Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

One does not need to say something literally to infer meaning, bizboy1



I don't hate anybody. What misinformation am I spreading? When I actually see a fiscal conservative I will be happy. What passes for "fiscal conservatism" in your country and mine is an absolute joke



Your entire argument where you equate liberal government aims with communism? The entirety of your arguments opposed to welfare, where you make serious assumptions about beneficiaries and use these assumptions as justification for your pet theories? Your rhetoric-heavy posts about "your earnings and rights" and those who "want what you have?"



If you don't want your personal affairs to become part of a discussion, don't use them to support your points. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you would not look silly espousing one thing on an internet forum while admitting to doing another in your actual life



you are forcing your parents to give up their earnings to support you (a far greater percentage of their earnings than would be going to you or others if using government welfare, I might add) and somehow you are better than those who seek government financial intervention? You're right, your parents do not have a legal obligation to support you, but emotionally they likely consider it a duty, one that you seem to happily take advantage of.



I tend to target people who insult my sensibilities with generalizations and willingness to go on and on without actually providing solid argumentation. I have participated elsewhere in this thread, your entry is pretty recent, and almost all you have provided is jargon- aka- lack of meaningful content.



You said *they* have no other choice. The way you have described it, it sounds like you are holding them hostage. That you *can* bootstrap yourself into independence but choose not to, while criticizing those who attempt to get there with help from the government is ridiculous and it really does make you a hypocrite. Sorry.



I have a good, happy, life, I am getting a good education, and I have a good job, so your insinuations about my character are wrong and offensive. Since you don't know anything about my life, talking about how I was "coddled" seems to be pretty- frankly- stupid of you. In fact, I have had to work for everything I have, pay my own bills, buy my own food, have lived on my own, and not once have I ever gone on welfare. If anyone seems coddled here, it is you, and you have basically admitted to this with the disclosure of your living status. Your viewpoints are fairly typical of sheltered individuals with black and white thinking.

LOL. Dude, what are you smoking? I never had an entire argument where I equate liberal government aims with communism. Did you even read what I wrote?

What assumptions about beneficiaries were I assuming? The fact is if you give someone a welfare check for $400/month, why would they work for $400/month? They are incentivized to stay on welfare or else they lose their benefits. And I don't blame THEM for this. They are doing the rational thing. The fact is welfare is a burden on the system. Like Milton Freidman said in the video I posted, if you were cruel and removed welfare overnight, most, if not all, would find a job. It may not be the job they want, but it's a job. And for the rest, well, that's where charity comes into place.


I don't mind having my personal affairs discussed. It's when personal attacks are initiated is when I become offended. Not only is your comparison wrong, it's offensive. You seem to not comprehend this. Perhaps it's a cultural thing.

Again, you seem not to get it. I'm not forcing my parents to do anything. It's volunteered. It's charity. They are benefiting from me living with them. They are maximizing their utility (economics thing). So it's a mutual benefit. As a liberal, you are proving my point. The point, which you seem to have no respect for individual choice and liberty.

I never claimed I was better. That is your assuming process again.

I'm glad you have a good, happy life. But the fact is if you go to a public school, use public roads, etc. you are being biased. You are defending the very system you exploit. Yet you try to ill me because I don't want to be part of the system. I reject it. So whose being more logical?

You said you are going to school so I'm assuming you're benefiting very much from other individuals (may not be family). So you, yourself, are not very indendepnt. YOu're lucky you live in Canada. Where I live we have to pay substantial amounts to go to college. Must be nice to live off taxpayers.

Like Milton Freidman said in the video I posted, if you were cruel and removed welfare overnight, most, if not all, would find a job.

YOu're lucky you live in Canada. Where I live we have to pay substantial amounts to go to college.

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?

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.

LOL. Dude, what are you smoking? I never had an entire argument where I equate liberal government aims with communism. Did you even read what I wrote?

What assumptions about beneficiaries were I assuming? The fact is if you give someone a welfare check for $400/month, why would they work for $400/month? They are incentivized to stay on welfare or else they lose their benefits. And I don't blame THEM for this. They are doing the rational thing. The fact is welfare is a burden on the system. Like Milton Freidman said in the video I posted, if you were cruel and removed welfare overnight, most, if not all, would find a job. It may not be the job they want, but it's a job. And for the rest, well, that's where charity comes into place.


I don't mind having my personal affairs discussed. It's when personal attacks are initiated is when I become offended. Not only is your comparison wrong, it's offensive. You seem to not comprehend this. Perhaps it's a cultural thing.

Again, you seem not to get it. I'm not forcing my parents to do anything. It's volunteered. It's charity. They are benefiting from me living with them. They are maximizing their utility (economics thing). So it's a mutual benefit. As a liberal, you are proving my point. The point, which you seem to have no respect for individual choice and liberty.

I never claimed I was better. That is your assuming process again.

I'm glad you have a good, happy life. But the fact is if you go to a public school, use public roads, etc. you are being biased. You are defending the very system you exploit. Yet you try to ill me because I don't want to be part of the system. I reject it. So whose being more logical?

You said you are going to school so I'm assuming you're benefiting very much from other individuals (may not be family). So you, yourself, are not very indendepnt. YOu're lucky you live in Canada. Where I live we have to pay substantial amounts to go to college. Must be nice to live off taxpayers.

California’s Food Truck Shakedown

How state officials mistreat mobile food vendors

Steven Greenhut | July 13, 2012


We would all laugh at a man who, sinking in millions of dollars in house payments, car loans, and credit card bills, decided to fix his problem by looking for spare quarters lurking behind the cushions of his sofas.

Likewise, we should shake our heads at the way the state of California—with a budget deficit approaching $16 billion and hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension and retiree medical benefits—is stepping up tax collection to help plug a hole caused by its chronic overspending.

On Tuesday, I met in Santa Ana with about 12 owners of catering trucks—those mobile restaurants that sell mostly Mexican food—and they told a disturbing tale of how the state’s Orwellian-named tax agency, the Board of Equalization, is targeting and mistreating them. The people assembled in the room blamed state tax authorities more than the economy for their tough times.

The truck owners say the state is handing them tax bills for tens of thousands of dollars based on unrealistic estimates of their taxable sales. When you buy food at the trucks, the burrito and Mexican Coca-Cola (the kind with the real sugar, rather than the icky corn syrup) may cost, say, six bucks. That’s what you pay, as opposed to a restaurant where state tax would be added onto the transaction. The trucks don’t collect per-item tax, but owners later estimate their sales and send their money to the tax man.

The BOE, truck owners say, used to tax them based on realistic sales estimates and used to account for the fact that many of the items they sell are not taxable items. They say the BOE also used to work with them to make their tax bills and treat them respectfully. No more. Desperate for cash, state officials now make unrealistic estimates of their sales and employ heavy-handed tactics, they explain.

To make matters worse, the truck owners say that local police harass them—thanks in part to city officials that don’t like having the trucks around. Every city has different rules for placement of permits on the truck, and most of the owners report getting multiple citations for minor infractions. Each citation can cost $700, which can eat up days worth of taco sales.

The people in attendance spoke mostly Spanish, which was translated for me by Lou Correa, the Santa Ana state senator who organized the group at my request. I promised to quote only the first names of the attendees because of their fear of retribution from the authorities.

“It reaches the point where you have to think about your health,” said Vernonica. “They filed lawsuits against me. They said they would charge me as a criminal in court. I’m out of business. I sold my truck. There are people out there who get government aid who are driving brand new cars. They come after a person like me who is not asking for anything. As long as I have two feet and two hands, I want to work.”

Officials suggested to one truck owner that he go down to the welfare office for benefits. That’s just like California these days—hard-working people are ill treated, but there are plenty of benefits available for those who prefer to live on the dole.

Many told stories of long waits, complicated audits, confusing instructions, unhelpful officials, of bureaucratic indifference. Then BOE reports them to the IRS, they say, which triggers a federal audit. Those who work other jobs have their wages garnished to pay the state.

“We were paying an acceptable amount, and then the state needed more money,” said Gilberto. He told me that this is a group of mom-and-pop business owners that cannot afford attorneys and accountants.

I talked to the Board of Equalization’s Michelle Steel, the elected official who represents Orange County, and she promised to pull the records of the taco truck owners and see what can be done to help them.

At the gathering in Santa Ana, one man blurted out the word “pensions.” Everyone laughed. In English or Spanish, these business owners understood that the state is shaking them down to come up with money to pay for its lavish overspending, on programs including six-figure pensions for government employees.

The state Capitol is controlled by liberal Democrats, who frequently invoke the poor, working-class people and immigrants to justify their latest government spending ideas. Yet here is the latest example of how these officials put the demands of the well-paid and powerful unions over the needs of hard-strapped immigrants and working people.

State officials refuse to tackle the pension debt or rein in public spending. Indeed, they are busy spending more on fanciful projects such as high-speed rail. Yet the state has no money. This is the end result of an infantile progressive movement that refuses to make hard choices, always blames the private sector and figures that higher taxes will solve every problem.

Sen. Correa also had a meeting planned with the owners of nail salons who say they are being targeted by state regulators for large fines based on picayune regulatory violations. I’m not arguing that small businesses shouldn’t pay their fair share of taxes or comply with reasonable rules, but it’s a sad day when the state government treats them like criminals or like a piggy bank.

Read those surveys of business owners, such as the one that ranks California last in the nation in terms of business friendliness. The owners don’t complain so much about the state’s high tax rates, but about the prevalent attitude in which they are treated with hostility by the authorities.

I love California. But if I depended on a catering truck for my living, I’d fill it up with my belongings and drive to Nevada.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

... and point out the logical inconsistency of your viewpoints compared to your living status...

I don't particularly buy this argument Vigilans,

IMHO many if not most people live at least a little bit at odds with their political views as circumstances dictate, and that makes them pragmatic, not hypocrites.

I agree with you. But this is more than just a "little" bit at odds. It is outright contradictory to criticize people who make the choice to get assistance through welfare, so they can get on their feet, or improve on whatever circumstance caused them to seek this assistance; while simultaneously claiming to have the means to live independently but not doing so, instead preferring the parental wallet. Given the choice I am sure everyone would love to be able to get help from their parents instead of the government and would love to have bizboy1's situation. And in fact there is nothing wrong with it, and I hope that I haven't given that impression. However many people do not have this option and utilize government resources. The point is a welfare recipient and an adult depending on his or her parents are both not independent, and really are not in a position to criticize each other.

I haven't read through all of the posts in this thread, but is Bizboy criticizing anyone who takes welfare ever, or just people who become dependent upon it because it's there and they can? I ask because at least in my mind there is a difference between someone who takes welfare money in order to gain some breathing room or get back on their feet, as a means to an end, and someone who just takes it as an end in and of itself.

Getting back to Bizboy, I think you're making an error in not distinguishing between the "coercion" of a familial/parental bond and the actual coercion of government programs; fail to take care of your family and you might feel bad, fail to pay your taxes and guys with guns show up.

As a libertarian, I could care less about the internal structure of other people's families and their obligations to one another, but I care an awful lot about the obligations placed upon everyone by the government upon pain of force. In other words, I don't think it's hypocritical to condemn government welfare programs while living at home, the two situations don't compare to one another and it feels disingenuous to try and make them.

facepalm worthy... big time. You are either unaware of your own statements or have no intention of admitting to them when called out. When I come home later I will quote the specific examples of where you equate liberalism and communism and your other logical fallacies. Additionally I have not made any personal attacks on you, you opened the discussion about your own situation, and all I did was comment on it and point out the logical inconsistency of your viewpoints compared to your living status. You can pretend you are independent all you want but it does not change the fact that you are taking advantage. I think it is you who does not value individual choice or liberty, since you are in essence holding your parents hostage in order to meet the minimum standards of living for yourself. What choice do they have, boot out their son? I said nothing about you personally. However, your replies to me are heavy on personal attacks and insinuations so I suggest you work on your honesty and comprehension if you want to debate with me. Until then I will think of you as a sheltered child with a mild interest in politics

Since California came up:



http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/13/c ... -shakedown

I don't particularly buy this argument Vigilans, IMHO many if not most people live at least a little bit at odds with their political views as circumstances dictate, and that makes them pragmatic, not hypocrites. I know I could make the argument that I'm prevented by the state and it's enablers from living in the more libertarian (and libertine) fashion that I would prefer, but I'd rather spend my time trying to make the best of the situation I've been dealt and work on improving it (in my eyes) for the future.