Why the Liberals are doomed - for conhandjob

[SINthysist]

In popular perception, the Democratic Party used to be the party of the working class and the Republicans were the quaint tea-and-upper class types. But as Blue collar became White collar, the Dem's needed voters, so they also became the Party of the Poor.

This implied Socialism, a Robin-hood type attitude. So what happens is, working-class types are pro-Democratic until they begin to prosper and wake up and realize that the prosperity promised the poor weighs heavily upon thier backs. This explains the growth of the Republicans as they slowly become the party of the working class, leaving the socialists with the poor. A noble cause indeed, but ultimately a loosing one in a nation were all are getting richer (of course, statistics lie, as will be pointe out by the strong champions of the left as they determine to prove we are getting poorer and increasingly living a life of abject misery!).

Remember revolts do not start with the rich, they have what they need. Revolts do not start with the poor, they are scrambling to gain what they need. Revolt starts when the middle-class percieves that it's upward mobility is threatened, in short that they cannot become wealthy. Opportunity is denied. Increasingly, the middle class is listening to the Democratic rhetoric and realizing that the Liberal-Socialist world viewpoint condemns them to a life of middle-class or less. They will not vote for thier own demise.

A one further word for my young Liberal friends. You have just graduated from and are studying in the great Universities of our land which have been demonstrably proven to tilt heavily to the left. How do you feel about being wound up and set out to do battle by your mentors, the former rock-throwers and drugged hippie types of the 60's counter-culture? Or are you so proud that you feel you are above indoctrination and brainwashing and able to determine truth and gain ultimate knowlege on your own efforts? If that is true, why did you need college?

Just the musings of a self-made man (i.e., one who gained his degree after earning the money for it and buying in cash...). Or do you look down upon those who would endeavor to be involved in the process not beholden to toeing the line in order to continually be financed in thier studies?

The tin drim bangs slowly.

 

[sch00lteacher]

Fix that last sentence, it blows your whole well thought out argument.

 

[p_p_man]

SINthysist...

I am impressed...

 

[Thumper]

So...

Statistics lie?

Then what do you believe? You say every one is getting richer. Where is your proof, if statistics lie you have no way of proving it other than observing those around you and I am guessing you don't comingle too much with the working class or the *insert Rush Limbaugh tone of derision here* poor.

Only the top 20% or so saw significant increases in their income(adjusted for inflation) during the wonderful Reagan years and right on through to now.
Everything they tell you is a lie! Only we have the truth! Don't listen to them or their statistics!
Sin...this diatribe of yours; "don't trust the educated, the professsors, they are all evil former drug using hippies" would do Mao proud. Prpoagandists like to demonize their opponents. The Libertarians and the far right conservatives such as yourself are just as dogmatic and reactionary as any socialist/communist party hack. You continually deride any other viewpoint and those holding it as "communists, socialists, liars, criminals, thugs" ad infinitum and say that only your viewpoint should be trusted. That is how Rush does it. Hitler had Goebbels and the Reaganites have Rush.

Most people with a degree know that "loose" means to make less tight or to set free as in "They let the animal loose"

It doesn't mean no longer posessing. That is "Lose" pronounced "looz"

No prosperity is promised to the poor...the only thing they get from the government is assistance to survive. They subsist, no more. As for the implied heavy burden on the wealthy, you could have fooled me. Seems the rich have gotten vastly wealthier and at a quicker pace since the mid 60's than at any other time in history. Maybe, just maybe the social programs have created a buffer that allowed such wealth to be accumulated. It shored up the foundations of our consumer base and provided just enough of a boost to help millions get ahead. The poor will always be with us...there are many reasons for it the least of which is "laziness". I very miniscule "least" I might add.

Contrary to what Sinthysist and his ilk would have you believe most of the money received by those on the "dole" gets spent on food, clothing, shelter and other such things. It is spent on consumerism.

Do a little reserach on just exactly who receives this money...

Kids
Old folks
Handicapped folks (mentally and physically)
Abandoned women and children

A very small segment of our society.

Hey Sin..if it bothers you that much, go hound some poor kid getting a free lunch at school. Deride him/her for stealing your money and being a "mooch". Might just make ya feel good to know you have done your part for the Kenneth Lays of the world.

On that note maybe we should take up a collection for Mr. Lay's wife. The poor woman sounds like she is only several million dollars away from living on the street. I soooooo feel her pain.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: So...

Only the top 20% or so saw significant increases in their income(adjusted for inflation) during the wonderful Reagan years and right on through to now.

No prosperity is promised to the poor...the only thing they get from the government is assistance to survive. They subsist, no more. As for the implied heavy burden on the wealthy, you could have fooled me. Seems the rich have gotten vastly wealthier and at a quicker pace since the mid 60's than at any other time in history. Maybe, just maybe the social programs have created a buffer that allowed such wealth to be accumulated. It shored up the foundations of our consumer base and provided just enough of a boost to help millions get ahead. The poor will always be with us...there are many reasons for it the least of which is "laziness". I very miniscule "least" I might add.

Do a little reserach on just exactly who receives this money...

Kids
Old folks
Handicapped folks (mentally and physically)
Abandoned women and children

A very small segment of our society.

Actually, there are a couple things you said which aren't quite right. First, though it is true that the rich in our country are, as a whole, richer than at any other time in history, it's also true that our poor are the "richest poor" we've ever had. The poverty rate has been growing steadily since the 1920's. The gulf between the rich and poor has vacillated in that time, but now, it's relatively close, compared to at other points in history.

The second error is who receives the money. Though each group you have mentioned does receive it, so do many other people who are otherwise able-bodied and capable of working themselves off of the "dole", if only they could do so and subsist. This is my greatest problem with most social programs. Each is designed to allow subsistence, but not self-reliance. It would seem to me a far better thing for our country if our social welfare programs were designed to get people off of them, and into the working and tax-paying world as soon as possible. That, in general is not happening. The programs are not designed to do this. I know this because in my life I and my parents have been on some of these programs, to one extent or another. My parents saw the trap and found another way to bring themselves up. Not a lot of other folks do this, though I'd not speculate as to the reasons why. I have only my personal observations, and that's not enough to make a real determination.

But to make "laziness" a miniscule "least" is to be blind to reality. That's been my observation in dealing with a lot of people on these programs, and seeing them, and shopping with them, etc. I'd probably not exactly call it "laziness". I'd more call it "intertia". After all, why bust your rear end to get a job that pays right about what you get now without working? Hell, if I could get a government grant that equaled my salary, I'd have to think hard about taking it and quitting my job.

The real problem here is the dependent underclass which is being used as a political pawn. Unfortunately, that's mostly being done by the Democrats, who have a very vested interest in keeping that voting block under their thumb. I know that last statement makes some folks bristle, but it's true. Nearly every welfare reform proposal which has come out of Congress in the past 15 years, good or bad, has been a Republican effort. They have occasionally found a Democrat that sees the merit of reforming the system, but it doesn't often happen. Why? For the same reason that Republicans advance laws benefiting those with more money than most: they need to placate their voting bloc.

I should say that I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I'm a Libertarian. I changed my party affiliation during the last Presidential campaign when I saw what I can only describe as political boobery on both sides. I don't care which party gets ahead, politically. All I want is a country where the maximum number of people are contributing to the country's benefit, and I get to keep as much of what I earn as possible.

 

[EthiopianPrince]

I think Thumper makes very good points!

 

[April]

I think Thumper makes very good points!

He usually does.
And this from a Republican.

 

[WriterDom]

I subscribe to the "two Americas" theory graphically depicted in the county by county red-Bush blue-Gore map of 2000 which shows the only strength of the democrats lies within the major cites. Some where along the way, the democrats lost the vote of working class people. Thump seems to want to point the finger at Rush, but I think Rush was a smart business man who took advantage of a situation, not one who created it. But Thumper seems to believe that all working people except him are stupid, and therefore vote republican.

The proof with be in the fall elections. Historically, the party that doesn't hold the executive branch makes significant gains in the off year election. But you can only get so many congressmen from the cities. Can they go into the sea of red and pick up 40 seats like the republicans did in 1992 when they took back the house for the first time in most of our lifetimes? I don't see that happening. Not with the same old democrat leadership and same old tired tactics of class warfare.

Some interesting facts about the 2000 election map

Counties won:
Gore – 677
Bush – 2,434.

Square miles won:
Gore – 580,134
Bush – 2,427,039

Population of counties won:
Gore – 127 million
Bush – 143 million

Murder rates in counties won by:
Gore --- over 13 per 100,000
Bush --- less than 2 per 100,000

 

[EthiopianPrince]

Population of counties won:
Gore – 127 million
Bush – 143 million

Writer Dom, how is that possible when Gore won the majority of votes in the USA? Is it because Democrats had much better voter turnout? Just curious ...

 

[WriterDom]

Writer Dom, how is that possible when Gore won the majority of votes in the USA? Is it because Democrats had much better voter turnout? Just curious ...

Yes, better turnout, and you also have dead democrats voting and multiple voting. And more organized hauling in of voters and telling them to vote for the 3rd person from the top. Which is why so many fucked up the butterfly ballots.

 

[Guest]

Murder rates?

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Seriously, murder rates, and other violent crime stats, are always up in urban areas. Simple anthropology.

Sure Bush won more counties....mostly sparsely populated ones. Only around 5 million receive TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families) and a majority of these are children and others who cannot or do not care to vote, so the argument that the Democrats pander to them for votes is ludicrous. A very poor return for the investment.

Your stipulation that the Democrats can only get votes by engaging in fraud and by "trucking" them in is asinine too. I have no doubt that this occurred but not in numbers sufficient to be a serious factor...at least no more so than the reported obstacles put up by certain Republican controlled districts that hindered voting by blacks.

I have seen the butterfly ballot and I can see how it would have been confusing. There were quite a few overvotes that had Bush and Buchanan punched. We read left to right...the ballot was not very reliable.

The American worker is not dumb...he/she is just been buying into the conservative misdirection that states that the real problem in thsi country is the poor getting welfare. A form of class warfare in itself.

Sort of like we can make off with the goods while the middle class dukes it out with the poor.

Jazz Man...the gap between rich and poor is greater than at any time it ever has been...and is getting worse all the time. More wealth is concentrated in a much smaller segment of society than ever before. Check out Robert Reich's book.

 

[Thumper]

Stupid cookie monster

EP--Bush won counties by a slimmer margin. If you win by one...you get the whole county.

Interesting that after 8 years of Rush and his right wing radio pit bulls working themselves and the Republicans into a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, Clinton hating, frenzy they couldn't muster a simple majority of voters.

Sort of like New England getting past Oakland based on a judgement call eh?

If Clinton would have ran he would have won.

I would have voted for him just to piss off a Republican.

The system needs reworking to help those that are trying to get off assistance. It needs to be streamlined to eliminate waste.

Daughter has some very enlightening and more accurate information regarding this subject. I must go find it.

Those that say just getting a job is the answer don't realize what "getting a job" really entails.

In the case of those that do not have ready access to transportation it means finding work within walking distance. It means having a phone so that potential employers can contact you. It means finding work that actually pays enough to meet the basic needs a person has. Most fast food places aren't located in the depressed urban areas and they rarely hire full time. A lot of times they require only part time and split shift personnel. It means child care for single mothers, or would you rather they just left them home alone?

No one has ever promised them prosperity and a comfortable existence. That is just a Republican/conservative perception that they propagate to bolster their argument.

If anyone here can live comfortably on 553.00 dollars a month I would like to know how.

That goes for food, utilities, clothes, transportation etc...

Rather than bitching about what little they actually get and that someone somewhere may be scamming the system (welfare fraud is around 0.4%) I'll just be glad for what I have and the fact that I am warm and reasonably well fed...maybe too well fed lately...getting a bit chubby I am.

Fat Wabbit Out!

 

[SINthysist]

Thumper, my man,

"Sin...this diatribe of yours; "don't trust the educated, the professsors, they are all evil former drug using hippies" would do Mao proud. Prpoagandists like to demonize their opponents. The Libertarians and the far right conservatives such as yourself are just as dogmatic and reactionary as any socialist/communist party hack. You continually deride any other viewpoint and those holding it as "communists, socialists, liars, criminals, thugs" ad infinitum and say that only your viewpoint should be trusted. That is how Rush does it. Hitler had Goebbels and the Reaganites have Rush. "

You missed out on so much good stuff, not being around for the Andra_Jenny show and my lessons on Democratic tactics, but here's some stuff for you to chew on.

1.) I'm a libertarian (sorry UncleBill!)

2). I am a former lefty. I was raised on the drug and protest culture taught to hate the man, the evil man who kept us all down. I believed in the message of the 60's so much that I turned on and tuned out. I passed on education as the tool of the man and embraced that hard-working, hard-drinking, hard partying pathos of the true hero of socialism, the pure, inoocent blue collar worker who needs to be looked out for. Man, I worked hard and I partied harder.

It's a crock! I lived the life. I know. Been there done that. It's for losers. I got my act together, went into business for myself and made something of myself. I have two homes. Multiple modes of transport. A great family. Athletic accomplishments. Travel. NO DEBT.

I did not get there based on any liberal format of philosophy but by learning conservative values the hard way, little by little until one day, I woke up, looked myself in the mirror, realized that I had become what I hated so much, but that, I rather liked the new me.

3). You really should read my lessons on Democratic tactics. I was raised on them, cut my teeth on them, and recognize them. Rush does not use Democratic, Socialist, Dascist tools of fear and coercion. That is the other side. Rush promotes Christian values. Rush promotes Conservative values. Rush promotes the more Traditional America. He doesn't apologize for us being great. He doesn't apologize for having made it. He's not ashamed of himself or his country or the people who made it what it is today.

That's why people listen.

That's why you should too.

Take you life into your own hands. It is a land of great opportunity. Believe me I know. Take it from one who has slept on the sidewalks of Downtown Houston but has learned to prefer the 5-star hotels of Beijing and the resorts on Mexico's Pacific coast.

Work hard. Be patient. Prosper and Live long!












Sch00lTeacher. What's wrong with a little Gunter Grasse. He should be on Lavy's list. Miller is a wonk!

 

[SINthysist]

p_p_

I don't know what there is to be impressed about. I'm just a country dumbass!



















Cock-a-Doodle-Do!

 

[sch00lteacher]

No no no. I was talking about the Tin Drim. What is a Drim?

 

[SINthysist]

I see now,

Hey, I kept the English teacher busy. I was always hoping they'd grade me so high on content and quality that nothing else mattered .

I'd go back and edit it, but I am very intellectually lazy! Besides, I'll take the "B." None of my Diplomas has a GPA on it (I looked!)...

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Thumper, my man,

You missed out on so much good stuff, not being around for the Andra_Jenny show and my lessons on Democratic tactics.

You could have mentioned my role as your European staff reporter, and Acting Editor for one week.

But why, oh why do you feel you should explain yourself?

Your posts, under whichever persona you're using at the time, have sometimes been extreme, but even so, you usually have strong strands of sense running through the extremism. And there was a time you would never have felt the need to write a piece like this.

Have you lost your fire?

Do you need to have a small, back stroking session?

I'll give you a quick rendition of "The Red Flag" if you feel that might help...

 

[SINthysist]

Ah, the good ol' days...

Yes, the most excellent work you did.

Just keeping you out of the fray! Seems you have your own fracases (sp? - teacher may be reading ) going on! Too biting lately - throw the humor back in! I still look forward to new posts and the latest round of p_p_-bashing.

I have the fire, just not as much time to devote (It is absolutely amazing how much time a toddler can kill doing absolutley nothing when she should be getting dressed. Mealtimes are excruciating ordeals in the supreme art of procrastination and total lack of an attention span of any significant duration [she takes after me in that respect] without any firm goal in mind as to what she wants to accomplish during the meal.). My fire gets spread thinly at times. Plus I do not want to be too hard on the Left now. They are playing for the losing side, and I am a "compassionate conseervative."

 

[NoRegrets]

Follow the Money!

It seems to me that they are mostly thieves and so long as they can keep us arguing over whether the right or left wing of republicrats has the correct answers, they just keep on stealing.

I always despised litmus test voters but I have become one. If we do not control the money, we will never make better decisions. In reality, the moneyed interests give to both parties just in case. We have legalized bribery.

 

[Thumper]

Something you must know

I do not "hate" the man.

I hate no one. That is another misconception the right likes to put on most of us on the left.

I was never "taught" because I rarely possibly never take at face value what anyone says. I explore the issues I have opinions on before those opinions are formed. I learn but I cannot be "taught".

I applaud your perserverence and your success. Two homes? I have no need for such. I prefer simplicity...accumulating things to me is folly, since things need tending to and I choose not to be tied to them.

It all boils down to a difference in philosophy. My idea of success is to be 50 years old and have a small apartment on the Gulf coast where I can get up in the morning and do whatever I want. A lifestyle I can maintain on a minimal income.

Liberals(true liberals)...are more concerned with humanity. Money is only a tool for trade. Not something to be worshipped and hoarded.

Conservatives (Libertarians too) are more concerned with things. They measure their own worth in dollars or in how much more they have than others. At least that is what I can gather about them from their rhetoric and their actions.

I am a liberal...I am not impressed with material wealth. I do not desire it.

 

[CeceliaSkye]

Re: Something you must know

Liberals(true liberals)...are more concerned with humanity. Money is only a tool for trade. Not something to be worshipped and hoarded.

Conservatives (Libertarians too) are more concerned with things. They measure their own worth in dollars or in how much more they have than others. At least that is what I can gather about them from their rhetoric and their actions.

I am a liberal...I am not impressed with material wealth. I do not desire it.

So very well said Thumper... you have my vote

 

[Texan]

Re: Something you must know

I applaud your perserverence and your success. Two homes? I have no need for such. I prefer simplicity...accumulating things to me is folly, since things need tending to and I choose not to be tied to them.

It all boils down to a difference in philosophy. My idea of success is to be 50 years old and have a small apartment on the Gulf coast where I can get up in the morning and do whatever I want. A lifestyle I can maintain on a minimal income.

Liberals(true liberals)...are more concerned with humanity. Money is only a tool for trade. Not something to be worshipped and hoarded.

Conservatives (Libertarians too) are more concerned with things. They measure their own worth in dollars or in how much more they have than others. At least that is what I can gather about them from their rhetoric and their actions.

I am a liberal...I am not impressed with material wealth. I do not desire it.

Thumper, it would never cross my mind to find fault in how you define “success” for YOURSELF. While I can find no fault, neither can I find any particular “nobility” in your definition. You should define success for yourself, NOT for others.

You seem to judge those who have made significant material acquisitions as being selfish and shallow. You seem to think a person who owns too much (by your standards) is a “worshiper” or “hoarder”. You believe that because a person doesn’t agree with YOUR standard of success, they are shallow enough to “measure their worth in dollars”. You said that because SIN has two homes, he is foolish; I think your word was “folly”. You are an amazingly judgmental person.

I don’t measure myself in dollars, but I do tend to measure myself by my ability to provide an enjoyable standard of living for my wife and children. While I am proud that I worked to put myself through college and grad school, I am also proud that my own children won’t be required to work while in college, nor will they have student loans to pay off after graduation. The “materialism” necessary in order to provide for my family is NOT selfish. I will make my own definition of success just as you make your own definition. I will not judge your definition of your own success, but I may take exception when you try to condemn mine.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I can't seriously entertain the fantasy that liberalism is 'doomed'--or conservatism either, of course.

There will always be those who want to conserve a system that has made them its beneficiaries, as well as those who want to change the system in the interests of extending the benefits more equitably to others.

Every society needs both, for without both society would die.

 

[SINthysist]

Thumper, Thumper, Thumper,

First you whine about having to hold down two jobs and then you decry wealth as all wealthy are inherently evil, uncaring about people, just things! Two thoughts. QUIT ONE OF YOUR JOBS !

Have you read about the plight of little girls in China? We have used our personal wealth to do something about it. Can a poor hard-working blue collar caring and feeling Liberal do the same thing?

Not unless they can get the government to coerce someone into doing it for them!

Liberals are mainly good at talking the subject up and deciding what others need to do. Meanwhile, thier owns lives are often a testamony to underachieving. And we are supposed to celebrate that. You clever dog you. You want to have your bone and eat it too!

 

[Thumper]

Clarification

I do not regard wealth or all those who attain it as evil. Never have. I know many wealthy(relatively) people and I have much respect for them. The only ones I ever judge are the ones that continually whine about the evil government stealing from them and using the money for social programs. Is it really that big of a burden? Does it seriously alter your standard of living? I judge conservatives on the actions of those I see in the media such as Kenneth Lay and his clueless wife. Crying about having to sell their assets and going bankrupt. Meanwhile a one year old child dies in a refugee camp having never worn a pair of shoes.

If you make a million ayear and the governor takes a third that still leaves ya $666,666.66 to live on. Not bad in my book. I think life would be rather comfortable on that kind of compensation...can't imagine what a person would need or want that couldn't be had at that level.

I work two jobs so that I can pay the rent/mortgage put food on the table and clothe and educate 3 children. I do so because I am able to. I do not judge anyone until I hear their words or see their actions. It does not bother me that some retarded person may get a monthly check from the government.

The way I see it, my compensation/wages are what I bring home after taxes. If that isn't enough I try to find a better paying job, or work another one.

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", that would be taxes. If the law of the land says that a certain amount is theirs then so be it. What's left is mine. If we weren't, as a majority, OK with that, then the system would be changed.

This poor hard working caring liberal would do more if I could...

What have the Kenneth Lay's of the world done...

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to attain heaven.

All that means to point out is "Just how attached to your possessions are you?"

I have never said anyone here was uncaring or uncompassionate...but I am sick of being derided a s bleeding heart liberal socialist. I am glad for what I have. Just what is wrong with "bleeding heart" anyway? Consider the opposite. Jesus and Mother Teresa might be described as "bleeding hearts" also.

If ya make enough to pay a third in taxes it seems to me that life has blessed you...enjoy what you have instead of making yourself miserable over what "gets stolen". It all gets left behind anyway. Why spend the short journey lugging all that and scrambling for more and fighting off "the thieves" just to leave it in a pile at death's door?

I keep thinking of Daffy Duck, after being reduced by the genie to mouse size, scrambling up Bugs' arm and hugging the pearl Bugs found and screaming
"Mine mine! It's all mine, you hear me! I saw it first!"

Peace