Why do liberals think everyone needs to pay for everyone else.

1. 71

   bn9900posted 10 years ago

   Why do liberals think everyone needs to pay for everyone else.
   
   The left constantly berates the Right for not being willing to fund their social pet projects. Why should I be willing to pay for others willingly, when those folks just don't hard enough? Any honest thoughts as to why some feel it is their "right" to have others pay?

   replyreport
2. 70

   BigJulesMagsposted 10 years ago

   You should get a choice on whether to remit to the poor or not.  Also, charitable giving is much more effective than giving from taxation because of the number of hands in the pot.  It's remarkable how much disappears in overhead.  I'm not 100% convinced being poor isn't from working hard enough though.  Sometimes there's unfortunate circumstances.  And no, it isn't a right, but I believe there are people who would benefit from giving that are hardworking and grateful,  I just don't think you should be forced to give n the principle of property rights, and the tendency for taxation to cause corruption.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      bn9900posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your reply. I agree 100% with your assessment. Sure there are some who deserve it as they worked for so long. I agree those are the ones that deserve it.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There needs to be a better system for helping the (children) who are the real people in need of assistance. It's hard to be considered a "Super Power" and yet be unwilling to feed, clothe, and educate their innocent children. Do we say, "too bad!"?

      replyreport
3. 79

   dashingscorpioposted 10 years ago

   Each side believes the money should be spent or invested according to (their) agenda. The left wants to create opportunities for poor and lower middle class and the right wants spend the money on wars or support regimes that are in line with our thinking. Either way the money gets spent!
   A trillion dollars spent on war or spent on social programs. It's two sides of the same coin. There are pros and cons for each side.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      bn9900posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Dash, thanks for the reply I have to disagree with one statement and that is  about the opportunities for the "poor", What do  you consider poor? The bum on the corner or the family on food stamps? Liberal plans are enabling..Free stuff isn't free.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I consider (children) living in poverty who had no say in their parents choices to be both poor and victims. There is no way of helping children without benefiting their ignorant/irresponsible parents. Being pro-life & anti welfare is a contradic

      replyreport
   3. 71

      bn9900posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There will always be stupid people out there, its just sad that they procreate, you are right the children are victims, BUT saying that there should be away to help them and not the parents.

      replyreport
4. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   The notion that only the left wants to aid the poor is a fallacy.  Conservatives just believe that Gov't is an inefficient mechanism to deliver large numbers of social services to the poor because it is too easily corrupted.  And once gov't programs are corrupted they are with us permanently.  The fact is that Conservatives give more money in terms of aggregate dollars and a percentage of their income to charities than any other demographic group.
   
   Part of the reason they berate conservatives, is because they are often uneducated to the above mentioned facts.
   
   Part of the reason is that liberals just have much more faith in gov't and centrally planned authorities than conservatives, and assume that's where money should be spent. 
   
   And lastly, politicians gain votes by pitting people against each other and carving out allies.  If I convinced you to believe that there are a bunch of people out their who wish to keep you poor, and I was going to fight it...Why wouldn't you vote for me. It doesn't matter that when one person gains wealth, it doesn't necessarily mean someone else is losing wealth.  The prey on the economically uneducated.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with much of what you say. However I don't believe the people who are "complaining" are the "rank and file" poor people. They don't have the mouthpiece/bullhorn. They're rich liberals, media darlings, & activists cutting deal with politic

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I mostly agree...It's the limousine liberal who is the ultimate problem.  They're willing to spend everyone's money to help the poor except their own.

      replyreport
5. 57

   Ms Phoenixposted 10 years ago

   Before I can answer this question I must first ask a question. What use are the poor and what can we do with this group of disadvantaged so no one has to pay for their care in any way. Because there are so many layers involved socially for this issue you first have to put a tangible value on these people. how important and is there a point to doing anything for them. Again do they have any value. That must be discussed first. then like an onion you peel one layer at a time to arrive at what must be invested or not as the case could be.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      bn9900posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They can volunteer they need to keep skills sharp and to start feeling good about themselves again, Of course they have value, just like you or I.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      Ms Phoenixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      as I said this is an issue of many layers. Over 60% percent of military recruits are from poor backgrounds but at the same time many military families are on food stamps. I agree that the government could screw up a free lunch counter.

      replyreport
6. 73

   lburmasterposted 10 years ago

   It doesn't make sense to me either. If you make a mess, you pick it up. By someone else picking it up you have proven yourself irresponsible, lazy, inconsiderate, and rude. Just mind boggles me.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      bn9900posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed, it  is scary to think

      replyreport
   2. 79

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      lburmaster, What about the (children) who are products of such parents. Should the government turn it's back on an infant, 3 year old, or teen? They did not put themselves in this position. Welfare was actually designed for helping the children.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      lburmasterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Have they earned their children? That's a huge responsibility, that most don't want. By accepting child support, they are shunning their responsibility. How do we know they are using that money for their children? Do we monitor their accounts?

      replyreport
7. 0

   christiananrkistposted 10 years ago

   I dont konw if its a right to have other pay, but i personally dont mind spending a few extra bucks to help a brother/sister out. I know certain programs are taken advantage of by people and pretty much anything gov. run is not run well, but if a small amount of my money helps even one person a little i think its worth it.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      bn9900posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Christian, it is NOT supposed to be a requirement to help someone else as I may not be able to afford  to spend the extra. You also bring up a great point, the gov't does  not run anything well, USPS and Amtrak spring to mind

      replyreport
8. 85

   M. T. Dremerposted 10 years ago

   Think of it this way. People who receive government aid can fall into two groups; those who legitimately need it because of circumstance. We'll think of these people as the working poor, unfortunate children and well meaning minorities. They use assistance to get on their feet, then become successful enough to get off of government aid. The second group would be the abusers, who learn to cheat the system so that they never have to work. They are the leeches on government spending. I would agree that there are probably more people in the second group than their are in the first. However, having been in the first group personally, i understand the need. I was working and paying taxes, yet I didn't have enough money to feed my family. Later my situation improved and I am no longer on government aid.
   
   So the question is, do we allow the leeches to continue their practices in order to save those few legitimate poor, or do we condemn the legitimate poor in order to discourage the leeches? And, I think this is where liberals and conservatives differ. Liberals think that even a few success stories are worth the cost of many failed ones, where as conservatives think a disproportionate fail to success ratio means the program isn't working. In the business world, that would be true, but in the area of humanitarian efforts and saving lives, the business model doesn't really work. But, that is just my opinion and I acknowledge that I'm over generalizing each side. The beliefs of the individual will vary, and obviously government programs can always be improved. I don't think any liberal thinks the government is running smoothly.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Ms Phoenixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You have stated eloquently the differences between the two points of view. Thank you. And you're right, the government couldn't run a free lunch counter.

      replyreport
9. 88

   suzettenaplesposted 10 years ago

   Liberals don't believe this.  What they do believe is the poor and disenfranchised in this country need our help- not a handout, but our help.  Nations are judged by how they help the poor, the weak, and the elderly.  We are our brother's keeper.

   replyreport
10. 59

    C.V.Rajanposted 10 years ago

    Being liberals, they want to be liberal with others' money, I suppose!

    replyreport