Study finds wealthy Americans have different idea of what makes a just society

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PDF

[Goldwater]

Rich people are economically conservative? What shocking news!

[Vosem]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Rich people are economically conservative? What shocking news!

They also support the same people who say we are a Christian nation.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

...

What?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion

[Antonio the Sixth]

The sad thing is not that these people hold these views. The sad thing is that the US political system, as it is constructed, allows this tiny minority of douchebags to effectively hold all the political power at the expense of the vast majority.

[fezzyfestoon]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion

Hahaha compassion is just a word poor people throw around because they don't understand the concept of profit! Fool...

[Vosem]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

...

What?

From Boris Pasternak's novel, Dr. Zhivago. The title character supported revolutionary left-wing movements who completely destroyed his style of life once they entered power. (There's a lot more to the novel than that; it won Mr. Pasternak a Nobel Prize in Literature; but it's part of the irony of the work.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living. It must be the government's priority that society as a whole becomes wealthier, not one section of society at the expense of others.

The sad thing is not that these people hold these views. The sad thing is that the US political system, as it is constructed, allows this tiny minority of douchebags to effectively hold all the political power at the expense of the vast majority.

Let's just keep in mind 1% of the US as a whole is 3 million people, so keep that in mind when you look at the right column of the chart (both when you look at the % who agree and the % who don't). I don't know what their definition of 'affluent' is, so I can't testify for the left column.

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion

Hahaha compassion is just a word poor people throw around because they don't understand the concept of profit! Fool...

When emotion is allowed to overrule reason, everyone suffers.

[Goldwater]

Rich people are economically conservative? What shocking news!

They also support the same people who say we are a Christian nation.

Yes, Republicans are hypocritical for claiming to be Christian while supporting evil right-wing economics, I've never heard that one before.

[Maxwell]

This thread is already a nightmare, but let say that a lot of these policies are feel good, but ultimately would not be good ideas in practice. I think a lot of wealthy people earned it through hard work and intelligence (not all of them, obviously), and they see that. Not that I'm saying the general public isn't, but I think a lot of people are drawn to the feel good.

[Benj]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PDF

Some of those are a little odd. 53% of the public support the government hiring everyone who is unemployed?

Also, it's a little misleading to include the poverty line numbers. It says "no family". The current minimum wage is actually well over the poverty line for one person (which is just under $11.2k/yr, whereas the current minimum wage at $7.25/hr is $14.5k/yr at 40 hrs/wk, 50 wks/yr), and only just a hair under the poverty line for two people ($15.1k). Whereas having a minimum wage such that single full-time wage-earner could support a family of 8 at the poverty line would require the minimum wage to be set at more than $19/hr, surely beyond what the system could support, and even higher for supporting larger families.

So, how many kids are we talking? I could see the minimum at the point of a single parent working a minimum wage job supporting 2 kids at the poverty line (a minimum wage of just under $10/hr, incidentally exactly what's currently proposed), but more? The real problems there are single parenthood and people having more children than they can afford, not the minimum wage.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

'The goal of lowering their standard of living'? What is wrong with you? This is like the time the otherwise very wise John Irving said that rich people in Vermont were a persecuted class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly, which is why laissez-faire capitalism, at least to the degree advocated by elements of the woe-is-me 'persecuted' power elite of this country and their false-consciousness-riddled political 'allies', is morally indefensible as a system.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

...

What?

From Boris Pasternak's novel, Dr. Zhivago. The title character supported revolutionary left-wing movements who completely destroyed his style of life once they entered power. (There's a lot more to the novel than that; it won Mr. Pasternak a Nobel Prize in Literature; but it's part of the irony of the work.)

Oh, you were attacking a caricature of people.  Gotcha.

Few liberals want a "revolutionary left-wing movement," at least if by that you mean what I think you mean.

[Vosem]

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

'The goal of lowering their standard of living'? What is wrong with you? This is like the time the otherwise very wise John Irving said that rich people in Vermont were a persecuted class.

If you're goal is to lower economic inequality, then you have two goals:
a) To make one part of society poorer.
b) To make another part of society richer.

Unless that isn't the goal?

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

...

What?

From Boris Pasternak's novel, Dr. Zhivago. The title character supported revolutionary left-wing movements who completely destroyed his style of life once they entered power. (There's a lot more to the novel than that; it won Mr. Pasternak a Nobel Prize in Literature; but it's part of the irony of the work.)

Oh, you were attacking a caricature of people.  Gotcha.

Few liberals want a "revolutionary left-wing movement," at least if by that you mean what I think you mean.

Oh, no, the American left is much more moderate than that. But the same basic idea of people who cheer on their own misfortune applies.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This thread is already a nightmare, but let say that a lot of these policies are feel good, but ultimately would not be good ideas in practice. I think a lot of wealthy people earned it through hard work and intelligence (not all of them, obviously), and they see that. Not that I'm saying the general public isn't, but I think a lot of people are drawn to the feel good.

You're right that parts of this could be measuring greater cynicism, utilitarianism, or understanding of the practical limits of the US government as currently constituted rather than lesser compassion as such, but I really don't know that one can in good faith disagree with principles like 'Government should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed' (qua principles, obviously, rather than in instances of specific policy proposals) unless ones think that the state's duty to ensure the relative safety of its citizens doesn't extend to any sort of proactive measures at all.

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

'The goal of lowering their standard of living'? What is wrong with you? This is like the time the otherwise very wise John Irving said that rich people in Vermont were a persecuted class.

If you're goal is to lower economic inequality, then you have two goals:
a) To make one part of society poorer.
b) To make another part of society richer.

Unless that isn't the goal?

Ou're goal is indeed to lower inequality, but part a) of your formulation isn't so much an intentional aspect of that as a side-effect that w'e don't find much cause to care about, since in the case of the current American power elite there is nothing that any sane human being could possibly need or want to do with that amount of money. Additionally the money isn't really 'the'irs' in a full sense (although it's obviously partially 'the'irs', otherwise the concept of money is useless), since (in non-radically-individualist worldviews, traditionally conservative and socialist alike) the'y owe a debt to the society that allowed the'm to make it in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're the sort of person who, if Buddhist, would be an unreconstructed Theravadin arhat who sneered at bodhisattvas for having too many attachments. Coming from somebody studying Japanese religion, that isn't a compliment.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

Are... are you talking about the 1%?

[Vosem]

This thread is already a nightmare, but let say that a lot of these policies are feel good, but ultimately would not be good ideas in practice. I think a lot of wealthy people earned it through hard work and intelligence (not all of them, obviously), and they see that. Not that I'm saying the general public isn't, but I think a lot of people are drawn to the feel good.

You're right that parts of this could be measuring greater cynicism, utilitarianism, or understanding of the practical limits of the US government as currently constituted rather than lesser compassion as such, but I really don't know that one can in good faith disagree with principles like 'Government should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed' (qua principles, obviously, rather than in instances of specific policy proposals) unless ones think that the state's duty to ensure the relative safety of its citizens doesn't extend to any sort of proactive measures at all.

Well, that was a statement that only 50% of the general public as a whole agreed with, so whatever the reason as a whole was, it's clearly not just the rich who stand fast to it. The wording of the phrase has no disambiguation and implies (or, sounds like it implies to certain people) someone should be allowed to not seek employment and merely live off the government. I would find it interesting if the questions were more specific ('government should provide small temporary unemployment benefits to people actively searching for employment') what the results would be.

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

'The goal of lowering their standard of living'? What is wrong with you? This is like the time the otherwise very wise John Irving said that rich people in Vermont were a persecuted class.

If you're goal is to lower economic inequality, then you have two goals:
a) To make one part of society poorer.
b) To make another part of society richer.

Unless that isn't the goal?

Ou're goal is indeed to lower inequality, but part a) of your formulation isn't so much an intentional aspect of that as a side-effect that w'e don't find much cause to care about, since in the case of the current American power elite there is nothing that any sane human being could possibly need or want to do with that amount of money. Additionally the money isn't really 'the'irs' in a full sense (although it's obviously partially 'the'irs', otherwise the concept of money is useless), since the'y owe a debt to the society that allowed them to make it in the first place.

Which is why there are reasonable taxes, certainly. But owing someone a debt isn't the same thing as allowing someone to literally steal your things to give them to someone else. And whether or not you personally believe there's nothing reasonable to be done with such money, you shouldn't have the right to hoist your own morality onto other people.

Oh, no, the American left is much more moderate than that. But the same basic idea of people who cheer on their own misfortune applies.

You're the sort of person who, if Buddhist, would be an unreconstructed Theravadin arhat who sneered at bodhisattvas for having too many attachments. Coming from somebody studying Japanese religion, that isn't a compliment.

I don't have very much knowledge of non-Abrahamic modern-day religions (except for some of Hinduism), and a quick cursory Wikipedia-ing isn't clearing up my confusion, so I'll take your word for it that that isn't a compliment.

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

Are... are you talking about the 1%?

Not just the 1%, but yes. Basic property protections do and should apply to the 1% as well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

'The goal of lowering their standard of living'? What is wrong with you? This is like the time the otherwise very wise John Irving said that rich people in Vermont were a persecuted class.

If you're goal is to lower economic inequality, then you have two goals:
a) To make one part of society poorer.
b) To make another part of society richer.

Unless that isn't the goal?

Are you certain your a conservative?  Generally speaking conservatives don't express economics as a zero-sum game.  When it comes to lowering tax rates on the rich, eliminating business regulations such as those promoting a clean environment or safe working conditions, free trade to enable products to imported from countries with legal sweatshops, and a whole host of other conservative economic nostrums the constant refrains have been that a rising tide will lift all boats and that the benefits government grants the rich will tickle down to the poor.  Its unusual for an economic conservative to so openly express disdain for the poor schmucks are needed as votes by the robber barons.

[LastVoter]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

No, they are merely returing them to rightful owners, the workers, you need to understand that all wealth and capital are illegitimate.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Not just the 1%, but yes. Basic property protections do and should apply to the 1% as well.

Can you provide empirical evidence of the rich in this country having their standards of living lowered by anything you're warning us of? Are you aware of what this country was like in the fifties?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Think about this, Vosem. What exactly would you do with, say, 3 billion dollars? After a certain point, unless you're buying 12 yachts a day, you're effectively sitting on money, or using your money to invest and earn more money which you will sit on and/or use to make still more money. When so much money is sitting in the coffers of a few hundred people instead of being more evenly spread throughout the economy, it's detrimental to society as a whole.

[fezzyfestoon]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion

Hahaha compassion is just a word poor people throw around because they don't understand the concept of profit! Fool...

When emotion is allowed to overrule reason, everyone suffers.

Not everyone and not always, at least not as much or as often as when greed is allowed to overrule reason.

[pbrower2a]

Did you expect differently? I always wonder about zhivagos who support policies that result in the government literally stealing their things.

...

What?

From Boris Pasternak's novel, Dr. Zhivago. The title character supported revolutionary left-wing movements who completely destroyed his style of life once they entered power. (There's a lot more to the novel than that; it won Mr. Pasternak a Nobel Prize in Literature; but it's part of the irony of the work.)

Imperial Russia was a great place to live -- so long as one was filthy rich. Otherwise it was a Hell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such would have precluded the abolition of slavery because the abolition of slavery would have impaired the ability of extant elites to enrich themselves on the unpaid toil of their 'property'.

Government by wealth is government of thieves because it allows the super-rich to get whatever they want from everyone else. 

The sad thing is not that these people hold these views. The sad thing is that the US political system, as it is constructed, allows this tiny minority of douchebags to effectively hold all the political power at the expense of the vast majority.

Let's just keep in mind 1% of the US as a whole is 3 million people, so keep that in mind when you look at the right column of the chart (both when you look at the % who agree and the % who don't). I don't know what their definition of 'affluent' is, so I can't testify for the left column.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Extreme plutocracy denies the opportunity for profitable activity by those not already in the entrenched elite.

[fezzyfestoon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Extreme plutocracy denies the opportunity for profitable activity by those not already in the entrenched elite.

Don't I know know it, brother.