Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

I can't stand "take a course in economics" as a retort from people who haven't even demonstrated either basic understanding of economics or even utilize argumentative devices that call upon economic theories or metrics as support. Why so much liberal hate? Because, at least amongst reactionary conservatives, trash talking and blind hatred are of greater value than actual discourse leading to understanding of the opposition. To be a reactionary conservative means that you have absolutely no interest in deep understanding. Reactionary "anything" for that matter. And American conservatives, at least, are extremely reactionary

I don't believe wealth should be redistributed to the point that no one has more than anyone else. I will grant you that that doesn't work in the real world and even when it was tried those in power didn't truly live up to their principles anyways. I believe it is okay for some to have a surplus of wealth as long as it isn't at the expense of people just barely hanging on. Letting the latter languish in desperate poverty when there is more than enough resources and technology to meet everyone's basic needs is what I'm against.

As far as redistribution goes, as technological efficiency and productivity increase there is less and less need for labor in meeting the needs of the population. You can just look at how much food the USA produces in comparison to the number of farmers needed to produce it. The same increase in efficiency has occurred with the advent of the computer and globalized trade. If this trend continues what do you propose to do with all the people who's labor is no longer needed? Also, people need to have disposable income to purchase goods or economic growth will stagnate, leading to a zero-sum game where businesses simply compete for a fixed amount of aggregate demand/consumption. The wealthy are shooting themselves in the foot if they fail to realize that a minimal amount of "redistribution" is needed just to keep the whole boat afloat. When an economy fails to grow through real increases in purchasing power, investors start inflating assets instead, creating destructive boom/bust cycles instead of sustainable growth.

Last edited by marshall on 15 Jul 2012, 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

marshall wrote:

Did I ever say that it’s simple?


So you’re saying “bootstrapping” doesn’t work and it’s just a conservative feel good mantra? So if I wanted to I couldn’t find scores of examples where it has worked and at the same time I couldn’t find scores of examples where career welfare recipients have been less than total failures?


I don’t need to make any kind of excuse. If I wanted to advocate making people’s lives difficult I’d just come right out and do it and think nothing of it.


National defense, and in some cases international coercion, is a necessity and within the traditional role of government.



Although not about me, just these two fiery little samples alone of your mindset speak volumes about you.....

The over-emphasis on individual will-power is a perfect example of where conservative/libertarian ideology is overly simplistic. You like to moralize against people who have fallen victim to a systemic crisis. Telling these people to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is pure smoke-screen and willful avoidance of the real issue. It is so detached from reality that it comes across as positively insulting and gives conservatives the reputation of being bottom kickers and trolls.


In the real world there are always going to be winners and losers. If the existence of economically insecure and/pr impoverished people forced to live "on the edge" is a result of a structural defect in the economic system, it isn't helpful to tell these people "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Individual anecdotes are meaningless in isolation because when there are a limited number of jobs to go around, one person's success must be by definition be linked to another's failure. If you wanted to blame people dependent on government assistance during an economic boom time (such as the 90s) I wouldn't have quite as much of a problem. The problem is that now the situation has changed. We are in a depression and many people who want to work full time can't find adequate employment to keep themselves afloat without relying on some kind of assistance. If all these people were simply cut off we'd have the early 1930s all over again.


I should have said "rationalization" instead of "excuse". The difference being that unlike people who make excuses, people who use faulty rationalizations aren't even aware that they are doing so.


Nice dodge. I just find it hilarious that you don't trust the government to be competent in anything but destruction and coercion.

Ruveyn gets on my nerves sometimes. Bite me.

My mindset is people shouldn't think they are entitled to being selfish pricks on a planet where we all have to share resources. Historically, when provincial tribalism morality ruled, villages resorted to raiding and plundering neighboring villages to gain access to resources. That's just how it works in the primitive "every man for himself" world. You cannot expect peace and prosperity if you make survival too difficult for a group of people.

I've never demonized anyone for falling victim to circumstances outside their control or even within their control. I've personally known too many people who've had that happen to them and I don't rule out the possibly of it happening to me. Believe it or not I'm not rich or even by any means set for life.
BTW: Thanks for throwing in the troll charge. It says a lot about the desperation of whatever point your trying to make.


So you’re saying “bootstrapping” doesn’t work and it’s just a conservative feel good mantra? So if I wanted to I couldn’t find scores of examples where it has worked and at the same time I couldn’t find scores of examples where career welfare recipients have been less than total failures?


You've never heard me say that we should have NO social safety net. Theoretically I do believe it's outside the traditional role of government but on the other hand, with a country of this size and population and a fluctuating economy, it's a reality of the world we live in. My issue is with the safety net being used as a permanent resting place for the able bodied to lounge on regardless of the current state of the economy. There's no way you can get me to back off of that.


You just qualified my criticism of big government's involvement in social issues. Why allow an entity so well skilled in destruction and coercion to meddle in more sensitive issues at home?
Anyhoo, it's good to see that you find something in this life hilarious. All this time I thought you had no sense of humor at all.

Contribute your money to those who are "languishing". Do not contribute my money. What is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. Can you grasp that simple fact?

I give to my charities. You give to yours.

ruveyn

You are indeed mistaken. I was referring to when those ugly thoughts materialize into action.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Because most liberals are very ignorant when it comes to economics and how the world works. Most have good intentions but fail to come up with a successful plan. Almost every government program has the opposite effect: Idea: Reduce poverty. Solution: Redistribute wealth from the top and create a welfare state. Result: More poverty. Another example would be the minimum wage law, which is why we have high unemployment in the minority communities and high unemployment for youths. So far I haven't needed to exhibit my economic knowledge beyond a minimum level because the conversation hasn't prompted me to. I still stand by the statement that people in this forum need to take an economics class because they have demonstrated a lack of critical thinking on their part by coming up with ridiculous, vague ideas that have already been shown to be preposterous.

Why so much liberal hate? Because we're tired of you're nonsense. This is mostly a voluntary-based economy. Want to establish communism or socialism? Go ahead. Go buy some land and start your own clan. Our society ALLOWS THAT. Does yours??? But don't force me to subsidize your loony idea. I stand by my beliefs that I don't owe you anything. I have a right to my wages that I've earned. Just because you come up with the clever idea that I owe you a living because you're unable or too lazy to work doesn't mean I'm going to buy it. The Robin Hood myth doesn't work.

And for the rest of your argument, I'm just going to ignore. I have no idea what you're talking about. And it sounds pretty pointless to expand upon.

There is a distinct border between thought and action.
That's why I have issues with "hate crimes" since they assume and/or judge based on emotion (thought) and not the act itself.

What really pisses me off is when liberals raise taxes. Take for instance the vehicle registration tax in California. Every vehicle (with some exceptions) in operation must pay X amount of dollars. For my truck it is $160 this year. My mom's SUV is usually close to $200. Now when I was working a minimum wage job I still had to pay for my registration. It was hard then and it's even harder now. They keep raising it every year because the state is "out of money". But who benefits and who doesn't from this? Well, the state bureaucracy definitely benefits. But what about my family's gardener who barely gets by. Does he benefit from this increase in registration? Hell no. He suffers. That $40 extra he pays since they increased it means he has to increase his amount of clients, not expand his business, or have less disposable income. For me, personally, it means I have less food and gas to consume. I'm lucky I was born into middle class. I'm lucky that I have my parent's helping me right now. Because government has made people worse off. The poor are the ones who suffer. Do the rich care if their registration is raised $40? No, they don't.

Who are the politicians? They are upper class individuals, who talk about helping out the poor, but are really looking to keep their job. From my personal experience, especially in Berkeley, most liberals are in it for a job. They want the power, they want the prestige. Sure some have a lot of empathy, but I feel like most of the ones who benefit from it aren't sincere.

California is now realizing it cannot afford it's bureaucracy. It must substantially reduce prison populations, pensions, and taxes. The huge increase in illegal immigration and the funding of these individuals is a negative gain to our economy. After I graduate from college, I'm seriously considering moving East where the taxes are much lower.

Last edited by bizboy1 on 15 Jul 2012, 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think the reasoning behind hate crime laws is that the act probably wouldn't have happened without the hateful thought that was first directed at some particular group.
Incidentally, Bill Maher agrees with you.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

When you start a paragraph like this and then ramble on with extreme generalizations and Wikipedia-esque knowledge bites it does not help your case



"Haven't needed to", but in reality, absolutely should, because what you are saying is highly anecdotal. You are not exhibiting any economic or political knowledge at all. You are just providing more generalizations and talking points that could just as easily be copy-pasta'd off of Fox News web page

By the way, I have taken five or six economics or economics-related courses. I am not the only one here who has, either. Many contributors in PPR have much more education than you



You now associate communism and socialism with liberalism and then utilize the tired argument device "Don't like it here, go someplace else". Not to mention that but the entirety of your argument is rhetorical, anecdotal and overall irrelevant since it requires a very blatant straw man to even work. You certainly don't owe me anything, since I live in a completely different country. And before you start in on the sanctimonious bull about earning wages and rights to your earnings, maybe you should get a job yourself and stop living off of parental welfare. Rhetoric is fine and all but it does not impress me, especially when the one using it is not even practicing what they preach



Not surprised

You made no mention of how Mitt Romney and other Republicans have called for imposing an income tax on those Americans who currently are too poor to pay any. Their argument is, those upper class people who pay most of the income tax are unfairly burdened, while the rest of America gets off Scott free.
The answer to Romney and company is: those who pay an income tax today have the money to part with without being burdened, while those who do not pay an income tax don't pay it because they can't survive without that money.
If you're truly outraged by taxation, why don't you stick up for the have nots regarding Romney's newest planned assault in the class war?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Not sure if you're a troll or just low browed. Only thing I find worth responding to is what is highlighted in bold. I never claimed I was the most educated. I'm a senior in college. But so far in this thread I haven't found anything beyond typical liberal jargon. What were your 5 or 6 economics classes? There is a difference, you know. If you don't have the background do to intermediate microeconomics or above then don't even respond.

I never said I liked Mitt Romney or Republicans. I'm a Libertarian. I agree with Ron Paul that there shouldn't even be a Federal Income tax. We should abolish it. I think we should have low taxes all around for the lower class and upper class. Yes lowering taxes on the rich is good for obvious reasons (though Vigilans might need clarification). But since the rich have benefited from the bailout and plenty of other things I wouldn't mind revoking some of their benefits. Does that mean raising taxes on them? I'm not sure yet. I rather see government shrink. I rather see the wars end.

I still don't agree with you, but fair enough.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer