whatever said:
Kasz216 said:
whatever said:
raptors11 said:
richardhutnik said:
raptors11 said:
thranx said:
I think the problem is not with spreading wealth around, but giving wealth away to those who do not deserve it, and creating a cycle that rewards not working and punishes those who do work.
In my opinion wealth should be in the hands of those that work hard for it and those that can create new wealth/resources with what they have.
|
This. /Thread
|
Is the only exception to this is inheritance? Because of the sheer amount of money that is handed out, and it makes someone rich, certain individuals who didn't do squat have every right to get more money than they ever would know what to do with, they have every right to get every penny. Should we also abolish charity, and have it if individuals are not able to find meaningful work, they should be left to die of starvation?
|
So what you have a problem with inheritance? You think money shouldn't be able to be passed down to your children? I have no problem whatsoever with inheritance as long as people don't inherit a ton of money and use it as an excuse not to work. If I won the lottery I'd still stay in school and get a job.
And when did I anyone ever say anythin about abolishing charity? Charity is fine as long as donating to charity is optional. My dad is wealthy and he donates both to our local hospital and to a local foundation for mentally retarded people.
And should we leave people to die if they can't afford food? That's an interesting question, because I'm sure you'd be quick to say no but then I wonder how much have you donated to food banks or charities in your life? Do you personally help at all or do you think it should be up to the rich to provide food for the poor?
|
So is the government of a country supposed to do nothing while a large portion of it citizens starve to death? The government should do what's best for all of it citizens, not just the ones that have the most cash. You can encourage job creation by cutting taxes on the wealthy, but you still need a safety net to help those at the bottom.
This "greed is good" attitude is what has the US on the verge of complete collapse.
|
If this is the case... why did more fisically conservative countries like Australia not have many problems during the financial bailout... while finacially liberal countries like England, Greece and Iceland had all the trouble?
|
So there weren't other factors involved? To what to you base your liberal vs. conservative characterizations?
The freeest market in history (the over the counter derivatives (OTC) market) is what caused the financial crisis in the US. Regulators were not even allowed to ask questions about this market until it crashed. It was the ultimate test of the "greed is good", free market philosophy and it failed so miserably that we will all be feeling its impact for a long time to come.
|
There were other factors involved. However that very much WAS a factor. A major one.
The US actually spends more money per capita then most countries when it comes to "spreading the wealth".
This is something most people don't realize.
The derivitives market itself was an extension of this... as is allowed home ownership to skyrocket to levels it shouldn't of skyrocketed too.
Said market wasn't made "because greed was good". Said market was made because people wanted to "Spread the wealth of houses".
Because owning your own home is the cornerstone of the "American Dream."
