"Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'

Post Reply New Topic

Whatever. I tend to favor New York Republicans, anyway. Really, I tend to have a higher toleration for blue state Republicans in general.

What policies in particular do you hold to be the culprit, though? Just out of curiosity.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... ome_d.html

By the way, has anyone pointed out yet that Blue States tend to have higher median incomes?

who exactly made their choices in life but them ? Did Bush tell them who to mate with and when to have children ? We don't have arranged marriages or forced mating in this country or forced parenting.

It didn't mention the entire set up there. That could be possible.


Ok, who said you had to for something to be beneficial in the long-run? Frankly, the luddites would have preferred that we pay more for cloths for their higher paying jobs. In both situations though, what we are seeing is an increase in the efficiency of inputs at the cost of issues with the distribution of wealth, now, you might prefer that we are less efficient with inputs, however, that is a regress, and for the sake of all future generations I would argue that instead we would want progress. Free trade is really no different than technological change, and one of my links even suggested that a lot of the change in the distribution of wealth was based upon technological change.


I don't care about that argument at all. Free trade is more efficient, seeking inefficiency is the same as seeking weaker growth and poor use of resources, therefore I argue for free trade. I don't even care if it is your doctor that gets unemployed by it, Indian doctors would be cheaper anyway.


Yeah, that idea is icky and frankly is just like cutting a camel in half and grafting it to an elephant to get an animal of burden for the desert, not only does it not get what we want, but it just sucks. If we want the public provision of private services then a voucher system is recommended.

net income and cost of living is what counts.
$60,000 in NYC don't go far, somebody is doing great on half that in Bugtussle.

The smart kids are leaving the blue state along with lots of other high achievers. Medium incomes inflated by massive numbers of high paid government workers. All places like CT which I left last year & Vermont where I now live are is the have's and have nots.

www.irs.gov gives income statistics by state and by zip code, pretty amazing to look at the number of people making it and not making it. I looked at some zip codes for high dollar CT towns and it's plain to see half the people in town couldn't afford to buy into the town if they where just starting out and had to pay a mortgage at current housing prices. So in effect they are living off old money, not current income.

i've got a question:

with all the expansion in government powers and medical programs and what not that bush has signed..do you consider him a liberal?


the more and more i look at it, that group (the neo-cons) is very conservative on social matters but they have a very pie-in-the-sky approach to economics and foreign policy driven more by ideology and mythology rather than empirical facts. i mean bush has expanded federal government almost as much as clinton and has yet to cut any federal government!

No. Liberalism emphasizes individual liberty, freedom, and equality before the law. As we all know, Bush is far from being the standard-bearer of such ideals.


Actually, Bush has expanded federal government quite a bit more than Clinton did. Remember that Clinton ran budget surpluses? The neo-cons are probably best characterized as populists: restrictions on personal behavior AND restrictions on economic activity. In short, they are the anti-Libertarian.

well i'm going more with the popular american definition of liberal right now...not the traditional version. because, really, traditional republicans were the liberals...they wanted smaller government, they wanted the individual to be left alone from the federal government and they wanted more individual rights.



i mean right now, it's a contest between two socialist parties and neither are especially "liberal" in the sense of how you think of the word. one wants to keep things the same and the other wants to remove more liberties....neither care about granting more liberties.

If i had a clue what powers and programs you where referring too, I'm sure i could look them up and find logical reasons for their enactment,change or whatever, but it wouldn't matter in the least to you because you already have your mind made up.

cut what ?? as far as government benefits people where promised, taking them away would go over as well as telling a 5 year old they could have ice cream if they choke down their dinner, putting it in front of them and than taking it away.

It's entertaining watching all you members of the hate bush cult have at it and try and score PC points with each other so you can be respected members of the hate Bush cult.

I hope a dem gets in the white house so all you peoples lives will just be so wonderful, you can dance in the parks with flowers in your hair and sing joy to the world and life will be just so wonderful.

the huge medicare program bush signed a couple years ago. or maybe the sweeping powers he's looking to grant the federal reserve. maybe the department of homeland security? how about the money being dumped into faith based initiatives or maybe the no child left behind program?


there's a ton of programs that could be cut. or do you forget the promise the republicans made in the deal with america where they promised to try and get rid of the department of education and cut out other programs?


i'm a libertarian and i want little to no government. bush is a pinko commie.

Wow, you're an idiot. Bush has granted himself unprecedented powers, increased government spending beyond all previous levels, and refused to cut where he and his party promised to cut when they were campaigning for office.

Hate Bush cult? I hate Bush because he's hurt our country, not because I'm a cult member. Yes, I have already made up my mind, because all available evidence shows that Bush is a really sh***y president. Why shouldn't I have made up my mind by now, having had 8 years to decide? I hate Obama because I think he would also hurt our country, and I disagree very much with a lot of people who hate Bush. I don't support Democrats for office this November, and seriously, even a good deal of Republicans hate Bush by now.

Corporate governance is not so different from public governance ('government'). In both cases, there are mechanisms designed to promote the good and remove incompetents and crooks. In both cases, these mechanisms usually fail. The idea that the shareholders are in charge of the company is about as rosy and inaccurate as the idea that the voters are really in charge of the country.

I have a huge issue with the very negitive views conservatives and libertarians have for the poor. These notions are based on a folk psychology based on the notion of the self being an immaterial soul that exists outside of causation, what philosophers call libertarian or contra-casual free will. I consider this view to be nonsense, we are the sum of out genetic and environmental influences. You can't just tell people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and then suddenly expect then to change their behavior. If you want to change people's behavior one must change the environmental influences that causes people to act the way they do.

This is generally true of more developed areas.

And they are settling in the more liberal areas of the so-called "red states." North Carolina, for example, has a strong Democratic following in the more accomplished parts of the state. Naturally, as more people move to them, the cost of living in these areas is going to rise. Hopefully, they will go through a process of gentrification, pushing out anyone who just can't cut it. This is a natural and healthy evolution. I just wouldn't want to live in New York City unless I could land one hell of a job there that would pull enough money to put aside for a retirement plan. If I were to find such a job, however, I would proudly cover the greater portion of the costs of our national defense, and I would proudly act as one of the chief players in the overall success of our economy. Then I'd vote against the war because the cost of invading countries that we have no business in cuts into my salary. What? You think the big city Dems are angry about the war because they loved Saddam? HAH! They pay the lion's share of Bush's expenses, so, essentially, your warbilly Republican buddies are robbing them blind so that you can have your fun worshipping your warrior messiah of a so-called commander-in-chief! When I got done voting against one more ridiculous invasion of a foreign country, I'd throw my backing into a congressman who wants to make one more welfare expansion that is only necessary in urban centers where the cost of living warrants it, so you can watch your idiot, slackjawed neighbors live like kings off the government for doing NOTHING! That's one more giggle for me at your expense, buddy!

And then I'd retire and move into a nice, big house on Bald Head Island, which more well-to-do folk should consider doing. I heard the founder of Red Hat Linux has a house there, by the way.

The "have-nots" should pack their bags and leave, then. They don't have any business trying to make it in the city if they don't have some special skill or position that makes them valuable there. The movers and shakers there should put up signs, saying, "USELESS NINNIES NEED NOT APPLY," in big, capital letters. They boast of it, and they brag about it. There's a lot to gain from these areas, but there's a lot to lose. Me? I'm hoping to become a "latte Democrat," so ignorant people can wail, "Liberal Elite! Liberal Elite!" while I drive by them in my Volvo, playing my favorite rave music at peak volume!

It's not my fault or Obama's fault if you couldn't cut it, big boy. Don't take your grief from your failures out on me, and don't take it out on the Dems. You should have skipped town before you got your silly ass into debt. You would have been welcome to make a second start here in Southeastern North Carolina, which has most of the accomodations that you left behind in the Northeast.

Attention all college graduates! Attention! Hey, don't try to make your start in the big cities, guys! Unless you've got some good job lined up, it's not going to be worth it! They're overpopulated as it is, and they're already as blue as a babboon's butt! Come on down to Southeastern North Carolina! Del Labs has a plant right here in the Port City! We're a bunch of tree-huggers and pot-smokers down here! North Carolina Democrats need your votes! Come on! Woo!

Johnnie, what you're describing is a natural part of the evolution of urban centers, and I honestly don't see how you come off holding the Democratic Party of America or the Democratic Party of Vermont responsible for Vermont being a place that too many people want to live in. Frankly, I don't think that a politician from either party should be let off the hook if he's not doing his job, and that's helping the people, regardless of the ideas they may have about how it should be done, regardless of whom it may be they're more interested in helping. It sounds to me like you're just bitter because you FAILED! You failed, and you want to take it out on people who are in worse situations than you! You failed because you didn't have the common sense to realize that you weren't going to be able to cut it in one of the big urban centers, and you ran yourself so deep into debt you'll be paying it off for the rest of your natural life! You faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaailed, and that's on you!

Last edited by Griff on 31 Mar 2008, 12:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oh, that's what us big city Latte Democrats have been working on while Johnnie's kids were pissing off the back porch! I'm thinking of becoming one of the blokes who work on new ways of turning useless people into productive citizens. ADHD medications and atypical antidepressants have worked miracles, but progress isn't keeping up with the genetic breakdown of our natural defenses against these illnesses. The consequences of putting natural selection on hold won't be held at bay forever, you know.

i agree with you. there should be programs in place that encourage them to get work and to get on their own. but the current welfare system does no such thing and only encourages dependence on the system and not any kind of progress forward. there's also a mentality with many that welfare is owed to them by whatever various bad logic. welfare was a system originally created for people who were between jobs and needed help until they found a new one...not an indefinite teat to suckle.


actually what'd probably be a better system is if private temp services were utilized more often and involved less government. that way someone can at least gain temporary employment and potentially be picked up for permanent employment. but that'd actually approach making sense. (note: this isn't a solution but the start of an idea so don't go too far into it yet).

I wouldn't say that it is as rosy. Shareholders will pull out if bad decisions are made and if profits go down in a company, this provides incentives for companies to keep their profits up, which is the desirable trait in the first place. They might not take a direct hand in controlling the company but the idea that people will tend to hold on to losers if the information is available seems fallacious.