Selfish-A Definition According to Liberals & Conservatives in America

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 2 weeks ago

   
   Liberals believe that the wealthier/more affluent among us are somehow obligated to carry those who are less fortunate.  Liberals asserted that people shouldn't be impoverished when there are wealthy people who can give up part, if not most of their wealth to make others be more comfortable.  Liberals argue that those who refuse to help the poor are selfish.   They feel that the poor have a right to a comfortable, middle class life even if others support them.
   
   By contrast, Conservatives maintain that there are opportunities to achieve socioeconomic/educational goals.   Conservatives assert that those who are poor are that way because of unintelligent life choices.  Some even contend that the poor refuse to assert themselves & that they believe that wealthier people should support them, reasoning that wealthier people have the money which can be used to help them.   Conservatives believe that output equals rewards.  If one refuse to exert himself/herself, h/she will be poor while those who exert themselves will reap the rewards in relation to their exertion.  Conservatives maintain that it is selfish for some to take the hard earned money of others to give them a comfortable lifestyle.  Conservatives take umbrage at the issue that people have an unmitigated right to a comfortable life even if they didn't work for it & is given to them free.   Your thoughts

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Personally, I believe that liberals view all wealth in the country, whether belonging to the rich, the middle class or the poor, as theirs to do with as they wish.
      
      Marx is alive and well in American liberals today.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Readmikenowposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         "liberals view all wealth in the country, whether belonging to the rich, the middle class or the poor, as theirs to do with as they wish.
         
         I agree, but, I believe they view the wealth of non-liberals as theirs to do with as they wish.  The wealthy liberals, and I have talked to a few, believe in spending and taxing other people's money, not theirs.

         replyreport
   2. 78

      abwilliamsposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Everyone has pretty much covered my thoughts.
      A Conservative's tendency is to assist when there's a need, but not support long term or forever. Liberals fault them for that!

      replyreport
2. 82

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   Grace, I feel you’ve pretty much summed up the issue, and I agree with your thoughts. It’s become increasingly clear to me that many liberals truly believe the wealthy are obligated to subsidize the needs of those who haven’t thrived, regardless of how or why those individuals arrived at their current situation. That belief isn’t just theoretical; it’s backed by actual policy and rhetoric we see coming out of Washington and echoed by many on the left throughout society. What I find especially troubling is the tone of moral superiority, where anyone who questions forced redistribution is branded as selfish or lacking compassion. That kind of judgment is hard to take, particularly when so many of us believe deeply in personal responsibility and opportunity over entitlement.
   
   From where I stand, it’s not that conservatives are heartless, we simply reject the idea that comfort should be guaranteed without effort. Our values emphasize effort, discipline, and resilience. I think we’re seeing growing resistance from conservatives because the left has gone too far with their push for what amounts to soft socialism. They’ve overplayed their hand, and now they're angry that more Americans aren’t buying in. But I’ve always believed that, when pushed too far, Americans tend to realign with core values, self-reliance, fairness through merit, and individual freedom. It may not be a quick correction, but I sense it’s happening. What adds to this conversation is that while compassion is important, it can’t be coerced. Real generosity comes from the heart, not from legislation that punishes success to prop up systems that often encourage dependency.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Good morning Sharlee, this reminds me of my late maternal aunt who had the audacity to state why a more affluent childfree aunt who had a wealthy husband didn't help the former's impoverished family.  Mind you my maternal grandmother who was lazy was given the opportunity to attend college; however, she elected to marry at 17.  She had 10 children in impoverished conditions.  She was the only one of the siblings who was impoverished & had such a large family.   She wasn't one to make an effort as with her husband.   A more affluent aunt supported the impoverished family yet they wanted others to support them which became a generational thing.  From the grandparents to now the cousins believe that others should pay for them.   I remember my other aunt who stated that the aunt who married a wealthy man had lots of stuff in a derisive, jealous tone as to suggest that the money should have gone to support her.   My late father told her to get a job in the post office which I agreed to but she was too lazy to do that but instead chose to be a maid which she was the worst maid who never did anything.  My extended maternal family exemplify the liberal mentality -unfortunately my affluent grandaunt, my mother, & now my cousin fell for the liberal malarkey.    All they were doing was encouraging dependency in the family.  Remember the road to HELL is paved with so-called good intentions.   To encourage sloth is a grave sin.  Tough love is a virtue.
      
      Remember Kamala who espouses the same thing.  She stated that some didn't start equally & that they should have an equal socioeconomic standing.  There is NO SUCH thing as equal socioeconomic standing.  If one works, one has.  If one elects not to work, oh well.  I remember a strong, able-bodied man asking me for money.  I told him that he should be ashamed begging & that he can get a job.   He didn't like that at all & cursed at me, calling me a fat b*****h & I should go on a diet.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Hi Grace,  and thank you for sharing that. Your family story really does say a lot, not just about generational habits and expectations, but about how values are formed and passed down. It sounds like you watched and learned from what was happening around you, and that shaped your own outlook. You saw firsthand the difference between those who put in the effort and those who relied on others, and how resentment can sometimes fester in the face of success, especially when that success isn’t shared in the way some think it should be.
         
         As for the man who resorted to name-calling when you challenged him, that’s often what happens when someone is forced to look in the mirror. It’s easier to lash out and demean others than to confront the truth about their own choices. Your response struck a nerve, and rather than face that discomfort, he chose to insult you. It says more about his character than yours. When people can't win on principle, they tend to reach for the lowest blow they can find. That doesn’t change the truth you told him.
         
         You brought up Kamala too, and it’s an important connection. There’s a big difference between equal opportunity and forced outcomes. What you described in your family shows what can happen when well-meaning help turns into long-term enablement, and how that can take root across generations. Tough love, like you said, can be the most compassionate path in the long run.

         replyreport