You’re right. But some self-identifying liberals complain against inequality as if the inequality itself were a problem, instead of the level of wealth of the poor. Perhaps I should have made my case 1: $1000 for the poor, $2000 for the middle class, and $4000 for the rich.
I don’t know any self-identifying liberals who think financial inequality is wrong (I guess I don’t know any communists), but I know quite a few who think it’s wrong to allow a subset of the population to starve and suffer in an otherwise wealthy nation. I think that’s more representative of mainstream liberalism, at least in the U.S.
This quote appears in various forms attributed to various authors:
If a young man is not a liberal, he has no heart. If an old man is not a conservative, he has no head.
Liberals trust the government. Conservatives trust the government to fuck everything up.
Seriously, it seems to me that liberals view the government as a flawed, but basically benevolent, entity. (Assuming you live in a modern Western society.) Conservatives view government as a necessary evil, and the less the average citizen has to interact with government, the better.
I really have to join RickJay in being astonished at the desire for trite oversimplification that is being exhibited here. The SDMB is becoming a very different world.
In order to avoid mod rebuke, I’ll contribute this question: if a theme of conservativism is that a person’s success flows from their own effort and should be rewarded accordingly, why do conservatives allow, indeed demand tax exemption and/or tax reduction for, inheritance?
As I see it, liberals are decent, largely rational people who realize we are all in the same boat together, and that co-operation, civil rights, and sharing the wealth ultimately makes life better for essentially everyone. Conservatives are sociopaths and fanatics who want to exploit, enslave or kill everyone else. In other words, “conservative” is just a polite code word for “evil” or “crazy”.
A complex concept can still be largely described by generalizations. You’ve got to start somewhere.
As far as inheritance, a large part of wanting to succeed is wishing to pass on whatever wealth you can accumulate to your children once you’re gone. If 20% of that goes to taxes, there is less incentive to save. If you leave $100,000 behind to 3 kids, that’s $33,000 per child. But if taxes take 20%, that’s only $26,000 per child. And does the government really deserve part of money that passes from you to your children?
Heh, and a conservative will look at your location (California) and say “Yep, that’s what I figured.” Nothing against you personally, your attitude is just a common CA one.
Sharing the wealth is Socialism, and is largely against human nature IMO. Why work hard if all you get is the same piece of the pie that you’d get if you slacked off?
Not really.
There’s little connection between hard work and reward. The majority of hard workers die poor. And there’s a lot of room between mandating the same rewards for everyone, and the “Lie, cheat, steal; grab what you can and screw everyone else, if they suffer it’s because God hates them” attitude of the conservatives.
And as for it being against human nature, so what ? Humanity in the state of nature isn’t admirable at all. Should we allow rape and murder because it’s part of human nature, and eliminate tolerance and laws because they are against human nature ? Of course not.
I would say that some would be perfectly happy in a Socialist environment, and some would not. Those that are willing to work hard and work smart expect more in return.
Anyway, this is getting way OT.
Exactly.
Wealth doesn’t just fall from the sky and land on a certain number of lucky people. People who have money, by and large, have earned it…either through hard work or investment, or both. The idea that the nation’s wealth is just a giant pot of dough that should be shared more or less equally with everyone is ludicrous.
That’s because they work hard at menial jobs instead of working hard to make money. Making a lot of money is hard and it’s risky and not everyone wants to try it, so they choose instead to live a wage-slave-by-day/couch-potato-by-night lifestyle. And while there’s nothing at all wrong with that, it doesn’t mean they are being treated unfairly if the government doesn’t take money away from the producers and risk-takers and give it to them.
And besides, all that wealth isn’t just sitting there in a giant vault like Scrooge McDuck’s. It is put to work and it creates jobs.
Take Donald Trump for instance. He’s supposed to be worth several billion dollars. But that money isn’t just sitting in a bank account somewhere. It’s tied up in buildings and real estate and construction and banking. He employs well over 25,000 people, most of whom earn a very good living.
And how many people are living nice lives because of the produce of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and the markets (and aftermarkets) they’ve created?
And Joe Blow down the street who owns five auto parts stores, works 60 - 80 hours a week, and makes a couple hundred thousand a year? His money and his hard work is providing salaries for 35 to 40 people. Why should it be all right to take some of his money and give it a guy who drives a delivery truck for minimum wage 40 hours a week and spends his evenings watching television and drinking beer, just because Joe has more?
Doesn’t sound ‘fair’ to me.
The search function working sporadically made it take a few days for me to find this, but here’s a post I wrote a while ago on the basic differences between the parties:
[
Starving, what do you think happens to all that money in bank accounts?
What the heck do you think happens to money in bank accounts?
The banks lend it out, in a much greater ratio to what they take in.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
I’ve always been partial to this oversimplification of the liberal/conservative ideology:
Liberals believe that people are too stupid to take care of themselves.
Conservatives believe that people are too lazy to take care of themselves.
Heh, that must be why I think both parties are in error. People are both stupid AND lazy. 
So many great definitions here, but this one stood out. I’m always on a soap box for personal responsibility. The liberal drive to tax and spend and throw money at problems to make them go away drives me insane. People need to accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences, good or bad, then be willing to make positive changes if they need to. There is nothing stopping anyone in this world from being a success and creating their own happiness.
Let me harp on just one example: Okay, I get that drug addictions are a disability. There are lots of programs out there to help you kick the habit. You made a decision all by yourself to take that first hit. You made that choice, you chose your path. Don’t whine to me about how awful your life is because you can’t feed yourself or your kids, but amazingly you always have enough money for crack and smokes. Take responsibility for yourself, get off your butt and get your life in order. I chose to not take drugs, to get an education and work to provide for myself. How does that entitle you to any of my earnings to support your lifestyle?
Hyperbole, anyone? There are some kids in Darfur who would really appreciate your perspective.
The simplemindedness of this thread is very depressing, illustrating as it does the thought processes of our citizenry. Reality bites.
Inheritance has always confused me as a ‘conservative’ agenda item. If the conservative viewpoint holds that it’s the individual that is wholly responsible for their own fate and that you succeed or fail based on your own abilities, then why should they pass any money onto their kids at all? Surely in that way they are not passing on the values that they held in life because they are giving their kids a ‘head start’ that may be entirely independent on their own abilities?
I’ve always been more of a reader than a poster and I have to admit that I don’t think we share similar viewpoints but I’ve always been interested in a discussion of them
From your quote above, how do you feel about the recent investment banking issues in the US? I’d break this down into two main points;
-
should the “risk takers” for these banks, the CEO, CFO’s etc, be able to walk away from the issues with their wealth (generated through the risk they took) intact or should they have personal responsibility for these issues? It seems to me that some “risk takers” take very few risks indeed. If the conservative holds a “sink or swim” viewpoint (excuse my simplification but I hope you see what I mean) shouldn’t these people be basically reduced back to zero? The risk they took failed and therefore they should share or be wholly responsible for that risk occurring.
-
should the US government be involved in helping these financial institutions out of their current issues? This could be tied in with the above point, maybe it should be (a) yes, but only after the risk takers have had their personal wealth returned to the company that they took the risk with, or (b) no, because the risk takers should be free to persue further revenue generating opportunities that could benefit the country. I’m not limiting you to these choices, they are just a couple of options that I could see from different stances. To equate this with your comment above, why should the government help the risk takers by taking money from the rest of society to help the risk takers now that the risk has occurred?