LOL. People who believe government should take more responsibility to ease inequality don’t give as much to private charity? Shocka.

crr6 on September 8, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Go read the US Constitution. Note that there’s nothing IN the Constitution that says the government should “ease inequality.” Therefore by the Tenth Amendment, that job is left to the States or to the citizens.

Blacksmith on September 8, 2009 at 12:25 PM

cynccook on September 8, 2009 at 12:13 PM

To finish the quote: “This is what is known as ‘bad luck.’ “

Blacksmith on September 8, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Read it yourself. In particular the General Welfare Clause.
Regardless, I never said the burden falls solely on the federal government, although I think we could agree it would be more effective at easing inequality.

crr6 on September 8, 2009 at 12:30 PM

THANK YOU! I was waiting for you to fall into that trap! The clause reads that the Gov’t is to provide for the general defense and promote the general welfare. Thus it is the government’s job to defend us, and to enact policies that make us all — ALL — wealthier. There is no shorter way to eliminate that than to make everyone poorer by confiscating from those who work harder or smarter and give the sweat of their brows and minds to those who’ve done sweet F-A to make their own wealth. Which you’d know if you actually looked at the result of such policies, clown.

Blacksmith on September 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Why do people always assume that those who make arguments for easing economic and social inequality in this nation are poor themselves? I’d be willing to bet if progressive taxation intensified within the next few years you’d benefit more than I would.

Oh, and the “helping poor people=slavery” thing was cute. Odd that it’s often the rich people who make that argument…

crr6 on September 8, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Clown I named you, and it was well deserved. People assume those who make your arguments are poor for the same reason you apparently assume I am “rich.” To set the record straight – I am in posession of less than $10K in total assets. I practically define your perfect “poor man.” I would be given more money under a “progressive” tax scheme. It would not benefit me – already-scarce jobs would dry up even faster, and I’d be beholden to the dictates of those in Washington to be given just enough for subsistence (which even the government cannot afford, if you look at the deficit and debt projections). In short, you’d reduce me even further to status closer to that of “slave,” and you expect me to THANK you for it?!?

I. Do. NOT. WANT. Your. So-called. HELP!

Helping the poor is not what you’re about though. That’s WHY I don’t want your help. You’re not about raising the poor up – which can only be done by making them WANT to work, and seek out the skills that expand their options. You wish to tear DOWN the wealthy, and shackle their abilities to make the wealth in the first place, which they create out of thin air.

Blacksmith on September 8, 2009 at 12:45 PM

It’s “provide” for the general welfare. Your argument is easily refuted by looking to our European friends. They have impressive levels of social equality along with impressive levels of wealth. The two are not mutually exclusive, no matter what Glenn Beck tells you.

crr6 on September 8, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Nations do not have “friends,” clown. They have interests – and there is nothing found in the policies of Europe that are to our national benefit. Again, as you would know if you’d actually look at the outcome of their policies. In short, Europe can go hang. I suggest you actually look at their levels of wealth. Income, GDP, production, “accoutrements of wealth,” etc – our poor are better off than their rich more often than not.

Incidentally? I don’t watch Beck. Don’t much like his histrionics. Can’t refute his claims, but I’m just not a fan. I can add 2 and 2 myself though, and I can tell you that the policies you advocate are going to end this country as a free nation.

Blacksmith on September 8, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Correction: here is the preamble to the US Constitution:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Memorize it. Maybe then you will know it and you will get it right next time! Refuted, indeed. LOL

DINORight on September 8, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Thank you, DINORight – I’d forgotten the clause about “secur[ing] the blessings of liberty.” That takes the confiscatory policies of the clown and demolishes them all on its own.

Blacksmith on September 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM

As to your stats, clown, you want the changes, which means that the burden of proof rest with you. I have better things to do with my time than looking up for comparison the median incomes of the US versus the EU versus the individual nations that make up the EU (see, I can be generous; I’ll tell you right now that the stats I’ve seen in the last few months for the EU as a whole are friendlier to your argument than those for the Scandanavian nations, Italy, or Spain individually), the unemployment stats (mean over time for a decade an current) for the same, rate of automobile ownership, average apartment size, average house size, rate of TV ownership, obesity rates vs malnourishment rates, etc.

In short there’s a lot of different stats we can look at – and the burden of proof is on you to prove to me that your ideas will work. In the USSR, in the former Warsaw Pact nations, those ideas failed miserably. In the Communist nations of Asia, those notions have either produced failed dictatorships or been extensively modified – and even the modified-Communist nations are facing severe internal strife.

Blacksmith on September 8, 2009 at 1:17 PM