• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Democrats hate wealth?

Neomalthusian said:
I think liberals are stuck on equality of outcome versus equal protection of the law.

I think they want the poor, lower, and middle classes to receive more from... somewhere... without considering what implications that has on the entity providing more to them.

I think they want to force the terms of private employment contracts, forcing employers to pay more than they need to or agree to.

I think they fail to see the way need-based handouts encourage the culture to learn to be needy.

I think they blame a lack of savings on insufficient income rather than on people's choice to spend all their money rather than save any.

I think liberals want peace all around but fail to grasp some of the basics about financial incentives, basic human behaviorism, and individual rights.

I think liberals understand the delicate environmental balance we're ****ing with, but refuse to acknowledge how helping the poor and feeding the hungry and giving everyone a maximum standard of living is ultimately environmentally destructive.
Click to expand...

Yep. The unintended consequences of "playing the system" have given us a massive increase in out of wedlock childbirth and single parent, no earner "families" that rely mainly on gov't handouts for their very existance. In order to "fix" public education and to pretend to leave "no child behind" we have instead let ALL of our children fall behind (based on world standards); it helps close the "achievement gap" but not by raising the bottom very much (if at all) but simply by lowering the average (and top?). Listening to many "youth" you now hear the words "like" and "you know" used as USELESS filler in nearly all sentences. All attempts to try to make "getting by" turn magically into a middle class existance, have simply lowered the bar while falsely increasing expectations that ANY job should somehow now provide a "living wage". The days of a highschool educated, semi-skilled trade worker being able to be Ward Cleaver are long gone in most parts of this country unless that position is in gov't and/or a union shop. USA, USA, USA...
 
No, they don't "hate" wealth.

By and large they simply would prefer the highest levels of wealth not be attainable in exchange for the lowest levels of wealth to be rarer, with most people being in huddled in a "fat middle" type of situation.

Conservatives, by and large, prefer the highest levels of wealth to be attainable even if the lowest levels of wealth become more common, with greater divergence throughout the "fat middle" which still holds most people.

As I said in another thread, say that wealth in the country is represented by two numbers...one the first number being the typical "low end" number and the other being the typical "high end" number, totaling 100. Stereotypically, your Democratic ideal would see those numbers as something like (L: 35 , H: 65) where as your Republican ideal would see those numbers as something like (L: 5, H: 95).

Democrats don't "hate" wealth anymore than republicans "love" poverty. Rather, in general, they simply place a greater need on the whole having a higher chance of being in the comfortable middle over the chances of some to attain the highest of highs while others potentially facing the lowest of lows.
 
Redress said:
Oddly enough, that was not my response. So lies on top of straw men. Well done!
Click to expand...

No, it was. You may not like my formulation of it, but it's what you said.

In any case, Robert Reich, for one, disagrees with your assertion that liberals have "no position" on wealth:

Liberals are concerned about the concentration of wealth because it almost inevitably leads to a concentration of power that undermines democracy.
Click to expand...

His cred is superior to, oh, yours vis-a-vis this particular question.

And, of course, it confirms what I said -- liberals get their knickers in a bunch about wealth they can't control.

EDIT:

Oh, and to answer your question, the conservative position on the Moon is that we should send people back, establish a base, and use it as a launching point for sending men to Mars. This, of course, was set into action, and was proceeding apace, reaching the testing phase -- we would have watched Americans on the Moon only a few years from now -- but then Obama killed it.

The further conservative position is that China intends to send men there, it would be better if we had people there to greet them when they do, rather than having them up there looking down at us. But once again, Mr. Obama saw fit to put the kibosh on all that.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
No, they don't "hate" wealth.

By and large they simply would prefer the highest levels of wealth not be attainable in exchange for the lowest levels of wealth to be rarer, with most people being in huddled in a "fat middle" type of situation.

Conservatives, by and large, prefer the highest levels of wealth to be attainable even if the lowest levels of wealth become more common, with greater divergence throughout the "fat middle" which still holds most people.

As I said in another thread, say that wealth in the country is represented by two numbers...one the first number being the typical "low end" number and the other being the typical "high end" number, totaling 100. Stereotypically, your Democratic ideal would see those numbers as something like (L: 35 , H: 65) where as your Republican ideal would see those numbers as something like (L: 5, H: 95).

Democrats don't "hate" wealth anymore than republicans "love" poverty. Rather, in general, they simply place a greater need on the whole having a higher chance of being in the comfortable middle over the chances of some to attain the highest of highs while others potentially facing the lowest of lows.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the details. The biggest logical falacy of the left is that effort will be expended even when it nets no gain, the biggest logical falacy of the right is that all have an equal ability to succeed regardless of how far behind that they start. Somewhere in between is the truth yet neither side is readily willing to admit that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The gov't take, via VERY PROGRESSIVE taxation, "for the common good" was once the extent of the liberal money grab, and somewhat justified, even agreed to by the right in large part. The emphasis NOW, however, has shifted to direct income redistribution, rather than spending ONLY for common "infrastructure" or services, coupled with an attitude that even if taxation does not support this spending, that it will simply be BORROWED and spent now, thus assuring future taxation is needed to repay that debt (kicking the can down the road).
Click to expand...

Would you not agree however, that poverty eradication is in the common interest?
 
Stewart said:
Would you not agree however, that poverty eradication is in the common interest?
Click to expand...

Certainly. Now how shall we go about achieving that? Shall we take the Robbing Hood liberal approach, where wealth is taken from those who have created it and given to those who value their leisure time above all else? Or shall we take the greedy conservative Constitutional approach, where each person is free to follow his/her dreams and reap the consequences thereof? Which is it to be: equality of outcome, or equality of opportunity?
 
Stewart said:
Would you not agree however, that poverty eradication is in the common interest?
Click to expand...

I'd not agree. I don't think it's actually possible to "eradicate" poverty without causing other issues and problems in society that can be equally damaging and harmful. I think some action towards lowering the amount of individuals in poverty or helping those in poverty in some fashion is useful, but the devil is in the details as ttwtt says...the question isn't whether or not to do it, but how to do it, how much to do, and at what cost.
 
Stewart said:
Would you not agree however, that poverty eradication is in the common interest?
Click to expand...

Yes but you do not get LESS of something by subsidizing it (out of wedlock childbirth) and MORE of something by taxing it (wages). When living on the dole yeilds a higher standard of living than a full time job at the minimum wage, the system is clearly broken. The biggest predictor of poverty (and crime) is not completing highschool and out of wedlock childbirth. Simply not rewarding failure will go a long way to reducing it. I am not advocating letting the poor simply starve, yet I am not for all carrot and no stick either. A return to the "poor house" concept would be FAR better, IMHO, than what we have now. If you can not make it on your own then you should not be left on your own, you should be required to trade part of your freedom for getting the extra help needed to make it on your own. The current system does nothing to break the cycle of poverty, after spending billions for decades we have no less poverty to show for the effort, just a higher standard of living for the non-productive. The current system is way too much carrot and little to no stick at all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The devil is in the details. The biggest logical falacy of the left is that effort will be expended even when it nets no gain, the biggest logical falacy of the right is that all have an equal ability to succeed regardless of how far behind that they start. Somewhere in between is the truth yet neither side is readily willing to admit that.
Click to expand...

Awkwardly enough, every decent sociological study in the last 40 years confirms that poverty is a trans-generational and the last 80 years of societal history confirm that in the American context, greater government involvement in people's lives did indeed improve their chances of achieving higher class statuses. Don't think so? Compare poverty rates 80 years ago vs those today. People in the Great Depression would laugh at Republicans constantly bitching about 8.3% unemployment rates.
 
I don’t think Democrats hate wealth. My guess is most Democrats in power are wealthy. But most Americans aren’t wealthy and I think many people would like to think that their politicians have some sort of understanding of where they come from. I don’t begrudge Romney being born into privilege. But let’s face it, he doesn’t know what it is like to have to struggle financially the way most Americans do or have done at some point in their lives. It is reasonable to think that sort of disconnect will affect the way one governs.
 
Democrats love wealth. Did the OP intend to ask if liberals hate wealth?

If so, I'd say liberals hate wealth the way adolescent kids with an attitude problem hate their parents. Vitriol at all times despite needing them day after day for their basic needs. Biting the hand that feeds.
 
joko104 said:
I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
Click to expand...

they hate wealth they cannot control

its amazing how so many "poor dems" go into public office and become multi millionaires
 
Harshaw said:
No, it was. You may not like my formulation of it, but it's what you said.

In any case, Robert Reich, for one, disagrees with your assertion that liberals have "no position" on wealth:



His cred is superior to, oh, yours vis-a-vis this particular question.

And, of course, it confirms what I said -- liberals get their knickers in a bunch about wealth they can't control.

EDIT:

Oh, and to answer your question, the conservative position on the Moon is that we should send people back, establish a base, and use it as a launching point for sending men to Mars. This, of course, was set into action, and was proceeding apace, reaching the testing phase -- we would have watched Americans on the Moon only a few years from now -- but then Obama killed it.

The further conservative position is that China intends to send men there, it would be better if we had people there to greet them when they do, rather than having them up there looking down at us. But once again, Mr. Obama saw fit to put the kibosh on all that.
Click to expand...

When your whole position here is that you can find one guy who says that wealth distribution is an issue, so you must be right, you are obviously wrong. One person is not the democratic party, or liberals, or anything. I do enjoy posters who like to tell liberals what they think, it is without exception hilarious.
 
Redress said:
When your whole position here is that you can find one guy who says that wealth distribution is an issue, so you must be right, you are obviously wrong. One person is not the democratic party, or liberals, or anything. I do enjoy posters who like to tell liberals what they think, it is without exception hilarious.
Click to expand...

Sure, Redress, but we should take YOUR word for it, because apparently YOU think YOU speak for liberals. Robert Reich is one MORE liberal than YOU cared to cite.

Reich is a prominent liberal who spends his day conferring with other liberals and talking about liberalism in general. He's on the inside of what mainstream liberals think and what concerns them.

But hey, perhaps you should let him know that he's wrong, because you say so, and be sure to cite your 53,000 posts here on DP as your credentials. I'm sure he'll offer up a retraction right-quick.
 
Harshaw said:
Sure, Redress, but we should take YOUR word for it, because apparently YOU think YOU speak for liberals. Robert Reich is one MORE liberal than YOU cared to cite.

Reich is a prominent liberal who spends his day conferring with other liberals and talking about liberalism in general. He's on the inside of what mainstream liberals think and what concerns them.
Click to expand...

I know that on my daily calendar I have a permanent block of two hours set aside for LIBERAL TALK TIME WITH LIBERALS ABOUT LIBERAL THINGS AND LIBERAL IDEAS AND LIBERAL GOALS AND LIBERAL STRATEGIES. :roll:;)
 
DVSentinel said:
Who's greed? You do realize that unions pushing higher and higher wages is also greed, not just corporations or rich people wanting more money. People who want the government to support them benefits and reduced taxes are also being greedy.

So, do you really hate greed or only greed that you disagree with?[/QUOTE

a definition of greed is an excessive desire for wealth and power. If those are your objectives to gaining wealth to me it means that you let nothing or no one stand in your way. A ruthless ambition.
Click to expand...
 
What a neat poll. What's the count so far? btw, how much they need to be wealthy? Gee, what if I cross the line?
 
Carleen said:
DVSentinel said:
Who's greed? You do realize that unions pushing higher and higher wages is also greed, not just corporations or rich people wanting more money. People who want the government to support them benefits and reduced taxes are also being greedy.

So, do you really hate greed or only greed that you disagree with?[/QUOTE

a definition of greed is an excessive desire for wealth and power. If those are your objectives to gaining wealth to me it means that you let nothing or no one stand in your way. A ruthless ambition.
Click to expand...

Another definition of greed is a disire for greater wealth and possessions beyond one's needs. To seek out money/wealth for one's work beyond the fair market value of work performed. I would also add the desire to meet one's needs through intruments other than performing labor/services.

Despite it's evil reputation, not all greed is bad. It is the most successful motivation for creation of new technology, business and ideas.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Of course, the Democrats (as a body) do NOT hate wealth, in my opinion..
Some individuals probably do, a minority, definitely, and probably a greater number than the tea-bagging conservatives..
 
DVSentinel said:
Carleen said:
Another definition of greed is a disire for greater wealth and possessions beyond one's needs. To seek out money/wealth for one's work beyond the fair market value of work performed. I would also add the desire to meet one's needs through intruments other than performing labor/services.

Despite it's evil reputation, not all greed is bad. It is the most successful motivation for creation of new technology, business and ideas.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately alot of jobs have been outsourced. The intention of NAFTA has failed. One of the reasons unemployment is so high is the amount of jobs that have been outsourced. This is the kind of greed that is detremental to our job recovery. Cheaper wages equals more profit.
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
Click to expand...
No. I'm not going to say anymore on it than that, because anybody who believes otherwise has drunk the Koolaid and its almost certainly impossible to change their minds at this point.
 
Harshaw said:
Sure, Redress, but we should take YOUR word for it, because apparently YOU think YOU speak for liberals.
Click to expand...

Redress doesn't.

Neither does Robert Reich.

There is no monolithic entity of "The Liberals" nor is there some undisputed individual who speaks for all of them. That was Redress's point.
 
Redress said:
Good job having some one who has no clue what liberals think explain to you what liberals think, and thinking that it means something.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think? Just dismiss it. I see that a lot here too.

:spin:
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Redress doesn't.

Neither does Robert Reich.

There is no monolithic entity of "The Liberals" nor is there some undisputed individual who speaks for all of them. That was Redress's point.
Click to expand...

No, it was not. Redress claimed -- with authority -- that there is no liberal position on wealth.

Redress said:
Liberals do not have a position on wealth. We are not for it, against it. It exists. What is the conservative position on the moon?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom