And America Continues to Show it's True Colors. . .

[CensoredAlso]

Perhaps, but I'd still rather that than a rich person who does nothing to help the poor and even advocates policies to hurt them.

Thing is, limousine liberals benefit from many of those policies. And their charity work will never truly hurt their wallets. It's not a sacrifice on their part.

 

[jvcarroll]

Best way is using excessive wealth to do good things and make the world a better place.

YES!

 

[CensoredAlso]

"Fraser agrees with Frank that the Democratic Party can no longer reasonably claim to be the party of the working class or the 'little man.' Instead, he argues, the Republican and Democratic parties now represent two different elite constituencies, each with its own culture and interests and modes of thought. Fraser describes today’s Republicans as the party of 'family capitalism,' encompassing everyone from the mom-and-pop business owner on up to 'entrepreneurial maestros' such as the Koch brothers, Linda McMahon and Donald Trump. The Democrats, by contrast, represent the managerial world spawned by modernity, including the big universities and government bureaucracies as well as 'techno frontiersmen' like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. These are two different ways of relating to the world — one cosmopolitan and interconnected, the other patriarchal and hierarchical. Neither one, however, offers much to working-class voters."--New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/books/review/listen-liberal-and-the-limousine-liberal.html.

 

[jvcarroll]

Thing is, limousine liberals benefit from many of those policies. And their charity work will never truly hurt their wallets. It's not a sacrifice on their part.

Why should wealthy people be substantially hurt in the wallet in order to help others? That's a dangerous standard. Time is valuable. Putting one's public image out there in support of a cause is valuable. Spending millions on a problem, even though that person might have billions in the bank, is valuable. It's all still a sacrifice. They're going without and/or risking their reputation in order to help someone else. I thank the universe for "limousine liberals" who spend a day or two a week in soup kitchens serving the needy (even if they go to the Four Seasons to eat afterward). I also feel the same for those who donate money (even if it's a tax write off) for good causes. That's why we make things tax write offs - so that more people will do it. I just friggin wish there were more Limousine Conservatives. Where the heck are they? Oh yeah, they're pouring their money into "family" groups like Focus on the Family that put their money and support behind Roy Moore while they teach parents how the turn their back on, torture and kick out their gay kids. Sorry for the angsty rant, but I just don't see much to the point of belittling help and/or helpers to a humanity, no matter how small one feels their contribution is. Does everyone deserve a medal? No! Do any of these people deserve an ounce of ire? Absolutely not. Just my buck o five.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Why should wealthy people be substantially hurt in the wallet in order to help others?

I am hurt every time I donate to charity (and it's quite often). I still do it. Why should they be protected from that? Isn't that privilege?

It's all still a sacrifice.

I can't agree that time and image are much of a sacrifice. Again, sounds like privilege.

risking their reputation in order to help someone else.

What reputation are they risking?

I thank the universe for "limousine liberals" who a day or two a week in soup kitchens serving the needy

If it's a day or two a week, then those aren't what people mean by limousine liberal.

I just don't see much to the point of belittling help and/or helpers to a cause

I think you would laugh if I asked you to feel bad for belittled wealthy conservatives. I laugh at the concept of feeling bad for either wealthy conservatives or liberals.

 

[D'Snowth]

Why should wealthy people be substantially hurt in the wallet in order to help others?

EXACTLY!!!

They have money to spare, we don't, so why should we get taxed out the wazoo, while they get breaks? What sense does that make? Let's Sesame this for a moment:

Ernie and Bert are having lunch in Hooper's Store. Ernie has ten apples, and Bert has four apples. Alan says there's not enough apples in Hooper's Store and has to take some back in order to have enough apples in Hooper's Store. Alan decided that he needs to take apples away from Bert, and takes all of Bert's apples, leaving him with none. Ernie, on the other hand, is given the option of giving apples, but doesn't have to, so Ernie gives one of his apples to Alan, but expects apples in return, so Alan gives Ernie two of Bert's apples for one of his apples.

Doesn't seem right, does it?

 

[CensoredAlso]

EXACTLY!!!

They have money to spare, we don't, so why should we get taxed out the wazoo, while they get breaks? What sense does that make?

That's not what Jamie was talking about. But I agree as far as taxes.

 

[jvcarroll]

I'm hurt every time I donate to charity (and it's quite often). I still do it. Why should they be protected from that?



I can't agree that time and image are much of a sacrifice. In fact that kinda sounds like privilege.



What reputation are they risking?



If it's a day or two a week, then those aren't what people mean by limousine liberal.



I think you would laugh if I asked you to feel bad for belittled wealthy conservatives. I laugh at the concept of being bad for either wealthy conservatives or liberals.

I like ya, heralde, but I can't even begin to unpack this. I'll just say that shaming people, conservative or liberal, for actually helping others, in ways big, little and in between, makes no sense to me. I'm glad to see that you now include conservatives in with your limousine liberals, but that's not how this conversation began. It appeared that liberals were being held to a higher standard. Having high general standards for the works of other people isn't productive or helpful. I don't care if a person makes three trillion dollars a minute and is a conservative - whatever help they can give others is welcome to those who are helped (and certainly by me).

 

[CensoredAlso]

shaming people, conservative or liberal, for actually helping others, in ways big, little and in between, makes no sense to me.

Dude, it's not shaming. It's keeping things in perspective.

I'm glad to see that you now include conservatives in with your limousine liberals

Lol, now? They never left. I like you too but I think you see me as a conservative a lot of the time because I'm not your idea of what a liberal is.

I don't care if a person makes three trillion dollars a minute and is a conservative - whatever help they can give others is welcome to those who are helped (and certainly by me).

Helping people isn't only confined to throwing money at them. Like the NYT quote I posted, it's also about the culture you create.

 

[jvcarroll]

EXACTLY!!!

They have money to spare, we don't, so why should we get taxed out the wazoo, while they get breaks? What sense does that make? Let's Sesame this for a moment:

Ernie and Bert are having lunch in Hooper's Store. Ernie has ten apples, and Bert has four apples. Alan says there's not enough apples in Hooper's Store and has to take some back in order to have enough apples in Hooper's Store. Alan decided that he needs to take apples away from Bert, and takes all of Bert's apples, leaving him with none. Ernie, on the other hand, is given the option of giving apples, but doesn't have to, so Ernie gives one of his apples to Alan, but expects apples in return, so Alan gives Ernie two of Bert's apples for one of his apples.

Doesn't seem right, does it?

Totally agree. While I wasn't talking about this new tax giveaway in my example, you're absolutely right. My example is more like this: The Count is a billionaire and lives in a huge castle on the edge of Sesame Street. He donates millions a year to various causes, but it never really makes that much of a dent in his finances. Should he give more? Sure! Heck, you know how I feel about the wealth gap. Should Grover chastise him for being rich and not giving til it hurts? No. He's giving more than anyone on Sesame Street and he's helping a lot. However, should we all care when his photo is in the paper for helping? I wouldn't. Dude has more and I'm glad he's helping. If I saw him, I'd probably give him a hello and a fist bump, but that's all. I wouldn't celebrate him for doing what was right (even though he doesn't have to do it).