Why do Liberals hate the rich and powerful?

[Mister Emu]

We do not need leaders. We feel competent to conduct our affairs without outside assistance, and to form our own opinions without guidence from above.

Oddly enough that is what true conservatives want(not nessecarily meaning Republican here), and seems absolutely the opposite of democrat/liberal ideas which have government involving itself in more and more of our affairs...

Here's a better question: Why do conservatives hate poor people so much?

In the vein of your response... do I hate myself?

 

[Copernicus]

Oddly enough that is what true conservatives want(not nessecarily meaning Republican here), and seems absolutely the opposite of democrat/liberal ideas which have government involving itself in more and more of our affairs...

That's right. I'm a real "conservative" when it comes to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or getting the government to endorse religious messages or giving government the power to eavesdrop on my phone conversations and read my email. It's too bad that conservatives tend to vote for policies that get the government into regulating personal conduct and matters of personal conscience.

Here's a better question: Why do conservatives hate poor people so much?

In the vein of your response... do I hate myself?

That is a very good question, and I've asked it of many conservatives who are not rich. Why do you keep voting for policies to enrich the rich and worsen your own situation in the process? If you don't hate yourself, you sure are behaving strangely.

 

[Smoke]

It's not that liberals hate the rich and powerful; it's more than liberals don't share conservatives' slavish adulation of the wealthy and powerful, much less conservatives' curious superstition that wealth and power are always the result of virtue and honest work. What seems like hatred is really just the absence of idolatry.

 

[rojse]

I believe you are confusing being famous with being powerful.

Fame translates quite well into power in some regards.

 

[Sunstone]

Why does Rick start threads based on unfounded assumptions?

Rick likes to tease people.

 

[Supergate]

Why do the rich and powerful have such utter contempt for the rest of the populace?

Anyone?

Because Big Fish need to hate Little Fish and be fearful of little fish. But all that shall be over once the Ori come and lay them low.

 

[Supergate]

Oddly enough that is what true conservatives want(not nessecarily meaning Republican here), and seems absolutely the opposite of democrat/liberal ideas which have government involving itself in more and more of our affairs...

Freedom from oppresion, from being watched, from being led astray, and from being helped.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Originally Posted by Nanda
Your contempt for the struggling never ceases to amaze me. So many people in this country work their fingers to the bone, but still can't afford homes or health insurance.

That's simply not true.

While not everyone is like this, opinions such as this do not help the liberal/conservative debate.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's right. I'm a real "conservative" when it comes to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or getting the government to endorse religious messages or giving government the power to eavesdrop on my phone conversations and read my email. It's too bad that conservatives tend to vote for policies that get the government into regulating personal conduct and matters of personal conscience.

Firstly, as for abortion, yes I believe it is needs to be banned for the vast majority of cases... I know quite a few people who believe the same about capital punishment... I think even if we disagree with the classification of a certain act, we can all respect fighting against, what is perceived to be, unjust killing... I really don't want to turn this into an abortion debate, so I'll leave it at that...

As for the rest, I do not support the government endorsing a specific religion, or eavesdropping on my phone and email... as I specifically noted, I was not nessecarily referring to republicans when I said conservative...

That is a very good question, and I've asked it of many conservatives who are not rich. Why do you keep voting for policies to enrich the rich and worsen your own situation in the process?

Because I do not believe I have the right to force someone else to care for me... I don't have a right to someone else's money just because they have it and I do not...

Also, I do not vote for the worsening of my situation... I vote for lower taxes, so I can have more of my own money... I think the government needs to cut spending, and cut programs and cut buerocracy, not add it, so I see no reason to vote for higher taxes for anyone else either...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

***MOD POST***

This is just a reminder to keep your posts civil and to make sure posts aren't attacking each other, just the ideas.

Thanks!
​

 

[Copernicus]

Firstly, as for abortion, yes I believe it is needs to be banned for the vast majority of cases... I know quite a few people who believe the same about capital punishment... I think even if we disagree with the classification of a certain act, we can all respect fighting against, what is perceived to be, unjust killing... I really don't want to turn this into an abortion debate, so I'll leave it at that...

Fair enough, but don't then claim that conservatives don't want the government "involving itself in more and more of our affairs". From a conservative perspective, government has a legitimate role to play when it comes to certain personal choices.

As for the rest, I do not support the government endorsing a specific religion, or eavesdropping on my phone and email... as I specifically noted, I was not nessecarily referring to republicans when I said conservative...

I get your point, but the term "conservative" can apply to a lot of different points of view, and not all of them fit a libertarian concept of conservatism. In general, conservatives are those who seek to preserve the status quo or return to a social condition that existed earlier, not necessarily those who seek to minimize government interference in personal lives. When conservatives argue for minimal interference, it is usually restricted to just those social policies that conservatives consider "liberal". In other areas, government interference is considered necessary, if not welcome. For example, conservatives typically want the government to reduce regulation of markets, whereas liberals typically want more government regulation. On the other hand, liberals typically want less interference in so-called "moral" choices made by individuals, whereas conservatives typically want more government interference.

Because I do not believe I have the right to force someone else to care for me... I don't have a right to someone else's money just because they have it and I do not...

That is very noble of you, and I share that sentiment. However, taxes are necessary in order to fund government activities. The real question is whether the government ought to have something like a progressive income tax, which is not aimed at individuals, but levels of income. Those who have extremely high levels of income depend on government more to help them preserve and grow their wealth. That greater dependence requires a greater investment in the common good. They can afford to carry a greater tax burden, and, in return, the government enforces the laws that keep them secure in their wealth.

Also, I do not vote for the worsening of my situation... I vote for lower taxes, so I can have more of my own money... I think the government needs to cut spending, and cut programs and cut buerocracy, not add it, so I see no reason to vote for higher taxes for anyone else either...

Yet no taxes on your wealth would probably result in a complete destruction of the economy that generates the wealth you so covet. So the question is not one of lowering taxes but what is the right level of taxes to maintain and grow prosperity. The government has always played a central role in maintaining an even playing field where people can maintain stable, healthy lifestyles. We have seen how important that is in the last 8 years, when the conservative-dominated government steadily reduced its oversight of markets to the point that vast sections of the population have experienced a rapid decrease in wealth. Now you may not want to identify the Republican party with conservatism, but that is the implementation of conservativism that our society has settled on.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The real question is whether the government ought to have something like a progressive income tax, which is not aimed at individuals, but levels of income. Those who have extremely high levels of income depend on government more to help them preserve and grow their wealth. That greater dependence requires a greater investment in the common good. They can afford to carry a greater tax burden, and, in return, the government enforces the laws that keep them secure in their wealth.

I think you have it backwards. Back in the day, only white land owners could vote, but only white land owners paid taxes. While on the surface this was grossly unfair and needed to be changed, the pendulum has swung the other way. Now people who have no skin in the game get to decide what the other half will do.

Just who has more to gain here? People dependant on the government for everything from the womb to the tomb have a greater dependance on the government.

The government that does not back their currency with anything tangible that continues to print money to help the poor, is robbing the people's security and wealth.

Tell me again who is the greater beneficiary of government involvement?

 

[Draka]

Tell me again who is the greater beneficiary of government involvement?

On the flip side, why don't you ask that of the major airlines who are constantly getting rescued by the government (when they should just fail if they suck so other smaller and better airlines can move to the forefront) and the big banks and corporations who got bailout money and used it to spend on vacations and whatnot? Where are your complaints about the wealthy getting wealthier by lobbying the government to favor them while they trample the little guy?

Maybe you could stop for one moment and think of supportive government programs like food stamps and medicare as some kind of balancing act to offset the the fact that the wealthy can get lobbyists to finagle the government to get what they want when they want it?

 

[Reverend Rick]

On the flip side, why don't you ask that of the major airlines who are constantly getting rescued by the government (when they should just fail if they suck so other smaller and better airlines can move to the forefront) and the big banks and corporations who got bailout money and used it to spend on vacations and whatnot? Where are your complaints about the wealthy getting wealthier by lobbying the government to favor them while they trample the little guy?

Maybe you could stop for one moment and think of supportive government programs like food stamps and medicare as some kind of balancing act to offset the the fact that the wealthy can get lobbyists to finagle the government to get what they want when they want it?

I'm against corporate welfare even more than personal welfare. If we are going green, why would we encourage the use of wasteful air travel?

Businessmen are the lions share of the travelers and face to face business cross country is stupid when we have "Go to meeting". Flying should be expensive and cheap fares and multiple airlines going to the same cities should fail.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just who has more to gain here? People dependant on the government for everything from the womb to the tomb have a greater dependance on the government.

My problem with the whole idea that only lazy people need help from the government is people like me, only need alittle help, and only once in awhile. While people who don't work get an abundance of help, and I agree that they shouldn't get as much help, or should have to do something to pay back the money, which would probably get some of the non-workers to go out and get a job, which would leave more money for people who are just needing a boost to stay afloat.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hey Father_Heathen; you can pull all the historically revised crap you want - no other President in the US has tried to so fundamentally change the United States' core values than Obama has with "Private Sector income caps" and "nationalized health care".

Doesn't "nationalized healthcare" work in Canada???

Just a question...tis all...

And if it does...then what's the beef?

 

[whereismynotecard]

Anyone?

because the rich and powerful are greedy jerks.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Rick likes to tease people.

my goodness man...!!!!

Look at all those frubals...

You give a new meaning to the phrase..."i'm seeing stars"!!!!!!

 

[Mister Emu]

Fair enough, but don't then claim that conservatives don't want the government "involving itself in more and more of our affairs". From a conservative perspective, government has a legitimate role to play when it comes to certain personal choices.

I will, especially when I want the government involved in far less of my, and your, affairs than any democrat I've ever heard of...

I get your point, but the term "conservative" can apply to a lot of different points of view, and not all of them fit a libertarian concept of conservatism.

I understand that, when I think conservative, I think small-government conservative... my apologies...

However, taxes are necessary in order to fund government activities

I never said I was completely against taxes...

The real question is whether the government ought to have something like a progressive income tax, which is not aimed at individuals, but levels of income.

I also never disagreed with a progressive tax...

Yet no taxes on your wealth would probably result in a complete destruction of the economy that generates the wealth you so covet.

I never said I want no taxes... and "the wealth so covet"?

 

[Luminous]

i believe that liberals do not like the rich and powerful because of two reasons. First, the money the rich have is just stored up selfishly for a rainy day. I'm not sure what type of raining day needs millions or billions of dollars (maybe the crisis the US is suffering now, which the rich would only use their money to help themselves), but the rich believe that since they earned the money they do not need to share it. If the people of a nation are suppose to be considered united like a family (brothers and sisters), then why do the rich not look out for their poor brethren or sisters that are suffering. However, people only consider their blood family their true family even though a person could have a friend that is more like a brother/sister and a blood brother/sister who acts like an enemy. I guess people who have money only really want to carry on their family name so they keep as much of their money as possible saved up in order for their descendants to live comfortably (even if their descendants are criminals) This adds to why liberals do not like the rich since the rich are usually selfish and care only about themselves/ their families. Now if you try to argue that some rich give to charities and help, then i will counter with that is true, but then why do the rich still need millions or billions of dollars. Couldn't 10 million dollars be enough for an individual to leave the rest of their lives on comfortably. Since the rich are greedy they usually feel they need more money and more money to seek happiness.
Liberals do not like the powerful because the powerful eventually misuse their power. They use their power for their own benefits and not for the good of the country. The people of a nation lose their freedom because the powerful do not want to lose their control/power since the powerful take more freedoms away from the people to ensure the powerful people's power.

Trical down economics usually doesn't work for that same reason.

it is immoral for the rich not to help the deserving poor and for the powerful not to help the deserving powerless.