Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
A) Cool. I'll touch on that at the end of "C."
B) 
C) "Wealthfare" actually isn't a subjective and broad topic. And it isn't opinion-based, as far as I'm concerned. This is a capitalist nation and the government is very active in keeping it that way, as well as keeping the haves and have nots distributed a certain way (regardless of who is in Presidential office and regardless of whether there is money allocated for social welfare programs). That's what many Conservatives are in favor of regardless of anything else.
I only mentioned this because you mentioned Conservatives not wanting to help those who may be irresponsibile and have a sense of entitlement. I find that ironic (not because of you but because a lot of Conservatives share this sentiment) because it ignores the fact that government assistance given to maintain the class distribution of society also results in irresponsibility and a sense of entitlement for some of the upper class. Being wealthy isn't the issue. Celebrating the social class divide and acting like only the recipients of assistance can become irresponsible and feel unjustly entitled is the issue. |
I think it is extremely subjective. What defines "waste" in contracts? What tax credits/deductions are earned and which aren't? If you argue that our country benefits the wealthy, then I think you're right. However, is government involvement really what is keeping the distribution of wealth disparate? I think a strong argument can be made that the wealthy inherently benefit from our economic system, but I think this is the default in America. Is it the actions of the government which keep our economic hierarchy in place? Or is it the inaction of the government which keeps the wealth gap from closing? I don't propose that the latter is the responsibility of our government.
Sure, you can make the argument that certain actions of the government reinforce wealth disparity (I think these individualized examples are where you get into subjectivity). However, I think if you concede capitalism as the default position for American economics, that gap would remain even without governmental reinforcement.
So basically, I think that the wealthy systemically or even inherently benefit in America, but I don't think they depend on the actions of the government for sustained viability. I think some would argue that the inaction of the government sustains hierarchy, but I think this should be the default position of our government.
Are tax breaks when the taxpayer is paying at 38% comparable to welfare programs? I personally believe they are not.
Re: irony...I suppose it would be ironic, depending on who harbored the view.
Threaded Mode
