So is it fair to punish them all for the sins of a few? After all, the industriousness of the wealthy do provide jobs and wages. We need incentives to allow for wealth accumulation and cultivation.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It is a combination of many factors not just one. The rich cannot spend the same percentage on the goods the middle class does. If they did it would have to be at a rate above 300% or more for the same goods. So they can't circulate their money back into the economy as does the middle class. And you can't tax them up to that rate to make up the difference. We the consumer drive the economy. If it were not for our purchasing goods and services there is no reason to create a job to cover it. As the demand for these goods and services decline there is nothing to drive the economy as more and more people are laid off and fired. The housing industry took the big hit when the banks closed down the lending and the mortgages went upside down. Who gained from that? The banks got bailed out by the government and foreclosed on the properties. Now they have their money and our homes. Congress keeps the Ponzi scheme alive with the bail outs and the American taxpayer gets to hold nothing.
  I am tired of people picking on the poor and telling them to just suck it up and work their way out of it. The unemployment rate for black males is at twice the rate as the rest of the country. Is it because they are lazy? Try and get a job in neighborhoods that can't keep a supermarket less than a couple of bus rides away. The perspective is not conducive to fixing the problem with so many pointing the finger at the other. I don't have the answers. But giving someone else's money to those who haven't any is not an answer and ignoring the plight of those who are on the lowest rung of the ladder is not the answer either. Trickle down never worked as we found with Reagan. His escalation of the military and the resulting contracts did help immensely. Bill Clinton came in and raised the taxes and that was a huge success for the economy. But his NAFTA initiative killed our jobs in the long run.
  reply report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How do you provide services for people (roads, police, disability support) without some kind of tax (someone else's money)?
  
  It seems to me that this is indeed the answer. The question is just how much and for what purposes.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  rhamson and psycheskinner:
  Theses are both wise and pertinent posts. I, for one, thank you both.
  reply report
2. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  NO IT ISN'T, the idea of wealth redistribution is communistic and/or socialistic in its premise. Wealthy/affluent/successful people WORKED smart and strategized for what they have while their less successful counterparts did not do such. The lazy and indolent should not be enabled nor rewarded. There is TOO MUCH socioeconomic welfare in this society already. Motto: she/he that works, profits and survive, those who DON'T, STARVE pure and simple! STARVE, STARVE, STARVE!
  
  Again, people who are poor in the United States are such because of negative mindset and poor life choices. Who told them not to strive? Who told them not to study and to apply themselves? Who told them to continuously chose immediate gratification instead of delaying gratification for their future good and advancement? Poor people have a vastly different mindset from the affluent and middle class. Affluent and middle class people plan, organize, and strategize. They THINK before they ACT, they always think about the ramifications of their actions. They do not act on basic instinct like the typical poor person does. Again, the poor are poor in the United States because it is THEIR fault. They refuse to take responsibility for their dire predictament.
  
  I believe in K.I.S. -keep it simple. If the poor took responsibility and thought about their lives, they would IMPROVE. The poor has habits and conditioning which KEEP them poor and impoverished, Need I SAY MORE!
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Being poor is hardly a dire predicament. It's not the same thing as impoverishment. And for some people, it's a choice.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So Gates, Trump et al are all communist/socialist!
  After all, their wealth is based on redistribution from the poorer to the richer.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. How does that work?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I thought that as you raised the topic you would have a good understanding of how wealth redistribution worked.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but not in the direction you mention.
  Note: Also, as you may or may not know I often bring up topics to learn more about them. I really have a limited view of things, having lived a very carefree American life and all. I mean I hated any topic regarding history or politics in high school, (as most teens do during this period... all they care about is attention from the opposite sex. Yes, I am still recovering from my youth and at my age! Well, at least I am not out of my 50's yet. Sorry for TMI.)
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Don't you know then that if you buy a new PC and ask the supplier to remove any Microsoft product from it you still pay Microsoft for the privilege of not using their product?
  
  You can bet your life that many others have similar scams like the landlord who lets substandard property but still charges premium rent.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How can that landlord do that? Do you mean that people will pay more than you think the place is worth? Or that they will pay more than it actually IS worth?
  
  If the latter, why would they do that? Too stupid to do their homework and find out what the property is worth? If so, I'd say they just paid for a very valuable education.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Or maybe they just don't fancy living in a tent.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then the property is worth (to them) what they are paying, yes?
  
  And the landlord is cheating no one as it is a totally voluntary purchase, at an mutually agreeable price, yes? (It was just John H. all along that determined it was a scam - the buyer did not agree with that assessment and was happy to purchase.) As it would be an extremely rare case to find no other lodging available, we can also assume it was a going rate, or the buyer would have gone elsewhere.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No.
  
  We're not talking about luxury items here. People need a roof over their head. There is nothing voluntary about shelter, in this country you tend to die pretty quickly without it.
  
  The whole point is that unscrupulous landlords set their rents not to reflect the quality of the property they are letting but to reflect the general rent level in the area.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then you have answered your own question; the rent is reasonable. By definition, as it matches the general rent level in the area.
  
  See, neither John H nor potential renters get to set the value of that property - just a common agreement between said renter and the landlord. Needs of the renter do not enter into the equation, John's perception of the needs of the renter do not enter into the equation and even the needs of the landlord do not enter into the equation. Just an agreement between landlord and renter, and if the landlord is out of line the renter will go elsewhere. If the renter is out of line the landlord will find one that IS in line with the market value. Or let it sit empty, of course; it is his choice to do so.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Give me strength!
  
  If every landlord is charging the same level of rent, where else is there for anybody to go, assuming that they need accommodation now and not at some indeterminate time in the future when they might be lucky enough to get a better property for their rent?
  
  They view it as wealth redistribution-from you to them.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, give me strength. I would ask you just who YOU think should set the value of a home, but you will never answer that question. I know - I've tried before.
  
  Market sets the value. Not you, not the renter, not the landlord. That value is NOT determined by how bad the renter needs a home. It is NOT determined by how little or how much the renter can pay. It is NOT determined by how many kids or infants the renter has. None of that is a determining factor in value. Only what the market is charging has any say in value, that and an agreement between the only two parties involved.
  
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so difficult to understand and comprehend. You don't set value; government doesn't set value, renters don't set value; landlords don't set value. Value is determined by a combination of what the market is and, to a lesser degree, what the landlord and tenant can agree on. You don't get to set value for something you are neither buying nor selling!
  
  I have purchased cars, for instance, at over blue book (market value in the US) because I valued that specific car more than most people did. I have also paid considerably less because the seller wanted it gone and I didn't place a very high value on it for me. In either case, though, the price was not far from the market value; neither seller nor myself would allow that. And neither will a renter or a landlord. So when you arbitrarily decide that some landlord is charging too much even as they find tenants without any problem, well, you are just off base there.
  
  And no, no one views it as a redistribution of wealth any more than other buy/sell transaction is.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who should set the value of a home? I'd be quite happy if the market did so, but the market exceeds the landlords and the bankers, it also should include the tenants-but it doesn't.
  
  It is easy to find tenants without a problem-just make sure that the number of potential tenants far exceeds the available property.
  
  And I don't arbitrarily decide that some landlord is charging too much. There are many far more knowledgeable than I who say exactly the same.
  
  At one time in this country (and probably yours as well) it was considered that a man should be able to house his family on one third of his income. Now that figure is more often 70 or even 80% of income.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But the market cannot exceed (by very much) what the landlords are asking. Or what the tenants are paying; by definition it is "average" of what is being paid and that makes it impossible for most tenants to pay more.
  
  If there are too many tenants, then some will be homeless, find another town to live in or more housing will be built. That is no reason to declare the value lower than what the market is seeing, though.
  
  Are any of those "knowledgeable" people successful landlords? Or just people that want to share the wealth of others?
  
  There are solutions to that, John. Smaller houses. Smaller lots (I would suspect the land is the big problem there). Bigger (taller) apartment complexes. Heck, even an arcology if financing could be found. Multiple generations in one house. Japan has a much worse problem, and they get along - so can the UK.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, the market does not exceed what the landlords are asking, so what? And if average is too high for most people, then your average sucks.
  
  Build more! Any reason why that should be any cheaper? The banks and shareholders would still want a fast return on their money, unprepared to wait more than a few years.
  
  And how do you fit multiple generations in one house when it's already too small for the one generation that lives there?
  
  You are trying to defend the indefensible.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How do you fit more people? Come to my neighboring city, where there are 3 or 4 illegal alien families, all with multiple generations, living in one house. I'm sure you can find out how it is done. And of course you can limit future problems with the Chinese method of limiting reproduction and/or immigration.
  
  Of course they can be made cheaper. Cut half the regulations out, build up instead of out, and make an arcology out of it. Much cheaper per home.
  
  No, John, I'm not defending anything. You're trying (as always) to set artificial pricing that has nothing to do with reality and the pretend it will work. It won't, and all but the socialists understand that very basic economic fact. Without a reasonable rate of return, capital will be shifted out of the country, and there will BE no housing being built. You folks always want to pretend that the owners, the movers and shakers of the country, will be pleasantly satisfied with losing money every day, but they won't. Take away their income and you won't have them OR their money; money you desperately need just to maintain what you have.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, it is the landlords setting artificial pricing, not I.
  
  Tell me then, when rents were reasonable, around a third of income, did iit not work then? Where there no millionaire landlords then?
  
  And as for losing money everyday! That would be the day when they joined the massed ranks who do lose money everyday.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Really? How do you figure that landlords set rents without regard to market value, AND get it? I really don't think that is possible...not in a free economy. (If there were more people than homes then some would be homeless; there aren't, at least not for that reason, so the market still works). Now if govt. interferes and decides that John knows best, choosing a rent without regard to market, all bets are off. The low rents will be great...until the landlord can't afford to maintain the building and it falls apart. Until the landlord goes bankrupt and the building is razed for a new shopping center. Then, somehow, it is still the landlord's fault - seen that too many times! Government, or more likely strong unions, destroy a business by ignoring market forces and it dies, whereupon it wasn't run properly.
  
  If incomes did not raise with other prices, why are you blaming the landlord? Is it his fault the plumber wants more to fix the faucet? That property taxes skyrocketed to provide more share the wealth, giving subsidized rent? Is it his fault that govt. continually makes more laws requiring more costly changes to the homes? Did he cause the cost of a new paint job to triple, even as govt. requires new paint with each tenant?
  
  Why do you blame the landlord for these things, or expect him to cover the increased costs (double or triple what they used to be when rents were cheaper) out of his own pocket?
  
  I do trust that you have examined the books of the landlords and verified that they can afford to halve their income, still making a good living. What? You say you haven't, just think that a handful with hundreds or thousands of homes for rent make too much - maybe even $100 per year per home too much? Why would you say they should halve the rent, then?
  
  Because people with low paying jobs can't afford a mansion? But we've already covered that - the tenants life situation does not set the value of the home.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Anecdotal I know but listen anyway.
  
  When I moved back to Manchester I moved into private rented accommodation and then more recently moved into a flat owned by a trust.
  The flats are similar in size both costing about the same in rent, and there the resemblance ends.
  I had a water leak in the private flat, it took the landlord two months to fix it. i had a water leak shortly after moving into the trust owned flat, the plumber arrived within an hour of me reporting it.
  There is a part time manager and a part time caretaker in the trust owned flat and my rent includes heating and lighting. The privately owned flat had neither.
  
  The trust publishes its accounts annually, it has a substantial surplus after all costs.
  
  For a bit more background on British landlords look to Rachman who did his bit to relieve the pressure on rented housing by not only renting out rooms to several people but renting out the beds to several people-he reckoned as a man could get by with 8 hours sleep and as there are 24 hours in a day then 3 people could use that bed!
  Or more recently, the landlord who lived in a mansion worth several million pounds whilst his tenants lived in property that was eventually condemned as unfit for human habitation.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So, some assumptions. I presume the "trust" is either a corporation (or similar) or government. I also assume that costs were about the same or that there was some reason they are not, like location.
  
  Why did you move? If because of poor conditions, I would say that that landlord is going to forever have trouble. His flat isn't worth what he conned you into paying, whereupon you promptly left. He now has an empty flat he must rent, and in the US must generally paint and clean up at least some. He has thus chosen losing income some of the time to earning more the rest of the time - maybe it pays in the long run and maybe it doesn't. Either way, his choice and you agreed when you rented.
  
  They that rented bed time - much like a motel - what of it? He found customers that appreciated the convenience or he could not have done it. That you feel differently doesn't make it wrong!
  
  And finally, the rich landlord - that's what I said. You haven't looked at his books, you don't know what he earned from those rat holes. You just don't like him having money so he should give it away, but you do not have the right to make that call. It isn't your rat hole, it isn't your money. You have no say in the matter and shouldn't. If he was truly pocketing all that should have gone into maintenance he now has nothing, the tenants stupid enough to rent from him have nothing and (according to you) must now be on the street because they can afford nothing better. Fine. A problem has been eliminated - capitalism has a tendency to do that - and is unlikely to be repeated by that landlord. Perhaps whoever buys the land will build better homes.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I know of no motels where you have to wake up the occupants of beds and then climb into them still warm!
  
  You refuse to believe, that doesn't mean that there are no rapacious landlords. Still, better to be part of the problem than the solution seems to be your motto!
  
  Oh, by the way the private landlord re let the flat at a higher rent when I had left it!
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Japan has lots of them - tiny cubicles just large enough to lay down in. http://9bytz.com/japanese-sleep-pod-hotels/ The US has quite a few motels that rent by the hour - I hear they are popular with prostitutes. Bet the UK has some, too.
  
  Oh, I know there are bad people out there, that will steal from you. I've only rented a few times, but have had a landlord try to steal from me. But that isn't the discussion, at least as I understand it, it's about setting rents for everyone, by committee or some other crazy way of declaring "value" without regard to what the general population finds it to be.
  
  Price went up, eh? Did you leave a mess that had to be cleaned up? Have to have new carpeting or something, and the poor guy had to try to recoup his losses somehow?
  
  But you know, some landlords are the other way, too. I had a cat once that clawed the walls quite badly - I mudded the sheetrock and left it ready for paint. As law required new paint anyway, no one said a word even though they could have kept my deposit and made me sue for it.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I would have no problem at all if the market did set the rent, unfortunately it doesn't. Landlords set the rent and tenants either pay or don't survive.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nice thought except...if the renters don't rent the landlords go bankrupt. And if other landlords cave in (and some will) then those left go bankrupt. Tenants can double up with family, move to another town and commute, find another job, etc. etc. If the rent really is too high it will come down with time. And if it is too low in spite of your complaints it will rise, too.
  
  It's called free enterprise, or capitalism, or competition. It actually does work, too - the rents are very obviously market value, plus or minus a small amount, by definition. You don't like it, tenants don't like it and I'm sure landlords don't like it (they would like more profit) but that's how the free world works. A free market, guaranteed competition, WILL settle out to market value.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  70-80% of a single persons earning to afford rent requiring partner to work to pay the rest, sure it works.
  That's why so many working people need government help to pay their rent, a government that ended any sort of rent control.
  But of course it isn't actually the government that helps them pay their rent is it?, it's the other taxpayers, which, like working tax credit, is another means of transferring wealth from the have-nots to the have-plenty's.
  report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's not exactly true. The PC manufacturer purchased the right to install Microsoft software - as an enticement to buyers. The cost of pre-installed software is a deduction for the PC manufacturer.
  
  You might or might not benefit from the software directly - but it's akin to buying a car with electric windows. You could special order a car without electric windows, but it probably wouldn't cost you much less, and it could cost more, because it's a special order.
  
  You can always request a custom PC without Microsoft software - but you'll probably pay more.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So the manufacturer doesn't pass costs on to the customer! Somehow I don't believe that.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sure they do, but it's akin to automobile manufacturers putting leather seats in their high-end cars. You might prefer cloth seats - and you might think they are less expensive - but the manufacturer makes the decision based on what they think most people will want. Same way with PCs, which tend to sell better when they have a variety of popular software installed. Taking specific software off of a new PC only results in labor for the computer tech at the store - so you could end up paying more - to get less.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Which still means you are paying Microsoft for something you might not want!
  
  Rather than leather seats in your car I see it more as a tank full of gas of a brand that you would never buy.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Redistribution indicates taking money away from one person - and giving it to another person.
  
  Trump/Gates did not become wealthy as a result of redistribution, because they supplied something in exchange for the money they received. They didn't acquire money that was taken unwillingly from others.
  
  Redistribution harms in two ways. 1) The person who must relinquish their money is resentful. 2) The person who receives the money without having earned it - is also resentful because by taking the money - he earns a societal label of being unable to provide for himself.
  
  There are answers. Redistribution is not one of them.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - we agree again.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +100000000000000000
  reply report
  70
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hey there, Grace. How are you doing these days.
  
  In your view of the world, these two people should STARVE, you say, because they do not know how to plan, organize, and strategize!
  
  I can see by your post that you are still in denial about the rigors of upward mobility. The most recent studies confirm that it is just as difficult for the poor to improve their socioeconomic status today as it was twenty years ago. {1}
  
  In fact, it is easier to climb the economic ladder in Canada or in Western Europe then here in the US. There is also a substantial variation in intergenerational mobility across different areas in this country. Moving from the lowest 20% of society to the top 20% is three times more likely for a person in San Jose, CA, than for a similar poor person raised in Charlotte, NC.
  
  Poverty creates its own individual barriers and hurdles.
  In spite of your denial, studies continue to show that the position of the parents has a greater impact on a child’s upward mobility than ever before.
  
  Be well, Grace, and always follow your bliss.
  
  {1} http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  For shame, Quill!
  
  Which of those two do you think should be able to bounce themselves up a grade or two this year?
  
  You cannot think anyone wants them to starve; why would you insinuate such a thing?
  
  What causes the mobility slowdown? Drugs? Too many babies? Unwillingness to risk entitlements and move? Gang affiliation that will be lost? Unwillingness to learn? (leaving out the obvious of physical/mental inability here - we aren't talking about that)
  
  Or is it always that someone else isn't giving enough support money? Or stamping them back every day? Hogtieing them to the bannister at home so they can't get out? Is it always the fault of someone else, or just maybe the person that will not make their own luck is playing a part here (for luck isn't found; it is made)?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Here in the UK (and probably in the US as well) if you live in certain post codes (zip codes?) If you apply for a job as the most suitable applicant you won't even get an interview.
  
  So how does somebody with no income get together enough money to move to an acceptable post code?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then move. Put your clothes in a bag and start walking. People have done it for thousands of years, it can still be done today if the situation is desperate enough enough. (Of course, if you have accumulated a passel of kids, it becomes a little harder.) Might have to leave them home with Mom while you look for work. And if Mom has a passel, from multiple or deadbeat dads, there is a real problem; one created by Mom that she now wants society to fix for her even as she continues the activities that produced the problem.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh get real! How do you move and to where?
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  - survival of the fittest, John. Whomever cannot figure that out, well…
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But we send all our fittest to war and death leaving only the dregs.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How would I know? If I were to do it where I live, there are a half dozen towns less than a day's walk away. I would probably choose a town called Nampa; middle of the road economically, needing the skills I have developed (there is construction there). More possibilities if I spend a few days walking, but every must take advantage of their own environment, not mine.
  
  That attitude is the biggest single reason for the problem; the enormous whine of "can't do it!". Take those people and refuse to feed them and watch just how much they CAN do when survival demands it. As long as you feed them, they will continue to make little to no effort to feed themselves.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  AMEN, preach IT! Preach IT! So many people have the CAN'T mentality. They believe that life should be so rosy and smooth without any type of difficulties. Well guess what, it does not work that way at all. Obstacles should be enhancers and strengtheners, not roadblocks. The difference between successful people and others is that successful people CAN, CAN, CAN despite obstacles.
  
  Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, author/motivational speaker/psychologist
  
  Sean Connery, actor
  Both men came from poor backgrounds but use being poor as an impetus to success. It CAN be done!
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sean Connery had two working parents and he lived at a time when employment was still fairly easily available.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES ad infinitum. People can DO, however, it is much easier to play the VICTIM. VICTIM, YEAH. being a victim is MUCH EASIER than taking responsibility!
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So Connery did not have good parenting and could get a job. Much what is the predominant thing we see today, isn't it?
  
  Most families are two earner couples, and most people that want to can get a job.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Of course they do. If immigrants CAN find work, so can anyone else. There are many people who can work but WON'T work. The philosophy today in America is a combination of can't and won't.
  
  Many people look at successful and rich people, hating and enving them instead of improving their own particular socioeconomic conditions. They refuse to acknowledge that the rich people worked and sacrificed to get where he/she is currently. Oh no, the less unsuccessful and diligent person believe that the rich person was lucky and had it so much easier.
  
  Here's some food for thought:
  http://youtu.be/pTaVZMLJKBE
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Where do you get the idea that Connery did not have good parenting?
  
  Remember, Connery was born nearly a century ago and would have entered the workforce at a time when the countries workforce was decimated by the war, so decimated that shortly after we had to start importing workers just to keep essential services functioning.
  
  To compare a person entering the workforce in 1944 with somebody entering the workforce in 2014 is disingenuous in the least. There are absolutely no points of similarity.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In TOTAL agreement, wilderness. People are in charge of their lives, unfortunately, many would prefer to play and adopt the role of the poor victim that needs to be rescued. Victimology is ALIVE and WELL among some people. They would rather have the gov'ment rescue them than to do for self. Sad, really isn't it?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed. The really sad part is those that are poor for a reason; physical or mental inability maybe. They are overshadowed by the millions wanting their "entitlements", and really are badly hurt by the system that has to try and weed out those that can work.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And parents must teach their children to be strong and to rely on themselves. It is like getting a child into the water: At first its cold and they shiver, but usually, within minutes, they adapt just fine and love it!
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely, but it's something we seem to find hard to do today. Understandable; we have more free income than ever before and wish to help our kids. So we coddle them from the time they are born and then wonder why they won't take responsibility for themselves.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And they don't bring them to lakes, rivers and oceans. Hopefully, pools in the neighborhood at least.
  I mean really… kids need to fish and camp and visit amazing places and get turned on to life. Parents have to get them OFF the darn screens!
  Substitute teachers are refusing to work at elementary schools these days because the kids are so skittish. They are disrespectful, restless, with very low levels of self control/concentration! Our generation needs to stay around for a very long time, just in case the hands on living in the concrete world skills become necessary/useful again. It may be up to US to teach them…
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Most of them get to play in the puddles when it rains - isn't that enough?
  
  And most have enough to eat and clothes to wear even if parents are never home - isn't that enough?
  
  Most have a teacher than can teach them morality and how to behave because the parents won't - isn't that enough?
  
  Gotta say, kids have it tough today - it will be interesting to see how they grow up.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  - crossing my fingers…I have a feeling that 's not enough.
  report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness and Kathryn, YOU BOTH are correct in your premise. Just watch supernanny and you will see how many of the children are today. It is quite scary!
  
  Here's a link.......
  http://youtu.be/I7fRlBHvbqo
  report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks gmwilliams. I watched a couple episodes with great interest. I observed that the kids were able to adopt to the discipline and benefit from the rewards of more time interacting with their parents. The show clearly reveals It is best to start disciplining and interacting in meaningful ways with your children when they still have love in their hearts and joy of life within their psyches. This is why we can't give up. (How hard it must be for some parents to not give up.)
  Thanks for sharing this link.
  report
  70
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  
  Hi Wilderness. Someone else said they should starve, not I!
  
  You obviously missed a segment of the thread. I did not insinuate these two people should starve at all! Another poster decided they should be allowed to starve because they were unable, in her words, to plan, organize, and strategize! Please do not try to accuse me of suggesting such an elitist and inhumane condemnation.
  
  In your comment, you went on to say:
  “What causes the mobility slowdown? Drugs? Too many babies? Unwillingness to risk entitlements and move? Gang affiliation that will be lost? Unwillingness to learn? (leaving out the obvious of physical/mental inability here - we aren't talking about that)”
  
  None of the above, Wilderness. Perhaps you did not have a chance to read the study I linked in my post. It answered all of your questions above by saying geographical “areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families.” {1}
  
  These are the predominant factors that allow the poor to overcome the barriers to upward mobility. Elitist delusions about government supplied disincentives and “lazy moochers” are insignificant in comparison.
  
  “Or is it always that someone else isn't giving enough support money? Or stamping them back every day? Hogtieing them to the bannister at home so they can't get out? Is it always the fault of someone else, or just maybe the person that will not make their own luck is playing a part here (for luck isn't found; it is made)?”
  
  Such colorful and imaginary speculation lacks factual support in the accumulated body of research designed to identify the causes of poverty. Each of us has to step back for a moment from our ideological principles to read how the real world’s social and economic forces impact the poor. Upward mobility and income inequality do not exist in a vacuum.
  
  We can not rely on academics to provide solutions for social ills but they do provide invaluable insight into their causes. Some experts say, “children growing up in low-income families face many challenges that children from more advantaged families do not. These children are more likely to experience multiple family transitions, move frequently, and change schools. The schools they attend are less well funded, and the neighborhoods they live in are more disadvantaged. The parents of these children have fewer resources to invest in them and, as a consequence, their homes have fewer cognitively-stimulating materials, and their parents invest less in their education. The stress of living in poverty and struggling to meet daily needs can also impair parenting.” {2}
  
  In the list of the most formidable obstacles to overcoming poverty, unwillingness to learn, lack of motivation, negative thinking, and a passive mentality are so insignificant that they are the least mentioned.
  
  {1} http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/
  {2} http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_909.html
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Many people are poor in the United States as a result of poor and uneducated life choices. No one told them to choose the lifepath they have chosen. No one told them to create situations which would ultimately put them in dire socioeconomic situations. No, I am NOT going to retract my previous statement. I vehemently stand by the statement if one elects not to work, he/she can STARVE. YES I SAID IT!
  
  Poor people in the United States REFUSE and are UNWILLING to better themselves. They have nunerous children that they cannot afford which results in my tax dollars supporting them. These human parasites are enveloping our tax dollars to enable their socioeconomic pathology. They rather have the gov'ment look after them than to do for themselves. ENOUGH is ENOUGH! The typical poor person in America neither cares about improving themselves, taking responsibility nor being accountable in their actions, only merely wanting the gov'ment to rescue them. Oh, dear, the excuses have been played OUT ad infinitum! God helps those who help themselves!
  reply report
  82
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sooooo.... you don't believe anything in the studies Quill mentioned? Those issues don't really exist and the studies are full of baloney?
  
  "...Poor people in the United States REFUSE and are UNWILLING to better themselves. ..."
  
  Do you really want to stand by that statement? Wouldn't you at least like to add a qualifier, like; some, many, most, or even the majority? Are you sure you want that statement to encompass ALL poor people?
  
  I agree the visuals, and in too many instances the reality, of the "poor" as you see them, are what hits the airwaves, but do you really discount the obstacles, and their impact, that Quill pointed out?
  
  GA
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A misunderstanding, Quill - you insinuated that GMWilliams wanted kids to startve. Something pretty obviously not true, IMO.
  
  I'm sorry, but if you think those things I listed do not contribute to a slowdown in upward mobility you are badly mistaken. They may or may not be in any study, but I cannot believe that anyone would ever deny that they do not contribute, and a large contribution at that.
  
  Let's look at just one of them - an unwillingness to learn. Do you mean to say that an undereducated child, one that skips every other day and plays with the gang all day instead of going to high school, is as capable of moving up as a high school or college grad? I don't think so. It just isn't PC to put the blame on the person failing to complete school; there has to be another reason that can be blamed.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you wilderness. The teenager who wants to skip school and brag about it has to take responsibility and accountability for his/her actions. He/she cannot blame society or the man, it is his/her doing. The woman who incessantly have children but can ill afford to take care of them has to be responsible for her actions and stop acting so irresponsibly. The context of many poor people(talking about the uncaring, indolent poor, not the working, diligent poor) is that they believe that the world owes them a living and/or a respite from their impoverished or dire socioeconomic conditions. Well, it does not work like that! I believe in calling a spade a spade, no sugarcoating the assessment. Straight, no chaser!
  reply report
  82
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How many of those undereducated kids do you think do that? A high percentage, or a small group, (that get everyone's attention)?
  
  I see your point, and I agree those kids exist, but I don't think in the numbers you seem to imply.
  
  Just for kicks, say there are 100 kids that head out their ghetto doors for school. How many do you think take the turn to the playground and the gangs instead of to the school?
  
  Of course I don't know, and I haven't researched it to find out, but my guess would be less than 20. Which means I think at least 80% of those undereducated kids are at least hitting the school doors.
  
  What happens from there is a different issue.
  
  GA
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Honestly? I'd have to say at least 25, and another 25 that do not go to school to learn, but to play, sell drugs and recruit for gangs.
  
  About what you said, then. And the next day it is a different 25 that don't go.
  reply report
3. 76
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you mean some taxing of richer people to help poorer people under situations of disadvantage (elderly, disabled, veterans etc) rather then leaving them to starve on the pavement: Yes, it is not only fine it is *great*.
  
  Even Tea party people would not campaign to such down veterans hospitals and cut off Medicare--because they a fiscal conservatives, not monsters.
  reply report
60
janesixposted 10 years ago
Only under dire circumstances.
reply report
60
janesixposted 10 years ago
I wouldn't say "perfectly fine". Just the lesser of evils, so to speak.
reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
Q. What is so evil about holders of any amount of wealth taking part in wealth redistribution for the benefit of others?
A. Nothing, as long as it is agreed to by the majority through voting.
reply report
1. 60
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who think's it's "evil"?
  
  And how is your q and a relevant to the question in the title of the thread, which is something completely different?
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You mentioned it being "the lesser of evils."
  Consider: Redistribution of wealth is simply the transfer of wealth, property or income from one individual to another. This redistribution is caused by some social mechanism, such as nationalization, charity, taxation, welfare or tort law."
  http://www.debate.org/redistribution/
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I was just reading into your question more than what you were saying. Don't even ask, I'm just tired and I'm not thinking straight at the moment:)
  
  I'm about to head off for a nap.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, because you were in the bad place, (ETP), (wasting your time, I might add). LOL
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
We must be very careful as to what we agree to in the voting box. Do you really want to be taxed more than half of what you earn?
Consider the matter of being taxed for anything before you vote with your compassionate heart! It is okay to think of yourself first! Set a good example for others and think of your own control over your own money.
Hint. It might be time to start stashing money in your own very heavy secret safe. I hear rough times are approaching. Don't make it harder!

PS Also Consider what gmwiliams has said. Thanks gmwilliams.
reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago
Anyone else notice the number of threads that deteriorate into the same old circle jerk? Recurring themes:

The masses are lazy and weak (not like us, of course)

The masses are raising a generation of brain-dead, lazy, weak, irresponsible children who don't know how to take care of themselves (unlike our generation, of course)

Oh, the victim mentality! Oh, the moochers! Oh, they're taking my money! Ohhhhhhh!

Recurring subthemes:
The masses are ungrateful (to us, of course)
The masses are uneducated (because they don't see what we see, of course)
The masses are stupid (because they're not successful and resourceful, like us, of course)

I remember my great grandpa saying the same stuff about my generation (I'm 55). Maybe a little self-reflection is in order. Just sayin'. ;-)
reply report
1. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, a lot of people REFUSE to take responsibility for their lives. Well, the youth of today feel that they are entitled and believe that they should have it easy and succeed without any struggle. Yes, people would rather make excuses than to do an assessment on themselves. Yes, people want to take THE EASY WAY out and BLAME THE MAN or SOCIETY rather than THEMSELVES. Yes, this is extreme immaturity to want to be rescued and taken care of by others instead of adopting a CAN attitude, work smart and strategize and SUCCEED. Oh no, that sounds TOO MUCH like EFFORT and WORK, OH MY!
  
  WELCOME to LIFE 101, time to get busy and REAL. WANT SOMETHING, GET OFF A$$ETS, STRATEGIZE, ORGANIZE, WORK, WORK, WORK for it! No whining allowed. Have any problems with that, SLAP, SLAP, now YOU are learning! Good! Man or Woman UP!
  
  I DON'T want to hear oh it's TOO HARD, I CAN'T and all that other bull-------. Get cracking, I DON'T HEAR you! I SAID GET CRACKING and off your duff! Work is good for the soul. Effort is good. Want something, WORK for it! Don't expect handouts. Yeah, you want a hand, LOOK AT THE END OF YOUR ARMS-that's a hand! GET MOVING!
  
  (crying) I can't do it, it too hard. I can't. Hellp, help ......Help....
  Well, that's the problems people have become crybabies and whiners instead of being adults and take responsibility. New word for today: RESPONSIBILITY, LEARN IT!
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, people that you are describing exist. They have always existed and always will. This is not news, Grandma.
  
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you are correct in that people should be personally responsible for themselves.
  
  What is YOUR definition of SUCCESS?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Define a lot. Generalizations are not any proof that there is a massive problem with respect to what you state. Who IS to blame for this generation? US! What are we doing to correct the "lot" of people who suffer these indignities? Get over it and grow up is the answer? The older generation grew up in a time of hope and providence, what is the message the new generation operates under. Corporations eliminating whole industries of labor and politicians robbing us blind. I work, work, work for a living and times are really tough and business is not what it was when I began my self employment 30 years ago. But I don't blame anyone but myself for the plight and ambitions of my children. Maybe it is time we took responsibility for our sins of the past in raising "lots" of people this way.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Some of us do recognize our sins and take responsibility for them. Others just demand that we throw more money at those sins, increasing them every year and producing more of "those" people all the time.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So how is blaming the victims "taking responsibility"?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  True victims get help, with a very few exceptions (mentally ill homeless that refuse help, for example). The rest are, by definition, victims of their own stupidity and have not earned any help.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So the recession was caused by the victims of that recession and nobody else!
  
  Oh sorry, there is no recession in wilderness land is there? Everything is hunky dory and there is rewarding work for all who want it!
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The recession was caused by politicians trying to buy votes by giving away homes that no one could pay for. Everybody knows that by now.
  
  And the "victims" started out as people too stupid to know they can't make a gold plated mortgage payment on a bronze salary. From there it went to those too stupid to see what was coming and continued to spend every dime they could get their hands on. Then to those refusing to work at jobs "beneath" them. And ALL of those were helped, enough to get them back on their feet, albeit with a loss of living standard. Do you think government can ignore the laws of physics and economics, creating miracles for everyone?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So now the only poor people are those stupid enough to buy the capitalist dream of home ownership!
  
  No, the recession was caused by bankers who found a way of making and trading toxic loans.
  reply report
  70
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  
  Good Evening, Wilderness. It is hard to lurk anywhere in these forums without running into your provocative and stimulating posts.
  
  I have to admit, however, the content in this particular post did not sound just right. It seems to contain more emotion than fact and “Everybody knows that by now,” was not very convincing. While some people may share this opinion, Wilderness, certainly not “everybody” agrees simply because they think it just “aint so.”
  
  There are two exaggerations that appear to be absolutely false. Politicians did not give away homes, not literally and not even figuratively.
  
  Citizens bought homes at market prices from legitimate sellers. Nothing was given away to buy votes. Over-zealous retail bankers extended high-risk loans with low up-front rates to eager naive buyers. Then unscrupulous mortgage companies repackaged and sold the toxic debt in bundles designed to hide the underlying fiscal risks.
  
  The implication that the Great Recession “was caused by” the sub-prime mortgage crisis also seems to be wrong. While the crisis occurred at the start of the recession, it was NOT actually the cause.
  
  Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on September 2, 2010 states
  “judged in relation to the size of global financial markets, prospective subprime losses were clearly not large enough on their own to account for the magnitude of the crisis.”{1}
  
  “Everybody knows that by now” is what you said. Everybody conjures up a lot of unsupportable, very colorful, imaginative, and self-centered perceptions that are mostly very personal conclusions and they can often be grossly inaccurate. It is one thing to believe a perception is absolutely correct but it is rather egocentric to think “everybody” agrees. {2}
  
  I hope you are doing well, Wilderness. Your Great Grandmother’s tales about settling in a little valley nearby have the allure of "Waltons Mountain." I hope there is a hub in the future on that subject. ^5.
  
  {1} http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevent … 00902a.htm
  {2} http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz … wrong.html
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  HI Quill,
  
  I understand your thoughts that it was the fault of over-zealous bankers that led to the housing bubble, but that's a simplistic view to say the least. While politicians did not "give homes away," in a literal sense, they created a fiscally untenable situation by forcing bankers to make questionable loans.
  
  The housing bubble had been coming for a long time - since Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. The idea was nice - it encouraged home ownership as a method of raising the quality of life for lower income individuals. Pride of ownership - that kind of thing.
  
  The CRA slumbered and was added to throughout various presidencies until it began to feed on itself in the 90s. That's when the turning point came. In an attempt to avoid accusations of "redlining." Banks were making 103% mortgages. People were flipping homes as a way to make money - and it worked. For awhile.
  
  But then the inevitable happened - the people could not pay their mortgages and the housing market cooled. Home values (which were too high) came crashing down, costing many their homes and creating an economic disaster in much of the country.
  
  The govt. wasn't only encouraging those loans to people with substandard credit - they were breathing down the bank's necks so they would make those loans. You might be forgetting that the bank loans were being sold on the secondary mortgage market...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  
  So, while you're correct in that the politicians didn't "give homes away," you're missing the big picture of what actually happened - which was a direct result of mortgage legislation passed by those politicians.
  
  And those politicians WERE buying votes. There's really no logical way to believe that they were not. Bad fiscal policy.
  
  The govt. owns the housing bubble/burst.
  reply report
  82
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  This is a subject that has interested me for quite awhile. I think this is a case where all three, (Wilderness, Quill, and Howard), are mostly right.
  
  As for Wilderness' "Everybody knows...," I think it works as a symbolic statement because, to me, it appears that the housing bubble was both the vehicle carrying the fuel for the crash, and the catalyst that caused the explosion.
  
  I believe Quill is right that the "Everybody knows..." is a little too all-encompassing because there were other primary factors that the "Everybody..." don't think about. There is a lot more to the recession than just the housing bubble - and a lot of people know it. So "Everybody knows..." could be seen as being as wrong as it is right - I guess it is a matter of context.
  
  And Howard is right too, the CRA was the prime impetus to the governments "forcible" intervention in the banking industry's loan standards. Without the government's actions relative to CRA goals, the bubble would not have formed.
  
  But there is another aspect to the cause of the recession - the repeal of Glass-Steagle, which allowed commercial banks to mingle with investment banks in activities that placed depositor monies on the tables of the casino that Wall Street had become, and the fundamental changes in Wall Street itself, (over the last 30 years), that had changed its role from financial and capitol flow gatekeeper, to investment speculator of the grandest sort.
  
  Sort of like;
  If there were no (government instigated) subprime loans, and if Freddie and Fannie, (quasi-government entities), did not provide mortgage guarantees for those subprime loans - there would be no toxic mortgage bundles to be sold to investors.
  
  If Wall Street had remained true to its roots, they would never have let those smelly Mortgage Backed Securities bundles past the front gate. But since the nature of the street had changed, and securities traders could make a profit even if the instruments failed - Wall Street welcomed them with open arms. Billions and billions of dollars worth of them.
  
  So, as Quill said, there is a lot more to the cause of the recession than just the bubble of the subprime loans, but without them none of the other components would have followed.
  
  Doesn't that make wilderness' "Everybody knows..." sort of right?
  And doesn't that make Howard's "it's the government's ownership of the housing bubble sort of right?
  And I am sure it makes Quills, "Everybody doesn't know..." really right.
  
  Everybody can see the car that caused the crash, but "everybody" does not see the broken brakeline that caused the car to cause the crash.
  
  The government and Wall Street are co-owners in my opinion.
  
  Or as the lion says... "that's just my 2 cents worth."
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Very well-thought-out and accurate post.
  
  Excellent.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, Quill, but this is one post I cannot agree with. "Overzealous bankers" did not make those loans, "foot dragging bankers acting against their opinion of what is best" did. Because government forced them to make additional low quality loans to people and I believe you yourself have posted some of the links plainly showing that. Bankers did not like them, but were forced into making them.
  
  And that means that "politicians gave away the houses", paid for by the American public. The loans WOULD suffer a very high failure rate - that was known when they were made - but were guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie; basically by the American public and the bottom of it all. And very definitely it was done to buy votes; such shenanigans always are. It was nothing more than another form of the pork so loved by politicians.
  
  I will just mention that any organization buying a package of loans, knowing what the new rules were for subprime loan percentages, and not looking before they bought are even more to blame when they went sour than the banks "hiding" them in a bundle of better loans.
  
  The hub is an interesting thought - my great uncle (grandma's brother) wrote a small book on growing up there, which is where I get my stories. Some are fascinating, and some are just incredible what people had to do just to survive. I simply cannot imagine, for instance, digging miles of irrigation ditch with nothing but a horse, plow and shovel. Following the contour lines without even a level or sextant, and getting it to where the water would flow. Not in the category of the pyramids, but amazing to me.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How, exactly, did the government "force" bankers to make toxic loans?
  
  I find it highly unlikely that bankers who spend tens of millions of dollars a year lobbying government would easily bow down to any pressure that was not in their best interests.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You've seen the links before; banks were being required to raise the percentage of substandard loans they were making. It was not a request, it was a requirement of the federal government.
  
  I have no idea how "easily" they bowed down, and neither does anyone else outside of the upper echelons of the bankers and the politicians pushing for it. They may have fought tooth and toenail behind closed doors, I do not know.
  
  I doubt it theough, because as long as any losses were covered (and they were) the bankers stood to gain, and most banks did. A few went under, and the biggest reason was those stupid regulations designed to give the poor a home they could not afford (and buy a few votes in the process).
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Ah well, the perils of capitalism.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Naw - more like the perils of government. A necessary evil that WILL go astray if not kept firmly in check. People are too greedy to be trusted with government, but that's all we have.
  report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000-the most difficult thing for a person to do is to assess and recognize his/her foibles and weaknesses. It is FAR EASIER to displace blame upon outside factors and circumstances than to be mature enough to accept responsbility for one's actions and to improve/move on.
  reply report
  56
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How is claiming that all poor people are victims and thus need assistance taking responsibility?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How is claiming that all poor people are stupid taking responsibility?
  
  Some inevitably are, but then so are some rich people. It's not the state of somebodies mind that dictates that they are poor, it's a system that treats people as disposable assets that is wrong and stupid.
  reply report
  56
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The "system" is a scapegoat for many. The reality is that the system has a far lesser impact than one's personal decisions, work ethics, and drive. It's absolutely true that there are many struggling people who work far harder than the fat-cat CEO at the top. That is an undeniable reality. Still, it's also true that there are many people who believe that their poor choices necessitate government assistance. The government assistance that was once considered a temporary hand up is now considered permanent supplementary income that many feel is owed to them, because they don't earn a lot of money. This permanent subsidy to make less of oneself than is possible diminishes drive to do better. I liken it to farm subsidies, paying farmers not to farm. We pay people not to improve themselves, not to work hard to escape poverty. People are placated into a position of satisfaction. A low salary, plus minimal federal tax, plus a little food assistance, plus housing assistance, plus minimal government assistance in the form of welfare, plus free or reduced health care results in a satisfactory lifestyle for many, one that doesn't always encourage further training or education.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Lots" of "those" people are who and how many? How much do "they" impact the economy and more importantly what is the answer? Once again throw them away like trash because they don't meet a more stringent government criteria is the answer? Once again the sins of the few are meted out on the many who are genuinely in need of assistance so another generation can be raised with now a hopeless outlook. I find it peculiar that we think progress it is far easier to make the problem somebody else's responsibility and ignore a sound solution that appeases all.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Take the total welfare budget and multiply by .75. That's the impact on the economy. And no, the sins of the many are transferred to the few as well.
  
  Which solution is it that appeases all? Continually throwing more money at it, teaching people that they needn't support themselves? That doesn't even appease the ones that won't work as they constantly cry for more!
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The current percentage of the budget allocated towards welfare is 10% so the math you have applied to it affects the budget how?
  
  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/wel … 012_4.html
  
  With an estimated welfare fraud rate of less than 2% the system is operating at a surprising success rate.
  
  http://www.sodahead.com/living/how-bad- … n-3661453/
  
  The statistics don't seem to bear you out.
  
  http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 … rking-poor
  reply report
  56
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm highly skeptical about some of these statistics. The first source seems to be fairly solid, but the other two are highly suspect.
  
  I see welfare and government fraud all the time, fraud that the government knows about but does nothing to eliminate. As a teacher, I see people lie about income all the time; they falsely state that they earn very little, so their child/children can get free or reduced-cost lunches, free school clothes, academic discounts, and free books. In education, we know this is happening, but we do nothing about it. Nobody wants to be the politician who is known for taking lunches away from children. On reservations in Arizona, it's common for people to receive multiple government checks per month, each with a different name on it. We know that this fraud is prevalent, but once again, it's allowed. Nobody wants to be the politician who is known for taking assistance away from Native Americans. There's plenty of fraud.
  
  How much lost revenue, due to unemployment, do we have? How does this lost revenue impact the GDP, economic growth, and taxes for those who do work?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have the time to find the study on the unemployment impact on the economy I was reading yesterday but from what I remember it is negligible as the money is put right back into the economy to buy goods and services. The actuality of the situation is that people who save their money have a bigger negative impact on the economy because they take their dollars out of circulation. The question that should be asked is at what rate does the outpouring of money affect the National Debt as that the money going out to welfare and other entitlements are not matching what is being taken in in taxes. I think the real waste is in defense spending that topped the charts at close to 900 billion by 2010. Do we really need 10 active Aircraft Carriers with 3 in the works? We currently have 56 decommissioned with 12 never completed. Mind you the older ones never cost as much as the newer highly technical versions at around 22 billion, but the waste is phenomenal. With all that protection what is keeping some terrorist from floating a container ship with one container hiding a nuclear device into Boston, New York or San Francisco harbor?
  reply report
  56
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We have plenty of waste. I realize some of that waste is in defense spending.
  
  The Left loves to talk about what is fair. It's not fair for the middle class to pay for those who feel that the government owes them a living due to poor choices, lack of effort, or a lack of education. I have no problem helping people who help themselves, people who are temporarily down on their luck. That happens. We also have a lot of people who feel that the government owes them a living. The middle class pays for this "living."
  
  The Left answers this by saying that the studies suggest that entitlement spending is negligible, that there is little fraud. Yeah, right. I can provide studies that suggest just the opposite. Both sides have their statistics. We can cite sources all day.
  
  I see, with my own two eyes, planet of people bilking the government, waiting for a freebee. Did you have three children by the age of eighteen? It's okay, because the government will assist you. Do you choose to quit your full-time job in order to work part time? It's okay, because the government will assist you. Instead of going to college, did you party for four years? It's okay, because the government will assist you.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You know, you keep saying that rich people take their money out of circulation, but have never said what they do with it. Is it in their mattress? buried in the yard? Do they all have a giant vault to stash it in?
  
  And now it's everybody that is taking everything they save out of circulation. Where is it? Where are those thousands of tons of fresh $100 bills hidden?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you want some good reading get the book "Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World" by Michael Lewis if you want some insight where the money came and went in the late 2000's economic meltdown.
  
  Here is a little information for you to answer your question about how and where the money is being hidden. Now as to the why I am sure we have a lot to disagree on.
  
  http://www.ultratrust.com/how-the-rich- … ssets.html
  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … money.html
  http://www.policymic.com/articles/27038 … y-overseas
  http://triblive.com/news/2126360-74/tax … z2uLkNhWAq
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Gotcha. So the rich, or at least billionaires, not those with a mere million or so, put their money in overseas investments where other countries can benefit from it.
  
  Every wonder why? Maybe that money leaves the US because we keep trying to take it away from them to give to the poor? Maybe it's gone and unavailable for investment here because the writing is on the wall to take principle as well as income in the future?
  
  But do we learn and stop the practice? No, we decide we want 70% or 80% instead of 60%. We complain that the top rate used to be 90% and we should go back to that. Good thinking on the part of the share the wealth crowd, isn't it? Some of us have been saying this for years; set up programs to rape the rich and the rich leave (or at least their money leaves). Seems true, as pointed out by your links.
  reply report
  56
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do they put in banks, the same banks that loan this money and grow our economy?
  
  Do they put it in the market, the same market that helps fund corporate growth and jobs?
  
  These are good questions. I suspect you are right that they do not bury their money or stuff it in a mattress. They put their money to work. . . .so they can earn more money.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Of course they do. Anyone that doesn't will soon find themselves feeling rather poor, even in these days of low inflation.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do we need 10 carriers? I don't have a clue, and neither do you. Ask the joint chiefs of staff, ask the commander in chief, ask the Navy grunts manning them, and ask the pilots that are ready to be anywhere in the world in a day or two. But don't insinuate that because you haven't a clue that it must be waste. Become an expert in the field of military preparedness and the world situation everywhere - THEN make the insinuations.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  My insinuation, if you will, is that are we any safer than we were before the terrorist situations? Obviously you don't have a clue as your attack on my observation gave me no reason to think so. Do you have to be an expert to have an opinion or can you do some research and become versed in what the topic requires. I have investigated the topic and there have been many coming out of the military who say that there is no better defense with this many aircraft carriers against a nuclear terrorist threat as I mentioned in my last post. Conventional warfare has no chance against terrorist guerilla tactics. We proved it in Viet Nam, Iraq and now Afghanistan. We were sent out of Somalia with our tails tucked between our legs as the local guerilla tactics proved to much for our tactical conventional methods. If you listen to a general as to whether he needs more tanks, guns, missiles and men what do you think the answer is going to be? You just want to be argumentative as usual with nothing to add to the conversation. I can prove it. When I put forth a question you invariably answer with an attack on my credibility and never offer an answer. This is the behavior of one that does not have the tools to shoulder the question but would rather bog the conversation down with innuendo.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, we haven't lost another skyscraper, have we? Apparently something is being done, whether by carriers or something else. Of course terrorism on American soil isn't the only threat we or the world faces. Remember Kuwait? Those planes, tanks and guns seemed to be of some value there...
  
  Yes, you have to be an expert AND privy to all the secrets of the military to know how much we need to spend. That should be pretty obvious. The observations and comments from some retired Navy cook as to whether we need carriers in today's world don't carry much water.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Poor example with the Twin Towers. There has recently been what some deem a very suspicious attack on a power substation in April of last year.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/07/us/califo … index.html
  
  Just now the reports are coming out? The FBI denies a terrorist dry run but have no arrests or suspects? We are as open to more concerted attacks as any security expert will tell you. Remember this is from the same crowd (FBI, NSA, FBI) that brought you the intelligence about WMD's in Iraq. That was just how plausible their investigations are. If you sleep peacefully trusting in their abilities more power to you. I prefer to keep my head out of the sand thank you.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You have a very odd idea of just what welfare is. Let me elucidate; welfare is any payment the government makes to anyone that has not earned it. This includes medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, WIC, SSD, Earned Income, etc., and it is far more than 10% of the total budget. Total "entitlements" of this type are well over half the budget. Your pie chart looks pretty, says we aren't supporting very many people and is designed to give a very false picture of the spending on welfare.
  
  Same thing for welfare fraud. It helps a LOT to leave out the illegal aliens getting food stamps, the people on disability that can work, the doctors overcharging for WIC because they aren't "welfare" but again paints a very false picture.
  
  The third link is interesting; 10% of welfare goes to the non-working poor that don't need it. One tenth of the welfare budget is fraud, then, but ONLY to the non-working. But 90% of the people on welfare ARE working to some degree - what about the fraud and waste there? We'll just ignore that?
  reply report
56
Education Answerposted 10 years ago
The premise of wealth redistribution is that the wealthy can afford to assist the poor. When has this financial burden ever been placed on the wealthy? In America, the burden has been placed squarely on the back of the already-struggling, dwindling middle class.

Our government is exceedingly wasteful. Let's cut spending, and redistribute some of the government's wealth back to the taxpayer.
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do we give it back to those that paid it, or just those that want something for nothing?
  reply report
83
gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago
You are quite welcome indeed. I am watching Supernanny as we speak. I am enjoying this series(should be writing hubs though, shame on me).
reply report
1. 80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It would be hard not to give up but they don't. They love their children even though they don't have a clue as to how to handle them! Why do the parents have so little common sense?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Redistribution of Wealth is Perfectly Fine

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Redistribution of Wealth is Perfectly Fine

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies