|
I'll vote over here because I really don't know if one would take all the liberals' wealth and
spread it around it would solve the poverty problem. It might! However, the question begs another,
when you have two groups of people, equally wealthy, one group liberal and the other conservative,
which group is generally more charitable--that would be an interesting study and quite revealing.
There are some folks who find control very addictive and just love to spend other folks' money.
Also, charity isn't charity when it is coerced. But I must also agree that charitable giving hasn't
adequately helped those who really need it; so the welfare state was destined to come into
existence. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Not all poverty. There aren't that many rich liberals. (why would a rich person support the idea of
taking money from rich people and giving it away?) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The UK had this system until the Liberal Reforms of 1909 and beyond. Charity just isn't enough for
precisely the reason that you are wrong in your assertion. Just look at the UK population in terms
of unemployment, health and all other economic indicators since then. Some form of welfare state is
absolutely needed. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
06 Nov 2008 22:32
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
