Is the role of Government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor?
Conservatives believe in self-reliance. It is your responsibility to do well in school, get a job, earn your own money, pay your own way, and get on in life making a difference. Make a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door...aka Bill Gates. Democrats believe in Governmental Control (socialism). Those who work hard and tirelessly to become educated in their chosen profession so that they can work even harder to earn the money they deserve are to be chastised and taxed more severely so that the government can create government controlled programs to redistribute wealth to those that are born to a poor community. It's not they are lazy and would rather sit in their subsidized home waiting for their welfare check(s) each month and then going to the local market and buying beer with their Independence Cards. And don't you dare call me racist because I never specified that these people are of a particular race. Lazy and shiftless is a race without color...and I can take you to several parts of Baltimore where you can witness this first hand. The economics of the Democrats are a blueprint for economic disaster. The way to spur economic growth is to allow companies to take their well deserved profits and put them back into their companies (give em incentives for growth and expansion). The more they grow, the more jobs, the more they can pay their workers, the more the workers can afford to buy creating more sales tax revenue and more profits for the companies to have incentive to put back into the companies. It's cyclical.....but so is the reverse. Penalize those companies and take more and more of their profits. No pay raises and layoffs, less workers, more people on welfare which brings about the need for the government to take more taxes, etc, etc, etc.
What's wrong with being a libertarian?
What Libertarians prescribe won't work. You ask them who would take care of the poor and they say "charities." First, we have a lot fewer charities now than we had back when the social programs were started out of necessity. Second, charity isn't even up to doing the job now, even with all the social programs we have. "Feeding America" is annually providing food to 37 million Americans, including 14 million children. This is an increase of 46 percent over 2006, when they were feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children, each year. That means one in eight Americans now rely on "Feeding America" for food and groceries. "Feeding America's" nationwide network of food banks is feeding 1 million more Americans each week than they did in 2006. Thirty-six percent of the households they serve have at least one person working. http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-2010.aspx That is in addition to food stamps and welfare. So what are you going to do with all those hungry Americans? And keep in mind that 62% of custodial mothers do not receive child support. http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/supportfacts.php Then there is the matter of predatory capitalism such as we just saw off Toyota and Massey mines, and currently from BP, Transocean and Halliburton. Nobody goes to jail when you sue a corporation. They just figure the fines are worth it in the profits column and often keep right on doing things that cost lives and the environment because it serves their bottom line. It’s the same with the banks doing predatory lending that brought our economy down. Plus, nobody wants to have to pay for toll roads, toll libraries, only private schools, private police, private fire protection, private beaches, private parks, and so on. If Libertarianism were the rule of the land you might not ever get to go to a beach, a forest, or a mountain, if they were privately owned. Would you like to take a look at a real Libertarian society? Read Charles Dickens books, because England during his time was about as close to Libertarianism as there has been. There was a tiny very rich class. There was a tiny middle class, mainly doctors, lawyers, and merchants like Scrooge. There was a huge very poor class. ##
Don't liberals understand that they are crippling this country with entitlements?
I examine that article final nighttime. I trust you that she took out the non-public loan, and there is not any assure of a cushty living in basic terms on the grounds which you went to varsity. i will say this in her protection in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, the staff interior the financial help branch ought to do greater to tips scholars on what to assume whilst they enter reimbursement (i.e. how plenty debt they're going to probably have, an anticipated month-to-month fee, the size it may somewhat take to pay off the loans, etc). From my adventure and the adventure i've got gathered from others, as nicely as this woman's adventure, the faculties do no longer enable you already know sh*t approximately what to assume including your loans. And thinking maximum scholars circulate to varsity whilst they are youthful and naive to most of the international, that contraptions up a recipe for disaster and experience sorry approximately. additionally, college mortgage creditors ought to apply greater suitable scrutiny on who they permit to borrow and how plenty they borrow. needless to say the mentality of maximum scholars is short sighted and that they have got targets of grandeur for whilst they graduate. Too undesirable actuality regularly does not play out like they assume.
Has welfare "oppressed" blacks and minorities any more than the poverty they experienced before welfare came?
The money we spend on social welfare programs is a drop in the bucket compared to the money we squander on corporate welfare programs (tax abatements, favorable tax legislation, bail outs, 'rescue plans', low-cost government loans, government grants, special deductions for 'entertainment' expenses, etc., etc.). Just before the Bush administration left the White House, it wrote $8.5 TRILLION* in corporate welfare checks to businesses deemed "too big to fail". Blacks and other minorities (including whites) are 'oppressed' just as they were during slavery days. It's a way to keep the 'competition' at a low level. Thus, minorities often become victims of 'generational' poverty** because they live in ghetto areas, attend sub-standard schools, get sub-standard educations, and eventually are offered only menial jobs (or not jobs at all). It's a way to keep the rich, white 'fat cats' on the top rungs of the ladder while the rest of our society muddles in poverty or middle-class poverty. Oh, yes, there are always a few minorities who are able to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and become star athletes, entertainers or politicians. But most of them are resigned to live lives of quiet desperation because the opportunities are not easily available to them. A black kid attends a school with broken windows, obsolete textbooks, and crumbling buildings. His middle-class counterpart attends a school with decent facilities, contemporary textbooks and better teachers. His upper-class counterpart attends a sleek, modern contemporary school with an Olympic-size swimming pool and all the modern conveniences. His wealthy counterpart attends a private school with first-class facilities and the top teaching talent in the country. Yes, blacks and other minorities are 'oppressed', destined (in most cases) to live their lives in abject poverty - or at least at a lower level of 'success' than the high-brow white kids who have it all. -RKO- 07/22/09