Quote:
Originally posted by AndrewK
Thats assuming a level playing field with equal opportunity, a fallacy in the real world... also it assumes that the gov't is really taking half of your million dollars and giving it straight to some loser who has no income, making him fabulously wealthy, which is also not how it works.
I understand the point, but that example skews reality very badly.
To me a liberal is someone who believes the "common good" is more important than the interests of a select few, that it is reasonable to curtail ultimate wealth to work towards solving social problems. To me a conservative is one who would rather have it centered around the individual, allowing him/her to do as well or as poorly as they can, whether it is at the expense of another or not.
|
I figured AndrewK would be in on this thread soon enough, spouting some nonsense about "unlevel playing fields" and the "poor, pitiful, less-fortunate, disenfranchised, discriminated, oppressed, (insert your own favorite P.C. buzz word here) pee-ons" who need liberals like him to come along and and forcibly relieve me of some of my hard-earned cash for "the common good".
Please spare us your Hitler-esque, Hillary Clinton-esque, liberal-esque "we must abolish the concept of the individual for the common good" horse$h!t. It's starting to sound REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pathetic.
I was also preparing to chime in with relevant tax figures and historical facts and such, but as I read further, I saw that PC Dave and others have pretty well covered it, so...Nice job, guys.
Mike