It's no wonder.
If they're basing their theory on districts it's because Democratic areas are more appealing. San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York are more desirable places to live than rural Mississippi or South Carolina.
Lets analyze the argument structure here:
the greed portion:
1. Democratic districts are typically richer.
2. Democrats typically attempt to raise taxes on the rich (themselves) to pay for welfare services (redistribution of wealth)
3. Therefore Democrats are greedy and self-serving
ergo by you're logic, 'Logicman':
The democrats are taxing themselves more to provide people other than themselves with assistance and are therefore somehow greedy and self-serving.
The logic doesn't follow and your moniker is woefully misplaced.
The logical conclusion of these two statements together negates the idea that this is either self-serving or greedy as they are willingly giving more of their own money (not greedy) to people other than themselves (as they're aren't the recipients of said money).
As for the 'covetousness of other people's money':
This is merely projection on the part of those people who habitually whine about having to actually contribute to and/or assist the society in which we live. The lack of personal initiative is a trait actually held by those that would rather do nothing about the poverty issue as opposed to those that are actually attempting something by trying to provide some form of economic stability to those in need. The mere idea of what you call redistribution of wealth (welfare services) is more about sustainable systems than anything else, welfare essential (from a macroeconomic level) is actually business welfare as those that receive it aren't hoarding it but spending it at local businesses thus providing economic activity where it wouldn't otherwise exist. This actually allows those industrious individuals who are attempting to take personal initiative by providing services to their communities to provide those services and hopefully thrive as well as providing basic nessesities to needy individuals. The vast majority of the poor grew up that way, basically without sufficient access to the resources that typically aids in successful assimilation into effective socio-economic activity. Welfare helps to alleviate that burden and attempts to provide the economic stability necessary to do such activities as attending college, trade schools or even perhaps taking that much acclaimed personal initiative and starting their own businesses which people like you claim to laud so fervently. The basic response of those that oppose this idea: 'Do nothing and let those without the ability to acquire the necessary resources fend for themselves'. If we were talking in terms of health care this basically amounts to: 'If you get sick suck it up no one is going help you.' Oddly enough the very same people are currently saying this as well. Ironically these people tend to claim to be Christian as well. Hell, I am an atheist and I am more Christian than those of you that belittle the poor are.
HINT: Your 'covetousness other people's money' is observed both by your desire to take more from the economy than you put in (typical business model) and your desire to attain the financial status of others rather than to only attain only that which you actually need. No system is sustainable if the idea is to take out more than one contributes. Every single 'Law of Nature' exemplifies the fact that systems set up like this (our economic model) cannot sustain themselves indefinitely and will eventually implode.
Greed is a desire to hold onto disposable income rather than to provide necessities those in need.
Self service is prioritizing one's own desires over the needs of others.
Personal initiative is actually taking action on recognized problems as opposed to doing nothing about them. (There can definitely be a discussion on what the appropriate action could be but currently there is only one side trying to take action.)
Responsibility is recognizing that we all need to work together and sometimes do things we don't want to do but have the ability to do.
In short sir, you have drank way too much of the cool aid that suits your desire for any sort of rationalization of your own faults. People like you are selfish, greedy, lazy, and irresponsible. I for one am glad that people like you are a dying breed and that the current trend shows that generations are becoming more liberal and that your kind will eventually cease to exist.
Why don't you liberals all go in together and give all the money you want and leave the rest of us alone?
As for greed, who do you think votes for the liberal redistribution of wealth leaders? People who want free or cheap stuff. Greedy people. People who want a free education that they don't want to pay for themselves. People who want free or subsidized healthcare; who want food stamps, free condoms, and all the other cradle to grave entitlements. And I have no doubt that if they could vote to get other people's money they'd do that too.
So enjoy your Kool Aid.
"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown
Last edited by Swit; 04-03-14 at 12:28 AM. Reason: Clarity