Liberals Hate Success

Haul me to Heaven said:

Abe23 is no different. Thick and unable to learn from anything about their 'opinions'. Trolls? Or just plain dense?
These are your only choices- just like the health care bill. These are your only choices to choose from.

Click to expand...

So we're back to the insults, huh? I thought we were over this, you ignorant neanderthal....

CrackerJax said:

As long as liberals think the govt. can do better than the private sector, the USA will ail economically.

Click to expand...

What's the point of government, then? If the private sector always does a better job, why have a government? To repeat what I just said, it's not an either/or issue--some things the private sector objectively does a better job at (making shoes and TVs), other things they don't (avoiding the Great Depression).

Mr Tambourine Man said:

Success benefits society by incentivizing people to start companies and find cures for diseases and do a lot of other wonderful things from which we all benefit. Taxing success also benefits society by making government's existence possible, funding police and other services, supporting/expanding the social safety net, etc. Both extremes are bad--taxing all success means the end of innovation, and abolishing all taxes means anarchy. What the right balance is depends on how much one values the stabilizing function of government versus the incentivizing function of letting people keep more of their money. It's a choice between security and freedom--and like all values questions there's no objectively right answer. If two people value the security that programs like universal health care provide more than lower taxes or a higher GDP, and one person doesn't, why should the majority be overruled? (It's beside the point if the majority of Americans really do support universal health care, all I'm saying is that neither side is objectively right or wrong--one side values pizza more, the other side values Chinese more. When most of my friends want Chinese, we order Chinese.)

Click to expand...

Well put. But, there is a general guideline for what people should and shouldn't be taxed for. The framers intended for government to collect funds for certain things. Chief among these is for national defense, followed by things such as roads and other infrastructure. What they did not intend, was for funds to be confiscated from one individual in order to provide for another.

That being said, I am not personally opposed to the idea of providing some level of security to all. The problem is that everything our government does winds up wasteful and corrupt. So yes, I agree that there is some question as to where the line is drawn. I would like to see well constructed, tightly regulated programs for certain individuals such as the elderly. But, I'll be damned if I would allow one penny to be diverted to crack dealers or wealthy convenient store owners who buy food stamps for 20 cents on the dollar and then redeem them for full value. Nor do I want my tax dollars to pay for felons who break into people's homes to get money to buy 24" spinner rims for their Hummer.

Mr Tambourine Man said:

What's the point of government, then? If the private sector always does a better job, why have a government? To repeat what I just said, it's not an either/or issue--some things the private sector objectively does a better job at (making shoes and TVs), other things they don't (avoiding the Great Depression).

Click to expand...

The purpose to a FEDERAL Govt. is to protect the nation from foreign and domestic threats, and to help negotiate commerce between parties when impasses are reached.

That's about all the founding fathers intended. All else was the domain of the states where the ppl affected by policies had a stronger voice to compensate any irregularities legislatively.

Yep Cracker is dead on
You don't hear me bitching about Mass. universal healthcare.
Because it is within their state power to do.
Plus it might work and prove a model for the future,
that other states may follow.

But the Feds do not have the Authority to impose this on us.
Healthcare should be a state issue.
Gun Laws should be State.
Drug laws and Abortion should be state.
Almost everything should be a state issue.

The Feds should be conserned with
National Defence
contract enforcement
interstate and foreign trade. (by interstate trade I mean free trade between states and thats it!)

Unfortunately, America isn't an exceptional country anymore.Our society is being dumbed down at an alarming rate,we outsource jobs and industries we used to be the leaders of,we over medicate,we interfere in the private lives of our citizens more and more.We are not an exceptional country. We may have been at one time.
Everyone knows how success is a benefit to society.Strong, successful companies can hire more employees,can allocate more funds toward research and development of new and innovative technologies and products.But if we don't temper success with compassion,we create an imbalance that unfairly favors corporate powers over the rights of individuals.
All those people who scream how great America is without examining her flaws are nothing more than zealots who have made America a religion.
The fact is, we are all people, no matter what country we live in.We are for the most part no better or worse than our neighbors. We need to look more at individuals and their quality of life,instead of assuming a pack mentality and assuming that all "unsuccessful" people just aren't trying hard enough.
America was a great idea.And the ideals she was founded on are truly something to be proud of.But until we get back to that, "exceptional-ism" will elude us.

RickWhite said:

Although you have multi-quoted my post and responded to each line, none of those responses really addressed my point. They were closer to being comebacks than responses.

If you want to truly respond, show me where you feel that America is an exceptional Country. Give an example of how success is a benefit to society. Can you think of anything?

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

The purpose to a FEDERAL Govt. is to protect the nation from foreign and domestic threats, and to help negotiate commerce between parties when impasses are reached.

That's about all the founding fathers intended. All else was the domain of the states where the ppl affected by policies had a stronger voice to compensate any irregularities legislatively.

Click to expand...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nuff said.

Stoney McFried said:

Unfortunately, America isn't an exceptional country anymore.Our society is being dumbed down at an alarming rate,we outsource jobs and industries we used to be the leaders of,we over medicate,we interfere in the private lives of our citizens more and more.We are not an exceptional country. We may have been at one time.
Everyone knows how success is a benefit to society.Strong, successful companies can hire more employees,can allocate more funds toward research and development of new and innovative technologies and products.But if we don't temper success with compassion,we create an imbalance that unfairly favors corporate powers over the rights of individuals.
All those people who scream how great America is without examining her flaws are nothing more than zealots who have made America a religion.
The fact is, we are all people, no matter what country we live in.We are for the most part no better or worse than our neighbors. We need to look more at individuals and their quality of life,instead of assuming a pack mentality and assuming that all "unsuccessful" people just aren't trying hard enough.
America was a great idea.And the ideals she was founded on are truly something to be proud of.But until we get back to that, "exceptional-ism" will elude us.

Click to expand...

What do you think is the best way to achieve prosperity for the greatest number of people?

Do you think that it is best to provide incentive for people to succeed or not to? When you punish success through taxes and reward failure through subsidies you are giving people incentive not to succeed. When you give single mothers more welfare for having more children out of wedlock do they have incentive to marry the father and not have children they can't afford or to do the opposite?

Have you ever heard of the "free rider problem"? How about the "collective action problem"?

What do you think of the strategy of encouraging entrepreneurs to start business' that will employ people as a means to spread prosperity? Do you think it is more effective to give a man a job or to subsidize his existence?

medicineman said:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nuff said.

Click to expand...

I can't decide what's funnier: A member who has in the past shown absolute contempt for the Constitution now evoking it; or that ridiculous welfare argument.

In the Preamble, the framers were telling the country what they would like to do. In the body of the document they described exactly how it would get done.

The were talking about creating an environment where everyone has the opportunity to create a life for themselves under limited government. They most certainly were not talking about entitlement programs.

Welcome back, by the way.

The problem with the right is they are far too easily frightened to enjoy the freedom that the founders intended for them to have.

I mean hell, they though that a country which couldnt even fly airplanes in their own airspace was a threat to the US!! and I wont even go into the hell they put US though due to their fear of the evils of maryjane.

Eliminate greed?
But seriously, I think we really need to ensure everyone has the same opportunities as everyone else.Education shouldn't be so expensive.Health care shouldn't be so expensive. Companies should be rewarded in some way for hiring locally,and for not outsourcing to other countries for cheap labor.Taxes aren't punishment,as long as they're fair and equal for all.Sure, give companies some tax breaks for doing the things I mentioned above,but not for wantonly polluting the environment, disregarding regulations,and acting completely unethically.
As for welfare mothers,many of the fathers of these children are on the welfare right there with them.And marriage isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if they don't mind popping out a ton of children. Maybe we should make sterilization a free procedure,and give them some sort of incentive if they undergo the procedure.Like some job training,or help with schooling.


I think if people are able to work, and their children are of a certain age,then they should work,if there are jobs available.But I also think that just because they come from lower means doesn't mean they have to do all the shit labor the rich folks don't want to do.They should have the opportunity to be trained in the field of their choice without worrying that they'll be in debt for the next 30 years because of it. Maybe if they can get a glimpse of "the good life",and feel they will be rewarded for their work,they will be more likely to succeed. I can't imagine anyone wanting to live on welfare permanently,it's not exactly luxurious.Who the hell would really want to scrape by on nothing, worrying about the bills getting paid every month?Maybe if they didn't feel so hopeless because the rich keep getting richer and the poor get poorer?Maybe if decent medical care and education didn't seem so far out of reach for the average lower income worker,they'd achieve some of that success everyone is talking about.I don't know if this answer satisfies you;I don't study social science and I've never claimed to have all the answers. I have seen what doesn't work, however.

RickWhite said:

What do you think is the best way to achieve prosperity for the greatest number of people?

Do you think that it is best to provide incentive for people to succeed or not to? When you punish success through taxes and reward failure through subsidies you are giving people incentive not to succeed. When you give single mothers more welfare for having more children out of wedlock do they have incentive to marry the father and not have children they can't afford or to do the opposite?

Have you ever heard of the "free rider problem"? How about the "collective action problem"?

What do you think of the strategy of encouraging entrepreneurs to start business' that will employ people as a means to spread prosperity? Do you think it is more effective to give a man a job or to subsidize his existence?

Click to expand...

kayakook said:

The problem with the right is they are far too easily frightened to enjoy the freedom that the founders intended for them to have.

I mean hell, they though that a country which couldnt even fly airplanes in their own airspace was a threat to the US!! and I wont even go into the hell they put US though due to their fear of the evils of maryjane.

Click to expand...

Boy do you have it backwards.

BushCo. did not have to convince the Right that going back into Iraq was the next phase of the War. The Right knew that it was easier to defeat Al Queda in Iraq than Afghanistan. The Right also knew there were vast oilfields in Iraq.

The cheap scare tactics were meant for Democrats and Independents, particularly those who lean Left.

And you mention cannabis without mentioning who got the Prohibition ball rolling in the first place.

Here's my opinion. Those on the right label everyone not a republican, a liberal. The dreaded 'liberals' are nothing more than another enemy that the right needs to fight. Let's not forget those successful people are the same ones who brought the stock market from fourteen thousand to just above seven thousand in a matter of months. Or do people think it was the average american with their 401k plans that caused the markets to crash? It was big business with their immoral and deceptive business practices. From the day this country was started there has always been two classes of people, the same as today, those with and those without. I consider myself a liberal, socially liberal, but I also consider myself fiscally conservative. After over fifty five years of living, I consider the liberals as the party of change. If it weren't for the civil rights marches, the strike at Blair Mountain, the vietnam war protests and many other instances where the liberals stepped forward to challenge the status quo, we would all still be living in the era of the robber barons. Liberals are not against success, we are against success at the expense of others. When the tide comes in, all boats should rise, not just the yachts.

I'm sorry, where were you in the last election cycle??? I guess you missed Obama's entire campaign against the right.

I guess it's not OBVIOUS to you that the left used BUSH to springboard into the top governing positions and claim a majority in Congress.

Or does ur perspective only see things one way...........

Mr Tambourine Man said:

The difference between someone who makes 15k a year and 500k a year is primarily hard work, personal responsibility, and merit. The difference between the guy who makes 500k a year and 500 million a year, however, is primarily luck, having a rich, well-connected family that can mentor you effectively from birth, and taking advantage of the many opportunities only afforded to the super-rich. (This is just a general rule, of course there's exceptions.) I believe this because I don't think the average 500k guy is lazy, dumb or not already obsessed with his career and doing everything he can to get ahead in life.

So, making it to the ranks of the super-rich is like winning the lottery. You have to be smart and obsessed, but 99% of those people only make it to the 500k - 1 million range. What's missing? Luck and connections. Sorry, but if we took 1% more from those people (which will have zero impact on their standard of living) and gave it to the people who win the reverse lottery in life (being born into an abusive family, getting schizophrenia in your 20s), so that they don't have to live like animals for the rest of their lives despite trying their best with the hand they were dealt, I'd sleep like a baby.

Plus, the supply-side argument--i.e., the super-rich invest, take away from them and the economy suffers for everyone--is stupid. I could just as easily say poor people spend most of their income, give to them and the economy prospers for everyone. Without hard numbers and actual research, anyone can make up a superficially-plausible argument to support their view.

Click to expand...

This is spot on. People deserve to be able to have a high quality standard of living...if they put in the work. People should be able to make a million a year (even that is pushing it)...but no one should be making 100s of millions. No one's standard of living is that high....I feel like I'd get bored of being so rich and want to come back to real life....so I'd give most of my money away.

Greedy fuckers sitting on 100s of millions is all that is stopping the elimination of poverty.

Bill gates alone could eliminate poverty...god damn.

The claim I am making here is greedy bastards need to pay their employees more and stop sitting on money they will never use.

What he failed to realize is that connections are EARNED, just like salaries. It's not luck .. it's still hard work. It almost always is the work. It's not the lottery.

That attitude however will almost guarantee you'll never make the top grade.

Heads Up said:

Here's my opinion. Those on the right label everyone not a republican, a liberal. The dreaded 'liberals' are nothing more than another enemy that the right needs to fight. Let's not forget those successful people are the same ones who brought the stock market from fourteen thousand to just above seven thousand in a matter of months. Or do people think it was the average american with their 401k plans that caused the markets to crash? It was big business with their immoral and deceptive business practices. From the day this country was started there has always been two classes of people, the same as today, those with and those without. I consider myself a liberal, socially liberal, but I also consider myself fiscally conservative. After over fifty five years of living, I consider the liberals as the party of change. If it weren't for the civil rights marches, the strike at Blair Mountain, the vietnam war protests and many other instances where the liberals stepped forward to challenge the status quo, we would all still be living in the era of the robber barons. Liberals are not against success, we are against success at the expense of others. When the tide comes in, all boats should rise, not just the yachts.

Click to expand...

When the tide comes in, those who took the time to build a decent boat should not be forced to paddle somebody elses canoe. If that becomes the norm, where is the incentive to build a good boat? Charity is good, but socialism robs ingenuity, drive and productivity.
Besides how would you manage the redistribution of wealth, at gunpoint?


The Viet Nam war was escalated by LBJ, a liberal democrat. Protesting the war is a good thing, but let's recognize who was President during the ramp up.

Some Evil corporations do exist, so why not ask government to stop subsidizing them or underwriting them rather than collaborating with them?.

CrackerJax said:

I'm sorry, where were you in the last election cycle??? I guess you missed Obama's entire campaign against the right.

I guess it's not OBVIOUS to you that the left used BUSH to springboard into the top governing positions and claim a majority in Congress.

Or does ur perspective only see things one way...........

Click to expand...

It's obvious to anyone with two brain cells.

never in history has there been a more perfect setup for a gov. power swap

CrackerJax said:

What he failed to realize is that connections are EARNED, just like salaries. It's not luck .. it's still hard work. It almost always is the work. It's not the lottery.

That attitude however will almost guarantee you'll never make the top grade.

Click to expand...

The point remains, no one needs that much money.

Do you think I want to make it to the top grade? Fuck no. Nothing but problems at the top.

I prefer some focus on financial success but no more than necessary for my most basic luxuries. Why live life for success when I can live life for openness and love? To me, the choice is blatantly obvious.

The best things are life are free anyways. This statement doesn't imply things that are expensive aren't good, they just aren't the best...therefore implying assets and excess financial wealth are not a necessity of happiness.

edit: it is the luck. a lot of it is. however, luck is not a necessity to success...that is quite obvious. my fathers father was poor...my father is pretty wealthy. I will likely be more wealthy than my father, because I don't have to work my ass off and still owe 10s of thousands in collegiate debt. . I am fortunate, my father was not as fortunate, financially.


connections are earned eh? what about inheritances? it's luck. being born into a multi million dollar family almost guarantees financial security.

unless your a fuck up and your parents are smart enough to make you earn it so they kick you out at 18 without a dime. if you behave well and are responsible, wealthy parents will likely help get you a head start on your life

Success, what is it? My brother is successful, he and his wife live in a six thousand square foot house in one of the richest counties in the country, montgomery county pennsylvania. He has nice cars, nice clothes and enough money to not have to worry. He is successful in the way many people measure success, with material things. I on the other hand don't have near the house, cars or clothes he does, am I a failure? He's a republican, I am an independent.

With all his 'success', he thinks I have a much better grasp of what life is all about than he does. Maybe he's to insulated in his success? I work to live, I don't live to work. What good is all the money in the world if your obsession with money never really lets you enjoy what you have? Some of the most miserable people I know are 'successful' and have plenty of money.

I'm happy with me. I am less than two thousand dollars from outright owning my home, I don't have a car payment and I can sleep at night with a clear conscience knowing I haven't screwed anyone to get what I work for, he can't. He is a thief, a liar and is willing to screw his own family members to make more money. I remember a time we went golfing with a couple of our first cousins, one of which is wealthy, as in millions wealthy. My brother paid for the golf for all of us. When we were leaving I said to him, that was nice that you paid for all of us to golf. He laughed, he was doing some work for our wealthy cousin and said, I'm not paying, Bobby is paying, he just doesn't know it, I'll add it to his bill. If this is how people become successful, I want no part of that kind of success.