It's dangerous following Liberals

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Throughout the history of liberal socialist statism, there have been many hapless victims. Sucked in to the rhetoric, mesmerized by the prophets, brainwashed into believing in Utopia. I suppose it's not really a surprise, it's human nature for mankind to course the path of least resistance, and it's easier to believe in a Utopian dream world than to accept reality. What's wrong with dreaming we can someday feed all the hungry and heal all the sick? Well, it's dangerous, that's what.

We can look to history, and find example after example, of the liberal socialist statist philosophy being attempted, in a number of different variations-- Maoism in China, Marxism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, and assorted offshoots from rogues like Pol Pot and Qaddafi to regime dynasties like Castro and Saddam Hussein. None of the examples end well for the people. It would be great if there were a good example, then the liberal socialist statists could manage to print t-shirts with someone other than Che Guevara.

The struggle against the liberal socialist statist mentality in our own country, has been going on for years. Libs love to quote Hamilton, and perhaps Hamilton was one of the country's first pinheads. Most of his statist ideas were fundamentally rejected by Madison, Jefferson, and Washington, but important to history, because they presented the perfect platform to juxtapose the new ideas of freedom and liberty. Of course, lazy asses today will not bother reading the Federalist Papers, to understand this, they will accept the Liberals quoting Hamilton, as if his words were some sort of principled ideas of our founding fathers. The "general welfare" clause is a good example. Hamilton believed, like many liberal socialist statists, that "general welfare" was sort of a 'carte blanc' for government to assume responsibility regarding any aspect of our general welfare. Madison brilliantly pointed out, that is precisely why "general welfare" can't be interpreted that way, it would render the Constitution meaningless and grant unlimited power to the central government. If you follow the Hamiltonian philosophy, the end result is not good for the people. It eventually replaces personal freedom with central government power, which has never worked out well for the average Joe.

Still, we have people in history like Adams, who have entertained some notion of a "middle ground" between founding principles and statist nonsense. We've always had a certain segment who are not totally on board with the liberal socialist statists, but apparently dislike confrontation so much, they are willing to abandon their own principles to try and "get along" with them. This is where we find the most evidence of how dangerous it is to follow Liberals. A most recent example is the Pill Bill, signed into law by Compassionate Conservative, George W. Bush. Libs throw the 'crisis' out there... poor old people can't buy their medicine! They continue to protest and scream, and cry and plead, and nag and pester, until someone who should know better, says... OKAY! OKAY! Maybe we can do something to help the poor old people buy their medicine! *poof* we get the Pill Bill. What happened next? Problem solved? Hardly! Libs moved on to nationalized health care. Look what happened with FDR? We went along with his liberal socialist statist principles because we were desperate, and created an entitlement class. Was the New Deal it? Did it fix all our problems? Oh no! Was LBJ's Great Society enough? Nope! Still not there yet. Since then, Libs have pressed on, with more an more departments and more and more government.

You see, when you follow a Liberal, the road to Utopia never ends. The world has an endless supply of people suffering, the planet produces new crisis everyday. The planet is never going to have enough people or resources to adequately accommodate all inhabitants at all times everywhere. There will forever and always be, some people who have more than others, and some people who have very little or nothing. This is what is commonly referred to as "a fact of life." We should all be aware of this, and it should be obvious it's a problem we can't ever solve, but for some reason, it is easier to believe in Liberal Utopia....Nirvana!
 
Dixie said:
We can look to history, and find example after example, of the liberal socialist statist philosophy being attempted, in a number of different variations-- Maoism in China, Marxism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, and assorted offshoots from rogues like Pol Pot and Qaddafi to regime dynasties like Castro and Saddam Hussein. None of the examples end well for the people.
Click to expand...
Likewise, we can now look to history, and find a perfect example of Capitalism being attempted. It didn't end well for the people either.

Do you have a point?
 
Althea said:
Likewise, we can now look to history, and find a perfect example of Capitalism being attempted. It didn't end well for the people either.

Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think capitalist free-markets and free enterprise, like we've enjoyed in America the past 200+ years, is a pretty significant example. 'A shining city on the hill,' as some would say. Our people have certainly accomplished things, we invented the industrial age, excelled in the space age, and led the technology age. Millions, if not billions or stories of people who started with nothing, and out of sheer determination, became wealthy. We don't see such examples in liberal socialist statism, because it is frowned upon. Only The Government controls wealth, and ultimately becomes the dreaded 1%.
 
Dixie said:
I don't know, I think capitalist free-markets and free enterprise, like we've enjoyed in America the past 200+ years, is a pretty significant example. 'A shining city on the hill,' as some would say. Our people have certainly accomplished things, we invented the industrial age, excelled in the space age, and led the technology age. Millions, if not billions or stories of people who started with nothing, and out of sheer determination, became wealthy. We don't see such examples in liberal socialist statism, because it is frowned upon. Only The Government controls wealth, and ultimately becomes the dreaded 1%.
Click to expand...

Was the Confederacy a "shining city on the hill"?
 
The latest road the liberal socialist statist wants us to travel down with them, is the "rich don't pay their fair share" meme. They've been playing this for a few years now, protesting and screaming, crying and pleading, nagging and pestering, until people who should know better, start to say; Well, maybe we can tax the rich more if they make over a certain amount? Even though we have example after example of what happens when you follow a liberal, these people seem oblivious to the danger. Will some modest tax increase on top wage earners be enough for Liberals? We already know it won't be, nothing is ever enough! You see, it starts with the fact that we really can't tax rich people, only people who happen to earn a lot of income, because we tax income earned, not wealth. So you can literally raise taxes of top wage earners all you like, there will still be rich people not paying their fair share, according to liberals.
 
Dixie said:
The latest road the liberal socialist statist wants us to travel down with them, is the "rich don't pay their fair share" meme. They've been playing this for a few years now, protesting and screaming, crying and pleading, nagging and pestering, until people who should know better, start to say; Well, maybe we can tax the rich more if they make over a certain amount? Even though we have example after example of what happens when you follow a liberal, these people seem oblivious to the danger. Will some modest tax increase on top wage earners be enough for Liberals? We already know it won't be, nothing is ever enough! You see, it starts with the fact that we really can't tax rich people, only people who happen to earn a lot of income, because we tax income earned, not wealth. So you can literally raise taxes of top wage earners all you like, there will still be rich people not paying their fair share, according to liberals.
Click to expand...

So what has not taxing the rich done for us? Where are the jobs?
 
Rana said:
So what has not taxing the rich done for us? Where are the jobs?
Click to expand...

Again, we can't tax "the rich" in this country, we don't tax based on wealth, it's based on income earned. I don't know where the jobs are, why don't you ask your president, he was supposed to have all the answers, that's why you had to elect him, remember? In any event, if you are not too retarded to understand the wealth earners are who create most of the jobs in America through small business, then you must also realize an increase in their tax rates is probably not going to increase jobs. In fact, it's much more likely to destroy jobs. But in Liberal Utopian Dream World, what theoretically happens is; The rich CEO takes a million dollar pay cut and starts making $50k a year, or whatever arbitrary figure liberals determine is "a fair amount" and the money saved goes to the workers and to create new jobs. But what we know happens in reality, is quite different. Small businesses make cuts in staff, downsizing happens, remaining staff has to pick up their slack and keep pushing on. The "rich CEO" (in this case, a small business owner making $250k) still makes the exact same amount, or may even get a raise in pay for being brilliant enough to trim the fat.

In the end, we still have the rich getting richer, because that is what rich people do... it's how they became rich. And we still have the poor becoming poorer, because now, they have no job.
 
Dixie said:
Again, we can't tax "the rich" in this country, we don't tax based on wealth, it's based on income earned. I don't know where the jobs are, why don't you ask your president, he was supposed to have all the answers, that's why you had to elect him, remember? In any event, if you are not too retarded to understand the wealth earners are who create most of the jobs in America through small business, then you must also realize an increase in their tax rates is probably not going to increase jobs. In fact, it's much more likely to destroy jobs. But in Liberal Utopian Dream World, what theoretically happens is; The rich CEO takes a million dollar pay cut and starts making $50k a year, or whatever arbitrary figure liberals determine is "a fair amount" and the money saved goes to the workers and to create new jobs. But what we know happens in reality, is quite different. Small businesses make cuts in staff, downsizing happens, remaining staff has to pick up their slack and keep pushing on. The "rich CEO" (in this case, a small business owner making $250k) still makes the exact same amount, or may even gets a raise in pay for being brilliant enough to trim the fat.

In the end, we still have the rich getting richer, because that is what rich people do... it's how they became rich. And we still have the poor becoming poorer, because now, they have no job.
Click to expand...

I would need to see proof that the rich create jobs through small business.

Boehner and the Teapublicans also promised jobs, why don't you hold them accountable?
 
Rana said:
I would need to see proof that the rich create jobs through small business.

Boehner and the Teapublicans also promised jobs, why don't you hold them accountable?
Click to expand...

Again, you are substituting "rich" for people who happen to report higher than average incomes on tax returns. Every single small business in America files income tax through an individual's tax return, it's just how we do that. What you see as an individual making $250k, is very often a small business which made $250k. Most of these small business owners are not "rich" by any stretch, they simply report high incomes on tax returns because they are reporting their small business earnings. A great number of actually "wealthy" people, don't earn an income at all. They may have income from dividends, etc., but this is taxed at a lower rate for everyone across the board, you included.

Now, we can raise the tax on dividend income, but what we already know will happen, is it will cause less dividend type investments. People with the wealth to invest, will have to weigh the cost of additional taxation, and if that is too much, they may simply choose to not invest. Remember, rich people don't NEED to earn income, they are already wealthy enough to live comfortably and take care of their families. If we make it less attractive to invest, they will simply stop doing it. Again, following liberals down a road of stifled economic investment, is a dead end.
 
Dixie said:
Again, you are substituting "rich" for people who happen to report higher than average incomes on tax returns. Every single small business in America files income tax through an individual's tax return, it's just how we do that. What you see as an individual making $250k, is very often a small business which made $250k. Most of these small business owners are not "rich" by any stretch, they simply report high incomes on tax returns because they are reporting their small business earnings. A great number of actually "wealthy" people, don't earn an income at all. They may have income from dividends, etc., but this is taxed at a lower rate for everyone across the board, you included.

Now, we can raise the tax on dividend income, but what we already know will happen, is it will cause less dividend type investments. People with the wealth to invest, will have to weigh the cost of additional taxation, and if that is too much, they may simply choose to not invest. Remember, rich people don't NEED to earn income, they are already wealthy enough to live comfortably and take care of their families. If we make it less attractive to invest, they will simply stop doing it. Again, following liberals down a road of stifled economic investment, is a dead end.
Click to expand...

More word salad, answer the questions, if you can or dare.
 
Boehner and the Teapublicans also promised jobs, why don't you hold them accountable?
Click to expand...

When Boehner and the Tea Party have obtained full Congressional power and have a president who will sign their legislation into law, I will hold them accountable.
 
Rana said:
Yeah, good excuse.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it an 'excuse' ...it's more of a general principle I have. I don't hold people accountable for things they don't control. Generally speaking, accountability is reserved for the ones who are in control and can do something about the situation. When the Tea Party wins in landslides all over the country in November, and seats a Congress and new president, then I will evaluate their actions and hold them accountable for the results.
 
Dixie said:
I wouldn't call it an 'excuse' ...it's more of a general principle I have. I don't hold people accountable for things they don't control. Generally speaking, accountability is reserved for the ones who are in control and can do something about the situation. When the Tea Party wins in landslides all over the country in November, and seats a Congress and new president, then I will evaluate their actions and hold them accountable for the results.
Click to expand...

It will be the same, there is nothing new under the Sun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top