Why Many Conservatives Hate Good News

[Dale Smith]

Conservatives hate good news because they're all Negative Nancy's. They hate to hear about anything positive, it makes them cringe. That's why you'll only see them posting negative stories here on this forum and especially on facebook, where they can be free to hate everything and just be the turds they were born to be. They only want bad things to happen because they love being the victim. It gives them an excuse to justify their own failures in life.

Puff out that lower lip, SYTFE.....fold your arms and pout....maybe pitch a temper tantrum???? (snicker)

 

[Dale Smith]

If the Carpathia were named the Barack Carpathia conservatives would have immediately started in, "why isn't it larger? It couldn't get here sooner? There were far faster rescues in the past. Who painted the upper decks white, it hurt my eyes while I was being rescued. Do they expect us to climb up there? Where is the captain's birth certificate, he doesn't look natural born. Is he from Kenya? I won't recognize a Kenyan captain. The doctor on board is helping everyone? I'M not paying for that! Why are the poor being rescued? Can't they swim home on their own like Jesus would want? I think the ice-berg is a hoax. How can a ship that big sink unless it was an inside job? Those are Carpathian passengers over there? They aren't real passengers like us. This ship better go where WE want or we'll start a new revulushin'. No our captain didn't cause the Titanic to sink, YOUR captain caused it to sink...

Dude. I could fit your understanding on this debt slavery system on the lefthand side of a sesame seed.

 

[Seawytch]

The editorial is a survey of pollsters. It isn't poppycock and it isn't partisan.

Please note that the new census bureau numbers ( that you probably don't trust ) were include de in the editorial. They are details which back up the claims made in the editorial.

The economy is better....and improving. We are safer than ever ( more likely to be killed by your clothing than by an immigrant ) and this nation is know as the leader of the free world.

Saying that we are on the wrong track is something psychological....because it isn't factual. Get it?

Yes indeed. I get your pathetic psychological game.

Cool story, bro.

Do you think the economy is better now than it was 8 years ago? Four years ago? Last year? Straight up questions seeking straight up answers.

Straight up? LOL Provide something with some actual information rather than puffy leftist editorial swill, and maybe we can have a conversation.

He did. He asked you point blank if you thought the economy was better or worse than 8, 4 and 1 year ago. Better or worse?

Oh, hello LoneLaugher's flunky! You want an answer? Ok. I believe it is worse. That's probably because I don't rely on Wash post editorial claptrap- which is pretty much what I said already. Please. Try to keep up.

In other words, facts have a liberal bias and can be ignored... got it!

 

[miketx]

The washington post is more un-American than you are.

And less un-American than you are.

Liberal fools crap through their mouths...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The washington post is more un-American than you are.

And less un-American than you are.

Liberal fools crap through their mouths...

I'll debate you one on one on any topic you choose.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's funny...they demand more information at every turn and then as soon as the information isn't doom and gloom they declare it fake.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Combine the above with them declaring every news source, link, reporter etc as being a dem and they have the perfect bubble

 

[SYTFE]

Conservatives hate good news because they're all Negative Nancy's. They hate to hear about anything positive, it makes them cringe. That's why you'll only see them posting negative stories here on this forum and especially on facebook, where they can be free to hate everything and just be the turds they were born to be. They only want bad things to happen because they love being the victim. It gives them an excuse to justify their own failures in life.

Puff out that lower lip, SYTFE.....fold your arms and pout....maybe pitch a temper tantrum???? (snicker)

Woah! Dale Smith??? Am I seeing things??? I could've sworn you said that hustling your conspiracy theories here was a "waste of your time," and that it was "time for you to move on." Could it really be you? Is it really you Dale???

 

[LoneLaugher]

Conservatives hate good news because they're all Negative Nancy's. They hate to hear about anything positive, it makes them cringe. That's why you'll only see them posting negative stories here on this forum and especially on facebook, where they can be free to hate everything and just be the turds they were born to be. They only want bad things to happen because they love being the victim. It gives them an excuse to justify their own failures in life.

Puff out that lower lip, SYTFE.....fold your arms and pout....maybe pitch a temper tantrum???? (snicker)

Woah! Dale Smith??? Am I seeing things??? I could've sworn you said that hustling your conspiracy theories here was a "waste of your time," and that it was "time for you to move on." Could it really be you? Is it really you Dale???

Who? Dale who?

 

[Compost]

Yes indeed. I get your pathetic psychological game.

Cool story, bro.

Do you think the economy is better now than it was 8 years ago? Four years ago? Last year? Straight up questions seeking straight up answers.

Straight up? LOL Provide something with some actual information rather than puffy leftist editorial swill, and maybe we can have a conversation.

He did. He asked you point blank if you thought the economy was better or worse than 8, 4 and 1 year ago. Better or worse?

Oh, hello LoneLaugher's flunky! You want an answer? Ok. I believe it is worse. That's probably because I don't rely on Wash post editorial claptrap- which is pretty much what I said already. Please. Try to keep up.

In other words, facts have a liberal bias and can be ignored... got it!

You have comprehension problems, dear. I haven't ignored the biased editorial, I've acknowledged it. You might want to stop letting a little yellow cartoon head do your thinking for you.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If the Carpathia were named the Barack Carpathia conservatives would have immediately started in, "why isn't it larger? It couldn't get here sooner? There were far faster rescues in the past. Who painted the upper decks white, it hurt my eyes while I was being rescued. Do they expect us to climb up there? Where is the captain's birth certificate, he doesn't look natural born. Is he from Kenya? I won't recognize a Kenyan captain. The doctor on board is helping everyone? I'M not paying for that! Why are the poor being rescued? Can't they swim home on their own like Jesus would want? I think the ice-berg is a hoax. How can a ship that big sink unless it was an inside job? Those are Carpathian passengers over there? They aren't real passengers like us. This ship better go where WE want or we'll start a new revulushin'. No our captain didn't cause the Titanic to sink, YOUR captain caused it to sink...

Dude. I could fit your understanding on this debt slavery system on the lefthand side of a sesame seed.

See there's your problem, you write on sesame seeds. Try paper or a text file, much more efficient. Though they don't have that 'home-y' feeling of receiving a sesame seed in the mail.

 

[JBond]

Conservatives hate good news because they're all Negative Nancy's. They hate to hear about anything positive, it makes them cringe. That's why you'll only see them posting negative stories here on this forum and especially on facebook, where they can be free to hate everything and just be the turds they were born to be. They only want bad things to happen because they love being the victim. It gives them an excuse to justify their own failures in life.

Lol. Democrats are the party of victimhood. They can't do anything without a handout. Too fucking lazy to even pay for their own birth control. Everything is too much of a burden to stupid liberals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Reading the linked article would indicate that many Americans whiners, crybabies, and clueless nitwits.

This in in particular:

“In past (business) cycles, people were more hopeful, expecting they would have to deal with fluctuations but that there would always be an upturn at the end. This time, people are not ‘enjoying’ the recovery. Rather they are worried about an even worse downturn just around the corner because the American economy is not as resilient as it once was.”

Oh, brother.

 

[miketx]

The washington post is more un-American than you are.

And less un-American than you are.

Liberal fools crap through their mouths...

I'll debate you one on one on any topic you choose.

Whatever would compel me to waste my time debating a lying liberal?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I remember when we had real positive economic news back in the Bush years. The keyword is REAL as in not bullshit numbers made up by politicians.

 

[Tehon]

Reading the linked article would indicate that many Americans whiners, crybabies, and clueless nitwits.

This in in particular:

“In past (business) cycles, people were more hopeful, expecting they would have to deal with fluctuations but that there would always be an upturn at the end. This time, people are not ‘enjoying’ the recovery. Rather they are worried about an even worse downturn just around the corner because the American economy is not as resilient as it once was.”

Oh, brother.

Okay, so Americans are pessimistic about the "recovery". Why shouldn't they be, why do they deserve your derision? The Fed is still leery of raising interest rates, not much of a confidence booster.

 

[Londoner]

It was called "Utility of Poverty" and pointed out the positives of poverty if one were rich. For example, if prices dropped 15% it was if the wealthy got a 15% raise in income. With money people could buy up property and wait. Poverty was indeed a money maker for the rich. And at one time the conservatives pressured the government to fight poverty by reducing taxes and balancing the budget, and then FDR came along with his New Deal and Keynes..

Unlike Marx, Keynes actually saw himself as saving capitalism by focusing on problems with the demand-side. Marx believed that private property systems too easily devolved into non-competitive, state protected monopolies (where a rentier class funded politicians, who, in turn, created the legal and regulatory structure that enabled them (the rentier class) to fleece the plebes. It's funny how Marx and Adam Smith had similar misgivings RE monopolies, but you won't hear a comparative analysis of Wealth of Nations & Das Kapital on FOX News. Thank God people like you have read both, and you're not just parroting empty cliches, half understood).

 

[Londoner]

It was called "Utility of Poverty" and pointed out the positives of poverty if one were rich. For example, if prices dropped 15% it was if the wealthy got a 15% raise in income. With money people could buy up property and wait. Poverty was indeed a money maker for the rich. And at one time the conservatives pressured the government to fight poverty by reducing taxes and balancing the budget, and then FDR came along with his New Deal and Keynes..

Continuing ....

Keynes was far more optimistic about capitalism than Marx. He believed that it was categorically the best system of exchange, and, moreover, that it got incentives right in ways that the collective ownership of production simply did not. What distinguishes Keynes was that he saw a role for government on the demand side.

He started from a reasonable premise: when consumers stop spending (for whatever reason), business usually suffers (if demand falls below a certain level). You get this right? When people stop buying shoes, the shoe store owner has to layoff his employees. And when this happens, the shoe store employees can't go into the bakery, which bakery then has to layoff its employees, which employees then can't go to the movie theater, which theater must then layoff its employees. It can turn into a self-reinforcing spiral of layoffs that can cause terrible long term damage to the economy.

Keynes thought that the government could intervene by - for instance - putting people to work building, say, infrastructure. See the multiplier effect of the interstate system or the satellite system or water/energy grids. These gubmint jobs not only represent commercially beneficial investments, but they put spenders back on main street and stem the spiraling layoffs before they engulf a generation of workers. Keynes also believed - if you've read The General Theory of Employment - that tax cuts were absolutely essential to countering recessionary pressures. But then, once the spiraling layoffs stopped and people were spending again, the government should go back into austerity mode.

Of course, as you know all too well, the government never goes back into austerity mode. Big Brother gets big headed or corrupt or stupid, and it keeps pouring money into the economy, which leads to inflation and terrible debt.

Now, granted, the followers of Keynes tolerated some inflation/debt provided that employment stayed high. They saw this as a reasonable tradeoff - and the tradeoff worked, for the most part, from 1945-1973 when the Fed used Keynesian fiscal policy to maintain what it considered full employment. But there was a flaw, and Milton Friedman analyzed it brilliantly. He said there was no long term trade-off between, that is, Government could not permanently trade higher inflation for lower unemployment. And stagflation - which was accelerated by the energy crisis - proved uncle Milty right.

The reason I bring this up is because Keynes' followers were irresponsible with his ideas. Take Reagan for instance. Compare his spending/debt and the size of his federal workforce to Carter's. And don't blame the House because Carter and Tip (two Democrats) spent nothing compared to Reagan and Tip. We won't even talk about Bush 43's spending compared to Clinton's.

Point is: the Reagan Revolution, for all its bluster about small government and responsible fiscal policy, was completely full of shit. Reagan tripled Carter's federal workforce and debt. Granted, it was mostly in Defense, and it definitely put more spenders on Main Streets across America, especially in defense heavy places like San Diego and Orange counties (both of which saw amazing economic growth in the 80s) - but ... by the time the dust settled, the nation was deeply in debt. The spending went too far, and Bush 43, once he had a red Senate and House, went into spending lunacy.

So indeed, the Democrats are Keynesians, but nobody in my lifetime has followed Keynes more crudely and disastrously than the Right. They spend mindlessly. Remember Bush's initial version of TARP (before Obama came in)? It gave the Banks money but with zero controls or oversight. And FOX didn't cover it, so their audience didn't understand what the party bosses were doing. We know the Dems spend like drunken sailors. They admit it. So/but why do the Republicans always spend more? Why do they only support anti-Keynesian fiscal policy when they are out of the White House?

 

[SmokeALib]

There is no good news as long as these libtards are destroying our country.

 

[Dale Smith]

If the Carpathia were named the Barack Carpathia conservatives would have immediately started in, "why isn't it larger? It couldn't get here sooner? There were far faster rescues in the past. Who painted the upper decks white, it hurt my eyes while I was being rescued. Do they expect us to climb up there? Where is the captain's birth certificate, he doesn't look natural born. Is he from Kenya? I won't recognize a Kenyan captain. The doctor on board is helping everyone? I'M not paying for that! Why are the poor being rescued? Can't they swim home on their own like Jesus would want? I think the ice-berg is a hoax. How can a ship that big sink unless it was an inside job? Those are Carpathian passengers over there? They aren't real passengers like us. This ship better go where WE want or we'll start a new revulushin'. No our captain didn't cause the Titanic to sink, YOUR captain caused it to sink...

Dude. I could fit your understanding on this debt slavery system on the lefthand side of a sesame seed.

See there's your problem, you write on sesame seeds. Try paper or a text file, much more efficient. Though they don't have that 'home-y' feeling of receiving a sesame seed in the mail.

Wow...that went totally over your head....figures.