Dispelling Liberal Myths

[candycorn]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.

Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition. Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.

No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing. Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do. Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged. A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.

Welcome.

I read your first plank here and you sort of ignore that the US is a consumer economy. When the 99% is strapped for cash, the economy slows. This is why the economy is sluggish; the 99% have seen their pay largely remain stagnant while businesses concern themselves with shareholder return.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.

You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.

And those alternate ideas are exactly what? It's easy to be critical when you have nothing to compare it to. I could say that we should have been landing on Mars in 1971 had we done something different and that we'd already have colonies there. Trouble is that it's easy to point out the shortcomings of what did happen because you have a target to shoot at and, of course, you promise a greater ROI without having to provide any proof of success.

I will grant that the government has become an easy mark. I made a post on this board last month about the abuse of Social Security Disability. In case you are unaware of it, the way it works is like this. Lets say 10 people file for disability; 3 will get it, 7 will not. Of the 7 that don't, half will contest it so lets say 4 contest it. Of the 4 that contest it, 3 usually contest it with some attorney to help them. Of those 3, they go to a hearing in front of a judge. The judge is in the room, the "disabled" is in the room. The "disabled's" attorney is in the room. You know who isn't? A government lawyer that argues why the filer isn't disabled. So the filer gets (on average) about $1,000 a month until they qualify for SS Retirement. The attorney is paid from the money the filer would have received between filing and the eventual reward. Binder and Binder got a check for over $600 million from Uncle Sam last year. This is an outrage that should be corrected immediately.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.

Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.

Gays are deprived the legal benefits that heterosexual couples receive.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists. The very nature of free market capitalism, all but destroys the element of greed. When capitalists are free to compete, the "greedy capitalist" is quickly put out of business by the "smart capitalist" and life goes on. Oh...this multinational or that is 'bilking' us... well, go out there and find some investment capital, and start a rival company! Nothing is stopping you! If you can do it cheaper or better, without a high-dollar CEO, or whatever... go do it! Give us consumers a deal that isn't 'bilking' us and I promise, we consumers will make you rich!

The real greed exists in a closed market system, like Russia or China. Where competition has been eliminated and the State controls all wealth and power. THAT is when you see greed rear it's ugly head, for REAL. You see, the sad truth is, the 1% will ALWAYS exist... nothing you can ever do about that. In a socialist system, the 1% is the Ruling Class, who now control not only all the wealth, but all the political power as well. Government figureheads and their cronies, soak up all the gains and spoils, and the general public is left with nothing. Not only are they left with nothing, they have also been stripped of opportunity to attain wealth at all.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

Not sure what myth you're talking about here. I (and most liberals I know) don't think this way at all. What is highlighted is that we should focus more on locally sourced goods and services and support businesses that treat their employees fairly through such means as good pay, good benefits, and by not making them work on Thanksgiving. I tend to shop at CVS more often than Walgreens because I noticed that they are open on Christmas in my area... I'm sure there are employees who enjoy the extra pay on Christmas but I'm also sure that there are employees who are there who would rather be at home on that day of all days.

Again, welcome to the board.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm still trying to figure out what charts on public debt have to do with free market capitalism? The soaring public debt is the result of 50 years of liberal policies and programs, they promised would bring people out of poverty. As soon as the programs and policies began to fail, they screamed, what? MORE FUNDING... MORE FUNDING... it only doesn't work because Republicans won't fund it! SO we jack it up some more, and it still doesn't work. We implement another program, to fix the disaster of the last one, and the cycle starts all over again. When someone suggests we try something different... they don't care about helping the needy, we need MORE FUNDING! Because these idiotic programs have caused our public debt to skyrocket, has absolutely NOTHING to do with free market capitalism.

Oh but look, it's an impressive chart or graph from some liberal blogger, it MUST make a valid piont!

So the soaring public debt isn't at least partially the result of America's wars and military presence in just about every country in the world? You're spot on about free market capitalism though. Halliburton getting no bid contracts in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with a former ceo being vice president. And the thousands of corporate lobbyists influencing politicians has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of these corporations and some of their extremely wealthy ceo's.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still trying to figure out what charts on public debt have to do with free market capitalism? The soaring public debt is the result of 50 years of liberal policies and programs, they promised would bring people out of poverty. As soon as the programs and policies began to fail, they screamed, what? MORE FUNDING... MORE FUNDING... it only doesn't work because Republicans won't fund it! SO we jack it up some more, and it still doesn't work. We implement another program, to fix the disaster of the last one, and the cycle starts all over again. When someone suggests we try something different... they don't care about helping the needy, we need MORE FUNDING! Because these idiotic programs have caused our public debt to skyrocket, has absolutely NOTHING to do with free market capitalism.

Oh but look, it's an impressive chart or graph from some liberal blogger, it MUST make a valid piont!

So the soaring public debt isn't at least partially the result of America's wars and military presence in just about every country in the world? You're spot on about free market capitalism though. Halliburton getting no bid contracts in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with a former ceo being vice president. And the thousands of corporate lobbyists influencing politicians has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of these corporations and some of their extremely wealthy ceo's.

Geezus are you one fucking clueless moron.

 

[Boss]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it!

Welcome! Most people here are clueless jerks, but I hope you'll keep posting regardless.

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.

Hold on, you simply rearranged the argument from "poor" to "middle class" and made the same argument, it still doesn't doesn't work. Yes, there is a gap, a growing gap (disparity) in different levels of wealth. The rate this disparity grows doesn't matter if you are looking at middle class or poor, it's there, it grows. It grows because, generally speaking, rich people have more motivation to earn wealth, and therefore they do. This is a natural and normal condition of free market capitalism. You've been brainwashed by Socialists that something is wrong with this, and we should do something about it. There is nothing wrong with it, this is how life in a free market system is, those who have more motivation to succeed financially, can and do, and at a faster rate than people who lack that motivation.

Your argument seems to center on the idea that poor people are dumb, lazy, etc. I'm sure that's true for some of the poor. But you are painting with a very broad brush. Do you have any proof or links to back up your social darwinistic assertion?

But I did not say that. MOTIVATION is what is lacking. While you can certainly be lazy because you lack motivation, that isn't what I am saying. Some people have a drive and ambition to be successful, and some people lack that same drive... perhaps they are driven to be more creative, or have the ambition to be a great parent? But for whatever reason, they don't have the same burning desire to be wealthy, and these people will continue to contribute to the widening of the gap between rich and poor, and that's okay, it's normal.

You're also focusing solely on the poor. Why is the middle class slipping into the poor class? Are all of them dumb and lazy too?

Well, I am focusing on the poor because that was what was thrown back in my face earlier... the lower fifth. More people are slipping into poverty because 60 years of liberal war on poverty has failed. We've spent $70 trillion, with another $100 trillion promised, and we have more people on food stamps than ever. Is that because they are dumb and lazy? Because it sure as hell isn't because we haven't spent money to fix it.

My argument has nothing to do with "dumb and lazy" and is about MOTIVATION. Poor people are less motivated to earn wealth. So what do we do to fix that? You want to make it harder to earn wealth, to hobble the capitalists, but that only hurts everyone. I want to motivate the poor. I think motivating them to go out there and earn more wealth, will affect the 'disparity problem' more than what you want to continue doing, which hasn't worked.

Again, the problem is not that there are rich and poor. The problem is that wealth is concentrating in the top instead of trickling down.

I've said this four times in this thread. I even corrected someone on the right who argued it was a myth. I had to correct the pirate who thought I had denied this. Again... no question about it... rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. Middle class people fluctuate, some do better while others do worse, but all of this is tied to individual motivation, ambition, and drive to succeed, as well as, the obstacles, burdens, regulations, taxation and restrictions placed on them by government. To encourage more drive and ambition, you need to eliminate the obstacles.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

Many liberals believe this, but not me. I think conservatives believe strongly in the power of individual accountability, that the more one helps someone, the more you sap that person's ambition and strength.

Liberals believe in this myth, not because they hate people who aren't liberal, but because conservatives often fight against programs that provide help. Conservatives say this is hurtful in the long run, whereas liberals say it's the short run that matters most.

Again, it is about MOTIVATION more than anything. What we've done is set people up, with a place to live, food to eat, supplies for their babies, day care, health care, cell phones, everything else. They have no motivation to "do" anything. AND... IF they happen to be blessed with some ambition, and attempt to utilize it, they are told they will have their benefits cut. So what do you expect as a result of this? Are we lessening the gap between rich and poor with this policy? Or are we imprisoning generations of people in a life they feel they can't ever escape? HOW IS THAT HELPING THEM????

Now, maybe you call it "tough love" but I would much rather see us helping people who are temporarily in distress, to get back on their feet, but long-term 'welfare' type benefits should be earned. If you worked all your life and contributed to Social Security, you have earned your retirement benefit, we don't need to even discuss that. If you are disabled as a result of service to our country, again... no need to even bring it up, consider it earned. But the people in our system, who have somehow leached onto a teat, and have contributed NOTHING, should have to work for their benefits, if they get them.

As for liberals supporting "failed" policies, you were correct in saying there will always be rich and poor. These policies aren't intended to end poverty forever and ever. Instead, they have two goals: 1) Relieve some of the problems of being poor, and 2) Try to break the cycle of poverty and help people enter the middle class. (That's not the same as ending poverty forever because it's trying to decrease the numbers in poverty, not end it completely.)

But we've done this for 50 years, and it has accomplished neither. People on welfare still have problems of being poor, their situation is not much better. Fewer of them are breaking the cycle, and the middle class is slipping into poverty, you said so yourself. The policies have failed because they don't address the problem of motivation at all. They actually ignore this problem and encourage more lack of motivation.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

Homosexuals are being denied the same legal rights as heterosexuals in regards to marriage.

Simply NOT TRUE! Show me one state in America that denies or recognizes the right to MARRY on the basis of sexuality? MARRY-- is to join a male and female in matrimony. There is no prerequisite regarding their sexuality. Homosexuals are not allowed to have same-sex partnerships and call those MARRIAGE. They are not being denied a right anymore than a father who wants to marry his daughter.

Couples of any orientation can connect under any label they want. But if you want the legal rights that come with marriages (such as filing taxes jointly, hospital visitation rights, ownership of property, etc.), you must be heterosexual.

Again, not true. Homosexuals are free to marry, just like everyone else. Civil property rights are a different story, and this can be addressed through civil unions legislation without redefining marriage.

In other words, it's not about ceremonies--it's about equal treatment under the law, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

The law provides the same equal treatment... heterosexuals can not marry people of the same sex either. Fathers can't marry daughters. Women can't marry German Shepherds. I can't marry someone under 18. I can't marry Christie Brinkley. There are all kinds of parameters and restrictions on marriage, you don't have the right to do whatever makes you happy and call it 'marriage' and hopefully we'll never make that the case in America.

I have no problem with a 'modern reform' in our system, so that government is removed from recognition of any type domestic relationship, and we tentatively replace it with 'civil union' instead, which would basically be a generic contract between any two adults of legal age. This seems to give every side exactly what they claim to want, but no one wants to do this, because it would remove the issue from the table, and extremists (both sides) can make political hay. Meanwhile, thousands of gay couples live their lives out, not realizing the life they could have, if people would just stop politicizing the issue and solve it.

"In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else." So what you're saying is homosexuals can get married, but only to people they don't love. Wow, great idea.

There is no prerequisite that you have to love someone to marry them. If you do love someone, a piece of paper shouldn't matter. What I am saying is, there is no law that prohibits gay people from living together as a gay couple, or having a gay wedding and calling themselves husband and wife, or whatever. No law prohibits this or their sexual behavior, and if they want to "MARRY" someone, it has to be between man and woman, because that is how "MARRIAGE" is defined. They can't do something that isn't marriage and call it marriage.

OH, but people have the right to marry the one they love! No they don't! If so, then can I marry the girl I've been stalking since high school? Of course not, because there are other mitigating criteria that apply. We can't just effing do whatever we please, and call it what we want.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Most liberals believe that, while guns are a right, all rights have limits--especially when public safety is impacted. For example, you cannot exercise your right to free speech by screaming, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire; public safety trumps individual rights. Therefore, guns can be limited.

Which ones to limit? The ones that can most easily be used by criminals....

Woah.. wait a sec... Are CRIMINALS going to obey this new law? Can you guarantee me that it will never be violated by a CRIMINAL? If so, I will accept the premise that we can pass a law to prevent criminals from doing something illegal. Until you can make this guarantee, I will go with what common sense tells me, that criminals will still do things illegally... like buy illegal guns.

All guns kill--that's their design purpose--but assault weapons are designed to kill lots of people at one time.

No they are not. A machine gun, which is an automatic weapon used by combat forces in the military, is designed for this purpose. Guns sold to public consumers in the US, are not these type of weapons, and are neither designed or intended for such a purpose.

A lot of misinformed people believe the designation "AR-15" stands for "assault rifle" and this is false. The "A" stands for "Armalite" which is a lighter weight metal, making the gun lighter to carry. It doesn't have a thing to do with "assaulting" and especially not PEOPLE!

Therefore, liberals generally believe that assault weapons should be banned--the needs of public safety outweigh the individual right.

Let's be clear. Liberal Socialists want ALL guns banned. Period. You have been brainwashed by them, to believe they are just after THESE guns... THAT clip... THIS ammo... it's called "incrementalism" and it's the oldest trick in the book. Pick away at the low hanging fruit first, and after that becomes commonplace, move in for the big kill. Most smart liberals in politics today, know full well they can't ever get a ban on all guns, so they play this up to be "just about the really bad guns" and it's a lie. ALL guns... you have to disarm all these wacko righties, so you can implement Socialist Totalitarianism!

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

There are liberal nutjobs who love Karl Marx and dream of a Communist utopia--just like there are conservative nutjobs who love Hitler and dream of a Fascist utopia. Conservatism shouldn't be branded racist just because a few of them are racist, so liberals shouldn't be branded communists either.

Essentially every articulated idea that has come from the mouth of Barack Obama over the past 6 years, has been virtually and contextually-speaking, right out of Karl Marx Communist Manifesto... at some points, almost copied verbatim. But you see, today's typical 18-31 liberal, has never read Marx, and has no interest in doing so. They believe that what I am saying is just 'extremist rhetoric' and I'm not really serious, but I've read Marx, and I am telling you this is for real. These people have never been this close to destroying America, and make no mistake, everything they do and say is calculated for just that. They've worked a segment of society into a froth over wealthy CEOs and bankers, greedy capitalists, the 1%... Go read how Chairman Mao organized millions of followers to take over China in a revolution... it's the SAME MESSAGE!

What liberals decry is the emphasis on greed over morality. Most businesses are good, but there are many that have cut corners, ignored safety reports, pay people as little as possible, etc., all to put profit above everything else. Capitalism works, but some people take advantage of it to put profit ahead of morality. That's a "greedy Capitalist".

Let's make it clear, a capitalist is in business to make profit, that's the purpose. The more profit, the more successful the capitalist, and the more he makes, and the more taxes he pays, jobs he creates, etc. There ARE things that require us to monitor capitalist to ensure safety, clean environment, etc. We have been doing this for years and years. We don't allow monopolies anymore, we have an FTC and SEC, and about a thousand other federal agencies who constantly monitor the capitalists to ensure they maintain standards we've set. ALL capitalists are expected to play by these rules, greed or not. So to "cop out" and claim that's what this is all about, is a joke.

Now... as for "not paying people enough" ...this is determined by the capitalist. In a free market, you are able to open a rival competitor and pay people more, if you believe that will sell to the consumer, and some capitalists have done exactly that. If you work for a capitalist and believe your talent is worth more, you can find another capitalist to recognize your value and pay you more. If you destroy free market capitalism, you effectively relegate everyone to inferior wages forever, with no ability to gain further opportunity.

However, I disagree with your assertion that greedy capitalists are put out of business quickly by the marketplace. Just the opposite! The marketplace exists to make profit, not morally correct decisions.

"The marketplace" consists of TWO entities... The capitalist and the consumer. The consumer has the power to put ANY capitalist out of business, end of story. Capitalists compete with each other for the consumer's money. If they are successful, they make profit. The more profit, the more successful they were. It's not greedy to be successful at free market capitalism, because you have made your profits by providing a wanted and desired service or product to the consumer, who was satisfied with the transaction. The more profit you made, the more the consumer was satisfied. It's as simple as that.

It's not bad, it's not good--it's just profit-orientated. That's usually a good thing, as profits lead to employment and all that. But it's not always a good thing, and those that make higher profits by being immoral are more likely to survive than businesses who play by the rules.

Wait... play by the rules? Are we on the same page? No one is suggesting we allow some companies to not play by the rules. I don't know what all this talk is about "morality" and what you mean, do you think government should be in the business of legislating morality? We have business standards that are laws, we have environmental standards, mountains and mountains of regulations and restrictions on business, to ensure ethics are upheld. People making profit and satisfying consumers, are NOT unethical.

However, you are conflating socialism with communism. The two are separate entities. I completely agree that communism doesn't work. (Although you could make the argument that nations like Russia and China never really implemented communism, that they were just corrupt dictatorships with communist window dressing.) Socialism tries to regulate the marketplace to avoid the above problems with immoral greed by using the government, technically beholden to the people, to correct abuses.

Socialism, according to Marx, is the precursor to Communism. You must 'transition' in phases, the first is Socialism. Once state control over everything is in place and you have Socialism, you roll out Communism. This is where everything is supposed to be evenly divided up and shared, but that never happens.

You can't overly-regulate free market capitalism and still have free market capitalism. It's like saying the government is going to "control every movement you make" but we're still a "free society." It's ludicrous. "Immoral Greed" can be combated in a free market system, IF it exists. Where it absolutely CAN'T be combated, is in a totalitarian Socialist system.

 

[rdean]

These Republicans and their fantasies about economics. Why are so many poor? Why does the country suffer when they are in office.

Worst of all, they can't even define a single policy besides "make better" and "do good".

 

[The Rabbi]

These Republicans and their fantasies about economics. Why are so many poor? Why does the country suffer when they are in office.

Worst of all, they can't even define a single policy besides "make better" and "do good".

Poor RDean. Clueless is as clueless posts.

 

[DiamondDave]

ahoy buckeye45_ 73,

i don't know what should be done, matey...but i don't think ye need to be a liberal to feel discomfort at the way the ship's ration's are bein' distributed.

i don't think anyone hath made the case that a CEO ought to be paid the same amount as burger flipper, either, at least i hadn't read that yet in the ship's log.

*pauses and muses a bit*

let me asks ye somethin', matey. do ye think wealth disparity that exists in our great land be a good phenomenon fer our nation?

i mean, we have a great deal 'o folks in our country who make so little, they cannot even afford to pay Federal income taxes - and 'tis gettin' increasingly impossible to fund things like our military and our care fer our old folks with whats comin' into our vessel's treasury.

isn't that an alarmin' thing?

- MeadHallPirate

Wealth disparity means absolutely nothing to anyone who has not got his eye on helping himself to the wealth of others. Substitute wealth for potatoes, and see how ignorant the wealth disparity argument is.

If 1% of the people have warehouses full of potatoes, the other 99% are only harmed if the annual potato harvest fails, and insufficient potatoes exist to fill the desires of those people. Likewise, the amount of wealth held by the 1%, is only an issue if the other 99% cannot get all the wealth they earn. Wealth is not a finite amount. New wealth is created every day, and that wealth is distributed among the people who created it.

Our economic problems are caused by the fact that we have too few creating wealth and too many who want to live off of that wealth, whether, or not, they helped create it. To fix that problem, we need to make it easier for people to create wealth, and quit making it easier to live off of wealth created by others.

So we need to create more will? Extra gumption? Increase get up and go?


All great ideas

WE don't need to create anything of the sort.. for your own situation, YOU are the one who has to create it for yourself

 

[editec]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.

When the game is rigged such that MERIT no longer matters more than money?

That society is ultimately doomed to fail.

that is why societies that have enormous wealth discrepancies between their socio-economic classes are typically THIRD WORLD NATIONS.

I do not expect you to take my word for it, of course

Do your own research to see if what I just told you is supported by reality.

Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition.

Well yes, partially true, of course.

Now do you think that is the entire story? Apparently you must.

Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.

You just refuted your own POV by noting the above that I emboldened. Apparently you fail to understand that great wealth does not stand idle when MERIT threatens it.

I can assure you that big money does everything it must to eliminate the threat of merit.

No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing.

True.

Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do.

Partially true. Things can and have been done to insure that big capital does not become big oppression. Unions used to be a good example of that.

Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged.

Few liberals argue for wealth REDISTRIBUTION.

Usually they are arguing for an ECONOMIC FLOOR to keep people from sliding into abject poverty

A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.

I rather doubt that any credible economist would posit that insane theory in ANY journal of economics.

But if f he did (I'd like to see that quote) he'd be 100% completely and totally wrong. And his profession would tear his theory to pieces with very little effort.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.

You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.

So do, some don't.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.

Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.

What a dishonest argument.

You ought to be intellectually embarrassed to put your name to such a silly attempt to make a point by moving the goalpost subterfuge..

You fool no one, but you look like a fool.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.

There is no such thing as a military style assault weapon. It's true! There are weapons which are "military style" and this refers to various aspects of the functionality, but the rapid-fire 'automatic' element is missing, we don't allow those type weapons to be sold to the public, they are for military use only. In a weapon available to the public, the term "military style" has more to do with the grips, the stock, the removable clip, etc. It's a much more efficient and ergonomic design, and has nothing really to do with the military or the kind of weapon they would use.

It's illegal to "assault" using a weapon in the US, and a gun is completely unable to "assault" on it's own. Therefore, the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, it can never be legally used for this purpose in the general public.

I agree with the above, mostly. The whole ASSAULT WEAPONS debate is a RED HERRRING.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

Most of the "libs" I know would be satisfied if too big to fail white collar criminals went to prison.

Of course most of the "libs" I know are fairly wealthy themselves, so I rather doubt they want anything done to the MERELY GREEDY, as they are fairly greedy themselves.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

What you are NOT doing is not debating liberalism.

What you are doing is debating STRAW MEN of your own devise.

When you want to debate REAL PEOPLE, instead of the myths of your own invention?

Let us know.

 

[Seawytch]

Simply NOT TRUE! Show me one state in America that denies or recognizes the right to MARRY on the basis of sexuality? MARRY-- is to join a male and female in matrimony. There is no prerequisite regarding their sexuality. Homosexuals are not allowed to have same-sex partnerships and call those MARRIAGE. They are not being denied a right anymore than a father who wants to marry his daughter.

Have you just recently arrived on the planet? There are currently 9 states with Rhode Island about to become the 10th, that have legalized same sex civil marriage. Can a father marry a daughter in any of the 50 states? You've already lost this "argument" and don't even realize it.

Again, not true. Homosexuals are free to marry, just like everyone else. Civil property rights are a different story, and this can be addressed through civil unions legislation without redefining marriage.

Which creates a little something we call "separate but equal". Ever heard of it? We have tried it here...doesn't work.

 

[Jarhead]

Simply NOT TRUE! Show me one state in America that denies or recognizes the right to MARRY on the basis of sexuality? MARRY-- is to join a male and female in matrimony. There is no prerequisite regarding their sexuality. Homosexuals are not allowed to have same-sex partnerships and call those MARRIAGE. They are not being denied a right anymore than a father who wants to marry his daughter.

Have you just recently arrived on the planet? There are currently 9 states with Rhode Island about to become the 10th, that have legalized same sex civil marriage. Can a father marry a daughter in any of the 50 states? You've already lost this "argument" and don't even realize it.

Again, not true. Homosexuals are free to marry, just like everyone else. Civil property rights are a different story, and this can be addressed through civil unions legislation without redefining marriage.

Which creates a little something we call "separate but equal". Ever heard of it? We have tried it here...doesn't work.

If separate but equal doesnt work here, then why do democratic politicians continually push legislation that are aimed directly at individual groups.....like the "hate" laws?

No offense....but you sound like a GOP platform when you say "separate but equal doesnt work"

And I agree. It doesnt.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Another thread showing that the politicians win, having people arguing about nothing while Wall Street continues to ruin the country. They'd be pleased to see so many partisan sheep arguing about things that don't even matter...............

 

[Seawytch]

Simply NOT TRUE! Show me one state in America that denies or recognizes the right to MARRY on the basis of sexuality? MARRY-- is to join a male and female in matrimony. There is no prerequisite regarding their sexuality. Homosexuals are not allowed to have same-sex partnerships and call those MARRIAGE. They are not being denied a right anymore than a father who wants to marry his daughter.

Have you just recently arrived on the planet? There are currently 9 states with Rhode Island about to become the 10th, that have legalized same sex civil marriage. Can a father marry a daughter in any of the 50 states? You've already lost this "argument" and don't even realize it.

Again, not true. Homosexuals are free to marry, just like everyone else. Civil property rights are a different story, and this can be addressed through civil unions legislation without redefining marriage.

Which creates a little something we call "separate but equal". Ever heard of it? We have tried it here...doesn't work.

If separate but equal doesnt work here, then why do democratic politicians continually push legislation that are aimed directly at individual groups.....like the "hate" laws?

No offense....but you sound like a GOP platform when you say "separate but equal doesnt work"

And I agree. It doesnt.

Legislators wouldn't have to create laws to protect groups of people if assholes didn't set out to terrorize groups of individuals.

What I've noticed about "hate laws" is that nobody objects to them until they gays are going to get protected by them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Have you just recently arrived on the planet? There are currently 9 states with Rhode Island about to become the 10th, that have legalized same sex civil marriage. Can a father marry a daughter in any of the 50 states? You've already lost this "argument" and don't even realize it.



Which creates a little something we call "separate but equal". Ever heard of it? We have tried it here...doesn't work.

If separate but equal doesnt work here, then why do democratic politicians continually push legislation that are aimed directly at individual groups.....like the "hate" laws?

No offense....but you sound like a GOP platform when you say "separate but equal doesnt work"

And I agree. It doesnt.

Legislators wouldn't have to create laws to protect groups of people if assholes didn't set out to terrorize groups of individuals.

What I've noticed about "hate laws" is that nobody objects to them until they gays are going to get protected by them.

How many gays have been lynched? How many have been run out of town wth pitchforks? The martyrdom syndrom is strong here.

 

[Boss]

Why does the country suffer when they are in office.

Come on now, I almost spewed my coffee all over my computer screen!

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that 47% of the country spends the entirety of a GOP administration, writhing in agony on the floor over the inhumanity, blaming everything down to dandelions on the Republicans, and pretending it's the worst it has ever been in human history? Then when the Democrat Messiah is elected, it doesn't matter how bad it gets, it's Bush's fault.

The country certainly didn't suffer during Reagan, we had the longest period peacetime prosperity in history. As a matter of fact, it took Bush Sr. and two terms of Clinton, to destroy it. Oh oh... here come the Reagan Bashers, out of the woodwork to tell us how dismal and terrible things were under Reagan!

 

[Boss]

I'm still trying to figure out what charts on public debt have to do with free market capitalism? The soaring public debt is the result of 50 years of liberal policies and programs, they promised would bring people out of poverty. As soon as the programs and policies began to fail, they screamed, what? MORE FUNDING... MORE FUNDING... it only doesn't work because Republicans won't fund it! SO we jack it up some more, and it still doesn't work. We implement another program, to fix the disaster of the last one, and the cycle starts all over again. When someone suggests we try something different... they don't care about helping the needy, we need MORE FUNDING! Because these idiotic programs have caused our public debt to skyrocket, has absolutely NOTHING to do with free market capitalism.

Oh but look, it's an impressive chart or graph from some liberal blogger, it MUST make a valid piont!

So the soaring public debt isn't at least partially the result of America's wars and military presence in just about every country in the world? You're spot on about free market capitalism though. Halliburton getting no bid contracts in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with a former ceo being vice president. And the thousands of corporate lobbyists influencing politicians has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of these corporations and some of their extremely wealthy ceo's.

We can take the cost of every war America has ever fought, and it would not match the amount of what Obama's deficits will be for his 8 years in office. Not what Obama is spending, but the amount he is OVER spending. The total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Homeland Security, is LESS than Obama's first two years of deficits... again... the DEFICIT... the amount OVER what we take in and spend.

It might surprise you to learn, Halliburton has been getting no-bid contracts since before Cheney was involved with them. You see, they are a large government contractor who perform certain skilled jobs that no one else can do as well as they can, which is why they get the no-bid contract. For example, they are one of two companies in the world who are capable of extinguishing large uncapped oil well fires. The other is in China.

I addressed the "wealthy CEO" myth in the OP. If you believe CEOs earn too much money, you are free to go out there and form a rival competitor who doesn't have a wealthy CEO, and if you are right, your company will be more successful and turn greater profit, and you'll put the company who is wasting money on a CEO out of business... GO FOR IT!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wealth disparity means absolutely nothing to anyone who has not got his eye on helping himself to the wealth of others. Substitute wealth for potatoes, and see how ignorant the wealth disparity argument is.

If 1% of the people have warehouses full of potatoes, the other 99% are only harmed if the annual potato harvest fails, and insufficient potatoes exist to fill the desires of those people. Likewise, the amount of wealth held by the 1%, is only an issue if the other 99% cannot get all the wealth they earn. Wealth is not a finite amount. New wealth is created every day, and that wealth is distributed among the people who created it.

Our economic problems are caused by the fact that we have too few creating wealth and too many who want to live off of that wealth, whether, or not, they helped create it. To fix that problem, we need to make it easier for people to create wealth, and quit making it easier to live off of wealth created by others.

So we need to create more will? Extra gumption? Increase get up and go?


All great ideas

WE don't need to create anything of the sort.. for your own situation, YOU are the one who has to create it for yourself

So you just took your only solution "do nothing" and wrapped it up with a pretty bow.

Guess what? It still is "do nothing" no matter how much sprinklely shit on it

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm still trying to figure out what charts on public debt have to do with free market capitalism? The soaring public debt is the result of 50 years of liberal policies and programs, they promised would bring people out of poverty. As soon as the programs and policies began to fail, they screamed, what? MORE FUNDING... MORE FUNDING... it only doesn't work because Republicans won't fund it! SO we jack it up some more, and it still doesn't work. We implement another program, to fix the disaster of the last one, and the cycle starts all over again. When someone suggests we try something different... they don't care about helping the needy, we need MORE FUNDING! Because these idiotic programs have caused our public debt to skyrocket, has absolutely NOTHING to do with free market capitalism.

Oh but look, it's an impressive chart or graph from some liberal blogger, it MUST make a valid piont!

So the soaring public debt isn't at least partially the result of America's wars and military presence in just about every country in the world? You're spot on about free market capitalism though. Halliburton getting no bid contracts in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with a former ceo being vice president. And the thousands of corporate lobbyists influencing politicians has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of these corporations and some of their extremely wealthy ceo's.

We can take the cost of every war America has ever fought, and it would not match the amount of what Obama's deficits will be for his 8 years in office. Not what Obama is spending, but the amount he is OVER spending. The total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Homeland Security, is LESS than Obama's first two years of deficits... again... the DEFICIT... the amount OVER what we take in and spend.

It might surprise you to learn, Halliburton has been getting no-bid contracts since before Cheney was involved with them. You see, they are a large government contractor who perform certain skilled jobs that no one else can do as well as they can, which is why they get the no-bid contract. For example, they are one of two companies in the world who are capable of extinguishing large uncapped oil well fires. The other is in China.

I addressed the "wealthy CEO" myth in the OP. If you believe CEOs earn too much money, you are free to go out there and form a rival competitor who doesn't have a wealthy CEO, and if you are right, your company will be more successful and turn greater profit, and you'll put the company who is wasting money on a CEO out of business... GO FOR IT!

I have to disagree with one statement. And that is about Halliburton being the only US company capable of extinguishing uncapped oil well fires. I worked for Red Adair in '91 when we went to Kuwait and extinguished hundred of fires. And we weren't the only US company doing so. We had help from Boots & Coots, Wild Well Control, O'Brien Goins Simpson Inc. and Safety Boss of Canada.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So the soaring public debt isn't at least partially the result of America's wars and military presence in just about every country in the world? You're spot on about free market capitalism though. Halliburton getting no bid contracts in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with a former ceo being vice president. And the thousands of corporate lobbyists influencing politicians has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of these corporations and some of their extremely wealthy ceo's.

We can take the cost of every war America has ever fought, and it would not match the amount of what Obama's deficits will be for his 8 years in office. Not what Obama is spending, but the amount he is OVER spending. The total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Homeland Security, is LESS than Obama's first two years of deficits... again... the DEFICIT... the amount OVER what we take in and spend.

It might surprise you to learn, Halliburton has been getting no-bid contracts since before Cheney was involved with them. You see, they are a large government contractor who perform certain skilled jobs that no one else can do as well as they can, which is why they get the no-bid contract. For example, they are one of two companies in the world who are capable of extinguishing large uncapped oil well fires. The other is in China.

I addressed the "wealthy CEO" myth in the OP. If you believe CEOs earn too much money, you are free to go out there and form a rival competitor who doesn't have a wealthy CEO, and if you are right, your company will be more successful and turn greater profit, and you'll put the company who is wasting money on a CEO out of business... GO FOR IT!

I have to disagree with one statement. And that is about Halliburton being the only US company capable of extinguishing uncapped oil well fires. I worked for Red Adair in '91 when we went to Kuwait and extinguished hundred of fires. And we weren't the only US company doing so. We had help from Boots & Coots, Wild Well Control, O'Brien Goins Simpson Inc. and Safety Boss of Canada.

You did? my hat is off to you guys.

 

[The Rabbi]

So we need to create more will? Extra gumption? Increase get up and go?


All great ideas

WE don't need to create anything of the sort.. for your own situation, YOU are the one who has to create it for yourself

So you just took your only solution "do nothing" and wrapped it up with a pretty bow.

Guess what? It still is "do nothing" no matter how much sprinklely shit on it

I'm sorry if the solution is not yet another gov't program with a huge budget and lots of overhead. But life just sucks like that sometimes.

 

[Boss]

WE don't need to create anything of the sort.. for your own situation, YOU are the one who has to create it for yourself

So you just took your only solution "do nothing" and wrapped it up with a pretty bow.

Guess what? It still is "do nothing" no matter how much sprinklely shit on it

I'm sorry if the solution is not yet another gov't program with a huge budget and lots of overhead. But life just sucks like that sometimes.

Oh but you are missing how the Liberalist Ideology works! The "solution" is ALWAYS a new program, or more funding for the old program, and any refusal means you are either a racist, or hate people. When we spend billions and implement the program, and it eventually creates an even bigger problem, this is automatically blamed on the right, who hasn't funded the program enough, and another program is rolled out to fix the problem cause by the original program, which is blamed on republicans.

In about 20 years, the results of Obamacare will be a greatly diminished quality in health care, as conditions grow 'progressively' worse, the same people who pushed this crap sandwich on us, will begin to blame the failures on the right, and insist we need a new program to improve the deplorable conditions, which the right has now been blamed for. The next idea will be worse than the last, but if we refuse to accept it, we'll be called every name in the book and castigated until we do. Eventually, some McCain-like moron will come along and accept the idea, and we do something even more stupid...the cycle continues. Rinse and repeat!