- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 26,430
- Reaction score
- 32,393
- Location
- Florida, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The wealthy have a moral obligation to help those who are less well off. But even if they didn't have that obligation, it would still be in their best interest to endorse a moderate amount of government redistribution of wealth to keep the imbalance from growing too large.
In the early '30s there was a real danger that either a Russian style socialist revolution would sweep over America, or America would descend into fascism in the attempt to suppress that threat. The main reason neither of those things happened was because of the New Deal. Economists will debate forever whether the New Deal did anything to ameliorate the Great Depression, but the redistribution of wealth that it represented took the wind out of the sails of the growing socialist movement. It's why Germany got Hitler and you didn't.
Only the wealthy have obligations? Why does the poor not have moral obligations as well? Why should anyone endorse any theft of property from one individual or company whether it is by a government, another company or individual ? Are you sure the main reason we got neither a Russian style revolution nor a Hitler was the New Deal and not the fact that we were a religious and moral nation instead ?