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.
Good question, but how do you define "enough?" I define it as when people voluntarily stop giving, and in my experience that is a high bar. People in general are very giving.
Where would you define 'enough?' Should Pres. Obama give up his trips to Hawaii? Should Bill Gates give up his mansion in Medina. Should Hillary Clinton give up her mansions in Chappaqua and Georgetown? If they did, we would still have poverty.
People should pitch in and work as a team willingly. They should not be forced to do it.
Which doesn't remotely work in the real world.
By definition, the only reason you're whining about this is because you have zero intent to "pitch in" if it was optional. Oh, sure - you'd gladly fund the roads you drive on, or the police that protect your house... but that's not actually "pitching in" and you can't build a functional society larger than a small commune with that mindset.
You're like the guy who attends a retirement party with a fixed price for dinner who starts whining about "how my dinner cost less, why do I have to pay the same price as everyone else?" Then, when somebody calls you on being cheap and selfish, suddenly it's "Oh, that's not what I meant..."
Bull. You - and the rest of the conservatives - wouldn't be whining about "choosing to pitch in" unless you had no intent of doing so were it optional. We see through that sad little charade since when right-wingers aren't whining about "people taking mah money!" they are sneering at everyone else around them while making it clear how special they are.
Just more selfish behavior from the "Christian" and "family values" party.
When is it ever enough.... You can put a trillion dollars into Haiti and it will still be Haiti... You can help what you can but money ain't going to solve it...
Good question, but how do you define "enough?" I define it as when people voluntarily stop giving, and in my experience that is a high bar. People in general are very giving.
Where would you define 'enough?' Should Pres. Obama give up his trips to Hawaii? Should Bill Gates give up his mansion in Medina. Should Hillary Clinton give up her mansions in Chappaqua and Georgetown? If they did, we would still have poverty.
You can easily make your point without using presumably liberal people as examples. Did they not earn their money via hard work too?
I never give. I'm in the top 30% and I don't give diddly squat. The 1.26% of my gross income that went to things like SNAP, TANF, SChip, Medicaid, etc, doesn't bother me at all. I would have probably just spent that $1359.58 on Jack in the Box anyway, I surely wouldn't have given it to some sort of religion-based charity (I'm agnostic), nor would I have given it to a "non-profit" to help the poor. Sure, the government by and large sucks (especially at handling money), but it doesn't bother me that there are people without my skills, morals, abilities, or cognition, using "my money" for their food/health/etc.
Not everybody has bootstraps, you see. It seems that some other nations may already understand this.
You can easily make your point without using presumably liberal people as examples. Did they not earn their money via hard work too?
I never give. I'm in the top 30% and I don't give diddly squat. The 1.26% of my gross income that went to things like SNAP, TANF, SChip, Medicaid, etc, doesn't bother me at all. I would have probably just spent that $1359.58 on Jack in the Box anyway, I surely wouldn't have given it to some sort of religion-based charity (I'm agnostic), nor would I have given it to a "non-profit" to help the poor. Sure, the government by and large sucks (especially at handling money), but it doesn't bother me that there are people without my skills, morals, abilities, or cognition, using "my money" for their food/health/etc.
Not everybody has bootstraps, you see. It seems that some other nations may already understand this.
That's what it comes down to... What do we do to the people at the bottom? We fix them but then new people will be at the bottom because someone has to be at the bottom.... So we give aid and berate those more fortunate... The problem is, the bottom is growing and there isn't enough money... Why is it growing? We hear terms of income inequality but that is just smokescreen.... The problem is we are not getting people out of the bottom fast enough.... Why? There are several factors.... Most important is that you made the bottom too comfortable like a guest that won't leave.... More people are joining and thinking the same thing...
I don't see why this had to be made into a political issue, but that's typical of the American political landscape I guess. 'If you're not with me you're against me' mentality just makes most of us look like children. It's quite sad.
I've heard of 'pay it forward' businesses a few times now. There was a pizza place somewhere in New York that had a business model like that. I certainly have some socialist leanings, but I am adamantly against government control. I don't necessarily oppose welfare, but quickly acknowledge it's many short comings. The idea that 'the free market will handle it' is a myth... for now. The free market could be quite humanitarian if the people running it shared that vision. Currently, most do not. I want that to change but we have to accept some hard truths before that happens, and many are not willing to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Which liberal policy is not redistribution through threat of force?
By definition, the only reason you're whining about this is because you have zero intent to "pitch in" if it was optional. Oh, sure - you'd gladly fund the roads you drive on, or the police that protect your house... but that's not actually "pitching in" and you can't build a functional society larger than a small commune with that mindset.
You're like the guy who attends a retirement party with a fixed price for dinner who starts whining about "how my dinner cost less, why do I have to pay the same price as everyone else?" Then, when somebody calls you on being cheap and selfish, suddenly it's "Oh, that's not what I meant..."
Bull. You - and the rest of the conservatives - wouldn't be whining about "choosing to pitch in" unless you had no intent of doing so were it optional. We see through that sad little charade since when right-wingers aren't whining about "people taking mah money!" they are sneering at everyone else around them while making it clear how special they are.
Just more selfish behavior from the "Christian" and "family values" party.
All you liberals can pool your own money together and start to help the poor the way you want to help, thus setting an example for all of us to follow.
I would love to pitch in my best when that pool of money is established.
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.
