uhh yes perhaps… According to whatshisface, people elect the government to take care of the people, and therefore the government should be taking care of all its citizens or it is not doin it’s job. But I’m not exactly sure what my view is on taxing the rich more heavily.
only a certain amount, same answer to both questions, you can’t help people who don’t want to help themselves, like the people who abuse the welfare system
I have to ask, knowing your Christian background, and following Jesus’s teachings, what do you think?
Who, me? I’m not actually a practicing Christian, I’m afraid, (though that should not be mistaken for a rejection of their teachings) but I was raised Catholic, and while there was a great deal about feeding the hungry and clothing the poor ingrained in my psyche at an early age, most of our learning was actually quite spiritual in nature. It was always suggested that an individual should provide for the poor, but it was also always stressed that such alms-giving was not mandatory. Jesus strictly avoided mentioning governments in his teachings, preferring to lay the burden of decency on everyone, rather than some distant governmental body. But I do find it important to note that nearly all the great social thinkers: Rawls, Ghandi, Jesus, etc. said that the poor need be provided for, whether it be because it creates a stable society or because it’s the decent human thing to do.
What do I think? I think no one in the world should have to work if they don’t want to. I think the poor should be afforded a decent living no matter whether they are lazy or have had hard luck. I think that education should be free, and schools should be palaces. I think that truly everyone, black, white, rich, poor, and otherwise should be able to go to college for free. I think healthcare, food, shelter, and education are basic human rights and I think they should all be provided on the government’s dime.
How will we pay for it? I don’t know. Is it fair to the rich to be taxed more so the poor can live better, probably not. Will such a system bring about a healthy, efficient, growing society, definitely not. So what’s the answer? Where does the money come from? How do we provide for everyone in a world where moderate scarcity demands that there not be enough for everyone, and that if there ever is, we will reproduce until there isn’t?
bravo!!! to your first 2 paragraphs. but i have to ask, how are we paying for Iraq? If you really look at where the money’s going and how much we spend where, it’s a simple matter of reallocating. do i think the rich could stand to loose a few more dollars in the way they’re being taxed under this administration? absolutely. but i also come from a family of accountants, and i can see that it’s not the poor who are destroying our economy. it makes me so mad every day i’m meticulously balancing my checkbook to know the government’s not doing the same.
ps sorry, i thought you were christian, i was trying to draw from your background.
I’m not non-christian. That is, I’m not particularly anything else, but I’m definitely not Atheist, because I don’t think a universe as vast and complex and (currently) inexplicable as ours could spontaneously create itself from nothing. That, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. I agree that we spend entirely too much on Iraq, and really on war in general. I see the need for military force in a world dominated by the kill-or-be-killed mentality, though it makes me sad that we can’t break the cycle without martyring ourselves. The past few wars, in the Gulf and in Vietnam, have been exceptions to the traditional methods of warfare, because rather than fighting a nation we have fought an ideology, which spreads across international borders and which is strengthened, rather than weakened, by the death of its leaders.
However, let us assume for the moment that the war in Iraq were suddenly to end. The next President makes a public address to the people saying: “We are fighting an ill-defined war in an unfamiliar land, for no particularly good reason which we can under no circumstances win. I propose that we withdraw our troops, providing brief economic aid to the countries we have harmed, and allocate the money currenly spent on national security to social welfare.” Would he be greeted by cheers and dancing in the streets? No. People want tax rebates, they don’t want the government to spend any more of their hard-earned money than they have to. The rich step up and shout, “No! We have put up with this taxation because we feared for our lives. It is unfair to tax us more just because we have made more. Can we stand extra taxation, yes we can. Is it fair that we should be taxed more, not it is not!” And in some ways, they are correct. It isn’t fair to tax someone more for their success.
I also agree with you about the rediculous idea of reducing taxes while increasing services. We are one of the most influential and wealthy nations in the world (though that may change some time very soon), yet we are rapidly increasing our already massive debts. We can’t afford such childish games with the economic future of our nation and our children. End of song.
well, i just wish we would stop reducing benefits for the poor. i mean, even Clinton, who’s economic policies were a vast improvement to what we have now, cut welfare and sent mothers back to work. Bush’s new privitizing of medicare prescription benefits is a disaster in my opinion. Although I wish in my heart that we would increase benefits to the poor, particularly health care, practically speaking I would just be happy if we stopped making the imperfect system we have now worse. blah.
btw, why don’t you think the rich have more responsibility to the world? a minority of the people do hold the majority of resources. i mean, doesn’t that accomplishment come with some responsibility? do you have a big inheritance coming that you’re protecting? Lol. seriously, you sitting on some oil money over there?
Hehe. No, though I am rather firmly entrenched in the middle class:(
It seems like the rich have more money than they need, but is that the same thing as more money than they deserve? True, the majority of people who are rich became so because they came from backgrounds of power and money, which gave them the leg-up needed to gain wealth, but in order to remain wealthy, a person must work, and work hard. True, a CEO may not overexert himself like a factory worker, but he makes up for that with mental effort and the burden of responsibility for everyone who works for his company.
ok, so what about the middle class? my parents are middle class small business owners, and they can’t afford health insurance. when our society no longer values small businesses, it’s hurting capitalism and making for less competition. then do the rich still deserve what they’re making? I really do think our government favors not the poor, but the rich, and unfairly so. the government is so hands-off the rich that walmart is putting everyone out of business. then those walmart employees need government health insurance because they can’t afford it because they can’t unionize. and on, and on.
It’s a good point. Capitalism is by its very nature an exploitative (god, I hope that’s a real word) system. This goes back to what I was saying about moderate scarcity. With a finite number of resources and a potentially infinite number of people, we find that all of the available resources are in use, and there are still more people. And suddenly we are playing what I think is called a “zero-sum game” wherein in order to better oneself, one must take resources from someone else. It’s a bad idea. Why? Because we aren’t animals any more. We are capable of increasing the carrying capacity of land, of producing food from nothing but water and a few key amino acids. If we put our minds to it, as a species, I have faith that we could find a way of providing for everyone and at least checking the population growth to a manageable level. The problem, of course, comes from the fact that to achieve this, we have to have a sort of Hobbesian government, wherein the people sacrifice liberty for a system free of conflict, disorder, starvation, and homelessness. It would be a wonderful government to live under, but it seems to me that the most important thing for a govenrment to do is SAFEGUARD the liberties of it’s citizens. What is a home and food when the government can tell you you can’t have children, that you aren’t allowed to live anywhere but the home assigned to you? I suppose it comes down to the old maxim, You can have liberty, or you can have safety, but you can’t have both. I reject this assumption. I demand both liberty and safety, but I don’t know how to achieve it.
*inserts witty and intelligent thought that contributes to this intellectual conversation*
*nods to ethan.t’s thought
calcuta
ethan.t
poundcake
LonBola
zampanti