> tavius wrote:

> I think you'll find that the ultra-rich, at least those self-made (Buffett, Gates, Soros...etc.) tend to be in favour of liberal politics. It's some recognition that while individual excellence plays a part in success, ultimately so does the environment and the opportunities that a person is presented with (your chances of succeeding as a Somali in Somalia are pretty low). It's about leveling the playing field and hopefully those who receive contributions from society will be able to return interest on that contribution in future. This is the idealistic view anyway.
_____________________________________

not only is that morally wrong it doesnt work lol. what garuantee is there that those people who benefit from wealth redistribution will actually use it wisely?

One only has to go to Benstein to know that the ultra rich are jerks, and that Warren Buffet maneuvers his way in to minimizing his taxes. He isn't concerned with the common good, but with his own self-interest. He's looking out for Warren Buffet and his corporate empire.

But then you ask, why would they be for liberal reforms such as higher estate taxes, or higher taxes in general on the rich? The reason is that by rich they mean upper middle class and lower rich, but never themselves of course. This enables them to reduce competition from these classes and deflect attention from themselves. The ultra rich have it good, and they are enemies of the lower rich and upper middle class.

When it comes to Bill Gates etc, I know they aren't lovely nice guys who are truly committed to their charity work. They are ruthless businessmen who are goal orientated, and will do anything to achieve their desired outcomes. I know Bill Gates is this way because that is what his resume repeatably illustrates.

Not that it is bad, but these guys are ruthless and know how to manipulate politics to their favor. They know how to look nice on the surface when really they have more subtle motivations.

Visser,

In America, if you are a poor and independent adult of the age of 25, it's because you squandered your opportunities to move up to the middle class. Every person born in to a poor family plenty of opportunities to move up to the middle class, and it's only ever laziness and anti-intellectualism that accounts for why they remain poor. I have no sympathy for them. The only exception are those who are handicapped in some way.

And even if you 25 and poor, you STILL have opportunities to move up within 4 or 5 years.

Soth,

I wouldn't say it's just morality. It has to do with adding fuel to the fire. If we add money to education (we spend more money per student on education than anywhere else - meaning our education is very inefficient) we add fuel to an all ready broken system. The problem is in the teacher's unions who have too much power, the textbook companies who charge outrageous prices due to their oligopoly, and a host of other reasons. We should address the problem itself, not make our problem worse in the future.

Oh great topic.

first of all, there's 2 kinds of liberalism.

1) Liberalism as in the laisse-faire state of mind indeed doesn't work. It only benefits the rich, and leads in the long run to a superrich small caste (yes, it'll pass on throughtout generations) and a large group of poor people. The latter will eventually not be able to consume enough products to keep the economy going and it collapses. We've seen this in the '30s..

2) The other liberalism, used by americans to indicate the left wing politics. Silly enough, on the matter of economics, they're totally contradictive. Left wing "Liberalism" on the other hand does work, if the state's allowed to inspect itself and its people for corruption. The ultrarich make more money than they spend, and thus a part of the money doesn't revolve as fast in the economy anymore. This eventually hurts the economy, redistribution gives money to the poor allowing them to consumate more (and if inspected ptoperly, they should spend it constructivly). Thus, they keep the economy going

To answer Soth:
"Would a liberal controlled government be a bad thing?   My younger brother recently graduated from high school and join the army.  he did it to fight for his country.  he is every bit as patriotic as i am.  But when he was choosing what branch to go into and what path to take in the military the amount of money and benefits they offered was a key factor in his decision.  That got me thinking the liberals are offering me, low income student, benefits and things i wouldnt have to work for or earn in any way!  why not go with them after all its a pretty sweet deal.  I wouldnt be suffering.  only the heavily taxed upper class would.  so why dont i take advantage of this?"

The idea behind this redistribution is explained above, but there's a different strategy going on here. Attracting people as reservists in the army has little to do with liberalism, or more rightly socialist ideas. They just give you a sort of refund to make it more attractive. They need people like your brother to keep the military power of the USA going. In fact I rather think of it as an extrortion practice rather then redistribution of the wealth, as it only attracts poorer people to a life-endangering "job".
On a last note, why would someone "fight for its country"? Shouldn't it be the other way around, and doesn't the state have to fight for your interests? It's not that america's position's constantly on the line, is it? Americans didn't gain anything from the last wars they were into..

What motivations exactly? Buffett has already signed away the majority of his networth to charity, and the rest is looking to be on the way as well. This btw by someone who only spent a pittance of it on himself. Bill Gates is looking to go down the same road, though he's spent abit more on himself than Buffett has. Alot of what Gates did was just good business practice, his competitors (ex) whine but quite frankly it's just business played competitively.

Parceling off your nw to Africa doesn't seem particularly indicative of wanton power grabbing.

@windowsME

I'm referring to the ultra-rich, not upper middle class with only a couple of mil.

I've voted Liberal.
I've also voted NDP.
And I've voted Conservative.

I don't think I"ll ever vote for:
- the Christian Heritage Party
- the Communist Party
- the Green Party
...though I just might vote for the Rhino Party if it ever resurrects.  Heh!

"I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
"I am a flexible centrist: not stuck on right-wing, not stuck on left-wing, and not stuck on centre...and I don't flip-flop either" <<< me
Fighting for peace is like stopping the raping of a virgin.

I have a simple reason for not voting liberal (Canadian liberal), they greatly increase spending while decreasing taxes or maintaining taxes.

i didn't bother reading the whole thread...but as for taxes

is it fair for a child born into a poor family to go to his crumbling home school and recieve a poor edgucation, as opposed to a child born into a rich family and thus him recieving top class education from some fancy private school?

the tax money is needed, to equal the opportunities as much as possible...

And what guarantee is there that the poor child will not use more efficiently the poorer education than the rich child?
(sorry for any bad grammar this time)

VOTE Palin/McCain!!! POSITIVE CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!!!

"I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
"I am a flexible centrist: not stuck on right-wing, not stuck on left-wing, and not stuck on centre...and I don't flip-flop either" <<< me
Fighting for peace is like stopping the raping of a virgin.

nope soth, the child born into that wealthy family is already fortunate enough to recieve good education, but the poor child isn't?

and what now we're making stereotypes? the poor children won't use the education? how about you try giving them one and then see the results... Freedom writers is a great example for that

and this doesn't really have to be applied to poor vs rich

how about one child lives in one neighbour hood, and has a great home school -- the other just across the street has to go to a poor not so great school

this was the situation with me in middle school, my home school was TERRIBLE, i had to go to a catholic middle school just because it was better

it's simply unfair...

what you speak of fool is simple ignorance.  I agree that the rich should help those who are less fortunate.  But it is morally wrong for the government to forcefully take from those who have worked hard to become successful and live the American dream.  that is wrong.  My conscience simply wont let me agree with that type of thinking. 

besides those who have excess often give it away.  we have several big examples of that.  warren buffet and bill gates are two prominent ones that come to mind.  they do this without being forced,  willingly just for the sake of helping. 

what those on the left want to do is take other peoples property and give it to someone else.  That doesnt fly on any moral pathways that i know of.

Fool,

Of course I never claim to be morally right . I admit I'm committed to power principles only, hehe.