Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
What the hells that got to do with anything. Alot has changed in 60 years.
|
Do you think it's reasonable to expect a nation of 300M people to go from legal racism to be "color blind" in a generation?
Granted, a lot has changed but that doesn't mean we should expect an ideal that to date only science fiction writers have been able to imagine.
Quote:
|
I will assume, because we like to make assumptions here, that his comments do point to a plan that will benifit the poor and "underprivledged" as well as those that truly will stimulate the economy. So it's not just an economic stimulas package, it's a $$ redistribution package as well. I just heard that $200 mil will be spent on condoms. How the eff is that CHANGE.
|
To say that government output should be directed to the people based on their individual contribution doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The result would be a return to a society where all wealth is contained in the hands of a priveledged few and the rest would live in poverty. One only needs to look across the border to Mexico to see what this skewed weath equation would look like.
Our entire "progressive" tax system is built on the notion of wealth redistribution, and without it we probably wouldn't have a middle class.
This is not to say that redistrubtion should be so heavy as to remove incentive from the lower classes to participate and contribute, or to remove incentive for those with wealth to invest it. History has certainly demonstrated that a balanced approach can pick up the bottom without hampering growth on top.
But the argument I see time and time again, that...wealth redistribution is incompatible with a capitalistic society simply does not make any sense.
The same could be said for regulation and free markets.
It's
precisely because of the stability that such restrictions and programs provide that allows our system to sustain stable operations.
-spence