Why do people hate Liberals?

[Uncensored2008]

Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept. While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did. You changed the subject rather than address the statement I put out there. The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results and I kept politics strictly out of it. The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP. The concept had no right or wrong, virtue, or morality attached to it.

The rationale I provided though DOES address some of the pros and cons of government spending, which is a whole separate subject from the GDP.

I gave everybody every chance to gig me for a flawed concept. Nobody did. Everybody was too eager to focus on something less concerete, more vague, more fluid, more 'feel good' or whatever.

Murray Rothbard slammed Keynesian guru John Kenneth Galbraith on this back in the 60's. The basic logic being that IF the concept of turns has merit in regard to infusing currency into an economy, then by extension, the removal of currency will likewise result in turns.

You are addressing the same mechanism here. The left claims that deficit spending will create economic activity in excess of the initial currency infused (note that I'm careful to say currency, and not capital, because Keynesian stimulants add no actual capital.)

Rothbard competently demonstrated that removing currency from the market to fund welfare payments, would trigger an identical set of factors and REDUCE economic activity beyond the amount of currency removed. In this way, every dollar taken from productive sectors to give to unproductive people, resulted in a loss of economic activity at each turn, rendering the classic Keynesian 1.56 in three turns ratio, into a loss of activity.

No doubt Lord Keynes was spinning in his grave, Galbraith was left stuttering - a Rothbard specialty.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept. While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did. You changed the subject rather than address the statement I put out there. The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results. The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.

I'll repeat the particular part that explicitly addressed your question. My answer, in its entirety was to explain the liberal perspective of why they believe you are wrong. Here you go:

Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care[, food,] and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care[, food,] and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.

There you go. If one person benefited, then turned around and became a tax payer, your statement is wrong.

The statement had nothing to do with whether people turned the money around into a good investment. It had to do with whether public assistance increased the GDP. I provided a rationale for my argument which, by the way, DOES support the accurate statement. The flawed concept I gave everybody to discuss can't be addressed by my rationale because it is a totally incorrect statement. Which you apparently missed.

I have attempted to explain how, over time, public assistance in many forms can in fact increase GDP. I may have missed the subtlety of your series of questions. I may also be too lazy to look for intentional flaws in your statements. Time for more

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense. But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it. Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did. And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.

Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.

Of course the ruling elite of the left - the George Soros and Aljazeera Gore types, aren't concerned with the riff raff coming to my house, they worry that the peasant class will rise up and revolt against the rule of our monied aristocracy.

Quick, the functional difference between Bernie Maddoff and George Soros is?

If you're stumped, I'll give you a clue - there isn't any.

Most of the left elite are simply criminals sanctioned by the state.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept. While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did. You changed the subject rather than address the statement I put out there. The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results and I kept politics strictly out of it. The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP. The concept had no right or wrong, virtue, or morality attached to it.

The rationale I provided though DOES address some of the pros and cons of government spending, which is a whole separate subject from the GDP.

I gave everybody every chance to gig me for a flawed concept. Nobody did. Everybody was too eager to focus on something less concerete, more vague, more fluid, more 'feel good' or whatever.

Murray Rothbard slammed Keynesian guru John Kenneth Galbraith on this back in the 60's. The basic logic being that IF the concept of turns has merit in regard to infusing currency into an economy, then by extension, the removal of currency will likewise result in turns.

You are addressing the same mechanism here. The left claims that deficit spending will create economic activity in excess of the initial currency infused (note that I'm careful to say currency, and not capital, because Keynesian stimulants add no actual capital.)

Rothbard competently demonstrated that removing currency from the market to fund welfare payments, would trigger an identical set of factors and REDUCE economic activity beyond the amount of currency removed. In this way, every dollar taken from productive sectors to give to unproductive people, resulted in a loss of economic activity at each turn, rendering the classic Keynesian 1.56 in three turns ratio, into a loss of activity.

No doubt Lord Keynes was spinning in his grave, Galbraith was left stuttering - a Rothbard specialty.

Bravo!!! Keynes sometimes gets a bad rap, though, because his concept of economic stimulus via government spending was always targeted at necessary infrastructure, etc. that the people needed anyway. It was not public assistance nor bridges to nowhere or corporate subsidies that he was advocating.

His theory was that a short term reasonabile infusion of government money that would put people to work and generate economic activitiy could have a sustainable ripple effect and jump start a stalled economy. He was quite clear though that the infusion of currency into the system must not be so excessive that the economic activity generated would not quickly restore the money to the public treasury.

THAT is where Keynes and most liberals part company. Most liberals don't seem to care about deficits and national debts and seem to look at the government as an unlimited, undepletable source of resources capable of producing benevolence for all. The deficit is something to accuse Republicans with, but otherwise of no consequence whatsoever.

Most liberals can't seem to make the connection of the bounty available to help the unfortunate of society and the source that produces the resources that make it possible. And they cannot seem to see how a steady flow from the haves to the have nots is not sustainable indefinitely.

That "Square Deal" way back then opened the gates to encourage government to exist for its own benefit. And those now in government bribe the masses with false promises of benevolence and security and expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all hits the fan and the house of cards they have built collapses.

Yes, that is the one event I would change in history.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense. But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it. Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did. And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.

Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.

But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense. But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it. Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did. And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.

Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.

But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.

Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount. Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child? Lib logic is grand in it's circular nature and infallible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.

But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.

Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount. Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?

Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet. Are you SURE you are not liberal?

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have. Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation? But if we do not recognize and protect grandma's rights or the child's rights, then nobody has rights. But rights do not extend to demand that others provide anything for us.

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves. But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide or to provide for anybody. If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there are no rights and there is no freedom for anyone. But a free people can otherwise organize the society it wants from the most anarchistic to the most communistic as it prefers.

 

[RKMBrown]

But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.

Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount. Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?

Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet. Are you SURE you are not liberal?

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have. Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves. But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide. If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount. Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?

Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet. Are you SURE you are not liberal?

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have. Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves. But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide. If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions. I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.

 

[westwall]

Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount. Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?

Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet. Are you SURE you are not liberal?

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have. Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves. But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide. If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

Do we get to have the same small government and the same tax loopholes as well?

 

[westwall]

Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount. Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?

Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet. Are you SURE you are not liberal?

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have. Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves. But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide. If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

We don't. The liberals running this country do....Of course with enough public outcry they can be forced to change thei minds...for the moment. Let O care get into full swing though and the liberals will be letting THEIR friends and family have the treatment they need...but you...you're screwed... That's how bureaucratic medical care operates.

"Doctors told his family that Anthony has less than six months to live, but he couldn't be put on the transplant list because of a history of non-compliance.

“They said they don’t have any evidence that he would take his medicine or that he would go to his follow-ups,” said Melencia Hamilton, Anthony’s mother.

Hamilton told Thomas that the transplant is the only fix for her son’s enlarged heart.

Keepers of the nation’s transplant list have strict guidelines about who qualifies, and while doctors didn’t specify the reason, family friends toldThomas they’ve been told it’s partly because Anthony has had low grades and trouble with the law."

Dying teen added to heart transplant list after family's plea | www.wsbtv.com

Or how about this case????

PORTLAND, Ore. — Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics.


Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.


Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.


Read more: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care | Fox News

So, as you can see the liberals ALLREADY feel they have the right to dictate who lives and who dies....

 

[RKMBrown]

Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet. Are you SURE you are not liberal?

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have. Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves. But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide. If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions. I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.

God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....

 

[RKMBrown]

Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet. Are you SURE you are not liberal?

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have. Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves. But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide. If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

We don't. The liberals running this country do....Of course with enough public outcry they can be forced to change thei minds...for the moment. Let O care get into full swing though and the liberals will be letting THEIR friends and family have the treatment they need...but you...you're screwed... That's how bureaucratic medical care operates.

"Doctors told his family that Anthony has less than six months to live, but he couldn't be put on the transplant list because of a history of non-compliance.

“They said they don’t have any evidence that he would take his medicine or that he would go to his follow-ups,” said Melencia Hamilton, Anthony’s mother.

Hamilton told Thomas that the transplant is the only fix for her son’s enlarged heart.

Keepers of the nation’s transplant list have strict guidelines about who qualifies, and while doctors didn’t specify the reason, family friends toldThomas they’ve been told it’s partly because Anthony has had low grades and trouble with the law."

Dying teen added to heart transplant list after family's plea | www.wsbtv.com

Or how about this case????

PORTLAND, Ore. — Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics.


Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.


Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.


Read more: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care | Fox News

So, as you can see the liberals ALLREADY feel they have the right to dictate who lives and who dies....

Wrong, it's the republicans' fault for not fully funding the health care programs that the democrats wanted.

Someone stop me. please!

 

[westwall]

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions. I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.

God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....

You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory? You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...

 

[RKMBrown]

Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions. I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.

God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....

You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory? You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...

I think you missed the part where I said I (a decidedly constitutional conservative) would make the fallacious liberal arguments for the liberals since they are keeping quiet. My tongue is firmly implanted in my cheek.

 

[Foxfyre]

God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....

You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory? You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...

I think you missed the part where I said I (a decidedly constitutional conservative) would make the fallacious liberal arguments for the liberals since they are keeping quiet. My tongue is firmly implanted in my cheek.

And only a liberal would declare victory via what was clearly intended to be an uncomplimentary dismissal.

 

[westwall]

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies? What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.

We don't. The liberals running this country do....Of course with enough public outcry they can be forced to change thei minds...for the moment. Let O care get into full swing though and the liberals will be letting THEIR friends and family have the treatment they need...but you...you're screwed... That's how bureaucratic medical care operates.

"Doctors told his family that Anthony has less than six months to live, but he couldn't be put on the transplant list because of a history of non-compliance.

“They said they don’t have any evidence that he would take his medicine or that he would go to his follow-ups,” said Melencia Hamilton, Anthony’s mother.

Hamilton told Thomas that the transplant is the only fix for her son’s enlarged heart.

Keepers of the nation’s transplant list have strict guidelines about who qualifies, and while doctors didn’t specify the reason, family friends toldThomas they’ve been told it’s partly because Anthony has had low grades and trouble with the law."

Dying teen added to heart transplant list after family's plea | www.wsbtv.com

Or how about this case????

PORTLAND, Ore. — Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics.


Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.


Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.


Read more: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care | Fox News

So, as you can see the liberals ALLREADY feel they have the right to dictate who lives and who dies....

Wrong, it's the republicans' fault for not fully funding the health care programs that the democrats wanted.

Someone stop me. please!

Why on Earth would we stop a troll outing himself? Spout on troll, spout on!

 

[RKMBrown]

You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory? You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...

I think you missed the part where I said I (a decidedly constitutional conservative) would make the fallacious liberal arguments for the liberals since they are keeping quiet. My tongue is firmly implanted in my cheek.

And only a liberal would declare victory via what was clearly intended to be an uncomplimentary dismissal.

I've got this liberal thing down pat. I should, have been arguing against them for decades. Hell I was arguing against liberals during the BBS days.

 

[American_Jihad]

“Stupid, bigoted, phobic, evil and greedy are, of course, the only explanations that the Modern Liberal can or does offer to explain why Right-Thinking people don’t join him in support of his latest godless, anti-scientific, utterly infantile and invariably failed schemes. In fact, take a second and try to think of a single argument that the Modern Liberal offers regarding any issue that doesn’t consist in its entirety of ‘we’re right because (our grandiose self-esteem tells us) we’re morally and intellectually superior, and anyone who disagrees with us is (1) stupid, (2) bigoted, (3) phobic, (4) greedy, or (5) evil.’ The truth is you can’t name one. Not one. Seriously, try it.”

Evan Sayet: How Modern Liberals Brainwash People Into Hating America | Independent Journal Review