Income inequality has long been one of the liberals’ favorite issues. So there’s nothing surprising about its being pushed hard this election year.

If nothing else, it is a much-needed distraction from the disasters of ObamaCare and the various IRS, Benghazi and other Obama administration scandals.

Like so many other favorite liberal issues, income inequality is seldom discussed in terms of the actual consequences of liberal policies. When you turn from eloquent rhetoric to hard facts, the hardest of those facts is that income inequality has actually increased during five years of President Obama’s leftist policies.

This isn’t as surprising as some might think. When you make it unnecessary for many people to work, fewer people work. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are on the food stamp program. Unprecedented numbers are also living off government “disability” payments.

There is a sweeping array of other government subsidies, whether in money or in kind, which together allow many people to receive greater benefits than they could earn by working at low-skilled jobs. Is it surprising that the labor force participation rate is lower than it has been in decades?

http://nypost.com/2014/04/22/the-high-co...iberalism/

I've said it a thousand times. You cannot be socially liberal and expect a fiscally conservative govt. It just doesn't work.

(04-23-2014 09:28 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I've said it a thousand times. You cannot be socially liberal and expect a fiscally conservative govt. It just doesn't work.

Yes, if the damn government stopped trying to get involved in social liberal and welfare based programs and concentrated more on duties as outlined in the Constitution, it would be more fiscally conservative. Now, unfortunately, we have built a self-interested social cause / welfare bureaucracy that has become one enormous dependency machine.

But this doesn't stop me from having what would be defined as socially liberal views; I just don't need the government to codify and encourage any view, liberal or conservative.

Sorry, I am going to edit. I am going to remove liberal from this statement because there are plenty of conservative social and welfare programs like ethanol subsidies, business tax loopholes, private prisons, the militarization of the police, and many parts of the war on drugs.

The policy of the American government should be to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

Then why are you a liberal? You know that they believe in BIG government ala the Obama administration.

(04-23-2014 09:26 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  


Income inequality has long been one of the liberals’ favorite issues. So there’s nothing surprising about its being pushed hard this election year.

If nothing else, it is a much-needed distraction from the disasters of ObamaCare and the various IRS, Benghazi and other Obama administration scandals.

Like so many other favorite liberal issues, income inequality is seldom discussed in terms of the actual consequences of liberal policies. When you turn from eloquent rhetoric to hard facts, the hardest of those facts is that income inequality has actually increased during five years of President Obama’s leftist policies.

[i]This isn’t as surprising as some might think. When you make it unnecessary for many people to work, fewer people work. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are on the food stamp program. Unprecedented numbers are also living off government “disability” payments.

There is a sweeping array of other government subsidies, whether in money or in kind, which together allow many people to receive greater benefits than they could earn by working at low-skilled jobs. Is it surprising that the labor force participation rate is lower than it has been in decades?[/i]

http://nypost.com/2014/04/22/the-high-co...iberalism/

And the ones who aren't lazy are the ones who find the jobs...

Income equality was just invented by the Dems as a battle cry because they know they are in trouble for obamacare. They need that battle cry to get those uninformed and "ignorant" voters to vote for them.

(04-23-2014 09:53 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:28 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I've said it a thousand times. You cannot be socially liberal and expect a fiscally conservative govt. It just doesn't work.

Yes, if the damn government stopped trying to get involved in social liberal and welfare based programs and concentrated more on duties as outlined in the Constitution, it would be more fiscally conservative. Now, unfortunately, we have built a self-interested social cause / welfare bureaucracy that has become one enormous dependency machine.

But this doesn't stop me from having what would be defined as socially liberal views; I just don't need the government to codify and encourage any view, liberal or conservative.

Sorry, I am going to edit. I am going to remove liberal from this statement because there are plenty of conservative social and welfare programs like ethanol subsidies, business tax loopholes, private prisons, the militarization of the police, and many parts of the war on drugs.

The policy of the American government should be to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

But it is no surprise that your way always brings about more social liberalism, is it?

(04-23-2014 09:28 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I've said it a thousand times. You cannot be socially liberal and expect a fiscally conservative govt. It just doesn't work.

Any support for that assertion?

A fiscally conservative government would spend a lot less enforcing a bunch of socially conservative laws, for one thing.

I've heard the argument that social liberalism means more people on welfare. But if fiscal conservatism approached that problem correctly, that wouldn't happen. I haven't heard any other arguments in favor of the proposition.

(04-23-2014 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:28 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I've said it a thousand times. You cannot be socially liberal and expect a fiscally conservative govt. It just doesn't work.

Any support for that assertion?

A fiscally conservative government would spend a lot less enforcing a bunch of socially conservative laws, for one thing.

I've heard the argument that social liberalism means more people on welfare. But if fiscal conservatism approached that problem correctly, that wouldn't happen. I haven't heard any other arguments in favor of the proposition.

It's called entitlements, it's called social programs, it's called wealth distribution...ALL OF WHICH are a result of social liberalism. Social liberalism is about seeing inequality. It's called drug rehabilitation, goverment assistance for teen mothers, crime...everything that social liberalism brings about.

It's why libertarianism doesn't work and has never been mainstream. It's a fantasy. The only way you can have a conservative government is to also have a top heavy social conservative society. It's the very core of conservatism. It's is well oiled machine that works when both pistons are firing.

Define top heavy social conservatism.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

(04-23-2014 07:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Define top heavy social conservatism.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Right of center. Just like our founding fathers intended.

(04-23-2014 07:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Define top heavy social conservatism.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Right of center. Just like our founding fathers intended.

What does this translate into in terms of policy?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

(04-23-2014 07:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It's called entitlements, it's called social programs, it's called wealth distribution...ALL OF WHICH are a result of social liberalism. Social liberalism is about seeing inequality. It's called drug rehabilitation, goverment assistance for teen mothers, crime...everything that social liberalism brings about.

That's not social liberalism. That's FISCAL liberalism.

(04-23-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It's called entitlements, it's called social programs, it's called wealth distribution...ALL OF WHICH are a result of social liberalism. Social liberalism is about seeing inequality. It's called drug rehabilitation, goverment assistance for teen mothers, crime...everything that social liberalism brings about.

That's not social liberalism. That's FISCAL liberalism.

Nope. Social liberalism brings about fiscal liberalism. It's rooted in the ideology. You cannot separate the two.

Look at the picture in the OP. Who are they asking for help? Ask yourself if you really think there is a chance.

(04-23-2014 07:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It's called entitlements, it's called social programs, it's called wealth distribution...ALL OF WHICH are a result of social liberalism. Social liberalism is about seeing inequality. It's called drug rehabilitation, goverment assistance for teen mothers, crime...everything that social liberalism brings about.

That's not social liberalism. That's FISCAL liberalism.

Nope. Social liberalism brings about fiscal liberalism. It's rooted in the ideology. You cannot separate the two.

Look at the picture in the OP. Who are they asking for help? Ask yourself if you really think there is a chance.

But they are FISCAL liberals. They may or may not happen also to be social liberals, but it's FISCAL liberalism that is driving them, not social liberalism.

What part of what they are doing do you think is SOCIAL liberalism?

(04-23-2014 08:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It's called entitlements, it's called social programs, it's called wealth distribution...ALL OF WHICH are a result of social liberalism. Social liberalism is about seeing inequality. It's called drug rehabilitation, goverment assistance for teen mothers, crime...everything that social liberalism brings about.

That's not social liberalism. That's FISCAL liberalism.

Nope. Social liberalism brings about fiscal liberalism. It's rooted in the ideology. You cannot separate the two.

Look at the picture in the OP. Who are they asking for help? Ask yourself if you really think there is a chance.

But they are FISCAL liberals. They may or may not happen also to be social liberals, but it's FISCAL liberalism that is driving them, not social liberalism.

What part of what they are doing do you think is SOCIAL liberalism?

This at the very flaw in you ideology and libertarians aren't able to understand this. You cannot have social liberalism and expect fiscal conservatism.

The majority of the liberal agenda (and I am using this term in a value-neutral context) including universal health care, equity in quality of education and environmentalism require significant investment of public money to accomplish in any meaningful fashion.

Those very initiatives are driven by social liberalism. Inequality, race, gender, sexual orientation...etc There is no such thing as sole fiscal liberalism because liberalism is driven by emotion, not logic.

To be socially liberal is to use the power of the state. The social liberal tries to steer people from the natural consequences of their own action. This often involves subsidies, which are expensive. The expenses increase dramatically over time as more people respond to the incentives that the social liberal set up by indulging in more destructive behavior.

I'm sorry if this is not what you want to hear but you will eventually see this as the truth. This is why Ayn Rand's views were rejected in the past and why they are not becoming mainstream today. Fiscal liberalism is driven by social liberalism.

I don't think you understand what social liberalism is.

You can't have the things you're talking about without fiscal liberalism, because the things you're talking about ARE fiscal liberalism. It's like saying that being a Mercedes-Benz leads to being a car.

(04-23-2014 02:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Then why are you a liberal? You know that they believe in BIG government ala the Obama administration.

Are you asking me why I am a liberal? I am not.

I believe that Americans are a free association of equals.

As an example I will not oppose gay marriage because I am of the conservative opinion that our elected officials shouldn't have a say in private things like that.... so by not opposing gay marriage, many would say I am socially liberal. But by not supporting gay marriage by not supporting having it codified into law, I am expressly supporting more fiscally conservative view of government.

See, social liberal / fiscal conservative. Let the people do what they want and don't spend tax dollars to support or oppose it......

Signed, Lord Stanley.
Uppity libertarian-conservative non-Christian