Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow

#77 Aug 13 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
If we're going to talk about easy sells, why not talk about how the left sells this fear that absent government to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education, etc, that the people will have no hope of ever escaping abject poverty and starvation. Cause that's a biggie.


If by "biggie" you mean "verifiable by a simple examination of history", sure.


Correct. A simple examination of history shows that overwhelmingly, those claims from the left about how terrible things would be if the government didn't provide so many people with free stuff are massively overblown. In reality, the trend is that the larger those programs become the more people need them. We replace real opportunity to succeed with dependence on government handouts and in the long run hurt those we claim to be helping.


Or have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the welfare reform in the late 90s. The same reform that even Obama has admitted worked despite him believing that it wouldn't. The same fear mongers then predicted dire consequences if we tossed people off the welfare roles. But what actually happened was that nearly all those ejected from the roles by our heartless leaders of the day went out and got jobs. And while those jobs didn't pay much more than welfare initially, over the next 5-10 years they increased their relative pay. The end result is that had we not kicked them off welfare, 10 years later they'd still be poor and dependent on welfare. By kicking them off, 10 years later they were at an economic position that was much much much better.


But that's not historical enough for you, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Aug 13 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"


Why is that a "ridiculous dilemma"? Don't you do that every time you purchase something? You're seriously suggesting that when you go to a store you don't look at the price tag and then determine if you think it's worth the asking price? It's just bizarre that you've labeled something that most people do many times every day as ridiculous. It's not. It's what normal people do. We make choices between things. And limited resources (time and money typically) drive most of those choices.

I don't weigh the importance of money itself greater than the goods and services they pay for. That's the purpose of money, after all. Conservatives are only worried about the total accumulation of wealth and bemoan having to part out any small amount.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#79 Aug 13 2012 at 5:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"


Why is that a "ridiculous dilemma"? Don't you do that every time you purchase something? You're seriously suggesting that when you go to a store you don't look at the price tag and then determine if you think it's worth the asking price? It's just bizarre that you've labeled something that most people do many times every day as ridiculous. It's not. It's what normal people do. We make choices between things. And limited resources (time and money typically) drive most of those choices.

I don't weigh the importance of money itself greater than the goods and services they pay for.


Yes. Which means you weigh the "cost" of spending $20 on a steak versus what you could have otherwise purchased with that $20. That's not a "ridiculous dilemma". Like you said: The money itself has no value intrinsically. Its only value is based on what you *could* buy with it. So it's quite reasonable and normal to look at something you are spending money on and compare that to something else you could spend the money on. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

Quote:
That's the purpose of money, after all. Conservatives are only worried about the total accumulation of wealth and bemoan having to part out any small amount.


That's a separate question from whether it's legitimate to look at what you could have spent that money on instead though. And again, you get it wrong. Conservatives are making that same comparison I spoke of. We understand that money isn't valuable by itself. It's what you do with it. So when we look at the government wanting to raise taxes on a given set of money in our economy, we compare what the government will do with it, to what the people paying those taxes would do with it.

Liberals tend to ignore that. They think about what the government will do with it, and as long as it's something of value, conclude that we must spend that money. They fail to account for the cost. They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people. Since Y is greater than zero, it's a good thing to do, so they must do it. By failing to compare the cost to provide those foodstamps to anything else, they effectively create a meaningless argument for doing so. It's *always* good to spend more money on social programs no matter how much you are spending now, or where the money comes from. Or at least, that's what you'll believe if you fail to account for that cost.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Aug 14 2012 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Aug 14 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We should make seat covers out of poor people Smiley: nod
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Aug 14 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We should make seat covers out of poor people Smiley: nod

Will they be offered in a shade of soylent green?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#83 Aug 14 2012 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Every color in the rainbow from mottled pink to brownish-blackish.

Which would be the saddest rainbow ever.

Edited, Aug 14th 2012 9:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Aug 14 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
I want a set with a spiffy dragon design slash tattoo.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Aug 14 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's a separate question from whether it's legitimate to look at what you could have spent that money on instead though. And again, you get it wrong. Conservatives are making that same comparison I spoke of. We understand that money isn't valuable by itself. It's what you do with it. So when we look at the government wanting to raise taxes on a given set of money in our economy, we compare what the government will do with it, to what the people paying those taxes would do with it.

Liberals tend to ignore that.


Thought of it more along lines of "this is still something we'd like to see happen even though it isn't profitable". I mean, if (insert social cause here) had a good return on investment, someone in the private sector would be doing it already. So you may only get $15 return on your $20, but that $5 loss is deemed 'to be worth' whatever change your affecting. Or something...


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Aug 14 2012 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
That $5 lose of profit is the exact same as someone not giving you $5.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Aug 14 2012 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
That's when you beat them up and take their lunch money.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#88 Aug 14 2012 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Poor people don't have lunch money. They have lunch stamps or something and Cadillacs full of government cheese.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Aug 14 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Food stamp recipient in the house just got her grandmother's 1990 something Malibu with 250K miles on it, because the dealership was only going to give $500 credit for it.

I'm still waiting for the Welfare Fairy to come along and transform it into a Cadillac.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#90 Aug 14 2012 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Always a Welfare Princess, never a Welfare Queen Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Aug 14 2012 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#92 Aug 14 2012 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
You can just link to a YouTube video with lyrics.

It's a ton of gangsta rap to scroll though on my phone.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#93 Aug 14 2012 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
I noticed you're pretty gangster. I'm pretty gangster myself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Aug 14 2012 at 2:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Aug 14 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
You can just link to a YouTube video with lyrics.

It's a ton of gangsta rap to scroll though on my phone.


I wanted to cover both mediums in case there are some people at work this afternoon.

Plus, I linked the radio edit the first time. Smiley: frown
#96 Aug 14 2012 at 2:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Thought of it more along lines of "this is still something we'd like to see happen even though it isn't profitable".


Tell that to Nancy "We get $1.84 in economic growth for every dollar spent on foodstamps" Pelosi. Or tell that to Paul "It doesn't matter what we spend the money on as long as we spend a whole **** of a lot of it" Krugman.

I could accept (and respect even) an argument from the left saying that it's worth spending $350 billion dollars a year on welfare because we've fed/housed/clothed/etc X number of people. Because then we could make an assessment of the benefits to those needy people and the money we spend. What I don't accept is when they try to argue that this is somehow beneficial to our economy, so no assessment is needed. Which is what the left has been arguing for some time now (and especially in the last few years).


It's a totally BS argument.

Quote:
I mean, if (insert social cause here) had a good return on investment, someone in the private sector would be doing it already. So you may only get $15 return on your $20, but that $5 loss is deemed 'to be worth' whatever change your affecting. Or something...


Absolutely. Sell me on the value to society for spending that money. That's what I'm saying. It's a "cost". But don't try to argue that there's no cost at all, or worse, that somehow by spending billions of dollars on social spending we can actually make the economy grow. That's the lie that has been perpetrated for the last several years. And it's because of that lie that our economy is in the dumpster right now (well, partly at least). I'm asking that we call things by what they really are. Social programs cost us money. They reduce economic growth. We may (should even!) decide that some quantity of such programs are worth the cost. But we should never fool ourselves into thinking that we can spend money on them and not pay that cost. We should not accept, much less repeat, an economic case for that form of spending. Ever.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Aug 14 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
4,042 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?



But what if you bought your seat covers and *surprise*, they were on clearance, and then catwho's roommate steals the difference while you pass her by in the wal-mart parking lot, and she goes and buys the same seat covers for herself, greatly improving her quality of life? I think this is what we call "killing two birds with one stone".
#98 Aug 14 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If she doesn't steal the money, you just MADE money! PROFIT!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Aug 14 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I noticed you're pretty gangster. I'm pretty gangster myself.


Here's how I heard that in my head:

#100 Aug 14 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,000 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?


Provided you want to make sure those sweat shop workers in China get plenty of work!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#101 Aug 14 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?


Provided you want to make sure those sweat shop workers in China get plenty of work!


Solution?

Send poor and unemployed people to China to work in sweat shops

Edited, Aug 14th 2012 6:18pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 67 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (67)