jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (129 posts)

Redistribution of Wealth is Perfectly Fine

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Right?

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in 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.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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!

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in 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.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in 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.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in 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.

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                rhamson and psycheskinner:
                Theses are both wise and pertinent posts. I, for one, thank you both.

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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!

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in 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.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in 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.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes. How does that work?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I thought that as you raised the topic you would have a good understanding of how wealth redistribution worked.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in 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.)

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in 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.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Or maybe they just don't fancy living in a tent.

                2. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in 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.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So the manufacturer doesn't pass costs on to the customer! Somehow I don't believe that.

            2. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in 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.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly.

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah - we agree again.  smile

        2. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          +100000000000000000

      3. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in 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!
        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8763418_f248.jpg
        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.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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)?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in 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?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Oh get real! How do you move and to where?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  - survival of the fittest, John. Whomever cannot figure that out, well…

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    But we send all our fittest to war and death leaving only the dregs.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8587371_f248.jpg
                    Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, author/motivational speaker/psychologist
                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8544082_f248.jpg
                    Sean Connery, actor
                    Both men came from poor backgrounds but use being poor as an impetus to success. It CAN be done!

              2. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in 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!

          2. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this


            Hi Wilderness. Someone else said they should starve, not I!
            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8763418_f248.jpg
            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.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/
            {2} http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_909.html

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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!

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in 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

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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!

              2. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in 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

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

    3. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in 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.

  2. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    Only under dire circumstances.

  3. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    I wouldn't say "perfectly fine". Just the lesser of evils, so to speak.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 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.

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in 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?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in 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/

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 2 years ago in 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.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, because you were in the bad place, (ETP), (wasting your time, I might add). LOL

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 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.

  6. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 2 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'.  ;-)

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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!
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8764314.jpg
      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!
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8764325_f248.jpg
      (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!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sure, people that you are describing exist.  They have always existed and always will.  This is not news, Grandma.

        http://metrobrokers.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/angry_old_lady.jpg?w=206&h=300

      2. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, you are correct in that people should be personally responsible for themselves.

        What is YOUR definition of SUCCESS?

      3. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So how is blaming the victims "taking responsibility"?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in 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!

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in 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.

                  2. Quilligrapher profile image91
                    Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in 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.” lol

                    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. 
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevent … 00902a.htm
                    {2} http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz … wrong.html

              2. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in 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.

            2. 85
              Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              How is claiming that all poor people are victims and thus need assistance taking responsibility?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in 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.

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in 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.

          2. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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!

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in 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?

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 2 years ago in 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?

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in 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?

  7. 85
    Education Answerposted 2 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.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Do we give it back to those that paid it, or just those that want something for nothing?

  8. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 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).

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in 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?

 
working