I shared an amazing video last year featuring Margaret Thatcher exposing the left for wanting to keep the poor destitute if that was the price of hurting the so-called rich.
Deroy Murdock makes similar points in a great column for National Review.
For too many liberals like Obama, “fairness” is not about enriching the modest; it’s about impoverishing the moneyed. Multibillionaire Warren Buffett has energized liberals with his still-unverified claim that his tax rate lags his secretary’s. …Somehow, reducing the secretary’s taxes never came up. Instead liberals demand the so-called Buffett Rule, an instrument for bludgeoning the successful rather than boosting the downtrodden. …Here’s how the Right should challenge the Left: “If you dislike income inequality, lift those with the least. Let’s adopt universal school choice, allow personal Social Security retirement accounts (to democratize long-term capital accumulation), radically reduce or eliminate America’s anti-competitive 35 percent corporate tax (to supercharge businesses), and pass right-to-work laws (so the jobless won’t fester outside closed shops). Let’s build the Keystone Pipeline (to create 20,000 blue-collar positions right now and lower everyone’s energy costs), frack for natural gas, and tame the EPA, OSHA, SEC, and other power-mad bureaucracies, so U.S. companies will stay here, and foreign firms will move in.”
Needless to say, the left will not accept Deroy’s challenge.
Too many of them care about enriching teacher unions, for instance, more than they care about educational opportunity for poor children.
And most leftist leaders would like to impose higher tax rates on success, even if the government collects less revenue.
[…] There are honest leftists, of course, and they presumably would be outraged by the sleaze in national capitals. Their problem is that they genuinely think the economic is fixed pie. Or they think that inequality is such a bad thing that they would be willing to reduce incomes for the poor if it meant the rich suffered even more. […]
[…] are sometimes tempted to go along with policies that will hurt the less fortunate so long as they impose even greater damage on upper-income […]
[…] other words, Deroy Murdock and Margaret Thatcher weren’t creating imaginary […]
[…] other words, Deroy Murdock and Margaret Thatcher weren’t creating imaginary […]
[…] a very strange argument. Sort of like the folks on the left, including the IMF, who advocate policies that hurt the poor if rich people suffer even […]
[…] There are honest leftists, of course, and they presumably would be outraged by the sleaze in national capitals. Their problem is that they genuinely think the economic is fixed pie. Or they think that inequality is such a bad thing that they would be willing to reduce incomes for the poor if it meant the rich suffered even more. […]
[…] There are honest leftists, of course, and they presumably would be outraged by the sleaze in national capitals. Their problem is that they genuinely think the economic is fixed pie. Or they think that inequality is such a bad thing that they would be willing to reduce incomes for the poor if it meant the rich suffered even more. […]
[…] What Motivates the Left, Love for the Poor or Hatred against the Rich? […]
[…] What Motivates the Left, Love for the Poor or Hatred against the Rich? […]
The Left hate those who are rich because personal wealth brings personal power. Personal power challenges the power of the government, which is the power of the individuals who run the government, both the elected officials and the career bureaucrats.