What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[koshergrl]

The principle is as I have presented it:
I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

Yup. During that same program segment this morning, it was ponted out that the markup for taxing the rich as the President is proposing amounts to something like 47 billion dollars in treasury revenues over the next 11 years. That averages out to a little over 4 billion dollars a year which is a huge amount of money to you and me, but is viewed as mere pocket change to those in Washington who want to spend it.

Meanwhile that 4 billion in revenues is point 4 percent of that 1 trillion dollar deficit IF the additional taxes on the rich do not force more of them to shelter their assets off shore or otherwise change behavior that reduces income received from the rest of the economy. And history informs us that the wrong kind of tax on the wealthy WILL reduce the income received from the rest of the economy.

But as President Obama once said not all that long ago. It isn't an issue of revenues. It is an issue of fairness. It isn't fair that some have more wealth than others.

Just as most liberals do not want to discuss the cost in dollars and negatives of all those entitlements but would rather focus on the righteousness of helping the less fortunate and/or the "greed and selfishness and hard heartedness" of those who believe a balanced budget that would require rolling back all or most of those entitlements would help the poor far more than will all the entitlements combined.

And a huge chunk, if not all of all those trillion dollar deficits we have accrued and/or that are projected will be in entitlements and other government giveaways to special interests.

It is frustrating not to be able to have that debate because most liberals simply won't engage in it.

And they won't engage in it because they are all innately dishonest scumbags.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

Yup. During that same program segment this morning, it was ponted out that the markup for taxing the rich as the President is proposing amounts to something like 47 billion dollars in treasury revenues over the next 11 years. That averages out to a little over 4 billion dollars a year which is a huge amount of money to you and me, but is viewed as mere pocket change to those in Washington who want to spend it.

Meanwhile that 4 billion in revenues is point 4 percent of that 1 trillion dollar deficit IF the additional taxes on the rich do not force more of them to shelter their assets off shore or otherwise change behavior that reduces income received from the rest of the economy. And history informs us that the wrong kind of tax on the wealthy WILL reduce the income received from the rest of the economy.

But as President Obama once said not all that long ago. It isn't an issue of revenues. It is an issue of fairness. It isn't fair that some have more wealth than others.

Just as most liberals do not want to discuss the cost in dollars and negatives of all those entitlements but would rather focus on the righteousness of helping the less fortunate and/or the "greed and selfishness and hard heartedness" of those who believe a balanced budget that would require rolling back all or most of those entitlements would help the poor far more than will all the entitlements combined.

And a huge chunk, if not all of all those trillion dollar deficits we have accrued and/or that are projected will be in entitlements and other government giveaways to special interests.

It is frustrating not to be able to have that debate because most liberals simply won't engage in it.

And they won't engage in it because they are all innately dishonest scumbags.

I don't buy that KG. I don't think most liberals do intend to be dishonest. I think many, probably most are well intended and really do believe progressivism/liberalism/leftism is the more humane and best system there is. But there is also something in the water they drink maybe that makes them incapable of actually challenging that or looking at it too closely lest they have to admit that the emperor has no clothes.

Conservatives usually don't have that problem. Most conservatives can look at something, admit it didn't work or hasn't worked or isn't working and move on to something different. Most liberals don't seem to have that ability but just keep pushing for the same failed policies that have succeeded only in pushing us into greater and greater dependency on and therefore servitude to big government.

 

[koshergrl]

They are dishonest. Maybe not in their day to day dealings with people, but in their ideology, you bet. Sadly, their dishonesty extends to their own perception of their dishonesty, so I don't think they always realize it.

And that is why they REFUSE TO ENGAGE on certain topics. That is why they need to redefine terms continually, and why they can't stick to any controversial subject. That is why they eternally take a stance of "I'm not answering that question because you're a big dummy" . Because if they are forced to answer honestly, they are faced with the fact that their policies are anti-human, anti-freedom, and just bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

They are dishonest. Maybe not in their day to day dealings with people, but in their ideology, you bet. Sadly, their dishonesty extends to their own perception of their dishonesty, so I don't think they always realize it.

And that is why they REFUSE TO ENGAGE on certain topics. That is why they need to redefine terms continually, and why they can't stick to any controversial subject. That is why they eternally take a stance of "I'm not answering that question because you're a big dummy" . Because if they are forced to answer honestly, they are faced with the fact that their policies are anti-human, anti-freedom, and just bad.

That's part of the defense system, yes. But I'm not at all convinced that many liberals see that as clearly as most conservatives do.

Partly due to experience on several of the economics threads, I am becoming convinced that our deteriorating education system is part of it. Too many people are now being indoctrinated instead of trained to research, analyze, be introspective, and think critically. In economics especially, most liberals utilize microeconomic concepts, and a very limited aspect of those, when they discuss economics. Example? The Bush tax cuts hurt the poor and enriched the rich and caused the deficits. And they will look to cut and paste from liberal sources to reinforce that.

The conservative is far more likely to utilize both microeconomics and macroeconomics principles, see that revenues did not decrease under the Bush tax policies, at least until the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and that the rich were proportionately paying a great deal more into the treasury after the tax rate cuts than they had been paying before.

In this case, a liberal is not lying. He or she is just ignorant and/or misinformed. He/she seems incapable of even considering the big picture and all the cause and effect. But then if s/he did that, a different truth that didn't fit the leftist talking points would have to acknowledged or s/he would in fact be flat out lying.

 

[koshergrl]

I think they are ignorant to a point. But when you avoid answering questions because the answers make you uncomfortable, or when you accept lies as evidence when the actual evidence shows the exact opposite, at that point, they've become dishonest.

And I agree, I think it starts in school as well.

 

[koshergrl]

Part of it is that nobody has ever said to them, "you're LYING..that's a LIE and LIES are not acceptable". Lying becomes a part of their personalities...but that doesn't mean they aren't lying. It just means they don't recognize it AS a lie. They think it's something else. Justifiable alteration of the facts, perhaps. But to everybody else, it's still a lie. Deliberately prevaricating, using false analagies after you know it's false, end justifies the means stuff....

 

[The T]

Part of it is that nobody has ever said to them, "you're LYING..that's a LIE and LIES are not acceptable". Lying becomes a part of their personalities...but that doesn't mean they aren't lying. It just means they don't recognize it AS a lie. They think it's something else. Justifiable alteration of the facts, perhaps. But to everybody else, it's still a lie. Deliberately prevaricating, using false analagies after you know it's false, end justifies the means stuff....

In other words? No honor among thieves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I don't find informing people that they are 'liars' to be conducive to a good debate. I think points are deducted for that even.

But then I've never seen anybody be converted by being told they are going to hell either. However likely a candidate they may seem to be for that.

 

[Syphon]

The principle is as I have presented it:
I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

is this why GOP controlled states get back more in federal tax dollars than they pay into the system?

 

[koshergrl]

I don't mess with debating them anymore, I just point it out and move on. As you've pointed out, it's difficult to debate people who are dishonest and won't speak to the point.

 

[UpAndAbout]

The principle is as I have presented it:
I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

The more you give someone something they didn't have to work for, the more they are not going to take care of it or even appreciate it. It's like they have no idea where the money from the government comes from. It's like the poor little rich child of a movie star being given a brand new Lexus for her 16th birthday. think she is going to take care of it? nope, cause she knows there another one where that one came from.

Drive through low income housing. Yards not mowed, trash in the yard, just pigstys. it doesn't matter whether they are rented or allowed to buy cheap. Across the street from my late MIL's house back in the late 1970s, they launched the "House My People" program there (it was everywhere of course, but this block of land was set aside for it). The stipulation was that the buyers had to help build the house. Ok, they did that, they got the house dirt cheap. The only thing they had to give was sweat equity basically. Today every single one of those houses should be leveled. they are run-down dumps with junk cars, garbage, you name it. They never took care of them. What about the RICH liberals? Are THEY "paying enough"?? somehow I doubt it.

 

[The T]

Well I don't find informing people that they are 'liars' to be conducive to a good debate. I think points are deducted for that even.

But then I've never seen anybody be converted by being told they are going to hell either. However likely a candidate they may seem to be for that.

Actually? You have to take whatever they said and show them the provable truth...but even then? They'll cling to what they think they know rather than have thier worldview destroyed.

 

[Syphon]

I don't mess with debating them anymore, I just point it out and move on. As you've pointed out, it's difficult to debate people who are dishonest and won't speak to the point.

you disseminate more bad information on this board than most , so this is hilarious coming from you.

 

[The T]

The principle is as I have presented it:
I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

is this why GOP controlled states get back more in federal tax dollars than they pay into the system?

Lie much?

 

[Syphon]

PolitiFact | 'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars

or not....

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

 

[koshergrl]

I don't mess with debating them anymore, I just point it out and move on. As you've pointed out, it's difficult to debate people who are dishonest and won't speak to the point.

you disseminate more bad information on this board than most , so this is hilarious coming from you.

I'm sure you can provide an example of "bad information" I've provided, then. Since it's so abundant and all.

Meanwhile, bask in the glory that is your due as a lying, progressive, piece of shit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

is this why GOP controlled states get back more in federal tax dollars than they pay into the system?

Lie much?

Actually that isn't a lie if you look at it only from a microeconomic angle which a Leftist is usually taught to do. On average, when all states are factored in, more GOP controlled states are getting back a bit more per capita in federal dollars than what they pay in than are Democrat controlled states.

Why?

1. Credit scores tend to be higher in blue states because so many more of the nation's richest people, many who are huge supporters of the Democratic party, live in the blue states. Therefore, because of this concentration of wealth and industry in blue states, those states will pay more in taxes.

2. There tend to be more red states than blue states most of the time.

3. Red states tend to be smaller in population than blue states and that also skews the per capita allocations of federal dollars received as Washington makes sure all the elected leaders get a piece of the pie so they'll vote for other things. When the populations are smaller, representatives of red states generally will represent fewer people than those in blue states.

4. At the same time, there may be a lot of federal lands and installations in those smaller population states. New Mexico gets more federal dollars relative to taxes paid per capital than any other state while it has a relatively small population for its land mass. But it has a huge amount of national forest land, several other areas such as White Sands missile proving range that are controlled and funded by the federal government and also three large military bases, two national labs, and various other federal installations, parks, and monuments here.

Considering all this, it is very highly unlikely that red states are receiving more in entitlements or welfare spending than are blue states. But just try to get reliable figures on that and good luck.

 

[UpAndAbout]

is this why GOP controlled states get back more in federal tax dollars than they pay into the system?

Lie much?

Actually that isn't a lie if you look at it only from a microeconomic angle which a Leftist is usually taught to do. On average, when all states are factored in, more GOP controlled states are getting back a bit more per capita in federal dollars than what they pay in than are Democrat controlled states.

Why?

1. Credit scores tend to be higher in blue states because so many more of the nation's richest people, many who are huge supporters of the Democratic party, live in the blue states. Therefore, because of this concentration of wealth and industry in blue states, those states will pay more in taxes.

2. There tend to be more red states than blue states most of the time.

3. Red states tend to be smaller in population than blue states and that also skews the per capita allocations of federal dollars received as Washington makes sure all the elected leaders get a piece of the pie so they'll vote for other things. When the populations are smaller, representatives of red states generally will represent fewer people than those in blue states.

4. At the same time, there may be a lot of federal lands and installations in those smaller population states. New Mexico gets more federal dollars relative to taxes paid per capital than any other state while it has a relatively small population for its land mass. But it has a huge amount of national forest land, several other areas such as White Sands missile proving range that are controlled and funded by the federal government and also three large military bases, two national labs, and various other federal installations, parks, and monuments here.

Considering all this, it is very highly unlikely that red states are receiving more in entitlements or welfare spending than are blue states. But just try to get reliable figures on that and good luck.

You're right. Montana is one with tons of federal lands. And of course here in Washington we do to. Do national parks count? Anyway, we have Fort Lewis and McChord AFB (now JointBase Lewis-McChord), but unfortunately we are Democrat infested and have been for the last 40 years. Still lots of poor people though. State economy in the red. and the governor had the audacity to criticize Bush!

 

[The T]

is this why GOP controlled states get back more in federal tax dollars than they pay into the system?

Lie much?

Actually that isn't a lie if you look at it only from a microeconomic angle which a Leftist is usually taught to do. On average, when all states are factored in, more GOP controlled states are getting back a bit more per capita in federal dollars than what they pay in than are Democrat controlled states.

Why?

1. Credit scores tend to be higher in blue states because so many more of the nation's richest people, many who are huge supporters of the Democratic party, live in the blue states. Therefore, because of this concentration of wealth and industry in blue states, those states will pay more in taxes.

2. There tend to be more red states than blue states most of the time.

3. Red states tend to be smaller in population than blue states and that also skews the per capita allocations of federal dollars received as Washington makes sure all the elected leaders get a piece of the pie so they'll vote for other things. When the populations are smaller, representatives of red states generally will represent fewer people than those in blue states.

4. At the same time, there may be a lot of federal lands and installations in those smaller population states. New Mexico gets more federal dollars relative to taxes paid per capital than any other state while it has a relatively small population for its land mass. But it has a huge amount of national forest land, several other areas such as White Sands missile proving range that are controlled and funded by the federal government and also three large military bases, two national labs, and various other federal installations, parks, and monuments here.

Considering all this, it is very highly unlikely that red states are receiving more in entitlements or welfare spending than are blue states. But just try to get reliable figures on that and good luck.

Prime thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lie much?

Actually that isn't a lie if you look at it only from a microeconomic angle which a Leftist is usually taught to do. On average, when all states are factored in, more GOP controlled states are getting back a bit more per capita in federal dollars than what they pay in than are Democrat controlled states.

Why?

1. Credit scores tend to be higher in blue states because so many more of the nation's richest people, many who are huge supporters of the Democratic party, live in the blue states. Therefore, because of this concentration of wealth and industry in blue states, those states will pay more in taxes.

2. There tend to be more red states than blue states most of the time.

3. Red states tend to be smaller in population than blue states and that also skews the per capita allocations of federal dollars received as Washington makes sure all the elected leaders get a piece of the pie so they'll vote for other things. When the populations are smaller, representatives of red states generally will represent fewer people than those in blue states.

4. At the same time, there may be a lot of federal lands and installations in those smaller population states. New Mexico gets more federal dollars relative to taxes paid per capital than any other state while it has a relatively small population for its land mass. But it has a huge amount of national forest land, several other areas such as White Sands missile proving range that are controlled and funded by the federal government and also three large military bases, two national labs, and various other federal installations, parks, and monuments here.

Considering all this, it is very highly unlikely that red states are receiving more in entitlements or welfare spending than are blue states. But just try to get reliable figures on that and good luck.

You're right. Montana is one with tons of federal lands. And of course here in Washington we do to. Do national parks count? Anyway, we have Fort Lewis and McChord AFB (now JointBase Lewis-McChord), but unfortunately we are Democrat infested and have been for the last 40 years. Still lots of poor people though. State economy in the red. and the governor had the audacity to criticize Bush!

Yep. National parks count as do miles of interstate highway and farm subsides as Washington allocates what crops the farmers should grow and for what. And again the red states tend to have a disproportionate number of that.