It has occurred to me that maybe Liberals do truly believe that all property belongs to the State, and that individual citizens really shouldn't be held responsible for their own choices... This can not be a good thing.
I assume these are examples of where a Liberal would see things this way:
- After years of working the same job and never making efforts to improve or modernize their skills, the worker becomes unemployed and can not find an equivalent job. It must be the evil company's fault that the person isn't employable... It can't be the employees fault can it?
- A risk averse person sees the incredible returns in his friend's stock portfolio and decides to change everything over to it. Then the market crashes, he gets scared, sells it all off and loses 20% of his savings. It must be the markets fault, it couldn't have been the greed and foolishness of the investor... Or could it?
- A union insists that compensation stays high, work rules stay rigid, ineffective employees keep their jobs, etc even though profits and market share are declining due to low margins and little money available for R&D. The company goes bankrupt, it must be those greedy managers that killed the golden goose. Right?
21 comments:
That's what you gleaned about liberals from the last exchange, John? How about this?
Republicans think:
- That investors contribute more to our economy than workers do, which is why want to keep capital gains low or even eliminate it as Romney wanted, and screw the middle and lower class. That Romney thought that eliminating the estate and capital-gains taxes would benefit everyone was a tremendous joke.
- That we are a Christian nation.
- That our health care system is the best in the world, and that things would be better if we just stop providing care for those who can't pay for it.
- That man-made global warming doesn't exist.
- That government should be run like a business.
- That Obama was responsible for the bank bailout.
- That compromise is a sign of weakness.
- That anyone and everyone should be able to contribute large amounts of money to a candidate's campaign anonymously, regardless of their citizenry.
- That voting is a privilege to be earned, not a Constitutional right.
- That Fox News is fair and balanced, and that the "mainstream media" are liberal.
- That what they think is more valid than facts.
- That understanding what a liberal thinks simply requires an opinion.
Your premises are a joke. Enjoy the dialogue with your right-wing followers. You haven't a clue what liberals think.
"Then reading that the banks are responsible for making people buy more house than they could afford for little or nothing down."
Banks aren't responsible for decisions other people make, but they are responsible for the decisions they make themselves. Or at least there are reasons why they should be. Loaning money is always a risk. It's up to banks when they are loaning money entrusted to them, that they manage risk effectively. For various reasons, they didn't do that, and they are at fault for that. Whether someone else is at fault, the person borrowing the money for example, or the entity which purchased the mortgage in a form that didn't allow them to adequately assess the risk is irrelevant to whether or not the bank made a mistake.
Let's keep in mind also that there isn't anything wrong in paying too much for something, or buying something which later declines in price. People who happen to have underwater mortgages at the moment aren't necessarily evil people as a result. And lots of good people were negatively affected, in terms of loss of home value, by decisions made by others that had nothing to do with anyone's decision to pay a specific price for a specific home.
--Hiram
"After listening to folks comment in the last post that there are people that deserve the money more than the wealthy/successful folks, and implying that the government in its wisdom should make these adjustments in the wealth balance."
Do we tax people on the basis of what they deserve? Should we tax successful teachers less than we tax successful hedge fund managers just because teachers perform a more valuable service to our nation? Mitt Romney, himself, is on record saying that his wife as a homemaker had a far more important role than he did as a private equity manager. Did that make here more deserving of tax breaks?
It's an interesting question, but an impractical one. We tax people who have money, because they are the only people it makes sense to tax.
--Hiram
"A risk averse person sees the incredible returns in his friend's stock portfolio and decides to change everything over to it. Then the market crashes, he gets scared, sells it all off and loses 20% of his savings. It must be the markets fault, it couldn't have been the greed and foolishness of the investor... Or could it?"
After a decade of stagnant performance, the financial markets collapsed in 2008. Whose fault was it? Was it the markets fault? Was there something wrong in the way the NYSE conducted it's business? Did they report trades inaccurately? Did someone turn off the electricity on the trading floor? Or was somebody else at fault? Someone besides the markets?
==Hiram
"A union insists that compensation stays high, work rules stay rigid, ineffective employees keep their jobs, etc even though profits and market share are declining due to low margins and little money available for R&D. The company goes bankrupt, it must be those greedy managers that killed the golden goose. Right?"
How is that different from any other supplier of value to a business who insists that a company meets it's obligations? Does the electric company give them a break on rates just because the business is struggling?
Managment blames workers for their troubles because they can, and because with respect to their workers, they are in the power position. And possibly because the natural alternative is to blame themselves. They can't very well blame their customers, for example.
--Hiram
By the way, in a bankruptcy situation, one thing no creditor and that includes unions, should ever do is make concessions. Here's why. Bankruptcy is like an infinite gravity black hole that hardly ever let's go of any company once it's in the grip. Any concessions made in hopes of forestalling bankruptcy are extremely unlikely to succeed, and will only serve as the starting point for further concessions once bankruptcy is actually filed. That fact is, by the way, why once the prospect of bankruptcy is in play, bankruptcy is so difficult to avoid.
--Hiram
If I have no clue what Liberals think, please enlighten me. The mic is always open.
And I will happily go after the Right wingers in the next post if you would like me to. They have their issues also. Right now I am interested in how Liberals see this state run wealth distribution plan working.
How will it promote hard work and efforts from us all to make America great for our children? One note: you cannot deny that free loaders exist. Anyone who has worked with a group of people knows that some people are industrious and self motivated, and others not so much so.
How will it promote hard work and efforts from us all to make America great for our children?
One thing that doesn't help is that we have created a system of incentives that rewards the wrong things. The Mitt Romneys of the world get wealthy, and teachers don't. Mitt talks about how is wife has a more valuable job than he did at Bain Capital. Why don't we have a system of rewards and incentives that recognizes that?
--Hiram
Continue.
Stumped... Here is the DFL platform.
Though they spend a fair amount of time bashing the GOP and their platform seems a bit vague. However it may give you some ideas.
Well, I'll take a shot then...
Liberals believe in a "fair" America. A place where there is no poverty and everyone has food, clothing, education, healthcare, phones, etc. Everyone is entitled to these things since they live on American soil.
Since these are due to all people living on American soil: work reqts, citizenship, effort, behaviors, beliefs, etc are immaterial in determining what they should have and how they should live.
The government of the people is best suited to ensure these entitlements are provided equitably, therefore it is "fair" and "right" that they forcefully transfer Private Property from the successful to the less successful.
Am I close?
To continue:
In this "fair" America, it seems unfair that poor and middle class people should lose assets, jobs, property, money, etc for any reason. Whether the person made good choices, did due diligence, paid for insurance, etc is immaterial. Therefore the government should take an active role in protecting people from most things and/or pay for the loss if it happens.
Am I close?
Liberals believe in a "fair" America.
I don't really. Fairness is nice in the abstract, but it doesn't have much practical meaning.
A place where there is no poverty and everyone has food, clothing, education, healthcare, phones, etc.
I am not sure that's a description of what's fair, but it sure sounds nice.
Everyone is entitled to these things since they live on American soil.
Those things are not generally what liberals, or conservatives for that matter when they talk about entitlements.
--Hiram
In this "fair" America, it seems unfair that poor and middle class people should lose assets, jobs, property, money, etc for any reason.
I don't see how fairness requires these things, but if you want to make an argument that it does, I would be most interested.
--Hiram
Look at it this way. We are affected by risk management decisions we had nothing to do with making, or even know were being made. Is the problem with this a lack of fairness. If you next door neighbor is storing volatile explosives in his garage, is the problem really that he is treating you unfairly?
--Hiram
So you question my interpretation yet you don't provide yours... Is it that difficult for Liberals to write down their dream? And how they envision it happening?
One more addition to this thought... "Therefore the government should take an active role in protecting people from most things and/or pay for the loss if it happens." from above.
The government of the people is best suited to ensure the people are protected adequately, therefore it is "fair" and "right" that they forcefully transfer Private Property from the successful to fund the insurance programs and pay for the regulatory expenses...
My dream is that things are rewarded according to their value. But it's just a dream.
Is the government best at providing protection? That does seem to be the choice we have made. We haven't for some reason privatized things like the military, the police, the fire departments. The entities that protect us. Maybe we should...
==Hiram
Thoughts on how "Value" should be determined?
Or how "Rewards" are to be distributed?
Not really. Like John Kennedy, I believe life is unfair. But that isn't a reason for making things more unfair.
--Hiram
Based on your past comments, I find it hard to believe you have no thoughts on how America could attain your dream.
Thank you for going as far as you did though in describing it.
Any other Liberals that are willing to give it a try?
Post a Comment