Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gallup nailed the crux of the matter, an issue that comes up in countless threads:
"Forty-seven percent of Americans, including 71% of Democrats, believe the government should redistribute wealth in the country by levying heavy taxes on the rich. Forty-nine percent of Americans, including 69% of Republicans, disagree."
In my opinion, this division will continue to mark our political discourse for a long time to come. Which side will win more of the arguments in Washington over the next four years? What do you think?
There has to be some way to redistribute the wealth so the needy can be helped. The conservatives believe the right way to do that is to abolish government welfare and replace it with private charities and help from churches. That way people can give without feeling they are being forced to by the government. However, apparently, doing things that way didn't work from the past, especially since the Great Depression, so government welfare stepped in and continues to be fairly broadly accepted today. You sure don't hear politicians campaigning on the theme to abolish government welfare, now do you?
Gallup nailed the crux of the matter, an issue that comes up in countless threads:
"Forty-seven percent of Americans, including 71% of Democrats, believe the government should redistribute wealth in the country by levying heavy taxes on the rich. Forty-nine percent of Americans, including 69% of Republicans, disagree."
In my opinion, this division will continue to mark our political discourse for a long time to come. Which side will win more of the arguments in Washington over the next four years? What do you think?
I hope this continues. I find it appalling that those who are not well off financially have a vote as to whether my money should be taken form me and given to them. Geez, talk about a loaded q. Whey not poll those only who will have their wealth taken? I would be willing that 90-95% would say heck no. What gives people the right to take money from someone else simply becasue they are envious? That sounds like stealing to me.
There has to be some way to redistribute the wealth so the needy can be helped. The conservatives believe the right way to do that is to abolish government welfare and replace it with private charities and help from churches. That way people can give without feeling they are being forced to by the government. However, apparently, doing things that way didn't work from the past, especially since the Great Depression, so government welfare stepped in and continues to be broadly accepted today.
I believe we have enough money in the system to do that. What we need is for our Govt to set priorities, be transparent about what they can and can't do and live within their means. It doesn't mena that when the GOvt runs out of money and others cry for help we take if from those who have it. It means we reset our priorities and fund ongoing programs less to free up money.
I hope this continues. I find it appalling that those who are not well off financially have a vote as to whether my money should be taken form me and given to them. Geez, talk about a loaded q. Whey not poll those only who will have their wealth taken? I would be willing that 90-95% would say heck no. What gives people the right to take money from someone else simply becasue they are envious? That sounds like stealing to me.
The point of government welfare is to make it less likely for the needy to steal from you, because no one will give them anything without government welfare.
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.
- Adam Smith
He was a genius, a realist and a humanitarian. Having said that, what exactly is redistribution of wealth? Is it directing more wealth to the greater masses? Or, is it pushing for policies that direct wealth to those who are rich? Or, is it both?
OP, what is your take on it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secchamps98
I believe we have enough money in the system to do that.
Do we have more now than we did in the 1960s? Because, if you pick just one demographic (a data I happen to have), nearly 28% of those over 65 were living below the poverty line. Four decades later, it is down to 8%. What do you think brought about that change?
I believe we have enough money in the system to do that. What we need is for our Govt to set priorities, be transparent about what they can and can't do and live within their means. It doesn't mena that when the GOvt runs out of money and others cry for help we take if from those who have it. It means we reset our priorities and fund ongoing programs less to free up money.
The point of government welfare is to make it less likely for the needy to steal from you, because no one will give them anything without government welfare.
And we have that....we need a health balance to incentivze those folks to look for employment.....and the police will protect me from thiefs, I don't want to pay extra like a protection racket to keep the masses from stealing...
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.
- Adam Smith
He was a genius, a realist and a humanitarian. Having said that, what exactly is redistribution of wealth? Is it directing more wealth to the greater masses? Or, is it pushing for policies that direct wealth to those who are rich? Or, is it both?
OP, what is your take on it?
Do we have more now than we did in the 1960s? Because, if you pick just one demographic (a data I happen to have), nearly 28% of those over 65 were living below the poverty line. Four decades later, it is down to 8%. What do you think brought about that change?
I am sure you wll pontificate and tell us...wonder if you have a day job...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
