Why do people hate Liberals?

[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

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

Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff

 

[thanatos144]

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.

Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff

Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff

Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.

You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff

Obama got more people on food stamps than accepting employment

 

[thanatos144]

Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff

Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.

You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives

no I mean moochers

 

[rightwinger]

Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.

You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives

no I mean moochers

Such as?

 

[Samson]

Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.

You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives

no I mean moochers

A Political Party is not comprised of moochers.

Someone must pay the bills.

Lets take a look at California, with both senators (Feinstein, Boxer) and congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, are Democrats.

California may be a fiscal basketcase as a state, but it is nott full of moochers. Nor is the NorthEast, or the area around the Great Lakes; all consistantly Democratic strongholds

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives

no I mean moochers

Such as?

 

[thanatos144]

You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives

no I mean moochers

A Political Party is not comprised of moochers.

Someone must pay the bills.

Lets take a look at California, with both senators (Feinstein, Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats).

California may be a fiscal basketcase as a state, but it is nott full of moochers. Nor is the NorthEast, or the area around the Great Lakes; all consistantly Democratic strongholds

that must be why it isn't going bankrupt right?

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives

no I mean moochers

A Political Party is not comprised of moochers.

Someone must pay the bills.

Lets take a look at California, with both senators (Feinstein, Boxer) and congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, are Democrats.

California may be a fiscal basketcase as a state, but it is nott full of moochers. Nor is the NorthEast, or the area around the Great Lakes; all consistantly Democratic strongholds

ROFL... you can't read a map? That's a population map, not a map of rich vs poor ratio.

 

[RKMBrown]

 

[Bfgrn]

no I mean moochers

Such as?

There you go...the right wing anecdotal argument.

IRONY abounds...

Ring Wing Goes Crazy Over 'Obama Phones' Which Are Actually 'Reagan Phones'

The true irony of Ronald Reagan; he created a mythical 'welfare queen' used to deconstruct the middle class and trash the poor. Yet Ronald Reagan is the ultimate welfare queen personified.

As the liberal era that began with the New Deal came to an end with the splintering of the Democratic Party brought about by assassination of Presidents and future Presidents, the Vietnam War fiasco and conservative money creating 'think tanks', JFK and LBJ, the last two Presidents of that era faced the awful specter how to deal with revenue SURPLUSES. Public debt was not even part of our lexicon...

Enter Reagan, the welfare queen. Put everything on the Beijing credit card and dump the bill on our children, grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

"Ronald Reagan must be the nicest president who ever destroyed a union, tried to cut school lunch milk rations from six to four ounces, and compelled families in need of public help to first dispose of household goods in excess of $1,000...1f there is an authoritarian regime in the American future, Ronald Reagan is tailored to the image of a friendly fascist." - Robert Lekachman

 

[Bfgrn]

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

 

[Foxfyre]

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'.

You are dead on balls accurate of course except that I again protest a concept of hating liberals. It isn't the liberals we hate but their liberalism. But kudos for refocusing on the thread topic and refusing to play the 'whose has been blackest' game of politics rather than concepts of liberalism. Some of our friends are very good at that and I think they do it deliberately to ensure that no discussion of the topic will take place.

But again, the fact that you are right won't change the fact that the liberals will still say you are not describing liberals but you are describing conservatives.

And because nobody is willing to agree on a definition of the terms--some won't even allow accurate terms to be used--it will still get bogged down in linguistic food fights that have nothing at all to do with the topic.

 

[thanatos144]

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

stop drinking the Kool Aid

 

[Foxfyre]

But sending all that money to Washington and then checking to see who gets the most back of what they send is a particular modern American liberal stupidity and tunnel vision.

The Founders did not intend ANY of us to be sending money to Washington for any purpose other than what we explicitly directed the government to do via the Constitution, and that was summarized in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Even a cursory reading of the founding documents show that 'general welfare' bore no resemblance to public charity or any form of benevolence--something the Founders never intended the federal government to be involved in--but was what benefitted all and was necessary for the several states to function as one united nation; i.e. post roads, trade agreements with other countries, etc.

"Establish justice" and 'domestic tranquility' was narrowly focused on such laws and regulation as were necessary to prevent the states from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence to each other and establishment of RICO and anti-trust laws for the same reason.

And then the Federal government was to leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wished to have.

To be whining that "Ma! He got a bigger piece of cake!" is just stupid when you look at the trillions of dollars now collected by the federal government who swallows up two thirds of that just to feed that sme government and then doles out the rest, mostly in the most politically advantageous way possible.

THAT is what the modern conservative/classical liberal rails against, and why we rail against modern American liberalism that promotes such a counter productive and indefensible way of running a country.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Don't expect an argument from me on that.

Immie

 

[westwall]

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

The problem with your little list is take a look at the populations of the states you are complaining about vs those states you think are so great.

 

[numan]

I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.

Is that because of your rugged individualism?

.

 

[thanatos144]

I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.

Is that because of your rugged individualism?

.

Cost of living is diffrent in Texas commie