Can you make the poor rich by making the rich poor? Comment...

Kewl X5 · #1 03-09-2009, 03:52 PM

Okay, sounds like everyone has to spread the wealth. Maybe it is a good thing and maybe it is a bad thing....Please comment...

LeMansX5 · #2 03-09-2009, 05:30 PM

Redistribution of wealth, my friend. Watch out for that apartment complex coming up in your favorite golf course.

LobsterX · #3 03-09-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kewl X5

Okay, sounds like everyone has to spread the wealth. Maybe it is a good thing and maybe it is a bad thing....Please comment...

No.

X5rolls · #4 03-09-2009, 06:31 PM

Should anyone really wonder how the economic picture will be under our current administration going forward, think about how redistribution makes business owners feel about the future.

From some of the founders and presidents of our country like Adams, Jefferson & Lincoln, they had some pretty strong opinions about redistribution of wealth. It's not a new debate.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." – Thomas Jefferson

---------------------------- From Wiki -----------------------

Redistribution (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others.

One premise of redistribution is that money should be distributed to benefit the poorer members of society, and that the rich have an obligation to assist the poor, thus creating a more financially egalitarian society.[citation needed]

Another argument is that the rich exploit the poor or otherwise gain unfair benefits. Another argument is that a larger middle class benefits an economy by enabling more people to be consumers, while providing equal opportunities for individuals to reach a better standard of living.

In the United States, the Founding Fathers and several subsequent leaders warned against the dangers of redistribution of wealth. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[6]

Abraham Lincoln wrote: "Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That someone should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence. . . . I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good

realchef · #5 03-09-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X5rolls

Should anyone really wonder how the economic picture will be under our current administration going forward, think about how redistribution makes business owners feel about the future.

From some of the founders and presidents of our country like Adams, Jefferson & Lincoln, they had some pretty strong opinions about redistribution of wealth. It's not a new debate.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." – Thomas Jefferson

---------------------------- From Wiki -----------------------

Redistribution (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others.

One premise of redistribution is that money should be distributed to benefit the poorer members of society, and that the rich have an obligation to assist the poor, thus creating a more financially egalitarian society.[citation needed]

Another argument is that the rich exploit the poor or otherwise gain unfair benefits. Another argument is that a larger middle class benefits an economy by enabling more people to be consumers, while providing equal opportunities for individuals to reach a better standard of living.

In the United States, the Founding Fathers and several subsequent leaders warned against the dangers of redistribution of wealth. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[6]

Abraham Lincoln wrote: "Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That someone should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence. . . . I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good

Perfect post!

NEVER.

The Bolsheviks tried. Read the book, "The Russsia I Believe In". The Menoirs of Samuel N. Harper. He was our ambassador to Russia before and during the revolution.

It comes down to drive and desire to succeed. We all have it at differing levels. Some people are happy with no responsibilites and punching a clock. They get what they earn (deserve). There should be rewards for achievement and risk taking.

My risk is not your reward.

Eric5273 · #6 03-09-2009, 09:21 PM

The answer is that you don't have to take from the rich to give to the poor. We have enough resources in this country so that everyone can have everything they would ever want.

But instead, we have people who are willing to work (and want to), but we refuse to let them. We have work that needs to be done, but nobody is doing it. We pay farmers to NOT grow food on their farms, but at the same time we have hungry people who want to eat.

If we would only use our resources to their maximum ability, we have so much wealth in this country that everyone could have everything they want. Everyone can be "rich".

realchef · #7 03-09-2009, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

The answer is that you don't have to take from the rich to give to the poor. We have enough resources in this country so that everyone can have everything they would ever want.

But instead, we have people who are willing to work (and want to), but we refuse to let them. We have work that needs to be done, but nobody is doing it. We pay farmers to NOT grow food on their farms, but at the same time we have hungry people who want to eat.

If we would only use our resources to their maximum ability, we have so much wealth in this country that everyone could have everything they want. Everyone can be "rich".

I am pretty sure his question was more philosophical in nature. More esoteric, as in 'should we?' Not as literal as your answer.

Of course the core resources exist but why should the lazy and unmotivated be rewarded and given the same as the harder working.
This type of communism does nothing more than temper the drive for excellence. It thoroughly removes both the highs and the lows, encouraging the average.

Put simply, how many products can you name, produced in a modern communist/socialist country that can be held as a model of excellence. It's much easier to list the countries that have trudged through a quagmire of mediocrity, abject poverty, bootlegging and corruption.

What puzzles me is why the modern American Socialist thinks we have been innoculated against the inherent detriments.

realchef · #8 03-09-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

The answer is that you don't have to take from the rich to give to the poor. We have enough resources in this country so that everyone can have everything they would ever want.

But instead, we have people who are willing to work (and want to), but we refuse to let them. We have work that needs to be done, but nobody is doing it. We pay farmers to NOT grow food on their farms, but at the same time we have hungry people who want to eat.

If we would only use our resources to their maximum ability, we have so much wealth in this country that everyone could have everything they want. Everyone can be "rich".

Russia is the single largest, richest agriculture geo-political mass on the planet. Yet Millions of people starve there from hunger.

I want some of that.

Mr.Black · #9 03-10-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realchef

My risk is not your reward.

pretty much sums it up for me, couldn't have put it any simpilier

money is not the problem or solution the solution is in us, always will be..

...i know deep, but true

lo_jack · #10 03-16-2009, 02:52 PM

Equal opportunity should not mean equal guarantee.

If a person wants a dollar, they work for it. If they discover their government will give them that dollar, why on earth would they do any work? If the person the government took that dollar from figures out they can continue to work and get no more dollars than before, why should they do any more work? There is no reason, and they will therefore move to Switzerland.

So to answer the original question, no.