Did you ever notice that the ones who push for mandatory redistribution of wealth (socialism) never seem to voluntarily give all of their money to those less fortunate? How can someone who is worth millions claim that WE should be willing to redistribute OUR “wealth” until there is financial equality with the least fortunate, while they themselves still have millions?
Do they want to pass laws to force the rest of us to share our money because they believe that everyone is just like them (greedy), or is it merely a ploy to further increase the size and reach of the federal government?
Why do they prefer that WE give our money to a government agency, which, in typical government fashion, will squander %70 of it on ‘administrative fees’ and paying government salaries, instead of giving it directly to the poor, or to a local charity which can more efficiently help those in need in our own towns and cities?
How can any thinking person advocate such a federally-mandated redistribution of wealth, while the previous New Deal program (Social Security) has proven to be such a boondoggle that various persons in government now want to privatize it? Why would we want to replace one unConstitutional, inefficient program with another program that is even more unConstitutional and more inefficient?
Those who advocate a great “Nanny State” cry that it’s about compassion. Fine, let THEM give all their money to the poor, until they have the same amount as the least among us. I don’t even want to hear their claim of compassion while they drive their Cadillac SUV by the homeless and poor.