The Massacre in Paris

[Just_Me_D]

The primary motivation behind liberal economic theology is the basic premise that the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.

Big Oil, shouldn't have tax credits, period.

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Agreed. Far too many people have a blanket view of "poor". They don't recognize that financially poor is not the same as being without, and as I've stated before, many people would be surprised to find how comfortable many of the "poor" are living. Too many assume that everyone who begs at a street corner is indeed hungry or are in dire need of financial assistance. I can tell you firsthand that that is not the case. If they ever took the time to talk to many of the "homeless" away from a camera, they'd discover that many of them are there by "choice". I've seen several "confirmed" rich people who were NOT on drugs or an alcoholic or were crazy, living among the homeless because they felt "free". I've talked to both them and their families. Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble....

 

[kilofoxtrot]

The primary motivation behind liberal economic theology is the basic premise that the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.

Big Oil, shouldn't have tax credits, period.

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

But they do have tax credits... and that's because of the primary motivation behind conservative economic theology.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

The primary motivation behind liberal economic theology is the basic premise that the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.

Big Oil, shouldn't have tax credits, period.

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Agreed. Far too many people have a blanket view of "poor". They don't recognize that financially poor is not the same as being without, and as I've stated before, many people would be surprised to find how comfortable many of the "poor" are living. Too many assume that everyone who begs at a street corner is indeed hungry or are in dire need of financial assistance. I can tell you firsthand that that is not the case. If they ever took the time to talk to many of the "homeless" away from a camera, they'd discover that many of them are there by "choice". I've seen several "confirmed" rich people who were NOT on drugs or an alcoholic or were crazy, living among the homeless because they felt "free". I've talked to both them and their families. Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble....

You agree with hydro's statement, but only choose to comment on the first half of his statement?

Why is that so?

 

[Scatabrain]

The primary motivation behind liberal economic theology is the basic premise that the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.

Big Oil, shouldn't have tax credits, period.

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Thats your opinion. And its not even close to the truth. My motivation is that one group should not have unequal power against another. The poor are just not represented as well as corporations period. This is only one example.

And FUD about the poor living comfortably is laughable. I'm sure that's just the kind of thing you need to believe in order to let this kind of inequity to exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Just_Me_D]

You agree with hydro's statement, but only choose to comment on the first half of his statement?

Why is that so?

To be honest, I didn't even pay attention to the big oil shouldn't get a tax credit comment. I read the part about the poor and it struck a nerve and caused me to want to share my experience. That's all. Having said that, I don't have a problem with businesses getting tax credits, especially when their investments have created jobs and/or spurs job growth.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Thats your opinion. And its not even close to the truth. My motivation is that one group should not have unequal power against another. The poor are just not represented as well as corporations period. This is only one example.

And FUD about the poor living comfortably is laughable. I'm sure that's just the kind of thing you need to believe in order to let this kind of inequity to exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.. it is a "baffling, willfully blind cognitive dissonance". Conservatives control congress, will they end big oil's tax credits? No. The poor ripping us off is the bigger problem.

 

[sanibel]

The primary motivation behind liberal economic theology is the basic premise that the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.

Quotation marks are missing from Redistribution of Wealth - Chapter 1 - Newspeak Dictionary. And you might as well add the photo from the article...

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Quotation marks are missing from Redistribution of Wealth - Chapter 1 - Newspeak Dictionary. And you might as well add the photo from the article...
View attachment 76023

Well played San... well played.

 

[hydrogen3]

Apparently, God agrees with the "redistribution of wealth."

"Pope Francis called for “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits” arguing that the Bible demands an economic system that cares for the “poorest and those most excluded.”


"Happy?"

 

[Scatabrain]

The Pope asks us to care for the poor. I don't always listen to the pope but when I do I choose caring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kilofoxtrot]

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics - Redistribution

Some highlights:

"Almost without exception, academic studies and journalistic accounts of government’s effect on the well-being of the poor focus exclusively on the effectiveness of programs that actually transfer income to the poor. What does this leave out? It leaves out all the programs that transfer income away from the poor. To know the net amount the poor receive after considering transfers to and transfers from them, we need to consider all government transfer programs."

"Such an examination yields a striking fact: most government transfers are not from the rich to the poor. Instead, government takes from the relatively unorganized (e.g., consumers and general taxpayers) and gives to the relatively organized (groups politically organized around common interests, such as the elderly, sugar farmers, and steel producers). The most important factor in determining the pattern of redistribution appears to be political influence, not poverty."

"Not only do the poor receive a smaller percentage of income transfers than most people realize, but also the transfers they do get are worth less to them, dollar for dollar, than transfers going to the nonpoor. The reason is that subsidies to the poor tend to be in kind rather than in cash."

"Probably the best reason for believing that government transfers have done less to help the poor than most people think follows from recognizing that competition for political favor determines transfer decisions, as it does most government decisions. People are poor because they do not have the skills, drive, and connections to compete effectively in the marketplace. For those same reasons, they are unlikely to compete very effectively politically. The result is that the best-organized, and generally the wealthiest, groups consistently outcompete the poor for government transfers. "

 

[Just_Me_D]

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics - Redistribution

Some highlights:

"Almost without exception, academic studies and journalistic accounts of government?s effect on the well-being of the poor focus exclusively on the effectiveness of programs that actually transfer income to the poor. What does this leave out? It leaves out all the programs that transfer income away from the poor. To know the net amount the poor receive after considering transfers to and transfers from them, we need to consider all government transfer programs."

"Such an examination yields a striking fact: most government transfers are not from the rich to the poor. Instead, government takes from the relatively unorganized (e.g., consumers and general taxpayers) and gives to the relatively organized (groups politically organized around common interests, such as the elderly, sugar farmers, and steel producers). The most important factor in determining the pattern of redistribution appears to be political influence, not poverty."

"Not only do the poor receive a smaller percentage of income transfers than most people realize, but also the transfers they do get are worth less to them, dollar for dollar, than transfers going to the nonpoor. The reason is that subsidies to the poor tend to be in kind rather than in cash."

"Probably the best reason for believing that government transfers have done less to help the poor than most people think follows from recognizing that competition for political favor determines transfer decisions, as it does most government decisions. People are poor because they do not have the skills, drive, and connections to compete effectively in the marketplace. For those same reasons, they are unlikely to compete very effectively politically. The result is that the best-organized, and generally the wealthiest, groups consistently outcompete the poor for government transfers. "

"General taxpayers"? Everyone who pays taxes, whether rich or not, fall into that category, don't they? Anyway, there will always be wealthy and/or powerful people who exploits the poor just like there will always be poor and crafty people who will exploit the wealthy, and arguably, it's the middle class who is left making up the difference.

 

[Scatabrain]

"General taxpayers"? Everyone who pays taxes, whether rich or not, fall into that category, don't they? Anyway, there will always be wealthy and/or powerful people who exploits the poor just like there will always be poor and crafty people who will exploit the wealthy, and arguably, it's the middle class who is left making up the difference.

Sounds like you're okay with it. I'm not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[anon(631531)]

What "poor" are we talking about here? The honest, hard working people who just can't seem to get ahead, even though they try? Or, the sit at home, won't even look for a job, but let the Govt. take care of them, kind. The third or fourth generation "poor", who sit at home and watch their t.v., and talk on their free Govt. phone? How about using food stamps to buy beer and cigarettes. That "poor"? :rotfl:

 

[Just_Me_D]

Sounds like you're okay with it. I'm not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter if I'm okay with it or not. It is what it is. Far too many people spend a good deal of time focusing on what the haves have in comparison to the have-nots with a skewed view. They don't want to hear the truth about why *many* of the have-nots don't possess what the haves possess. They conclude that they should be able to have what the haves have, but *many* of them do not want to put in the work to get it. They complain to elected officials and activists who, with the help of the media, create stories and images that reflect the sentiments of those complaining. In other words, they exploit the complainers and character assassinate anyone who dares stand up and voice any common sense that exposes that exploitation or refutes their misconceptions. On the other hand, you have those who will gain wealth by exploiting the haves' reluctance to be viewed in a negative manner. Race pimps are good at this. Now, without making this a religious conversation, it is said that the poor will always be among us. If true, and thus far it is, then that also means that there will always be those who aren't poor. It also means that the pipe dream in regard to creating a society where "everyone" is equal is just that, a pipe dream.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

What "poor" are we talking about here? The honest, hard working people who just can't seem to get ahead, even though they try? Or, the sit at home, won't even look for a job, but let the Govt. take care of them, kind. The third or fourth generation "poor", who sit at home and watch their t.v., and talk on their free Govt. phone? How about using food stamps to buy beer and cigarettes. That "poor"? :rotfl:

Grunt... whats the difference between a "poor" person who gets a free Govt phone and a farmer who gets a government subsidy and drives a $40,000+ pickup truck?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[hydrogen3]

Grunt... whats the difference between a "poor" person who gets a free Govt phone and a farmer who gets a government subsidy and drives a $40,000+ pickup truck?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Not much. Still a "redistribution of wealth." Both are wrong.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

It doesn't matter if I'm okay with it or not. It is what it is. Far too many people spend a good deal of time focusing on what the haves have in comparison to the have-nots with a skewed view. They don't want to hear the truth about why *many* of the have-nots don't possess what the haves possess. They conclude that they should be able to have what the haves have, but *many* of them do not want to put in the work to get it. They complain to elected officials and activists who, with the help of the media, create stories and images that reflect the sentiments of those complaining. In other words, they exploit the complainers and character assassinate anyone who dares stand up and voice any common sense that exposes that exploitation or refutes their misconceptions. On the other hand, you have those who will gain wealth by exploiting the haves' reluctance to be viewed in a negative manner. Race pimps are good at this. Now, without making this a religious conversation, it is said that the poor will always be among us. If true, and thus far it is, then that also means that there will always be those who aren't poor. It also means that the pipe dream in regard to creating a society where "everyone" is equal is just that, a pipe dream.

The Truth?? ... if I was a hedgefund manager I would be laughing behind your back, while saying at'ta boy to your face.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Not much. Still a "redistribution of wealth." Both are wrong.

Agreed... but for some reason, many conservatives only have a problem with the free phone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Just_Me_D]

The Truth?? ... if I was a hedgefund manager I would be laughing behind your back, while saying at'ta boy to your face.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Where in my previous reply did I not tell the truth?