The Liberal Advantage

Thank you for demonstrating the soundness of my point - you use terms you do not understand, at least not in the context of how they exist in the real world.

 

Nah. Didn't happen.

 

Did we just not have a lengthy back and forth where you were claiming "That's not socialism" not "socialist Policy" - which is the term I used ?

Now you are saying we get all the negative consequences of socialism ? - "but its not socialism" ? it is something worse than socialism.

Then you dodge my comments on wealth redistribution - which you say is not socialism - OK - then what is it ? - Is this what you think is worse than Socialism ?

 

Wealth redistribution is a function of government. You don't have to own everything to lie like a rug about wealth redistribution. The only thing government ever redistributes money to is the bureaucracy.

 

Obviously Wealth Redistribution is a function of Gov't - It is also the primary function of Socialism in all of its many forms - it is the rock on which Socialism is based - hence the term "Socialist Policy"

What is not to like about Gov't taking 99% of all your money - as long it is not 100% - is the case that you have been making - because 99% is not Socialism in your books.

No clue where this comes from - other than some attempt to project your failings onto others.

Who is lying like a rug about wealth redistribution ? other than you - by trying to claim that wealth redistribution is not Socialist policy

The whole point of "Socialism" is wealth redistribution - be it full on 100% state ownership - or something less where the Gov't only owns a portion of your wealth.

You are trying to pretend that there are only two colors on the map - 100% ownership - or nothing - and this is fantasy because 100% ownership does not exist among western Gov'ts.

You are stuck on a label - and can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Call it anything you want. It doesn't matter, in the end, wealth redistribution the biggest lie ever told never helps the poor. It only grows government.

 

I call wealth redistribution what it is for the most part - "Socialist Policy" but I am fine with the term legalized theft.

While you are 1/2 right - as in many instances WR is a big lie - The collective pot pays for many things that are good - such as roads - military - police and so on.

This is all made possible by WR -

So this pooling of money into the collective pot (on the promise of "greater good") it is not all good - or all bad - as your black vs white paradigm would suggest.

Red are by far the biggest abusers of the collective pot - They love Wealth Redistribution - even more than Blue - which is no easy act to top.

But lets focus on the "Biggest Lie Ever Told" aspect - the justification for this wealth redistribution.

The one you mention is completely false - of course wealth redistribution helps the poor - it is ridiculous to claim otherwise.

The "biggest lie" - is that we need to spend 1.2 Trillion dollars a year to defend the homeland. This doozie is "somewhat" more on the head of Red - as luck would have it - Blue are now neocon's.

This lie is coupled with an even bigger lies - numerous ones - that try to justify regime change wars " Terrorists - Spreading Democracy - Fighting Communism" massive lie after massive lie.

The reason for these regime change wars - and building up the Military Industrial complex is not to protect your freedom - but to take it away.

 

If they are still poor after all of your wealth redistribution you didn't help them you just jollied them along a bit. If you're waiting for government to make you rich or even middle class and you don't work for the government you'll die poor.

 

Thanks for avoiding the vast majority of my post and focusing on a lost cause - and non significant feature of the "Big Lie"

However - I shall humor you - because one of the big lies is that Red does not want to feed the poor - Certainly those with some knowledge of relevant history want to feed them .

The point of feeding the poor - a large number of which are working poor - is not to help them. It is because if you don't - bad things happen - things which endanger the security of the nation - in a way far greater - and greater in cost - than the few shillings we throw down to the rabble.

Half the cost is administering the program - by the time you get to "Food" - the amount is piddly - most of which goes to single mothers - which no one is against - sans the ones just not using their head.

Its a rounding error on the total collective pool. So while you are focusing on the shiny penny - I have bigger fish to fry.

 

Thank you for completely missing the point and ignoring the reality. The more government you have the more poverty and less freedom you will have.

 

Your point is gibberish - this is the first time you have mentioned it - and completely unsupported by any "Why"

as if the poor are somehow responsible for our freedoms being eroded ?

You have these equations in your head that you can't explain - but accept them as truth.. when in reality A + B doesn't = C

We all get that more Gov't = Less Freedom Why would you dream of claiming that I missed this point - when I preach it to you on a daily basis. Unfortunately - you are for "more Gov't" one of those Conservatives who hates the principles of Republicanism .. and limitations to Gov't power.

So don't sit there and lecture me about freedom ... buddy old Pal ..

How does this factor into feeding the poor ? - where is the connection - and what does it matter in the grande scheme of things - and what part of - it is a fraction of a rounding error from the total collective pot - in a conversation about Wealth Redistribution . and who is telling the biggest lie to scam money out of the people.

So far - Red is winning ... since you have not come up with anything on the Blue side - of any significance - would you like me to assist you ?

Another big lie - perhaps on the scale of the big Red lie - but Red is involved in this one too .. but - this one is in the wheelhouse of Blue.
The lie that Blue cares about healthcare and wants to go "socialized medicine" - or at least up until this point it has been a lie.

Biggest Extortion Racket on the planet that one is - 3.5 Trillion in 2017 - out of the collective pocket.

As a fiscal conservative - I measure things in terms of dollars sometimes - did you missed that class ?

So you don't follow the principles of Republicanism (other than a few select ones you happen to like) - nor the founding principles - and you are not a Fiscal Conservative.

Unfortunately - you are not the exception - this is the new normal.

 

No, still missing the point the poor aren't they problem there have always been poor there will always be poor. The problem is government using them as a club to brow beat everyone else into surrendering money to aid the poor when in reality it is just another power grabbing scheme by government. 60 to 70% of the money that the government collects ostensibly to help the goes for salaries and offices if those who are supposed to be helping many of whom are only helping themselves to the public treasury.

 

Once again - I know what point you are trying to make - and mentioned it in my previous post. I have agreed that the Gov't uses the poor as a reason to justify theft - and to build pyramids - as Gov'ts are won't to do ...

What you are having trouble understanding is that this is a small piece of the pie - a small piece of the big lie. .. so please stop focusing on this triviality - and focus at least a little bit on the really big pieces of the pie.

You are complaining about pennies - while ignoring silver dollars.

One thing about the money that does go to the poor - since you want to dwell on this tiny crumb - is that at least the money that actually gets to the poor - and even the money in the pocket of the Gov't worker (where most of it goes) - gives us some benefit.

The two major lies that I mentioned give us far less bang for the buck and represent a far bigger piece of the pie. Get it - Got it - Good.

 

Would you like to hear a story of wealth redistribution that will make your feet cold and yer balls shrivel !

In the 50's/ 60's - A fellow working at Sears could afford a car, a modest house, feed his family, and the wife did not have to work.

You mentioned lies .. this may be the top dog ! Productivity has increased near every year since then .. and has been for the last 200 years in general .. since the industrial revolution took off. The promise of the industrial revolution was what ? We can produce more stuff -with less labor.

Logic then dictates - that we all should have more (as in we should be making more) and working less - than a fellow in the 50's/60's

Now with both adults in the household working 50 hours a week - they can barely afford such things - not working at Sears.

Perhaps mass balance is not your think but believe me when I tell you that the cream is being skimmed off the top.

 

Interesting...Oliver has no reply^ Wonder why?

 

One thing I dislike most about "liberals" is how they cowardly and underhandedly insult you. Instead of just saying "screw you" they cloak it in smarmy arrogance and pseudo intellectualism. If you want to say something, say what you mean and mean what you say. Man up.

 

Aww, are you being patronised?
How clever of you to notice that the nasty men were doing it.

 

Then be sure to stay away from the Miami to West Palm Beach area.

 

Strictly speaking, this thread is about the Liberal Advantage, not the Democratic Party. For some reason I doubt you were ever actually a liberal. Maybe you accepted liberal ideas, but you were not a liberal. It is a common theme one hears from the right, I was lost and now I am found. I was led astray and now I found the right path. Or the ever popular I was Democrat but they went so far left that I had to switch to Republican. However the data shows that to be such a rare occurrence as to be insignificant. Most of the differences, from election to election, is which side the unaffiliated decide to support.

In any case, liberalism isn’t so much an ideology as it is an intellectual tradition. That is why it is always evolving, like its sibling, science. It was created by intellectuals of the day with the vast majority of the people being unaware. The common man didn’t really become aware of John Lock until maybe 200 years after his death. Even today I bet less than half know of him. Let alone the more important ones like John Stuart Mills and David Hume.

Liberalism, as to politics came about by groups of learned men sitting down and trying to figure out the best way to organize society and run government. The United States was the first application of the ideas of these men.

No more than 20% of the population is liberal. Around 40% is moderate and 40% conservative. Yet that does not explain the balance of power. Actually on the Simpsons they show this in a rather comical kind of way. When the conservatives are in their smoke filled back rooms, the characters are Mr. Burns, Fat Tony, Sideshow Bob and Pastor Lovejoy. When the liberals are in their smoke filled back rooms the Characters are Lisa Simpson, the professor, the comic book store owner and Stephen Hawkings.

In American politics, there are two distinct power structures. One is the right wingers, who primarily represent wealth and its power and privilege. The other is the liberals, who primarily represent the educated class. Neither of these groups has near the numbers to rule. Thus they enlist allies. The right wingers, or should I say, the aristocrats, have enlisted the loyalty of the conservatives, even though the era of Trump has mostly melded conservative with Evangelical. The aristocrats need workers to do the work to make the money to support their lifestyle. Thus they play this game to woo the workers. But you know, it wouldn’t take long for the people to realize that the aristocrats were nothing special, undeserving of their luxurious lifestyles, and tire of being used by them.

So the aristocrats create diversions. They create elaborate fantasies about how anyone other than the aristocracy is going to do harm to the people. It is the way the aristocracy has been ruling the world for as long as one person has ruled over another. Jesus chose Kings and the alternative to obedience was an eternity in hell. On most issues, I’m sure most conservatives would prefer liberal ideas. Another poster altered me to the fact that conservative men tend to be happiest living in Democratically dominated states and cities. Since the aristocracy can offer no better, they do their best to demonize the liberals, so that the conservatives, their flock, will ignore the message of the liberal while defending the corruption of the aristocracy, even to their own peril.

The liberals on the other hand enlist the support of moderates, many who call themselves progressives. It seems to me that the term comes from those who like liberal ideas but would prefer to progressively implement those ideas rather than more abruptly, as many liberals would prefer. They also get the support of racial and religious minorities, not only because those minorities benefit most from liberal ideas, but also because the Right has a nasty reputation of not treating them respectfully.

Just as an example to illustrate liberal thinking, the primary idea behind single payer health coverage is in efficiencies. Efficiencies in cost effectiveness as well as in effective health care accessibility. A basic care package, administered by a national board, but carried out by private providers, would be most effective. If you wanted to see a doctor at an upscale practice, so as to not have to sit in the waiting room with the riff raff, one could still pay an addition charge to do so. With a universal system, through the principles of the economy of scale not only would consumers save but so would employers, which ultimately means greater purchasing power for the individual.

 

California had problems long before Democrats came to dominate it. After all Reagan was governor there and Nixon was their Senator. The state’s agriculture industry has relied on (im)migrant Hispanic farm workers from long before either of us were born. The homeless problem has been growing ever since the Reagan era when it was decided that it was no longer the responsibility of the Federal government to care for those who lacked the mental acuity to care for themselves.

I don’t know if you know a lot about the construction and housing industries. But they tend to be dominated by conservatives. Same with agriculture. The liberals in California are more likely to be involved in the technology or entertainment industries, which seem to overlap as technology has transformed movie and music making.

I think that the wealth generated out of the tech industry, and other highly profitable industries like aerospace, petroleum, agriculture, and entertainment should be taxed to pay for housing for those who apparently cannot properly care for themselves, and for migrant farm workers. Nothing fancy. A bedroom, a bathroom, and a kitchenette.

It should be a national program as homelessness is everywhere. California gets the most attention, because the most homeless are there, but they are in every city in America, large or small.

It is something that can be seen on Google maps in street view. Ever so often I will load up Google maps and pick a city and using street view, essentially drive around the city. Just to check it out. I keep thinking I should get a virtual 3D headset, just for such adventures. It is interesting to see how often their cameras have caught some homeless drinking along side their cart, in an alley, or between buildings. Or homeless tents poking out of the bushes. Frankenstein bicycles laying about.

 

What a shining example of the liberal elite attitude. "I am in the same field as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc....therefore I am better than you".

The folks in these industries have the power and money so if any of the underlings want to have a career they will fall in line. This is how it works in the Tech industry as well as the entertainment industry. If anyone in those fields wants to have a career they will pretend to be liberal. That way the few who are truly liberal will not see just how alone they are and can keep up their elitist ego.

Even the thread title "The Liberal Advantage" says "I am better than you"....

 

I wrote to OP to show that liberals aren’t what many conservatives claim we are. I don’t expect everyone else to become a liberal.


I highly doubt that the Constitution was drawn up on Christian or Jewish principles. Christianity had a solid lock on Europe for a thousand years, and nothing like America’s form of government appeared. It is the ideas from the Enlightenment that went into the Constitution. Why it separates the government from religion, and never mentions a god or Jesus.

 

I’m certain that you are going to continue to repeat this even though there is no basis in fact. So where did you pick up this juicy tid bit, Prager U? Glenn Beck’s happy hour?

 

Oregon: 3 COVID deaths per 100,000 people.

Oregon: Liberal Democratic governor.

 

The virus has exposed leftist government as incompetent. The most virus infested states are all blue.