Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[doubtingmerle]

I made no mention of you at all

In post #16 you said, "Cries of income inequality are based on envy. I make cries of income inequality, and my motive is not envy. Millions make cries of social inequality, and our motive is not envy.

Our motive is not envy. Our motive is not envy. Your statement that our motive is envy is false. Please acknowledge that your statement judging the motives of others is false.

We do not judge your motive. Please stop judging the motives of others here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why does the government have to forcibly take one's money he help someone. Why not help them directly and remove the middle man?

Helping others directly without a middleman is good. I have no problem with that.

But when positive good can be done by the government, then I cannot see that it is wrong for the government to raise taxes in order to do that good.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dependent on others possibly, but not on the government until he starts taking money that was forcibly taken from someone else

But he is still dependent. That is the point. Giving help to a person in need does not make him dependent. He was already dependent.

 

[MachZer0]

In post #16 you said, "Cries of income inequality are based on envy. I make cries of income inequality, and my motive is not envy. Millions make cries of social inequality, and our motive is not envy.

Our motive is not envy. Our motive is not envy. Your statement that our motive is envy is false. Please acknowledge that your statement judging the motives of others is false.

We do not judge your motive. Please stop judging the motives of others here.

That post was directed at nobody in particular

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes

OK so you are opposed to progressive taxation, Social security, Medicare, food stamps, free public education, Medicaid, etc.

What is the poor child in America to do if he is abandoned in the streets and the government will not give him food, will not help him get a roof over his head, will not even pay for his elementary school education? If he cannot find private help he may die in the streets, yes? Or at best he will find a low-paying dead-end job where the cycle of poverty continues forever with no hope of anything better. Is this what you want? And you arguing for this on moral grounds?

The 60's, 70's and 80's would have been a much sadder time for the poor if we had neglected the poor the way you suggest, yes?

 

[MachZer0]

Helping others directly without a middleman is good. I have no problem with that.

But when positive good can be done by the government, then I cannot see that it is wrong for the government to raise taxes in order to do that good.

Government can only perform such a positive good by first performing a negative evil

 

[MachZer0]

But he is still dependent. That is the point. Giving help to a person in need does not make him dependent. He was already dependent.

It's not the same though, especially since his dependence other than to the government does not necessitate forcibly removing the earnings of others

 

[MachZer0]

OK so you are opposed to progressive taxation, Social security, Medicare, food stamps, free public education, Medicaid, etc.

What is the poor child in America to do if he is abandoned in the streets and the government will not give him food, will not help him get a roof over his head, will not even pay for his elementary school education? If he cannot find private help he may die in the streets, yes? Or at best he will find a low-paying dead-end job where the cycle of poverty continues forever with no hope of anything better. Is this what you want? And you arguing for this on moral grounds?

The 60's, 70's and 80's would have been a much sadder time for the poor if we had neglected the poor the way you suggest, yes?

Please don't tell untruths about me. I have not once suggested neglecting the poor

 

[doubtingmerle]

That post was directed at nobody in particular

Was it directed to anybody at all? If it was directed at anybody, then it is insulting and is judging their motives. If it was not directed at anybody, then it is meaningless.

Why post a message judging the motives of people that doesn't apply to anybody in the world?

 

[MachZer0]

Was it directed to anybody at all? If it was directed at anybody, then it is insulting and is judging their motives. If it was not directed at anybody, then it is meaningless.

Why post a message judging the motives of people that doesn't apply to anybody in the world?

As I said, it was directed at nobody in particular

 

[doubtingmerle]

Please don't tell untruths about me. I have not once suggested neglecting the poor

I did not say you suggested neglecting the poor.

What you said is that the government should not have programs such as Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. to help the poor. And my post still stands. And my post applies directly to your comment that you are opposed to these things.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As I said, it was directed at nobody in particular

And I asked if it applies to anybody at all. Does your degrading comment about those who are concerned about income equality apply to anybody at all?

If it does not apply to a single person, then why did you post that degrading comment?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Government can only perform such a positive good by first performing a negative evil

And what is the negative evil to which you refer? Taxation?

Taxation is not a negative evil. It is good. Without taxation, government could not exist.

Or is there some other negative evil that you insist governments must do before they can give food to the hungry?

 

[MachZer0]

I did not say you suggested neglecting the poor.

Yes you did

...The 60's, 70's and 80's would have been a much sadder time for the poor if we had neglected the poor the way you suggest, yes?

What you said is that the government should not have programs such as Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. to help the poor. And my post still stands. And my post applies directly to your comment that you are opposed to these things.

Your confusion stems from seeing government help as the only solution

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your confusion stems from seeing government help as the only solution

False. I have mentioned to you several times that others besides the government can help.

Others besides the government can help the needy also.
Others besides the government can help the needy also.

Would you like me to repeat that a few more times for your benefit?

But what happens when others do not help? What if the poor child is left abandoned in the streets. Is it morally wrong for a government to use tax dollars to build an orphanage and try to find him a home? What if a child cannot afford to pay for his elementary schooling and nobody is helping him? Is it morally wrong for the government to pay for his schooling? What if an elderly lady cannot work, has used all her savings, and nobody is there to help her? Is it morally wrong for the government to give her a social security check?

That is the issue. When people are not being helped and the government could help, why is it morally wrong to use tax dollars to help those people?

 

[doubtingmerle]

MachZer0, I understand that you favor private charities and private donations to the poor. Nowhere did I ever suggest that you were against private help of the poor. What I said was:

OK so you are opposed to progressive taxation, Social security, Medicare, food stamps, free public education, Medicaid, etc.

What is the poor child in America to do if he is abandoned in the streets and the government will not give him food, will not help him get a roof over his head, will not even pay for his elementary school education? If he cannot find private help he may die in the streets, yes? Or at best he will find a low-paying dead-end job where the cycle of poverty continues forever with no hope of anything better. Is this what you want? And you arguing for this on moral grounds?

The 60's, 70's and 80's would have been a much sadder time for the poor if we had neglected the poor the way you suggest, yes?​

And you do suggest that, if all private means of helping fail, and if the only help left is the government, that the government should then neglect the poor, yes? That is what I meant to say in that last paragraph. I didn't mean to imply you were against private donations.

But if you really would want the government to use tax dollars to help the poor in some situations if all other help fails, then please tell us you would favor that. I would gladly modify that to say that in some situations, you favor using tax dollars to help those who are genuinely needy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

For those who suggest that we should abolish Social Security and unemployment payments, let me end tonight by quoting a former Republican President:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.​

Read more at snopes.com: President Eisenhower on Social Security

That is not my words. That is the words of a Republican president. He said the number of people who agree with you that we should abolish Social Security is negligible.

That was mainstream Republican thought not too long ago. Today's crowd that rails against Social Security and other government safety net programs are far removed form the traditional Republican party.

 

[jgarden]

US Constitution: Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

- We the People

- in Order to form a more perfect Union

- establish Justice

- insure domestic Tranquility

- provide for the common defence

- promote the general Welfare

- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

The Preamble to the US Constitution gives us an insight as to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution is a covenant that includes all the "people," and its goals cannot be achieved once "inequality" amongst its citizens reaches a critical threshold whereby many Americans finally come to the conclusion that it no longer serves their best interests!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again; I don't see how income inequality is a problem. Seems to me, low, or lack of wages is the problem.

Ken

Low wages is a problem in the lower and middle class. It is not a problem in the upper classes.

Today the top earners are having significant income increases while the lower and middle classes are largely doing worse when adjusted for inflation. That causes increasing income inequality. In the past when we saw this happening, the government stepped in to limit inequality. But support for these programs has fallen among extreme factions of the Republican party at a time when such programs are needed most. So I ask again the question of the opening post: do you agree that the government should be doing something about this?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, but then the discussion about income inequality goes beyond a safety net

Slippery slope, huh?

The slippery slope argument is known as a logical fallacy. It is silly to say we should not do the things that are practical, because then we might then start doing things that are not practical. The solution? Why don't we all get involved in asking the government to do the practical things it can to help people, while all agreeing not to do those things that are impractical?