Monday, April 9, 2012
On Greed and Compassion
I quite resent this notion that the American people are somehow a greedy lot, and that they're only concerned about themselves. It certainly doesn't mesh with the world that I see and it doesn't mesh the data, either. According to the Charitable Aid Foundation, the United States is THE most generous country on the planet (65% of its citizens donate money, 43% donate personal time, and 73% help out strangers). And to think that this type of charity would somehow shrink up if in fact the government did decide to cut back a little is both ridiculous AND insulting..............................................................................................I also deeply resent the demonization of wealth and achievement in this society. It was, folks, the industrialists and business visionaries of the United States who truly made it the great place in which literally every frigging immigrant on the planet wanted to come to FOR DECADES. And even when these people like John D. Rockefeller (Jr. and Sr.), Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, and Walter Annenberg weren't busy creating wealth, they were even busier giving it away. Hell, folks, even Cornelius Vanderbilt, who admittedly was somewhat skinflint during his life, donated (in 2012 dollars) $260,000,000 toward the creation of Vanderbilt University. Compare this, I ask you, to the bullshit ways in which Hoover and FDR frittered away taxpayers' money and, yes, it even becomes more of an outrage to demonize these great men.........................................................................................Of course, the thing that probably pisses me off the most is this idiotic notion that only liberals are capable of compassion - that they've essentially cornered the God-damned market on it, if you will. I mean, to me, the very concept of trying to solve, literally, EVERY PROBLEM with taxing the well-to-do and then creating yet another layer of bureaucracy isn't just a hackneyed approach. It's also a dangerous one in that it all too often hurts the very people that you're allegedly trying to help (rent controls - perfect example)..............................................................................................The bottom-line here, folks, is that we really, REALLY, need to work together and knock it off with all of this demonization bullshit. Both sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
And this rant contributes to working together how? Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
Excellent observations Will.
Jerry's response is precisely why I commented as I did at RN USA.
Thanks for cross posting this article,
Jerry: And this rant contributes to working together how? Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
The problem.
I find the deification of wealthy individuals by Will scary. IMO it's a dangerous approach that will end up hurting those who need help (if we leave the helping to the generosity of rich people).
Liberals (he doesn't say it is Liberals who he "resents", but we all know that is who is talking about) don't demonize achievement. As a Liberal I find this post highly offensive. And highly inaccurate.
Nobody has every claimed that the government cutting back on social spending would cause private charity to "shrink up". What is claimed is that private giving by itself cannot address the problem. Will is finding something "ridiculous" and "insulting" that no one believes.
These lies about Liberals "demonizing" achievement are what pisses me off. What about the group "patriotic millionaires"? This is a group of rich people who think their taxes should go up. Are they demonizing themselves?
But my response is probably just another example of why everyone thinks I'm a nut.
Not everyone, w-d.
Just most
Jerry, I believe that I'm a part of the solution. I was in favor of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan, the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett health-care proposal, the bipartisan Ryan-Wyden Medicare reform proposal, the bipartisan Kerry-Hutchinson infrastructure bank. Hell, I was even in favor (even though I was basically in agreement with his position) of that Walker dweeb in Wisconsin negotiating a compromise with the unions there. And even on frigging abortion, while I'm still pretty strongly pro-choice, I'm not opposed there to sensible restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions (some liberals think that a woman should be able to abort a baby as late as 24 hours prior to the due-date). In fact, Jerry, I can't think of very many things that I wouldn't be willing to compromise on (compare this to your unsuccessful paranoiac buddy, wd, who NEVER compromises).
wd, a) you claimed that libertarians were "greedy". b) Nowhere has Mr. Johnson ever said that the private charities should "do it all". He has only said that a lot of these programs should be block-granted back to the states where they can be managed more efficiently. c) Every other frigging comment that you make has to do with rich versus poor (it's a broken frigging record with you). You're frigging obsessed with class, for Christ sakes. d) And I don't deify ANYBODY, asshole. I honor and respect people who achieve and who do things for others; John D. Rockefeller - yes, wd - no, Bernie Madoff - no, Colin Powell - yes, etc., etc.. Ya' understand?
Will: you claimed that libertarians were "greedy".
They call it "rational self interest".
The block granting this is a scam, wherein they grant lower amounts then the costs of the programs are expected to grow by.
You're obsessed with the plight of the put upon wealthy.
There IS a class war going on, and the wealthy are winning. I'm not going to start ignoring the issue because you "honor and respect" some wealthy people (most of whom, on your standard much shared list, have been dead for decades) wanted to leave behind a legacy (and were motivated more by vanity than generosity).
As a Liberal I strongly believe you're part of the problem... witness your latest post, where AGAIN you stick up for the put upon wealthy... it's a frigging broken record with you.
Most of the compromises you list are incredibly slanted in favor of the conservative side. Deficit reduction is possible without doing it on the backs of the poor and working people (the People's Budget).
Also, I am willing to compromise. It would be impossible to get anything done otherwise. I just don't believe Democrats should sell out their base to do so.
FYI legislation isn't "bipartisan" is ONE Democrat (Wyden) signs on.
And I'm sure that if the Wyden-Ryan plan (which is infinitely better than what Ryan initially came up with because it retains the public option and has a catastrophic care rider to it) ever went to a vote on the House floor it would undoubtedly get dozens of Democratic yes votes. Not every Democrat is a frigging socialist, wd.
How can someone "lie" about what their opinion is? You can say I'm wrong, but you calling me a liar is a lie itself.
It's a lie because you know that by any reasonable assessment of my positions that I am in no way "obsessed by the plight of the wealthy".......Then again, and as George Costanza so adroitly pointed out of "Seinfeld", "It isn't a lie if truly believe it."......George Costanza, that's what I'm going to start calling you now, George Costanza, True Believer!
Will: You are right. So often, ideology, or whether or not there is an (R) or a (D) after his name, trumps fact with him. Faith-based, not fact-based politics.
WD said: "How can someone "lie" about what their opinion is?"
If the opinion is simply untrue, it is a lie. Couching it as an opinion does not change that.
Not only that, your calling Les/RN a "dupe" is condescending and arrogant, as well as being completely false.
Will: It's a lie because you know that by any reasonable assessment of my positions that I am in no way "obsessed by the plight of the wealthy"...
I "know" no such thing. All your posts crying about how hard the wealthy have it prove that what I say is true.
dmarks: So often, ideology, or whether or not there is an (R) or a (D) after his name, trumps fact with him. Faith-based, not fact-based politics.
Actually, it's never the case. I make my decisions based on the facts. Also, I find it incredibly arrogant of you to suggest that YOUR opinions are based on facts while mine aren't. Also, it's incredibly condescending. Who the hell made you judge/final arbiter of what the truth is?!
dmarks: Not only that, your calling Les/RN a "dupe" is condescending and arrogant, as well as being completely false.
You saying everyone makes the right (and informed) decision on what is best for them is completely false. The Right and the Left have opposing views on what path to take economically. They can't both be correct. Which means some people are making the wrong decision regarding which party will meet their needs.
IMO RN is wrong. He thinks I'm wrong. You arguing that either of us is arrogant is idiotic.
"Actually, it's never the case. I make my decisions based on the facts."
So often that is not the case. Such as your insistence that Gore never said he invented the Internet. And yes, that is a correct paraphrase. Ever check the thesaurus?
"You saying everyone makes the right (and informed) decision on what is best for them is completely false."
It's quite true in the case of Les. Your claiming he is a dupe is nothing other than a lame insult. You failed to provide any evidence of him being one, and you won't.
dmarks: So often that is not the case. Such as your insistence that Gore never said he invented the Internet. And yes, that is a correct paraphrase. Ever check the thesaurus?
A thesaurus has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore never saying he invented the internet. Snopes debunked your claim. They based their conclusion on what he obviously was referring to: his history of supporting legislation that fostered development of information technology (including the internet).
They did not base their conclusion on idiotically taking what he said completely literally and ignoring his legislative history.
And this is another example of dmarks' arrogance. He's right and a professional and respected debunking site (Snopes) is wrong. btw (according to Wikipedia), "FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases".
Yet the arrogant dmarks knows better.
dmarks: You failed to provide any evidence of him being one, and you won't.
You asked me if I've ever checked a thesaurus, but clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said I was going to PROVE RN is a dupe. The last sentence of my prior comment says it's MY OPINION (and I'm sure I've said it multiple times previously).
You're lying again, wd. I have never "cried about how hard the wealthy have it." I have simply a) spoken out about this pitting of one group of people against another bullshit, b) questioned this whole "their fair share" logic with the facts (i.e., the fact that the rich earn 16.9% of the income but pay 36.7% of all income taxes), and c) questioned as good for society overall this draconian top tax rate of 77.65% (pointing to the fact that major hikes in income tax have usually led to economic downturns; Wilson, Hoover, FDR, specifically). Couple that with the fact that I'm also for RAISING the top tax rate back to the Clinton era rates, doing away with the special consideration for capital gains, and reducing the cap on mortgage interest deductions and, yeah, you really are in fact one weaselly little ideologue.
Will: I have never "cried about how hard the wealthy have it".
I am not lying. 90 percent of your posts deal with this topic. BTW, it's the wealthy who are engaged in class warfare. You dissing our president for his "divisive" language is, IMO, utter nonsense. He's fighting back (and not even that aggressively). I don't think he's going far enough (nowhere near far enough).
Will: pointing to the fact that major hikes in income tax have usually led to economic downturns...
Not a fact. Utter baloney. Economic downturns occur when taxes are to low.
Post a Comment