Is it okay for the government to take from the rich and give to the poor?

Question

Hillary Clinton said that we are going to have to take some things away from people for the common good!! In other words, we are going to penalize those who have taken charge of their lives and earned themselves a nice lifestyle. Once again, we have a politician using the class war argument. It is truly sad that these individuals (politicans) is partially to blame for this. It is welfare that has created this condition. Why work when the government will pay you to stay home. So, here it is, the new leader or voice of the Democratic party telling the world that her party is coming for your money and the audience stood and clapped. Should it you and I that decided who we want to give our money to?

Answer 1

Of course, I always in favor of socialism. This movement could prevent the nation from having uneven distribution of wealth among welfare and social classes.

Answer 2

Well first off it depends on what you want from your government. If your looking for them to serve the people and the overall advancement of society then yes I do think it is okay. To say that people have taken over their lives and made something of themselves is a little naive. Not everyone has the so called same "freedoms" that everyone else has and not everyone has the same choices. Also, if the government did not interfere think about how bad things would be. If I was born rich and could run a monopoly would that be good to you if you try to compete with me? No because I could squeeze you out and no one would even notice and or care because theres nothing stopping me from doing that. The very idea of a free market system is to create competition and drive down prices for consumers, can't happen if your driving away all future businesses in the first place and then it allows large corporations to become stagnate because where else are you going to go?

This economy has never been truly free and read Upton Sinclair's the Jungle if you still feel government needs to stay out people started dying because of the disease ridden beef that was going around hence why Teddy Roosevelt started the FDA.

Also if you are perpetually poor how is that in the riches best interest? At some point I will become upset that you own all the resources and wage my own war because I am tired of not being able to compete, that has lead revoltuions such as Communism and Nazism, because of economics and not helping out lower classes.

So yeah it sucks but if you make 300,000 dollars and already have tax deferred accounts that most other people don't have and you r worried about paying and extra 1 2 % in taxes than a middle class citizen then your not a very good rich person because you obviously can not handle your finances.

Answer 3

If there is a class war it sure isn't the wage-earning class that's winning it. The charge that someone wants to 'steal from the rich' to give to the 'poor' has always been a bogus argument. The over riding issue has always been social stability. That's why we have laws concerning health and welfare, minimum wage, a graduated income tax and child protective services. The list is long, but so what? We live in a first world country because of laws that limit power, position and authority based purely on wealth. The concept of the common good didn't just happen...it happened because without the concept of 'common good' societies are disrupted, governments exist only to protect the wealthy and the wage-earner is left with only poverty as his or her share. If you want to live in a third world country where the 'common good' doesn't exist, good luck...countries run by thugs don't have 'social programs' or much of anything else worthwhile. Also, Sen. Clinton didn't say that...the right wing talk show bozos said she said it! Way out of context!

Answer 4

The truly poor and truly disabled do need help. However, Hillary wants us all to support illegal immigrants, drug dealers and drug users, mothers having babies every year not even knowing who the father is, drunks, those homeless because they will not assume responsibility for their own lives (I'm not talking about the homeless that are just down on their luck). We could help these people if we don't throw away money on the dead beats.

Hillary is a secular progressive and her socialist ideas cannot be accepted by the hard working, tax paying people who are living by the rules and simply want to provide comfortably for their families.

We are not selfish, we simply are not foolish enablers which does more harm than good to the recipients who will never take responsibility for themselves if they keep getting from the liberal programs.

Anyone, like the Clintons, Kerrys, Gores, et al can donate all they choose to enable all they want but they have no right penalizing the rest of us.

Answer 5

Welfare in some cases is necessary and a good thing. Above all, the children involved are not to blame. Want them to starve? Can't have it both ways, no abortion = more children that need help. Why would we send billions to other countries and not care for our own? Although it is abused, you cannot simply go say give me a check. There are some rules. As far a taking from the rich and giving to the poor, she is probably saying the tax breaks under the current administration is unfair and is intending to take them away. If you call that giving to the poor, then that is your prerogative. I do not see it that way. The rich will always pay more taxes even under a flat rate. Could live live better making 100k a year and paying 40k in taxes, or make 20k and paying 5 k? I will take the 100 k every time.

Answer 6

According to Christianity and i've never met a republican (dumbo) who wasn't a christian, the rich are suppose to give to the poor. They should want to help (those who are trying to help themselves of course) and it shouldn't have to be taken for them by some government rather a Dem-azz, A Dumbo or DopedUpLibee. Some people make horrible choices but if they are trying to help themselves to get back on top, a fraction of their wealth won't hurt. YES.. I do believe a limit should be but on the aid we fund to someone for continued dumb, stupid or careless choices. Income is still substantially much greater for the wealthy so it comes back in the long run anyway since it would be one less poor person in there pocket that there monies have helped (if they succeed, success isn't cheap.... rich people know).

Answer 7

Seems to me that we have had quite enough of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

I live on $660 per month because my husband would not allow me to have a career (That generation did that sort of thing) So I stayed home and raised children. The small amount of social security is all I was able to get in the few short years I could work after hubby left for a new young wife. I would challenge any of you know it all conservatives to live on that amount of money. I am old and crippled and have tried to get another job with no luck. You conservatives, in order to rob more of the poor, allowed my job to be sent to Singapore. Believe me my life was full of very hard work and at my age I would like to have a few lazy days. (I do not get welfare)

I would truly like to see the very large corporations be required to pay a living wage.

Answer 8

It is better to give than to receive....So, if more people were willing to "share" with those less fortunate the world would be a better place. God blesses a "cheerful" giver.

Now in response to your question....seems like more of political bashing of "woman" presidential candidate. I'm not sure how I feel about that ...really. But this statement needs to be backed up with some facts to get an honest answer. Thank you for concern though that some that work hard suffer for the ones who don't.

Answer 9

NO! In this country you are able to work your way up to the top something the welfare class have been told was inpossible by the demorats who keep them poor for a solid voting block.

A good read on this would be uncle sam's plantation.

Answer 10

In theory, it can be. In practice, the government takes from the middle class, and gives to some of the poor, some of those who try to scam the system, and whatever special interests provided thier campaign money.