Why do Liberals Hate Prosperity?

Your response is just one of many here who have avoided the subject and question as to why do liberals hate prosperity. Regardless of how capitalists got their monies and or their successes, show or tell me/us how liberals seek to become prosperous or how they use their particular ideology for America and or for themselves to become prosperous.

From what I deduce by studying the liberal mind (tiny as it may be), is that liberals have zero plans to become prosperous other than to take via redistribution the successes (money) from the rich (movers & shakers) of our society. Is the ideal of prosperity as disturbing to you libs as the failure of socialism is to we Conservatives?

 

Liberal politicians hate prosperity because it is a threat to their power.

Liberals need a dependent class of voters to reelect them. Prosperity is a threat to that. Prosperous people don't need to depend on the government to give them the things in life that they need. Without a dependent class, liberals can't win elections.

Liberals don't hate ALL prosperity. They are okay with themselves being prosperous (Pelosi and Kerry are good examples). And they need enough other people to be prosperous so that they have enough of other people's money to spend on their government giveaways to their necessary dependent class.

If EVERYONE was prosperous though, liberals wouldn't be needed and they're not too crazy about that idea.

 

You just supported corruption on a government/corporate level all because it was profitable to the criminals involved.. you ended living in a financially weaker economy because of it.. and YOU point to others and accuse them of being small minded?

It’s funny that you support the theft of this country’s wealth at the hands of the elite (REDISTRIBUTION!!!!)... Simply because they are financially elite.. You don’t care how they got that way.. Just that they got that way... you’re like a little sheep trying join a wolfpack because they seem to be fat and happy.

The tax laws and trade laws have been created by the mega rich to favor the mega rich. Why do think that all the tax laws seem to crush small business while mega-corps benefit from them. Why do you think that payroll tax cuts are frowned upon by the pro corporate hacks while capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax cuts are championed and even suggested for elimination?

Your too obtuse for words. You come to the defense of corruption and government sanctioned theft ( REDISTRIBUTION) so long as the spoils go to your gods and if people don’t think as you do.. Then they must hate being financially healthy and being able to provide for their families. They hate being able to afford a house and medical care... they hate good food and clean water.... Seems like all your theory is missing.. is intelligence and coherent thought… but it does make up for its shortcomings with pure unadulterated distilled Hypocrisy.

As far as showing you how anybody who doesnt suscribe to your mob mentality goes about making they're living... it would be a waste of time.. I could use myself as an example.. but I am not stinkin rich... merely comfortable. You cant be reasoned with anyway on an individual level.. you cant even see yourself as an idividual.. its allwys about the WE.. US.. ALL YOU... LIBERALS.. US CONSERVATIVES... you are a fool to think that you arent being railed right along with everybody else simply because you claim allegiance to the select few doing the railing. Stockholm Syndrome looks really pathetic when nobody has a gun to your head.

 

I'm afraid I don't see how "deregulation" caused the monetary bubble. what deregulation do you mean? what role did it play?

 

r


Frankly speaking, I don't give a rat's ass, or I don't care to scrutinize the few bad apples that make up the capitalists in our society. This post of mine has to do with prosperity and why liberals choose to hate the prospect of America and of Americans becoming prosperous.

You keep avoiding telling us of why liberals hate prosperity, and or if they love prosperity--just how they go about working toward that goal of becoming prosperous.

Its my belief that liberals couldn't possibly degrade and denounce capitalism and at the same time have an opposing ideal that they use to become prosperous. I'm just asking you libs why you hate prosperity so much, and if you don't hate it--tell us how you go about being prosperous.

 

Nobody hates prosperity, that I'm aware of.

What liberals want is for prosperity to affect more people.

 

But thats "socialism"!!

 

The Far Left are girly men .

 

Don't you have a tea party to attend?

 

Better than a Gay Pride Parade with a NAMBLA member as Grand Marshal ...

 

Conservatives want the same thing. The difference is that conservatives understand how prosperity works. Liberals think it grows on trees.

 

No, actually ... a tea party is more girly than a gay pride parade. I just looked it up in The Big Book of What's Girly and What Isn't. Gay pride parades are only 64% girly (and a mere 37% girly if they're held in New Orleans for some reason), whereas tea parties are a whopping 89% girly. They're not just girly, they're all the way into 'grandma girly.'

 

Not really. But the way liberals want to make it happen -- take from the producers and give to the non-producers -- certainly resembles that.

 

That is possible. I mean, for most of us, we really all want the same thing (prosperity) and we're really just arguing over the strategy of how to achieve it. So I'll concede the possibility that my strategy is all wrong.

But what the OP is trying to tell me is that I hate prosperity, which is ... well, lots of words spring to mind, but I'm gonna go with: inaccurate.

 

LOL I rest my case.

 

So which path to prosperity would you prefer?

Create opportunities so that individuals can work and achieve prosperity or take from the producers and give to the non-producers?

 

Who is the producer and who is the non-producer, in your way of thinking? I would say that the producer is the person who actually produces some sort of good, whereas I think you'd say that the producer is the person who invests capital into the other person's production and reaps the benefits thereof ... right?

 

Well ... both. Neither one on its own is going to accomplish anything.

 

Well, I don't beleive I exactly know what you mean by the monetary bubble, because I think are referring to a completely different event. I am referring to deregulation of the investment banks, and the loan and mortgage system, which led to a financial bubble for investment banks, but a housing bubble for Main Street America. I think you are referring to a monetary bubble due to the specific actions of the Federal Reserve that have kept interest rates low, providing another incentive along with deregulation of the investment banks and the loaning and mortgage system for financial institutions to develop the Securitization Food Chain, which created a massive housing bubble.

Deregulation includes the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, implementation of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2001, and the savings and loan bank deregulation of the Reagan administration through the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act all contributed to the financial and housing bubble.

Lets take the example of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which came when Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was passed. This essentially was passed to allow Citibank and Travelers to merge into Citigroup, which is why the legislation is also known as the Citigroup Relief Act.

However, what is also did was eliminate barriers and distinctions between loans and mortgages, securities, deposits. With the breaking up of these barriers, the old system of lending by investment banks, in which banks had restrictions on utilizing people's loans and mortgages for risk-transfer agreements, which are financial derivatives such as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO's), and Credit Default Swaps (CDS's), was virtually eliminated. A new loan and mortgage system emerged, which is known as the Securitization Food Chain.

I have explained the Securitization Food Chain numerous times. Here is an explanation that I posted on my derivatives taxation thread:

I don't consider a possible monetary bubble the only cause of the financial crisis, but fuel added to the fire of financial deregulation and deregulation of the loan and mortgage system. I would like to hear your analysis on the monetary bubble.

 

Your whole post about ANYBODY hating prosperity is stupid.. asisine.. idiotic drivel, nonsensical. I am not a liberal you blithering ..... I have liberal tendencies as well as conservative ones.. I like to apply them as I see fit.. I am not stupid.. therefore I do not equate the desire for financial stability with extremist rigid ideology. A staunch Liberal posting the insane selfserving sewage you spew would sound just as tupid as you do.

There isnt a person on earth that will be able to explain to you why liberals hate prosperity.. because its a strawman arguement that cant be proven because it doesnt exist.. (except in your hate fear addled mind). It stems from the same stupidy that spawned.. "Muslims hate our freedom"

You have created a point based on lies and blanket generalization... (how the hell do you know what all liberals like or hate.. not even taking into account all the millionaire/billionare liberals). Then you ask for proof your twisted and assumed logic (that you cant prove is right) is false. I cant speak for anybody who calls themselves a liberal... I can speak for myself though...

I have many liberal positions.. mostly social.. some financial though mostly conservative financially speaking.. I like financial stability and predictablity.. In fact I work hard to maintain it. I dont give a phuk what you call yourself... liberal or conservative... when you come to steal it.. your a thief.
When you steal from others, your redistributing wealth.. no matter what you call yourself.

 

Complete load of drivel. Let's completely ignore the last century which was DOMINATED by the effects of liberal policies that led to UNPARALLELED growth. The "New Deal", the "Second New Deal", The "Great Society", labor laws, Civil Rights, women's voting, highways, public utilities, public schools... the list goes on and on. All of these led to widespread prosperity and a standard of living that increased with every generation.

Then the right-wing decided that not everyone deserved to be prosperous. Reaganomics established itself like a cancer and slowly spread. Corporations took over the media and we now get a 24/7 drip of right-wing friendly propaganda thinly veiled as "news".

The right-wing is now just the political equivalent of a parasite as they try to "take America back" to an era of prosperity that is impossible under the policies that they are advocating.

 

First New Deal was a disaster. It created a Government institution which had a great impact on the current financial crisis. If it was so great, was the need for the Second New Deal, which created so many programs which are which are unsustainable. Like Social Security for example.

Great Society led to even more unsustainable programs than the new deal like Medicare and Medicaid. The same amount of people are on poverty than when the Great Society started. American Public Schools are failing. Public Utilities are not as clean or maintained as Private Utilities.

All these things have just made Americans unproductive. That's why we run huge trade deficits and don't produce anything. None of these actually led to any better living standards.

 

LOL. New Deal created what America is now and your ideology is destroying Give thanks to neoliberalism because will create a third world country. With a lot of richs creating products that the people of the country won't be able to buy it, because they won't have money.

USA thanks to the New Deal improved a lot, reduced the inequality, gave a lot of prosperity to USA.

If American Public Schools are failing isn't for their fault, there are other factors, but not the Public Schools. Public Schools do something that no private school never will do:

- Give education to the lowest classes.

What is going on from Reagan, all the good results of the New Deal are being destroyed, the inequality has increased, like all stats say it. But as always you ignore the facts.

 

Yes it created the irresponsible lack a free market strategy which creates artificial highs in the economy while masking the overall symptoms of the problem. A very strategy people are following today, and realizing that it is not actually working.

Other real world examples which followed the New Deal mantra: Japan. They've suffered an economic down turn for an entire decade. It didn't work for them and they have higher IQs than all of us.

Don't even know what you just said.

Equality is good as long as everyone suffers at the same time. Gotcha.

They do give education to lower class students. They have to pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Are public school students better off?

They score lower on areas involving math, science and literacy among countries which follows a grade 1 through 12 format. People who take their children to Private School do it for one reason: They actually want their children to learn.

Reagan didn't do much to overturn the new deal. Overturning laws is not very easy. None of the institutions or initiatives form the New Deal have been destroyed. The very institutions which were designed to prevent the crisis like the Great Depression played a big role in causing this Recession. Of course we are suppose to learn from history and do it all over again. There is a word for that: Insanity.

 

Yeah, is better have 1% with a most of the money and the rest that with difficulty are able to arrive to end of month.

Instead of having a big middle class, yeah.

And also public education should be screwed, what is that the poor classes receive education?