Why do cons claim that if you're rich (a "limousine liberal") you can't possibly care about the poor?

Question

Seems like a crappy argument to me. Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt both came from priveleged families, and yet there is no doubt they cared and did alot for the average joe in this country.

John Edwards didn't even come from a priveleged family. His father was a textile worker and his mother a post office carrier. He was the first in his family to go to college. He graduated with a degree in textile technology and later recieved a degree in law. He graduated with honors in both cases. He worked hard and became succesful. He wasn't born to some elite family.

That is something to be proud of.

Ruth,

You have it wrong. We want to tax those who can most afford it (the rich), and help people reach the middle class. The law of the jungle, big fish eat small fish, economic policies of Republicans are not good at creating a strong middle class.

Answer 1

You don't care about the poor. You want them in a welfare state, just barely above the poverty level, so that they kowtow to you and give you votes.

Why don't you espouse programs in which individuals can prosper...create wealth...become successful?

Answer 2

Theodore was a Republican, but Franklin was a Democrat. Some people are just more generous than others--I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with their politics. Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. I don't even know which party they belong to. We all belong to the human race. We need to work together--we no longer have the luxury of arguing about these petty things. The world is in crisis, and we need to pick the best candidate that can lead us out of the mess we're in. All of us as voters need to do our part by learning about all of the candidates and then casting informed votes. This will be the most important presidential election in history. We need another Franklin Roosevelt.

Answer 3

Yes of course I still care. It will be a sad day when society stops caring. Australians are very giving. For the Tsunami relief, Aussies raised more money per populous than any other country in the world. And Victorians just raised and donated 12 million dollars to the children's Good Friday Appeal.....there are 5.25 million in Victoria... Makes me proud to be an Australian!!

Answer 4

To start with John Edwards, he is a self made man, and should be proud of his success, however, heclaims that others can't do what he has done, and that the government needs to intervene, to equal the field. This is counterintuative, if he has succeeded, he should present himself as an example, and promote that others can as well, without government overinvolvement.

As for the "limousine liberal" concern, it is not the wealth, it is the disconnect. There are very wealthy people on both sides who I believe truly look out for the populous. However, the "limo liberals" tends to refer to the elitist attitude that they claim they want to look out for the poor. They approach things from the viewpoint that, without them leading, people couldn't survive, and that they know better how to provide for people, than people do themselves.
Also, if there were a true belief in wealth redistribution, and all should benifit fromthe success of others, why do they promote loopholes in tax increases to allow themselves and their cronies to protect their personal assets. If you look at the disclosure statements by the candidates (it applies to all, including the redistribution suggesting liberals) they shelter much of their income from taxation though various accounting diversions, to allow them to lower their tax burden. Also many of the largest Democrat funders, especially George Soros, keep their US made billions in off shore, untaxable accounts.
It seems hypocritical to want to redistribute others wealth, but not willing to do so with your own.

Answer 5

Because they realize that while anyone on the planet goes hungry that it is reprehensible for them to hoard wealth. They can't fathom that anyone could have become successful without "selling out" their morals to get there. Before criticizing "limousine liberals" one would have to make a detailed accounting of their charitable contributions first.

Answer 6

Because most Republicans are not telling people how to live. Case in point Al Gore, Rides in private Jets which emits more carbon and does more damage to the enviorment than Regular jets, but tells us how to live,

John Edwards should be proud chasing down Doctors, but also don't say your a common man and then go out and publically get a 400 dollar haircut, if your gonna do that, and it's his, campain money than that's his right, just own it.

Answer 7

You can fool all the people some of the time,
You can't fool all the people all the time,
But you can fool some of the people all the time,and this is who you concentrate on.

Answer 8

Of course its a genralization to say that. And I agree its not right to automatically say they dont care about the poor. Although I dont see many dems who's track records show that politically they are helping the poor.
You could ask teh question why do libs claim that tax cuts only benefit that rich. thats not true either.

Answer 9

Sorry, the only people I know with that mentality are liberals. It's a form of bigotry that they have perpetuated for decades. Perhaps someone said it tongue-in-cheek to get a rise out of you.

Whether or not you agree with someone philosophically or politically should have nothing to do with their income. Actually, there are more rich Democrats than Republicans.

I think that it is commendable for anyone to better themselves by hard work and perseverance, but that does not mean I agree with their politics.

Answer 10

Maybe they're basing that assumption on Privileged George W's feelings towards the poor. (I mean all rich people must feel the same, right?) He's such a fine example.