1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

You Cannot Help the Poor by Destroying the Rich

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Truth-Bringer, May 24, 2008.

  1. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some very good points here. While I would probably have some disagreements with Rev. Boetcker on his religious views, he has made some accurate statements here. Note how governments pretty much disregard all of these axioms:

    1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
    2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
    3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
    4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
    5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
    6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
    7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
    8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
    9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
    10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

    - Rev. William J. H. Boetcker
     
  2. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    It seems like a re-hash of the obvious!
     
  3. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Some people miss those points though, Scotsman. Take for instance Obama's claim that he wants to reward work, not wealth -- as if jobs materialize out of anywhere, with no basis in the investment of capital.

    It's a little refreshing to see a clergyman who hasn't gone completely mad internalizing socialism just to prove he's prolier-than-thou.
     
  4. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    It comes from an age when your country was different a lot different....jeeez it was published in 1916!!
     
  5. Here We Go

    Here We Go New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the pioneer days, when the Indians destroyed someone's farm, the neighbors help rebuild. We can do this again in America. There are a lot of abandoned factories, towns, etc. that can be rebuilt and we can put our country back to work making our own stuff. We need to be dependent upon ourselves, not kissing up to other countries who hate us. Forget about them being grateful for our business because they are not grateful . . . they use it against us. We need to stand together and stand tall. Stop being the victim America. Crime would let up some too if some of the lesser educated citizens could work. They would feel better about themselves being able to make an honest living. Stop out-sourcing jobs, we've got the talent here. We can also make better automobiles or anything else they make elsewhere. American has given up her Pride. Let's get it back. The time to begin is NOW. Quit talking about it. It's time to start all over again.
     
  6. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    If we make everything that we need domestically the price of it will go way up. We will lose our comparative advantage in every field that we hold it in. This is a terrible idea.

    I could also care less if less educated people feel good about themselves or not. If they do not work it is not my problem that they have no money. Outsourcing jobs is not a bad thing, depending on the field. Everyone gets all upset that we are losing manufacturing jobs, but the US economy is no longer based on this, so really it does not matter all that much in economic terms.
     
  7. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, then, what is the US economy based on? I'm not angling for a battle here--I'd just genuinely like to know what you think about that.

    Pidgey
     
  8. Here We Go

    Here We Go New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That does not sound very American to me. Alas, keeping everything status quo per your input has got us in a fine mess. So what's so good about it? Outsourcing has given us inferior products from China, cost of shipping, etc. I don't see where we have saved any money. In all due respect, we need to put America back to work . . . not harbor mean-spirited attitudes about those less fortunate.
     
  9. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    It is based on technology and the service based sectors. In my opinion.
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Un-American because I think people should work? How is that un-american, this whole country is based on you get what you earn, not what you think you are entitled to. Why do you have to feel good about yourself to have a job? You do not.

    Outsourcing has been fine, it gives us a comparative advantage in the products that we base our economy on. We do not base the economy on manufacturing any longer. The reason you perhaps have not seen cheaper products is because our brilliant leaders in Washington (aka the democrats) slap a tariff on everything foreign to promote "american business" when in reality they are simply not allowing the market forces to work.
     
  11. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Many good points here.

    People that say we don't really need to be making anything anymore... we can just have a service industry economy are seeing exactly what that gets us and it's not good.

    Granted we do have to deal on a global scale but large American corporations often have found ways to game the system. Perfect example... our conservative friends favorite company Halliburton. They set up offshore locations for the sole purpose of avoiding US taxes. (Dick Cheney probably helped 'em with that glorious idea being so chummy & all :eek:)

    When the playing field is as unlevel as it is with wages and environmental standards in say China... America can't really compete. So is the answer just lower the wages in America to Chinese wages and all is well? Of course not.

    You create tax incentives for companies to operate here in the US and penalize them if they move overseas. If things aren't quite WalMart cheap but the jobs and the paychecks are more plentiful & better in America it works itself out somewhat.

    Look at Honda and Toyota. They built huge plants here in the United States because those incentives ran in more the right direction.

    We can do better and I'm looking forward to new leadership that will put focus on this!
     
  12. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Senator Obama promises on his web site to reduce President Bush's tax cuts in order to pay for entitlement programs. By doing so, in reality, our taxes would go up from what they are right now. Senator Obama also states that the rich is not paying their share of taxes, even though the top 50% of earners do pay 96.03% of all taxes paid in the United States, and the top 1% earners pay 33.89% of all taxes, while the bottom 50% or middle and lower class, only pay 3.97%. While he criticizes the high-income earners, he said that he would like to give tax incentives to those corporations that create jobs in the United States. The senator wants to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax. He voted no on repealing the State tax, no on eliminating the death tax, no on raising the State tax exemption, and he wants to increase the Social Security Tax.

    Obama also wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax which is stupid, and ignores the implications this will have in the business world.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. ilikeboobs

    ilikeboobs Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Up your butt, Jobu.
    I love it! These 10 proofs are nothing more than the antitheses of the liberal left's ideas for the "betterment" of the country. Replace the word "cannot" with "CAN" and you've got the democratic platform.
     
  14. RenegadeFuture

    RenegadeFuture New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    England
    No, it is not beneficial to society to over-tax the wealthy, who drive the economy forward and invest in new growth, after all. However, you don't need to do that to ensure the welfare of all law-abiding citizens. 40% income tax should be the maximum, and I think that's the ceiling rate here in the UK. It can be considered beneficial to the overall wellbeing of a nation to provide basic fixed unemployment welfare, in such a way that it is livable, but less than the minimum wage, even after tax.

    For one, unemployed people with sufficient benefits, in some form, will be much less likely to resort to crime, and secondly, it provides a safety net against poverty and squalor.
    40% less income, maximum. Say someone earns £1 million a year. Would a £400,000 deduction from that do any harm, except maybe to egos? It's not tearing anyone down. However, it needn't even be that much.

    There is, however, a fair point that welfare can take away the incentive to get employment, or encourage laziness and sloth, etc. However, this needn't be the case. Social stigma and a yearning for accomplishment, success, and material goods can encourage people to get jobs, without harming families and punishing those without job opportunities.

    As for universal healthcare and university access, both are essential to ensuring an educated, skilled, healthy populace. One could argue that healthcare and education are not rights, and that public healthcare lacks innovation. The former, is of course, highly subjective, and I agree that public healthcare can suffer from a lack of innovation, and fall behind technologically.
    However, public healthcare can also be cheaper overall, as a state system is not out for profit, and can thus lower variable costs. This is not true for the US, of course, as Medicare pays private medical companies, who will often be out to make a profit.
    As for some medical professionals being driven by the highest amount of money, there are ways of stopping the brain drain. Trainees can be bound to public healthcare for so long by contract, in exchange for lower university fees, which they will not have to pay as long as they remain in public healthcare for the duration of their contract.
    Medical research and innovation is probably best driven by regulated for-profit research companies, which are paid handsome sums for their patents, and then government production of their medicines, at a low cost.
     
  15. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Appeal to Novelty fallacy.
     
Loading...

Share This Page