So, let the rich go bankrupt so that the poor can pay their medical bills? Those things actually do cost money, but while I agree that medical bills can be insane, they shouldn't have to rely on the government to ask for money. They should ask people to help them. Sure, the money still goes from one pocket to another (maybe a little longer in the going, but it still ends up there), but you can help out people you want without the government accidentally making you bankrupt while helping people.
This is all a ruse to push socialism, and while I agree with the underlying notion, it does not really make daisies with the real world. If everybody worked and earned what they needed and actually cared for everyone else, this wouldn't be a problem. (Actually, you wouldn't need socialism if everyone automatically supported anyone else anyways, and you wouldn't need government.) So really, all a socialist government is doing is making the rich go bankrupt, encouraging people to go lazy because they get support, and putting money were people probably don't want it to go. It's more of a leech than social support.
Yes, let the rich pay, they already pay much less than other nations in terms of taxes. I would certainly help the 99% instead of the 1% who are so rich that paying a little more tax won't dent their vast coffers. A 10% tax increment on 200,000 is knocking off 20 grand, you still have 180,000 left. Unless you're telling me, you're going to hope for such rich people to be able to afford that extra golf club instead of saving a poor man's life.
All this Republican, ''Can-Do'' attitude is utterly moronic. If a person has not been able to find a job for two years, they can't, and they can't ''help themselves''. It's not like they don't want to work, Americans have been protesting for ages for jobs. So no, money does not ''end up in everyone's pockets'', it stays in the rich, and the luxury goods sellers who sell the goods to the rich, without touching the pocket's of the poor.
Again no, social justice is needed. What the Republicans seemingly ignore in their attitude that self reliance is the best panacea is that people can't help themselves if their stuck in a nightmare of morgage, growing children, bank interests, and basic necessities without proper jobs. So no, in times like this, it's not a leech, the government is merely doing its job which it promised its electorate; to help the people.
All sunshine and daisies, right?
Mage hit the nail on the head.
The ones we have during recessions? If you want to experiment with the welfare and money of the people, you should probably do it when people have money.
All fiscal, supply side and monetary policies are experiments; they all have long gestation periods, by which the crisis conditions could have changed or ended. If you introduce vast expenditure in an expansionary fiscal policy, but the crisis has ended, you're going to end up pushing up inflation. So yes, all policies are in their own rights, risky experiments.
Isn't that their own fault?
Not when insurance companies jack prices up so the poor can't afford it.
So logically, we should forcibly take money from everyone else to pay for them?
Yes of course. We should take it back from the insurance companies who jack the prices up. We should also wean the rich off some of their riches, and give back to society. This is not Hollande's insane 75% tax increment, this is ensuring that everyone can at least enjoy a decent standard of living.
Great! So more money has to come from somewhere else!
Taxes from the rich and the insurance companies. Have you actually been following the news, or are you being an ignoramus? Just look at the list of where funding will come from, it's all on the internet.
And the law of equivalent exchange says that someone has to lose the money for them to make money. So isn't this just "helping" people at the expense of other people?
The rich lose out. They can afford it, and that's how social justice works, unless you want an America with an increasing inequity standard, leading to more unrest in the future, just like China.
Ah yes! I forgot that insurance companies and rich people where not people. Silly me, thinking that they where people?
Your taking money unwillingly from people, regardless if they are "Rich" or not, and giving it to other people. Last I checked, that is called "stealing".
The government has the right to tax, and the government has a duty to all its people, to make life as fair and as decent as possible. If it means harming the minority slightly for the sake of the vast majority, yes, that's the way to go. It's not like the government will outright shake all the gold out of the rich and turn them into paupers.
I also completely forget that you like to argue for arguments' sake, and just bash at both sides of the coin.
So logically next we should use other peoples money for other things we need. You know what we need more then health care? Food! Millions go without food in America. Probably. So logically we should go to some random rich persons house, take all their food, and give it to random poor people! Everyone knows that rich guys are not people! And of course people need transportation, so lets take their car and give it away! Yay!
You're being absurdly silly. People who are starving are already receiving Federal help in the form of food stamps, soup kitchens and the right.
Also, slippery slope.
