Politics, News & Issues >
Government & Policies
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs it proper for the federal government to seize and redistribute private property?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 20% | 20 votes | Total: 100 votes | |
| No | 80% | 80 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIf we would look at the standard of living in this country, we would find that a very select few individuals enjoy an extremely comfortable life, many live happily, and a very large group scrape by from paycheck to paycheck living with the terror of eviction, car trouble, and job loss. Most of these individuals live in the hearts of our cities and are trapped within because of the cost of social mobility. They simply have no resources for climbing out of the hole they are in; they barely, and sometimes don't even, have the resources to continue in their current state.
The question is, is this beneficial for society? Does it benefit the United States as a whole to have a massive percentage of economically oppressed individuals, contributing nothing but their blood, sweat, and tears to continue a life which no one will remember? If only these individuals had the means, they could climb out of their poverty and devote a life either to building the U.S. economy through business or to improving it in the areas of arts, sciences, and politics. Many of these individuals do possess talents and intelligence; what they do not possess is capital.
There are three venues for acquiring capital: One can earn it, One can receive it through charity, or it can be forcibly removed from someone else and handed to a person. Now that we have established why it benefits this country to move these people up the social ladder, we know that we must get to these people capital. They cannot earn it; a select few manage to, but the vast majority remain in their situation even if they try to climb out on their own. Charity does occur on a small basis, helping one person at a time for a very short time. Charity cannot accomplish this task on the scale needed.
The only venue left is redistribution, removing resources from richer citizens to give it to poorer ones. This tactic is already in place in the United States in the form of welfare and other government help, but the policies in place provide only marginal help to those who need it. Far greater redistribution is needed if this country is to feel the strength that only comes from a citizenry finally able to benefit society. The upward mobility provided by wealth redistribution would finally empower all citizens of the United States to pursue their goals and dreams and push this country forward.
Learn more about this author, Ronald C Stewart Iii.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Odessa Toma
The whole point of the Federal Government was to oversee the State governments, to ensure the rights of the people, you remember them right? WE THE PEOPLE.... It was not instituted to overly tax the people! The only people who will benefit from redistributed wealth will be the ones who are already wealthy, and the people who are already sucking the system dry by refusing to work. I've worked for an attorney who did Social Security Disability law, 95% of the clients for that firm who applied for SS Disability were well able to work, and were not really disabled, they were just lazy people who didn't want to work for their board and keep.
I would like for someone to please explain to me how raising taxes on a low-income familyhelps anything. Essentially that is what the whole Re-distribution of wealth is. It is taking the already over-taxed working class, taxing them some more, and then giving their hard earned money to people who don't want to work, they want to continue living off of the system. It will fund more babies (I have nothing against babies, I've got 3 myself), more drug and alcohol abuse, more ST D's being spread, more medical needs; which coincidentally will usher in the "Hillary-Care" that has been trying to get pushed through the hill for years now, thankfully with no success.
See when FDR instituted the welfare system, it was only supposed to help for a short period of time, it was NOT meant to be continued for the next 50+ years. The church was meeting the needs of the hungry and poor before welfare, and our society was a lot better off. But once the government stepped in, the need for the church in our communities died, except for the weekly services and holiday events such as Christmas and Easter.
Redistributio n of wealth is what Hitler, Stalin, and the other Communist countries endorsed, and if history is not mistaken, that didn't work out too well for them. When you give the government complete and total control, you surrender your unalienable rights, the ones that the framers of the constitution fought and died to ensure that they, and future generations would have those liberties; that the government wouldn't be able to put the proverbial foot on the neck of the people.
If you truly want to see how fast a country's economic system can collapse, then by all means, institutethe Karl Marx way, called Socialism - trust me your head will spin at how fast it will all come tumbling down to a grinding halt. I would hope that I have enough faith in the common sense of the people of this once great nation, that in the event this new or any succeeding administration, tries to institution this Socialist political system, that people will remember the words of the Constitution, take it to heart, and into their hands, and re-build upon the precepts laid down for us by the Founding Fathers.
Learn more about this author, Odessa Toma.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Has the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) done more good or harm in the agency's history?
- Should Washington, DC, become the 51st state?
- Should American farmers continue to receive government subsidies?
- Should the Freedom of Information Act cover federal court records?
- Was President Bush right to grant control of records to a president's family?
- Should private citizens and reporters who have unauthorized possession of classified information be allowed to publish it?
