Wealth redistribution doesn't achieve its intended purpose
I am constantly amazed when liberals accuse conservatives of not wanting to help poor people. When conservatives complain about taxes, the fact of the matter is, they are just trying to keep more of the money they have earned to do with as they please, which includes giving to charities and otherwise helping others in need.
Liberals ignore this and instead want the money taken from them by the government who will then (supposedly) use it to help the poor and needy. In so doing, the liberal politicians vilify those they take the most money from and expect a pat-on-the-back from those they give the money to. The pat-on-the-back expected takes the form of votes for the politicians who stand beaming in front of the crowds and act as if the money for the poor is their own. The process of taking the money and redistributing it involves much waste and inefficiency since bureaucrats manage the process. So ask yourself this question. If those being helped could not vote (like the unborn), would these liberal politicians still help? Also, when the source of the help is a government agency versus a private charity, how often do those helped change their lives so as not to need more help? In other words, how’s that working out for us?
— Art Godfrey, Ypsilanti