What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Decepticon]

So, then.

No microprocessor brought on by the GOVERNMENT'S need for the space program and all the jobs that have been subsequently created by it?
No internet and those jobs?
No Interstate highway system and those jobs?

Want to know what makes government fail? Lack of good stewardship of government.
Look at Katrina. Why did BushCo's FEMA's response fail? Because the people running it had no fundamental interest in providing good service for the taxpayers. That job was a political payoff for Heckuva job Brownie.

Now, tell us why people who don't believe that government has a role to play in setting our national agenda and fail to put competent, service oriented leadership into positions of power should be listened to?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, then.

No microprocessor brought on by the GOVERNMENT'S need for the space program and all the jobs that have been subsequently created by it?

The integrated circuit was invented by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments. It had absolutely nothing to do with the space program and was to answer a question on photocopier - stupid.

No internet and those jobs?

You think Algore created the internet, doncha stupid?

No Interstate highway system and those jobs?

Who created the Autobahn, stupid?

Want to know what makes government fail? Lack of good stewardship of government.
Look at Katrina. Why did BushCo's FEMA's response fail?

Hey stupid, I suggest you sit on your porch and wait for FEMA in a hurricane.

Because the people running it had no fundamental interest in providing good service for the taxpayers. That job was a political payoff for Heckuva job Brownie.

FEMA should have been driving all those empty buses, right stupid?

Now, tell us why people who don't believe that government has a role to play in setting our national agenda and fail to put competent, service oriented leadership into positions of power should be listened to?

I wish Obama would tell you to change your underwear more often, stupid...

 

[UpAndAbout]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I think for the most part all liberals and conservatives do agree on those items you mentioned. Clearly there are fringe on both sides, but for the most part, we are in agreement.

The problem comes when we talk about how the government can be a useful servant to the people's needs. For example, as a liberal, I am in favour of temporary food stamps and student loans for college. Many "conservatives" are against both of those, claiming it leads to big government.

So what do we do then?

I am in favor of "temporary food stamps" yes, but every effort should be made by the government to see to it that it IS temporary, to direct that person in the right direction to achieve self-reliance. And no rational person is against student loans for college. My god, most of us have gotten them. if you google for a list of the things that the government funds, it is mind boggling. Things which most of us have never heard of or at least had no idea the government was funding it. We are tired of seeing taxes which are supposed to be for one thing spent on something else entirely, then being asked for more taxes to pay for the first thing. And I'm not pointing fingers here at either party -- it's the government, period. If everyone would follow JFK's advice and "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" we would be better off. Somehow that advice has been reversed.

 

[UpAndAbout]

You mean like the way anyone receiving public assistance is a welfare cheat and all union workers are lazy, overpaid slobs?

I've never seen a conservative claim everyone on welfare is a cheat or that union workers are lazy. However we now have the highest percentage of people taking government entitlements than ever in our history. Do you really believe nearly half the population cannot provide for themselves any longer without hand outs? Our poor have a standard of living that is middle class on the global scale and was middle class in this country less than 50 years ago. Do you really believe the rise in standard of living in any country is brought about by government hand outs? If so you are clueless about the nature of growing wealth. Government does not bring about a rise in the standard of living -growing the ranks of financially independent people does. An economic fact. The more wealthy people there are, the more upward pressure on wages for everyone, the more upward pressure on standard of living for everyone. Even when we don't personally earn it, the more wealthy people there are the more we ALL benefit. Likewise the fewer there are and the more poor there are -the more downward pressure on both wages and standard of living.

Obama is the most left wing extremist we've had in office since Carter and is arguably even further to the left. We have more people on government hand outs than ever -we have the highest rate of poverty since they started keeping public tracking of it more than 50 years ago. The left grows poverty -they claim to represent the interests of the poor and insist the right does not. The poor is who the left sees as their power base -of course they want more poor because they believe it empowers them politically. They play a tricky dance of both pursuing known poverty growing policies -while trying to convince those falling into poverty it is the fault of those who don't support those poverty growing policies.

I believe the left on this-they claim to represent the poor and it stands to reason they believe having more poor benefits them politically. Listen to their class warfare language where they try to encourage the poor to view wealth and financial independence as something shameful, something people shoul apologize for -and as the very people to blame for their lot in life as financially dependent on government. The left absolutely believes those who are dependent on government hand outs are more easily manipulated into blaming others for their lot in life and easier to buy their votes by promising to increase their hand out in drips and drabs. This is no secret but part of their own game plan as wriiten out by leftists radicals themselves. Financially independent people are also more content, more satisfied with their lives-and far less readily politically manipulated. Now claiming to speak for the poor in no way means they actually represent their best interests because no one in their right mind EXCEPT the left believes a life of financial dependency on government is a good thing. Look at the viciousness of their resistance at the notion of encouraging people to seek financial independence off government hand outs. Which explains why the Obama administration is right now running ads encouraging MORE people to get on food stamps. One ad brags it would actually make the recipient more physically fit -a massive big ass ******* lie. Obesity is the biggest health problem facing those on welfare and food stamps. A fact that totally contradicts the real definition of poverty as used internationally where the most serious problems of the real poor is first a lack of calories-not a glut of them. Food stamps do not equal "healthier" choices -so who benefits by encouraging more people to become dependent on government? The left-which believes those on hand outs are largely their natural constituents. Wanting more poor and more dependent on government and fewer who are independent - is just doing the simple math. Cloaking their real intent in a phony pretense of "caring" more than their opponents even as they work to create more poor and more who are more financially dependent on government works for many -it is a sweet tasting poison to many. But still poison nonetheless.

It is one of many, many, many reasons I could never be a liberal. I'm with those who believe we all benefit when there are more successful people, not fewer and when as few as possible are financially dependent on government, not more. You liberals -think about what you even say. You claim Republicans represent the wealthy and financially independent and not the poor. Then likewise doesn't it also stand to reason having FEWER poor people and MORE financially independent and successful citizens works to their political advantage?

Critical thinking skills are so useful in life. But sadly in short supply among liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

of course that is perfectly idiotic. Republicans, most of whom are conservative, have been for reduced or limited government since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. This is why for example they have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newts passed in the House and fell one vote short in the Senate. Do you know what our debt would be today were in not for the dastardly Democrats?

You are obtuse. Reagan created as much debt in 8 years as all the previous president...COMBINED.

Paul O'Neill - George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill is speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Did he think it was irresponsible? "Well, it's for sure not what I would have done," says O'Neill.

Now that the black Democratic President is ringing up the debt just as good as Bushes and Reagan did, all of a sudden, its a huge issue for the right.

Its funny how they have no problem electing fiscally irresponsible Presidents that are white.


Of course - standards always change when the blacks show up. Now all of a sudden its bad for a President to take a vacation and even bad for him to bother the people for the secret service he takes along - and now, all of a sudden, every Presidential candidate should submit a birth certificate, whereas before the People depended on the Electors and Congress to prevent inelgile candidates from winning.

That the President is black seems to be a big issue to you guys on the Left since you're the only ones who ever bring it up.

The unsupportable spending and mounting debt was a big issue for us during the Bush administration which is why the GOP lost its majorityi in both the House and Senate in 2006 and Obama was elected in 2008 based on his promises to address irresponsible spending and deficits as candidate Obama. At least under Bush, until the housing Bubble burst, the deficit was coming down each year and a big chunk of the deficit in 2008 was TARP that Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress supported.

Well Candidate Obama turns out to be a huge liar and you're damned right the more than trillion dollar deficits every year he has been in office and stretching out as far as the eye can see with the President calling for even more spending and bigger deficits is a huge deal.

It should be for you too. How come it isn't?

Which reminds me again why arguing with liberals is so frustrating.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now, tell us why people who don't believe that government has a role to play in setting our national agenda and fail to put competent, service oriented leadership into positions of power should be listened to?

thats easy, because they are real Americans who, like our Founders, for freedom from liberal government as our founders were?

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I think for the most part all liberals and conservatives do agree on those items you mentioned. Clearly there are fringe on both sides, but for the most part, we are in agreement.

The problem comes when we talk about how the government can be a useful servant to the people's needs. For example, as a liberal, I am in favour of temporary food stamps and student loans for college. Many "conservatives" are against both of those, claiming it leads to big government.

So what do we do then?

I am in favor of "temporary food stamps" yes, but every effort should be made by the government to see to it that it IS temporary, to direct that person in the right direction to achieve self-reliance. And no rational person is against student loans for college. My god, most of us have gotten them. if you google for a list of the things that the government funds, it is mind boggling. Things which most of us have never heard of or at least had no idea the government was funding it. We are tired of seeing taxes which are supposed to be for one thing spent on something else entirely, then being asked for more taxes to pay for the first thing. And I'm not pointing fingers here at either party -- it's the government, period. If everyone would follow JFK's advice and "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" we would be better off. Somehow that advice has been reversed.

I am opposed to food stamps because of the huge incentive for abuse and misuse both by those voting to issue them and those receiving them and the almost impossible task of making them temporary once people become dependent on them. It sounds hard hearted, but we would actually be more compassionate if we would instead issue vouchers for people to report to a warehouse where the voucher could be exchanged for sacks of beans, rice, potatoes, powdered milk, rolled oats that would be unattractive on the black market but would feed a family quite sufficiently. It would make it much more difficult to exchange the vouchers for cash to be used for drugs, booze, etc. instead of food or to use for anything other than nourishing food.

Of course the vouchers would be unpopular with the recipients but such a policy would certainly provide an incentive for the program to be used on a very temporary basis without allowing anybody to go hungry.

Perhaps somebody can articulate a rationale for why this should not be the policy?

 

[koshergrl]

I don't think that would be viable, Foxfyre...too many people on foodstamps at this point. There would be no way to distribute it that way..

 

[The T]

I don't think that would be viable, Foxfyre...too many people on foodstamps at this point. There would be no way to distribute it that way..

And most are ensconced in the lifestyle...by Statist design. You know whatwill happen if government tried to wean them off of it and forced them to work for it...

 

[koshergrl]

I think the fall out would be harsh and brief...I think people would adjust much more quickly to life without foodstamps than they adjusted to life WITH foodstamps.

Because you have no choice. You can sit around and whine about it...but if they aren't there, you're going to get hungry and have to take some sort of action at some point before many days have passed.

And people do.

 

[koshergrl]

You'd also see an immediate decrease in crap food purchases in the US...McDonald's would take a huge hit, as would soda, frozen pizza, papa murphy's, and all sorts of chips/candy/cookies.....

 

[007]

You're a pig if you are claiming they were better off before.

Well you're a pig anyway...

I'm saying for your average Chinese, it kind of sucked living there, and it kind of sucks living there now. They still have a billion people in grinding poverty. Same as it was under the Communists, the Guamoutang, the Manchus, and so on.

A few people are rich, and the government is becoming worried that they will stir up the kind of class envy and disorder that put the Communists in charge to start with. So they cancel TV shows celebrating wealth and replace them with shows celebrating labor.

Oh, another thing. The bunch currently running China are still oppressing Christians... So they can't be all bad.

The living standards of the typical Chinese poor person is much better than it was a generation ago. Working sweatshops is a much better living than subsistence agriculture. That's why 100 million Chinese have migrated from the rural areas to the coasts and the cities - they have a much better living.

In China, millions make themselves at home in caves - latimes.com

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think that would be viable, Foxfyre...too many people on foodstamps at this point. There would be no way to distribute it that way..

Sure there would. All it takes is the will to do it that way instead of just handing people free money.

I am sick to death of making more and more people permanently dependent on the government and making it easier and easier for them to be dependent instead of providing incentive for them to become independent, self reliant, personally responsible, and regain their values and self respect. We already have 50% of Americans who are dependent in some way on the federal government or who are exempt from responsibility to support it and their numbers are growing. That is a very dangerous and indefensible situation.

I am also sick to death of parents who don't feed their kids, send them to school hungry for the school to feed, and then use their government subsidies to smoke, drink, do drugs, gamble or whatever.

Disclaimer: No I am not saying that all or even most of those receiving government subsidies do this. But I have seen enough of it first hand, up close and personal, to know that an unacceptable number of them do.

It is back to the concept of whether it is more compassionate to take a fish away from the fisherman in order to give somebody a fish to eat and then the next day that person needs another fish. And he becomes comfortable knowing that each day he willl receive a fish. Or is it more compassionate to teach him to fish and expect him to fish for his own dinner? Most especailly because the fisherman may grow weary of having his fish taken every day and decide it is easier just to not fish and then receive free fish himself every day.

 

[The T]

I think the fall out would be harsh and brief...I think people would adjust much more quickly to life without foodstamps than they adjusted to life WITH foodstamps.

Because you have no choice. You can sit around and whine about it...but if they aren't there, you're going to get hungry and have to take some sort of action at some point before many days have passed.

And people do.

Indeed. And I agree with Franlin regarding making the poor uncomfortable in thier poverty as to force them out of it...

 

[koshergrl]

Speaking from experience here....currently merging food pantry resources with my son and his wife to get through the month for both of us. He just moved here and so is cash poor, I'm always cash poor...but between us and a lot of spaghetti, rice, beans and eggs, we'll squeak. No soda on the menu. No frozen pizzas (though I will make a homemade one..I have a lot of pepperoni/salami that I bought from grocery outlet), no cookies (unless they're homemade sugar cookies), no chips, no nuthin except what we have...

That's what we do when we don't have money. We improvise, plan, and work our butts off. We don't go stare in the windows of those who have more and wait for a handout.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the fall out would be harsh and brief...I think people would adjust much more quickly to life without foodstamps than they adjusted to life WITH foodstamps.

Because you have no choice. You can sit around and whine about it...but if they aren't there, you're going to get hungry and have to take some sort of action at some point before many days have passed.

And people do.

Indeed. And I agree with Franlin regarding making the poor uncomfortable in thier poverty as to force them out of it...

At the same time I think it would be cruel to make people dependent on the govvernment dole and then just stop it with no transition.

To me it is far more humane to gbive people a brief (maybe 30 days) of warning and instruction on where the food provisions could be picked up, and then transition out of food stamps into a limited number of government commodities that would ward off starvation but otherwise be so monotonous and unappealing that the people woiuld wean themselves off those fairly quickly.

I suspect only a fraction of food stamp recipients would go for the government food. but those who would really did need it.

And kudos for your resourcefulness KG. Currently, based purely on our income since we retired, Mr. Foxfyre and I could qualify for foodstamps which would be ludicrous because we eat quite well without them mostly because we have no debts and spend no money on tobacco or booze, eat out very sparingly, and don't engage in much recreation that costs anything. Mr. Foxfyre would hire at as a greeter at Wal-mart, however, before he would take foodstamps. So would I.

But when we were young, we pooled our food stocks with equally broke friends more than once when the paycheck ran out well before the end of the week. We know what that is like.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yeah, so that's why so many of these folks are killing themselves... because they are just so happy being exploited by MNC.

1) of course they are not killing themselves at a higher rate than average rate. If they were you'd have evidence

2) Chinese take those jobs because 30 million slowly starved to death under liberalism

3) now the Chinese buy more cars than we do and soon their economy will be bigger than ours

4) This obvioulsy is proof that capitalism is a miracle that literally saves millions and millions of lives. A liberal will simply lack the IQ to understand what is so obvious.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At the same time I think it would be cruel to make people dependent on the govvernment dole and then just stop it with no transition.

don't forget that when Newt ended welfare as we know it, 70% just up and disappeared rather than work for their money

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now that the black Democratic President is ringing up the debt just as good as Bushes and Reagan did, all of a sudden, its a huge issue for the right.

Its funny how they have no problem electing fiscally irresponsible Presidents that are white.

of course thats 100% stupid. Since Jefferson, the first Republican, Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Democrats killed every one of them!! Newts passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate. Can the liberal guess which party killed it?? Do you know what our debt would be today if it had passed?

 

[Foxfyre]

At the same time I think it would be cruel to make people dependent on the govvernment dole and then just stop it with no transition.

don't forget that when Newt ended welfare as we know it, 70% just up and disappeared rather than work for thier money

Exactly. But again there was a transition. The people weren't told one day that there would be no more checks going out. They were advised that they needed to start making arrangements for when the checks would stop.

It is noted however, that there was no widespread neglect or hardship as a result of welfare reform any more than there would be widespread neglect or hardship if food stamps or other on going government subsidies were transitioned out.