# Do conservatives genuinely not understand the liberal position on wealth? (Fox News oped) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337 "2019-08-27T21:21:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/81 "2019-08-29T07:52:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The view many conservatives have of liberals is that 1) liberals want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and/or 2) liberals have something against the wealthy. Whether this view is accurate or not is beside the point; that’s the view many conservatives have. > > So when someone like Obama signs multi-million dollar book deals and buys a $15 million house, conservatives think “hypocrisy.” First of all, Obama’s not a Liberal. But even so: how would it be hypocritical if Obama favored redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor when that includes taking a lot of wealth from a rich person called Barrack Obama? He doesn’t say that all rich people—except for himself—should pay higher taxes. Because THAT would be hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/82 "2019-08-29T12:49:26Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > There will always be slackers and moochers; this is part of human nature. You missed my point. I’m not worried about a couple of people who abuse welfare. I’m talking about a huge chunk of the population, the [40%+ of workers who don’t pay income taxes](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax-liability-september-2018/t18-0128-tax-units). The context for my controversial statement, of course, is that the rich have a moral duty to pay even more taxes in order to sustain our infrastructure, because they benefit from our infrastructure. The thing is, _everyone_ benefits, so why shouldn’t poor people make some type of contribution? Obviously they don’t have money, else we would tax them, so some type of universal conscription – which people could by their way out of – would level the playing field for our infrastructure. > [@Voyager](#): > > So, what are you going to do with the people whose paying jobs will now be done by those in government service? The WPA worked because there wasn’t private or state money to do those jobs, and there was a large pool of people available for them. It’s not a well thought out plan; we’re talking 40% of the working population being conscripted, after all. I mean, it’s not even a plan at all. What’s your counterproposal for getting the 40% of the population who use our infrastructure free of charge to contribute their fare share? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/83 "2019-08-29T12:58:18Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > You missed my point. I’m not worried about a couple of people who abuse welfare. I’m talking about a huge chunk of the population, the [40%+ of workers who don’t pay income taxes](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax-liability-september-2018/t18-0128-tax-units). The context for my controversial statement, of course, is that the rich have a moral duty to pay even more taxes in order to sustain our infrastructure, because they benefit from our infrastructure. > > The thing is, _everyone_ benefits, so why shouldn’t poor people make some type of contribution? Obviously they don’t have money, else we would tax them, so some type of universal conscription – which people could by their way out of – would level the playing field for our infrastructure. I think most people who don’t pay income taxes are too busy trying not to die to be able to afford not working for a while to handle a mandatory conscription. > [@](#): > > It’s not a well thought out plan; we’re talking 40% of the working population being conscripted, after all. I mean, it’s not even a plan at all. What’s your counterproposal for getting the 40% of the population who use our infrastructure free of charge to contribute their fare share? Change the economy so that everyone makes a living wage and pays taxes? Or, alternatively, accept that those fucked by capitalism are contributing enough already simply by being cogs in the machine? I feel like you’re coming at this issue from entirely the wrong end. The problem, as presented: “Hey, a lot of people in the economy make so little money that taxing them makes no economic sense whatsoever.” The actual problem: “A lot of people are impoverished.” Not actually a problem: “A lot of people don’t contribute to the public good because they’re too poor.” I will absolutely agree that this is not a well-thought-out plan. It’s also callous, cruel, and kicks people while they’re down. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/84 "2019-08-29T13:13:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you buy theater tickets and then decide not to go, do you blame the theater? > And childless people pay the same school tax without even the possibility of direct benefit. So your parents had it good. > > The person with the million dollar house the fire department saved is seeing twice the benefit as the person with the $500 K house. > As **Budget Player Cadet** mentioned, brackets should be based on marginal utility, or pain. Do you object to all people feeling more or less the same pain from their tax burden? If not, taxes on the upper brackets should be a lot higher. My point wasn’t that my parents shouldn’t have paid school tax, but that we didn’t derive any direct benefit from it- I didn’t attend public school. I’m not seeing what your argument is- that somehow I derived some benefit from the money my parents paid to our local school district, that I didn’t attend? That doesn’t make any sense. As far as the relative value of communal services, you’re trying to have it both ways, by saying that $1 in tax burden to a minimum wage person is more of a burden to them than $1000 is to a person making 15 million a year is to them, and then turning around and saying that if the minimum wage person’s home burned down and cost them $60k that it’s less of an impact to them than the 15 million income person losing a house worth millions of dollars. I’d argue that either way, the lower income person bears a heavier burden of tax AND if basic services/law and order were to break down. The rich guy has resources- insurance, cash reserves, other property, and so on- he might lose a $5 million house, but he can go live at the Omni for a few months until he finds another one. That poor person is screwed, even if it’s “only” a house worth 80k. You can’t say that the burden is greater in one situation because of the differing relative value of money for the two people, and then turn around and deal in absolute dollar amounts and say that the guy losing more money has more at stake. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/85 "2019-08-29T14:23:05Z")
“Not paying income tax” does not equal “not paying taxes”. Sales taxes, taxes on specific articles, government fees, price hikes due to tariffs… are not waived because you’re poor. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/86 "2019-08-29T14:57:39Z")
> [@bump](#): > > My point wasn’t that my parents shouldn’t have paid school tax, but that we didn’t derive any direct benefit from it- I didn’t attend public school. I’m not seeing what your argument is- that somehow I derived some benefit from the money my parents paid to our local school district, that I didn’t attend? That doesn’t make any sense. You benefit from having an educated population. If only people who could afford it could go to school that would be very bad for the country and for all of us individually. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/87 "2019-08-29T16:42:42Z")
> [@bump](#): > > My point wasn’t that my parents shouldn’t have paid school tax, but that we didn’t derive any direct benefit from it- I didn’t attend public school. I’m not seeing what your argument is- that somehow I derived some benefit from the money my parents paid to our local school district, that I didn’t attend? That doesn’t make any sense. I was saying that your parents had potential direct benefit, while a childless couple (or person) did not have even that. And the indirect benefits are pretty substantial. Imagine a world in which large chunks of the population is illiterate and unable to get good jobs, and the ensuing rise in crime. You can’t brush those benefits away. > [@](#): > > As far as the relative value of communal services, you’re trying to have it both ways, by saying that $1 in tax burden to a minimum wage person is more of a burden to them than $1000 is to a person making 15 million a year is to them, and then turning around and saying that if the minimum wage person’s home burned down and cost them $60k that it’s less of an impact to them than the 15 million income person losing a house worth millions of dollars. There is not a direct correlation between house prices and income. In my neighborhood hardly any of us could afford our houses today. Many states have property tax breaks for seniors which recognize this. The correlation does tail off when you get to really expensive houses, but it is much weaker. > [@](#): > > I’d argue that either way, the lower income person bears a heavier burden of tax AND if basic services/law and order were to break down. The rich guy has resources- insurance, cash reserves, other property, and so on- he might lose a $5 million house, but he can go live at the Omni for a few months until he finds another one. That poor person is screwed, even if it’s “only” a house worth 80k. The poor person is probably not getting the benefits the better off person has as it is. “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” But I didn’t argue from the benefit side in terms of taxes. Benefit is very hard to quantify, pain is a lot easier. BTW the insurance company will pay for alternate housing. Happened to the family of my daughter’s ex-boyfriend. If your coverage is good enough, I suppose. But it would have been very painful for them to pay to rebuild - they might have had a near million dollar house but they were not rich. > [@](#): > > You can’t say that the burden is greater in one situation because of the differing relative value of money for the two people, and then turn around and deal in absolute dollar amounts and say that the guy losing more money has more at stake. You’re assuming that house value correlates to non-real estate net worth. Not true around here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/88 "2019-08-29T16:49:06Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > It’s not a well thought out plan; we’re talking 40% of the working population being conscripted, after all. I mean, it’s not even a plan at all. What’s your counterproposal for getting the 40% of the population who use our infrastructure free of charge to contribute their fare share? Their fair (ahem) share in this case might be zero. But I’m fine with the idea of making everyone pay taxes by raising the minimum wage enough to put everyone in tax paying range. Though the poor do pay regressive sales taxes, and when riding public transportation pay the same in fare as the rich do. Or more if they don’t have the spare money to buy a monthly pass. ETA: Acknowledging that other people noted this too. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/89 "2019-08-29T16:55:39Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Of course he did, he very effectively used the infrastructure that HE DIDN’T BUILD\* to earn lots and lots of money. He was way better at it than me, that’s for sure. > > Do you have a point that doesn’t support that Obama quote? Because, as you noted so eloquently in your earlier post, Obama said “you didn’t build that” not “you had access to a separate infrastructure”. Do you have any information to suggest that Michael Jordan had any part in building the arena he played in, the roads and transit of Chicago, or the cargo transport infrastructure of our great nation? > > \*I also had little to no part in building any of the large infrastructure projects that allowed me to get an education and hold down a job. I am not talking about the Obama quote but the idea that rich people should pay more in taxes because without government they would not have been able to be rich. But since you mentioned it, Obama was doing his customary straw manning implying that there are those who think rich people should pay no taxes. No one believes that. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/90 "2019-08-29T16:58:08Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > “Not paying income tax” does not equal “not paying taxes”. Sales taxes, taxes on specific articles, government fees, price hikes due to tariffs… are not waived because you’re poor. If this fact isn’t conspicuously addressed when discussing a person’s “fair share” of taxes one must conclude that the speaker is arguing disingenuously. So, before we sell 40% of the working population into indentured servitude, perhaps we could look at how much tax they actually pay instead of focusing on the one tax they don’t pay? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/91 "2019-08-29T17:01:50Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > He didn’t say that. He said (paraphrasing) that, at some point, you’re house is big enough. That implies buying a really big house. I think you could fairly fault Obama if he was constantly buying a bigger and bigger home, or if he wasn’t involved in philanthropy. > > But he definitely didn’t say that people shouldn’t buy a big house. Obama has a big house, he owns a 8.5 million dollar mansion in Washington DC. He may also own homes in Chicago, California, and Hawaii. The $15 million compound on Martha’s Vineyard is in addition to all those things. There is no difference between building a bigger house, which he specifically criticized and buy a huge compound to summer in. Both have the same opportunity cost, which was what he was criticizing. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/92 "2019-08-29T17:05:38Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I am not talking about the Obama quote but the idea that rich people should pay more in taxes because without government they would not have been able to be rich. > > But since you mentioned it, Obama was doing his customary straw manning implying that there are those who think rich people should pay no taxes. No one believes that. No, you were talking about the Obama quote, which is why I quoted you > [@](#): > > There is the argument that Obama made about “You didn’t build that” which implies that since public infrastructure helps people make money those who make more should have a higher burden of paying for that since they got more out of it. What this misses is that the public infrastructure is the same for everyone. I grew up with a basketball hoop in my backyard, just like Micheal Jordan did. He was able to put that infrastructure to better use than I did. Jordan didn’t build the infrastructure that made him rich, the government built most of it, and the rest was in collaboration with the government to use natural resources like the broadcast spectrum. Jordan would not have become rich playing basketball if he didn’t have access to the vast infrastructure created by the government. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/93 "2019-08-29T17:31:19Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Obama has a big house, he owns a 8.5 million dollar mansion in Washington DC. He may also own homes in Chicago, California, and Hawaii. The $15 million compound on Martha’s Vineyard is in addition to all those things. There is no difference between building a bigger house, which he specifically criticized and buy a huge compound to summer in. Both have the same opportunity cost, which was what he was criticizing. Obama did not “specifically” (or in any way) criticize “building a bigger house”. I believe this is the 2nd time you’ve mischaracterized his words, and the 2nd time I’ve called you out on it (with no response). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/94 "2019-08-29T18:04:59Z")
Maybe he didn’t respond because what you are claiming is too obviously false to require it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/95 "2019-08-29T18:11:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Maybe he didn’t respond because what you are claiming is too obviously false to require it. > > Regards, > Shodan Then let’s see a cite – the full quote previously provided said something very different from “it’s wrong to build big/bigger houses” or any other criticism of building big/bigger houses. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/96 "2019-08-29T18:17:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Then let’s see a cite – the full quote previously provided said something very different from “it’s wrong to build big/bigger houses” or any other criticism of building big/bigger houses. “There’s only so big a house you can have.” Is your contention over “have” vs “build”? Is that what you’re hanging your defense on? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/97 "2019-08-29T18:19:36Z")
Here’s the full quote again, for anyone who missed it: > [@](#): > > I should add, by the way, right now I’m actually surprised by how much money I got, and let me tell you something: I don’t have half as much as most of these folks or a tenth or a hundredth. There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. (Cheers and applause.) There’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough. (Laughter.) You don’t have to take a vow of poverty just to say, “Well, let me help out and let a few of the other folks – let me look at that child out there who doesn’t have enough to eat or needs some school fees, let me help him out. I’ll pay a little more in taxes. It’s okay. I can afford it.” (Cheers and applause.) > I mean, it shows a poverty of ambition to just want to take more and more and more, instead of saying, “Wow, I’ve got so much. Who can I help? How can I give more and more and more?” (Cheers and applause.) That’s ambition. That’s impact. That’s influence. What an amazing gift to be able to help people, not just yourself. (Applause.) Where was I? I ad-libbed. (Laughter.) You get the point. Reading the full quote in context, it’s very clear that he’s talking about his own experiences as a relative newcomer to wealth, and how being asked to pay more taxes (and contribute to charity) as a wealthy person would not be a significant detriment to his lifestyle. He still is able to eat as much as he wants; live in as big a house as he likes; take as many nice trips as he desires; etc. Paying more taxes, and contributing to charity, would not take away his ability, as a wealthy person, to live a very comfortable and pleasurable life. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/98 "2019-08-29T18:26:15Z")
For a guy who was [famous for his use of “I”](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barack-obama-refers-to-himself-a-record-breaking-392-times-in-berlin-speech), he used “you” an awful lot there while “talking about his own experiences”. Reading the “full quote” you provided, it’s not at all clear to me that his list of “only so” things is a reference to himself rather than the “these folks” that have twice, or ten times, or a hundred times as much money as him from the preceding sentence. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/99 "2019-08-29T18:40:48Z")
Here’s the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlrWhx8Spp8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlrWhx8Spp8) The passage in question starts at about 48:00. I think the text makes it clear enough, but his mannerisms and the audience’s response make it even clearer – it’s using self-deprecation about his own wealth to make a larger point that when you’re wealthy, you have plenty of money left over even after spending it on a very nice lifestyle, and thus progressive taxation is nothing to fear. And in the sentence immediately preceding, he says the following (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > For almost all countries, progress is going to depend on an inclusive market-based system – one that offers education for every child; that protects collective bargaining and secures the rights of every worker – that breaks up monopolies to encourage competition in small and medium-sized businesses; and has laws that root out corruption and ensures fair dealing in business; **that maintains some form of progressive taxation so that rich people are still rich but they’re giving a little bit back** to make sure that everybody else has something to pay for universal health care and retirement security, and invests in infrastructure and scientific research that builds platforms for innovation. I don’t see any possible interpretation of the full context of these quotes that’s other than the equivalent of “the rich have nothing to worry about with more progressive taxation – and I should know because I’m rich and I have plenty of money left over after doing all the things I want to do”. Those inclined to see Obama as evil or a commie or whatever probably see things differently, similar to the way that the guy I pass on my way to work who thinks he’s Jesus seems to see things differently. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/100 "2019-08-29T18:43:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > For a guy who was [famous for his use of “I”](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barack-obama-refers-to-himself-a-record-breaking-392-times-in-berlin-speech), he used “you” an awful lot there while “talking about his own experiences”. Reading the “full quote” you provided, it’s not at all clear to me that his list of “only so” things is a reference to himself rather than the “these folks” that have twice, or ten times, or a hundred times as much money as him from the preceding sentence. He said let me help him out, he said I can afford to pay more taxes. And he was generalizing his experience to others. If he can afford to pay more taxes, so can those who have ten times more than he does. If he has enough money to pay for anything he wants and still have enough left over to help others, so should those with a lot more than him. It’s pretty obvious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337.md?page=6)