Thread: Liberals blabber that "Conservatives just want to make the rich richer"...

Originally Posted by The Real American Thinker

I'm going with conservative straw man.

I guess you guys slept through the lawsuit involving firemen where a promotional exam was set aside because of racial inequality of outcome. I suppose you slept through Justice Sotomayor's confirmation where she supported the use of disparate results as proof of racism.

And then consider the perennial whine about men earning more than women. That's a disparate result and any attempt to look at why is met with screams of "sexist". Of course, women living longer than men isn't a disparate result that matters. No, that's simply inate superiority.

For lessons on stramen, listen to President obama's speeches. I think there's an MP3, "My Best Strawman Arguments."

And the best part of equality of outcome is it makes everyone, except the elite rulers, poor and, therefore, quite manageable.

Originally Posted by FrankCapua

Conservatives don't "want to make the rich richer",

Yes, they do. And they want to steal from working people to do it. Elitism is the right's core value.

they just don't want the government to decide how rich some one can get.

Yes, they do. And they want the government to decide that rich, greedy parasites will get as much richer as they want to get without contributing anything, and working people will get poorer despite doing all the producting.

Conservatives value property rights, while liberals want to make them subject to some subjective view of fairness.

No, conservatives value privilege and call it "property rights," while liberals are aware of the fact that owning property in other people's rights is a privilege, not a right.

Conservatives basically don't acre how rich someone gets, as it is not their business as long as the wealth was gotten legally.

But in fact, their modus operandi is to make it legal for rich, greedy parasites to take the wealth that working people earn, and contribute nothing in return.

Liberals view wealth as evil because equality of outcome is their goal.

No, liberals view injustice as evil, and are aware of the fact that the wealth of the rich has almost all been acquired unjustly.

Originally Posted by FrankCapua

Good for you, but many leftists do want equality of outcome.

Name one.

There are not enough of the very rich so that heavily taxing them will make difference for those in poverty.

Yes, there are, easily, because the very rich are so very, very rich. Aggregate spending on the poor is about 4% of GDP, and the aggregate economic rents of land, bank seigniorage and intellectual property monopolies are about 40% of GDP.

As far as your contention that business owners want their workers to make less than a living wage, you demonize most business owners wrongly. Most businesses and business owners have no objection to rewarding workers for production. The problem for most of those who work for low wages is that their work is not worth more.

Garbage. Their labor is not worth more because they are forcibly deprived of options, and so must offer their labor in competition with people in poor countries who don't have to support such a large and exorbitantly overpaid overclass of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

I guess you guys slept through the lawsuit involving firemen where a promotional exam was set aside because of racial inequality of outcome. I suppose you slept through Justice Sotomayor's confirmation where she supported the use of disparate results as proof of racism.

And then consider the perennial whine about men earning more than women. That's a disparate result and any attempt to look at why is met with screams of "sexist". Of course, women living longer than men isn't a disparate result that matters. No, that's simply inate superiority.

For lessons on stramen, listen to President obama's speeches. I think there's an MP3, "My Best Strawman Arguments."

And the best part of equality of outcome is it makes everyone, except the elite rulers, poor and, therefore, quite manageable.

Why do I care about any of those people? They don't decide what I can believe.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Conservatives do want to make the rich richer. They also want to make the poor richer.

Nope. The core value of the right is elitism. That means the rich are to be made richer, and the poor poorer, by force.

]Liberals, on the other hand, want to make everyone, except liberal politicians and their friends, poorer.

No, that's just a stupid lie from you, as proved by the affluence of ordinary working people in liberal countries like Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe.

A mass of poor people ruled by the rich elite liberals is their dream. The liberal elite is everyone except the elites on the dole and absolutely controllable.

No, that's just a stupid lie from you, because the core value of the left is egalitarianism.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

I guess you guys slept through the lawsuit involving firemen where a promotional exam was set aside because of racial inequality of outcome. I suppose you slept through Justice Sotomayor's confirmation where she supported the use of disparate results as proof of racism.

And then consider the perennial whine about men earning more than women. That's a disparate result and any attempt to look at why is met with screams of "sexist". Of course, women living longer than men isn't a disparate result that matters. No, that's simply inate superiority.

For lessons on stramen, listen to President obama's speeches. I think there's an MP3, "My Best Strawman Arguments."

And the best part of equality of outcome is it makes everyone, except the elite rulers, poor and, therefore, quite manageable.

Are you really confusing a position against racist discrimination with wanting equality in outcome for all?

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Conservatives do want to make the rich richer. They also want to make the poor richer. Liberals, on the other hand, want to make everyone, except liberal politicians and their friends, poorer. A mass of poor people ruled by the rich elite liberals is their dream. The liberal elite is everyone except the elites on the dole and absolutely controllable.

That's the opposite of how I see it. I, too, would like to see both the rich and the poor get richer. It seems to me like self-proclaimed conservatives want to make almost everyone poorer so that the few rich people have more leverage against them. A mass of poor people ruled by the rich elite, where everyone is dependent on the wealthy and thus very controllable.

But, hey, it's good to know that's not the case. Funny to imagine we both want the same thing.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Originally Posted by Forum4PoliticsBot

...but why the hell would a Conservative want to make the rich richer? How does it do any good to Mr. Average Conservative if the rich get richer?

Because the average conservative is mislead by the conservative propaganda media to believe such nonsense like "tax cuts make revenues grow faster" and "tax increases kill jobs"?



Then why do they support policies taht have produced this result?

Ah yes. Charts used to lie. Fantastic.

Of what consequence is the fact that the average household income of quintiles remains flat? Shouldn't they? Quintiles are 1/5ths for a REASON: if it weren't for the bottom 20%, there wouldn't be a top 80%! Moreover, you haven't established how the top 1% - whose wealth has exploded, and for whom there isn't another "quintile" into which they can migrate - gains wealth by HURTING the lower quintiles.

Have you?

What matters is how fast one moves from one quintile to another. I went from the bottom quintile to the top in my lifetime, and I'm in my mid 40's.

You?

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Ah yes. Charts used to lie. Fantastic.

Upon what basis do you claim they are a lie. Other than the fact that they don't help support your position?

Of what consequence is the fact that the average household income of quintiles remains flat? Shouldn't they? Quintiles are 1/5ths for a REASON: if it weren't for the bottom 20%, there wouldn't be a top 80%!

Astute. Meaningless.

What matters is how fast one moves from one quintile to another.

That movement is less than it used to be 30 years ago. But I disagree that is all that matters. The incomes made in each group matter too. And almost all the income growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top group, and more specifically the top 1%.

Originally Posted by Daybreaker

That's the opposite of how I see it. I, too, would like to see both the rich and the poor get richer.

I'm glad you feel that way, since all the policies you support ensure the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Daybreaker

It seems to me like self-proclaimed conservatives want to make almost everyone poorer so that the few rich people have more leverage against them. A mass of poor people ruled by the rich elite, where everyone is dependent on the wealthy and thus very controllable.

.

Nope, you got that wrong. It's you in the Leftardocracy who think there's a finite amount of wealth and a few people are hogging it all. Conservatives know that wealth creation benefits everyone and a rising tide lifts all boats. If results are any indicator of intentions, it should be clear that the Left wants to keep people poor. Funny how the "War on Poverty" is actually a war on prosperity.