Does big government equal social justice???

[BOBO]

It appears to me that many of the constituency seem to view big government as the 'cure all' regarding social inequality. Both taxes & wealth redistribution seem to be the preferred avenues that the social equality crowd navigates to arrive at their expectations. I must ask though, IF big government does indeed bring forth true social equality how does the social equality crowd explain Former senator Ted Kennedy & senator John McCain??? I mean both senators mentioned were/are wealthy far beyond their government pay allotment by all assessments.
I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, just curious how the big government crowd goes about rationalizing their love affair with big government.

 

[martybegan]

It appears to me that many of the constituency seem to view big government as the 'cure all' regarding social inequality. Both taxes & wealth redistribution seem to be the preferred avenues that the social equality crowd navigates to arrive at their expectations. I must ask though, IF big government does indeed bring forth true social equality how does the social equality crowd explain Former senator Ted Kennedy & senator John McCain??? I mean both senators mentioned were/are wealthy far beyond their government pay allotment by all assessments.
I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, just curious how the big government crowd goes about rationalizing their love affair with big government.

Government, in particular the federal government, is the only organization with the reach and the force to implement social justice as it is seen by the statists.

To them social equality has not been reached, so rich people contiue to exist. Also, most of the time, they are just FINE with certain people being able to keep thier wealth, they just want people who disagree with them politically to lose thier wealth, their voice, and thier rights.

What they don't mention is that there will always be a political overclass, and it is thier goal to BE that overclass once they get thier statist way.

 

[grunt11b]

Social Justice is a term that communists like to use to hide the fact that they are communist.

 

[MiddleClass]

Big government is the only modern day counter to the evils of of unfettered capitalism. Americans have gotten to lazy and afraid to counter it themselves with labor strikes and protests. And far too many lazy minded Americans only receive their political and social guidance from talk radio and Fox News. So if it is not government countering the evil corrupted greed, than who? God needs warriors to fight Evil, and if that means a strong central government, than so be it.

 

[Nosmo King]

So many misconceptions. So much stupid spin.

Social justice is the way to ensure everyone gets an even break. Since the vast majority of the wealth is held by the slimmest of minorities, the essential failing of Capitalism is glaringly apparent. Once that wealth has disappeared from the grasp of each working American, the very American dream is endangered.

Many so called pundits on the right (and that 'right is getting more and more extreme) cite social justice as some Communist cabal. It figures. The right has a playbook for political success. And that playbook calls for playing the 'Communist" card whenever their political policies have failed. They started playing that commie card way back in 1919 and every thirty years or so, they dust it off and play it again.

How much justice can there be in a system that permits, even encourages by legislation that wealth can be consolidated among the very few? Reagan introduced "Supply Side" economics (Trickle Down or Voodoo Economics) and completely ignored the demand side! Coddle the rich with tax cuts, rewrite legislation to prevent monopolies and trusts that are "too big to fail" and bail the bastards out once they have committed enough common sense infractions and run the whole system into a ditch.

The basic problem with ignoring the demand side is it cuts the strength out from under the consumer base in our system of economics. Forget the consumer and who's left to buy the goods and services provided by the Supply Side?

And here's the real kicker: the very people most adversely effected by the consolidation of wealth (the American middle class consumer) are the folks hoodwinked by the pundits. How many people face foreclosure, and increase in tax rates (see "Flat Tax") and a vanishing industrial base. Do you suppose those modern American "Conservatives" have actually thought out how their compliance with Supply Side economic policies have screwed them blue? I doubt it! There's enough of a side show with the 'pundits' to keep them distracted from the wreck happening in their own lives. The pundits distract with social issues that foment hate and division. It gives those non-thinking American Conservatives enough red meat (hating immigrants, gays, minorities and the political opposition) and prevents real analysis of destructive policies like "Free Trade" and "Flat Taxes".

And so, we get the Social Justice movement. The pundits immediately play the Communist Card and voilà! The danger is apparent to the modern Conservative and any hope of understanding the means and ends of the movement are veneered by the old Red Scare!

 

[manifold]

I don't know about big government, but I'd certainly agree that good government equals the best option for social justice. The real debate lies in what constitutes good government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So many misconceptions. So much stupid spin.

I expect that is exactly what I will find in your post.

Social justice is the way to ensure everyone gets an even break. Since the vast majority of the wealth is held by the slimmest of minorities, the essential failing of Capitalism is glaringly apparent. Once that wealth has disappeared from the grasp of each working American, the very American dream is endangered.

How is taking opportunities from one group and giving them to another group in any way giving everyone an even break? An even break is giving an interracial man who is born to a poor family the same chance of becoming president as a white man who is born to a rich family. We already have that, so we do not need social justice.

Many so called pundits on the right (and that 'right is getting more and more extreme) cite social justice as some Communist cabal. It figures. The right has a playbook for political success. And that playbook calls for playing the 'Communist" card whenever their political policies have failed. They started playing that commie card way back in 1919 and every thirty years or so, they dust it off and play it again.

Many so called pundits on the left use the fact that a few pundits on the left do not understand social justice as an excuse to insist that we need it. They then argue that the fact that the right is currently rallying behind a black man is proof that they are prejudiced. They play that race card whenever their policies have failed, and it looks more ridiculous every time they do it.

How much justice can there be in a system that permits, even encourages by legislation that wealth can be consolidated among the very few? Reagan introduced "Supply Side" economics (Trickle Down or Voodoo Economics) and completely ignored the demand side! Coddle the rich with tax cuts, rewrite legislation to prevent monopolies and trusts that are "too big to fail" and bail the bastards out once they have committed enough common sense infractions and run the whole system into a ditch.

How can there be justice when one side insists that wealth cannot be accumulated? Do you honestly believe that the fact that a poor black child grew up to be President of the United States and is now part of the 1% is a bad thing? Would you prefer that he had remained poor his entire life? Should we confiscate all wealth in the entire world and distribute it evenly? Would you object to the social justice of tearing down your home and moving you into a hut with a family in Ethiopia, or does your call for justice only apply to those who have more than you, not less?

By the way, it was the left that was worried about the banks that were too big to fail, the right wanted to let them fail. Don't let facts like that interfere with your idiotic rants though.

The basic problem with ignoring the demand side is it cuts the strength out from under the consumer base in our system of economics. Forget the consumer and who's left to buy the goods and services provided by the Supply Side?

Supply side economics is about stimulating the demand, demand side economics is about doing the same thing. I think you are a little confused.

And here's the real kicker: the very people most adversely effected by the consolidation of wealth (the American middle class consumer) are the folks hoodwinked by the pundits. How many people face foreclosure, and increase in tax rates (see "Flat Tax") and a vanishing industrial base. Do you suppose those modern American "Conservatives" have actually thought out how their compliance with Supply Side economic policies have screwed them blue? I doubt it! There's enough of a side show with the 'pundits' to keep them distracted from the wreck happening in their own lives. The pundits distract with social issues that foment hate and division. It gives those non-thinking American Conservatives enough red meat (hating immigrants, gays, minorities and the political opposition) and prevents real analysis of destructive policies like "Free Trade" and "Flat Taxes".

This paragraph contains so many misconceptions and spin it is hard to know where to start. Every chart I have seen shows there are more people who are millionaires now than there were in 1980, yet you are telling me wealth is more concentrated in a smaller number of people. While it is true that the middle class it is smaller it is because they are, on the average, richer than they were, not poorer.

As for free trade, even a demand side guru like Krugman supports it. Is he one of the non thinking Americans?

And so, we get the Social Justice movement. The pundits immediately play the Communist Card and voilà! The danger is apparent to the modern Conservative and any hope of understanding the means and ends of the movement are veneered by the old Red Scare!

And you play the non thinking card, even though it is clear that you are the one who is not thinking.

 

[Katzndogz]

I will break it to you.

Goverment is the most effective from robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep Paul happy. The government just won't do that forever. Eventually, when that government gets powerful enough, they tell Paul to go screw himself. By that time there is nothing Paul can do about it and Peter has long gone.

Fidel Castro took over Cuba with the revolution promising the campesinos everything. The wealthy moved to Miami. Cuba is now an uncomfortble little hellhole. That's how it works.

 

[The T]

I will break it to you.

Goverment is the most effective from robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep Paul happy. The government just won't do that forever. Eventually, when that government gets powerful enough, they tell Paul to go screw himself. By that time there is nothing Paul can do about it and Peter has long gone.

Fidel Castro took over Cuba with the revolution promising the campesinos everything. The wealthy moved to Miami. Cuba is now an uncomfortble little hellhole. That's how it works.

Larger example was the Soviet Union.

 

[The T]

I don't know about big government, but I'd certainly agree that good government equals the best option for social justice. The real debate lies in what constitutes good government.

Wrong. Government exists for equal oppritunity...NEVER outcome.

It wipes out incentive to excell.

 

[Avatar4321]

Big government is the only modern day counter to the evils of of unfettered capitalism. Americans have gotten to lazy and afraid to counter it themselves with labor strikes and protests. And far too many lazy minded Americans only receive their political and social guidance from talk radio and Fox News. So if it is not government countering the evil corrupted greed, than who? God needs warriors to fight Evil, and if that means a strong central government, than so be it.

I've got news for you. Americans dont need people like you trying to tell us that you know better for us than we do. Because you know what? You dont know jack.

 

[bucs90]

If all things in life were forced to be totally equal, then liberals would bitch that "I'm too ugly to get the hottest women, and they are getting hotter women, I want sexual fairness!!!!"

Yep. If all else was equal, "sexual fairness" would be the catch phrase of the day, from libs demanding they get issued a 10 instead of the 6'1 tall dark and handsome men getting the 10's.

 

[The T]

Social Justice is a term that communists like to use to hide the fact that they are communist.

^THIS Because Communists know how to capitalize on unthinking emotions of the dumb masses. Thought by the dumb masses expends too much energy.

 

[manifold]

I don't know about big government, but I'd certainly agree that good government equals the best option for social justice. The real debate lies in what constitutes good government.

Wrong. Government exists for equal oppritunity...NEVER outcome.

It wipes out incentive to excell.

Nice strawman.

 

[Truthmatters]

It appears to me that many of the constituency seem to view big government as the 'cure all' regarding social inequality. Both taxes & wealth redistribution seem to be the preferred avenues that the social equality crowd navigates to arrive at their expectations. I must ask though, IF big government does indeed bring forth true social equality how does the social equality crowd explain Former senator Ted Kennedy & senator John McCain??? I mean both senators mentioned were/are wealthy far beyond their government pay allotment by all assessments.
I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, just curious how the big government crowd goes about rationalizing their love affair with big government.

Big government is an idiots phrase to make people believe something is wrong with government even if its working to protect the people

 

[Big Fitz]

It appears to me that many of the constituency seem to view big government as the 'cure all' regarding social inequality. Both taxes & wealth redistribution seem to be the preferred avenues that the social equality crowd navigates to arrive at their expectations. I must ask though, IF big government does indeed bring forth true social equality how does the social equality crowd explain Former senator Ted Kennedy & senator John McCain??? I mean both senators mentioned were/are wealthy far beyond their government pay allotment by all assessments.
I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, just curious how the big government crowd goes about rationalizing their love affair with big government.

Why does Social Justice always equal big government, tyranny and inequality?

Oh that's right. It's inherently unfair and discriminatory requiring centralized power which is often abused by anyone who lays their hands on it. To distill what that means:

Social Justice = Evil

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its crazy how many of these right wing fools HATE the government our founders left us

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't know about big government, but I'd certainly agree that good government equals the best option for social justice. The real debate lies in what constitutes good government.

The government that governs best, governs least."

 

[Truthmatters]

Another bull shit right wing line

 

[martybegan]

Its crazy how many of these right wing fools HATE the government our founders left us

The founders probably wouldn't recognize the government as it is today.

90% of thier responses to current federal programs would be "why aren't the states handling this?"