This is a short piece because it's more of an observation.
If you boil down every liberal/left argument today it inevitably hinges on one thing -
the rich paying more of what communists like to call "their fair share."
Forget what precisely is their "fair share." Forget numbers, forget statistics.
My question is this.
What kind of an ideology is it where your ENTIRE ideology is dependent on ONE SOLE group of people doing something that goes against their best interests?
I mean, right off the bat, you're essentially declaring your ideology unsustainable AND parasitic.
"Everything works out great as long as there's this group of people we can constantly criminalize and fleece for their money."
Well that's not an independent ideology. Heck, that's not even "ideal." It's slavery. And the only reason people tolerate it is because the slaves happen to be "rich."
But don't worry. Even in your most harsh, idealistic communist country the rich have two other options
1. Not work.
And I already told you what would happen if you decided to confiscate all their assets if those nasty evil rich people decided to flee.
12 years, max.
But still, I want a liberal or a socialist to explain to me right now how this is a FEASIBLE ideology. One where the MAJORITY of your people are dependent upon a MINORITY. Tell me how that works in terms of long term logic and stability. And I want numbers, math. None of this decaying vomit your president passes onto you lemmings as a "speech" which is nothing more than pablum.
You won't find it. And even worse, you cannot explain it to them for they are illogical.
Give up on liberals, democrats, progressives and their ilk. I have. There is no compromise with them. Their course is already laid out in the coming fiscal disaster. Do not empathize with their suffering. They did it to themselves.
Well, liberals insist that wealth isn't created by what the rich do, it's created by what the "Middle Class" (A myth Americans have bought into for a very long time) buys.
So with that in mind, they do not believe that their ideology runs on the proverbial backs of a minority of Americans.
Oh there is a definite and clear "plan" only it's bifricated. The liberals on top know what they are doing and are simply using state power to destroy competition. The ranking party members of all communist countries do quite well even in hell pits like NKorea. The liberals on the bottom only see free shit, and having spoke with them on numerous occasions i believe they are about as capable of rational thought and discourse as the average horse. Its just a con game wrapped up as policy.
So the problem we face is the ranking liberals aka conmen won't come out and admit it's a long con. And the people on the bottom are functionally braindead.
Of course it's not feasible. Why else would you see the spectacle of Chicago teachers striking for a 30% raise, which would make the average teacher's salary exceed $100k, with rich benefits besides? Surely they see that the taxpayers are terribly offended by the demand. The problem is that they don't care. The taxpayers are irrelevant. It is the school boards who approve teacher's contracts, not the taxpayers. It is they to whom this drama is directed. They know that eventually the boards will join them in fleecing the taxpayers. And if it's infeasible in the long run, so what? They've got theirs, and have been very successful in getting courts to agree that public employee contracts are inviolable, even in bankruptcy. Indeed, there's a case now where the bankruptcy trustee is increasing a city tax from 1% to 2% to pay its creditors.
1. Not work, sent to the gulag and end up felling trees anyway
2. Flee, but with a high risk in some countries of ending up dead for making the attempt
Worthwhile to make the distinction between communist and no-shit communist, I think.
I pointed out to libtard friends on FB that at one point a few years ago, I was working for 5 months out of the year for local, state, and federal government before and after my check. Not like it was a big salary.
Not one responded, yet somehow I am supposed to believe the wealthy vermin of the Democratic Party are here to help the 'middle class'.
Unfortunately, the Republican party is so chock full of people who couldn't give a shit about economics, hell, many poor Republicans extensively rely on 'free' stuff from the government.
So the opposition cannot even bother being an opposition.
Typical conservative idiocy. Apparently you unaware of the concept of corporate welfare. Clueless as to the fact that GE and Exxon have an effective tax rate of zero. Completely ignorant of the fact that Mitt Romney pays a tax rate of less than 14%. Look at your tax returns from last year, what did you pay? Don't forget to include payroll taxes from which Romney is exempt. Liberalism is the crazy idea that people who aren't millionaires aren't necessarily scum. Why does that bother you so much? 20% of the country controls 80% of the wealth and they keep taking more with the help of politicians who are little better than paid whores for the financial elite. Way to stick up for a corrupt system. It makes a lot of sense.
Oh, I'm with you on getting rids of the corporatism of Exxon, GE, Solyndra and any other cronyism/lobbying.
Now if you'd address my original point about how your religion hinges on others, but is still considered feasible and sustainable, I'd appreciate it.
Is having only one hinge the reason they come "un-hinged" so often?
modern libralism gets its power from an almost universal belief that people are good.this allows the progessive[a better name] to manipulate the herd to accept rules which are supposed for the betterment of the herd, but really give power and control to the leaders.the only way to push back would be to understand that people are essentially corrupt[bad].so, do you really want to acknowledge that about yourself Captain: or is it better to belief you and your friends are good guys? Oh yeah, the founding fathers knew this.
I already addressed your idea that liberalism is unsustainable when I pointed out that corporate welfare outstrips spending on the poor. By your logic that means that capitalism is unsustainable since corporations get fat by sucking on the government tit. Apparently you didn't notice because you were too busy trying to work in a comment about Solyndra. Talk about false equivalence!
Dave, you want to define "corporate welfare" (which I'm against)?
I have a hard time seeing corporations getting handouts anywhere near approaching the $2.8 trillion we spend on the FEDERAL budget alone on social spending per year.
If you're talking "tax breaks" that means they're still paying taxes. And your point is moot.
If you're talking handouts or favoratism (which again, I'm against) I need some numbers.
This isn't a liberal blog. This a libertarian blog. We expect facts to back claims up.
And none of the "Mother Jones" article citing or "Commie Prof Completely Biased Study." We prefer hard data from non-biased sources.
One hears that same Corporate welfare crap in Canada, about the oilsands. The libs are the ones who go for corporate welfare, and subsidizing green jobs or organic farms. In Canada, money flows out of the oilsands and into government coffers, to be redistributed, but, some of the companies, in return for hiring 1000 people, or whatever, get tax breaks, that the libtards promptly call welfare. Only in the liberal mind is coercing less considered a loss or handout. Can I make ad-hominem attacks on Dave?
Post a Comment