Re: Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
No. You have created a 'liberal' in your mind who embodies every bad argument you can think of to oppose the things you like. But it's a real fallacy to do so.
Many issues seem to indicate such. I have to wonder if they just took elementary math wherein 2 + 2 = 4, and never advanced to concepts of algebra and calculus where x + y = 4, wherein if x changes, y will also change because it is part of the same formula. Examples of issues following:
Let me interject here with a question: wasn't it Bush and the Republicans - therefore, not Liberal minds - who were the 'stay the course' crowd, even though Liberals argued that x had changed so y had to change as well?
Your criticisms are good all around. But I digress -
If a man makes a hundred grand and pays 20% or 20 grand in taxes, they assume if they raise taxes to 30%, the government will collect 30 grand.
Why is this a bad assumption to make? You need to detail reasons why the taxes wouldn't scale.
If a company is taxed at a higher rate, they assume the company will continue to make the same profits for shareholders and employ the same number of people at the same wages as before.
No, Liberals don't assume this. You are projecting a false attitude onto Liberals.
We assume that when companies are taxed at a higher rate, then the profits for shareholders will be lower
. That's the consequence of increasing costs for the company. We just don't care, because shareholder profit rates are very unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
If an oil company receives tax breaks for oil production, and if the tax breaks are eliminated, they assume the oil company will continue to be able to have just as many profitable oil wells and will maintain the same production, and no additional shortages or price effects will be felt by the consumer. This principle would of course apply to any company besides oil companies.
No, we don't assume this. This is an extension of what you wrote above, worded differently.
If oil company tax breaks are rescinded, then their profits will go down. This is easy for anyone to see. It's just that we aren't concerned with the profits going down. I don't have a lot of sympathy for oil companies.
Also, I have a hard time seeing how the prices will go up significantly. A company which profited 30 billion last year can afford to pay 2 billion more in taxes and not break a sweat when it comes to prices. You will have to explain more why you believe this is true.
If the minimum wage is increased, they assume there will be the same number of jobs and unemployment will not be affected. Also, the number of people satisfied with minimum wage jobs is always the same regardless of what the minimum wage is.
This is a statement about Liberals mixed with some odd information at the end. Not to mention that there exists zero
data that I have seen showing that unemployment goes up at all when minimum wages are raised. This directly contradicts the recent Florida experiences with raising the minimum wage, actaully, so I would say that the facts are on the side of the Liberals.
If they decrease the interest rates for college loans, they assume there will be the same number of loans given by banks and that tuition costs charged by colleges and universities will not be affected.
What? College loan interest rates have nothing to do with the price of tuition. They have nothing to do with how many loans are given out, either; there are no shortage of banks willing to loan money which is federally guaranteed to be paid back to them.
I guarantee that at 6% the bank will give out loans to as many people as they did at 8%. I think you would be hard pressed, once again, to provide any actual data that this is not true.
If they lock up more and more public land, they assume this will not affect the production of natural resources and prices of those resources.
Wrong again, we assume that it will make the price of those resources rise. We are indifferent to this, because low prices are not the only calculation that matters in life; the environment is also very important and worth paying higher prices for.
Also, we can be said to be looking to the future; the pollution created by industry will have to be cleaned up, period. The only question is whether it is cleaned now or later, at a greater expense. Which one do you think is more intelligent?
If more welfare benefits are given to people that do not work, they assume this will not affect the number of people attempting to get on the welfare rolls.
I haven't seen any liberals arguing for greater welfare lately, have you?
When natural disasters occur, such as Hurricane Katrina, it is assumed that only one entity had any responsibility in warning people, saving people, and cleaning up the mess, and that is the Federal Government, more specifically the president. The people, the state, and the local governments were totally helpless and are not part of the solution or the same equation.
This is bullsh*t on your part. I'm a liberal, and I never said those things. Criticism of the federal government doesn't mean that no responsibility lies elsewhere.
Expenditures on the military have no relationship to war or national security. The fact that we've had no terrorist attacks here since 911 and no serious conflicts with other nations on our soil has nothing to do with the fact that we spend alot on national defense. We could have spent far less or even nothing since nothing much has happened.
First of all, you forget about the Anthrax attacks. To say that we have had no terrorism in America since 9/11 is a lie. You should quit making that false statement.
Second, you can't show me what we've done here at home to make ourselves safer from determined terrorists. We haven't closed the borders or secured our ports, many of our nuclear facilities are still vulnerable to attack, our rail and train systems as well. As well our food production.
You know as well as I that the 'cell' nature of terrorism means that AQ is not hampered from their ability to attack America by what's going on in Iraq. Why would they be? Give me a convincing argument and I'll agree with you that our offensive actions are providing defense. Otherwise, I disagree, because I can't for the life of me figure out why a decentralized, highly independent terror organization would be bogged down like a traditional army.
Eliminating the wiretapping of terrorist related organizations will have absolutely no effect on the likelihood of the government catching terrorists. They are two separate issues.
We never wanted to eliminate wiretapping of everything. We just want a judge to look it over, as is the American tradition since the founding of our country. You appear to be hyperventilating a little by this point.
Locking up terrorist suspects at Gitmo has not deterred terrorists at all, but they are only locked up for vague political reasons.
Incidences of worldwide terrorism have risen every year since we started locking up terrorists in Gitmo; you show me the data that it has deterred terrorists at all.
Additionally, you think the several hundred people who have been released weren't
locked up for vague reasons? That we just let a bunch of terrorists go? Definately hyperventilating, calm down and breath deeply.
There are lots more examples, but I am tired of typing for now. Maybe others can come up with more. I think the list is endless.
That's because you are irrationally biased against Liberals. You ascribe the antithesis of every opinion you hold to the other side without bothering to check for silly things like facts or actual historical arguments.
I've cautioned you about this before.... silliness...