Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
Differing opinions aside, only clueless and socially irresponsible Americans feel this way.  Safety nets have existed for generations but they were never protested because they benefited a certain segment of the population.
This isn't enough of a redistribution of wealth to be socialism. |
Which part are you responding to, her first statement, or her comparison to socialism? Because, I agree that comparing "leveling the playing field" to socialism is going overboard.
However, if her first point (if I'm reading it correctly) means that the government can't be everything to everybody, then I'll agree with that.
And I'm fairly well-read on government aid programs and the legislative process as a whole, so I don't consider myself clueless about it, although you may disagree.
I'll agree that the vast majority of the U.S. doesn't get it, and argues from a purely personal view (how will this affect my taxes, how will it affect my daily life, etc.)
Also, I disagree that safety nets "were never protested," because I think most every type of safety net, (such as college loan programs, benefits to corporations, lower mortgage rates for those with children, etc.) have been debated and protested over the years.
I think there's misunderstandings on both sides; fiscal conservatives who ignore the safety nets in place for corporations and those with high wealth, and those who want to throw money at social aid programs with no understanding of how they'll get paid for (the old "give money to everyone but don't raise my taxes" argument).
ETA: I'm not an economist, or an econ major, so I won't vouch for the technical truth of my statements (although I read a lot and try to stay educated on the issues). I'm trying to be more general in what I'm saying. Plus, it's tough to go really in depth on these issues over a message board, where you don't have the instant give and take.
Threaded Mode
