Do you believe in the democrat or republican argument for wealth distribution?

Question

The democratic argument: The concentration of wealth in a small group allows for anti-democratic influence of social policy. The wealthy have the ability to create their own "think tanks" and astro-turf front organizations. These are then used to create the perception that the public is in support of their self-serving objectives. Recent studies have shown how these techniques were used in the repeal of the estate tax debate as well as in the rise of new factions opposing the liberal social policies of the Episcopal church. When such vast amounts of money are under the control of a tiny group the basic mechanisms of democracy are undermined.

Poor people are lazy (or inferior).

This argument is that salvation is found through work. Thus those who become wealthy are "blessed" and deserve their rewards. Those who are poor are to blame in some fashion for their position in society and government intervention to alter the balance will only lead to even more lazy people and the eventual breakdown of society.

The latter is the republican argument

Answer 1

You're right on!

The Democratic argument is our current reality.

The Republican argument HAS to ignore scarcity, otherwise their position is immoral, and certainly inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus.

[ All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. ] The Holy Bible (NIV) Acts 4:32-35

Answer 2

Although it is perfectly alright with me to share what i have with poor and needy ( Been doing it any way) I am not for mandatory distribution of money from the wealthy to the poor.
I believe that should be voluntary! And allow the people who want to conserve all their money to do so !
How ever there exist a hidden danger for the rich, you see the gap between rich and poor is widening very rapidly?! If this trend continues, at some point the poor and even middle class spending power will drop ?! Now pay attention to this, and think about it for a minute, if poor can't buy from rich?? it would cause devaluing of currency ?! and you rich folks don't want that for sure ??!!


My Best Regards.

Answer 3

Did the person above even bother to read their "wealthiest" links?

Both Buffet and Gates came from wealthy families and had almost every advantage...

now, Buffet and Gates realize this... and are quite liberal, and I give them a lot of credit for being aware of the situation... granted...

and I've heard 80 percent of wealth is inherited in the US... but I don't know if it's true or not...

I believe that capitalism has some merits, but must be controlled, see the industrial revolution...

do any Republicans understand the history of communism? why it was created and gained popularity?

the "Republican idea" was tried and failed so miserably people were desperate for anything else... and turned to communism, which was 180 degrees in the opposite direction and failed on it's own...

EDIT: an interesting question for conservatives... why are red states the poorest, on average? it makes no sense if you believe what you say...
Red states should work harder, and thus, earn more on average...

while blue states should fall behind due to their "red tape" and government bureaucracy...

I live in the south and there are many hard working, poor conservatives... and many have been poor for years... and worked hard for years...
many never had a chance to get any decent education... due to poor schools (as NCLB tests will show)

and they don't seem to want to spend anymore on education or even really try to fix it...

none of it makes any sense to me?

they are keeping more in their pockets (as a percent of total income)... but aren't investing in the schools for the future and overall... have lower earnings because of it... so end up with much lower salaries and less money on overall on average in the end?

Answer 4

The belief you labeled as Republican belief is what most people share when they are against wealth distribution.

Frankly, there is no wealth distribution in America. A system could easily be setup for wealth distribution. A system of caps which when a surplus of wealth arises it goes towards society as a whole. Only those who participate in society should benefit from programs made for society, which in order to be declared a participant in society one must contribute. One of the most basic contributions to society is to work, which those who can't work because of disabilities etc. should automatically be declared a contributor if he or she is a citizen. With the support of the programs setup for society, then even a disabled person could contribute in one way or another.

If the society is very industrial, scientific, and mostly economically independent with most of its own money circulating in its country's borders, then the value of the dollar will rise, which everyone's wealth raises by invisibly surpassing the cap. Trading with the rest of the world should be kept to minimum, which trading would be for supplies not accesible within ones country. The managing of resources when it reaches maximum capacity is where science and innovation come in. Science would further maximize the utilization of current resources and create alternative forms of energy usage. Science would probably be the backbone of the society.

Can everyone be wealthing? Yes, because wealth can be classified as anything even the wealth of being apart of the best country in the world. Is there a best? Only the country and those who make groundbreaking discoveries that help propel our country into the future, such as Einstien etc..

Everything we do should be for whats best for America, because whats best for America is whats best for us. Economical dependence on the rest of the world is a weakness thats also exploitable, which the current collapsing of the economy is proof.

Answer 5

I don't agree with either extreme. One extreme is communism and the other is fascism. What we need is a compromise that taxes people fairly according to what they can pay without making the poor even poorer or giving unfair advantages to the rich in exchange for political favors. We need to get back to the middle of the road, and that means we shouldn't allow the Republicans to control all three branches of the government again.

Answer 6

No so. I am neither wealthy or a democrat. I do believe that everyone should do their best, work and earn their own way. I don't think that people should have child after child and get check after check with no accounting for the drugs that they spend it on.

We had to earn everything that we have. Nothing has been given to us nor have we inherited anything. My own father was killed when I was just a baby, so there was nothing to pass on anyway. His father was AN OLD school republican and don't you dare differ from his views for a second. They were poor farmers and paid CASH for everything including their house. If you couldn't afford it, then it wasn't a necessity. He wouldn't even let his kids trick or treat because he didn't want his kids begging for candy around the neighborhood. If ever I saw a man of integrity, it was him.

I believe in a flat tax for everyone. I believe in Honesty and standing up for what is right for America. I think that those who burn our flag and complain endlessly should not be in our country and I believe that a proud American will defend their freedoms to the very very end of time.

Answer 7

Wealth distribtion is simply another way the government can control you wallet. This is really the worst idea ever ! It steamrolls the very foundation this country was built on hard work and inititive. I don't care that 2% of the population holds 60% of the wealth. They also pay a good chunk of the taxes (an obsorbably higher percetage than I do). This is really rediculous.

Answer 8

I dont have faith in "redistribution of wealth" yet particularly there are lots of people who're wealthy and are probable that way inspite of out having to do no longer undemanding paintings (you think of Cindy McCain labored no longer undemanding for her inheritance). yet i think of that is basically stupid how anybody assumes Obama is straight away declaring, "wealthy people share you cash!" He particularly needs the wealthy to attain that in the event that they have a potential of residing conveniently, it would possibly no longer remember in the event that they get taxed or no longer. for people that are commencing a small employer, the tax might desire to no longer likely be that severe in case you have already got the money and sufficient funds to commence the employer interior the 1st place. there are various idiots who have not have been given any money or employer finance education, that think of commencing up a employer will immediately furnish them with a competent earnings (maximum small employer fail, because of the fact they're basically undesirable recommendations and don't usher in sales) for people that are unfavourable or under the 'wealth' qualification, no longer getting taxed will help them get to the comparable point, or nearer to those that're already wealthy. you could no longer assume anybody who's unfavourable does not paintings no longer undemanding, many basically would possibly no longer have the potential (ie: college training) to get a job with a greater robust earnings (in the event that they are no longer taxed, possibly they are able to maintain greater money for college). The tax money helping welfare platforms, i've got faith anybody is already contributing to this. that is kinda like whilst Katrina broken the south, tax payers have been helping construct residences and to convey a great city decrease back on its feet. we gained't basically say, "i'm no longer paying taxes to help somebody who's lost a house in a organic disaster!" (and please do no longer assume that each and every typhoon to hit that section reasons injury--that is uncommon!!!!!!!) And shall we undergo in recommendations that if Obama wins, he's basically in place of work for 4-8 years...the subsequent president might come to a decision to tax the unfavourable/middle type, then we will see who's plan exchange into greater desirable for the economic gadget.

Answer 9

I doubt that either the democratic or republican party would agree that those are their positions.

For the "democratic argument" - if this minority of "anti-democratic" wealthy are so powerful how come the richest people aren't the richest anymore?

Why do so few (2%) millionaires inherit?

Answer 10

I think most people would like to fall somewhere in the middle of the two views.
The road to prosperity in America should be open to all those who undertake it. Roadblocks to prosperity need to be removed as they arise.
One of the problems we face is that there are many more Americans who live above poverty and are unfamilar with the problems poor people face in acheiving success. We seem to be more willing to help those who are not in need than those who are in need.