Should government correct inequality?

The point is that there are hungry people who are not hungry due to drug addiction. They need help, as we all do at some point in our lives. If not now, just wait ....

The question is should government have any role in correcting it? I've already given my opinion (no, other than very local governments), but don't mistake that for lack of hunger.

 

No, they go to the food bank so they don't go hungry in the first place.

I've volunteered at our local food bank. Nobody who came in looking for food looked like they were in the habit of missing meals, and most looked like it would do them good to skip a few meals.

If poor people are so hungry, they why are they so fat?

 

Well, if you want off brand canned goods, that's an issue I suppose. I don't go to the food bank because I can pay for better quality.

 

So now we've gone from starvation, to the hardship of having to eat off brand food?

 

I've tried to answer your questions.

As to your last point, yes, every poor person is fat. Especially the 5 year olds.

 

I have argued against the notion that anyone is starving, so no, "we" haven't.

 

Low-income communities more likely to face childhood obesity ...

https://www.uofmhealth.org/.../low-income-communities-more-likely-face-childhood-...Jan 7, 2016 - Although obesity rates were higher among African-American and Hispanic kids, the relationship disappeared when factoring in family income.

 

If they have access to food in a food bank they are not going hungry.

 

Why would you assume that anyone going to a food bank does so because they cannot afford to go to a grocery store ??

 

The bottom line is YES.


Those who disagree or who believe that only a commie can believe it should read Essay # 10 of the Federalist Papers written by James Madison (4th president of the USA and many decades before Marx was born).

 

You have to in capitalism, given its tendency towards market concentration. Its how far you go of course. Right wingers want 'just enough' to maintain the status quo. Left wingers want more to enable equality of opportunity.

 

True right wingers want to maintain status quo as that insures unequal distribution. However, our Founder wanted government to insure against this. Thus, the left/progressives. or whatever are more in keeping with the ideals of our Founders.

 

I won't get into the Founders debate. However, the tone is correct. Ultimately right wingers demand the intensification of class divides and then use 'the politics of envy' to justify their position. Its not rational.

 

While I agree with your post, I always encourage people to read what our Founders taught. This because all too often the far right immediately cries "Marxism!" when someone suggests reform for our society. And the reforms they suggest originated with our Founders, not with Marx who was born decades later. Thus, it proves that it is the progressives who are always in keeping with the ideals of our Founders while the right remains contrary to them.

 

I can see the merit in that. McCarthyism still wags the dog.

 

And then they really get to starve equally.

 

The founders were progressive leftists.

Oh man that was good.

 

And of course by that, you mean inequality in income.

Please explain why everyone should be equal in income.

Should everyone be equal in intelligence? Looks? Driving skills?

 

they would be the first ones to renounce the radicalism of the far right - anyone who has read their writings knows that 's the TRUTH

 

Read Agrarian Justice by Founder Thomas Paine.

 

No one has mentioned equality of income (not even socialists refer to that). By constructing a deliberate red herring, you've merely shown your refusal to participate in valid debate.

 

So you support work requirements for welfare then.

 

Yes they'd be begging for the Green New Deal and welfare for everyone who entered.

 

Well then please explain what you're talking about, and then explain why everyone should be equal, when they're not.

 

You've confused yourself with your red herring. You came out with your equality of income comment in response to a comment that referred to how inequality is growing for the working class. That is ultimately a reference to extreme inequalities (i.e. in favour of the minority at the expense of the majority). Are you in favour of such extreme inequalities, despite not being consistent with any economic rationale associated with skill sets or work ethic?