[grassroots1]

I'm not anxious to repeat it either, there's no need.

[TruePolitics]

lucky, if saying that life is unfair justifies rich people screwing over the poor, then you might as well say that judges can make unfair judgements in court because life's not supposed to be fair. Why do you not care about fairness? Is it because you're happy with your life as it is and so you don't care about injustices happening to other people? If capitalism is unfair as it is, why wouldn't you want to try and change it?

[Drlee]

Life is unfair. If you're ugly, you have to work a lot harder to get a husband, if you are born with no legs you have to work a lot harder to get anywhere, if you're born with a smaller brain you'll have a tougher life than a genius, and if your parents are poor and can't help you, you'll have to work a lot harder than somebody that gets a huge help from parents. Not many capitalism supporters will deny any of this.

You are denying the role of government and doing the same sloganeering of which you accuse grassroots1. The issue is not about ugly people or dumb people. The issue is about the official position of the government in all this. Take your example of the man with no legs. The government has mandated that businesses they license uild ramps to allow him access. They do the same themselves so that he has an equal access. He will never be able to run upstairs but he won't be left in the street either. Here you have given us the perfect example of the role of government in controling the free enterprise system.

Before the people with disabilities act there was virtually no such thing as curb cuts, wheelchair ramps and handicapped parking. Why? Because the people requiring these services did not represent a market large enough to motivate business to accommidate them. I remember those days and it was not at all unusual to see a person in a wheelchair waiting outside for an able bodied person to do their shopping for them. So the government decided that these people deserve equal access to public facilities including businesses who rely on the government for their license to do business. Your attitude is simply, fuck them. Let them wheel their asses on home. After all "if you are born with no legs you have to work a lot harder to get anywhere". Right? So people in wheelchairs did not attend high school with me because we did not have elevators for them to get to class. They were denied the very schools that their parent's tax money went to fund.

I am a conservative but that does not mean that I am cruel. (Unlike most libertarian assholes I have met.) I fully support these accommidations even though they require business to spend money it might not see as a profitable investment.

The liberals I have known held the same position that I do on these kinds of things. And it is the same attitude that the founders had. We believe that people should not be officially discriminated against. We believe that if we define the right to the pursuit of happiness solely as the oppportunity to earn enough money to be carried up the stairs that we limit that person's real opportunity to be happy.

[partisanin]

lucky, if saying that life is unfair justifies rich people screwing over the poor, then you might as well say that judges can make unfair judgements in court because life's not supposed to be fair. Why do you not care about fairness? Is it because you're happy with your life as it is and so you don't care about injustices happening to other people? If capitalism is unfair as it is, why wouldn't you want to try and change it?

Life isn't supposed to be unfair. It is unfair.

[lucky]

lucky, if saying that life is unfair justifies rich people screwing over the poor [...]

Excuse me, these are not my words.

Why do you not care about fairness?

Maybe I should qualify. The word "fairness" has many meanings. I don't care about "fairness" in the meaning that you used, i.e. equality, e.g. equality of amounts of money people get from their parents ("For the people who are poor, it's not fair that they have to work a lot harder for their money"). I already explained: I care about increasing incomes, I don't care about equalizing them.

You are denying the role of government

How did you read that from the paragraph you quoted? I said no such thing either.

[Drlee]

How did you read that from the paragraph you quoted? I said no such thing either.

I see. So if I am wrong then you would agree with me that in the cases you mentioned it is one of the roles of government to level the playing field.

Refer to my example of the man with no legs. Is it the governments job to ensure him access or not? No slogans. Just a simple answer will do.

[lucky]

Refer to my example of the man with no legs. Is it the governments job to ensure him access or not?

Whether something is the government's job or not depends on a country's laws. Whether it is a good idea for the government to do it? Depends on the details of: access to what. I'm not interested in discussing handicap regulations or a welfare policy with you in this thread, since here we're talking about liberals' emotions about rich people. I will just generally say that I do think that some welfare program is useful.

[nucklepunche]

The best part of the opening post is this.

Liberals love their iPhones, but hate the process that led to it's creation. Poor people don't make iphones.

Okay so liberals hate iPhones? Well you know who invented the iPhone? Steve Jobs. Now I present you with the following.

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php

Steve Jobs' Federal campaign contributions. Of the $229,000 he has donated he has given $209,000 to Democrats. Of the rest he gave $19,000 to special interest groups. Only $1000 was given to a Republican, the Republican in question being Paul "Pete" McCloskey, a liberal Republican who famously challenged Nixon for the Republican nomination on an anti-war platform. So I guess that means Steve Jobs is a socialist who hates iPhones and wants to "punish" the man who worked so hard to create iPhones since he resents his wealth so much... oh wait a minute, Steve Jobs invented the iPhone and is a liberal. As Reagan said, "There you go again." I get sick of conservative posters talking about how "liberals hate X" because it gets so sickening. I am not a liberal but I honestly get sick and tired of hearing this "liberals hate fill in the blank" argument repeated time and time again. So Steve Jobs is a member of a political party that wants to increase his marginal tax rate from 35% to 39%. Wow. That guy is a self-hater. A real communist.

[lubbockjoe]

Why do Liberals hate the rich so much?

rik,
You might be misreading hate for skepticism.

Let's assume 1 rich person has as much wealth as 80,000 average people in a capitalistic society:

Can one rich person really be as valuable as 80,000 average people? What could possibly make one rich person intrinsically 80,000 times more valuable than one average person? Is it even possible that one rich person is capable of being as productive as 80,000 ordinary people, (let's say... school teachers)?

If it is decided that one rich person cannot possibly be as valuable as 80,000 ordinary people, what does it say about that capitalistic system of value? If that capitalistic system does not accurately reward true value, what is it rewarding?

[Phred]

Let's assume 1 rich person has as much wealth as 80,000 average people in a capitalistic society:

Can one rich person really be as valuable as 80,000 average people?

Certainly. How valuable was Jonas Salk in comparison to 80,000 average people?

What could possibly make one rich person intrinsically 80,000 times more valuable than one average person?

The worth of what that person makes available to other people.

Is it even possible that one rich person is capable of being as productive as 80,000 ordinary people, (let's say... school teachers)?

The person himself? Perhaps not. But the goods or services he brings into existence? Sure. No question.

If that capitalistic system does not accurately reward true value, what is it rewarding?

In the Capitalist environment, a thing is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less. If that's not the most accurate measure of actual value, what measure do you believe should be used instead?





Phred

[TruePolitics]

What I can't understand is why someone feels like they need so much damn money. There gets to be a point where your money isn't good for anything else but to be greedy. That's all I can think of. The value of money is EXTREMELY high when you're dirt poor and fighting for your life. Once you sastify all your basic needs, the value of the money you get afterwards shrinks drastically. After basic needs you then move on to buy luxuries, and things you like. After this point money that you have has even less value. And also, if you look at the grand scheme of things, money is NOT what really matters. What matters is FRIENDS and the PEOPLE. Capitlism allows an individual to focus solely on his own selfish interests and not spend one second considering the greater picture of peace on earth, love among all humans, and other great left wing values.

[partisanin]

TruePolitics, the more money you have the more you can do. Like you can start a research program or any kind of business. I think anyone would think that they can decide that better than others. Or, if rich man decides to give that money away, he still gets to decide that + there's some glory in being generous.

[lubbockjoe]

Let's assume 1 rich person has as much wealth as 80,000 average people in a capitalistic society:

Can one rich person really be as valuable as 80,000 average people?

Certainly. How valuable was Jonas Salk in comparison to 80,000 average people?

I see your point Phred. But Jonas Salk would probably not have a reason to make a paranoid thread like, “Why Liberals hate rich people.”

Why does rik assume unjustified hatred?

If that capitalistic system does not accurately reward true value, what is it rewarding?

In the Capitalist environment, a thing is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less. If that's not the most accurate measure of actual value, what measure do you believe should be used instead?

I guess I veered a bit off-topic; however I was referring to the capitalist environment that exists in real life. You know… the US form of capitalism, the one that rewards the wealthy by their ability to purchase legislative favors for themselves.

That kind of wealthy person would certainly have reason to believe people hate him/her and that hatred would not be unjustified.

.

[grassroots1]

TruePolitics, the more money you have the more you can do.

Exactly! Like exclude competition, influence politics, pay off cops and judges, and generally make it so that the deck is stacked in your favor. Job creators!

Just repeat the mantra, "...concentration of wealth is good... concentration of wealth is good... concentration of wealth is good..."

Libertarians seem to not appreciate the true connection between wealth and power.

[TruePolitics]

TruePolitics, the more money you have the more you can do. Like you can start a research program or any kind of business. I think anyone would think that they can decide that better than others. Or, if rich man decides to give that money away, he still gets to decide that + there's some glory in being generous.

But as far as HAPPINESS is concerned, money doesn't buy it for you after a certain point. People who are dirt poor absolutely need money for their happiness, because it will be used for basic, crucial needs such as food, warmth, shelter, and clothing. After your basic needs are met, your happiness SHOULD NOT come from having a lot of money.

It is truly a sickness of mind that people feel they need such ridiculous amounts of money. For fuck's sake, you can buy anything you've ever wanted with a couple million dollars; why the FUCK do you need tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars? I just think it's greed.

[chanakyan]

liberals never hate rich people moreover liberalism always retains its bourgeois character.(but its a dynamic political philosophy....)
wewlfare state concept evolved with the view of enlisting the support of those vulnarable classes in order to maintain status quo ,actually its cleverly devised to contain unrest &hold the forces of revolution in check.

[ralfy]

Likely because one of the major causes of the current global economic crisis involves financial speculation from powerful banks and corporations.

[Unthinking Majority]

Why do conservatives hate poor people?

[Negotiator]

Why do conservatives hate poor people?

Err, what ?

This is the forum for liberalism.

With such a question, you should check out the forum for conservatism ... which IIRC already has a thread about exactly that question.

[nucklepunche]

why do Liberals hate the rich so much?

Why do conservatives always ask questions starting with, "Why do liberals hate...?"

If I gave away all my millions today, and became like you, would that change America? The answer is no. Therefore, you need me to be wealthy, so I can keep paying your welfare.

I don't understand why American conservatives and libertarians seem to think anybody who is not part of them not only is automatically a liberal, but lives on welfare or wants to live on welfare.

OK, now I'm confused. You want me to remain rich so your welfare check continues to come in. But at the same time, you keep criticizing me for being rich?

Once again, not everybody who is not a right-winger automatically lives on welfare.

What do you have against me creating jobs for people? At the end of the day, only the rich can employ people. I don't remember ever working for a broke person before, do you?

The problem is that the rich also want to make profit and will streamline jobs as much as possible and cut jobs where possible. The point is to make as much profit with as little cost as possible.

I fall in the top 1% or taxpayers, and I pay 42% of all the income tax collected by the government. Without me paying these huge taxes, how would you collect your welfare check? You can't. Seems to me you're biting the hand that feeds you.

Perhaps the most important point of all, is that wealthy Liberals like Pelosi, Obama, Al Gore, Soros, John Kerry, Oprah, have yet to give their money away to charity. If you Liberals really believe in wealth re-distribution, what better way to convince me than to show me?

The thing is that charity alone is not going to provide universal social safety nets. I don't think every rich person gives to charity.

At the end of the day, "wealthy Liberal" should be an oxymoron. Therefore, wealthy Liberals are all hypocrites.

So believing in the social contract and wanting to give back a portion to the society which allowed you to become wealthy through protecting property rights means you are a hypocrite? I'm sorry but nobody accumulated property in societies where there is no government. Show me one example of a stateless society above the hunter gatherer level and I will eat my own shoe.

Poor Liberals are hypocrites too, since I haven't heard any of you criticize the wealth of your rich counterparts. How come they haven't given their wealth away to help the poor like they preach?

In other words, you can either be a free market conservative or be a hypocrite.

Only the rich can create jobs. True.

NOT true. Look at the Works Progress Administration. Look at all the jobs created by GOVERNMENT during WWII for defense.

That means the only way for all of us to be equal like Liberals want, is if we all became poor. Everybody was equally poor in Communist Russia. They all were miserable because of it.

Not only does anybody who is not conservative live on welfare, but they are also communists. There is no middle ground. You can either be a self reliant free market right winger or a communist who lives on welfare.

So, essentially by wanting to get rid of rich people, Liberals want all Americans to be poor equally. Why?

When have liberals ever said this is what they want. Point to me one single liberal of the American definition who wants to "get rid of rich people." Maybe authentic communists do but I cannot think of any time a mainstream Democratic politician has said this. If you can show me an example of an elected Democrat in Federal or statewide office who has said that they want to "get rid of rich people" I will eat my other shoe.