Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

socrates asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Any other liberals out there ever get tired of hearing about how liberal the "liberal" rich are?

I hear names being dropped all the time, Kennedy, Gates, Angelina Joli, the rich Hollywood liberals and, of course, the most sinister, rich liberal of them all, George Soros.

I understand that the word liberal is relative. Any of those people I named are more liberal in many ways than Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch, but imho, that's a bit like saying that sharp rocks are more comfortable to sleep on than broken glass.

If the "liberal" multi billionaires were really so liberal wouldn't they voluntarily choose to live 24 7 like someone who makes $100 k per year and put the rest of their money into providing the basic necessities for the world's poorest people, including the education and stability to start bringing down global reproduction rates?

Does it really make sense to you that anyone who can afford to buy an Island as a birthday present or is considering where his 7th mansion should be located can, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a liberal?

And, as long as we're on the subject, isn't the word "socialist" similarly tortured? If your personal assets run in the millions or billions how socialist could you possibly be?

Update:

@Blunt Ugly. I don't remember the dictionary definition specifying that liberal meant only sharing things you didn't work hard for.

Update 2:

@Nick. No. Wall st. is neoliberal. Big...big difference. Like the difference between Heaven, or Hell on earth.

Update 3:

@Dave87. I appreciate those few among the rich and super rich who have called for higher taxes on the rich, but I would also like to believe that, if I were rich or super rich myself, I wouldn't wait on the feds to come for my tax dollars.

Update 4:

r1b1. I would argue that generosity is more of a core principle of liberalism than progress or reform.

But, even if your priorities were progress and reform, how would you suggest we pursue those without generosity and social and economic equity?

Can you really see our species living up to it's fullest potential while some individuals have millions of times more stuff than others?

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It is a stupid joke by the reactionary Republicans.

  • r1b1c*
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Jesus, you have a total misunderstand of what most of these words mean.

    lib·er·al

    –adjective

    1.

    favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

    ===

    You can be rich and favor progress, doing that is what makes you a liberal. NOT giving you money away, doing that is what makes you a philanthropist

    phi·lan·thro·pist

    –noun

    a person who practices philanthropy.

    ===

    phi·lan·thro·py

    –noun, plural -pies.

    1.

    altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes.

    ====

    This is what you describe when you say

    "wouldn't they voluntarily choose to live 24 7 like someone who makes $100 k per year and put the rest of their money into providing the basic necessities for the world's poorest people, including the education and stability to start bringing down global reproduction rates?"

    [Edit to add]

    "I would argue that generosity is more of a core principle of liberalism than progress or reform"

    While most liberals tend to be generous, this is not a requirement or even part of the definition. The mindset that creates a liberal mind is one of openness to new ideas, new people, new life styles. A willingness to accept and promote change for the betterment of humanity. This mindset will naturally tend to produce a person that is also generous for the same reasons, but not necessarily so. Some of us are generous but only with our immediate family or circle of friends, we may feel no need or obligation to aid those we've never met. The inner need will still met just the same.

    "even if your priorities were progress and reform, how would you suggest we pursue those without generosity and social and economic equity?"

    Economic fairness would in and off itself do away with the need for generosity. For instance, just look at Bill Gates, a philanthropist giving away tens billions of dollars, if you count what was/is being given to him to give away over a hundred billion when all is said and done. And very little of that is going to aid Unitedstatesian people, although this may not be immediately apparent to you, in the US there is a relatively fair economic system. Given there are tremendous disparities between the billionairs and the common folk, but if you compare the common folk in the US with the common folk in say Chad the difference is just as abysmal. And it is those folks that the philanthropist is attempting to help, the most needy among us (people not Unitedstatesians).

    "Can you really see our species living up to it's fullest potential while some individuals have millions of times more stuff than others?"

    It is not how much any one has, rather how many don't have anything. It really doesn't matter if Joe Blow has a trillion bucks, what matters is that 3 billion people live well below the poverty level. What we need to do is bring up the living standards of the poor, not take away from those that have.

  • 10 years ago

    No one ever said the Liberal rich were willing to give away their well to the point they didn't have wealth & power. Conservative have only said the Liberal Rich are more than willing to extort assets from others. They definitely don't wish for the lower class to enter their ranks by earning wealth.

  • 10 years ago

    Wanting to raise taxes by 2 or 3% in order to pay our bills isn't the same as giving away every dollar you make over 100k. One is a liberal position, the other is a conservative strawman.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Wall street is Liberal

  • 10 years ago

    Liberal elitists.

  • 10 years ago

    there are two kinds of rich people...Liberals=who call for raising their OWN TAXES..like Obama and Oprah

    and rich republicans= who think we should cut SS to finance tax cuts, like Rush limbo, Boehner, the koch bros, Hannity and the rest of the selfish nuts

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    No. We liberals worked hard for our money. Unlike conservatives, who mostly inherited all their wealth.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.