- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I do not think we want a society that redistributes wealth, but one that allows for equal opportunity for one's success (or failure!).Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?
Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?
Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?
Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?
I do not think we want a society that redistributes wealth, but one that allows for equal opportunity for one's success (or failure!).
As long as all the citizen's have equal access to the institutions and tools required to succeed in life, that's good enough for me.
The homeless guy on the street should have the same opportunity to walk into a courtroom as Donald Trump, and prevail if his case has merit.
I'm for fairness - nothing more, nothing less.
that's pretty much where i sit as well..... and one of the reasons I don't qualify as a Democrat or an American leftist.( who are very supportive of the direct redistribution wealth)
Understood.that's pretty much where i sit as well..... and one of the reasons I don't qualify as a Democrat or an American leftist.( who are very supportive of the direct redistribution wealth)
Understood.
But I do have addendum to my post above concerning the truly indigent due to disability or advanced age. To not assist those in dire need through no fault of their own, strikes me as cold to the point of cruelty.
This area is the most difficult for us as a nation to resolve in terms of societal responsibility, I believe.
Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?
Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?
Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?
Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?
Absolutely!I don't think there's much opposition to helping the truly needy...... though there seems to be a wide chasm between peoples notion of "truly needy".
:thumbs:Fixing inequality is not un-American.. in fact its everything about being American..
HOW we fix inquality however CAN BE un American.
Understood.
But I do have addendum to my post above concerning the truly indigent due to disability or advanced age. To not assist those in dire need through no fault of their own, strikes me as cold to the point of cruelty.
This area is the most difficult for us as a nation to resolve in terms of societal responsibility, I believe.
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?
Well, this is where it gets tough. Because while I agree in principle, I think there should nearly always should be a path to redemption and temporary assistance along the path for those sincere in bettering themselves and desiring to contribute to society.I find the bolded above to be largely omitted for most government aid applications. Is it society's or the individual'a fault if a person drops out of school and joins a street gang? Is it society's or the individual's fault if they become disabled breaking a law or through other self destructive behavior? if 1/3 of folks are obese, which greatly increases medical care risks, are their obesity related medical problems through no fault of their own? Obesity is largely the result of a choice just like tobacco and other recreational drug use.
Well, this is where it gets tough. Because while I agree in principle, I think there should nearly always should be a path to redemption and temporary assistance along the path for those sincere in bettering themselves and desiring to contribute to society.
But no - we can't save or rehabilitate everyone, and there's always going to be some percentage of incorrigibles in any society.
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?
Like, for instance, your claim that inequality was made worse.....by going off the gold standard.Well.. the problem is john.. can you recognize that part of the reason that we have inequality is BECAUSE of strong government intervention.?
Some ways of "fixing" inequality.. with "strong government intervention" will make things worse.
Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?
Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?
Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?
Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?
To the bolded:well, I don't believe it can be truly attained at all...nor should it even be attempted with such perfection in mind....inequality is not entirely bad for us.
that said, I wouldn't put it in the frame of "strong" government intervention versus no government intervention... i'd rather look at it in terms of "smart" intervention versus counterproductive intervention.
some very smart intervention would be removing government from the premises ( such as our licensing requirement for everything under the sun) ... other smart approaches would be based entirely on government policy.
I do not subscribe the approach that government intervention is always good.. and stronger government is always better.... that's a leftist notion with no basis in reality in history
if Strong government intervention was actually productive, our poverty and "fairness" problems would not exist.... as government has intervened itself in to literally every aspect of our lives...especailly our economic lives.
( maybe a good start would be to do away with income taxes... confiscating wealth while pretending to be interested in people keeping more of their earned wealth is not only illogical, but ultimately counterproductive)
I also don't belive our government pitting us against each other is a very good way to go about things.
we operate better, and produce better results, if we are unified in our goals.... much like the national environment during and directly following WW2
now, to a "strong" government intervention that i would actually support..well, that would be a Basic Income Guarantee....but it would have to happen in conjunction with other policy changes in order to have maximum effect and beneficial results to society overall ( such as making income taxes wholly and forever illegal)
I think if there was a cap on income and a threshold below which nobody could go, most would put out just enough effort to reach that cap and would do no more. And some would be satisfied with that lowest threshold. Our productivity would plummet, there would be no incentive to risk capital to produce new products or services or inventions and we would just become another mediocre country of complacent, unambitious people marking time in their own self interest.
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?
To the bolded:
You're hitting them out of the park today, Thrilla!
I believe basic income (by dropping most means-based social programs) would go a long way to motivating those otherwise abusing the means based-systems. I suspect productivity (in terms of the 'above ground' economy) would flourish as the prime obstacle to increased marginal employment for those individuals would be removed (that obstacle being benefits curtailment).
I've been a proponent of this for a long time, but I'm usually met with rebuffs of incredulity!
The only big question is: Will the entitlement savings equal the program costs? In other threads there was some attempt to quantity this, but the results were nebulous at best. However, I believe the numbers get in the ballpark at a relatively low (but IMO workable) guaranteed income level - one quite a bit below that of the recent Swiss referendum (2500 USD/mo).
We could start with an easy one.......how about "no discrimination based on race, sex, orientation..."?What is fairness?
Higher taxes cause those who are selfish to be less motivated.....which is fine with me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?