Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Question for Democrats/liberals...?
I'm trying to really understand the mentality of something here. When liberals like Obama call for more spending for social programs and the poor, they are considered to be generous. When conservatives go against it, they are considered to be stingy. But liberals don't pony up their own money; they pony up other people's money. And when conservatives oppose spending other people's money, they are looked at as skinflints.
So this is a genuine question here. If we can leave La la Land for a moment and venture out into a world where logic rules, how is this charity? And a second question might be, why isn't Obama ponying up any of his own money as a sign of leadership? If we could see the President making personal sacrifices, and then ask us to follow his lead, that would be real leadership and a lot more people would be helped. But he isn't going to do that, is he?
Charlie Brown--if you want to donate your own money then do so. You say Democrats are taxpayers, true, but when I say "other people" I'm not defining them by party but by individuals. You should have seen the polls on Democrats when we had the tax raising battle here in California. When asked if they favored raising various taxes, individual Dems acted like a bunch of "ultraconservative right-wing nincompoops", as some of you might say.
Funny how for everyone who responds negatively here, if Obama showed up at your door tommorrow and told you to give money else you'd be thrown in jail, you'd all say, "Say what??" But he does the same thing through the IRS and you all comply with a big grin on your face. Go figure.
Jimmy G.--Charity is forcing somebody else to give money to the poor while keeping your own? What the hey??
And a war begun without the required congressional declaration of war, to satisfy the mandates of the anti-American United Nations, in which at one point American blood was shed to put a Communist on a governing council is "conservative" because...???
Meant the above to be for Fretless
15 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavourite answer
you mean like Hussein's requesting 43 BILLION dollars for the war effort? The war that he was sooooo against? Will the liberals applaud his efforts to bring 'peace"?? is this really the "change" the libs voted for? Will there be outrage from the libs? Will we here Obama lied, people died?
I think not. The libs will only make excuses for their messiah, he can do no wrong. When our children are all wearing their brown shirts and goosestepping on their way to their mandatory volunteer community service....it will be to late.
Me, I'm buying as many arms and as much ammo as I can.
Thanks libs for the "change"
- ?Lv 45 years ago
In 1994, slight and conservative Democrats inside the U.S. House of Representatives geared up themselves into the Blue Dog Democrats, in keeping with the Republican victories on the polls that November. The rationalization was once that the Blue Dogs felt the celebration had moved thus far left that it had "choked them blue." The identify is a connection with an previous time period, Yellow puppy Democrat and in addition to the "blue puppy" art work of a Louisiana artist. Neither the Blue Dog Coalition, nor the Democratic Leadership Council, are viewed as conservative because the previous Dixiecrat and Boll Weevil incarnations of conservative Democrats.
- CokeLv 41 decade ago
The career of a politician mainly consists in making one part of the nation do what it does not want to do, in order to please and satisfy the other part of the nation. It is the prolonged sacrifice of the rights of some persons at the bidding and for the satisfaction of other persons. The ruling idea of the politician - stated rather bluntly - is that those who are opposed to him exist for the purpose of being made to serve his ends, if he can get power enough in his hands to force these ends upon them.
Power is poison. Its effect on Presidents has been always tragic, chiefly as an almost indecent excitement at first, and a worse reaction afterwards; but also because no mind is so well balanced as to bear the strain of seizing unlimited force without habit or knowledge of it; and finding it disputed with him by hungry packs of wolves and hounds whose lives depend on snatching the carion.
-Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, 1907
- FretlessLv 61 decade ago
You know, I keep reading questions with headlines like this hoping they will actually be legitimate questions, but like this one, they are all just talk-radio talking points phrased in the form of a question.
Here's a question of similar quality "right back atcha":
Why didn't Bush "pony up" his own daughters to fight in the Iraq war "as a sign of leadership"? I mean "If we could see the President making personal sacrifices, and then ask us to follow his lead" etc.. etc... blah blah...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I'm trying to understand the mentality of the USA in regards to their not having tax funded healthcare like the rest of the civilized nations on this planet?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You are not trying to understand anything. Liberals pay taxes too.
Why didn't Bush and Cheny send their children to fight in Iraq if it was so necessary? They didn't did they?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Obama has to pay his taxes too... so he is ponying up his money... so... what's your point?
- 1 decade ago
You have to live in Bizarro land to understand a lib
LIBERALS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE CONTENT WITH BEING STUP!D
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Please dear god don't ask them to think or dare look at their hypocrisy.. their heads will explode.. .......but then that might not be a bad thing
