I think it has something to do with "fair distribution of money," and a false sense of "entitlement."
If you look into the historical debate over "natural rights," you may find some insight . . . it seems merely "being" entitles one person to have what another does.
Now, don't mistake me. I believe in helping those who have fallen and need help to get on their feet. Here (once again) I refer back to "teach a man to fish . . ." where there is nothing wrong with the gift of one fish that a person needs for the day, but the object should be to teach that man to fish so that he might eat everyday without your gift.
Incidentally, the "rich" contribute a great deal to charities, a point oft left unsaid.
I suppose I shouldn't try to answer your question, as I'm not a liberal. . . .
I believe in hard work, I believe in earning what you get and have . . . (ask my kids). I would not, however, begrudge a child their basic needs, regardless of parentage.
I hear ya, we are not "rich" either, far from it. But we do alright. I've learned to juggle pretty well. There is a such thing as balance that so many don't endeavor to find. So many think that, "want" is the same thing as "need." Our needs are met, and some of our wants are fulfilled . . . because we make concessions to make it thus.
For example: My children need a constant moral compass, so I stay at home to provide that, while my husband works to meet our physical needs. In order to achieve this, we live without the "best" of things in many regards, because of the money I don't contribute. But we make the best of what we have . . .
2007-05-03 06:12:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Moneta_Lucina 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
A very sensible and astute state of mind my friend. People who worry less about the clock and worry more about how if there is enough time to get the job done correctly, will get richer.
Do not let any useful idiot confuse you, a rising tide raises all ships.
Were you aware that more citizens purchased homes as a percent of the population, in the last six years than in any other time in history. Now that says a tremendous amount about our capitalist economy, it says that all people have equal opportunity and those that work hard, make the hard but correct decisions will do well. It is the proverbial ant and grasshopper story.
And thank you for asking such a fine and insightful question
2007-05-02 13:12:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by rmagedon 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I'm a moderate, but compared to conservatives, I would probably be classified as "liberal". I own stock in Grede Foundries. The founder was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society - the most extreme of the right-wingers. You make the situation sound simple and it isn't. I'm not a billionaire, but I'm not poor either, and I wouldn't mind being a trillionaire - I could do more to help people because you can't give away a million dollars unless you HAVE a million dollars. I oppose the "death tax", support the "concealed carry" law, and couldn't care less if gays get married or not (might as well for all I care - I'm not gay so my attitude is it doesn't affect me). You make it (wealth) sound like a "black or white" issue, and it isn't. There are plenty of wealthy liberals too - God bless America! Also, from a statistical analysis, the people that say the rich are getting richer are correct - once you get rich you can learn how to stay that way.
2007-05-02 04:27:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Paul Hxyz 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Do the libs realize that all the little social programs they hold so dear are funded by the taxes paid by the rich? Do they realize that most of the charitable organizations out there are started and largely funded by.... the rich. Do they realize that if they ever felt a surge to get a job and be a productive member of society they would be looking to the rich for that job.
Stop with the class envy already. I want a lot of things I don't have but I don't cry about it.... I work for it. Remember freedom? Any person, rich or poor should be allowed to spend their earnings any way they wish. I believe many of the rich give plenty back to society. Why does the left constantly try to bite the hand that feeds them?
Oh... and I am so tired of the moronic statements of... "why don't you go fight in the war." "duh.... uh... I have no intelligence to answer the question... I'll just throw this out there..." Perhaps it is because we are fighting the war here for our troops to prevent radicals like you from taking any sort of control. Obviously our fight is much easier....
2007-05-02 04:41:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. Perfect 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Yeah, being rich is a burden most people don't understand.
Only $100,000 of one's money is FDIC insured (more with various tricks, especially when considering spouses and children), so dozens of banks may be involved.
Only blue chip stocks can be purchased because large purchases in small & medium caps (where the growth potential lies) creates its own market, raises the price thereby and becomes a problem when trying to sell any significant amount.
Junk bonds (at triple the interest rate of CDs) will (really used to since most have actually paid off) give one ulcers worrying about their going kaput.
Being poor is much easier, especially if you can scrape together the money to pay much higher interest rates at payday loan stores because the local banks (if there are any local banks) won't let you open a checking or savings account.
Poor people pay higher prices for insurance, auto loans and other services in poverty stricken areas because of a lack of competitors who would keep prices lower.
Poor people pay more to maintain there homes and property because of security to prevent or repairs after crimes against their property in poverty stricken, high crime areas patrolled by police living in much safer and wealthier areas.
Yeah, poor people should be happy they're not sharing in all the wealth being created since the tax cuts begun in the 1980s, err, tax increases for the poor since the payroll tax increases in 1983.
2007-05-02 04:42:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ben 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
you're impressive. you won't be able to get wealthy from the unfavourable. The liberals will argue that the wealthy take great thing concerning the unfavourable through conserving them down and making them do the undesirable jobs for minimum salary allowing the great businesses to earn additional money considering that they favor to pay a lot less. it really is done and utter twisting of the reality to examine the left. human beings do those jobs because they can't do a job that calls for added skill or training. we gained't, nor might want to we pay someone 50,000 a 12 months to sparkling the bogs. It takes no educaton or skill to artwork at a minimum salary interest. Then even as that element is gifted to the liberals that say the unfavourable are turning out to be a worse training therefor are compelled into such jobs. everyone, regardless of race, region or kinfolk income has the same rights to a intense college training. falling by the wayside of highschool at 16 is a call. human beings get wealthy because they artwork flat out, have a skill it really is unique, and frequently knowledgeable. absolutely everyone can bypass to school in the experience that they go with. the only distinction is how a lot you've in student loans once you're performed. it really is small in evaluation on your interest. once you've $100 thousand in student loans, (a really great volume through ways) and also you're making only $10,000 better each 12 months because of you training, through the time you're 35 you may have paid off the the loans and also you nonetheless have 30 years of your occupation to make the money you want. the justifications of race, region, or mom and father/kinfolk income isn't releavant. in case you want to artwork flat out and make small sacrifeces you may want to be wealthy. perchance not a multi millionaire, yet you may want to emphasize a Mercedes and stay in $750,000 homestead and under no circumstances worry a thanks to pay yours charges. yet, we create a custom the position we provide the unfavourable each little thing they favor, regardless of in the experience that they don't artwork for it. So how are you going to assume someone who's in that custom to opt to artwork flat out? you won't be able to, those everyone is the exception to the guideline. that is the liberals and their hand outs to human beings that do not opt to artwork, that are conserving the unfavourable down. as long as you keep popping toddlers out and do not artwork your lease and nutrition will be paid for through me and everyone else who does artwork and pays taxes.
2016-12-05 05:38:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by klingelhoefer 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Liberal here! Hi.
We do what we can. The most important thing is survival. I have 2 sons that i raise on my own. I have a 401k and savings account but thats about as far as i can go.
Now, do i get *new* things and take my kids on vacations? Yes! None of us was born to mearly be alive, we are to live our lives! I love the US and love having my kids see all the wonderful things we have to offer in our counrty!
2007-05-02 04:25:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by stayc 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
I'm sorry but I would have to disagree a little about the wording of your Question. As a libreal myself I have structured my beleifs around another great liberal Icon Bobby Kennedy. He wasn't for Welfare as he was more in favor of companies investing in poorer areas of New York to help areas pull out of poverty. That is what I base a lot of my beleifs on, but I think what Liberals such as myself protest is that the Entrapreneaural drive that made this great nation even greater is being overcome by corparate Greed.
Plus it always looks good for people to help those who are worse off than they are.
2007-05-02 04:35:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
OK I am so tired of this tirade. I am neither liberal or conservative. I make my decisions in regards to what is right for me and my family, and what would best help our country to achieve greatness. To the guy that talked about Bill Gates, your dumb. Have you ever heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? One of the reasons that poor people (who tend to be liberal) are so upset is because the rich people do not care to give back to their communities. Other than a tax break there is no incentive to lose their selfishness. Not to say that all rich people are like that, just that it seems often to be the case. It would be nice to see the same rich war mongering, debt increasing, big business pushing conservatives using their own financial practices to help our country. If even half of the millionaires out there decided to help feed poor people in the US, we wouldn't have hungry kids. BTW have you ever tried to live on minimum wage with a family? Pretty difficult without two jobs or multiple family income. Sorry. I grew up with nothing, I now have something, and I try hard to give back and save for my family.
2007-05-02 04:35:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
The liberals have a different outlook. If you have done well and they haven't, it can't be because you worked harder. That would mean that worked less. And since they can't be to blame for their own success or failure, it MUST be because you had more opportunity than them. So their answer is to TAKE from you, and GIVE to them. Bill Gates was smart enough to start his own company and make billions of dollars (something anyone is free to do), so he must be evil because I didn't.
It's insane...huh?
Edit:
Some of these posts on here are complete BS. Ok I am pretty well off. I came from the projects, joined the Marines, and put myself through school. I pay almost 45% in taxes. Don't give me that crap about the rich not paying their share. I pay more in taxes than many people make. We are being slammed with taxes that are out of control at the high end. And for what? Programs to help people who won't help themselves. Let make it so social programs are paid for in taxes voluntarily. Then we will see how much all you true liberals "care". Remember whose paying for this crap!
2007-05-02 04:22:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by stepped on the Third Rail 2
·
7⤊
3⤋