Why would a conservative only care about the wealthy?

Post Reply New Topic

Why can't charity make up for it? I'm not saying we should ditch social security or welfare at all. But many conservatives believe that it should be temporary. And if conservatives differ than liberals on issues, we have a right to speak our mind, so why should they usually care?

Because I doubt there are enough chairity organizations, as well as people willing to donate to them to replace current welfare programs, as is what we have is lacking.....if we got rid of the current welfare programs, and tried switching to charity alone dealing with poverty things would be even worse.....If anything the system we have could use some reforming so its more effective and nothing wrong with Charity to supplement it.

For instance I doubt charity could replace SSI/SSDI, Unemployment, Medicaid/Medicare...perhaps food stamps, but that would take a lot of food shelves. Also much of the time welfare can be temporary, like some people on food-stamps end up getting off them when they are in a position to afford adequate food, unemployment is temporary(not sure if that is technically fully welfare or if employers pay that), Medicaid can be temporary. However some peoples circumstances don't improve....also with SSI someones disability might not improve enough for work, so making it 'temporary' in those cases really would not do much good would just leave a lot of disabled people with less resources to work with.

Yes, but don't regulate them to where it's overly tempting to roll up their tents and take them to China or just go out of business.

You want an iron curtain so they can't leave? On second thought don't answer that.

Good thing I reminded you to throw that in, although I'm surprised I had to.

Because it's infinitely easier to smear your opponents' motives than to come up with an actual logical argument.

Because charity is a business. Some peoples use that to become richer and some other to push a political agenda.

As for conservatives caring only about the wealthy, it may not be the case, but the results of their politics is only good for the wealthy.

So, we're not supposed to restrict business so they can't leave Americans without work, and we're supposed to deregulate businesses so they will want to stay - at the cost of the worker and the consumer. You want all the advantage given to business, I'm surprised you don't figure we should wipe their collective ass after they defecate on us, too.

Charities have a valuable role in society, but they can't fill every need. In the nearby town of Crawfordsville, Indiana there are many people dependent on food stamps and other assistance. However, food assistance may not cover the entire month for some families. A local food pantry helps fill those needs until their cards are recharged. Also, the pantry helps provide laundry detergent and other cleaning supplies that food stamps don't pay.

For some it is a case of what kind of a world they want to live in. Or how the world really works.

Most folks marry, have kids and spend the best part of their lives raising, clothing, educating and looking after them, only to have them leave.
Now making that kind of a financial investment for no financial return certainly doesn't make much business sense.
But that is the way the world works.

Would a Republican model for household accounting accrue every dime spent on ones kids to a special debt account for them to be paid off before they can start savings of their own?

In order to call ourselves civilized, we like to think that human life has some value.
That every person is entitled to some measure of dignity, and that where the resources exist, no one need be without food, clothing or shelter.
Where the reality fails to meet the ideal, some call for greater government assistance.
Of course some don't have that ideal to begin with.

+1

At least in their current incarnation. I am very unhappy about the fact that they have been blocking legislation that would discourage the exportation of jobs and encourage bringing jobs back to the US. But if the Dems are for it, the Repubs are against it. I am sick of this for me/against me crap. The Repubs have opposed every measure since Obama was sworn in; even ones that were perfectly in line with their platform prior to him.

Carefully read again what I actually said.

How can social security be temporary? Disabled people depend on it to live. Welfare is already temporary.

"At least in their current incarnation. I am very unhappy about the fact that they have been blocking legislation that would discourage the exportation of jobs and encourage bringing jobs back to the US. "???????????????????

AND:

"Raptor wrote:
Yes, but don't regulate them to where it's overly tempting to roll up their tents and take them to China or just go out of business.

But But..........the battle's already lost. Perfect example: A year or two ago Obama was on all TV screens celebrating and agreement for Free Trade with South Korea.
Unless I disremember my economics this means that the incredibly productive and efficient S.Korea will ship ALL of their products, competitive to U.S. manufacturers or not, to the U.S. without any import duties or fees to protect American jobs. And in return all the raw materials (from our country), etc. that these international companies may need they can now import into S.Korea without any fees or taxes. We have many such "agreements", for the benefit of many corporations, with many countries.

So until the level of low paid illegal immigrants rises to a higher level (bringing down wages in the U.S.) this is how it will remain.

They also claim to care about the middle class....

And then act like there is only the wealthy and the middle class and anything else is just....well who cares....

Percisly it does help supplement the government programs in place, but no way could it possibly replace them. Sadly though a lot of chairity organizations like one other poster mentioned are more about looking good politically or whatever, then actually helping people in need....but not all are like that.

Conservatives happen to favor economic policies that benefit wealthy people much more than they do a typical person. If you lower taxes by the same percentage on everyone, that benefits the wealthy much more than a typical person. If you make it easier for businesses to be profitable, that benefits people who already own large businesses far more than someone who only owns a small business or no business at all. When you have proposals to lower taxes on those who are not wealthy, but to keep them where they are for the wealthy, or you have proposals to make things easier for small businesses but not make them any easier for larger businesses, thus giving conservatives an awful lot of what they say they want, but then they reject the proposal and get none of what they want, because it doesn't help the rich and the large companies, well, what conclusion is a reasonable person to draw from this? Especially when the proposal in question would seemingly help most of the conservatives but they reject it because it does nothing for the wealthy? Seems then they care more about the wealthy than themselves.

I did absolutely understand what you wrote. It's still putting the full advantage with business at the expense of workers and consumers when they take advantage of the fear that regulations will drive them away. As sonofgandhi had pointed out, it was Republicans who had blocked legislation that would have made it more difficult for businesses to pack up and desert Americans. Had this been allowed to go though, big business would have to stay despite all those evil regulations, and actually be what they claim to be - job creators.