Kasz216 said:
Bold 1) They wouldn't be. When you account for costs of living the poor would still be paying less. What would be taxed would be income above "cost of living" which is a higher percent when you make more money. People who are born into an affluent family get money because the people who earned that money want them to. This is fair because those who earned that money have every right to decide what they do with it. Whether it be give it to their family, or spend millions and millions of it away.
They believe the Government is a wasteful, unorginized bueracracy that can't help the poor because all it does when it sees a problem is throw more money in it. In otherwords when they have a cup with a hole in it. There idea of keeping it full is to keep pooring water. Not fix the hole. They believe contributions to charities that work on smaller scale, and just for the goals of curing these problems work better. Less money taking out for government programs that have questionable abilties means more money for social programs that work. Would less money be contributed then the government takes? Almost definitly... however the thought is the effectiveness of the programs would be better as money will be donated to the programs that work, and the programs that don't won't get money... unlike the government where everyone is kept around or reshuffled because they don't want to fire people. |
If you're willing to admit that less money goes to the donations than would if the government got involved, then I am willing to listen to what you have to say.
But I have never really believed that many Republicans or Democrats are as generous with their money in their personal lives as they would like to let on. I am all for people doing volunteer work, and I have done a lot of it myself (was the president of a large volunteer organization in undergrad), but I know how many problems are out there that remain unaddressed.
And there are some things which are simply too large in scale for anybody except the government to take on. Giving health insurance to children in poor families is one example, or a foodstamp program.
I have more faith in the government to help out the poor than I do for private individuals to help the poor, as bad as that sounds. I just know when it comes down to it, most people never do volunteer work or even contribute that much to charities. But I do have a great deal of respect for corporations who go out of their way to do so. Hell, even Wal-Mart does a lot for how soulless of a corporation they are.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
