I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
of course not. Nancy Pelosi has used her position to make herself fabulously wealthy. Ditto Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and all the rest. They don't hate the wealthy - they are the wealthy (though of course, they may not have accepted that).
But they think that people envy the wealthy and they are willing to manipulate that in order to achieve political success. Talking down about the visibly successful makes lots of people feel better about themselves (witness our celebrity coverage), and people feel more morally justified in taking from those whom they disparage.
The right does much the same when it makes appeals against "elitism." They're two sides of the same coin - populism.
It has nothing to do with like or dislike of wealth. The reasoning tends to more be a light application of utilitarianism tempered by what is practical and achievable (or considering what is best for everyone and not just a few) when considering the answer to problems inherent within our society than any personal feelings about people of various economic classes.
This whole thing about jealousy, hatred, etc is really just a talking point and nothing more. Its sad that people are fooled by it so easily.
Why are you so envious of and hate the rich?
Seriously, this is like asking if republicans hate the poor.
The answer can be found in the fact that Democrats see life as a zero-sum game. To them, if someone wins that means it must come at the expense of someone else. Success is thus evil as it causes pain and suffering to others. Since America is successful — in fact unprecedentedly so — America, in their eyes, is unprecedentedly evil. Suddenly it makes sense why Democrats continually compare America to the most heinous regimes in history.
The Democrats’ hatred of success is not just limited to economics. While America is evil because of our success and corporations are, de facto, evil because they’re successful (and the most successful corporation, Wal-Mart, of course receives the most hatred from the left) the same hatred exists for those who are successful in their studies.
This is why the Democrats (and their ideological brethren in Europe) so hate Israel and so adore the Palestinians. The fact that Yasser Arafat was a corrupt, mass murdering, terrorist dictator who stole his people’s money, sent fourteen year old brainwashed children out to blow the skulls off of the infidels in Israel and intentionally kept his people in poverty to be used as political pawns is of no significance to the Democrat. The Palestinians are to be championed for their failure and Israel, a democracy with freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, is to be hated for its success.
Interesting perspective indeed, although half cocked generalizations and knee deep hogwash could also serve as definitions in a pinch.Μολὼν λαβέ;1060764010 said:Interesting perspective that seems to match the posts of many here on the left.
Why do Democrats Hate America? | The Atheist Libertarian
Do Democrats hate wealth?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060764010 said:Interesting perspective that seems to match the posts of many here on the left.
Why do Democrats Hate America? | The Atheist Libertarian
Interesting perspective indeed, although half cocked generalizations and knee deep hogwash could also serve as definitions in a pinch.
Democrats see life as a zero-sum game. To them, if someone wins that means it must come at the expense of someone else.
I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
Interesting perspective indeed, although half cocked generalizations and knee deep hogwash could also serve as definitions in a pinch.
I am a liberal, and I do not see life as a zero sum game. A prosperous system must have economic 'winners' and 'losers' in order to function well. Liberals do not emphasize this side of the prosperity equation because wealthy people are quite good at articulating these imperatives and getting heard. So, it may seem like liberals don't talk about letting the wealthy be wealthy much, but it is because the voice for the wealthy is already quite deafening.
But back to this zero sum game notion: The pie can indeed be expanded so that there is more to divvy up, and liberals are well aware of this. The argument with conservatives is over how that pie is best expanded, and the liberal says some of the key components are utilization of idle wealth toward job creation (progressive taxation and inheritance taxes) and creating a framework where workers have greater power to negotiate their compensation (this was unions during the expanding prosperity of the last century).
When certain conditions are met to limit how wealth pools at the top, and rather is channeled toward the middle and lower, the pie does in fact increase in size, and everyone ends up more secure and better off.
Conservatives believe that the best way to expand the pie is to allow the 'free' marketplace to allow wealth to pool at the top without limit, which quite simply makes zero sense.
More closely akin to a humorous dismissal of presenting a half baked blog dripping with right wing rhetoric as a credible source on the subject at hand, which coincidentally also falls into the category of unsubstantiated gibberish.Μολὼν λαβέ;1060764155 said:T
Akin to idioms referring to shoes that fit.
This is a ridiculous question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?