Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
Nope. The context was specifically about people in the US that think that by voting to have their neighbors money be taken, and given to others, is not "compassion". If I come to your house and take half of your stuff under threat of force and give it to other people, am I being "compassionate"?
meanwhile, I would like to see ANY study or research that shows that the government has a greater ability to help the poor than private charities. The fact that the government can take our money by force, or print more, is not an indication of their ability to do good works with that money in any kind of efficient, or even fair manner. Please show me a place that tells you that the government is better at this. I would be fascinated to read it.
|
So you want the poor to rely on charity. How noble of you.
Was it the poor that exported all their jobs to the Third World, because it's cheaper there?
The Government takes taxes which it trickles down into the economy far better than the rich will ever do. It employs people, builds things, etc. Maybe as much as 90% of taxes are spent in the US, which means people will be able to spend money on porn memberships. You would take the extra money and run down to the mall and buy yourself a nice imported shirt. Made in China.
The taxes are better off given to the poor. They will buy food, pay rent and spend it in america on the basics. In shops that are owned by the 1%.
Ultimately the problem with the US and many Western countries is you live way beyond your means. The Government has to print more to keep you in the luxury you're used to.
What would you spend the extra money on if you got a tax cut of 10%?
Some of you talk like it's 1960. Get real. The days of exporting more than you import, buying goods made in your country are long gone. Get with the program, it's 2012.
