The Problem With Liberals in 5 Cogent sentences:

Cogent Sentences

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
nation.


This is why Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are failing so dramatically! Their policies and political beleifs are all based on false premises!!!!

http://www.wordnik.com/words/cogent

 

Phewwwww,, that's a bloody long sentence better split into three.

 

Redistribution of wealth is communism.

 

Nahhh, I'll leave it as is for now.

 

True. That doesn't mean a large gap between the richest and the poorest can't have negative connotations for social cohesion. It's a legitimate issue that is just poorly addressed (or not addressed at all).

Those are truisms but I don't see them as any kind of fundamental problem. The value of a piece of work and whatever it produces is relative anyway.

That depends how you're measuring it. If you have a million apples and give one each to ten starving men, the practical value of your remaining apples to you is all but the same yet the value of the one apple to each of those men is immeasurable (yes, it's a metaphor and yes, the real world isn't that simple).

Certainly a major problem, but not one I feel anyone has a solution to that doesn't bring a whole set of different problems in it's place.

There are rarely clearly defined good and bad between (mainstream at least) political policies, just different colours of imperfection.

 

Redistribution of all wealth is (part of) communism. Redistribution of some wealth isn't.

 

I thoroughly believe in 'redistribution of wealth' AKA, capitalism. If I have wealth, I purchase goods and services available on the open market; thus, I 'redistribute my wealth'. If I don't possess wealth, I offer goods/services to the open market. Those with wealth redistribute the wealth to me by purchasing my goods/services.

Seem like a good and fair exchange.

 

The Liberal/Socialist response would probably be:

1. You cannot keep the very rich from victimizing the mass of the citizens without legislation (which apparently isn't true, as the wealth gap is widening).
2. What one person inherits enables him to get a huge advantage over another person who inherits nothing.
3. The government can take back some of the wealth earned by the worker and expropriated by his employer and use it for the common good.
4. You cannot increase wealth by taking disposable income out of the hands of the average citizen and giving it to the very rich.
5. When the top 1/6th of the population and the bottom 1/6th of the population benefit at the expense of the middle 2/3rds of the population, the middle 2/3rds should blame the powerful top 1/6th rather than the much less powerful bottom 1/6th. When the mass of the citizens feel their future will be no better than their present, that is the beginning of the end of any democracy.

I personally think there are very valid points to both sides of the argument, but I get fed up with simplistic black-and-white statements that in the end completely miss reality (conservative or liberal/socialist). This sort of OP is cute the way a puppy drooling on my slippers is cute, but it doesn't really say anything meaningful.

 

No.
The best sentences exist in literature, not silly political bumper stickerism.

This might be a point if, in fact, anyone had the desire to legislate the wealthy out of prosperity.
The wealthy do not stop being wealthy because their income above a certain level is taxed at a higher rate.

This is a rather strange view of how the economy works. What does it really say, for instance, about investors? Investors don't work for their investment earnings-- they take risks.
On your formula, they must be taking their earnings somehow from people who are working.
And yet I can't believe you would be so hard on investors.
Zero sum economics is usually the stuff of communists.

So what? Seriously. This is not an argument against redistribution. It's simply an argument saying redistribution is redistribution. Reminds me of that Ayn Rand "A is A" crap. It only means something to people who already assume the same things as you.

And how do you factor in public goods that involve creating more value than the sum of what is taken and handing them back to everyone?

No, but you can divide wealth and then multiply it.
And what does that mean anyway?
Unless your sentence is purposely using ambiguity to blur things (you? never!), you're either saying that ONE'S wealth cannot be multiplied by dividing it-- duh-- or that dividing society's wealth cannot multiply it-- duh!
Either way it's kind of missing the point.
And really redistribution generally and alone is more like adding and subtracting.
The multiplying is done through economic phenomena AFTER the addition and subtraction and usually not because of policy.

Get back to me when 50% of the able-bodied population stop working or looking for work.
I'm pretty sure people would figure out long before that point that such a system wouldn't work.
Unless you're suggesting children, the disabled, and the elderly need to get up and start working. I'm not sure what you expect them to do when there aren't even jobs for the unemployed.

Interesting how none of your wonderful sentences captured any of their policies and political beliefs honestly.

Keep knockin' down those evil strawmen!

 

They actually are ignorant enough to believe that sound-bite stupidity.

 

The liberals absolutely hate anyone who says there is no free lunch. Their entire platform is based on the existence of a free lunch.

So, let the government take most of what you earn and give it to those who earn nothing. Let the government teach the great liberal underclass that the productive people are there to be milked to benefit the politicians and the non-productive people.

My neighbor who voted for Obama so he wouldn't have to pay for health insurance is still paying, paying more, and he's getting very close to losing faith.

Actually, it is a matter of faith. The liberals have the most unassailable faith imaginable. They make radical muslims seem wishy-washy.

 

Oh ALARM ALARM!!!

What a crock...for the most part.

NOBODY is trying to do that. You T-Baggers keep saying it...but its a complete falsehood.
What you CAN do is legislate jobs...in a manner of speaking...by spending money on infrastructure. This will benefit BOTH the wealthy company owners AND the out of work poor. It will also benefit the country's CASH FLOW which in turn helps pull the economy out of the doldrums.
Its also a good idea to tax these wealthy people...cause they CAN afford it...and it would be the PATRIOTIC thing to do.

You passed math. Good for you.

And? What's yer point? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction...so what?

Yer missing the point. By a careful redistribution of wealth, poor and the middle-class get their PURCHASING POWER back. This greatly improves the overall economy because, as everyone klnows, its the middle-class that supports the economy.

Ya know...it kind of helps to fully UNDERSTAND the premise before you comment on it...

 

The Liberals hate the Second Amendment .

 

You're getting universal politican promises mixed up with ideology.
Liberals are aware of trade-off.
Democratic politicians tend to gloss over them. As do Republican politicians.
Cognitive dissonance just makes you more critical when the politicians you don't like give too-good-to-be-true spin.

Most of what you earn? Yeah, right.
And frankly even if it was as simple as you suggest, it's no more naive to believe people will become more productive when given resources than to believe they will become more productive by being left with none.

Nowhere did Obama ever suggest people would not pay for health insurance.

 

You too. Before you people go spewing forth lies...perhaps you should try to wrap you little heads around what's really going on here.

On the other hand, you could continue to lie and say these silly things...and we'll all laugh at the silly T-Baggers.

Your choice Genius...

MOST? Is the federal government taxing you so badly that you lose MOST of your income to them? Or are you just making this up?

"non-productive people" Buddy, I dare you to go to the welfare or unemployment office and call the people who have lost their jobs to your GODS the corporatists who outsourced their jobs to India, or just cut their jobs for profit, "non-productive people".
I also hope you get to taste unemployment some time soon as well...ya might learn something.

Ya....

ALARM ALARM
LIE LIE

silly silly...

 

Ya thanks for that...back to recess now son...

 

Everytime I see or hear class warfare peddling, victim pimping leftists mention "social cohesion", I throw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

Oh YUM!

Bet that tastes better that the vomit of peddling policies that would bankrupt your country...huh?

 

Interesting. What about when I mention it?

 

Have I misinterpreted your port list?

apologies, if so.

Point stands.

 

Buzz, not picking on you or trying to disrupt your discussion with Whaler, but your passing on pure liberal spin....

Those involved with the Tea Partier's, have indicated nothing but smaller government, fiscal responsibility and adherence to the US Constitution. Which part of this do you disagree with?

That's simply not how it works and Stimulus One, should be proof enough, even for Krugman. Yes, CONGRESS can legislate programs and yes the Executive can administer the funds to the States, but what the States do or can't do varies from State to State and their priorities. The money goes into a general fund (same as all Federal Revenue), maybe even producing a pending project outline. When a project is proposed and passed by the State Legislature and their Governor Signs off on it (not much different than the Federal), the procedure is to offer (let) the project to major contractors for the job, who then can bid. These contracts are often years in advance of expected starting a project, but all bids are subject to local zoning/legal/permitting problems and in most cases you could be talking additional years, especially when environmental activist become involved. "Shovel Ready" means all the above has been completed.

How can punishing those that successfully practiced the American Dream, be classified PATRIOTIC, unless you call those that have failed or not tried to succeed unpatriotic???

You taking somebody's wealth and assuming that action will result in what's favorable to the society and very, very rarely is this what happens and by the way "so what" is not a logical response IMO.

For the most part your talking "inflation" which is being suggested at 20% since 2000 and yes purchasing power for everyone has been reduced. If you take from those that earn their way into a 200K$ tax bracket, giving it to Government, can you prove those funds can and will be wisely used. Who or what is it that now supports the middle class? It's not the Government.

I agree, would you like a list of books written on the failures of "Keynesian Economics"?

 

I thought this was supposed to be cogent...

 

Is welfare capitalism. Not communism

 

Probably not, but you still harshly misinterpreted my meaning and intent.

That's the problem with playing this childish little left/right hate game that seems so popular here rather than discussing actual issues. You presumed that because I'm not in 100% agreement with your position I must be 100% opposed and thus could (should!) be condemned for every associated negative characteristic you could think of. The fact it had very little to what I actually pointed (either the line you quoted or the paragraphs you ignored) was beside the point. I became the enemy and the red mist descended.

I don't really mind. The middle ground here is nice and roomy if a little lonely.

 

Replies in quotes. Basically you're full of bullpoo.