What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Dr Grump]

Coming from a Commonwealth nation such as yourself, I would make a slightly different observation. I believe that many leftists do have an entitlement mentality, and I would use the term leftist in a Commonwealth context, where there is a difference between a liberal and a socialist.

In America, what they usually mean is that liberals believe in social programs, and thus believe people are entitled to the work of others. So even though Jillian and other liberals may not have an entitlement mentality themselves, conservatives argue that they believe in a system which fosters an entitlement mentality amongst the general population.

Yeah, well just to add to the confusion, in Australia the Labor party is our version of the Dems, and the Liberal party is our version of the GoP.

I disagree. I believe in a safety net at the bottom of a cliff not a hammock. There is nothing wrong with a safety net. Countries that don't have them include the likes of India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico...so that is the end game if you don't have some social programmes in place.

There needs to be a fine line. I find US conservatives basically believe people should live off the bones of their arse if they don't have a job. That would never work. You have to give people hope. I know people who have been unemployed and gotten the dole (unemployment) and they hated every minute of it. They were both Labor and Liberal voters.

Foxfyre is also assuming that anybody who benefits from a social programme is a liberal, to which I say, 'prove it'.

Is there generational unemployment and sense of entitlement amongst some families? Sure. Are they liberals? Who the fuck knows. I don't, and neither does FF...

No..That is NOT what Foxfyre stated or implied. You just wanted what she posted to say what you think it should say.

I was talking about Toro's point, not Foxfyre's...

 

[The T]

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.

A good number of Red States haven't concrete islands blue states do...and Kudos to Teddy Roosevelt for the preservation.

 

[Dr Grump]

If you are a believer in social safety nets then you should have no problem paying for them.
Those who disagree with the process of paying able bodied to work people to not work and enjoy taxpayer funded permanent vacations should not have to pay. Why should we? We had nothing to do in the decision making process to create taxpayer funded non production.
Threat of government sanctions to insure compliance is the only way the liberal agenda can move froward.
Oh..And please spare me the pat response about infrastructure, public safety and education. The first tow are essential functions of government. Education is too important to leave in it's entirety to the public sector. Although there is a movement to reverse that way of thinking.

Your first mistake is believing that I think people who are fully capable of working but don't want to should have entitlements. On that count you would be wrong.

Being able bodied and getting a job, as opposed to being able bodied and there are no jobs to get, are two different scenarios...

 

[Dr Grump]

It is not at all supposition and it doesn't have anything at all to do with red states or blue states as there will be liberals and conservatives found in all 50 state. But here is another deflecvtion shifting the focus to how people vote rather than focus on whether entitlements are a good thing or bad thing at face value. And again, THAT is what I find so frustrating in discussing almost anything with most liberals. They simply cannot or will not articulate a rationale for a principle. Instead they deflect, accuse, blame. . . .

At face value, some entitlements are good, some are bad.

And I disagree with you as to the definition of an entitlement. A company wanting tax breaks, say, over your Average Joe, is asking for an entitlement.

Taxes are not a yes or no proposition. A tax system is necessary for a functioning democracy or republic...so your argument saying it 'ain't the same' is a strawman. Everybody has to pay taxes, even your founding fathers knew that...

There should not be ANY entitlements. All social programs should be made a temporary safety net for those who through no fault of their own found themselves in need of help.
Of course the elderly( priority ONE) should take the majority of our taxes. Now this is not to say all Seniors are entitled. For instance those who draw from large pensions and/or those who receive lifetime medical benefits, should NOT have access to entitlements.
It really pisses me off when I read or hear of some older person who has two homes, one of which is a vacation home, two new cars and a boat or an RV bitch about how they NEED their medicare. Bullshit.
Of course we also need to have programs for the mentally and physically disabled who are NOT under the care of family members or have plenty of their own wealth. The benefits they would normally receive should saved for less fortunate people.

It depends on the entitlement. There are many. You can make an all encompassing statement about entitlements if you wish, but that is rather simplistic...

If they have paid taxes all their life, why shouldn't they get medicare?

 

[Dr Grump]

It is not at all supposition and it doesn't have anything at all to do with red states or blue states as there will be liberals and conservatives found in all 50 states. But here is another deflection shifting the focus to how people vote rather than focus on whether entitlements are a good thing or bad thing at face value. And that is why discussing most social/political principles with most liberals is so frustrating to me. Just like Grump accusing me of what I assume about anyone benefitting from a social program being a liberal. I never said or suggested such a thing. He cannot or will not focus on the principle I have offered to him now. Twice. Frustrating.

actually, it does have to do with red states and blue states in part. you make claims about what "liberals" believe and what "liberals" want all the while not acknowledging the use of entitlements by self-styled "conservatives". That isn't deflection... or shifting the focus. It is simply not permitting you to falsely portray a reality that doesn't exist.

Grump hasn't missed a single thing you've said. He's simply pointed out his disagreement with you and set forth reasons why. Not allowing you to frame the debate isn't deflection.

Your "frustration" is that everyone doesn't see the great wisdom in your pov. You neglect the fact that others believe in their own pov as fervently and see yours as being as misguided as you see theirs, if not moreso.

Grump has not disagreed with me. Nor have you. You both have changed the subject. I haven't asked anybody to agree with me, I have asked and asked and asked for any of you on the left to articulate an argument that is something more coherant than 'corporations are evil and suck" or "Republicans just want to invade women's uteruses' or some such that which in no way relates to anything I have said.

You simply cannot have a discussion in which one person expresses an opinion about rocks and the other person responds with something about trees.

I have stated my point of view. I am perfectly willing to defend it with anybody. My contention is that most of the liberals/leftists cannot articulate a defensible rationale for their opinion.

And so far not one of you has chosen to prove me wrong about that.

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

 

[koshergrl]

I'm of the opinion that so long as the government won't allow industry to flourish and penalizes entrepreneurship, we're stuck with a big fat load of entitlement programs.

Here's the sick thing..progressives shut down industry, and then say we must have entitlements to feed people...who aren't able to eat because there are no jobs...when there are no jobs because the progressives have their foot on the neck of industry, production, and competition.

They make sure their entitlement programs have a market because they won't let people work....and if they do work, it can't be for profit. That's the way progressives work. It's all about starving the people.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm not arguing whether or not there should be a safety net. I'm trying to describe why an American conservative would say an American liberal has an entitlement mentality. To an American conservative (or most of them anyways), arguing for a safety net is to argue for entitlements. Thus, to American conservatives, liberals have an entitlement mentality because they argue for entitlements.

In Commonwealth countries, socialists often argue that people have a right to entitlements, no different than a right to life or whatever. Some American liberals argue that but its not as ubiquitous in American political discourse as it is elsewhere.

Yeah, well, down here even the conservatives 'get' 'entitlements'.....

Now, what they are supposed to be etc.. is another story...

You are right. Some do. And both Republicans and Democrats have voted for entitlements over the years, and entitlements have been pushed in most administrations since Teddy Roosevelt regardless of which party held power in Congress, The two most egregious examples in recent years are the Senior Prescription bill that George W. Bush pushed through a Republican controlled Congress and Obamacare which Obama pushed through a Democrat controlled Congress.

And all this becomes part of the entitlement mentality.

For purposes of this illustration, I ask you and Jillian and JoeB and anybody else to focus on one specific principle, not red states or blue states, not a political party, not various entitles, not personalities. not economic classes.

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.

What say you?

I would need a list of those entitlements, how much people get, what they are for, the type of people receiving those entitlements, and what was the original purpose of those entitlements...

 

[The T]

I'm of the opinion that so long as the government won't allow industry to flourish and penalizes entrepreneurship, we're stuck with a big fat load of entitlement programs.

Here's the sick thing..progressives shut down industry, and then say we must have entitlements to feed people...who aren't able to eat because there are no jobs...when there are no jobs because the progressives have their foot on the neck of industry, production, and competition.

They make sure their entitlement programs have a market because they won't let people work....and if they do work, it can't be for profit. That's the way progressives work. It's all about starving the people.

We're stuck with abridgment of liberty with the left in charge. Look around...it's everywhere, and why it must be defeated.

 

[Dr Grump]

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 couldn't debate your way out of a wet paperbag..note my sig (the one I wrote, not quoted)...It is aimed at the likes of you. However, even that is being generous...

 

[Vidi]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Im a liberal and I do not oppose a limited government, but I oppose a toothless one.

 

[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 couldn't debate your way out of a wet paperbag..note my sig (the one I wrote, not quoted)...It is aimed at the likes of you. However, even that is being generous...

Yes, your sig is as backwards, bigoted and ignorant as you are yourself. Well done!

 

[Foxfyre]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Im a liberal and I do not oppose a limited government, but I oppose a toothless one.

Interesting. How limited are you willing for government to be? And what would a 'toothless" government look like to you?

 

[jillian]

actually, it does have to do with red states and blue states in part. you make claims about what "liberals" believe and what "liberals" want all the while not acknowledging the use of entitlements by self-styled "conservatives". That isn't deflection... or shifting the focus. It is simply not permitting you to falsely portray a reality that doesn't exist.

Grump hasn't missed a single thing you've said. He's simply pointed out his disagreement with you and set forth reasons why. Not allowing you to frame the debate isn't deflection.

Your "frustration" is that everyone doesn't see the great wisdom in your pov. You neglect the fact that others believe in their own pov as fervently and see yours as being as misguided as you see theirs, if not moreso.

Grump has not disagreed with me. Nor have you. You both have changed the subject. I haven't asked anybody to agree with me, I have asked and asked and asked for any of you on the left to articulate an argument that is something more coherant than 'corporations are evil and suck" or "Republicans just want to invade women's uteruses' or some such that which in no way relates to anything I have said.

You simply cannot have a discussion in which one person expresses an opinion about rocks and the other person responds with something about trees.

I have stated my point of view. I am perfectly willing to defend it with anybody. My contention is that most of the liberals/leftists cannot articulate a defensible rationale for their opinion.

And so far not one of you has chosen to prove me wrong about that.

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

foxy has this idea that she is somehow singularly able to articulate and anyone who disagrees with her is 'deflecting' or 'inarticulate'. but note the use of the words liberals/leftists interchangeably. for someone who ostensibly works with words, that is her first mistake.

but then again, when someone creates her "adversaries" out of whole cloth, without consideration of differences, worldview and actual belief system, it's not surprising that she would totally miss the mark and be resistant to actually understanding what is being said to her.

frankly, the title alone of this thread is pretty sad.

but as i said... her frustration is that we don't see the "wisdom" of her opinion. (thanks for the suggestion about the quotemarks, btw).

 

[koshergrl]

But..did you answer the question yet?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, well, down here even the conservatives 'get' 'entitlements'.....

Now, what they are supposed to be etc.. is another story...

You are right. Some do. And both Republicans and Democrats have voted for entitlements over the years, and entitlements have been pushed in most administrations since Teddy Roosevelt regardless of which party held power in Congress, The two most egregious examples in recent years are the Senior Prescription bill that George W. Bush pushed through a Republican controlled Congress and Obamacare which Obama pushed through a Democrat controlled Congress.

And all this becomes part of the entitlement mentality.

For purposes of this illustration, I ask you and Jillian and JoeB and anybody else to focus on one specific principle, not red states or blue states, not a political party, not various entitles, not personalities. not economic classes.

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.

What say you?

I would need a list of those entitlements, how much people get, what they are for, the type of people receiving those entitlements, and what was the original purpose of those entitlements...

No you don't if you start with the principle that all federal entitlements are destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do more harm than good.

I would concede that some are less so than others. Social Security as it was originally intended isn't as bad as welfare has been, but so much as been added to it and its purpose has shifted from providing a supplement to retirment to providing a retirement income for retirees. As such it is no way sustainable and is now a drag on the economy that makes it more difficult for people to save as much for their retirement as they otherwise could do. For many people their social security taxes exceed their income taxes.

Welfare, as the program it has become, among other things has decimated the black family, encouraged single parenthood, and is a primary reason so many children are now subject to growing up in poverty.

Federal meddling in healthcare (Medicare, Prescription drugs, Medicaid etc.) have been a primary reason that healthcare costs have spiraled out of reach for those who have no insurance. If the federal government had stayed out of it, the free market would have forced healthcare providers in all categories to provide services that people can afford. Ditto if the federal government had stayed out of public education.

We could go on and on but whatever government entitlement program is mentioned, the principle remains the same. Even if the programs were serving as they were originally intended, which none of them are, it is foolish to take the people's tax money, swallow up a huge percentage of it in a bloated federal bureaucracy, and then return a portion of back to the people in form of entitlements. Most especially when the state is required to administer the funds and therefore swallows up still more of the money in the state bureaucracy.

In most cases, the people will spend the money on their own behalf much more efficiently and effectively than the federal government will spend it for them.

 

[The T]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Im a liberal and I do not oppose a limited government, but I oppose a toothless one.

Interesting. How limited are you willing for government to be? And what would a 'toothless" government look like to you?

Article 1, Section 8?

 

[Foxfyre]

Grump has not disagreed with me. Nor have you. You both have changed the subject. I haven't asked anybody to agree with me, I have asked and asked and asked for any of you on the left to articulate an argument that is something more coherant than 'corporations are evil and suck" or "Republicans just want to invade women's uteruses' or some such that which in no way relates to anything I have said.

You simply cannot have a discussion in which one person expresses an opinion about rocks and the other person responds with something about trees.

I have stated my point of view. I am perfectly willing to defend it with anybody. My contention is that most of the liberals/leftists cannot articulate a defensible rationale for their opinion.

And so far not one of you has chosen to prove me wrong about that.

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

foxy has this idea that she is somehow singularly able to articulate and anyone who disagrees with her is 'deflecting' or 'inarticulate'. but note the use of the words liberals/leftists interchangeably. for someone who ostensibly works with words, that is her first mistake.

but then again, when someone creates her "adversaries" out of whole cloth, without consideration of differences, worldview and actual belief system, it's not surprising that she would totally miss the mark and be resistant to actually understanding what is being said to her.

frankly, the title alone of this thread is pretty sad.

but as i said... her frustration is that we don't see the "wisdom" of her opinion. (thanks for the suggestion about the quotemarks, btw).

Jillian seems to have illusions of super powers to discern what my unexpressed ideas are and doesn't seem to realize that leftists/liberals is an either and/or characterization rather than necessarily being interchangeable.

When people misunderstand what I am saying to them, I make an effort to help them understand. I don't presume the self righteous obligation to judge them.

And when I find the tone of a thread rather sad, I find other threads to post in.

However, I'll give you points for creativity for one of the more creative diversions, sidetacks, derails, and/or obfusications of the day.

 

[Dr Grump]

No you don't if you start with the principle that all federal entitlements are destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do more harm than good

But that's kind of a silly place to start, no?

 

[koshergrl]

Since it's a fact, it figures Grump wouldn't want to be within 5 miles of it, I suppose/

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interesting. How limited are you willing for government to be? And what would a 'toothless" government look like to you?

You know the left, if no one is being lined up against the wall and shot in the streets, they just aren't happy.