A conservative believes the government should not redistribute wealth, from the upper class to the poor, often the believe private programs should do this job.
A liberal believes the government should take money from the wealthy and upper middle class to support social programs for the lower class...
Repubs believe in the success of the individual
libs believe in the success of the group
I am a lib and see conservatives as selfish, competitive, and lacking compassion...... am i wrong..... i would like to see more clearly.......explain
2006-12-20 06:50:19 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Read "Moral Politics" by George Lakoff. It was explain most of your questions.
2006-12-20 06:53:03 · answer #1 · answered by parrotjohn2001 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are completely backwards, it is government social programs that are selfish and lack compassion.
The government is funded solely by taxes. This is you, me, rich, poor, everyone. We have no choice but to pay taxes, other than going to jail, and that really isn't a choice. So the only way the government can "help" somebody, is by stealing money from somebody else. That is the most selfish and uncompassionate thing I can think of. The 1 person on the receiving end is helped, and that is what people like you focus on. You call it compassion because 1 person got something they didn't have before. However, you completely ignore the fact that to achieve that, you had to steal from and cause harm to many many more. Where is your compassion for those people? How selfish is it to think that you deserve something so much, that it must be stolen from someone else to be given to you?
Seriously, who do you think you are that you deserve anything I have fairly earned? You are not my father, you are not my God, how dare you demand I give you anything?
It is my duty and obligation as an American and as a human being to help my fellow man. And if I don't do that, if I horde my money while others suffer, then that makes me a despicable monster. However, that is my choice. Stealing is every bit as horrible and selfish as hording my wealth.
We must use the private sector to redistribute wealth because that is the only way it can be done with true love and compassion. That is the only way it is true charity. It's just like sex. Between 2 consenting adults, it's a beautiful part of humanity. However, when you take consent away from 1 of them, then it is rape and one of the most vile acts 1 human can do to another. Charity done through the government removes consent because we have no choice but to pay taxes.
2006-12-20 07:36:44 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Conservatives believe in individual freedom and responsibility. We believe that the government is a necessary evil. Their job is clearly defined and limited by the Constitution. We believe money in our, the People's, hands is better spent and used than money in the hands of Goverment.
Conservatives are actually a lot more charitable than liberals, there have been countless studies, and John Stossel on ABC's 20/20 did a special revealing this.
Nothing is wrong with competition. It lowers prices and ensures that the most competent and work hardest are the ones who are going to be successful.
As for lacking compassion, take a look at the Christian Charity, the Salvation Army, etc.
2006-12-20 07:05:20 · answer #3 · answered by Jon M 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No problem. Lets start by correcting your 'mis-statement'.
The redistribution of wealth is not from the rich to the poor. That is a typical Liberal Lie. The redistribution of wealth is from any one who earns a living to anyone who does not. It has nothing to do with your rank in the rich-to-poor category. This lie is used to divide people and create two classes. Class 1 the poor, who are poor because some rich guy took the poor guys ...everything... Class 2 The Rich who are rich because they took all the poor guys stuff. Class warfare is your goal not mine.
Back to the question. Our economy flourishes when Americans are in charge of their own earnings. As it is doing now. And right now, we have the greatest quantity of tax income than ever in history. Low tax rates mean that Liberals can't siphon money out of the economy and into government 'I-mean-well-programs'. Wealth is what is taxed. Wealth is created by who work. Wealth is not created by government.
We have more wealth today and more tax income that ever before so who is more capable of helping the poor? Conservatives who's economic policies generate more in tax income or Liberals who believe in 'feel-good' but failed economic policies?
Lastly, you are a cad. Conseratives give more to charity than Liberals. (Check the Congressional Record. Libs are real cheap skates.) So where do you get off calling us lacking in compassion?
If you want to see more clearly, I suggest a brain transplant or an honest look back into American History.
Conserative: Do Good.
Liberal: Feel Good.
2006-12-20 07:14:55 · answer #4 · answered by Zee HatMan 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I see it as more along the lines of: conservatives want people to be ABLE to fend for themselves, to have the tools they need to succeed in life and in society, and to have the wherewithall to earn and keep their own money. It's not a case where they'd prefer the individual over the group, it's just that they'd rather see someone 'learn to fish for a lifetime' rather than getting handed everything and expecting the government to step in every time they're in trouble.
There is nothing wrong with competition...it fuels production and keeps motivation high. It'd be nice if people on both sides of the political spectrum weren't so selfish and inconsiderate, but I don't think conservatives are lacking compassion.
Conservatives don't believe in punishing people for making money, nor do they see fit to hold the successful individual back. Rather, conservatives would rather teach and provide tools so that EVERYONE can have the opportunity to grow and succeed. If you think about it, by catering so much to the lower class without giving them any tools to rise above their status, liberals are actually doing them a greater disservice than anything.
2006-12-20 06:58:30 · answer #5 · answered by sillycanuckpei 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Labels pigeonhole people into easy to attack (or to like) groups. By labeling myself as a moderate liberal, I leave myself wide open from both sides. Unfortunately, we live in a politically polarizing climate for now.. If we don't get out of that mode, one set of extremists will win & the rest of us will lose. Permanently until the next armed revolution.
Everything in your 1st 2 paragraphs are noble ideals. By themselves, they don't work well in the real world. Individual success used for the good of the group is a better working model. A more financially successful friend gave me his old computer so I can rant & rave at you guys. (He's a political conservative, btw.) A combination of private & public programs will address the issues of poverty better than either one or the other. When I fell through the cracks in public programs, I was able to find private ones that address my basic needs, ranging from food banks to a private program that covered the cost of my one ER visit & part of the medication costs from it.
First, take it on faith that every ideology has followers who are selfish, competitive, & lacking compassion for others not sharing their world view, Even the liberals, especially those who would tell us to shut up as they are cramming their ideas down our throats. They have to be very self centered, competitive & non-compassionate to believe they, alone, know what's best for us & the rest of the world & would deprive us of the right to disagree. Their tactics are exactly the same as the equally ignorant conservatives they rave against. The mindset is exactly the same: "I know better than you. Shut up! - or I'll shut you up.".
Also take it on faith that good people belong to all ideologies, pigeonhole, or whatever else you want to call it. Hey, you are a conservative & you seem to be a good guy. Bill Gates is a terror if you are in competition with Microsoft, but he created a multibillion dollar foundation to help the most helpless of the poor. He also believes wealth should be earned, backing that belief with leaving his kids small bequests compared to his fortune so they aren't spoiled by being in the idle rich class. What I am trying to say here is even the most obnoxious SOB posting here has redeeming qualities we just don't see. Even me.
2006-12-20 08:01:39 · answer #6 · answered by bob h 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I usually answer questions this w/ a smart@ss/mean remark. But you asked the question in a pretty polite way unlike your other Liberal brothers.
--
"America, the land of oppurtunity" not "America, we give out free stuff". Why should the government take from the people w/ more money to give to people w/ less, America is a free country and Communism is not an American beleif. What gives the government the right to take money from the people that have earned it, to people that have slaked off? Everyone has the same oppurtunity, its not necessarily fair but thats life. If your parents are rich, they can pay your way through college; if not, you can take out a loan and pay for it after you get your job, after college.
So why should the Government steal from people that have earned money to give it to those that havent? If you want to live somewhere like that, move to China.
2006-12-20 06:58:34 · answer #7 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If 5 people consistantly went to lunch and the incomes were of different levels I suppose you feel the ones with more income should always pick up the tab, or at least pay the major portion each time correct? Maybe you should take it upon yourself to take a group of 5 homeless to lunch on a daily basis then.. Do your part as a liberal!!!!
2006-12-20 07:08:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
And I call some one that picks the pocket of others a thief! No one is entitled to anything that someone else has to pay for. I see that liberals are all right redistributing wealth, as long as it is above their income level.
2006-12-20 06:58:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The lowest 50% of US all income earners provide 4% of all federal revenues. So the highest 50% provide the other 96%. So.. the "rich" just aren't paying their own fair share?
2006-12-20 07:02:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Both liberals and conservatives want to have a good accommodating life at the end .Yet both have special interests groups who work hard to divert the good intentions of both views.
2006-12-20 07:12:29 · answer #11 · answered by DAVAY 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋