Trickle up economics.

[Brandon123]

The "Eat The Rich" philosophy is always a non-starter. And people espousing the principle never explain who these nebulous "poor" people are that they keep whinging about. The government has been throwing money at "the poor" for half a century and it hasn't solved the problem. Every billionaire in the country could give away half their money right now and it would not solve the problem of poverty. Jesus told the Disciples that the poor would always exist and He never advocated forcefully removing people's money to care for them. He encouraged individuals who had the where-with-all to help the poor out of the goodness of their hearts to do so because The Spirit lead them to.

What you want is for successful people to be monetarily punished for being successful. You want Socialism. Why does success irritate you? The problem with America's economic system is not Capitalism itself. The entire problem is government spending and unfunded entitlements. Why is it that people who forward your philosophy never apply the Biblical concept that people are supposed to work for what they get instead of having it handed to them? Unfunded entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, Housing etc., make up almost half of the government's mandatory spending in the federal budget. You don't see a problem there? That funding comes from a deficit Black Hole, and the people receiving the money contribute nothing to the system at all. Isn't the California Hippie Commune philosophy that everyone contributes to the system? Of course, in reality, the Hippie philosophy never worked because it was a collection of burn-outs who advocated anarchy and wanted everything handed to them. "Down with The Man, but I can't be bothered to find a job." Haves and Have Nots is not a symptom of Capitalism. It is a symptom of a fallen, sinful and selfish world. And that problem cannot be fixed, or even moderated by legislation.

If the successful are not giving their fair share, they will answer for that. It isn't up to you or the government to somehow force them to give up all their money.

Are you or ever have you been poor?

 

[calibob]

The "Eat The Rich" philosophy is always a non-starter. And people espousing the principle never explain who these nebulous "poor" people are that they keep whinging about. The government has been throwing money at "the poor" for half a century and it hasn't solved the problem. Every billionaire in the country could give away half their money right now and it would not solve the problem of poverty. Jesus told the Disciples that the poor would always exist and He never advocated forcefully removing people's money to care for them. He encouraged individuals who had the where-with-all to help the poor out of the goodness of their hearts to do so because The Spirit lead them to.

What you want is for successful people to be monetarily punished for being successful. You want Socialism. Why does success irritate you? The problem with America's economic system is not Capitalism itself. The entire problem is government spending and unfunded entitlements. Why is it that people who forward your philosophy never apply the Biblical concept that people are supposed to work for what they get instead of having it handed to them? Unfunded entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, Housing etc., make up almost half of the government's mandatory spending in the federal budget. You don't see a problem there? That funding comes from a deficit Black Hole, and the people receiving the money contribute nothing to the system at all. Isn't the California Hippie Commune philosophy that everyone contributes to the system? Of course, in reality, the Hippie philosophy never worked because it was a collection of burn-outs who advocated anarchy and wanted everything handed to them. "Down with The Man, but I can't be bothered to find a job." Haves and Have Nots is not a symptom of Capitalism. It is a symptom of a fallen, sinful and selfish world. And that problem cannot be fixed, or even moderated by legislation.

If the successful are not giving their fair share, they will answer for that. It isn't up to you or the government to somehow force them to give up all their money.

Roosevelt proved that finding ways for the poor to make more money reinforces the economy. the money they spend always finds it's way to the top.

 

[calibob]

If the successful are not giving their fair share, they will answer for that. It isn't up to you or the government to somehow force them to give up all their money.

How much of the fair share is fair? Why was FDR the hero of my parents generation? What happened to the new deal? I was taught that Social Security is the safest retirement fund. I never objected to paying into it even when I was working for minimum wage at non profit organizations. My parents retired on it and so did I. Banks have repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy. and so has the stock market.

 

[cobalt1959]

How much of the fair share is fair? Why was FDR the hero of my parents generation? What happened to the new deal? I was taught that Social Security is the safest retirement fund. I never objected to paying into it even when I was working for minimum wage at non profit organizations. My parents retired on it and so did I. Banks have repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy. and so has the stock market.

Because FDR fixed the economy with a world war. Social Security didn't "fix" anything. Social Security has nothing to do with the class set that constantly wants to take everything away from those they consider "rich" and give it to someone else. The concept is simple, and it is just as simple to understand why that rational is morally wrong. God charges us to work for what we have, not steal it from someone else. That isn't conjecture, it's Biblical fact. Nowhere in the Bible is the concept of stealing from one set of people to give the money to another set of people who refuse to work. You bring these issues up, but when confronted with why they are not morally right, you refuse to deal with what you yourself brought up.

Social Security might have been viable at one time, if left alone, but just like everything else, the government didn't leave it alone. They see every fund in the governments piggy bank as their piggy bank. The money I have paid into SS does not belong to the government. It belongs to me. I earned it, and they took the money from me without my permission. It still isn't enough to live on and I don't remember anyone telling me when I was growing up that SS would give me enough to live on if I retired.

Explain to me, and I've asked you this question more than once and you still haven't answered it: Why should people who are successful be punished for being successful? Shouldn't the people who refuse to work for a living and think the government should pay their their way through live be the ones penalized?

 

[cobalt1959]

Roosevelt proved that finding ways for the poor to make more money reinforces the economy. the money they spend always finds it's way to the top.

Roosevelt sent people out to do make-work programs just to give them something to do, and they were not paid well to do it. None-the-less the same rational should be in play today. No one who is getting welfare/housing/food stamps should be allowed to sit at home doing nothing. The government is giving them money and they should have to do something to actually earn it, like cleaning up parks, filing paperwork at a government office roadwork, whatever. The people we are talking about are not contributing to the system at all. They are destroying the system, which has been the Cloward-Piven method goal all along. Roosevelt fixed the economy through the industrial complex building war goods. The New Deal did nothing to repair the economy.

 

[cobalt1959]

Are you or ever have you been poor?

What does that have to do with the issue? This is a basic moral issue, and I would think that people on what is supposed to be a Christian board would be able to understand that, but I'm beginning to wonder. The morality of the issue itself does not change whether a person is poor or not poor.

My financial status is none of your business, and it is really bad form to ask a question like that, because you're begging the question just by asking it, but by this country's standards, yes, we are poor. We live pay check to paycheck, we have no savings and if anything goes wrong, like the car breaks down, there is no way we could get it fixed. My car is 24 years old, and my wife's is 20 years old. But we work for everything we have, and biblically, every person out there is required to do the same thing. No one who claims to be a Christian should support the position that it is acceptable to steal money from people who work so that that money can be given to people who don't want to work. It's painfully simple. People who don't get that don't get it for a very specific reason, because they have their own worldview they want to support instead of the Bible's.

 

[calibob]

Roosevelt sent people out to do make-work programs just to give them something to do, and they were not paid well to do it. None-the-less the same rational should be in play today. No one who is getting welfare/housing/food stamps should be allowed to sit at home doing nothing. The government is giving them money and they should have to do something to actually earn it, like cleaning up parks, filing paperwork at a government office roadwork, whatever. The people we are talking about are not contributing to the system at all. They are destroying the system, which has been the Cloward-Piven method goal all along. Roosevelt fixed the economy through the industrial complex building war goods. The New Deal did nothing to repair the economy.

Well, I would agree with most of what you said and the infrastructure is in a very sad state of repairs and could definitely could put a lot of people to work I'm all for letting them earn some money. I think it would restore a lot of dignity. A hand up is much better than a hand out! Minimum wage of course but limit the hours so they earn the same as they would have received sitting on their duffs at home. Hold them responsible to come to work, sober and on time and penalize them for time missed. IOW, no free rides.

Of course somebody would call you a socialist because they'd resent the government for competing with free enter prize and capitalism. Instead of building war machines maybe spend some public works money on green energy?

 

[cobalt1959]

Yup they are a problem.

And yet, you don't explain why.

Explain to me why, biblically. Not theoretically. Not in touchy, feely, "This is why I know is right" terms. Explain it to me in biblical terms. That means scripture, and not one-verse proof texts taken out of context. I've been spoon fed those for 13 years. They weren't proof then, and they are not proof now. Astound me with your superior biblical intellect.

 

[UnderGrace]

And yet, you don't explain why.

Explain to me why, biblically. Not theoretically. Not in touchy, feely, "This is why I know is right" terms. Explain it to me in biblical terms. That means scripture, and not one-verse proof texts taken out of context. I've been spoon fed those for 13 years. They weren't proof then, and they are not proof now. Astound me with your superior biblical intellect.

I thought we were talking about economics?

btw...... intellect is not measured by biblical knowledge ...but it can be measured using a standarized cognitive assessment which then provides a percentile rank.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

The problem is that the free market economy is not free.

Exactly. The government dips its grubby paws into the economy to cause the problem of Socialism (or Fascism if preferred), then explains that more Socialism (or Fascism) is the solution. Get the government out of the economy (i.e. no land taxes, no income taxes, no other tax on any wealth or earning or internal trade), and into the role of provision of justice (which actually is the sole purpose of government), and watch the economy thrive, the poor get richer and everyone benefit.

 

[calibob]

Exactly. The government dips its grubby paws into the economy to cause the problem of Socialism (or Fascism if preferred), then explains that more Socialism (or Fascism) is the solution. Get the government out of the economy (i.e. no land taxes, no income taxes, no other tax on any wealth or earning or internal trade), and into the role of provision of justice (which actually is the sole purpose of government), and watch the economy thrive, the poor get richer and everyone benefit.

Socialism and Marxism are opposite sides of the same coin both extremes are equally bad however an across the board 10% tax ON ALL FIRST FRUITS, HARVESTS OR GAINS, seems Biblical (as in Gods idea) to me. in order to keep the store houses filled and stay prepared for the lean years. Learn the mechanics of tithing. The story of Joseph from the Old Testament, is a good place to start.

No free nation has survived any measurable amount of time without a viable taxation system. The management of tax revenues is the fly in the ointment. We need leaders with management skills. Like JFK and Gerald Ford were.

The trouble with Socialists is the Robin Hood mentality. Everything beneficial costs money. The rich are not the sacrificial lambs or the bank accounts for everything that the economically illogical socialists want to give away.

Bailing out the Banksters was a mistake of enormous proportion. The Federal reserve Bank and the FIAT system is demonic. A debt based economy is ridiculous. It's like gambling with expected winnings. The house (the Banksters) ALWAYS WIN!

 

[UnderGrace]

Socialism and Marxism are opposite sides of the same coin

They actually are not.

 

[calibob]

They actually are not.

That was a typo, Sorry. Thank you. I intended to say Fascism and Marxism, my bad.