The Problem With Liberals in 5 Cogent sentences:

Dear me, every now and again another little Konservative Kiddy comes along with vacuous ideas like Whaler17.

Whaler, exactly how do you think America was created? By rugged individuals? Do you think that when the Indians attacked one farmhouse, the neighbours simply looked on and said "Well that is his problem". You don't understand what a "Public Good" is, do you?

Lets look at your trite rubbish for a minute:

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

Actually I can. I can take every dollar the wealthy have and give it to the poor if I can get Congress to legislate it. If I can train and motivate the poor to better themselves the country will most definitely be more prosperous as well.

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

Actually that is a fact of life. A lot of Americans worked very hard to create public goods like the justice system and the weather bureau. You make use of their services without paying more than a tiny fraction of what they cost to build over generations.

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

Rubbish, both in fact and principle. The Government can give certainty, security, coordination, organisation without "taking it from somebody else".

The Government also gets to print money.

"4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!"

You never did Economics 101 did you? Ever heard of the velocity of money? Prosperity and wealth gets multiplied the most when everybody has a little of it to spread around. Henry Ford paid his original workers a stratospheric wage - so that they could buy the cars he made.

"5" Well that is just confusing rubbish. Contrary to your opinion, American welfare is the pits. I can't think why anyone would want to remain on it by choice.

 

^^ someone who definately "gets it."

 

Although I believe the government has a larger roll to play than you might...what bothers me is the hypocrisy. Most will howl about these 2 things...until its about THEIR fiscal well being. Fiscal responsibility is a good thing. But nobody heard a peep when the military was being loaded up to attack Iraq...or when the Patriot Act was imposed. Unless of course you wanna discuss a more "malleable" interpretation of the 2? But generally T-People are not terribly "malleable".

Well if certain states can't use this money properly, maybe they should be listed as such and voted out next state election. IMO, the first 700 Billion was not even half as much as your economy needed to make a lasting impact. But your point is well taken. It might also be a good idea to explain this concept to the other fine T-People...who don't seem to get this.

Because its not punishing. Its CONTRIBUTING. Hell if taxes are out...then maybe they should just either send money voluntarily, or hire a bunch of staff and wait for work to come along for them. But things don't work that way...do they?

You people have a severe DEMAND problem. There is none.
You also have a CASH FLOW problem. Its not flowing.
By increasing taxation on those who can afford it, and using the money to provide jobs...assuming the various governors "play-ball"...cash begins to flow, and demand increases. THEN private companies will hire people.

Then don't think of it as "taking". Think of it as "doing your part". And the result is always favorable. Its is such because the middle-class supports the economy...especially a consumer based economy like yours...by redistributing some of this wealth, the middle-class can once again breath and feel free to spend a bit. Again, this all goes back to DEMAND and CASH FLOW...and how to generate the 2.

Nobody. The middle-class has been taking it in the teeth since the '70s. That's one of the biggest problems you have. But this one is not unique to the USA. This is a developed world-wide problem. It has to stop. And I can't prove or guarantee funds would be used wisely. But what other choice is there? We already know "trickle-down" doesn't trickle down.

As long as you'd like a list of books written on the failures of Free Markets?

Look...what consistently gets lost in this mad, insane partisan environment of the USA's, is that one side has one story, the other side has another story, and the TRUTH is somewhere in the middle. But to find that perfect balance...both sides have to be willing to listen and compromise. What drives many like myself nutzo...is that generally its the T-People who absolutely refuse to either listen or compromise.

Hence the name-calling and disdain for each other.
This too has to stop.

 

You are very correct, Whaler!



These people are a discredit and a disgrace to the offices they hold! These three Democrats are accountable to no one and foolishly spend our hard-earned tax dollars like there is no tomorrow!

 

Redistribution of anyone's wealth is Fascist or Communist and should be viewed as an abomination.

The United States of America was not founded on such an idiot notion nor does the Constitution argue for such a government.

It is the realm of the clueless and those who merely want “feel-good” measures in an absence of the truth, the facts and what is truly beneficial to those who have less.

It is also an arrogant point of view to think that those who have less are that way due to no cause of their own. Many choose a lifestyle that is much simpler and doesn’t require a great deal of wealth and prefer not to be wealthy. This is not a good or a bad thing, just a fact of life. It is sad that so many on the left don't comprehend basic facts of life.

 

^^ someone who also "gets it."

 

Yes it is isn't it...

Its also sad that so many have no sympathy...not the capacity to imagine what it might be like to walk in another's shoes before they pass judgement on them. Isn't it.

 

So why do you do that so much? Stop and think once in a while before you erupt in your usual parroting of idiot Liberal talking points.

 

THIS...jackson33...is what I've been talking about.

Do you smell even a hint of a desire to solve problems in this post?
'cause I certainly don't.
What I smell is manure being spread LIBERALLY all over the US economy and political system.
I smell obstructionism.
I smell fascism.
I smell racism.
I smell the end of the Late Great USA...that's what I smell...

what do you smell?

 

LOL...

'nough said?

Someone has to stand up to this onslaught of insanity.

But if you're willing to drop the pretense and REALLY talk about this...
Willing to put the talking points away and HONESTLY try to find a workable solution the is somewhere between you and I...

I also willing.

Can you do that?

 

You're free to view redistribution of wealth in any way you wish but to call a limited form (such as we already have in the UK and USA) Communism (or Fascism!) is factually incorrect.

If you want to argue against a concept, argue the concept and not a misapplied label.

 

No, the truth detector has it right....redistribution of wealth is the same as theft, i.e one of the tenets of fascism/communism. You seem to want to give fascism/communism a pass on this simply because their theft is on a 'limited' basis. That's hogwash and you know it. What would you call our government when it controls one's choice of healthcare, controls what foods we eat, controls what gas efficient autos we drive, controls the delivery of mail, controls the unions, controls what temperature we keep our living quarters etc etc.....if not fascism and or communism? Okay, I''ll give you a pass if you were to call this type of government..socialism. There, see how accomodating I can be.

 

Buzz; While I agree hypocrisy is a relevant issue, that is "don't mess with my benefits", it's sometimes the source of those benefits we're discussing. Those in the Tea Party however do believe in their Constitution, understanding the Federal is charged with National Security/Defense and I don't believe objected to the "War on Terror" or anything related to the objectives. Which by the way has not changed since 9-11. As for "malleable", easily influenced, have you ever argued with Liberal's or agreed with the philosophy, that the Federal is not responsible, over the State, on any seemingly compassionate/benevolent issue Education to Health Care.

Well, NJ did vote out their "social justice" bunch, California voted back in it's most prominent "Big Government" proponent and most all States did vote in some degree of Tea Party Candidates. But the point is, that 800B$ Stimulus went for all State Priorities, namely paying off other obligations that were immediate priorities over job creations, paying to maintain union jobs (school teachers/fire and police folks), which now are AGAIN in jeopardy. Even if you don't agree, that is opposed to Tea Partiers, do you understand what these priorities mean?

I think "contributing" and "tax laws" have different meanings, but why should a person trying to live in NYC earning a net taxable income of, or a small business person, working 60-80 hours a week and risking everything they have and at their cost of living, be forced to pay more than they already do. Then take it on to other places where the simple cost of living is cheaper to much cheaper. For the record, if and when the Clinton Tax Rates are used, I hope it's for all tax brackets, since all I've heard is how great things were, when used.

Arguable, but remember most major corporation do business at the International level and demand is there. I'd also suggest you check out Apple Computer Sales, which are at all time record highs and not one item is a necessity.

Agree, but why would I invest in any business or start one, not knowing what the cost will be in the US, six months from now, much less 2-3 years from now, where business models plan.

I really have already gone over this, in that the various States have various priorities and business is still concerned with uncertainty...

And any person or business can do "their part", as you understand it, but what you don't seem to understand is failure, generally ending up in bankruptcy, is NOT a minor problem, as about a dozen "Solar Energy" firms will now tell you. Those that invested in them or mortgaged their homes or other equities to begin with have lost big time. Would you take the chance?

Let's see, what started up in the mid 60's and was being added on during the 70's? Oh yes, the "Great Society", where by the late 70's would have paid for itself, but instead has cost over 10T$ (from Federal and States) to ALL tax payers.

I totally agree with you on this, but looking at the recent Washington State Union Strike Actions and reaction from the authorities, apparently none and listening to the current Administrations rhetoric over the TP an R House, I see nothing but some very destructive actions, before, during and especially after the 2012 elections.

 

If you fail to recognize the truth when it is handed to you so plainly, I cannot help you.

 

That is an ignorant and simple minded thing to say.

 

Oh it is OBVIOUSLY not me who misses the point! I understand this FAR better than you do.

 

That is what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing, so what is your point?

 

It is, some people don't live or think in the real world.

 

Whaler, you don't seem to listen do you?

Your prosperity and wealth is built on the back of the work and investment of every previous American who arrived since Mayflower.

Those were the folk who surveyed the land, built the roads, defended the country, made the laws and developed everything that you take for granted today.

You built none of it.

Taxation - "redistribution of wealth" - is you making your contribution to that huge body of previous work by people who died before you were even born, and that you enjoy to this very day.

 

"The Problem with Liberals in 5 Cogent Sentenses"

I'm not sure Obama, Pelosi and Reid would disagree with these 5 points; I don't! However, your message is suspect at the outset by use of the word, "Liberal" (upper case L). A "Liberal" is a member of the Liberal Party. The adajetive, "liberal" (lower case) means "tolerant and open-minded" as opposed to "intolerant and narrow-minded". Obviously, you didn't intend to portray your views as the opposite of "liberal". Of course, "liberal" is sometimes used as a derogatory epitaph. In that sense, it was often used by advocates of segregation and the members of various groups opposed to Civil Rights and the Vietnam War in the 1960s. But that too does not appear to be your intent. I assume you intended to convey the concept of "progressive" as opposed to "conservative". Curiously, the 5 points, as stated, could be endorsed by progressives as well as conservatives.

 

Inane post.. You can apply all those sentences in all their clever glory to Republican ideals.. just send the reappropiated funds in the opposite direction... like tax cuts paid for by deficit spending.

You cant create a bunch of rich folks out of poor folks by taxing the crap out of rich folks.. but you can enrich the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of rich folks by selling out the middle class and poor folks.. as has been shown by our last 6 presidents.

 

Well, I agree with you on some of this. But I think it's a bit simplistic to try to put all of this down to a few sentences anyway.

What the right forgets is that we are all in the same boat. What the liberals forget is that you can't make the boat a yacht by stealing the money from the 1st class passengers. I think what we need to be working on is fixing the boat rather than worrying about who's winning and losing.

 

... word....

 

You're clearly not ignorant so I can only assume you're deliberately misrepresenting the definition of the words fascism and communism. You're perfectly capable of explaining what you actually object to within the current socio-political structure of your country so why do you feel the need to descend to such petty dishonest tactics?

Not at all. I just dislike dishonesty in a place intended for political debate. I kind of defeats the point IMO.

It's nothing to do with how accommodating you are. The USA is simply neither communist or fascist, regardless of what you want to label it for you own political purposes. It has (among many other things) many aspects of socialism but that isn't automatically a bad thing.

 

The goal is not to legislate the poor into prosperity, the goal is to make sure that the poor have at least a minimal standard of living. This is actually very much in the interest of the wealthy, because despite the bigotry of certain people, the poor are not lazy or stupid or unmotivated. At least no more so then the wealthy or anyone else. If you put the poor in a situation where they cannot reliably provide at least the basics for their families by working within the system, they will do whatever it takes to put food on the table, up to and including violent revolutions. If you try to shove people in a corner and expect them to just die quietly, they will come back looking for your head. Literally. The wealthy are dependent on society to allow them to accumulate wealth, and if the poor aren't even making a subsistence living in that the society, what reason do they have not to tear it down?

Incidentally, what exactly do you consider, "legislating the wealthy out of prosperity"? I've noticed a couple people here talking about "trickle up poverty." You think the rich are having to worry about how to put dinner on the table because of their tax bills? Or maybe you consider poverty to be not being able to afford a big HD TV in every room in your house? Don't be ridiculous. The wealthy are not suffering from the horrible burden of having to pay the lowest taxes in the developed world.

Taxes are the price of living in a civilized society. You think you and the wealthy are entitled to the benefits of that civilized society without having to pay for it? The wealthy could not be wealthy without a functioning legal system, police enforcement, military protection, infrastructure like roads, rail, power and water systems. The government is in the business of providing essential services that benefit everyone in general and no one in particular. And like all other services you have to pay for them. You don't like having to pay for the social safety net? Think of it as paying for an insurance policy. Or do you honestly believe that you could never lose your job, you could never be hurt and disabled, you could never be the victim of a natural disaster, you could never find yourself going over the edge of financial ruin?

And quit griping about redistributing wealth already. Wealth has to be redistributed for it to do anyone any good. Even going back to when we were simple hunter gatherers, we shared both the work and the products of it across the tribe. The hunters didn't keep all the meat for themselves, the flint nappers didn't refuse to let anyone else to use their tools. Specialization allowed us to produce more and produce enough of a surplus to build a civilization, but that means that people can't simply keep what they themselves make, they have to share it across the tribe in order for it to any good.

This is far more pronounced today then it was in the past. Thanks to the industrial Revolution, we are no so productive that only a small number of people are actually needed to produce all the stuff we actually need. Agriculture and manufacturing together account for about 25% of the US economy. Think about that, it only takes one person out of four to provide all the wealth we need. What good would it do anyone if that wealth wasn't redistributed? The quarter of the population who make all the stuff would have far more then they could ever use. And what would everyone else do? The service economy is essentially one gigantic exercise in wealth redistribution.

To be blunt, you seem to me to be focusing only on your own personal perspective to the exclusion of considering the overall situation of society. We all depend on society every day in ways that we usually don't even think about. Your personal situation would simply not be even possible without the support of society in general (that includes the government). If you miss or ignore the big picture and insist on undermining society for your own personal benefit, you are being extremely short sighted, and in the long run you're acting against your own interests.