‘Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth’On Friday, he urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack
the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure
"dignified" labor for all.==========GOD Bless
the Pope!Amen, and Amen!
According to this kind of dangerous reasoning, government should have stepped in
and redistributed the Little Red Hen's bread to the farm animals who had
none, irregardless of the farm animals refusal to help produce the bread in the
first place. Or perhaps the Pope forgot the biblical lesson of the
10 virgins – the one where the foolish demanded the wise virgin
redistribute her oil "because our lamps are going out." Voluntary Christian charity is noble, but deliberate government action behind
the power of the state designed to redistribute the wealth of free people is a
dangerous form of despotism that violates the very fundamental tenets of
liberty. Be careful what you wish for and to whom you consciously,
with full awareness and intention, make a pact with in order to get something
you feel you are entitled to have simply because someone has more than you think
Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day, teach a person to fish you feed
them for a lifetime. Food stamps are daily fish, and is government
redistribution of wealth. There is no future in continual giving to the needy
if the needy are of sound mind and body and able to do their own fishing. THAT,
is what every religious leader and politician SHOULD be teaching the people who
they have influence with.
No need to waste time in school. Just lay back and wait for that Govt. check.
@Cletus from Coalville – “According to this kind of dangerous
reasoning…”If the world was a direct reflection of the
analogies you offer – and we can find many more in the over simplified
model of neoclassical economics and in the novels of Ayn Rand – then you
would be correct in your conclusion.Since the world is often not
constituted this way – and since he was speaking to the World (the U.N.)
in his remarks so we too need to look at the entire world – your
conclusion are at best only half the story.The other half involves
entrenched inequalities of opportunity rendering social mobility all but
impossible in much of the world, not to mention the plutocrats, oligarchs and
dictators who have filled the vaults of Swiss banks with the stolen wealth of
their countries.Is there a parable in the Bible about a virgin who
engaged in every unethical practice under the sun to obtain all the oil? Perhaps
we would need to grasp both of these lessons to see the world as it truly is.
I like what Mormon prophet Benson said about socialism. He said it is
Satan's counterfeit system and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Chris.I'm not even LDS, but I stand with Mormon Prophet Benson, who
according to the LDS religion, was speaking for God during his time as prophet.
Look at the history of the "poor" and compare it with the U.N.'s
own definition, there are less poor people than ever before. Look at Bill
Gates' Foundation website, this year's letter provides an excellent
overview of the improvements to the life of the "world's poor." The argument, "the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting
poorer," sounds good, but it is a lie, and doesn't help solve anything
especially in the United States.To get a realistic view of the
problem, and find out what needs to be done, one needs to look at the comparison
of the current living conditions of the "poor" and with those societies
in the past. Using this rational, the poor are doing better than ever. Is
there is more work to do, and can we do better? Yes.To truly help
the poor, we need to look at what is helping the poor over the long-term
(economic growth, jobs, clean water...), and put our future efforts into those
The Pope is doing his duty and advancing the teachings of Jesus, who is of
course a Liberal.Rush Limbaugh must be apoplectic about this latest
round of "Marxist" rhetoric coming from the Pope. Of course ol'
Rush, after taking a drubbing for his last slander of the Pope, won't dwell
on the Pope's latest commonsensical comments.It's a pity
isn't it, that so many self-described Christians disagree with the Pope?But it's not a surprise, is it?"He is ready to
separate the chaff from the wheat with his winnowing fork"
@GaryONowhere in the Bible will you find Jesus teaching that the
Christian responsibility for charity should be surrendered to the
government--it's an individual responsibility.But it's not
a surprise that the liberal penchant for powerful government control will
misrepresent biblical teachings, is it?
Hey Cletus –Nowhere in the Bible will you find Jesus teaching
that the responsibility for charity should NOT be shared by government.If you don’t like it, take it up with the Pope . . . And Jesus.
@Tyler DI respectfully disagree...the appropriate role of a
Constitutional Republic is to protect the people from "the plutocrats,
oligarchs and dictators who have filled the vaults of Swiss banks with the
stolen wealth of their countries." The identification of
capitalism as the responsible villain is a red herring and detracts from the
relevant and underlying reasons behind the existence of poverty and inequality.
Anti-trust laws, consumer protection, and regulation of unethical practices,
unscrupulous conduct, and how business corporations are organized is a proper
role of government and can provide an appropriate check on the ostensible
weaknesses of capitalism. But state violation of property rights and
redistributing the property of a certain segment of the population under the
guise of social justice is not the answer to inequality and violates the
fundamental principles of liberty in a free society. As Thomas
Paine explained, "rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one
class of men to another." And government should not be in the business of
inventing, granting or dismissing the rights of one population at the expense of
Hey GaryOBy your reasoning, nowhere in the Bible will you find Jesus
teaching that the responsibility for spreading the Christian gospel should NOT
be shared by government.So, if you don't like the government
preaching the Christian gospel, take it up with those preachers who believe it
Hi Cletus - By your reasoning, the Bible supersedes the American
Constitution as the Preeminent Law of the Land.It does not.However the Bible and the Constitution do agree in some aspects.Both seek to provide for and "promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."Essentially, American "Conservatism" and Christianity are inherently
incompatible."His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will
thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the
barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Gosh, I'm glad I'm not a "Conservative."
Jesus instruction to help the poor was never accomplished through forceful
taking.And its' not a surprise that conservatives donate more
and also a higher percentage of their income to charity.Go compare
Mitt Romney to barack in terms of perentage of their income given to charity.
Even take away Mitt's 10% to his church, he STILL gives more to
charity(as a percentage of income as well as total) compared to barack.And then go check out Biden.For liberals, its another "do as I
say not as I do" when it comes to giving to the poor.
Of course the Bible does not supersede the American Constitution. My example was
a tongue-in-cheek response to your reasoning that just because Jesus
didn’t cover what governments should NOT do doesn’t mean he supports
them doing it such as surrendering to the government the Christian
responsibility for charity. I believe most people got that.For the
life of me – I'm simply unable to see where the Constitutional allows
for the government to redistribute wealth and property, of which this article is
about, in order to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty." Quite the
contrary – the term "Liberty" itself is the very antithesis of the
liberal ideal of property confiscation and wealth redistribution.Gosh, I'm glad I'm not a "Socialist."
Hi Cletus –So you think Jesus is a Socialist now huh?
He’s a Liberal, yes, but I’m not sure I’d call him a
Socialist.The social contract is what binds citizens and
individuals. Read some Locke and Rousseau, and you will find that the Liberty
gained through the Social Contract and government supersedes “natural
Liberty,” the kind found in the hypothetical state of nature.Along with the Social Contract comes obligations, and those obligations
include paying taxes that go toward promoting and providing for the General
Welfare.Yes, that’s right, the GENERAL Welfare, not just the
welfare of the rich or the greedy, and not just the welfare of
“Conservatives” who are so ungrateful they think they owe NOTHING to
the nation that makes their personal success possible.I’m glad
I could help.
Gary OYou and others often try to claim that Jesus was a liberal.
By what standard? By todays standards of liberal/conservative, it is obvious
Jesus would fall into both categories on different social issues. Or am I wrong
and you actually believe Jesus would be in favor of abortion, drug legalization,
same sex marriage, to name a few.? Certainly Jesus would have wanted help for
the poor. I'm not sure though he would have expected government to have
provided all of it. And I'm pretty sure that running up a 17 trillion
dollar debt would not have been a good way to run a government in his eyes.
Before you liberals jump up and down for this, take a look at your bank account,
your home, car, cell phones, and everything you have. You are in the top 10% of
the world for wealth. Are you ready to give up your bank account, house, car,
cell phone, and much of what you have so that your income can be redistributed
to the poor living throughout the world?
@ GaryO and other like minded:Massive liberal redistribution of
wealth by the government has been tried time and time again. It goes by the
names of marxism and communism, and caused tens of millions of people to starve
to death in China and Russia less than a century ago. It was a total and
complete disaster, in-spite of any original good intentions (doubtful).We need to learn from history and go forward. Capitalism is what made the USA
the most powerful and rich country on earth. And because of that wealth from
capitalism, tens of billions of dollars have been given to poorer countries in
the form of foreign aid and has saved millions of people from starving to death.
Without our current form of government (capitalism), that generosity
would've never been possible. Liberals need to think this
through (obviously not their strong point) before making such temerarious
government edicts. Once our government wealth is given away, which will speed up
the federal budget bankruptcy Obama currently has us heading toward (at
unprecedented speed), the goose that lays the golden eggs will be dead and no
more current help with be forthcoming.
@Weber State Graduate – “I respectfully disagree...”I agree with much of what you say but it’s only tangentially related to
the point I was making – namely, that the world is not filled with
constitutional republics and even where they do exist they do not always provide
the checks on capitalism (which you rightly acknowledge) necessary to ensure a
society of equal opportunity.The Pope is not an economist – he
is simply looking at the global results of this myriad of capitalist-like
systems and reaching conclusions informed by his religion’s founder (to
help the poor).As to the justness of wealth redistribution, in a
post-industrial economy where the really large amounts of money are not made
through hard work but largely through economies of scale, I don’t think
it’s quite as black & white as pre-industrial thinkers (even
particularly brilliant ones like Thomas Paine) make it out to be. But I am curious what you believe is a proper way to address inequality that
doesn’t involve some level of redistribution (say, in order to provide
There is no such thing as 'legitimate' redistribution of wealth. This
is a euphemism for taking something (land, money or food) from someone who has
it, and giving it to someone else who has not earned it. The 'nice'
term for this is Socialism, but the common term for it is theft.
So is this a diversion to take attention away from the priest sexual abuse
scandal?Who gets to decide what is the “legitimate
redistribution of wealth”?Is it legitimate for he who is idle
to eat the bread and wear the garment of the laborer? No.Is it
legitimate for an employer to rob a hireling of his rightful wages? No. But how
are the rightful wages determined? By the free market.
@ GaryO:Your comments and improvident line of reasoning regarding
conservatism makes me wonder how any sensible person could make such
prevarications.You stated you "are glad you could help". But
by making effeted and accusatory comments against the ideology of most of the
Deseret News readers is simply adding to the divisiveness of the subject and is
mostly seen as nugatory. That apparently offered almost no help at all since
relatively few readers chose to "like" your comment. Do you
honestly believe that Conservatism and Christianity are incompatible? Literally
every government and private demographic survey regarding ideology and religious
beliefs has continually shown there to be substantially more conservatives who
are Christian (and visa versa) than any other group of people in America. The
entire southern Bible Belt is politically conservative. Sadly, most liberals
claim to be non-believers. As such, it's extremely doubtful Jesus could or
would be considered a liberal. He believed in the sanctity of life
(non-abortionist) and certainly didn't push any feminist causes (not a
single female apostle). Please do some additional reading and
research before making any other vitiated comments against conservative
principles.Glad I could help.
And for all of you who keep posting these pithy yet simplistic attacks
(caricatured as “theft”) on taxes to pay for public services, unless
you are willing to pay out-of-pocket for the literally thousands of ways your
life is better due to public spending, your protests ring hollow.And for the successful business person, in addition to all the basics (fire,
police, justice system, infrastructure, etc…) these services include an
educated workforce (paid for by all your neighbors) which makes you far more
profitable than you otherwise would be if you had to pay for this directly.And we’re fine with this arrangement. Get as rich as you
can… more power to you… just stop drinking the Ayn Rand Kool Aid
long enough to realize that your success is at least in part underwritten by
your fellow citizens.You’re welcome…
I love how this pope sticks a big spoon in the pot of well settled conservative
sensibilities and stirs it with great vigour.
@ Hutterite:Love it all you want, but there's no evidence of
his comments changing anyone's political ideology. Like everyone else, he
is welcome to his opinion in these matters. I agree that he is seen as a great
and well accepted spiritual leader. But he obviously hasn't had much
experience or training regarding world or national economics as evidenced by his
recent improvident comments. Economic and spiritual matters are horses of
different colors and are usually seen as mutually exclusive.
Most here seem to be imagining Robin Hood transfer payments take from the rich
by government and then given to the poor. I can almost imagine that this crass
interpretation would be taken just to make the Pope look bad.I agree
with the intent of the Pope. Governments throughout the world can do much to end
the income disparity without resorting to transfer payments that demean the poor
and cause dependency.Governments can make sure that all their
citizens get access to adequate education, Internet access, maternity care,
child health care. There are a whole host of infrastructure responsibilities for
government: roads, clean water, freedom from toxic environments, etc. Children
growing up in the city dump is not acceptable.If all were adequately
educated and just common, treatable diseases were mitigated, then poverty would
be much less a problem.Three cheers for the Pope!
@Tyler DMost Americans, both conservative and liberal, agree that
taxes are not inherently bad, but necessary in order for governments to exercise
their powers specifically spelled out in the Constitution. However, striking a
balance between too much taxation and too little based upon a government's
Constitutional obligations is an issue of much debate. The problem I
believe we have is the progressive propensity to see government as a mechanism
to operate outside their specifically enumerated powers in order to advance an
ideal called social justice. Of course, this involves endorsing a mechanism for
wealth redistribution and wealth transfer similar to the Marxist view of class
equity. I don't believe the founders ever had such a system in mind when
they envisioned the new American experience. Many scholars believe
that early American visionaries understood the importance of protecting
opportunity verses mandating outcomes and subsequently invented a system to
promote individual liberty and protecting that liberty against excessive
government power, while at the same time allowing government to operate within
its Constitutional limits. Governments can address inequality
through sensible tax funded programs and policies that promote opportunity, not
by transferring or redistributing wealth.
@Weber State Graduate – “Most Americans… agree that taxes are
not inherently bad”There’s an increasingly vocal group
in this country that does not see it this way, but it sounds like you’re
not one of them (e.g., people who think Ayn Rand is profound). I
generally agree with everything you said (which is more of an Adam Smith view
where government does have a constructive role to play) and I am no fan of Marx.
But I do wish people on the far-right would get over their obsession with Rand
(Paul Ryan makes all his staff read her!) and go back to folks like Smith for
how to promote the general welfare of a free republic.As for what
some of those ways that would look like today, New Yorker did a better job than
me of articulating a few good ones. By the way, Obamacare (which
simply helps the less fortunate get access to a fully private run healthcare
industry) is in my view more Smithian than Marxian and yet this right-of-center
healthcare reform is seen as Stalinist by many today… go figure.Reached comment limit…
Why should I go to school for 8 years to provide when other people will pay my
bills? Why settle for a flip phone when I can get an iPhone for free? Why buy
store brand food when I someone will by me name-brand?The fact is
this: Socialism destroys liberty and it destroys agency. It destroys my liberty
to give freely and it destroys the agency I have to give of my extra. It
destroys the ethic of the individual who will get my hard earned money. It irritates me more every 2 weeks when I see that 25% of my paycheck ($400)
is taken out for federal programs and I see people in front of me at the store
buying food I can't afford with EBT cards or WIC funds. Spreading
the wealth is a nice way of saying, "you need to work hard so others
don't have to." It's Satan's way of making others idle while
others work and support not only their own families, the the families around
them as well. Chris B isn't even LDS and he understands President
Benson's words better than most members. Well done Chris B.
He's talking to the world. And probably places like, North Korea, more than
say....South Jordan. But hey I'm sure it was directed at American
conservatives, boy they sure are picked on, or so they say.
When the Pope redistributes most of the amassed wealth of the Catholic church
then I will take him seriously. Until then, he is another "Do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrite.
Government redistribution helps the poor a little bit in the short term but it
is not the solution. There are limitless examples where socialism and communism
tried to make people equal and failed. It only succeeds in making everyone
equally poor, except, of course, the government leaders that pushed the hardest
to "make it fair". Isn't it interesting how they always seem to be
a little more equal than anyone else?If you took all of the
world's wealth today and distributed it evenly across all people then in 10
years we would have the very same unbalance as we have now. Those that are
willing to work hard to be successful will always garner more wealth than those
who are unwilling to work as hard. A great example are the many Asian people
that come to the US with nothing and in one generation they are prosperous. They
don't demand someone else's wealth, they earn it through their own
hard work.Study after study has shown that while Liberals scream the
loudest for income redistribution they contribute significantly less to the poor
than the conservatives they lambaste for opposing income redistribution. No, it
is not surprising.
Tyler D, I see that you espouse the Obama philosophy of “You didn’t
build that!” You say that “successful business people” built
their businesses on the backs of government paid for “fire, police,
justice system, infrastructure, educated workforce, etc.” You say this
makes me far more profitable than I would be otherwise.Well,
don’t you and the “less fortunate” have access to those same
services? Are you somehow being denied access to these things you say made me
successful? No? Then why are you not using your access to these very same
services to build businesses and employ others to benefit mankind the way that I
am? You are obviously mismanaging your access to these very same services. I
believe that you should have to pay a penalty for being so poorly productive
with what is made available to you. That penalty is that you do not receive the
same reward as the productive members of society. But now you want to use the
power of government to take what I earned away from me. Shame on you.
Tyler D"unless you are willing to pay out-of-pocket for the literally
thousands of ways your life is better due to public spending, your protests ring
hollow"You are arguing that taxation for infrastructure is equal
to taxation for wealth re-distribution.This is a faulty logic
statement. You have shifted the argument from wealth re-distribution to
taxation in general. Then you propose that anyone who is opposed to wealth
re-distribution should morally be opposed to all taxation, including taxation
for services (police, fire, etc...) and infrastructure (water, sewer,
roads).There are many good and valuable reason to tax. When taxes
are used on services and infrastructure, the taxation benefits all (perhaps not
equally, but everyone has a chance to benefit if they choose to). When taxation
is used for wealth re-distribution, one group benefits at the cost of another.
Pope Francis fears the consequences of an ever-growing concentration of wealth,
in addition to his natural concern for the poor.He knows the process
of wealth concentration if not checked will choke the system leading to a host
of problems, including the destitution of the middle class.The Pope
makes Catholicism look pretty good. The prestige of the Church Universal is
growing under his leadership.
The US does have a social net. Globally speaking nearly half the worlds
population are trying to survive on $2 or less a day and living under a tarp.
There are just too many unknowns related to the statement by Francis. Of
course, equality is a wonderful thing if done in the right way. As a Vietnam
era Navy Catholic vet, Vietnam is now a so-called just and equal society. The
ruling elite is just "more equal" than others. It also has an atheist
ruling elite. The pope has stated that good hearted atheists will go to heaven.
The expertise of the pope is in the area of religion. It is not in economics.
Judas was the economic expert among the apostles. He wanted a more just and
equitable society. The Christ said that "His kingdom was not of this
Some folks seem to be forgetting Christ's "Parable of the Talents"
in which those who took their money (talents) that He had given them, doubled
it. These were rewarded in His Kingdom. The one servant who did nothing with
what was given,his was taken away and he was cast into outer darkness for being
a slothful servant. And what point in this story did Christ say, "Ok, you
two...you doubled your money, now go and give it to the third person, who did
nothing?"And for those that agree with the Pope....that the
Governments of the world should begin redistributing the mass of wealth to those
who have none. They can begin with the trillions amassed by the Catholic
Church...that should be a good start.
You know I read lots of blogs and have noticed a trend. They talk of their trip
to abroad. They talk about how cheap it was to eat there. They talk about how
they were able to bargain down the price of gifts to bring home in the market or
talk about highway robbery. To spend thousands on airfare and hotel to boast of
a $3 meal is not a sign of frugality. A person living on dollars a day had to
work hard to grow and pick that food and cook it for you and likely paid bus
fair to take their goods to market. All for $3. What really makes me wonder is
when they do a service project and boast on how the organization makes them earn
whatever the projects is working to get for them. These folks receiving work
harder than most of us working cushy jobs in excellent conditions. Some of this
helping actually hurts. Bringing all kinds of clothing items to donate does
clothe people. But it also means a dollar less a day for weeks for someone
working to earn $2 a day making clothes in that village. Buy clothes locally to
My observations of poverty were greatly influenced when I lived with the poor as
a missionary in Rio de Janeiro many decades ago. Brazil was a dictatorship
then. I realized that the poor in 3rd world countries would see American
poverty as something wonderful to achieve. Brazil adopted a
constitutional form of government and pressed forward with the principles of
Capitalism. Today, they have a thriving middle class and the conditions of
their poor are more in line with our poor. It is considered a prospering
country.A national economy is not a zero-sum game; wealth is
created. The rich can get very rich while the poor can still better themselves.
Today, both the rich and the poor are getting richer (albeit at different
rates). Practical education, hard work, strong families, and good health are
the keys to prosperity
The writings of Isaiah and Revelations point to the Church of Babylon that will
misled the people. I'am not saying this is the pope, but his words raise
red flags. I can only wonder what Catholics must be thinking, those who read
scripture. Christ taught that charity is by free agency, and you
will be "righteous" for it or "everlasting punshiment" for not
being charitable as found in the parable the sheep and goats Matt 25:32-46.
Chirst did not preach chairty by force, that liberals support through taxation
or redistribution of wealth. Good Christians (all faiths) are chartible thru
donations, tithing, for the LDS fast offerings. Not by govt. force which both
Isaiah and Revelations warn against. Charity is pure conservatism (free agency)
as taught by LDS leadership. Christ does not fit the definition of
a liberal, no where is that found in the scriptures. The Lord does warn against
liberals and churls as found in Isaiah 32:5-8 meaning they are deceivers as more
pronounced in the Greek and Hebrew original translations. The verses tie in with
Isaiah 5:20 with a warning to those who apply what liberals preach today.
Redistribution of wealth is popular with Democrats and Mr. Obama. It has long
been a communist myth that the rich get richer and the poor poorer. That's
an oxymoron. The more poor people never results in more rich people. The
stronger the middle class the more millionaires. The Pope is not an economist.
We can see with the Indian Reservation and welfare the debilitating effect it
has on society. 10% of us do need to ride the wagon, but not half of us.
The Pope has no authority to demand us to do anything.
Christ had no problems with taxation. Christ did not encourage free will
charity. He said to feed the hungry. The amount to which charity needs to be
administered is related to how many are hungry, not how philanthropic we feel.
He also fed those who were with him. He didn't ask for w2's and asset
sheets when he multiplied the loaves and fish. He fed people who needed a meal.
He didn't make them do anything special to receive it either. If you are living in a country requiring you to drive around in an armored
vehicle to protect yourself against harm and theft and you have a business with
employees you are probably not paying them enough. You are probably not giving
not a fair compensation for goods and services in the marketplace.
It's amazing how many conservatives can not read.The Pope asked
the UN to investigate WHY there is such a disparity amongst the rich and the
poor, and then figure out a way to make it right and fair.He
never said anything about Governments forcing, or taking and away and giving
away anything.Perhaps the 1st thing the UN should do is teach
conservatives how to R-E-A-D.
You guys live in an LDS bubble. Take a look outside of it and doing some
reading of Robert Reich (his blog which appears on his Facebook page, plus his
documentary), Economics of Happiness (documentary, website, and study groups),
and the website for the Center for Responsive Politics. These are all
non-partisan sources, generally, that educate you on what is happening with
today's economics so that you can recognize the signs, politics, and
decisions which affect you with this wealth redistribution. If you don't
educate yourselves and act to stop it, it will get worse.
Apparently I misread the parable of the talents. The guy who invests and makes
5 talents should have the talents forcefully taken from him and given to the
servant who buried his talent.I think GaryO and the like should give
every thing they have to the poor before advocating the theft of what others
have to give to the poor. What Gary will find is that much of what he sends to
the poor will be sqaundered. The US spends nearly $20,000 on antipoverty
programs for each person in poverty. That means the we are spending
substantially more on a family of 4 in poverty than the average family in the US
Brazil is full of poverty. In rio alone 7 million lack adequate shelter. A large
percent of people are living $2 a day. Half in rural areas. Not really a
thriving middle class.
Two words: United Order.
Didnt Jjesus teach love your neighbor and give him your shirt, or something like
that. He must be very upset with many of these post by those who have closets
of shirts and are railing against the Pope for wanting to help the poor. It
really challenges the definition of what is a Christian or Mormon.
The most important and effective thing a government can do for the poor is not
to hand them money, but to create economic growth that will provide jobs for
them. A growing economy is the most effective remedy for poverty.
It would be well for the Pope to sit down with Catholic Charities and become
informed of the relationship which already exists between Catholic and LDS
charities where time and dollars are willingly donated for those in need. LDS
do not need to be counselled on charity and humanitarian giving. Our leaders
have our generous support. They just say the word and watch LDS members step up,
open their wallets and purses beyond anything imaginable. Another (inspired)
program is called The Perpetual Education Fund. Talk about your incredible
"teach a man to fish" concept. Keep the government out of our wallets.
Payroll withholding is scary enough without further inefficient government cash
RE: Z "There is no such thing as 'legitimate' redistribution of
wealth. This is a euphemism for taking something (land, money or food) from
someone who has it, and giving it to someone else who has not earned it. The
'nice' term for this is Socialism, but the common term for it is
theft."In the current era your statement is not true.
Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century" is being discussed on
this Monday's PBS Newshour. It sheds a lot of light on this issue. Tune
in, it's going to be interesting.
Sorry LDS Liberal...I don't have much faith in the U.N to get much of
anything right these days. It naturally follows that I do not encourage any
western democracy to give much heed to U.N. declarations. We conservatives
actually can r-e-a-d. Especially words like United nations, Barack Obama, Nancy
Pelosi, and my personal favorite, Harry Reid.
The only legitimate redistribution of legitimately-acquired wealth is voluntary
and does not involve government entities.When the wealthy man
inquired of Jesus, "What lack I yet", the response was for him to sell
his possessions, give the money to the poor, and to follow Christ. It is not the
role of government to force the issue, as there is no redeeming value in having
one's wealth stolen.
The problem is that when people in the government want to redistribute wealth,
their mouths say, "Social justice." Their minds think, "Buy
votes."I had a talk with an Indian communist a year or so ago.
We agreed on the point that if one is politically a socialist then they should
be a socialist in their personal life. In other words, if they thought that the
government should help the poor that they should be doing the same in their
personal life.So, if you are personally helping the poor,
participating in tutoring programs, donating to education funds in third world
countries, you are a socialist. Don't worry about whether you vote
Republican or Democrat, you are a socialist.Don't hold your
breath and wait for the government to do something. Do it on your own without
them. If you hold your breath and wait for Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi to do
something you are going to be disappointed (again).
@Chris B"I like what Mormon prophet Benson said about socialism. He
said it is Satan's counterfeit system and contrary to the gospel of Jesus
Chris."Are you comparing your Pope to Satan? @Copacetic"It goes by the names of marxism and communism, and caused
tens of millions of people to starve to death in China and Russia less than a
century ago."Contrary to popular belief, the US actually has one
of the most progressive tax systems in the industrialized world. The difference
between us and nations like Sweden is that we have a much weaker system of a
gov't safety net so their poor end up better off (they pay more in taxes
but get much more back in benefits to make up for it). I notice that Sweden and
other current Western European nations are not in your example list of nations
that use significant wealth redistribution.@TOO"Why should
I go to school for 8 years to provide when other people will pay my
bills?"As if... ever wonder why homeless people often smell bad?
It's not some cushy life.
@LDS Liberal"It's amazing how many conservatives can not
read."Really? My favorite quote from one of your favorite
liberals Nancy Pelosi: "We need to pass this bill (Obamacare) so we can
find out what is in it".I assumed that was an admission she
could not r-e-a-d the bill herself.
Let's step back a second and consider that unregulated capitalism is
exceptionally efficient at collecting wealth at the top. It is a system that
needs proper regulation to be a great economic system for all. What do I mean by
regulation? 1. Corporations treat people like they are disposable
and they keep wages down. People have a right to a fair living wage. Unions
provide a free market solution to ensuring a fair amount of wealth flows to the
top and the bottom of a company. 2. Progressive Taxation also provides a
vehicle to ensure wealth is shared properly. When you are taxed 60% or more for
every dollar you make above the mark of $2 million you start to think its may be
a good idea to share that wealth. 40 years ago GM was the largest
employer in America and paid an average wage of $50 an hour. Today Walmart is
the largest employer in America and pays an average wage of $9 an hour.
Today's workers do not make anywhere close to a living wage. Unions,
progressive taxes, and other appropriate regulations will strong arm
corporations into behaving and legitimately redistribute the wealth their
employees generate for them.
@ What in Tucket: "The stronger the middle class the more
millionaires."I can agree with you. Specially, if you read and
agree the post by "Patrick Henry". The United States developed a strong
Middle Class not because of Capitalism per se, but by the Unions that worked
hard to assure a deserving rate in exchange of honest labor.Today we
see a decrease in the powers of Unions and we also se a deterioration in our
Middle Class and an expansion of poverty.The Pope bases his
opinions and teachings in the gospel. I think Christ has more validity in his
preaching than the John Birch Society in its teachings.Am I my
brother's guardian? Acccording to God we are. Does the gospel teaches
Marxism? No! But certainly teaches to be aware of Social Justice. Pure
Capitalism is as far from God as a repressive Marxist and Atheist Government.