@averagejoe1 saidJoe you have called for the redistribution of wealth repeatedly on this forum. Its gross.
A great issue, but we must all agree that different (algorithms??) facts are shoved into the computer of life when these issues are debated.
The business of farmers and the business of banks are entirely different. My opinion, we cannot compare apples, oranges, banana and plums.
And of course, we cannot compare them with the plight of the poor ( I mean the 40 million poor, not all the rest who are unpoor.....the losers., the wastrels).
If it is a big farm or big business who is begging for $1 billion in government cheeeeeezzze, you tend to have the attitude that "well we don't know because we weren't in the room and they are asking nicely so they probably didn't make any bad business decisions and we should use hard-earned tax dollars to bail them out."
When it come to a working single mother of three asking for $1k rent "she made some bad decisions and has to live with the consequences of those decisions."
Why doesn't the farmer who made $4 million last quarter but got greedy and replaced his entire crop with soybeans (more profit/acre) but then the soybean market tanked and he didn't diversify have to live with the consequences of his/her decision?
08 Sep 21
@averagejoe1 saidWhere do you think all that enormous wealth, the money, that the rich have stashed away comes from -- the money trees in their yard? From God? It all comes from the labor of the working class, most of which are treated like slaves, especially those in other countries. Even those lucky to be in the solid middle class are now struggling just to pay all their living expenses and bills. And some of the hardest workers that provide essential services to humanity are treated worse than our pets. Without these workers, the super rich would be starving and living on streets full of sewage.
You do not close your remarks. You are correct that wealth is redistributed. I spend $100 at the Hardware Store, the owner goes across the street and buys $100 worth of bread. He marks the bread up and sells it for $150 at the country fair. And so it goes. We all get that.
But what YOU and Bernie and Karl Marx are about is that the government TAKES THE WEALTH, ...[text shortened]... IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!!
Help me RHONDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is everyone one so oblivious,, so naive??
08 Sep 21
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidYes, he was to give everything away and follow Jesus. It's called Faith in Jesus joe. 50 years is not even a blink of an eye compared to eternity; take your pick. Furthermore, Jesus did not tell everyone to give everything away; just this rich young ruler; that is, if he wanted to be perfect.
Catholic indeed, to this day, and I dont' worry much about slime priests, who slip through. Just so we're on the same page,... the religion, except for a few pope rulings, is the same. Cool with that.
Sorry to be the 100% conservative, but I am asking that you reply to that one sentence. You answered like a liberal would. Please, ,,,,realistically. He is 25 years o ...[text shortened]... sense ...that it is rational. He may have a family,,,,,he just gives away everything. ?????.
Quick scenario: The rich young ruler asked what he had to do to make it to heaven; Jesus said to keep the commandments. The young ruler said that he had since his youth. Jesus then said: if you want to be perfect, sell everything you own and follow Me. This was when the rich young ruler walked away sad because he could not give up everything that he owned. He did not have enough Faith in Jesus. This does not mean he went to hell; however, if he did not keep the commandments then he most likely did. No one really knows.
Many of the Bible greats were wealthy people; many.
Also, I highly doubt that he worked for any of his wealth, seeing that he was so young and already a ruler. He most likely inherited everything that he had, including his high position in life at that time.
08 Sep 21
@averagejoe1 saidYup.
Here we see Shvixmier seemingly suggesting that redistribution of wealth is a ....good thing?
08 Sep 21
@wildgrass saidDoes not the farmer, no matter what he does, have to live with the consequences of his decisions? Don't get you there. Of course he does, that would be a different issue than the relationship of farmers with the legislators.
Joe you have called for the redistribution of wealth repeatedly on this forum. Its gross.
If it is a big farm or big business who is begging for $1 billion in government cheeeeeezzze, you tend to have the attitude that "well we don't know because we weren't in the room and they are asking nicely so they probably didn't make any bad business decisions and we should use ha ...[text shortened]... oybean market tanked and he didn't diversify have to live with the consequences of his/her decision?
As to the cheese, I doubt the legislators give the money because it is begged for. It is more of their looking at the big picture of farm production and balancing it with these payments, The main reason for subsidies is to protect the nation's food supply.
When I say 'in the room' I refer to the many factors which I myself know nothing about. Disease of crops, etc. The legislators have lobbyists, et al, explain it all to them (cause lawmakers are not farmers, either) and then make a decision based upon the interest of 'The People', as Marauder likes to say.
Your 2nd para about bad business decisions would not likely be a factor for the lawmakers to consider. It is the millions of acres of food that they are concerned about.
This is just my opinion. And I dont know what this has to do with redistribution of wealth. Frankly I hate the phrase, insofar as it implies that the GOVERNMENT takes the money and redistributes it. Now THAT, my friend, is gross. It is not in the Constitution. What I Do call for, as you say, is free exchange of goods and services (measured by currency, money), which is generally distributing $1 from one person to the next to effect such exchange.
08 Sep 21
@bunnyknight saidBunnyknoght, it is not my intent to back up stingy rich men. My apologies if that seems the case. But your comment lacks common sense. If I take a risk and borrow $1m to build a factory business and hire people, I assume you will agree that that is OK. But you are saying that a few years later that I theoretically (or actually) should be expected, by religious dogma or societally, to give away the money I have accumulated. You can write all day that I made it from the working class, but I quite disagree...Contrare' They made money because of jobs I provided. Don't get you there. And they were 'treated' well.
Where do you think all that enormous wealth, the money, that the rich have stashed away comes from -- the money trees in their yard? From God? It all comes from the labor of the working class, most of which are treated like slaves, especially those in other countries. Even those lucky to be in the solid middle class are now struggling just to pay all their living expen ...[text shortened]... pets. Without these workers, the super rich would be starving and living on streets full of sewage.
Then, you speak to the status, rich or poor, of other people in society. What in the world? Is this Marx? Do you actually think that everyone should be equal? That is what you imply. You seem to relate those people to this employer. King David suggests the employer go over to the next town and give away his wealth.
None of this is common sense. It is a bit emotional, yes, and we certainly have empathy for folks in a bad way, but with 9M jobs available and equal oportunities, I don't see a problem. You may say everyone does not get the same breaks. You are correct. Do you think that you could actually do something about that?
As to the 40M who Are destitute, I say that the govt should totally support them. But a guy working in that factory has his own path to cut in life. A generous employer will hopefully give them nice bonuses. And he may take his gains and open a new factory in the next town and provide 500 more jobs. I just don't get liberal thinking.
08 Sep 21
@kingdavid403 saidYou may find this crazy, but Catholilcs have a basic doctrine of catechism, and do not seem to study the Bible as much as other religions. I remember little of it in catholic schools. I respectfully enjoy your writings above but it is fully the subject of interpretation by thousands of Bible study groups throughout the land. That is, it is constantly being 'figured out',, and many disagree on its meanings. So, you read it literally here but base your opinions differently than I do, but I am uneducated. When you said he was to give everything away, you did not say he was rich (not that that makes a difference), so I guess my response could have zeroed in on that aspect, and still my answer would be what I just wrote to Bunnyknight. In the 21st century, I find it a little hard to go along with having people, rich or poor, doling out money , since the govt already does it for the needy, big time, when in fact the money could be used to create more factories, more jobs, as I wrote to Bunnyknight. So, all due respects, I am just being realistic. Many on this forum think that people (the rich) should not be allowed to have a lot of money. Bernie once said it should be limited to $250K/per year. (he is a millionaire, but I digress). Me, I think it is no one's business how much money someone has, inherited or earned.
Yes, he was to give everything away and follow Jesus. It's called Faith in Jesus joe. 50 years is not even a blink of an eye compared to eternity; take your pick. Furthermore, Jesus did not tell everyone to give everything away; just this rich young ruler; that is, if he wanted to be perfect.
Quick scenario: The rich young ruler asked what he had to do to make it t ...[text shortened]... He most likely inherited everything that he had, including his high position in life at that time.
But to your point, if a rich man " (gave) everything away..", what about his family....now THEY would be the ones starving, as Bunnyknight put it above.
08 Sep 21
@AverageJoe1. POST ALERT: New report just out today , there are TEN MILLION + jobs available. How can y'all write about people not being able to 'survive' , using your word, when this country is full of opportunity.
08 Sep 21
@averagejoe1 saidI myself am not a big supporter of redistribution of wealth.
Here we see Shvixmier seemingly suggesting that redistribution of wealth is a ....good thing?
But I think that redistribution of wealth occurs when distribution of wealth is out of whack.
It is unfortunate that the debates are so polarized.
There is a middle ground in there somewhere.
08 Sep 21
@averagejoe1 saidWhen the government takes money from you and deposits it in the personal bank account of a farmer, who already made millions from monoculturing soybeans, how is that not redistributing wealth?
Does not the farmer, no matter what he does, have to live with the consequences of his decisions? Don't get you there. Of course he does, that would be a different issue than the relationship of farmers with the legislators.
As to the cheese, I doubt the legislators give the money because it is begged for. It is more of their looking at the big picture of farm prod ...[text shortened]... ncy, money), which is generally distributing $1 from one person to the next to effect such exchange.
08 Sep 21
@wildgrass saidThis problem, very convoluted, causing many arguments and lobbying on the Hill, is not one that I could hardly take a side on.
When the government takes money from you and deposits it in the personal bank account of a farmer, who already made millions from monoculturing soybeans, how is that not redistributing wealth?
I can only speak to your comment, that surely the legislators are more concerned with the food supply, and the balancing thereof, than they are with how much money a man makes. 🤔 I think 🤔......
If they are warring about the food supply, and a congressman brings up how much a certain farmer is worth, do you think that that position would impact the discussions??? I don't think so. If he qualifies to be a receiver of subsidies, they have to give it to him.
You are thus saying that it still aint fair, .....well,life aint fair. The only way to make it fair for everyone being exactly the same, is to impose Marxism.
But AverageJoe says hold on, because 'The People' cannot be happy if they are not free. A hell of a trade off, I would go for being poor and free than be a govt dependent. Oops, I have veered off-subject.
08 Sep 21
1 edit
@mghrn55 saidNo one in his right mind would be for redistribution of wealth. Just look up what it is and will give you the chills.
I myself am not a big supporter of redistribution of wealth.
But I think that redistribution of wealth occurs when distribution of wealth is out of whack.
It is unfortunate that the debates are so polarized.
There is a middle ground in there somewhere.
There has always been a middle ground where things could be worked out, until Trump's personality upset everyone. Too bad everyone let that get to them, they could not see the forest for the trees.
So, they traded in his personality for a grandfather zero-energy type. Not so cool.
08 Sep 21
@averagejoe1 saidThe problem with your post is you think that the far right position is the middle ground.
No one in his right mind would be for redistribution of wealth. Just look up what it is and will give you the chills.
There has always been a middle ground where things could be worked out, until Trump's personality upset everyone. Too bad everyone let that get to them, they could not see the forest for the trees.
So, they traded in his personality for a grandfather zero-energy type. Not so cool.
And you think that conservatism is the main pulse of American society.
I don't agree with the ideologies of AOC and Bernie Sanders.
But they are out there because free market capitalism has become cowboy capitalism.
If you think that what you are spewing is the middle ground, then you are sadly mistaken.
08 Sep 21
@mghrn55 saidWell, since we are a capitalistic society, I guess I am not too far off to say that in our society, the right has, up to now, been the bellweather, if you will, of the process of our very old society.
The problem with your post is you think that the far right position is the middle ground.
And you think that conservatism is the main pulse of American society.
I don't agree with the ideologies of AOC and Bernie Sanders.
But they are out there because free market capitalism has become cowboy capitalism.
If you think that what you are spewing is the middle ground, then you are sadly mistaken.
The main pulse of our society, if you say so. Your first sentence, that that is a problem with my post, is not really true, given that.
So I am not mistaken, given your premise.
