|
Even taking the viewpoint that distributing some of the wealth from the well to do in this country to the larger base of Americans struggling paycheck to paycheck is EXACTLY what is going to happen, I still do not understand the argument of why this is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing to want those who are very needy to have just a little bit more security in the areas of food, housing and medical care?
The disparity between the very rich and the very poor has never been greater in the USA than it is now. For all the fat cats sitting and crying the blues because their retirement accounts are down 40%, it rings hollow for the low income family that waters down their milk to make it last longer and prays to God their car doesnt break down in between paychecks. A poster earlier points out that families making less than 20k pay no income tax. Isnt that a good thing? Because if they were paying taxes that would be outrageous. The fat cats spend 20k on their dining out per year, not their total family budget. Im shocked that a family in the USA can even live on 20k a year. How is that possible?
I had this professor in undergrad that gave this lecture once that I will never forget. In that lecture he told all that students that when they left Cal-Berkeley and went on to be lawyers and doctors and engineers, to never forget that the wealth distribution in the USA is a heavily slanted pyramid. And that social services like welfare, food stamps and unemployment are the main line of defense that the wealthy have against angry mobs storming their neighborhoods with pitchforks and burning torches. Don't think for a moment that we are so civilized in the USA that this cannot happen. The day that comes that large amounts of the poor cannot feed their children or get medicine for their family and you will see anarchy. If you are rich, the smart play to protect your own security is to allow the governenment to invest in protecting the basics needs of the poor.
__________________
|