do you agree or disagree, why or why not with the passage below?

According to Conservatives, the reason that people are poor is that they need to work harder. They don't think that they should be doling out money to help people because, as Roosevelt said, "...continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber." He said "Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers." So they think that the poor, as long as they are able to, should work for their money and that they shouldn't receive much help from the government. Exceptions are the disabled and others unable to work, they need to be given the basic needs. Conservatives like the welfare reform efforts that encourage welfare recipients to seek private sector employment. Ultimately the commitment to permitting the economy to operate freely and openly, which as little social and economic interference as possible.

According to the Liberal view, there should be help for those who demonstrate need. There is also a call for egalitarianism in income. Distribution of income should be governed by the simple and equitable principle that all members of a society should receive according to what they, or whatever they own, are able to produce. Also, people value work and leisure differently, so having a completely equal income would not be good. They say that public policy has failed in its efforts to close the gap between those at the very bottom of the income distribution and those at the top. They say that government's role in welfare is important. The way they want to do that is (1) Increase the minimum wage (2) Maintain and expand the earned income tax credit (3) Fostering Economic Opportunity and Personal Responsibility.

According to the Radical view, the bottom 90% of income earners must realize that they have to band together with the poor and mobilize around a new political agenda that puts their economic interests ahead of those of the rich. This also requires a new political party that can nullify capital's dominance of the currents political system. This requires a new political party, and a radical renovation of the tax structure such that taxes on inheritances above about a million dollars would become confiscatory. Next, only earned income below a certain threshold would be free from all taxes. And social welfare programs would be designed to help families in the most direct manner possible.

I agree with a mix of the Liberal and the Radical, mostly Liberal. It's just that the radical view just wouldn't work in this country's society. I think people are more likely to agree to a liberal approach to help the poor. Of course I think that if you are able, then you should work, but if you have children and disabilities, that's another story. People who need help should receive help from the government and charity. And I also don't think thateveryoneshould have an equal income. Some people are content with $500 and some are with $1000 a week -- as long as there is an excess amount of power in a few people. I also think that we need to tax the richer people, the 1%. It's not like I'm completely against billionaires, UNLESS they are using their money and power for bad causes, and get there by stepping on others. Like pollution and unfair treatment of workers (like Amazon). So I don't like those kinds of people, but I suppose people have the freedom to do what they want, as long as they do it the right and honest way, and make a positive impact on society, I have no problem with it.