3 ms·

I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an

I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.

MisterTea 8y ago
> Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another. Conservatives talk about poor people as if it's a permanent attribute that can't be changed like "race". Poor is a tangible attribute. The programs which you fear so much are there to help people change that attribute. But I get the feeling that many of the so-called conservatives use poor as a euphemism for undesirable people they don't want to see get ahead or mingle with. Why else would you refuse a helping hand to someone in need?
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  What I find ironic (as an exmormon/ex-christian now semi-agnostic person -- I still quasi believe there could be some sort of afterlife but the bible is dead to me.) is that those on the 'christian right' are more prone to push out the poor and neglect them those who are on the left more anxious to help and alleviate their pain points. -- I've known humanists, secular buddhists, atheists, and agnostics with bigger hearts and more care for the poor than the majority of God-fearing people regardless of faith. One reason I stopped believing is because of all the hypocrisy I'd hear. Go to church on Sunday, leaders of the church officially deny supporting a political agenda, then they go about instituting anti-gay propaganda and fighting against legalizing marriage, or legalizing medical marijuana. Heck the LDS church is trying to ban the ability to record someone (like a Bishop) without them knowing, because they're afraid of the backlash they themselves might have (and so far are having with recent events). Yet, I still admire Jesus and what he taught... the sad thing is.. there's no Jesus in most of America or they'd be fighting to cure the sick and the poor, they'd want universal healthcare and guaranteed basic income. Even Jesus forgave the Harlot and welcomed her at his table, so why not forgive the drug addict and give them a home regardless? I say make GBI require you spend it on rent/mortgage -- to receive it you can't be homeless - you must have a physical address and only one check per address + x amount per person living in house, --maybe 2k per house/apartment, 500 per adult/child extra living therein. This even helps the economy as poor people are most likely to spend the money locally instead of squirrel it away in a trust fund or investment. If I had GBI, I'd quit my day job and finally launch a side-business or go freelance full-time, but I work 60 hours a week on salary for 80k as a developer because I have to pay the bills and my wife stays home with the kids. I could really use that money personally to just float by when freelance dries up, or my side project fails, and I start building the next one.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
But the playing field is already incredibly uneven; surely one of the goals of state-backed systems is to help make it more even? It’s reasonable to debate the precise methods through which that is achieved, but I’m not as sure that many people would object to the underlying goal.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jschwartzi 8y ago
Every policy favors one group over another. The policy against murder favors non-murderers against murderers. The question shouldn't be about whether a policy favors someone but whether the policy helps someone live a better life.
wavefunction 8y ago
>it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field It seems to me that the conviction in which conservatives believe in this particular principal depends on what they'll get out of the situation.
llukas 8y ago
...aaaand existing playing field that favors wealthy is level?
patrickdavey 8y ago
Do you not think that it should be an unlevel playing field? If you happen to be born (by complete luck) into a house where you always had a meal on the table & books to read, you're already miles ahead of many people. To me it just seems fair to help those who through no fault of their own have been born into poverty. A "level playing field" just helps those who are miles ahead to begin with. If you haven't seen it, you might want to watch this video [1] on a "race" - see how level the field actually is. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K5fbQ1-zps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K5fbQ1-zps
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another." I posit that this is not true in the least; they just get upset at the idea of a policy that isn't targeted at giving them the upper hand. Otherwise, they're perfectly fine with policies that favor one group (them) over another.

MisterTea 8y ago

> Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another. Conservatives talk about poor people as if it's a permanent attribute that can't be changed like "race". Poor is a tangible attribute. The programs which you fear so much are there to help people change that attribute. But I get the feeling that many of the so-called conservatives use poor as a euphemism for undesirable people they don't want to see get ahead or mingle with. Why else would you refuse a helping hand to someone in need?

gremlinsinc 8y ago
What I find ironic (as an exmormon/ex-christian now semi-agnostic person -- I still quasi believe there could be some sort of afterlife but the bible is dead to me.) is that those on the 'christian right' are more prone to push out the poor and neglect them those who are on the left more anxious to help and alleviate their pain points. -- I've known humanists, secular buddhists, atheists, and agnostics with bigger hearts and more care for the poor than the majority of God-fearing people regardless of faith. One reason I stopped believing is because of all the hypocrisy I'd hear. Go to church on Sunday, leaders of the church officially deny supporting a political agenda, then they go about instituting anti-gay propaganda and fighting against legalizing marriage, or legalizing medical marijuana. Heck the LDS church is trying to ban the ability to record someone (like a Bishop) without them knowing, because they're afraid of the backlash they themselves might have (and so far are having with recent events). Yet, I still admire Jesus and what he taught... the sad thing is.. there's no Jesus in most of America or they'd be fighting to cure the sick and the poor, they'd want universal healthcare and guaranteed basic income. Even Jesus forgave the Harlot and welcomed her at his table, so why not forgive the drug addict and give them a home regardless? I say make GBI require you spend it on rent/mortgage -- to receive it you can't be homeless - you must have a physical address and only one check per address + x amount per person living in house, --maybe 2k per house/apartment, 500 per adult/child extra living therein. This even helps the economy as poor people are most likely to spend the money locally instead of squirrel it away in a trust fund or investment. If I had GBI, I'd quit my day job and finally launch a side-business or go freelance full-time, but I work 60 hours a week on salary for 80k as a developer because I have to pay the bills and my wife stays home with the kids. I could really use that money personally to just float by when freelance dries up, or my side project fails, and I start building the next one.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

But the playing field is already incredibly uneven; surely one of the goals of state-backed systems is to help make it more even? It’s reasonable to debate the precise methods through which that is achieved, but I’m not as sure that many people would object to the underlying goal.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jschwartzi 8y ago

Every policy favors one group over another. The policy against murder favors non-murderers against murderers. The question shouldn't be about whether a policy favors someone but whether the policy helps someone live a better life.

wavefunction 8y ago

>it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field It seems to me that the conviction in which conservatives believe in this particular principal depends on what they'll get out of the situation.

llukas 8y ago

...aaaand existing playing field that favors wealthy is level?

patrickdavey 8y ago

Do you not think that it should be an unlevel playing field? If you happen to be born (by complete luck) into a house where you always had a meal on the table & books to read, you're already miles ahead of many people. To me it just seems fair to help those who through no fault of their own have been born into poverty. A "level playing field" just helps those who are miles ahead to begin with. If you haven't seen it, you might want to watch this video [1] on a "race" - see how level the field actually is. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K5fbQ1-zps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K5fbQ1-zps

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another." I posit that this is not true in the least; they just get upset at the idea of a policy that isn't targeted at giving them the upper hand. Otherwise, they're perfectly fine with policies that favor one group (them) over another.