Discrimination Of Economic Minorities Who Support Wealth Redistribution Or Welfare?

Is there Discrimination Of Economic Minorities Who Support Wealth Redistribution And Welfare?

Many people find it offensive when the debate turns to wealth redistribution and contributing to more welfare from their tax dollars, this is mainly libertarians and conservatives.

I see myself as a minority defending welfare for the poor and that is very unfortunate because the country has lost its moral compass as of late. Usually when there are poverty crimes instead of addressing the main causes which is poor social safety net they often turn to race which is discrimination in its own right.

Welfare shouldn't be seen as a hate word and people shouldn't be offended by it, that money goes towards building safer and more prosperous communities for the poor. The reason why it is not working properly now is because not enough money is being redistributed. Any opinions on this matter?

 

A. I appreciate your honesty in saying "your tax dollars" instead of "our tax dollars". We all understand how liberals stand on taxation. Good for you but not for them.

B. Poor people are not criminals. Rich people are not honest. Not all criminals are poor. Some are quite wealthy. Some are even, gasp, politicians, wealthy, liberals, and they're still criminals. Poverty crimes is a ludicrous concept. I know poor people who are not only very honest but will go to great lengths to help their neighbors. Liberals link poverty and crime in a manner that's unreasonable. I think it's called rationalizing liberal behavior.

Giving people more welfare solves nothing. Giving them an education would be helpful but we can't do that. We have to serve the teachers' unions first. Giving them jobs would be helpful but we can't do that. Liberals are too busy buying vote. Giving people incentives to work would be helpful but we can't do that. We'd have to admit that there is a core that won't work for love nor money.

 

When you have a robust economy.. redistribution of wealth happens naturally.. Fortunes are won and lost.. Innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit thrive.

I am quite sure that without a strong middle class and a free press our form of government would become just another banana republic.

And, since we consider ourselves a country founded on Judeo-Christian values we have the example of pious Jews that are obliged to help widows and orphans lest they turn to crime.

And don't forget the growing Muslim community has a mandate for charity in their faith.

 

You're under the illusion that only a central government can conduct welfare, which is dead wrong. The states, locals and individuals can do it just fine, you are only promoting more poverty with your ignorance.

 

Then this Judeo Christian thing is high farce?

 

As long as half of the country remains under the Reaganesque con job that Conservatism means shielding the rich from taxation, there will never be any redistribution of wealth. And as long as the other half of the country follows the leader to such economic disasters as immigration and affirmative action, the whole thing will remain the fiasco that is, and has been for a while.

 

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin

 

Ayuh,... With the Trillions of dollars blown in the war on poverty over the last 40 years,...
When O When are you 'n yer like minded fools gonna admit, it's a TOTAL Failure,..??

The Liberal Progressive answer to everything is to throw Other people's money at a problem,....
It hasn't work in this case, nor Any other case...

Smart folks realize this, 'n are willing to try a Different approach...

 

The root cause of poverty crimes is our economic system, which creates haves at the expense of have nots. Welfare is a poor way of addressing that inequity. It might actually be worse than nothing, because it reduces lower class agitation and insulates the wealthy from the inevitable social backlash against their policies. What's more, it shifts the burden of appeasing the poor from the wealthy onto the public as a whole.

Welfare programs ought to be funded from a dedicated capital gains tax. A progressive capital gains tax, topping out around 45%.

 

Independents make up the largest voter block.. and they hate hyper partisanship.. and stupid Congressional gridlock.

Further.. they are fiscal conservatives and social liberals.

 

there is a link between poverty and crime any police officer will confirm that, they have the hardest jobs in low income areas

 

In the words of President Grover Cleveland...

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

http://mises.org/daily/3627

 

grover cleveland was incorrect the government is there to work for the people, any president who said otherwise and didn't believe that was a bad president

 

Your word is law? I guess taking the Constitution back to its original founding and reading the documents of the Founders themselves there was no inclusion of a Massive Federally run Welfare System. It's all done by "Acts" and not by any Amendments so in fact it's nothing but, a usurping of the Constitution's Power. There is a reason why such things weren't listed more or less due to the intrusive behaviors of the former Empire that had control over the Colonists. Also if you really wish for there to be a Welfare system the 10th Amendment allows for such a practice to occur.

 

I will never believe that giving heroin to a heroin addict is helping them. Which is exactly what the promotion of a giant welfare state is. It's good to have something in place for the people who truly need it, but a rigid system of checks and balances MUST exist to prevent fraud. Very few people truly need welfare. Most people simply need a good stern kick in the ass to motivate them to get up and better themselves.

 

So you support A) people becoming dependent on government for their means of sustenance, and B) argue that poor people are more likely to commit crimes. I find it difficult to refer to such feelings as compassion. Sympathy, maybe. Liberal guilt, most definitely. Do like I did, find other ways to express your feelings of guilt rather than through indirect elitism.

If, as you say, it helps the poor, then can you explain why the poverty rate is higher today than it was when the war on poverty started? Please also explain why it is that prior to the enormous expenditures on welfare that occurred after 1967, poverty was dropping rapidly, from a high of 56% in 1900 to 12% in 1967.

If it makes for more prosperous communities, then more people ought to be prospering, but really, the opposite has been true. Prosperity occurs with accumulation of wealth, but do you see more people accumulating wealth today than prior to the major push for welfare? I don't.

 

You hear that? That is the sound of me playing you the smallest voilin...

Come on man stop with the liberal whinemongering. That sob story "oh we're so hateful and immoral that we're not dumping our entire 401ks to help some beatnicks on the street so they can spend our money on dope or booze. No thanks. This whole discimination bit is just more class warfare theatre. Welfare is indeed a hate word because it does no good. You do not give an alcoholic more beer you cut them off so maybe they'll decide to sober up or end up in a cell to rot because they killed someone for booze money. You liberals don't get it that you will always demand more, more, more! It will never be enough! You liberals sure don't mind sucking the life and money out of other people.

That would have been better than my first rebuttle...

As long as half of the country remains under the class warfare con job that liberalism means stealing from the rich until they're rich no more, adopting socialism and running off the job creators there will never be any real economic recovery. And as long as the other half of the country follows the idea of free-markets to such economic success in the past as to adopt smaller government and lessspending, the whole thing won't budge until we wake people up.

*Fixed*

Most of them simply need to get off their lazy asses to go out and get a job.

 

More (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and moaning from liberalminority about the low class, minorities, and how they do NO wrong.

Everything to him is always somebody else's fault. It's the honest liberal mantra.

I'm supposed to work my ass off while he gets to ride the bandwagon... while contributing nothing.

Again, I ask liberalminority, what advantages are you willing to give the hard workers in your ideal society?

 

The pleasure of knowing you are supporting alcoholics, drug addicts, irresponsible sex havers, and the children they make in perpetuity.

You should see your tax bill the same way you would a donation to the Salvation Army, don't you know?

 

I guess so, lol. Why don't I just join them then? I would much rather get high and drunk everyday than work.

 

Well its easy.

First, find a woman and get her pregnant then wait for the kid to arrive. Make sure you don't marry her, and make sure that the government thinks she's living alone, oh and be sure to convince her to tell the State that she doesn't know who the father is so they don't come after you for child support.

Then you live with her unofficially off the books and sell drugs, rob people or whatever else you have to do to get the extra money you might need while the State pays for:

Most of the food

The Housing

The medical care for the kids and the woman(you don't need it)

There you have it. Life without ever having to lift a finger.

You might even string this out to 3-4 different women, with multiple kids in each house. That means when one baby momma get mad you can run to another one and if that doesn't work there is always mom.

I worked with a guy who had 9 kids with 4 different women and lived exactly in this manner.

 

Sounds like the life. I could be sitting back playing call of duty and drinking beer all day.

 

it is more giving fuel to an engine, not heroin to a drug addict

the fraud is a sign of an inefficient system but not in the way described above, it more that they are not getting enough taxpayer money and that is why they have to game the system

 

dependence on government is neccessary for now

the poverty rate is higher because the population increased from 1967

more people aren't prospering because since the population increased welfare help stayed the same which was designed to help a smaller population that is why it is ineffective and this is all due to republicans

 

As long as half the country remains under the socialist con job that promises the government will take what people work for and give it to you so everything will be free there is no hope. My neighbor was at least honest because he said he was voting for Obama last time because he was tired of paying for health insurance. My idiot cousin was convinced, by the liberals, that Obama would personally pay off her credit debt.

I do recognize that for people who have no intention of ever working, massive income redistribution is the only hope they have.