4 votes

US Rep. Steve King says all payments are redistribution of wealth.

US Rep. Steve King says all payments are redistribution of wealth. Why does he say this? First he says he is against governmental redistribution of wealth. When confronted with the fact that he is in favor of some farm subsidies and some foreign aid he argues that if these are examples of redistribution of wealth then everything is redistribution of wealth, implying that there isn't anything wrong with redistribution of wealth. To defend his point that everything is redistribution of wealth he says that, if he gave me a penny that would be redistribution of wealth. In other words, he changes the context and topic from governmental redistribution of wealth to any payment or transfer. His logic is, since there is nothing wrong with me giving you a penny there is nothing wrong with the government forcefully taking money from the taxpayers in order to provide farm subsidies and foreign aid.

Interestingly, this contradicts his original point that there is a fundamental difference between personal charity and governmental charity . He argued correctly that there is nothing wrong with personal charity but that it is entirely wrong for the government to force you to do charity. This distinction between personal charity and governmental charity evaporates in the heat of the argument.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is wealth redistribution

Is wealth redistribution morally wrong? Yes. This is stealing. Taking forcefully from someone and giving to someone else.

Are taxes wealth redistribution? No. We pay the government for national defense because we are provided a service. This service is a government function as defined in the constitution.

The government redistributes wealth when it gives goods and services to special interests.

If you are against wealth redistribution based on principle, you are against foreign aid, welfare, subsidies, bailouts, etc.

It doesn't matter what Steve King says....

He lost my support FOREVER when he made his infamous "Ron Paul would be a dangerous president" statement just before the Iowa caucuses.

At one of the most critical times in our nation's history, he showed his true colors and stabbed every patriotic American in the back with that one act.

He showed that he is against limited, constitutional government and is a greater liability in congress BECAUSE of the "R" after his name.

It doesn't matter what kind of verbal and logical gymnastics he uses to justify or rationalize his hypocritical political stances.

In the end it does not matter whether he is simply a fool or a traitor; he can never be trusted again.

The Virtual Conspiracy

True dat

No room for excuses when you're dealing with government officials.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Until such time

Until such time that we have Free Competition in Currency and have abolished the Income Tax politicians will be politicians, rather than what they are supposed to be, Civil Servants.

With a few exceptions of course. Mike Lee and Ron Paul are a couple of examples of that.

"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." -Ronald Reagan

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs. -OneTinSoldier

Thank you, Jan.

Thank you, Jan.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Jan Helfeld's picture

You are welcome. I do my best to expose both politicians

You are welcome. I do my best to expose both politicians and journalists.

Jan Helfeld

Who's on first, what's on second...

Round and round complex non-answers to extremely simple questions.


"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

No, he's perfectly consistent

You see, he is against redistribution of wealth. So by definition anything he is for is not redistribution of wealth. So your argument just falls apart right there. You have committed the common fallacy of analyzing Hypocrisy with Logic. Freshmen Congressmen are taught to avoid this common mistake.

can't argue with that logic!

can't argue with that logic!