Is this answer an example of liberal arrogance?

Question

"if the top 2 percent that you mention, gave merely two percent of their incomes to the poorest 10 percent... that would probably double the median... and they wouldn't even miss it... I would give two percent too if they wanted."

Why is it that liberals feel they have the right to tell people what they do with their income? How would they know if someone would not miss 2% of their money? IT IS THEIR MONEY. What ever happened to private property rights? Money is private property.

I did not identify who said this because I was not trying to single anyone out nor speak to that person.

My question refers to whether this attitude is arrogant.

Answer 1

Because it is so much fun to spend other people's money and then take credit for the good that it does.

Answer 2

Who ever told you that money was private property. It's public property and always has been. Try burning some in front of a cop. They'll slap your conservative butt in jail so fast it will make your head spin. We make laws against everything else, how about one against being obscenely rich. Rich is OK in my book, I think a guy should be able to have plenty, but Jesus, there has to be limits somewhere, give someone else a chance. Just remember that the money comes out of the population as a whole. We make laws for the public good. There nothing good in one percent of the people owing 90% of the wealth. And you know what. It thirty years their kids will own it, and so on and so on. It's the nature of capitol. Unless redistributed to a reasonable degree, it simply concentrates. Who's arrogant here. Whether you know it or not, you're simply renting your little spot on earth, a place you share with everyone else. You don't really own anything, and if you think you do, you sadly misinformed.

Answer 3

Check out where the United States was under Republican rules in 1929, The Great Depression changed America for the better. There was a very small middle class in America in 1929 before the depression, but by the time that FDR and friends got through recreating the Federal Government, the Middle Class was born and has profited mightily, and the Untied States created a new type of Nation based on much greater equality of opportunity in employment.
It took Ronald Reagan to create the billionaires and the homeless population in America by destroying the progressive income tax system.
And now we talk about a flat tax, which is the same as paving a road back to 1929 and the second Great Depression.
No thanks. I like the Middle Class life style.

Answer 4

No it is not. The theory that you are looking it is a bottom up theory that is popular with many from the left. The conservative version is the trickle down theory. The bottom up theory is more successful because more people have more money and the multiplier of it will cause more economic growth. In trickle down economics only the people at the top have the money so the multiplier effect is less on the economy. For example if a thousand middle class families earn an extra thousand dollars a year the money would be spread out more in the economy (food, clothes, entertainment) so more would benefit. However, if ten people in the top 2 percent of the economy earned an extra $100,000 a year the money would be more concentrated (vacation in Europe) and would do less to stipulate the economy. Hope this clears things up

Answer 5

Another tough one...

Hmmmm....

I don't think I want to answer this one.

*sighs*

Do you know what it is like when everyone you know is loaded with money, their daughter is depressed so they run out and buy her a horse...

Yet your children are starving and lose 20+ pounds each because their rich dad breaks into the house and steals all the food...and won't give them one penny for anything?

You ask for the thousands those rich people borrowed from you when you were well-off with a husband and they respond with "I prayed about it and God said it was a gift from Him".

Then your so-called "friends" watch you all starve and sit in the cold and dark for 3 weeks at a time while they are buying new cars and asking for favors from you?

The police and the courts laugh you off, send you away, ignore your plight and that of your children, think you are full of lies...then Mr. Important dies, leaving nothing for the kids...and the Courts and the Police look into their files and discover that you were truthful, after all, but it is too late...

You lose your house. You advertise and remarry because you cannot do it alone anymore. You are too damaged and you get $150 disability because, although you did the ex's work, you filed it all in his name so you have very little work experience. Yep...$150 each month every month for the rest of your damaged life should see you through. It will pay the rent, buy food...

Sorry, my bitterness speaking...but it is truth.

I was a Republican. Now, the Republicans watch us starve and won't help us at all, the Democrats belittle us because of who we are. Getting denied even food stamps because my broken down mini-van hasn't been driven in over a year because the engine blew up but it is still too valuable for me to get food for my kids ...I am simply bitter.

I'm sorry.

Maybe money is private property. But I feel that if someone has helped you, you should help others.

Of course, I don't have to stand in front of my Father and explain to Him why I did not help when I could, why I did not love those I should.

They do.

You do.

So I have no worries.

And I am sorry for you all...and sorry for my bitter words.

Answer 6

I agree completly not to mention it would make our money worthless.

Look giving people money doesnt solve anything, if you give someone money THEY WILL NEVER WORK FOR IT, im sorry but I am from a very poor area of Appalachia, one of the poorest in the country, the average income in the town nearest me is like 12,000 dollars a year, I have spent my entire life near poor people, and you know what I do not feel sorry for them these people have been poor for generations because of Lyndon Johnson and JFK Social Programs. Giving money to the poor is not the answer it is like communism it removes incentive, these people think the world owes them something, they arent starving, they lay around all day, they have never worked nor have they any desire too, it makes me sick, make these people get jobs, or at least do something usefull for there check, they are nothing but a burden to society, most liberal people who support these programs have very little real experiance of dealing with poor people.

Answer 7

Chainsaw:

A couple of comments. First, the truly rich don't even know how much money they have. To them, money is a way to keep score.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, and dozens of other billionaires have so much money (and the value of their assets changes every single second) that they truly don't know how much money they have. Would their lives change one iota if they gave 2% of their wealth to the poor?

Warren Buffet has entrusted the vast majority his personal fortune to Bill Gates to be given to charity and world-changing causes, such as HIV-AIDS treatments to the poorest of the poor in Africa.

It is far better for an individual to give their money to the poor - much better than any government can decide. But not everyone is so generous, so who takes care of the truly poor when there are not enough generous people???

Secondly, "money" is an abstract concept, ever since the United States abandoned the gold standard in 1972. "Money" is nothing more than paper, pressed metal, and electrons or magnetic regions stored on computer hard disks. Money is a medium of exchange - labor for goods and services, or a way to store value for future exchange.

But more importantly, the collective "value" of all United State's money is backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States" - which means that all of the government bills, notes and bonds are guaranteed by the power of taxation of Congress and the president. The "value" of the money you hold in your wallet or bank account is determined by global financial markets, who currently believe that the Congress and president will keep paying interest on those US Treasury bonds.

That group is who "owns" your money.

Answer 8

You already do. "An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth." - Is this why so many simpletons like repeating fun slogans about "Kool Aid"? I don't know how many times I run across questions by self-proclaimed "conservatives" on Y!A that are simply rehashings of the latest broadcasts by Beck and Limbaugh. "...we respect people's individual liberties a little more" - unless you happen to be gay, non-Christian, or anyone else who is not EXACTLY like me. In short, pot, meet kettle. Edit: @ Dan: True. REAL conservatives actually do respect individual freedoms (regardless of orientation, religious upbringing, etc.) While I see this form of hypocrisy among the majority of self-identified conservatives (as opposed to real conservatives), It was unfair of me to make that assumption of the asker. And, yet, calling someone out with a knee-jerk Kool-Aid slogan doesn't directly address the issue. It's another piece of rhetoric, another slogan being tossed around. While a great many people might find this sort of short-hand acceptable, I'm not sure we should embrace it if we wish to elevate the debate. Rather than saying "oh, too much Kool-Aid for you, me thinks! hyuk hyuk hyuk!" Why not elaborate? Why not point out the way in which someone is suspending their reasoning abilities in order to adhere to the doctrine they support? ...Whether they are lib or con, dem or rep. For example, the asker (no offense) as I perceive them, offers a one-sided premise as the basis of this question. I could have said "too much Con-Kool-Aid," but instead, I chose to (perhaps a little too sarcastically) point out how cons are just as guilty as libs of this sort of thing already. I also disagree with the notion that the media is inherently liberal. But, to support that position, I'd have to write an essay in addition to what has just become much too long an answer... I also feel that the asker is not advocating "independent thinking," but acceptance of an unwritten "conservative" doctrine which has come to the forefront of our current political climate. And, that particular doctrine, is anything but "independent thinking."

Answer 9

mine, mine, mine... the conservative battle cry... sounds oddly like a two year old?

and it was a suggestion... but you're right... I'm sure that they did just work 100,000 times harder than those people that make 5 cents a day... right? bill gates works 100,000 times harder than most Americans right? that's why he makes that much, hard work!

and I'm arrogant?

what ever happened to people having souls and caring at all about others?

and I did say I would join them...

I grew up in Appalachia too? weird... and all I EVER NOTICED WERE PEOPLE THAT TOOK NOTHING FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND REMAINED DIRT POOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES? WEIRD? WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM?

I seriously doubt certain people grew up anywhere near Appalachia, and if they did, they certainly had their eyes closed the entire time... you weren't really poor were you...

EDIT: some people sure are making a lot of assumptions about how much liberals give... I give a bit... several times more than 2 percent of my income... so, I guess I'm not a liberal then, since liberals don't give anything?

Answer 10

it's not arrogance, it was a suggestion
it's like saying that it would be nice to give money to poor children in Africa, because they need money a lot more than you.
They have a good point. People don't have to share, it they don't want. There's not laws against not giving to the poor.
Also, I believe that the quote started with "if" that makes is a suggestion, not an order.
Just as a conclusion, I think that you should keep all your money and never give anyone presents, or donate to charities or relief funds, because your money if after all YOURS.

Answer 11

Liberal conservative who cares. They are all arrogant, the politicians and then who cares! The point is 50 years ago the average salaries of ceos paid the legal basic wage for 240 workers and today the average salary of CEO's pays the legal basic wages of 240,000 workers. Whats wrong with tat picture? Arrogance? By whom...