Why do people hate Liberals?

[Ernie S.]

It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys? But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical. And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities. And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.

And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals. There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective. Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however. So far, I don't find many liberals who can.

For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."

Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?

Proof?

Are you really that daft?
People who buy things with government money may make the purchase, but the people who earned the money that the government taxed bought those items. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. People existing on the benevolence of the tax payer produce no product, perform no service thus are only an anchor holding down economic growth.

 

[American_Jihad]

Today’s liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self. The legacy of the 1960s “if it feels good do it” ethos is alive and well. Modern liberals often embrace these teachings and incorporate them in the way they live their lives and maintain their relationships.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdhefZgr9U8]ASS SNIFFING DOG - YouTube[/ame]

...

 

[American_Jihad]

What Terrorists Want

August 12, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Freud famously said that what women want was the one question that he was never able to answer. The modern liberal, having abolished gender and the family, no longer worries about what women want. Instead he worries what the terrorists, who despite his best efforts to appease them, to respect their culture and religion keep blowing him up, want.

Recently it came out that the creative director of the September 11 Museum opposed including the famous photo that shows New York City firefighters raising the flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center. When reached for comment, the creative director said that he did not want to simplify 9/11.

“Its simplicity,” he said, “would actually distort the complexity of the event, the meaning of the event.”

Liberals are great lovers of nuance. Ask an ordinary New Yorker who saw the planes hit the towers what the terrorists want and he will say, “To kill us all.” But to the left that is an excessive simplification that leaves out such key elements as American foreign policy, the role of automation in a global economy and the price of tea in China.

...

But what do terrorists really want? They want to win, while we seem to want to lose. The foreign policy prescriptions of liberal experts like the idea of us losing.

“The way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently,” the creative director of the September 11 museum said.

There’s no way that we can stop being Americans, but we can start feeling bad about that. We can stop thrilling at the sight of an American flag rising over the rubble of Ground Zero and learn to feel bad about it. We can stop wanting to win and start trying to lose.

And then maybe we’ll finally understand what the terrorists want. What they really, really want.

What Terrorists Want | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Bfgrn]

It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys? But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical. And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities. And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.

And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals. There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective. Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however. So far, I don't find many liberals who can.

For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."

Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?

Proof?

Are you really that daft?
People who buy things with government money may make the purchase, but the people who earned the money that the government taxed bought those items. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. People existing on the benevolence of the tax payer produce no product, perform no service thus are only an anchor holding down economic growth.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Food stamps offer best stimulus

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy

Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008

 

[Dragonlady]

For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."

Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?

Because it's not a statement of fact. Public assistance is NOT a 3X drain on the resources of the economy. In fact, some forms of public assistance are actually a boon to the economy.

It doesn't help when conservatives focus on the idea that public assistance as the defining difference between liberals and conservatives. Especially since the hardcore welfare recipient, the one that conservatives rail against endlessly, is such a small percentage of the population.

Focusing on the 1% of the population who don't contribute and will never contribute, instead of looking at how things work for the other 99% of the people, is pointless. Everything has to be means tested, adding to costs and bloating government, because we can't have a single undeserving person receiving assistance. It's picking up the peanuts while be trampled by the elephants.

Instead of focussing on the why wages for low income workers have lost purchasing power, we have a whole thread here about a kid in California who buys sushi with his food stamps. Where is the outrage that Walmart has staff to help their employees get food stamps because they are so poorly paid? That is the real fraud - high profits for the corporation while they encourage their workers to use public assistance, instead of paying them a living wage. But there's no conservative outrage there. It's a good corporation, doing nothing illegal.

The kid in California is getting a few hundred dollars per year in food stamps. Walmart employees are getting billions in public assistance. Conservatives see Walmart as good and the surfer as a drain on the public purse. I see both as a drain on the public purse, but Walmart is using the system to funnel billions back into corporate profits and pay their employees less.

One surfer kid is not going to bring down the US economy, but Walmart, and other large retailers which uses similar employment policies, are having a HUGE impact on that whole employment segment, while funnelling enormous amounts of income and wealth to the Walton heirs. They don't work either, but you're good with that.

 

[RKMBrown]

The irony is the tea party are the ones buying, reading and using Alinsky tactics. But THAT is different, because the conservative agenda is sacred.

To know your enemy, you must know his tactics. Ends justify the means is the calling card of all authoritarians of all political movements. Just because the number of constitutional liberty loving conservatives in the tea party is greater than the number in the republican party which is even greater than the number in the democrat party does not mean the tea party and / or republican parties are not chock full of authoritarians. Authoritarianism is a disease that infects every group of people. Even the founders had a few authoritarians.

 

[RKMBrown]

Proof?

Are you really that daft?
People who buy things with government money may make the purchase, but the people who earned the money that the government taxed bought those items. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. People existing on the benevolence of the tax payer produce no product, perform no service thus are only an anchor holding down economic growth.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Food stamps offer best stimulus

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy

Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008

ROFL... That chart/study is a joke. The so called "ripple" effect of the cost of a dollar of food is already built into the cost of the food. You really think it costs 1.73 to bring every dollar of food to your shopping cart? ROFL Ripple effect.

 

[numan]

I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

There are executioners on both sides of the political spectrum. Bush was one, and so is Obama.

Change will come when real people begin banding together in real, organic gatherings. We must not hate each other, as that will surely be our downfall.

Modern Americans are addicted to downfall.

And there are not enough Real People left in this country to do anything sensible. The zombies and idiots have won.
.

 

[numan]

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

President Eisenhower obviously underestimated the power of propaganda and brainwashing to turn decent Republicans into Neo-Con Monsters.

.

 

[Duped]

Read my sig.

 

[numan]

You are a lying piece dung.

Listen sonny boy, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. I KNOW of what I speak. Matter of fact, old Harry had you right wing turds figured out way back in 1948.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home -- but not for housing. They are strong for labor -- but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage -- the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all -- but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits -- so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine -- for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade -- so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons -- but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing -- but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful -- but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices" -- but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing -- so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

President Harry S. Truman

Tut, tut.... Don't be so hard on the right-wing turd. It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.

The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.

It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."

Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?

Because it's not a statement of fact. Public assistance is NOT a 3X drain on the resources of the economy. In fact, some forms of public assistance are actually a boon to the economy.

It doesn't help when conservatives focus on the idea that public assistance as the defining difference between liberals and conservatives. Especially since the hardcore welfare recipient, the one that conservatives rail against endlessly, is such a small percentage of the population.

Focusing on the 1% of the population who don't contribute and will never contribute, instead of looking at how things work for the other 99% of the people, is pointless. Everything has to be means tested, adding to costs and bloating government, because we can't have a single undeserving person receiving assistance. It's picking up the peanuts while be trampled by the elephants.

Instead of focussing on the why wages for low income workers have lost purchasing power, we have a whole thread here about a kid in California who buys sushi with his food stamps. Where is the outrage that Walmart has staff to help their employees get food stamps because they are so poorly paid? That is the real fraud - high profits for the corporation while they encourage their workers to use public assistance, instead of paying them a living wage. But there's no conservative outrage there. It's a good corporation, doing nothing illegal.

The kid in California is getting a few hundred dollars per year in food stamps. Walmart employees are getting billions in public assistance. Conservatives see Walmart as good and the surfer as a drain on the public purse. I see both as a drain on the public purse, but Walmart is using the system to funnel billions back into corporate profits and pay their employees less.

One surfer kid is not going to bring down the US economy, but Walmart, and other large retailers which uses similar employment policies, are having a HUGE impact on that whole employment segment, while funnelling enormous amounts of income and wealth to the Walton heirs. They don't work either, but you're good with that.

See? You reject a simple statement of fact, but do not give us one single argument for WHY it is not a fact or HOW it instead is a boon to the economy. You have just illustrated my point that, as a liberal, you are incapable of focusing on that concept separate from ideology or partisanship. You are instead compelled to launch into yet another screed re the actions, thoughts, and motives of conservatives and Wal-mart.

And elsewhere the food fight continues with the blame, accusations, and hateful characterization of those who hold opposing views.

And THAT is what drives me crazy about liberals. With very few exceptions, they are incapable of focusing on a concept but their whole philosophy is wrapped up in their belief that they are nicer, better people, more generous, more compassionate,more noble, more righteous, and more realistic than any conservative could ever be. And they only know one way to debate: attack the other person, his values, his beliefs, his point of view personally and/or change the subject.

(Yes, again I acknowledge that some conservatives do that too, mostly because they like doing it. The difference between conservatives and liberals in that regard, however, is that most conservatives CAN focus on a single concept apart from partisanship and ideology if they want to or have to. I see no evidence here or anywhere else that the huge majority of liberals can.)

 

[Foxfyre]

So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.

The concept: public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.

My rationale for that statement:

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.

It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect.

Now spending is a different thing. The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have. A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.

However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.

But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall. It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.

It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing. We wouldn't even notice the cost. But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.

And everybody feels that.

Note: This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view. It is a pure statement of fact.

Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view? Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?" Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?

I am throwing the gauntlet down here. I'm going to say no liberal will even try. And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true. I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.

Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.

But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.

 

[Uncensored2008]

President Eisenhower obviously underestimated the power of propaganda and brainwashing to turn decent Republicans into Neo-Con Monsters.

.

But Pol Pot understood exactly what it took to turn American democrats into you...

 

[Foxfyre]

More than an hour now, and no liberal has chimed in. Crickets.

I'm assuming the conservatives are holding back to give the liberals a chance to do so?

I'm guessing don't hold your breath guys. I hoped at least one of the more reasoned members from the left would give it a shot, but alas, I will be required to hold my conviction that liberals are incapable of addressing concepts on their own merit. . . at least for awhile longer.

But that addresses the question in the OP which I have amended to "Why do people reject liberalism?" "Hate" is too strong a word for me in this context.

 

[Dragonlady]

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.

Given that American corporations, stockholders and banks are awash in cash right now, the problem is not that there is a lack of capital for corporations to invest or spend so your argument that these funds are needed to grow the economy doesn't wash. Your concern that public assistance is cutting available capital for business to hire and invest just isn't valid at this point in time in history, which is not to say it isn't or wasn't a valid concern in the past..

I do agree that many social programs add to waste because of the bureaucracy which maintains them, and a lot of that is due to means testing. There are 10 major government assistance programs which all have their own departments to test whether or not people qualify for the assistance based on income. Means testing adds a layer of expense to all programs - additional staff to review the applicants, a fraud squad to ferret out cheaters. Often, it is far cheaper to simply make the benefit available to all applicants, rather than hire additional people to administer the means test to limit it to those with income below a certain level. For those who oppose public assistance programs in the first place, the idea of not limiting the program to the most needy, is a no-go, and yet sorting out the needy from those who are not, is far more expensive than just giving it to those who apply.

Food stamps is the worst example of a government program which should not exist. It piggybacks on welfare, medicaid and other programs, but its own expensive department set up to administer the program. And recipients are limited to where they spend the money and on what. Since the average benefit is only $138 per month, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to increase welfare payments by a similar amount and eliminate all of the government infrastructure administering the food stamp program? And let the beneficiaries buy food where they want with the money.

 

[Foxfyre]

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.

Given that American corporations, stockholders and banks are awash in cash right now, the problem is not that there is a lack of capital for corporations to invest or spend so your argument that these funds are needed to grow the economy doesn't wash. Your concern that public assistance is cutting available capital for business to hire and invest just isn't valid at this point in time in history, which is not to say it isn't or wasn't a valid concern in the past..

I do agree that many social programs add to waste because of the bureaucracy which maintains them, and a lot of that is due to means testing. There are 10 major government assistance programs which all have their own departments to test whether or not people qualify for the assistance based on income. Means testing adds a layer of expense to all programs - additional staff to review the applicants, a fraud squad to ferret out cheaters. Often, it is far cheaper to simply make the benefit available to all applicants, rather than hire additional people to administer the means test to limit it to those with income below a certain level. For those who oppose public assistance programs in the first place, the idea of not limiting the program to the most needy, is a no-go, and yet sorting out the needy from those who are not, is far more expensive than just giving it to those who apply.

Food stamps is the worst example of a government program which should not exist. It piggybacks on welfare, medicaid and other programs, but its own expensive department set up to administer the program. And recipients are limited to where they spend the money and on what. Since the average benefit is only $138 per month, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to increase welfare payments by a similar amount and eliminate all of the government infrastructure administering the food stamp program? And let the beneficiaries buy food where they want with the money.

All reasoned arguments for what the federal government does with some of the tax money.

But you still are not addressing the concept itself:

public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.​

And the key point for the rationale for the concept:

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves​

....all of which has nothing to do with corporations, stockholders, and banks being awash in cash even if some are. Most aren't.

Nor does it address the built in issue that public assistance provided by the federal government takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and that is why it is a drain on the economy.

 

[numan]

I do agree that many social programs add to waste because of the bureaucracy which maintains them....

I think you are correct, Dragonlady, and the correct way to eliminate all this expensive bureaucracy and all the wasteful programs is for every American citizen to have a guaranteed annual income.

Naturally, it should be a modest income -- at least to begin with -- just enough for basic food and shelter and medical expenses.

It would need a modest bureaucracy, perhaps using the already extant Internal Revenue Service.

At one stroke, most of the haunting uncertainty torturing so many millions in our demonic, dog-eat-dog monopoly capitalist society would be eliminated.

The more enterprising elements of the vast American underclass would manage to scrape up enough capital and backing for small enterprises, and many would be enabled to escape the urban jungles where they are presently imprisoned. Many would go to live and work in less expensive outlying regions, and they would bring money to vivify the economies of less developed regions.

It would be a win-win situation for everyone -- except of course, for the bloated monopoly capitalists and the agents of totalitarian government, whose every effort is aimed at controlling everyone and everything.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And if you were able to address the presented concept, Numan, and we could agree on the truth of it, then that would change the argument for the government being able to guarantee an income for every American wouldn't it? But until we can understand what government money actually is, and the cost to us for governmenting having it, there is no way to move from that point to what the role of government and money actually should be.

 

[numan]

But until we can understand what government money actually is, and the cost to us for governmenting having it, there is no way to move from that point to what the role of government and money actually should be.

Oh, you're too complicated for me, Foxy !!

My view is: reduce the War Machine until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, and send the military and their minions to re-education camps where they can learn what it is to be a civilian and a citizen, then I think there will be plenty of money for what I propose -- and a lot left over, too!!

.