# Why the idea that fiscal conservatives hate poor people? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872 "2010-02-06T01:32:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/241 "2010-02-11T05:37:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A gentleman of my very close acquaintance is a millionaire. He got that way by founding and running a successful small business. He is now retired, but he sold the business, which continues to operate. It employs twenty or so people, at a wide range of skill sets ranging from doctoral level to high school graduates only. > > Could you please describe the “very many, very real ways” in which he has gained his wealth by exploiting others, and the unfair advantage he employed against them? Are any of his employees millionaires, as well? Did they share equally in the profits or did he grow disproportionately rich off their hard work? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/242 "2010-02-11T06:15:25Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > That it’s an apples to bananas comparison? That it’s a complex issue, and that simply pointing to other countries that don’t have the same fiscal or political (or cultural or ethnic) makeup as the US and saying ‘well, THEY can do it…so we should be able too as well’ is kind of silly? This is just the American exceptionalism argument that **Lemur866** already alluded to. What, are Americans just exceptionally crappy at delivering government services compared to European countries or Australia, or Canada or Japan? I don’t think so. > [@xtisme](#): > > No, those other countries aren’t shitholes and yes, they have UHC…that doesn’t mean it’s best or even possible for us. To turn it around, and leaving aside Der Trihs, the US isn’t a shithole either, and we don’t have UHS…so, does that mean that our system is best for them? Why not? > -XT No, because as **Lemur866** also pointed out (you did read his post, yes?), The system in the US costs a lot more, and delivers poorer results. So you are correct that the US in not a shithole, but is clearly not doing well in the healthcare area. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/243 "2010-02-11T10:18:05Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > Are any of his employees millionaires, as well? Did they share equally in the profits or did he grow disproportionately rich off their hard work? God almighty, this board is a riot. So, unless everyone in America has the same level of wealth, someone was exploited. Am I getting that right? ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/244 "2010-02-11T11:47:00Z")
I have not been following this thread much, but I just found this, which seems very relevant to the original topic: [Democrats and Republicans Can Be Differentiated from Their Faces](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008733). Basically, Republicans’ faces look “powerful,” Democrats’ faces look “warm.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/245 "2010-02-11T13:16:18Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > Are any of his employees millionaires, as well? Did they share equally in the profits or did he grow disproportionately rich off their hard work? His partner is - was, actually - as wealthy as he. None of his employees are millionaires. The employees received bonuses but did not receive anything like an equal share in the profits (nor experienced a cut in their regular salaries during times when the business was not as successful as it later became). I will echo **Stratocaster** ’s question - is it cruel exploitation to fail to share equally in profits when risk is not equally shared? Or are you saying that the founders, owners, and principal revenue generators (indeed, very nearly the _only_ revenue generators) of a business are entitled to keep what the business makes in profit (for the most part)? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/246 "2010-02-11T15:10:27Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > Are any of his employees millionaires, as well? Did they share equally in the profits or did he grow disproportionately rich off their hard work? I cannot believe it. I typed up a snotty from-the-liberal-point-of-view response to **Shodan’s** post yesterday that made this exact claim. I pointed out that he grew rich by exploiting the sweat and blood of his employees; that they didn’t get a share of the profits when he sold the business; they didn’t become millionaires; that etc., etc., ad nauseum. I also pointed out the fact that this man had invested (i.e., risked) his own money in the business, worked long hard hours trying to keep up with increasing rules and regulations while at the same time trying to keep abreast of advancements in technology and keeping his business competitive, while his employees were parked on the couch at night watching TV and drinking beer, or making their nightly runs to the video rental store or shopping mall. And I followed that with the likely liberal response, which was "Piffle. Mere excuses intended to justify allowing someone getting more than someone else. _Power to the people!_" I followed all that with one of these: :rolleyes: Ultimately I decided not to post that sarcastic little post because I felt it would be needlessly insulting and inflammatory, and besides liberals aren’t quite that bad…at least not yet. I should have known better. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/247 "2010-02-11T17:36:53Z")
**Shodan** likes to play Republican poker. That’s where he gets seven cards, you get five, he gets to draw twice and all your cards are face up. He presents us a portrait without warts, we are told only positive things and challenged to point out the negative. Its like an ad for a drug without the contraindications that are so briskly and hurriedly recited at the end: “May cause warts, hemorrhoids, sudden reversal of sexual orientation, mange, grout, and beri-beri. Stop taking this medication and consult your physician if you cannot explain the presence of coins on your eyes…” Here is this splendid fellow. The facts are these: he is, in every respect, a splendid fellow. Now, you tell me why he is a rotten bastard, and if you can’t, I win. Republican poker. ---
**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:** [February 11, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/248 "2010-02-11T17:45:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Um…not exactly. FISCAL conservatives are against it because it causes distortions in the market. These distortions will probably have the (unintended) consequence of causing higher unemployment, but I think fiscal conservatives main concern is the distortion itself. > > As for lowering profits, first off I doubt it does…after all, the business is simply going to pass on the happiness to the customers, not suck it up themselves (providing two distortions for the price of one good deed…costs of products are distorted and the labor market is distorted, all for good intentions). In addition to raising prices, companies will also cut staff and/or find ways to automate…which is pretty much what they have done. > > If you keep a minimum wage low enough then the distortion effects are minimal (as our is…it’s enough to distort things, but not high enough to be a major issue). It’s once people start talking about setting up a minimum LIVING wage that things start to really get ugly…IMHO, as someone who has been told repeatedly in this thread that I ‘hate poor people’. The irony of that is pretty much off the charts. > > -XT Not all businesses can pass on all price increases to customers, especially if their market is elastic. I agree about automation, but automation increases efficiency and is a good thing, so one could argue that not increasing the minimum wage for so many years (true up until recently) which drives down the effective wage, reduces automation and thus reduces productivity. I’ve heard papers describing how manufacturing automation programs that would make sense in the US don’t make sense in Asia where the depreciation on the capital equipment is more than the labor it would replace. A living wage would be more disruptive, of course, but it might shut up those fiscal conservatives who are now complaining that the lowest paid workers aren’t contributing to taxes. On topic, I don’t know if that demonstrates hate for poor people, but it surely demonstrates insensitivity and disdain. The “lucky duck” comment from the WSJ is a perfect example of this. ---
**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:** [February 11, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/249 "2010-02-11T17:54:26Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I don’t see why, other than the fact that you are imposing a strict monetary value to some form of labor. If the market doesn’t deem that labor worth doing for that amount then they are right. Those types of laborers will be unemployed, or under the table. Or the job will be redefined to be more value added, or the delta between the productivity of the worker and his wages will be reduced. In a bad economy not everyone making minimum wage is unable to produce more than what a minimum wage job requires. Here is the key to understanding what happened in the past 9 years. By tax cuts focused on the rich, keeping the minimum wage as it was, and other policies, Republicans encouraged businesses to keep a lid on wages, so despite productivity improvements that in the past partially went to workers, worker salaries stagnated. A healthy economy however required consumption, and in normal times this would reduce consumption and cause a recession. To counter this, Greenspan kept interest rates low. That was fine after the 2001 recession, but they never got adjusted. This encourage borrowing, and the housing bubble, which funded the consumption businesses needed. It was unsustainable, of course, and when it collapsed it collapsed big time. If you want a vibrant US economy, you need consumption, and you must pay workers enough to let them buy things. The super rich can’t do it on their own. I suspect the root cause of the fact that the economy does better under Democrats is exactly this. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/250 "2010-02-12T16:13:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Unfortunately, it is only plain and obvious to a Marxist, or someone who believes they can debate by making assertions and then saying “anyone who disagrees is a fool and a liar”. > > That kind of “debate” is unfortunate, but it does demonstrate much of the answer to the question of the OP - saying that fiscal conservatives hate the poor is a mere insult aimed at folks who refuse to reflexively toe the liberal line, and has no basis other than the half-conscious awareness that vehemence is no substitute for logic. > You’ve made this assertion in the past, in almost the same words. I don’t recall that you were ever able to back it up, and, since simply announcing an opinion and proactively insulting anyone who fails to knuckle his forelock is not real debate. I will repost a question I have asked before. > > A gentleman of my very close acquaintance is a millionaire. He got that way by founding and running a successful small business. He is now retired, but he sold the business, which continues to operate. It employs twenty or so people, at a wide range of skill sets ranging from doctoral level to high school graduates only. > > Could you please describe the “very many, very real ways” in which he has gained his wealth by exploiting others, and the unfair advantage he employed against them? > > I should mention up front that he did not inherit a penny from his parents, received no government grants for his education, employed no one for minimum wage, paid all of his taxes in full and on time and never missed a payroll. > > So, please describe the cruel way in which he ground down the poor workers by creating a business that supported a dozen or more families. > > I know you will be able to do so, since someone who simply asserts without proof is either a fool or a liar. 😃 > > Regards, > Shodan > > PS - **gonzo** , you might want somebody to actually read you the thread. This is not a new claim. He has been saying it for a long time. Now you are dumb enough to think one case proves all. You friend has been a prince and a kind and generous man and became wealthy. Therefore all who became wealthy are kind and generous. Why do you do that? What do you think that apocryphal case proves about the rest of the wealthy? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/251 "2010-02-12T16:57:05Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Okay, let’s be kind to **Rand Rover** and concede his point – to him, taxation is violence, and he should therefore not be compelled to pay taxes. Any taxes. > > But in exchange, he needs to forfeit any and all benefits secured by taxation. Like police protection. (Note that this is removing it from him, not from others who presumably are contributing their fair share of the tax burden supporting the police; this is important later). And of course all fire protection; he can contract for private coverage if he feels so inclined. And all access to the court system: construction and maintenance of courthouses, judges’ and court attendants’ salaries all require tax money to pay for them. Further, let’s extend that to all public offices, as the buildings and civil servants’ salaries are covered by taxes, by and large. Oh, and taxes pay for the public streets and highways, and for traffic regulation devices – so he should not be using them. > > Now, no one should object if someone contacts his clients and lets them know that he has no access to the corut system, no recourse to the courts to collect payments on any contracts they may have with him, in fact no access to the agencies that print and process tax forms – and hence cannot obtain nor file the physical tools of his trade as a tax consultant. And likewise, nobody would have any objection to passing word to the local criminal underworld that police will not respond to a robbery or burglary at Casa Rand Rover. (But RR cannot use unnecessary violence to protect himself and his so-called ‘property’ – those criminals do have police protection, of violence against life or limb. > > So – he’s forfeited any source of income in his chosen profession; a lawyer who cannot appear in court or use the courts or any public offices to process any paperwork is reduced to providing people with the fruits of his wisdom, legal advice – and the unscrupulous among his clients will not have paid him (Why should they? He can’t sue them if they don’t), while the scrupulous will have paid what his contract calls for but understandably have dropped him in favor of a taxpaying lawyer who can actually use the courts and bureaucracy to their benefit. He cannot go anywhere except afoot – and then only on sufferance of his neighbors, since he has no right to use the public right-of-way. In fact, if he is using publicly owned water, sewer, or power, they need to be disconnected, as whatever rates he may be paying do not necesssarily cover the cost of building and maintaining them, which was likely borne from the general fund. And presumably he’s being laid siege to by the criminal element, who are probably experiencing a thrill at having only to outwit a single homeowner instead of the police. And for once the cops are on their side – if Rand Rover goes beyond the ‘appropriate resonse’ standard in defending self and property, they can have him arrested for assault. It’s not a lifestyle I would have chosen – but it’s the one he seems to prefer. Shodan, thanks for posting those quotes from me, which show the above post from Polycarp to be completely ludicrous. Polycarp–any response? A simple retraction of the above post would suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/252 "2010-02-12T17:04:35Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You friend has been a prince and a kind and generous man and became wealthy. Therefore all who became wealthy are kind and generous. Who said this? > [@](#): > > Why do you do that? Why do I do what - post in such a manner that it confuses you? It isn’t possible to post in any other way. > [@](#): > > What do you think that apocryphal case proves about the rest of the wealthy? Apparently whoever read you the thread went too fast. Let’s briefly recap and see if we can cause any neurons to fire - [ul][li] **BrainGlutton** made a claim. [/li][quote] in very many very real ways – the upper classes really are exploiters who accumulate their wealth by taking unfair advantage of the less fortunate. [/quote] [li]So I described a person of my acquaintance, who is definitely upper class (economically speaking) and gave an account of his circumstances.[/li][li]The idea is now for **BrainGlutton** (or whoever might be inclined) to show how this person gained his wealth by taking unfair advantage of the less fortunate.[/li][li]So far, **BG** has not seen fit to back up what he says, even though he claimed that it was plain and obvious. [/li][li]In fact, the only responses to my challenge has been [list][_] **devilsknew** apparently claiming that it is cruel exploitation not to give away the profits to those who did not share the risk nor generate the income, and [_]the usual substanceless drivel from those with nothing to add (not you, **Voyager** ), [_] **Stratocaster** and **Starving Artist** showing that they get the point,[_] your somewhat-more-clear-than-usual demonstration that you really don’t.[/ul][/list][/li] So now, **gonzo** , could you do me a favor and either [list=a][li]actually cut and paste where I made the claim that I was saying anything about all rich people being kind and generous[_] respond the points actually raised, or[_]start a thread in the Pit where I can respond to you when you call me “dumb”.[/list][/li] Thanks so much. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/253 "2010-02-12T19:44:45Z")
**Shodan** , you seriously expect people to address your personal anecdote as though it were data? Based, we must assume, on your personal reputation for spotless integrity and total honesty? We don’t know shit about this guy, your post is your cite. For all we know, he forces his employees children into lives of drug addiction and prostitution. And on this basis alone, you expect us to throw ourselves at your feet and blubber retractions and apologies? Because you “know a guy”? Whatever drugs you are taking, stop taking them. If you’re not taking any drugs, you might want to reconsider. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/254 "2010-02-12T20:07:31Z")
I dunno if there is any room left for debate on the topic, when the thread starts and continues with such acrimony, but I’ll try. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Look, **Rand Rover,** here’s what the “fiscal conservatives hate the poor” thing comes down to, and all of it should be plain and obvious even to Libertarians: > > 1. Different social classes do exist, in a vertical-hierarchical order, even in America where formal hereditary prescription (among white people, at least) has never existed. In some respects the different classes have identical interests, and in other respects conflicting interests. That’s plain common sense and you don’t need to be any kind of Marxist to see it. That does not automatically mean the lower classes are any better or any more deserving than the upper. It **does** automatically mean that siding with the lower classes’ interests in any case of conflict should be the default position (only the default position, always adjustable according to circumstance) of any person of truly good will – just because the lower classes are the only ones who really **need** extra support to get even a chance at a chance of a fair shake. “The poorest he that is in England has a life to live as much as the greatest he.” – Slogan of the [Levellers.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) I agree that social classes exist, but disagree that the default should be to always, in general and adjustible etc., to side with the lower. There are really two goals: a. the health of the economy _as a whole_; and b. obtaining, as a matter of social justice, a livable minimum for “the poorest he” (or she). In some ways, these goals are in conflict; in other ways they are not. A healthy economy may require, in some cases, measures that allow for the accumulation of capital in private hands. OTOH, a healthy economy requires a population able to afford to buy stuff. OTOH once again, a healthy economy _allows_ for a greater measure of social justice than one that is impoverished. What this points to is that, as in so much else, what is necessary is not a “default” favoring one class over another, but a _balance_; a recognition that this is not, a la Marx, a dichotomy of classes at war with one another, but a society in which the classes must co-exist to reach a mutual goal - prosperity. > [@](#): > > 1. In many ways – not in nearly as many ways as some populist or socialist zealots would assume, but still in very many very real ways – the upper classes really **are** exploiters who accumulate their wealth by taking unfair advantage of the less fortunate. Only fair they should be forced to give some of it back to society. (Of course it’s true that, nowadays, upper-class people are also “workers” in the sense that they work, even if they are independently wealthy and don’t have to – it’s a cultural thing; and it’s also true that they are also, in some respects, creators of wealth and providers of employment. Things are seldom simple, and this is clearly not one that is.) I clearly do not agree with this. Certainly _some_ wealthy people are “exploiters”, but I do not think it is structurally inherent in the system that they are. > [@](#): > > 1. Above a certain level, wealth means not only purchasing power but **political** power; and it runs clean against the very idea of democracy to allow the rich to wield political influence out of proportion to their numbers – which they do, especially nowadays. Being raised in the profit-centered ways of thinking of the business world (which cannot comprehend or acknowledge even the concept of “enough”), most of them (not all, but most) will only use that power to take ever unfairer advantage of everybody else and to build up their political power ever more and more in an endless and socially destructive cycle – which they do, especially nowadays. I disagree with this as well. In any democracy there are going to be folks who exercise influence out of purportion to their numbers - whether this is based on wealth, or fame, or influence. Suppress one form of influence and you exaggerate other forms. An example I’m familiar with is our Canadian healthcare system. It is public and so you can’t buy some forms of care (leaving out going to the US). However, if you are “in the know”, you can use your influence to get care better or sooner than others - not based on money but on connections. All one can do is to prevent, to the best of one’s ability, corruption (whether based on money or favours or whatever). > [@](#): > > 1. Even if a democratic and egalitarian society, which this is supposed to be, does not strictly require equality of outcome, it does at the very least require equality of **opportunity.** Everybody should be born with roughly equal chances to make it in life. At present, we’re not, to put it mildly, and only a fool or a liar would say otherwise. Measure our present social order against anything you might come up with to meet the test of the [veil of ignorance.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) Again, equality of opportunity is a bit of a pipe-dream. Remove money from the equation and you are still left with huge disparities based on education and influence. People will always want to give their kids a leg up in life, one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/255 "2010-02-12T20:32:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Shodan** , you seriously expect people to address your personal anecdote as though it were data? Based, we must assume, on your personal reputation for spotless integrity and total honesty? We don’t know shit about this guy, your post is your cite. For all we know, he forces his employees children into lives of drug addiction and prostitution. > > And on this basis alone, you expect us to throw ourselves at your feet and blubber retractions and apologies? Because you “know a guy”? > > Whatever drugs you are taking, stop taking them. If you’re not taking any drugs, you might want to reconsider. And what drugs have you been taking (no, wait…don’t answer that) during those times when you regale us with this anecdote or that about someone you know who has been screwed out of coverage by some insurance company? What’s good for the goose and all that… ~ **Starving Artist** , providing conservative gadfly and liberal hypocrisy poking services since 2003. ---
**Author:** ![noxxer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e68b1a/32.png) [@noxxer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/noxxer)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/256 "2010-02-12T20:38:42Z")
tried to find the origional quote for this, but its apparantly been lost in the sands of time. heres one that says what i want, though 🙂 “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” ~ Mahatma Ghandi that sums up my view on helping people who are unable to help themselves… it raises us all up ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/257 "2010-02-12T21:22:56Z")
That’s all well and good (and truly it is, I’ve said before that I support programs to assist the genuinely disabled, and, to a certain degree, the poor). But that isn’t what liberalism in my experience wants to do. Liberalism wants to take the view that the only reason some have more than others is because of some unfair advantage that the haves have which the have-nots do not, and therefore it is constantly seeking to redistribute the nation’s wealth so as to make things more ‘fair’. I don’t believe that conservatives hate the poor at all. Many conservatives are poor themselves. What many conservatives do hate (or at least strongly dislike and oppose) are the self-appointed champions of the poor whose solution to almost everything is to take money from the people who’ve earned it (or otherwise legitimately obtained it) and spend it on other people in ways designed to “make things more fair”, when in reality all they are doing is creating a different kind of unfairness. So in other words, conservatives don’t see liberal efforts to help the country’s weakest members, they see wholesale efforts constantly being made to redistribute the country’s wealth so everyone has a more or less equal share, and this of course is anathema to the conservative way of thinking. To us it flies in the face of what almost any rational person would consider fair, and it ignores the reality of human nature. People simply will not work as hard nor produce as much if the government takes the produce of it and gives it someone who hasn’t earned it, and people receiving such largess will not work to carry their own load if things are going to be given to them anyway by the government. What conservatives would like to see with regard to the poor who are truly poor and want to better their lives are progams to help them through their current circumstances and then provide them with education and/or assistance that would allow them to increase their income and better their lot in life. So you could say that conservatives want to help the weakest and poorest by providing the tools necessary to acheive a better life, whereas liberals just want to give them more of everyone else’s money – a solution that in my opinion leads to all sorts of fail on everyone’s part, the poor and everyone else as well. ---
**Author:** ![noxxer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e68b1a/32.png) [@noxxer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/noxxer)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/258 "2010-02-12T21:27:47Z")
i think a key issue we are having in this debate is that we are choosing to portray the opposites sides worst offenders. the 1% (WAG) of conservatives that want nothing to do with helping others, and the 1% (WAG) of liberals who want to help everyone at the expense of the more well off. On an aside… I truly dislike that our laws are being created to cater to the lowest common denominator, rather than the highest (or at least middle? 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/259 "2010-02-12T21:37:39Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And what drugs have you been taking (no, wait…don’t answer that) during those times when you regale us with this anecdote or that about someone you know who has been screwed out of coverage by some insurance company? > > What’s good for the goose and all that… > > ~ **Starving Artist** , providing conservative gadfly and liberal hypocrisy poking services since 2003. You quite miss the point. That I personally know someone who has been royally buggered is true enough, but my point is that most of us do. Its kind of like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, few of us are farther than two from such a victim: our neighbor, our co-worker, wife’s hairdresser, etc. By this I mean to point out another variety of grass-roots movement, one born of growing personal awareness rather than awareness in the abstract, or awareness imposed from without. Citations for screwing over by insurance companies abound, you can find them with perfect ease, they are thick upon the ground. If I had any faith whatever that such citations would change your mind, I would provide them. I do not. As far as my personal chemical enthusiasms go, they are modest. Tried everything, don’t like much. My attitude is best expressed by the philosopher Willy Nelson who said: “I gave up whiskey for weed in 1975. May be the only truly smart thing I ever did.” ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/260 "2010-02-12T21:42:43Z")
> [@noxxer](#): > > “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” ~ Mahatma Ghandi > > that sums up my view on helping people who are unable to help themselves… it raises us all up Then you also need to add the children and the next generation to your list of “weakest members.” Children don’t vote and we are very good at creating entitlements that exceed all cost estimates and dumps the massive debt on them. When they become adults, a larger % of their future paycheck is siphoned off to pay interest on that debt – the debt we incurred today. They pay tomorrow for today’s mismanagement. Why bother rounding up children for slave work in the coal mines when we can just exploit them surreptitiously? We can just dump our healthcare debt on them! Are we cruel, stupid, or both? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872.md?page=14)