Republicans are happier than Dems

[KDAngel]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Liberalism is idealism and conservatism is realism. We need a mixture of the two if we are going to remain the best country in the world.

Love this statement. I'm a card carrying Republican with the best of them, but I think given our current political AND global climate, this is our only solution if we want to keep America at the top, and have life as we know it continue on...

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

There is great irony here because for every person who comes from wealth and earns their keep, there are those who did not actually earn anything, are irresponsible, and have a sense of entitlement. But it's okay because they are wealthy so they can't really harm society through immorality or anything else, right? There have always been government breaks for the wealthy (also known as Wealthfare) but when it comes to creating equilibrium in the form of social welfare programs, people are suddenly critical of "lazy people" and want the government not to intervene.

Coming from money is only as cool as the people who don't abuse it.

A) I don't see much irony in what I said.

B) People have the right to be lazy and/or make lots of money and/or not act charitably.

C) Please describe your opinion of these breaks the wealthy get. Are you referring to specific provisions (in the IRC for example) or the general advantages the wealthy have in a capitalist society? Also, what is the basis for these breaks? Are we giving them the same starting point as impoverished people, or are we talking about "breaks" based on a starting point of where society/gov't has determined their liability to society should be?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

A) I don't see much irony in what I said.

B) People have the right to be lazy and/or make lots of money and/or not act charitably.

C) Please describe your opinion of these breaks the wealthy get. Are you referring to specific provisions (in the IRC for example) or the general advantages the wealthy have in a capitalist society? Also, what is the basis for these breaks? Are we giving them the same starting point as impoverished people, or are we talking about "breaks" based on a starting point of where society/gov't has determined their liability to society should be?

A) The irony isn't about you. It's about a mindset and an approach.

B) ????

C) Look up "wealthfare."

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

A) The irony isn't about you. It's about a mindset and an approach.

B) ????

C) Look up "wealthfare."

A) Still don't see the irony about the approach.

B) Ok.

C) I asked for your opinion, I think. If you don't want to give it, that's fine too. "Wealthfare" is a broad topic which is obviously subjective. I view entitlement programs a lot differently than I do tax breaks for people paying at 38%. Perhaps they're more comparable to government contracts, but I think that is a tenuous argument at best, which again, is extremely subjective.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

A) Still don't see the irony about the approach.

B) Ok.

C) I asked for your opinion, I think. If you don't want to give it, that's fine too. "Wealthfare" is a broad topic which is obviously subjective. I view entitlement programs a lot differently than I do tax breaks for people paying at 38%. Perhaps they're more comparable to government contracts, but I think that is a tenuous argument at best, which again, is extremely subjective.

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 welfare assistance can become irresponsible and feel unjustly entitled is the issue.

[shinerbock]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

If you argue that our country benefits the wealthy, then I think you're right.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

This is all I get? Psh.

I think many would argue that our country encourages ingenuity, efficiency and work ethic, and that the resulting benefit is rightfully earned (as opposed to many situations of government sustenance).