Quote:
Originally Posted by tankdriver
He didn't say. IMO, some 'redistribution' of wealth is necessary. I'm in favor of a progressive tax. It isn't direct redistribution, but I am also in favor of some programs designed to aid the poor not be poor.
|
Is it possible to " help the poor not be poor"? In general, it is a grand-sounding purpose, but as in all things political, with huge funds available, the devil is in the details.
We can all cite examples of how some program or other helped some poor person become less poor, but we can also cite examples of rampant waste and fraud. How do you help the deserving without also promoting more people to try to become poor to take advantage of the help? How do you weed out the cheats?
I do construction inspections. I see the results of minority and women-owned business set-asides on a regular business. The whole scheme is full of corruption. Men sell their businesses to their wives who may have little knowledge or involvement just to qualify for women owned set-asides.
Large successful businesses will often open a minority-owned company using all the same personal, but with a black as a front person.
Some of the true minority-owned business I see are among the most poorly run--they only survive because government contracts require them to get a % of the work. Several large General Contractors I know, plan to actually redo all the work of certain minority-owned businesses because their work is shoddy, but their involvement is required by the government.
I see a lot of parallels with the mortgage crisis--government involvement ( with all good intentions) allows greedy people to take advantage of government largess, and cost the taxpayers more money.
The question is how to do the commendable stuff w/o also doing the corrupt stuff.