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?
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.
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.
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!"?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Being liberals, they want to be liberal with others' money, I suppose!
by Jack Lee 14 months ago
As a conservative, this is one thing that I have not comprehended as much as I try...Please answer this question.With all the failings of so many government programs, and abuses, and corruption and miss managements...why do we want more of it?I wish someone will give a justification or at least an...
by ahorseback 4 years ago
Do liberals truely believe that everyone else is less.........intelligent, enlightened and all around open minded than they are and if not , why do they always act way .
by firstname.lastname@example.org 2 years ago
Why don't Hollywood liberals and liberal billionaires give their fortunes to the government ?With all the talk about paying your fair share, you'd think that the countries wealthiest and most influential liberals would at least give their fortunes to the government as an example since...
by My Esoteric 2 days ago
I was working on a different hub and in the process developed the following statistics about GDP growth throughout American history. Since George Washington, whose economic philosophy somewhat resembled those of today's liberals, there have been:- 10 periods where administrations who favored...
by Nicole Canfield 14 months ago
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other people have different lives and different experiences, and let them believe how they...
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
Utopianism is the real crux of the problem: the insistence of attempting to establish that which can never exist. We are a society which is driven by hope. We are fed hope by every commercial, billboard and salesperson! We live for hope, thinking there is a magic fix for every ill. Government can...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|