Why do people hate Liberals?

[Foxfyre]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise. Then turned that into a billion dollar business. Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases. Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks. Just sayin.

I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack. Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist. In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.

 

[thanatos144]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise. Then turned that into a billion dollar business. Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases. Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks. Just sayin.

I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack. Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist. In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.

and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?

 

[rightwinger]

You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has? Trust me. Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:



Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely? There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway. And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have. So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.

So thanks. We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.

So you are barely getting by

You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick

That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about. We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help

So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness. No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills. No one should have to work. No one should have to go hungry. No one should have to live with other family members. Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.

Sad. Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant. It just means you are stupid.

Nice post Mr Hyperbole

Why do you guys always fall back on the old.......So everyone gets healthcare for FREE

If you can afford healthcare, by all means you should pay for it. But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.

You ready Mr Hyperbole?

Let em die is not a healthcare plan

 

[Foxfyre]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise. Then turned that into a billion dollar business. Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases. Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks. Just sayin.

I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack. Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist. In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.

and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?

My husband and I were both taking whatever paying jobs we could get by the time we were 11 and 12 and both were working fairly steadily outside of school schedules by the time we were 16 and we both have worked our entire lives until we retired a little over a year ago. In the process we had the ability to give our kids a leg up by providing them opportunities that we didn't have. Both took advantage of that leg up and educated themselves and each now earn more than Mr. Foxfyre and I used to earn together at our peak earning years.

If the American dream does not include giving good gifts to our children and helping them succeed and prosper, then what is it really good for? And how does their prosperity in any way take anything away from anybody else? In fact they are both in a position to hire people and give those people a shot at the American dream.

The person who settles for the public dole adds little, if anything, to the common good and drains a whole lot from it. The modern American liberal seems to think he is justified in feeling envious and resenting the person who makes the big bucks.

The modern conservative aka classical liberal knows that if nobody can hope to acquire the big bucks, there won't be much, if any, ability to provide a hand up to others and the resources will dry up completely for the freeloader.

 

[rightwinger]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies

How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life? don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!

But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon

 

[Foxfyre]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies

How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life? don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!

But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon

The point is, Mr. Foxfyre and I have dealt with LOTs of lemons. We have had to start over from scratch. We have had a lot of years when our financial prognosis was pretty iffy. But if we hadn't been able to make it, we would have been at the mercy of friends, family, or private charities because there was no welfare program for people like us back then. Or any other of milions of us in that same boat. And yet people survived just fine.

I spent quite a few years working professionally with the poor and in recent years my husband and I have been volunteering our time and expertise to help those less well off than we are. Obviously anti-poverty programs are not keeping people out of jail because the jails and prisons are stuffed. Programs that encourage people to educate and train themselves to work for a living, be proud of what they can accomplish, and become productive members of society do keep people out of jail.

But the bottom line is, on what moral principle can you stand on to demand that Citizen A support Citizien B? What entitles Citizen B to anything Citizen A has?

Citizen A may very well offer Citizen B a hand up or a hot meal out of the goodness of his heart--millions of Americans do that every single day. But only a modern American liberal thinks that there is a moral justification to punish success and reward failure--to penalize those who are industrious and responsible in order to compensate those who make very bad choices.

 

[Immanuel]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise. Then turned that into a billion dollar business. Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases. Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks. Just sayin.

I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack. Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist. In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.

and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?

Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives. Surely they will be fair.

Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.

Immie

 

[RKMBrown]

True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise. Then turned that into a billion dollar business. Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases. Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks. Just sayin.

I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack. Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist. In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.

and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?

Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives. Surely they will be fair.

Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.

Immie

The owners (stockholders) should be the ones setting the salaries of their executives. But that's not how it works.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you are barely getting by

You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick

That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about. We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help

So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness. No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills. No one should have to work. No one should have to go hungry. No one should have to live with other family members. Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.

Sad. Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant. It just means you are stupid.

Nice post Mr Hyperbole

Why do you guys always fall back on the old.......So everyone gets healthcare for FREE

If you can afford healthcare, by all means you should pay for it. But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.

You ready Mr Hyperbole?

Let em die is not a healthcare plan

>>> But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.

So your plan is to take a meat cleaver and force surgeons to work for free? Gonna put chains on our smart people and force them to study for 12-16years to become surgeons and work for nothing? Or is your plan to just start selling off the assets of every American above you asset level to pay for everyone's health care?

How about if we take all of your money, sell your cars, sell your house and your flat screen TV to pay for all of your neighbors to sit on their butts and get free health care, how does that sound? After all health care is more important than your TV set, isn't it?

 

[thanatos144]

and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?

Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives. Surely they will be fair.

Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.

Immie

The owners (stockholders) should be the ones setting the salaries of their executives. But that's not how it works.

No the board does

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies

How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life? don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!

But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon

True.

The genius of the New Deal Era was the recognition of the fact that we were in the process of creating an industrial superpower, a Nation of great wealth and influence. As a consequence of that industrialization the relationship between employed and employer had changed where the former was forever at a disadvantage to the latter. Where working men and women were now subject to capricious cycles of economic boom and bust. And where those hard working, industrious men and women could lose all they worked for through no fault of their own.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies

How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life? don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!

But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon

True.

The genius of the New Deal Era was the recognition of the fact that we were in the process of creating an industrial superpower, a Nation of great wealth and influence. As a consequence of that industrialization the relationship between employed and employer had changed where the former was forever at a disadvantage to the latter. Where working men and women were now subject to capricious cycles of economic boom and bust. And where those hard working, industrious men and women could lose all they worked for through no fault of their own.

So with all that New Deal magic, why are we enduring longest and slowest recession with the highest number of people out of work, or seriously underemployed since the 1930's, declinng family income, and deteriorating property values along with more people on some kind of government assistance than has EVER existed before? Sure has worked wonders hasn't it.

The beauty of liberty and the free market is that people with the skill and work ethic can amass great fortunes without taking one penny away from anybody else or hindering anybody else's choices, options, or opportunities in any way.

But the more the government interferes with that process, the less opportunity and fewer choices, and options there will be.

 

[westwall]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies

How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life? don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!

But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon

Really? There are more people on public assistance than are paying into it, the numbers don't agree with you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other. Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities. He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question: on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property? Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances. He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.

Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies

How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life? don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!

But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon

Right so stop stealing our hard earned cash using the government and go fuck off.

Rightwing you are a fraud, a liar and a worthless turd of a punk.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives. Surely they will be fair.

Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.

Immie

The owners (stockholders) should be the ones setting the salaries of their executives. But that's not how it works.

No the board does

lol, yeah right and the Queen of England calls Parlaiment.... as if she has any fucking choice.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why the Conservative Worldview Exalts Selfishness

Conservatives and liberals have profoundly different moral views about what constitutes a just economy and society.


Markets are not provided by nature. They are constructed — by laws, rules, and institutions. All of these have moral bases of one sort or another. Hence, all markets are moral, according to someone’s sense of morality. The only question is, Whose morality? In contemporary America, it is conservative versus progressive morality that governs forms of economic policy. The systems of morality behind economic policies need to be discussed.

Most Democrats, consciously or mostly unconsciously, use a moral view deriving from an idealized notion of nurturant parenting, a morality based on caring about their fellow citizens, and acting responsibly both for themselves and others with what President Obama has called “an ethic of excellence” — doing one’s best not just for oneself, but for one’s family, community, and country, and for the world. Government on this view has two moral missions: to protect and empower everyone equally.

The means is The Public, which provides infrastructure, public education, and regulations to maximize health, protection and justice, a sustainable environment, systems for information and transportation, and so forth. The Public is necessary for The Private, especially private enterprise, which relies on all of the above. The liberal market economy maximizes overall freedom by serving public needs: providing needed products at reasonable prices for reasonable profits, paying workers fairly and treating them well, and serving the communities to which they belong. In short, “the people the economy is supposed to serve” are ordinary citizens. This has been the basis of American democracy from the beginning.

Conservatives hold a different moral perspective, based on an idealized notion of a strict father family. In this model, the father is The Decider, who is in charge, knows right from wrong, and teaches children morality by punishing them painfully when they do wrong, so that they can become disciplined enough to do right and thrive in the market. If they are not well-off, they are not sufficiently disciplined and so cannot be moral: they deserve their poverty. Applied to conservative politics, this yields a moral hierarchy with the wealthy, morally disciplined citizens deservedly on the top.

Democracy is seen as providing liberty, the freedom to seek one’s self interest with minimal responsibility for the interests or well-being of others. It is laissez-faire liberty. Responsibility is personal, not social. People should be able to be their own strict fathers, Deciders on their own — the ideal of conservative populists, who are voting their morality not their economic interests. Those who are needy are assumed to be weak and undisciplined and therefore morally lacking. The most moral people are the rich. The slogan, “Let the market decide,” sees the market itself as The Decider, the ultimate authority, where there should be no government power over it to regulate, tax, protect workers, and to impose fines in tort cases. Those with no money are undisciplined, not moral, and so should be punished. The poor can earn redemption only by suffering and thus, supposedly, getting an incentive to do better.

If you believe all of this, and if you see the world only from this perspective, then you cannot possibly perceive the deep economic truth that The Public is necessary for The Private, for a decent private life and private enterprise. The denial of this truth, and the desire to eliminate The Public altogether, can unfortunately come naturally and honestly via this moral perspective.

Just as the authority of a strict father must always be maintained, so the highest value in this conservative moral system is the preservation, extension, and ultimate victory of the conservative moral system itself. Preaching about the deficit is only a means to an end — eliminating funding for The Public and bringing us closer to permanent conservative domination. From this perspective, the Paul Ryan budget makes sense — cut funding for The Public (the antithesis of conservative morality) and reward the rich (who are the best people from a conservative moral perspective). Economic truth is irrelevant here.

Historically, American democracy is premised on the moral principle that citizens care about each other and that a robust Public is the way to act on that care. Who is the market economy for? All of us. Equally. But with the sway of conservative morality, we are moving toward a 1 percent economy — for the bankers, the wealthy investors, and the super rich like the six members of the family that owns Walmart and has accumulated more wealth than the bottom 30 percent of Americans. Six people!

What is wrong with a 1 percent economy? As Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out in The Price of Inequality, the 1 percent economy eliminates opportunity for over a hundred million Americans. From the Land of Opportunity, we are in danger of becoming the Land of Opportunism.

more


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[editec]

Why do FORMER LIBERALS now hate liberalism?

Because when LIBERALS had control of the nation they FAILED to protect the American people.

Because the so called LIBERALS betrayed the class that gave them power.

Now the ONLY people who do not understand this are CONSERVATIVES who still imagine that the people calling themselves LIBERALS who are in power, are or ever have been LIBERALS.

 

[dblack]

Setting aside all the debate over accurate definitions, and just going with a "folk" conception of liberals, I'll offer this answer to the topic's question:

People hate liberals because they won't mind their own business. They're not content with a government that maximizes our freedom to live as we wish but, instead, want to use to government to compel others to conform to their vision of the 'good life'.

 

[rightwinger]

So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness. No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills. No one should have to work. No one should have to go hungry. No one should have to live with other family members. Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.

Sad. Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant. It just means you are stupid.

Nice post Mr Hyperbole

Why do you guys always fall back on the old.......So everyone gets healthcare for FREE

If you can afford healthcare, by all means you should pay for it. But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.

You ready Mr Hyperbole?

Let em die is not a healthcare plan

>>> But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.

So your plan is to take a meat cleaver and force surgeons to work for free? Gonna put chains on our smart people and force them to study for 12-16years to become surgeons and work for nothing? Or is your plan to just start selling off the assets of every American above you asset level to pay for everyone's health care?

How about if we take all of your money, sell your cars, sell your house and your flat screen TV to pay for all of your neighbors to sit on their butts and get free health care, how does that sound? After all health care is more important than your TV set, isn't it?

Damn Mr Hyperbole.......you have just been elevated to Dr Hyperbole