text:
#9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?
Essay #9
Nuclear Counterarguments
22-Essay Series
A Reference Library
On Liberalism
Capsule: #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really? in one word asks a question that goes to the heart of the legitimacy of contemporary American liberalism. If there is one thing that liberals love to define themselves as, it is compassionate for those in need. But is it true? Does the empirical evidence support this contention? We'll see…
By Their Own Definition Liberals Owe America a Lot of Money
Focus: Liberals believe that a tax cut for the rich is stealing from the poor. So when will rich liberals, who are thieves in their own minds, going to pay back the Reagan, Contract With America, and Bush tax cuts?
Details: #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really? answers the question in the title with a multitude of evidence. Liberals are not really compassionate. They are populists. A populist is a political manipulator who uses the us-versus-them strategy to ingratiate themselves to one group of people by demonizing another group of people. Thus, we have liberals pitting the poor against the rich to gain popularity with the masses by pretending to be compassionate for their cause by attacking the 'evil rich'. Of course, usually it all boils down to penalizing the rich with more taxes and regulations, while little changes for the poor. This, liberals define as compassion.
Not only do liberals believe that they are compassionate, but they also believe that conservatives are not – to a liberal, conservatives are simply greedy. For instance, conservatives only want tax cuts for the rich in order to steal from the poor. In fact, this creates a delicious conundrum which results in the liberal reader needing to personally repudiate this myth of liberal compassion just to avoid having to send thousands of dollars to the federal government to sooth his own conscience. (Oh – to be a fly on the wall when liberals read this!)
Excerpts: ~Wealth adds benefit to liberty. A person is free to travel pretty much as they choose and purchase whatever luxuries they desire, with the one main restriction being affordability. Liberals resent that some people can afford to enjoy their liberty more than others. Their answer is to supposedly level the playing field with collectivism. … Liberals resent those who embrace liberty, and they resent even more those who enjoy liberty. Money enables one to enjoy one's liberty. So the liberal thinks, "The rich individualist is an evil monster that crawled out from under that there rock."~
Liberals or conservatives? Who gives more money to charities? Who gives more money to elite charities like operas, art galleries, etc.? Who gives more money to charities for the needy? Who donates more blood? Who donates more time as volunteers? Who is more likely to keep excess change? Who is more likely to help a homeless person? Who buys "green" and then are more likely to smugly lie, cheat and steal? Who prefers to be generous with other people's money? Once all of these questions are answered we will know if liberals really are the compassionate ones.
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
Liberals love culture wars, American neighbor. They love to pit minorities against majorities, women against men, and the poor against the rich (populism – it has always been a fascist favorite). Mostly however, the issue for liberals is not what is important. For instance, the poor versus the rich culture war in America is less about wealth than about liberty. Liberals do not so much resent the rich for their riches, but for the luxuries those riches provide to those who do not agree with utopia. Wealth adds benefit to liberty. A person is free to travel pretty much as they choose and purchase whatever luxuries they desire. Liberals resent that some people can afford to enjoy their liberty more than others. Their answer is to supposedly level the playing field with collectivism. But liberals don't resent all of the rich. By looking at the world through a collectivist prism they view some of the rich as unfairly luxuriating in life. Rich liberals, while being rich, are more importantly, already collectivists (or at least they mouth the politically correct platitudes), so they can be excused for being rich. Warren Buffett can be excused for his billions because he makes the proper platitudinous affirmations toward collectivism, even though his supposed concessions provide him with additional wealth (more later). Liberals resent other people who don't think like them (collectivism), who while embracing liberty as an ideology, at the same time have the financial ability to live their liberty to the fullest. So the liberal thinks, "That rich individualist is an evil monster who crawled out from under that there rock."
I have a question for you, American neighbor. Liberals believe things should be fair. So I am guessing that to be fair, every able person should contribute at least an equal share to the maintenance of society. Is that a fair supposition, American neighbor? In this essay the predominant principle we will examine is that of liberal projection.ab
• Michael Moore – poor little rich boy
This essay is about liberals living up to their own rhetoric (800 pound gorillas). Michael Moore, 2002:
~ "Back home we call it fuck-you money, OK? What that means is, the distributor of the film can't ever say to me, 'Don't you dare say this in the interview' or 'You better change that in the movie because if you don't, you're not going to get another movie deal.' Because I already have my home and my family taken care of, and enough money from this film and book to make the next film, I'm able to say, 'Fuck you.' No one in authority can hold money over me to get me to conform."~ [ydbalqv]
This is the essence of free market capitalism, American neighbor. A small-time documentary film producer makes it big enough (to the top 1%) to direct his own destiny. This was when Michael Moore obviously believed in free market capitalism, but then, his attitude changed in 2010:
This essay:
300-word pages of text = 60
Reference citation links = 73
Recommended-reading links = 58
Profound insights = 48
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-43 DAKOTA
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
~ "What I'm asking for is a new economic order. I don't know how to construct that. I'm not an economist. All I ask is that it have two organising [sic] principles. Number one, that the economy is run democratically. In other words, the people have a say in how its run, not just the 1%. And number two, that it has an ethical and moral core to it. That nothing is done without considering the ethical nature, no business decision is made without first asking the question, is this for the common good?"~
Michael Moore's recent liberal call to arms is that free market capitalism is "evil". Or in real-speak pertaining to the above two quotes, 'I've made my millions from capitalism – now it is time to scrap it!' So, what if it were decided "democratically" that Michael Moore's top 1% millions should be confiscated and divided among the voters "for the common good"? I bet he would reconvert back to pro free market capitalism as fast as he could say, "Fuck-you!" But if free market capitalism is so "evil" as his projection contends, wouldn't that mean that all of Michael Moore's financial gains have been as a result of his participation in "evil"? Shouldn't he be "considering the ethical nature" of his "evil" gains and donate all of his money for the "common good" to some charity to redeem himself from the stain of his supposedly ill-gotten booty? Jus' askin'…ac
• 'Tax cuts are stolen from the poor'
Based on the erroneous liberal belief that tax revenues are like a single static pie chart, and the groupthink principle that conservative motives are evil, liberals naturally conclude that conservative/Republican tax cuts are aimed at benefiting rich Americans at the expense of the middle class and the poor (once again, notice the presumption of evil motives and the extreme paranoia):
• ~ "There has never been an administration in Washington before in history that has so dramatically favored the extremely rich people in this country at the expense of poor and working class families."~ – Jimmy Carter about Bush 43 [22nvju]
• ~But a senior White House official was critical of Gingrich's targeting of the earned income tax credit, saying that once again a Republican is proposing to pay for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.~ – Clinton administration response to republican tax reform as reported by the Washington Post [yb9gvzv]
• ~ "Indeed, the tax and budget plan approved by the House Budget Committee provides the clearest evidence to date of the intent to balance tax breaks for millionaires on the backs of poor and middle-income families."~ – Letter to House members from Fair Taxes For All Coalition, a liberal network of 230 organizations [y9bb48b]
• ~ "So we give tax cuts to rich people, we roll up the deficit. And when we try to balance the budget, we balance it on the backs of poor people, working families and kids."~ Rob Reiner, outspoken Hollywood liberal in a CNN interview [y9xxvug]
• ~ "This budget bill attempts to balance the deficits caused by the war in Iraq and the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans squarely on the backs of poor and working class Americans."~ – Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) [y9na5of]
• ~ "It is immoral to subsidize massive new tax breaks for the rich on the backs of poor children."~ – President of the liberal Children's Defense Fund, Marion Edelman [y8h4tuu]
• ~The end result of current policies [tax cuts] will be a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent, in which about 80 percent of the population will lose and the bulk of the gains will go to people with incomes of more than $200,000 per year.~ Economist Paul Krugman, referring to President George W. Bush's tax cuts [yb6o4zn, yeov2a5]
• ~Democrats accused Archer of crafting a tax plan that would cater to big business and the rich, at the expense of the poor, and said President Bill Clinton was certain to veto the bill.~ CNNMoney report on Democrat response to Republican tax cut proposal [ydxm397]
• ~ "Democratic critics say the bill offers too much relief to wealthy families at the expense of the poor."~ – Time Magazine on GOP tax cuts [y4vx4pm]
• ~ "They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor."~ – Michael Moore about "the haters" (Republicans) in a letter to Barack Obama [yguor6k]
• ~ "It [the tax cut] has also exposed the White House to charges from Democrats and moderate Republicans that the Bush administration is seeking to take advantage of the economic recession to reward wealthy Americans and Republican party supporters at the expense of the poor and the middle classes."~ – Guardian on Bush tax cuts [y9yt7dr]
• ~ "Bush Budget Proposal Would Benefit Wealthy at the Expense of the Poor"~ – Center for Family Policy and Practice on Bush proposal to make previous tax cuts permanent [7j5r9wv]
• ~ "The top one percent of Americans owns twice as much as the percentage of America than they did 20 years ago, and that of course has to come from somebody else, and it comes from the people who aren't in the top one percent."~ – Former Democratic presidential candidate, Howard Dean [3zu46pc]
• ~ "Next time one of those conservative Senators comes to you and says he's standing up for American values, ask him what values he's upholding by giving tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor."~ – Democratic Senator, John Kerry [y9xdzc2]
• ~ "Forces that really essentially close schools, and close universities, and deny, deny literally deny clothing to foster kids in order to give rich people tax cuts."~ – AFL-CIO associate general counsel Damon Silvers about Republicans [3u3pjoe]
• ~This [cutting taxes for the wealthy] is about reshaping the government and economy to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless.~ [3bpdxxu] – NY Times columnist, Charles Blow
• ~ "They cry class warfare to hide a redistribution wealth that takes the hard-earned money of working Americans and gives it to the rich — maintaining corporate tax loopholes, granting rebates to oil companies, and extending the Bush tax cuts." [6dy2dzz] Huffington Post writer, Paul Stoller
• ~ "Let's face the reality: If ripping off the public trust; if distributing tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor; … if this isn't class war, what is?" – Former White House Press Secretary, Bill Moyers in a speech at New York University [3gm2ah7]
• ~ "This is reverse Robin Hoodism, if you like — take from the poor, give back to the rich again." — Christiane Amanpour talking to Rep. Paul Ryan about his budget proposal, May 1, 2011.~ [74r74eh]
• ~Conservatives like to say that taxes are theft. In fact it is tax cuts that are theft because they break a long-standing contract.~ – Campaign for America's Future [27gtykf]
• ~Three decades of trickle-down economic theory, see-no-evil deregulation and tax-cutting fervor have led to massive redistribution. Another word for what's been happening might be theft. … If Americans were to realize they've been the victims of Republican-style redistribution — stealing from the poor to give to the rich — the whole political atmosphere might change. [6gowpf9] – Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson
• ~The real contrast is over what the plan does for the rich and what it does to everyone else. It reduces the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent. This would give the wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of at least $150,000 a year. The money would come out of programs for the elderly, lower-middle families, and the poor.~ [8xqtke9] – Liberal economist, Robert Reich about tax cuts in Republican Paul Ryan's 2012 budget proposal
• ~America's middle class has been pummeled, in part, by tax policies that reward "the 1%" at the expense of everyone else.~ – Henry Blodget, CEO Business Insider [nchfxuj]
• ~ "They'll take food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest."~ – Democratic House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi about Republicans [owqrxr]
• ~ "He [John McCain] said he couldn't in good conscience support tax cuts where the benefit went to the wealthy at the expense of middle class Americans who most need the tax relief. That's his quote. Well, he was right then, and I am right now."~ – presidential candidate, Barack Obama [5ju9kg]
• ~Now, with the economy getting back on its feet, Mr. Obama attacked the demand by Republicans to make the lower tax rates permanent as emblematic of their plan to enrich the wealthy on the backs of the elderly and poor.~ – NY Times report on 2011 Obama speech [3juxwge]
I hope that you noticed, American neighbor, the prevailing presumption in every statement that tax cuts for the rich are always at the expense of the poor (along with the paranoia). Read them again and see what I mean. Remember from #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, that liberals see the economy as a static pie. Someone can only get rich at the expense of another. In effect, liberals believe that the 'evil rich' steal money from the poor when they accept tax cuts. So the richs' piece of the pie gets bigger while the poors' piece of the pie gets smaller. If you desire more evidence try a search with the term > "reverse robin hood" "tax cuts"< (include the quotation marks). As defined by the Urban Dictionary 'reverse Robin Hood' under Reaganomics means, "Essentially, steal from the poor, give to the rich." Or you can search > "steal from the poor and give to the rich" "tax cuts"< or > "take from the poor and give to the rich" "tax cuts"< or > "tax cuts" "expense of the poor"< or > "tax cuts" "backs of the poor"<. You'll find an endless stream of liberals decrying tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor.ad
• Answering Occupy Wall Street & other liberals
If there is one thing that unites Occupy Wall Street, it seems to be this erroneous belief that the rich can only get rich at the expense of the poor. This is just more liberal nonsense. The country did not begin with a certain amount of wealth and then it was divided up like a pie. If that was true, as the population grew each person's average wealth would go down, diminished by smaller averages, inflation and no way of multiplying it. But history shows that both average and total wealth grow almost continuously. Wealth is created, not taken from others' supposed shares. If America's millionaires and billionaires had not been allowed to create their wealth, America would be that much poorer as a nation. Actually it would be much worse than that, because their wealth in turn creates more wealth for those down the ladder. Wealth in private hands begets more wealth, making the country wealthier as a whole. Removing wealth through taxation diminishes wealth creation and slows down the growth of the country's wealth as a whole. Remember from #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, that cutting taxes produces more government revenues than does raising taxes. That's because more wealth is left to multiply in the economy, producing even more wealth – and more government revenues even at the lower tax rates. So now tell me exactly how limiting the wealth of the wealthiest would benefit the country, American neighbor. In fact, please point out the prosperous, modern, advanced countries in the world without any rich people. (I won't hold my breath waiting…)
Try this Google search: >tax cuts*rich*immoral< (include the * between the words – it is a proximity limiter). It returned a staggering 5 million results! Or try >tax cuts*rich*obscene< – it returned another 1.8 million results! Or >tax cuts*rich*theft< – 5.6 million more results! Or >tax cuts*rich*crime< – another 13 million results! Or try >tax cuts*rich*extortion< – 4.6 million results! Or >tax cuts*rich*robbing< – 5.6 million results. Or better yet, try >tax cuts*rich*corrupt< – and another 13 million results! The point of all this is that liberals universally view tax cuts for the rich as immoral, obscene, corrupt, robbery, extortion and theft from the poor to give to the rich (this is very deep-seated paranoia).
Here is the bottom line, American neighbor: From a liberal point of view tax cuts must be seen as stolen from the poor to justify a demonizing of the 'evil rich' who supposedly disproportionately benefit from them. If tax cuts are viewed as a retaining of legitimate earnings by the legitimate earner (as they actually are), the rationalization for liberal demagoguery all but vanishes. In other words, there is no legitimacy to the class warfare argument of President Obama, the Occupy movement, and liberals in general, unless the supposed "excess" money of the rich is viewed as coercively taken from the poor. Theft is the only rationalization that liberals can use to claim a supposedly legitimate right to taking the money back with wildly out-of-proportion progressive taxes. Without this point of view there is nothing "unfair" about the rich being rich – the flat tax where everyone is taxed at exactly the same rate would be what is fair (and actually is). Without this "theft" point of view, it is actually liberals who are unfairly desiring to coercively take money from the rich that liberals have no legitimate claim on.
In fact, similar to the universal belief in Clinton's mythical surpluses, I have never read or heard of a liberal object to this "theft" line of rationalization, because again, liberals must view tax cuts in their own minds as morally unacceptable to justify their demagoguery, so they deliberately and self-deceptively view them as stolen property (playing stupid). Naturally, this is another classic case of liberal projection and groupthink that has no basis in fact, and it places all liberals in a simply delicious quandary, American neighbor, as you will soon see.ae
• Income disparity myths
Another opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protesters seems to be that income disparity between the rich and the poor in America is the worst in the world. This is another noble lie. Brazil, China and India all have much larger disparities than the U.S.A. In fact, America's 'poor' are much richer than most of the rest of the world's population. The very poorest Americans are richer than a full half of Brazil's population, richer than 80% of China's population, and richer than virtually all of India's population. Examine the following chart and you will see that the disparity between America's poor and Brazil, China and India's poor is much greater than the disparity between America's poor and America's rich, for heaven's sake! [*6baa55w]
Here is an even more interesting point about the Occupy Wall Street protests: Virtually all of the protesters would likely be included in the top 1% of the world in terms of income. Read this link for some delicious irony: [*3wu9dy7]af
• Occupy Wall Street doesn't represent America – the Tea Party does
This next link illustrates that the Tea Party represents America as a whole much more so than do the Occupy Wall Street protestors or liberals. [*6uha85s] Americans by a large gap believe in equality of opportunity (70% Extremely or Very important) which is the conservative position, compared to equality of redistribution (46% Extremely or Very important) which is the liberal position. In fact, lower on the page it is revealed that fewer Americans believe that the rich need to be "fixed" today than in 1998, the heyday of the Clinton presidency. D'oh! (So much for all of the recent political rhetoric about the evil wealth gap between rich and poor. If this poll had been taken six months ago, before all of this recent rhetoric, the gap between those favoring opportunity and those favoring redistribution would probably have been much wider.) This next link illustrates that Americans in general do not see banks as their enemy. They see government as the problem. OWS is not mainstream – the Tea Party is. [*7fopb9d]ag
• Fair share of taxes – Graph – U.S. Shares of Federal Income Taxes Paid
The next Occupy Wall Street myth we will deal with is their assertion that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes and that tax cuts place more burden of paid taxes on the poor and less on the rich.
So let's look at the shares of income taxes paid by the rich compared to the rest of taxpayers after the Reagan, Contract With America and Bush tax rate cuts. [*y8qm57z, 3dza8v6] It is generally accepted that the first 95% of tax filers comprise the poor and the middle class. Anyone in the top 5% is considered the 'evil rich'. If we look at the share of all federal taxes paid by the poor and the middle class in 1983, the beginning of Reagan's tax cuts, we find their share was 62.7%. Naturally the share for the 'evil rich' was 37.3% (100% – 62.7% = 37.3%). Now let's move to the last year of Reagan's second administration. In 1988 the poor and the middle class share of all federal taxes paid had gone down to 54.4%, while the share paid by the 'evil rich' went up to 45.6% (100% – 54.4% = 45.6%). We can see that the rich ended up paying a larger share of federal income taxes while the poor and the middle class paid less. Our first 800 pound gorilla.
In 1997 the poor and the middle class share of federal taxes was 48.1% while the 'evil rich' share was 51.9% (100% – 48.1% = 51.9%). By the year 2000 the poor and the middle class share of federal taxes went down again (43.5%), and the 'evil rich' share went up again (56.5%). The Contract tax cuts are our second 800 pound gorilla. How is your faith in that groupthink liberalism doing that tax cuts take money from the poor and the middle class and give it to the rich, American neighbor?
So, did George Bush's tax cuts benefit the 'evil rich' at the expense of the poor? According to liberals everybody knows that! Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Barack Obama and virtually every liberal knows that! Well whoops again, American neighbor. In 2003 when the full Bush tax cuts were instituted, the poor and the middle class share of federal taxes was 45.6% while the 'evil rich' share was 54.4%, but in four years the 'evil rich' share had gone up again to 60.6% while the poor and the middle class share of federal taxes went down again to 39.4%. Three 800 pound gorillas in a row.
Look at that chart again, American neighbor. From the Reagan years where the poor and the middle class paid 62.7% of class related income taxes, to 2007 where they paid only 39.4% of class related income taxes, we can see that their share of income taxes paid has dropped a significant 23.3%, and of course the rich are now paying that share. During this time period taxes paid by the rich (dark gray bars) have trended up while the poor's share of class related taxes paid (light gray bars) has trended down. Also note that it was illustrated in #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, that the unemployment rate dropped during the periods of every recent Republican tax cut, thus also benefiting the middle class and the poor. In fact, thanks to Republican tax cuts, as of 2010 half of all households in America paid no federal income taxes. 40% receive net money from the government at tax time. Just the richest 10% of earners now pay 73% of all income taxes. [7vkglhz] In fact many of the poor are hardly poor, but are receiving from the middle class and the rich. [*3a7u7dn, 7v4ft9j] Here are the redistribution shares in percent by quintiles from the second link:
Q1 = 3.9% (poor)
Q5 = -6.6% (rich)
After the government redistributes, the richest quintile's share is down by 6.6%, whereas the poorest quintile's share has an added 3.9%. These numbers do not include redistribution of individual states, food stamps and pensions, which further multiply the magnitude of redistribution from the rich to the poor. How the heck could tax rate cuts be stealing money from the poor and giving it to the rich, when the poor hardly pay federal taxes and many are actually receiving money taken from others?!? Liberalism is playing us all for stupid, American neighbor.ah
• Fascism is fair?
In 2011 we saw that the Occupy Wall Street movement was based on the class warfare argument that the rich are procuring a higher and higher percentage of the wealth in America. This they say is unfair. If that were the only consideration, the OWS claim of unfairness would have merit, but this singular focus ignores the offsetting data we just looked at; the rich are also paying a higher and higher percentage of taxes while the poor are paying less and less. In fact, the richs' same income is often taxed more than once (how fair is that?). [7j4o84x] This is one of the reasons explaining that even though the richs' tax rates have been trending down over the last few decades, their share of taxes paid has been trending up. This is a natural inhibitor of economic growth. By encouraging spending instead of saving and investing, this limits capital formation which is the foundation of economic expansion. If we look at the full life cycle of a rich person from birth to death they will not only pay much higher tax rates on their average income, but they will pay multiple taxes on that same income (that the poor will never pay even a small relative portion of), including an estate tax on the super rich where the government simply claims 35% of the estate over $5M at the time of death. This is beyond taxing income and enters the realm of taxing wealth that has already been taxed more than once. It is a fascist mentality that assumes that the state is part owner of the estate even though it played little benefit in creating it, and indeed was a major drag on its creation in the first place through constantly inhibiting its potential to grow a more wealthy economy through income and other related taxes. This is antithetical to a society based on democratic capitalism where private property is supposed to be a protected right, especially from greedy hands of the state. Again I ask, how can liberals rationalize this fascism as fair?ai
• More considerations about fairness
Taking all of the above considerations into account more than balances the fairness equation. Yes, the rich are getting richer in total wealth, but they are paying for an increasing portion of government regulation and government's services, and contributing more to income redistribution, none of which is accounted for when strictly examining income or wealth. The poor, which are increasingly made up of single-parent families and illegal immigrants, disproportionately distort comparisons of the poor today and those of twenty or thirty years ago. And here is another distortion. There are currently five times more Americans in jail today than there were in 1980 (.5 million to 2.5 million). [yjbetvr] Further contributing to this discrepancy, manufacturing jobs, once the staple of the American middle class have been declining since 1980. Despite the common liberal mantra about the shipping of manufacturing jobs overseas, it can seen in this link that the biggest cause of this decline is increased productivity – it simply takes many fewer American workers (three in 1980 to one today) to produce the same amount of goods today as it did thirty years ago. While the manufacturing output in the U.S. has continuously expanded, manufacturing jobs have coincidently declined primarily due to the efficiencies of improving technology.) [dxmfr7s, 745fvg6] The poor also benefit from the government more than do the rich by an increasingly large margin. Any direct comparisons of the poor and rich today with the poor and rich of yesterday cannot account for these differences from separate eras. In the case of the top 1%, the bottom 47% actually receive money from the government that is largely provided by the 1%. The bottom 99% use many more government services and programs in relative terms to the rich, so while the rich may use 0.1%, the poor use 99.9%. Taken into context it does not seem quite so unfair that the rich are accumulating more wealth through the marketplace, when the poor are accessing much more unearned wealth in the forms of government services, programs and income redistribution.aj
• Income distribution in the population over time
Examining the Gini Coefficient which measures income distribution over time, we find that the Gini Ratio for individual income has not changed since 1994. [*66u974y] Other measures of the Gini Coefficient for the U.S. may find a slight rise in this time period by comparing household income instead of individual income, which does not as accurately tell the story, because in rich families one spouse is likely to be the breadwinner much more so than in poorer families. Comparing to other countries is also a game of relative comparisons. For instance, the U.S. has Food Stamps. Other countries do not, but this important distinction cannot be accounted for in a Gini calculation. Neither can the large population of illegal immigrants and higher incarceration rates which deceptively skew the data toward inequality, and are not an occurrence in most countries usually compared with the U.S.
Here is a new link confirming my original gut instinct that illegal immigrants skew income comparisons: Conn Carroll: The income inequality factor liberals can't talk about
What the Gini graph illustrates is that while the super rich share of measured wealth increases, the poor's share has risen in relative terms just as much. Not illustrated is that the unmeasured wealth through provided government services, programs and infrastructure, along with the receiving of income through wealth redistribution are also increasing. So in fact, poor Americans are likely better off in relative terms than are the rich since 1994. Also, the claim by liberals that the top 1% possess a higher percentage of America's wealth today than since the 1920s is simply not true. As can be seen here, [*776y5uk, 3yek995] the portion of wealth possessed by the top 1% has continuously trended down from the 1920s to 2000. This study is based on estate tax returns which taxes wealth at the time of death, and so provides an accurate and objective measure of individual private wealth over the decades. The above noted individual income Gini Coefficient completely agrees with this study for the period from 1994 to 2000, and confirms that there has been no change since 2000. The facts do not support the liberal contention that wealth has been increasingly concentrated within the top 1% of the population – another noble lie. When all types of wealth are considered, it is the poor that have by far benefited the most since the 1920s.
We've compared the extremes of the rich and the poor and found that this idea of income distribution favoring the rich is untrue. Now let's look at the averages. The AFL-CIO union federation put out this interesting graph that actually illustrates that the pay ratio between the average CEO and the average worker has declined since – wait for it – George W. Bush became President. [*6qsl6hk] When did it climb? Ronald Reagan? Nope. It skyrocketed under – again, wait for it – Bill Clinton! So it is Bill Clinton who is actually Occupy Wall Street's real villain – and George W. Bush is their saint! I know, I know! Who'd a thunk it, American neighbor?!? (Actually, it doesn't surprise me at all. It is just more evidence that increasing taxes hurts the 99% more than the top 1%. It is also more evidence that trickle-down works.)
Update: French economist Thomas Piketty's 2014 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century created a bit of a sensation for liberal economists when he claimed that his research proved that capitalism is increasingly concentrating wealth with the extremely rich. However, the Finacial Times (no conservative rag) did an analysis of his research and found:
~The data underpinning Professor Piketty's 577-page tome, which has dominated best-seller lists in recent weeks, contain a series of errors that skew his findings. The FT found mistakes and unexplained entries in his spreadsheets … The central theme of Prof Piketty's work is that wealth inequalities are heading back up to levels last seen before the first world war. The investigation undercuts this claim, indicating there is little evidence in Prof Piketty's original sources to bear out the thesis that an increasing share of total wealth is held by the richest few.~ [nu8wgj2]ak
• How people get rich
How do you think the rich get rich, American neighbor? The rich get rich by offering something other people voluntarily give them money to acquire (or by investing in the creation of those goods and services). In fact, that is true for every person who works. The worker receives his wages from someone else who voluntarily gave to their employer in exchange for the worker's production or service. The person who cleans out gutters earns his money the same way Steve Jobs made his billions. Steve Jobs earned his billions of dollars in wealth by offering America the iPhone. If a liberal didn't like that Steve Jobs was rich, he shouldn't have purchased an iPhone, or he could have created a competing product to draw purchases away from the iPhone and given away the profits once he reached a mean wage of seventy thousand dollars or so. But lots of people like the iPhone. Lots of complaining liberals that decry that consumers voluntarily made Steve Jobs rich, in fact, contributed to his wealth by buying an iPhone themselves. Whose fault was that? Steve Jobs, or consumers and those same whining liberals who liked what he had to offer? The real beef liberals have is not with Steve Jobs, but with those who purchased iPhones, including many of themselves. Demanding that Steve Jobs should have paid more taxes for the sake of fairness is an argument that misses the point: Steve Jobs did not hold a gun to anyone's head and steal their money – they gave it to him of their own free will.al
• Equal isn't fair?
The fact that rich people already pay a higher percentage in taxes is an argument that rich people provide much more relative benefit to the economy than those less rich. How is that unfair? Liberals are always telling us that to be fair everyone must be equal. Well then fair would be everyone contributing an equal amount to the maintenance of society. But rich people contribute much more than an equal share. They even contribute much more than the share that they earn. [*7or227b, *2k4hkq, *7uh6ba3] It is the rich that pay a disproportionately unfair share. They should get praise and medals for it, not demagoguery. And the public knows it, American neighbor. Look at this poll and you will see that three-quarters of voters see both the rich and corporations as overtaxed, despite that the media chorus combined with the Democratic Party and the Occupy Wall Street crowd have been loudly whining about the rich for years. [*6pvnc4t]
Obviously, none of the above numbers correlate with the programmed groupthink liberalism that the money for tax cuts is stolen from the poor so as to be given to the rich. Do you think Nancy Pelosi or Dennis Kucinich or Jimmy Carter or John Kerry or Barack Obama care about these numbers, American neighbor? No they do not. They are aggressive groupthinkers. They may even know that what they parrot is a liberalism. It doesn't matter to alpha liberals. All that matters for them is sophistry and demagoguery.am
• Richer rich & poorer poor
One more economic mantra of liberalism is that "the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer" (another noble lie that I have never seen a liberal dispute – and more paranoia). Of course, it turns out unsurprisingly, that what is known as income mobility is not quite so easily pigeon-holed as that. In fact, it is not at all unusual that wealthy incomes fall after reaching a peak as pointed out in this post about a study of income mobility:
~For the top 1/100th of 1% of the income distribution — the 11,700 wealthiest tax filers in 1996 — their 1996 income was $11.6 million and their 2005 income was $4.1 million. Not suffering at all, but still a fall in median income of near 65%.~ [yamfthp]
And from the 800 pound gorilla study itself:
~There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy over the 1996-2005 period. More than half of taxpayers (57.5 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile over this period. About half (56 percent by one measure and 42 percent by another) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005.~ [7qpthn3]
The Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis also agrees with this assessment. [*86ond6s] If we look at wage statistics for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 we can see that of the richest of the rich there were 151 who earned over 50 million dollars in 2007. That reduced to 131 in 2008 and only 72 in 2009, a decrease of over 50%! In fact, that same pattern of significant decrease is seen in every wage bracket from half a million dollars earned and up. [2aspjej, 27usrrs, 2fwbjfn] Even those numbers don't tell the whole story. Not included is the wealth redistribution of welfare and related programs which according to one report would increase low income group incomes by about 50% – certainly nothing to sneeze at. Mind you, the vast majority of that 50% increase is paid for by the taxes of the 'evil rich'. [422ejzk]
We can see that many of the wealthy do not keep getting consistently richer, but actually have reduced income over time, and few of the poor stay poor, but most move up in income over the same period of time. In some years as in 2007 to 2009, high wages can drop precipitously. So this mantra about the rich always getting richer and the poor always getting poorer is just another liberalism, and even if you consider only wages by group it is not true. Everybody by group have also been getting richer, and earners almost always move up by group throughout their earning years. [*5u82cyg] Here's some more up-to-date data on the rich: [*3vage7c]an
• U.S. has the most progressive tax system in the world
One other thing, American neighbor. Another liberal mantra is that "the rich don't pay their fair share" (again, more paranoia). Liberals want the tax system to be more progressive where the rich pay a significantly higher rate of taxes than the middle class and the poor. Well, this has been the case for almost one hundred years. In fact, even including the Bush tax cuts, America has the most progressive tax system in the world as seen in this 800 pound gorilla: [*2d6dpvt, 756n28e] In other words, the American rich already pay more in proportion to their earnings than the rich in all other countries of the top 24 economies in the world, so I guess liberals are right in a convoluted sort of way. The 'evil rich' don't pay their fair share – they pay more than their fair share, if you compare them to the rich of other successful economies. In fact, the OECD study found that the top 10% of American taxpayers paid 23% more by proportion than the top 10% of taxpayers of the next highest country which was France. Whoa! That's quite a bit more than their fair share, don't you think, American neighbor?
Another study also referenced in the last link concluded that raising top marginal tax rates can actually reduce revenues from the top 1% of taxpayers. This can be explained in that if you tax someone too much their effort to produce taxable income will go down and at some point will cross over from increased government tax revenues to decreased revenues. We saw this in the transition from the Reagan years of decreased taxes to the increased tax rates of Bush 41 and Clinton (the Revenue Growth Rates section of #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts) where revenue growth rates declined when the taxes increased, and then expanded when the tax rates were lowered. Then, of course, when taxes are increased the economy suffers as well, since the super rich are not as productive as they might have been – another good reason to keep tax rates low. Notice in this link that as of 2007 the top 1% of taxpayers under the Bush tax rates paid more than the bottom 95% of taxpayers: [*nvhewx] 1.4 million taxpayers paid a larger share than that of 134 million other taxpayers! That's virtually a hundred to one ratio! And liberals think the super rich don't pay their fair share?!? Sheesh! This disproportion has been again confirmed by the Tax policy Center: [*d48uxpn] In regard to this supposed fairness, Thomas Sowell asks a most pertinent question:
~How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more "fair" for others?~ [*6mfn4tp]
As liberals keep reminding us, the proportion of poverty in America has not changed in fifty years, but we have seen above in a bid for supposed fairness the rich are consistently made to pay a larger and larger share of taxes, even though the trillions of dollars spent on the War On Poverty has not reduced the proportion of those supposedly in poverty. Scapegoating the rich is not working, American neighbor.ao
• The benefits of tax cuts
In #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments, we learned that in regard to the treatment of terrorists, reasoning (critical thinking) does not support liberalism, but undermines it. From #3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths, and #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, in regard to government revenues and taxes we learned that reality does not support liberalism either. They, along with the above studies referenced in this essay are all very good examples illustrating the liberal principle: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink. With a little self-interest as motivation, and a bit of critical thinking, we have demolished the economic foundation that make up the doctrines of contemporary liberalism that are built on compulsive paranoid delusion. Can you see this with your own eyes, American neighbor? Remember our little bit of wisdom from Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: "A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes." Are you now a heretic, American neighbor? Can you now see that those two lines that alpha liberal groupthink insists are equal, are in fact unequal? Remember when I said the following in the previous essay on tax cuts, American neighbor:
"Why liberals hate tax cuts I have never been able to get my mind around. It just defies any kind of reasoning. What have liberals got against citizens keeping more of their own money, with the added benefit of a stronger economy? But don't bother to attempt an answer, American neighbor. In a little while you will be just as perplexed as I am."
So how do you feel about tax cuts now that you can see those 800 pound gorillas in the corner of the room from #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, American neighbor? Now that you know that tax cuts correlate with a benefit to the poor… now that you know that tax cuts coincide with increases in government revenues… now that you know that deficits correlate with government overspending rather than tax reductions… now that you know that tax cuts correlate with a growing economy and stock market [*y9cnhrp] … now that you know that tax cuts correlate with higher revenue growth rates than do tax increases… now that you know that America has the most progressive tax system in the world by a large margin? More specifically, how do you now feel about your irrational programmed disdain for tax cuts, American neighbor?ap
• Let's examine where you are at, American neighbor
How are you doing with resisting your scoff reflex, American neighbor? Are you still with me? Are you still channeling your inner Mr. Spock? Were you able to stay focused throughout each of the lessons so far? If not, go back and reread what you scoffed over, read the asterisked links. Put your self-interest first and put away your emotions and concentrate. This is the only way for you to overcome your liberal groupthink conditioning. Any resistance you might feel is your groupthink conditioning attempting to protect itself. It doesn't want you to expose yourself to critical examination of programmed groupthink liberalisms, because contextual investigation and critical analysis combined with self-interest are always groupthink's lethal enemies.
As a liberal, how did you originally reach your conclusions about the various issues addressed so far, American neighbor. Did you search them out. Did you research both sides of each issue. Let's be honest, American neighbor. As a liberal it is very unlikely that you researched both sides. If you were an aggressive groupthinker (alpha liberal) it is a virtual certainty that you did not. Admit it, American neighbor, you just accepted what other liberals told you to believe – you were sucked in by liberalisms. You just accepted the noble lie that the two unequal lines that they told you were equal, were equal. And when your beliefs have been challenged, how did you respond? Well, how else could you respond? With sophistry and demagoguery, or silence.
~ "He who knows only his side of the case, knows little of that."~ – J. Stuart Mill
Of course as a passive groupthinker (beta liberal) you may have backed down and held your tongue, but if you did respond your only recourse would have been this principle of liberal attitude: For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking.
For your sake I hope you were only a beta liberal and not an alpha liberal, American neighbor. Admitting to being a beta liberal is humbling enough (remember, I too went through this), but at this stage I cannot imagine how debilitating to one's ego it must be to admit to having been an alpha liberal knowingly pushing those erroneous liberal arguments to the issues we have dealt with so far in the N.C. Essay Series. If you have argued using sophistry, and projected onto your opponents by demonizing them because of course you lacked the necessary substance to reasonably argue your case, you are going to need to forgive yourself. Yes, American neighbor, you behaved despicably (liberal). You must forgive yourself (and apologize to any acquaintances that have been recipients of your demagoguery).aq
• Rich liberals stole from the poor & they're going to keep it
Do you know who the 'evil rich' 10% are who steal money from the poor, American neighbor? You probably know some. There may be some in your family. You may even be one. The top 10% includes anyone who earns over about $110,000 per year before taxes. Did you know that means every liberal politician in Washington is one of the 'evil rich'? Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter who I quoted earlier are very definitely part of the 'evil rich' crowd. President Obama has made millions from his book sales over the last few years, so he too is one of the 'evil rich'. But of course, they are liberals, their motives are noble, and 'they care'. Well how much do you think they care, American neighbor? Do you think they cared enough to give back their portions of the tax breaks they received from the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan, the Contract With America, and George W. Bush? After all, they claim it is ill-gotten bootie. They claim the 'evil rich' – them – benefited from the poor with these tax cuts. They believe this with a passion! That is their justification for raising taxes on the rich, but that means that they too supposedly ended up with dirty money stolen from poor people. Nancy Pelosi said her share came from "food out of the mouths of children" for gawd's sake!
What do you think that they did with those supposedly stolen tax cuts, American neighbor? Do you think that they couldn't sleep at night? Do you think that they anguished over it? Do you think that they gave the supposedly stolen money back? Nope. They kept it like thieves. Not one of them gave the money back, American neighbor. If any of them ever had it would have been huge news! Imagine if President Obama decided that his share of the tax breaks under Bush that he benefited from was so dirty that he was going to give it back to the treasury, or if he decided to donate it to some charity. Imagine if Nancy Pelosi gave her share back as "food" for the "mouths of children". Do you think this would not be widely reported as illustrating how liberals care for the poor (and how it proves that the money was stolen on their behalf from the poor)? Of course it would. But have there ever been any stories like this in the media? Nope again, American neighbor.
Unfortunately the joke is on you, American neighbor, but not only you. The joke is on the whole country. Liberal politicians with their millions, big name media liberals with their tens of millions, Hollywood liberals with their hundreds of millions, liberal sugar daddies financing leftwing causes and websites with their billions – they demagogue the 'evil rich' as though they are exempt. They demagogue conservatives and Republicans for supporting supposedly immoral tax cuts and supposedly stealing from the poor as if they themselves don't benefit from those very same tax cuts (can you say projection, American neighbor?). AND THEN THEY KEEP THE MONEY! This is what fascists do! They laugh all the way to the bank as programmed liberals like you lap up their groupthink mantras and elect more liberals that also laughingly keep the money. Yes, American neighbor, the joke is on you. That 800 pound gorilla in the corner is having a jolly good chuckle at your expense. Your liberal leaders don't care about the poor enough to give the money back. They don't care that their own rationalization makes them out to be the same supposed thieves that they claim the generic, alien, somewhere-out-there, 'evil rich' are. They only care if they can fool you into thinking that they care about the poor, and that you don't piece together that they are in fact, by their own reasoning, one of the biggest groups of thieves in the country! (More later.)ar
• Liberal corporations who 'don't pay their fair share'
If you think liberal corporations are any more virtuous than liberal leaders, think again, American neighbor. So what is a liberal corporation? Well, it would first and foremost be run by liberals. It would employ mostly liberals. It would support liberal causes. It would do liberal things. You would think it would be more than willing to "pay its fair share of taxes" – a liberal mantra we discussed earlier, so lets look at one of the largest liberal corporations in terms of capitalization and public exposure – Google. Is Google run by liberals? Yep. The founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are huge liberals, to the point where through surrogates they throw swanky fundraisers that even the Obamas attend for the Democratic Party at $30,400 a pop just to get in the door! [74dl5mp] [54] Do they employ mostly liberals? Yep again. [2dyhdpz] 75% of Google employee political contributions go to Democrats. Does Google support liberal causes? Yup. [2acc9xc] Google is notorious for its censoring of conservative advertisers when critical of liberalism. Does Google do liberal things? Well, if you include things like working toward this Google objective as explained by CEO Eric Schmidt:
~ "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."~ [2cq55kw]
You can't get much more liberal than that, American neighbor (Schmidt must have a picture of John Dewey on his desk!). Do they get rewarded by the administration for their faithfulness? Yup. Big time. [l2juacq]
Google thinks people want them to direct their lives. How do they plan to do this? Google is like a fascist Big Brother constantly looking over your shoulder. They are watching you, American neighbor. Read that last link and contemplate a corporate version of Nineteen Eighty-Four – that is until some liberal government forces them to share all of their information "for the good of the country" – or they do so voluntarily. In fact, Google (as well as GE) is known as "Obama's Halliburton". [273bozc] (Try a search.) And then there is Apple, another liberal company who is gathering and facilitating the gathering of anything and everything off of your smart phone (along with Google), American neighbor. [24jugxx] Are they illegally gathering information for the Obama administration? Who knows? (Oh-oh – here's an update since I first wrote this section. It seems Google may be sharing their private information gathering data with the NSA and are indeed colluding with the Obama administration. 1984 anyone? [*5w9bgy6, *3t8oe2a]) If you believed all of Google's hype about their supposed philanthropy to make the world a better place, you have been had again, American neighbor. It turns out it was all a gimmick to make more profits while looking like they really cared. [*6b4ycoe]
There is certainly more than enough evidence to conclude that Google is a very liberal corporation top to bottom and objective to outcome (and in a cozy liberal relationship with America's liberal government administration). One would think that Google would not have any problem whatsoever "paying their fair share of taxes" as every liberal would expect of a noble liberal company, but as I said above, think again, American neighbor. Google thinks "fair" is when they get to profit from invading your privacy, not when they pay their taxes. They will use every loophole in the book to avoid "paying their fair share," currently to the tune of sixty billion dollars! [*32jypx7] (In #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel, we'll look at those other gougers according to liberals – the health insurance industry. You know, the industry that is ruining healthcare in America because they're bleeding it dry. [/sarcasm] The whole industry made $8B in profits for 2008 while Google is hiding $60B from being taxed. Who's your villain now, American neighbor?) Google's corporate philosophy is supposed to be summed up in this simple statement: "Don't be evil." According to liberal standards it doesn't look like they're living up to their own motto, does it, American neighbor?
And lookie here – despite that there are literally dozens of ongoing investigations around the world into Google information gathering activities, just a week after that $1.8M Google fundraiser for Obama the Federal Trade Commission closed its own investigation of Google. [6nmudgk] Just an incredible coincidence, right, American neighbor? [/sarcasm] It would seem the Google 800 pound gorilla is also laughing at you – and the rest of us suckers. And here is another update. Liberal GE has also decided not to pay their "fair share". This is the company that was pushing hard for a cap and trade carbon market to help save the world. Uh – no. They were looking at a lot of profits, and they were planning on paying as little as possible in taxes, just like supposedly 'evil conservatives'. [rolls eyes] [*656w8t6]as
• Liberals think that they are the compassionate ones
So, here is your supposed corporate cabal, American neighbor. If there was ever a case of this liberal fantasy corporate fascism, it is liberal companies like these that are the ones in control!
So let's look at another example of a belief that liberals are conditioned with, that in fact has no relationship to reality. I have a question for you, American neighbor. I want you to respond with your gut reaction – don't think about it. I want your liberalism to respond. In one word each please describe for me what a liberal is and what a conservative is in regard to other people. "Easy," you say. "A liberal is compassionate and a conservative is selfish." My thoughts exactly, American neighbor. Liberals see themselves as caring for those who are in need. Whereas they see conservatives as greedy and willing desiring to take advantage of those in need (there's that paranoia again). It is through these two definitions that liberals excuse all manner of liberal failures and indiscretions. Liberal motives are based on real, proactive compassion – they really, really care, and of course, conservatives are selfish and greedy, which by any standard means their motives are evil. (Fascists are absolutely sure of their own self-righteousness, and their enemy's evil motivations.)
In fact, a new study confirms that liberals portray themselves as compassionate and conservatives as less so. [*m8tfhtg] (Ignore the study author's irrational conclusion, American neighbor. Without any correlation he claims that "People's values are deeply embedded in their biology and their genetic heritage." This is obviously contradicted by the fact that both liberals and conservatives can and do switch their allegiance. Does their "biology and genetic heritage" change? No, their thinking patterns do.) In both this essay and #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, we have discovered that it is actually conservative economic policy that benefits the poor more so than liberal economic policy. In this essay you will see that it is conservatives that are actually more compassionate than liberals in personal deeds, even though liberals claim to have more empathy. As the old saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." Or more to the point, "Follow the money!"at
• The difference between self-interest & selfishness
John Dewey's view was that what is good for society is good for the individual, and that what is good for the individual is not good for society. In other words, Dewey saw little difference between ideological self-interest and selfishness. Indeed, it was his goal to condition society into believing that ideological self-interest and selfishness were synonymous, and self-interest should therefore be sacrificed for the good of society. But self-interest is not selfishness, American neighbor. Selfishness is when one person puts their own self-interest over that of another person's self-interest. That is what the alpha liberal does. Their self-interest (which when taken from a wider view is not really self-interest, but selfishness) is to get you to admit to their irrational assertion that those two unequal lines are equal. That is selfishness. That is demagoguery. That is sophistry. They demand that you give up your integrity – your self-interest – for the sake of your submission and their empowerment. That parallels the very definition of liberalism. The ultimate goal is that everyone give up their self-interest for the selfishness of groupthink, and there is little that is compassionate about groupthink, American neighbor. See for yourself.au
• 'Bones'
In these first nine essays I have been appealing to your inner Mr. Spock demeanor, American neighbor. By combining critical thinking with a little self-interest we have made our way through a minefield of tricky issues demanding clear-headed analysis and reasoning, and thus have exposed a whole mess of self-evident liberalisms and noble lies for what they truly are. Next we are going to meet our inner Dr. McCoy (also known as Bones). He is the liberal on the Star Ship Enterprise – or at least he is what liberals would wish to portray liberals as. You see, American neighbor, unlike Mr. Spock who is cold, rational and deliberate, Dr. McCoy really cares. McCoy is the compassionate one. When the choice is between logically blowing up a planet full of crazy aliens who are threatening to destroy the whole universe, or having some compassion 'for the children', it is Dr. McCoy to the rescue for those crazy alien children. But here's a surprise. Just as Mr. Spock's rational and deliberate contextual investigation and critical analysis is foreign to liberal thinking when discussing ideological issues, so is Dr. McCoy's compassion. You see, Dr. McCoy truly is compassionate and always finds a way to save those crazy aliens' children, whereas even though liberals talk a good game, their actions always seem to end up with negative unintended consequences – their universe always blows up. You will see what I mean soon enough, but I wish to extend a little warning here, American neighbor. I am afraid that this element of your rehabilitation will require some shock therapy. I am going to conclusively illustrate to you that liberals have neither guilt nor shame and do not really care. And yes this may include you, American neighbor. So prepare for a jolt!av
• Popular, rich, domineering CEO types that liberals hate
So let's "follow the money", American neighbor. One of liberalism's noble lies is that conservatives are selfish and greedy and don't consider the needs of others. This is based on the liberal assumption that conservative motivations are evil. So, of course conservatives are only interested in making money for themselves and building empires to dominate the world, but of course liberals 'care', meaning they see themselves as Dr. McCoy. But do liberals really care, American neighbor? Or is it just more irrational rationalization from the groupthink that dominates liberals' subliminal belief systems? (Skinny up, American neighbor. Be prepared for a whole roomful of 800 pound gorillas – it's going to get crowded in here!)
Well let's name the most popular, richest, domineering CEO types in America: George Soros, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Warren Buffett, Peter Lewis, Herbert Sandler, Oprah Winfrey, Franklin Raines, Katie Couric, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Michael Bloomberg, David Shaw, Jeff Bezos, Jon Corzine, Jim Johnson, Barbara Streisand, Jon Stryker, James Sinegal, Sean Parker, Robert Rubin, Steve Case, Tim Gill, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Tom Steyer, Sid Bass, Steve Ballmer, Jamie Gorelick, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Irwin Jacobs, David Geffen, Mark Cuban, Eric Schmidt, Martha Stewart, James Cameron, Marc Rich, George Kaiser, Mark Zuckerberg. Are they big, bad, greedy conservatives? Uh – no. They are all liberals, American neighbor. [*yfuatrw] (Yes, Donald Trump is a liberal. [85bbuon]) Well what about Wall Street – aren't they all big, bad, greedy conservatives? Nope. The top ten highest earning hedge fund managers of 2009 were all liberals. Their lifetime contributions have been 98% to the Democrats and only 2% to the Republicans. [2f9neyx] The largest Wall Street bank, Goldman Sachs was the second highest contributor as an organization to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, giving four times as much to Obama as to John McCain's campaign. Citibank as an organization was the largest contributor to Obama's inauguration. [2wdbtm3] These are your greedy, domineering, empire builders (and let's not forget Google and GE, as mentioned above). They are all liberals to one extent or another. And new data supports the obvious conclusion that the Democratic Party is now the 'party of the rich'. [*827gd2z, *ygpryek, *nzvfvfy] The superrich vote Democrat, American neighbor, and they put huge amounts of money into the Democratic Party. Seven of the top ten biggest individual donors of 2010 donated exclusively to the Democrats [4vtqn6d], and twelve of the top fourteen corporate contributors from 1989 to 2010 by far supported the Democrats over Republicans. [c8lsxl] So when liberals rail about the evil rich, greedy bankers, extravagant hedge fund managers, corporate indulgence, stealing from the poor, giant bonuses, corporate tax loopholes, yada, yada, while thinking they are attacking conservatives, they are actually reviling their own more. There is your greedy, fascist, corporate cabal, American neighbor! Indeed, seven of the top ten richest members of Congress in 2009 were Democrats. [25nhh2k] Here is a description of the supposedly quintessential, greedy, rich conservative – except that he was a big liberal: [*6jtrqsg, *3tywo6o] Here is a list of the "greedy" rich who publicly supported the Occupy Wall Street protests against the "greedy" rich "hoarding" the country's wealth. Note the hilarious irony that Nancy Pelosi's husband is actually an "investment banker", a stereotypical piñata for these protesters. [*4yce2sq, *3stgzl4] And if you think liberal Hollywood fat-cats are paying their fair share of taxes, think again: [*apwwx9f]
Then we get liberal billionaire hypocrites like Warren Buffett claiming that taxes for the rich should be raised because supposedly he pays a lower rate than his receptionist. However, apparently she doesn't pay the 30% he claims, but more like 12%. [3dqj6wk, 6emotrh, 3u8hdou, 4xe66at, 3s7axfu, 6lmnd4j] As illustrated in those links, in a direct comparison Buffett's claims are hardly true, especially when the estate tax is taken into account, but of course Warren won't be around to worry about that. Another consideration is that Warren Buffett is a philanthropist, donating to various charities, and is even a trustee of the mega charity, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No doubt his donations cut down his taxes paid by a significant amount (as they should to encourage charitable giving). From the last link:
~In fact, the very rich pay far more in taxes than the relatively low nominal numbers they report on their tax returns. Many very wealthy people obtain most of their income from dividends, capital gains and interest on tax-free state and municipal bonds. The actual tax rate Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett and most other wealthy people pay on dividends, when correctly calculated, is about 52 percent, as reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes the federal and state corporate-level-profits tax burden, plus federal and state taxes on dividends.~
The column goes on to point out that the overall tax rate for dividends in America is actually the fourth highest of the 34 OECD countries. And it turns out that Buffett's receptionist earns a heck of a lot more than the average receptionist. It seems she is a one percenter herself! [*7mdn4fw] The real con is the implication never actually mouthed by Buffett and President Obama who endorses his idea, that somehow the rich are paying less income taxes than those with much lower income, so naturally marginal income tax rates for the rich need to be drastically raised to "redistribute the wealth". Here is the con: Although he makes billions, Warren Buffett only pays himself a salary of one hundred thousand dollars per year. So if we do as Obama suggests and substantially raise marginal income tax rates, Warren Bufffett won't pay a dime more in income taxes. Clever huh? The bulk of his earnings are taxed as dividends and capital gains – nice dodge, Warren. But even if this rate is increased it will not make up for the equivalent income tax he doesn't pay. And guess what that increased rate would do for his Berkshire Hathaway stock if dividends were included in the tax? Well conveniently, it will drive investors to it, because it does not pay dividends, but reinvests the dividends it receives from its investments, thus offering a less taxed alternative for those looking to avoid paying the tax increase – more cleverness. Republican Mitt Romney has been chastised for admitting to paying only 15% federal taxes (not included is the double taxation and state taxation). But as we see here [7ahelfw], only 3% of tax filers even pay that – a full 97% pay less (no doubt, including Mitt Romney's receptionist). Really, all Warren Buffett is saying is that, "I've already made my billions and my currently existing wealth won't be taxed any differently. Increasing income tax rates, capital gains tax rates or corporate tax rates will only minimally affect me now, I don't have many years left to live, and I want to be seen as this great guy who really cares – so to hell with the economy, and to hell with the rest of you who also would like to be comfortable someday!" This isn't the first time he has pulled this stunt. In 2007 he suggested a 100% tax on stock market trades of less than one year that would not affect his buy and hold strategy at all, but would likely drive more dollars to his conglomerate. He also supports the estate tax, claiming that it avoids the development of a plutocracy, but forgot to mention that his insurance business greatly profits from policies geared toward dealing with the estate tax. In effect Buffett's selfish attitude is no different than Michael Moore's in our above MCTE where now that he has made his tens of millions of dollars from the marketplace, he'd be happy with shutting those same opportunities down for everyone else. And isn't it convenient that Obama's denial of the Keystone XL pipeline to import oil from Alberta directly profits BFF Warren Buffett's railway. Then there is the tidy little sum of 154 million dollars that Warren can use as pocket change from the Obama 25 billion dollar vote buying scheme foreclosure settlement – all just more you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours. [*6quef4l, *85cwx4f] If Buffett is really desiring to pay more taxes, maybe he could start by paying the taxes he already owes. [rolls eyes] [*3hqmznm] Maybe Obama could get his other friend and fundraiser to pay some taxes too. [*c7un4zj] It seems the real tax message from this Warren Buffett story is that the tax system needs a huge overhaul and simplification, American neighbor, and to beware of billionaires offering up other people to pay more in taxes.
This is also basically the story from Hollywood and limousine liberals: "Who gives a darn about those who are still climbing the ladder! We've already made our millions and billions and we have enough tucked away in tax shelters. So that we can sleep at night and not feel guilty about our wealth at the next cocktail party, we want more taxes and regulations for the pleebs. Go ahead and penalize industry and those still on the ladder. Raise those environmental standards. Tax them to hell! I've already got mine! I want to feel better about my wealth!" That is all it is about, American neighbor – feeling good. The bill written as the Buffett tax would only bring in about $3.2B per year in government revenue. [*6p4tz5a *d9ecp3e] That is pocket change for a 2012 budget of $3.7T – less than 0.01% of the total. (Of course, it is all about getting a foot in the door.) As you will see in #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel, about $60B is lost to Medicare fraud each year, for heaven's sake! What a waste of time and energy this attack on the rich is. Obama should be spending time on stopping that Medicare fraud instead. But this isn't about money – it's only about using class warfare to get re-elected.aw
• Have rich liberals paid back their stolen tax cuts?
Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard about any of these 'evil rich' liberals giving back those evil tax cuts they got from Reagan, the Contract With America and Bush that were supposedly in their own minds stolen from the poor? Sure, some of them are known for their philanthropy, but I don't ever recall one media story about any of them returning their supposedly stolen tax cuts which cumulatively, for just the above small list of liberal billionaires, would surely amount with interest over the decades to tens or maybe even hundreds of billions of dollars (in fact, shouldn't they also give back any profits made from that stolen money?). From a liberal perspective this sort of makes their philanthropy out to be a perverted Robin Hood story. Steal from the poor, and then give some back to the poor without acknowledging it was stolen from the poor in the first place. Keep the rest, and then get a big pat on the back from their liberal buddies. Kinda sick, ain't it, American neighbor? Shouldn't they be giving the supposedly stolen tax cut money back first and only then get credit for any subsequent philanthropy after that? Do you think they lie awake at night nursing guilty or shamed consciences over their stolen tax cut money, American neighbor? Neither do I. Do you also think that they see themselves as really, really caring? Yeah, I bet they do. After all, they're liberals.ax
• Liberals often don't even pay their legitimately owed taxes
Instead, we have Democrats in the current administration all over Washington who have made "mistakes" in paying their own legitimately owed taxes, as pointed out at the end of #3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths. Not only have they not returned the supposedly stolen tax cut money that they have received, they even have problems paying the taxes that they legitimately owe! So you see, American neighbor, by their own definition it is liberals that are the rich, domineering, empire building CEO types, and the greedy, selfish ones who knowingly (in their own minds) take advantage of the poor – the perfect liberal description of a fascist.ay
• Conservative policies are compassionate for the poor
We also saw in #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, that conservative/Republican tax cuts benefited the poor, and along with welfare reform millions of Americans who were previously out of work got jobs, and the jobless rate during much of Bush's two presidential terms was at 5% or lower – considered full employment (before the financial crisis of 2008 that was the result of liberalism gone amuck – more in #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis). I'd say getting a job is real caring for the poor, wouldn't you, American neighbor? That is the predominant way conservatives care for the poor. The opportunity for self-reliance and financial independence – that is true compassion. You know – that bit of age-old wisdom that says it is better to teach a man to catch his own fish than to just give him one. (In #12 Can Governance Indicators Tell You Who Governs Best? Absolutely!, we will objectively examine the last forty or so years of whether Democrat or Republican governance has benefited the poor more. You will be shocked, American neighbor.)az
• Are liberal leaders more compassionate than conservative leaders?
What about liberal leaders? Are they idyllic examples of liberal generosity? What about Vice President Biden? Nope. Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave twice as much to charity on less income in the previous two years to the election than Joe Biden did in his previous eight years combined! [yaur8nk] Well, what about President Obama? For years the Obamas made over two hundred thousand dollars annually and only gave less than one percent to charity! [ybxof6u] Are these liberal leaders paragons of virtue, American neighbor? Hardly. But do you think Joe Biden or Barack Obama anguish over the supposed tax cuts that they have in their own minds stolen from the poor over the decades? Hardly again, American neighbor – they're alpha liberals – progressive-fascists. Any cognitive dissonance would be waved off with a scoff. (Gee whiz, it is crowded in here, American neighbor – you, me, and a dozen or so 800 pound gorillas…)ba
• In every measure conservatives are more compassionate than liberals
Of course, the liberal mantra also goes that your run of the mill non-CEO and non-leader type liberals are much more caring and giving than run of the mill, greedy conservatives. But is that true? Are liberals more caring and giving of their time and money than conservatives? (Make room for another dozen or so 800 pound gorillas, American neighbor.) Nope – it is just another liberal groupthink noble lie, American neighbor. Conservatives share the fruit of their self-interest in the act of charity. One study puts conservative giving at thirty percent over that of liberals, whereas another study puts it at a hundred percent more than liberals. [*yas736w, *ycu65je, *ys6j63, *8g494s4] (Update: The fourth link is yet another study confirming the others.) And one of the study authors (a registered Independent) had bought into the liberal groupthink mantra hook, line and sinker:
~ "When I started doing research on charity I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views."~ [2cu6oaj]
Liberals are more likely to give to political causes, environmental groups, the arts and elite educational foundations, which means their meager donations are more likely to be spent on extravagances for the well-off in society like operas, symphonies, ballets, art galleries and elite schools, rather than the needy. This is confirmed in a UC Berkeley study of the liberal rich (they didn't set out to study only the liberal rich, but that is how it turned out). [*dxxlc39] The study of the rich supposedly cutting off other cars more than average was done in downtown Berkeley, California, perhaps the most liberal city in America. So the conclusion should have been that rich liberals cut others off more than average. All of the other five tests were conducted at UC Berkeley, again suggesting that the results can only lead to conclusions about the liberal rich, since conservatives are virtually non-existent at this university. [7h6nkj6] Apparently the liberal rich are more likely to keep excess returned change in a transaction, an undeserved higher grade, and take candy from children. (The Craigslist experiment really explains nothing. Many more people are prone to lying over the internet than in person, so it is quite likely that the claims of higher social class were skewed, and those who lied are probably more likely to have cheated as well.) But here's the – uh – sort-of good news: Their conclusion was that low income liberals would likely become just as unethical if they won the lottery. [Hurray! … I think…]
Conservatives are more likely to support causes directed toward the disadvantaged, veterans and their church, which is very likely to have ministries helping the truly needy. Of course, liberals give to their mostly mainline churches as well, but not nearly as much as do conservatives to their mostly evangelical churches. [ydpn5f5] All of this is also illustrated in the generosity index where red states are ranked high in generosity and blue states are ranked low. [*9od5b]
~It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.~ [ybmvbs]
And surprise! Tea Partiers who believe in limited government are much more giving than liberals who believe in government redistribution and berate the Tea Partiers as greedy and selfish. Conservatives are more likely to donate their time as volunteers and give much more blood than do liberals. Conservatives are more likely to give strangers directions, and give food or money to a homeless person. But in a cash transaction liberals are more likely to steal an accidental excess in change. [*2djf3md]
~ You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away~ [ybmvbs]
In fact when a government increases its intrusion into helping the needy, more private charity value is lost than is made up for by the government, so in real terms the more the government intrudes into society's helping systems, the less the needy receive as a net amount of services – called the "crowding out effect". [*6fwu768]
~Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."~ [ybmvbs]
It's not like liberals exactly value nonprofit donations anyway. According to the NY Times the Democrats think there are too many charity groups that are "skillfully exploiting the tax code" and "last year cost the federal government more than $50 billion in lost tax revenue." [ybfcnts] This is what happens when liberalism addles your brain, American neighbor. You start thinking of charity groups as 'exploitive' competition that deprive the government of tax revenues (paranoid much?), but even if there are a few nonprofit groups that are illegally taking advantage of the tax system, it is legitimate tax payers who are the victims, not the government for heaven's sake!?!
Another reason liberals give less might be the smugness factor. It turns out that buying green (obviously something liberals do an awful lot more than conservatives) produces a psychological arrogance that leads to a higher likelihood of lying, cheating and stealing. The theory is that liberals possess a perverted moral balance for things like 'saving the planet', and when it tips in that direction through self-righteous green purchasing, the person's "moral regulation" then allows for an increased weighting in the other direction that excuses more lying, cheating and stealing, and likely less giving. [*yaaeqbf] This is also confirmed by another study about buying organic foods, a liberal favorite. Again, the smugness factor, or what is termed here as "moral licensing" apparently turns them into jerks. [brpvu8z] And don't think that because liberals profess to care about the environment, that they actually do. When it comes to personal environmental hygiene, liberals can't even seem to pick up after themselves. [*mfysxl, *d3ttwe, *6o2xlv6]
Another thing, American neighbor. All of that conservative charity has led to America being the most charitable country in the world – and that is after paying the lion's share to police the globe with America's military, and upholding international institutions like the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, etc. [css7kfq]bb
• Imagine if liberals were honest & truly compassionate for the poor
Imagine if all liberals were as honest and concerned as they claim to be, American neighbor. If they actually possessed cognitive dissonance their consciences would not have allowed them to keep those supposedly stolen tax cuts that they have received over the last thirty years. Imagine if liberals actually believed in the sophistry they use to demagogue conservatives about supposedly stolen tax cut money. Imagine if liberals were truly compassionate for the needy and the poor. Liberalism rejected Dewey's universal principle of there being no right and wrong, and turned it into an exception for liberalism that says liberalism is always right. This relates to the liberal principle: A contemporary liberal's honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions. In fact, liberalism is so right that any opposition must be demonized to illustrate how wrong that opposition is (remember, to a liberal, opposition in of itself must be motivated by evil, which of course stems from their compulsive paranoid delusion – known here as progressive-fascism). Even using the poor as a demagogic weapon while by their own reasoning knowingly stealing from them is not out of bounds. This truly is a definition of self-righteousness – and liberalism.
And don't think it is only the rich who supposedly stole money from the poor. So did the middle class, apparently. For instance under the Bush tax cuts those making $25,500 to $41,640 received 9.4% of the tax cuts, those who made $41,641 to $68,295 received 17.5% of the tax cuts, and those who made $68,296 to $97,685 received 15.5% of the tax cuts. Don't think you didn't pocket some supposedly stolen tax cut money just because you have a middle class income, American neighbor. You are guilty too. [4farst] In fact, this will be a good gauge of where you currently stand in your programmed liberalism, American neighbor. Guilt and shame usually follow a person to bed. If you find tonight that your conscience has a hard time allowing you to sleep, this would be a good sign of an awakening of your cognitive dissonance. Of course, if you are not troubled by your conscience it could be because you have already accepted that the idea of tax cuts being stolen from the poor is nothing more than irrational liberal demagoguery and compulsive paranoia, and that would be an even better sign – a rejection of liberalism through critical thinking. However, if a liberal can read all of this and still scoff it off, they may actually be in need of direct psychoanalytical and pharmaceutical help.
But really, American neighbor, who is the genuine Dr. McCoy? Is it conservatives that are the selfish and greedy ones when they cut taxes that demonstrably benefit the poor, and reform welfare so that it provides millions of welfare recipients with jobs, and are much more generous in donating their time, money and blood than liberals? Or aren't liberals the actual selfish and greedy ones, proclaiming that they 'care' so much more for the poor, while being the richer of the two ideologies, but giving so much less than conservatives, to mainly charities that benefit the elite, and all along this meager liberal giving is as they themselves charge, after they have stolen it from the poor in the first place. Indeed, the words selfish and greedy hardly seem pejorative enough terms to describe liberals. Perhaps other words might be more apropos like hypocrites, avaricious, fakes, covetous, charlatans, tight-fisted, thieves, Scrooges, rapacious, swindlers, cheats, swines (I like that one), predators, frauds, prehensile, phonies, grasping, crooks, con artists, fascists… I'm sure you get the picture.
You do realize, American neighbor, that conservatives will now read this essay and challenge every liberal they know and meet: "Have you paid back your stolen tax cuts yet?" When liberals object, the next question will be: "If tax cuts are not stolen from the poor, what legitimate right does the government have to tax more than an equal amount from everyone, regardless of income level?" Because the answer is "none", look for a flurry of demagoguery and sophistry in response, American neighbor. There simply is no way to rationalize a way out of this conundrum. Either liberals must believe that tax cuts for the rich are stolen from the poor, or their claim to tax the rich more has no legitimacy. But if they cling to this rationalization of tax cuts for the rich supposedly stealing from the poor, they make themselves (the liberal rich) out to be knowing thieves for not paying the stolen money back.
Conservatives will likely dig through every speech by every liberal politician and through every news report to find every quote from every liberal who has ever condemned conservative tax cuts based on the presumption (the standard liberal doctrine) that the money is stolen from the poor. Media liberals will be challenged when interviewing conservatives (these media liberals are all rich liberals who have knowingly stolen from the poor when they kept the tax cuts of the last three decades). There will be videos posted on YouTube of liberal sycophants cheering on the rhetoric of tax cuts stealing from the poor. Probably some conservative think tank will calculate how much liberals in various tax brackets and time periods owe over the past thirty years of tax cuts. (After all, liberals will certainly want to pay back that stolen money, won't they, American neighbor? Won't they?) I expect lists of these quotes and dollar numbers will go viral throughout the conservative blogoshpere and talk shows. We'll probably hear of Tea Party chants to liberals like, "Pay it back! Pay it back!" And what about political contributions? I guess the Democratic Party will have to start a new list. After all, liberal politicians wouldn't want to be accepting "stolen" money from the poor in the contributions they accept, especially since during formal debates their Republican opponents may ask them how much stolen money is financing their campaigns. In fact, shouldn't the Democratic Party set up a fund that Democrats can donate to in order to pay back all of the supposedly stolen money the Democratic Party has accepted over the past sixty years? Then that fund can be rightfully donated to the poor and needy (probably it would be better that conservatives handle the management of that end of it so it doesn't all end up in elite liberal charities for operas and symphonies, and instead really does go to the needy).bc
• Summary
So let's summarize what we have found in this essay:
• Michael Moore ranted against profits from capitalism as "evil" only after his own experience with free market capitalism made him financially secure, but has not given back the "evil" profits he made from capitalism. (Oh – and also what about those stolen tax cuts Michael?) Was he playing stupid or just not playing?
• Liberals claim that tax cuts are immoral and stolen from the poor to be given to the rich, but it is rich liberals including all congressional liberals and the liberal President and Vice President that refuse to live up to their claim and instead like thieves keep their supposedly stolen tax cuts.
• Exactly opposite of liberal assertions, the tax burden has consistently shifted away from the poor onto the rich since the early eighties with no exceptions for periods of tax reductions.
• The universal liberal sophistry that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer is not supported by IRS records or the Social Security Administration numbers on wage distribution.
• The American rich actually pay more than their fair share of taxes compared to the next 23 leading economies of the world.
• Liberals prefer to be generous with other people's money, conservatives with their own.
• Raising the top marginal tax rate can actually lead to less government tax revenues due to a reduced productivity of those affected by the upper tax bracket increase (also see Revenue Growth Rates in #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts).
• Liberals imagine themselves as more compassionate than conservatives, but their actions do not match their imagination.
• Liberals demagogue conservatives as the richest, domineering CEO types in America, but it is liberals who are mostly the popular, richest, domineering CEO types in America.
• Liberals demagogue Republicans as the "party of the rich", but the numbers illustrate that the Democratic Party is the party of the rich and super rich. You know, American neighbor – the ones with all of that stolen tax cut money.
• Liberals mostly give to elite, artsy charities while conservatives mostly give to charities that serve those in need.
• It is not conservatives who are less giving for the needs of others less fortunate. It is liberals who are less giving for the needs of others less fortunate.
• Conservatives donate more time as volunteers and give more blood than do liberals.
• Conservative evangelical churches provide more ministries to the needy than do liberal mainline churches.
• Red states are ranked high on the generosity index, whereas blue states rank low.
• Small government Tea Partiers are much more generous than big government liberals.
• The more government intrudes into the charity business the less the resulting amount of net recourses that are available for those in need.
• Liberals are more likely to steal excess change.
• Liberals who buy 'green' are more likely to smugly lie, cheat and steal.
• The liberal myth that liberals are more giving than conservatives in reality is consistently proved to be the reverse by actual data.
So much for the liberal mantra that conservatives are the greedy, rich, fat cats and liberals are the compassionate ones. Can you say, noble lies, American neighbor? (Our population of 800 pound gorillas has just increased exponentially! It is so crowded in here, I can hardly breath – gasp!)bd
• Deprogramming lessons
Liberals are irrationally paranoid about the rich in America supposedly stealing from the poor: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. It is now obvious to you, American neighbor, that the liberal ingrained disdain for the 'evil rich' is not based on reality, but is an external attitude deposited into the liberal's thought process from the outside. Ditto for the belief that liberals are much more caring than are conservatives: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. This essay is also a huge lesson on the double standards principle: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. And the rationalization principle: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought. Imagine if liberals actually had to live up to the rhetoric they demagogue conservatives with. Do you think ever in a million years that Michael Moore would donate all of his "evil" capitalist earnings to the poor in order to cleanse his anguished conscience?!? Is the moon made of blue cheese, American neighbor? How then can he live with himself? Shouldn't rich liberals be the most self-hating people in the world? If being rich is so evil as liberalism defines it, shouldn't a liberal being rich, profiting from the evil free marketplace, and accepting those evil stolen tax cuts, turn them into most pathetic of characters? Well there is always the noble liberal motives principle: A contemporary liberal's honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions. And then there is the scoff principle: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking. Those should help Michael sleep at night (poor dear…).
The above dozens of quotes from leading liberals/Democrats about tax cuts supposedly stealing from the poor are also wonderful examples of the liberal projection principle: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. Liberals see themselves as compassionate for the poor, but their wealth doesn't jive with that so much, so instead of sharing their wealth they loathe it and project their spite onto conservatives (and keep the supposedly stolen money). It is really only a matter of the fascist projecting his fascism on others. If only all of life's problems could be solved so easily. [/sarcasm] But really, American neighbor, this essay is a prime example of the principles: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty. Contemporary liberalism is absurd. Above we have twenty conclusions about liberalism that illustrate what an utter and complete sham it is. Everything liberals think about themselves in regard to money and compassion amounts to one big pile of stinking bull bleep! But the most incredible part is that liberals don't actually play stupid about these things – they have actually talked themselves into believing all of this liberals-are-compassionate and the-rich-are-evil nonsense, so they aren't actually playing.
If there is really a group of 'evil rich' in America my guess is that you would find them in Washington DC and the surrounding suburbs. Why do these rich people live around Washington DC? Because they are siphoning off your tax dollars, American neighbor. Big government makes some people very wealthy. If there truly are 'evil rich' who steal from the poor, that's where they are: [*mflcph4]be
• Generational theft
Here's something you should think about, American neighbor. It is not the super rich who are stealing the poor's money. It is the elderly who are stealing from the young and the future. Think Social Security, Medicare, subsidized housing, inflated government pensions, etc. Today's seniors never paid anywhere near enough taxes (or pension contributions) to cover for their current government expenses. So the government taxes the young to pay for the care and luxury of the elderly, but even that is not enough, so the government borrows from the future so that future citizens not even born yet will have to pay the interest on that borrowed money to cover senior expenses today not covered by taxing the young. There is your redistribution of wealth, all government planned and managed. No one has a choice. That is theft – generational theft.bf
• Will you pledge to never be rich?
I have a few questions for you, American neighbor. Are you rich? Does your household bring in more than $68,000 per year? Are you aspiring to earn more than $68,000 per year? Do you buy lottery tickets hoping to win millions of dollars? Do you gamble hoping to make it rich? Do you make investments hoping to cash in for a life of luxury? Have you started a small business hoping it will expand into a large business, and large income? Are you hoping your career will be financially successful? Are you hoping to write a best-selling book, produce a hit single, make it big as an artist, rise in professional sports? Do you know why I picked $68,000 per year, American neighbor? Because that is the mean income in America for 2010. It is what a "fair" income is in America. And liberals are all about being "fair". If you take all household income in America and divide it by the number of households you get $68,000 per household, so if you make more than that you are in the unfair minority category of the 'evil rich'. I have another question for you, American neighbor. If you as a liberal hate the supposed inequality of rich versus poor so much (after all – it's so unfair!), will you take a pledge to NEVER be 'rich'? If your household ever grosses more than $68,000 per year (or whatever the mean income is in the future) you hereby pledge in your own blood, on your ancestor's graves, in the witness of all the dead who may or may not be watching, in the sight and hearing of all gods, real and unreal, that if you don't give every penny of the excess away to the poor (after all – it's only "fair"!), without claiming a tax break on any of it, may you be cursed to life of misery and an eternity of hell. No? You don't want to make that pledge? You actually wouldn't mind living with a bit of luxury only those with money can afford? Welcome to the unfair attitude of the 'evil rich', American neighbor.
In fact, the 1% aren't who you think they are. Ironically, it is the government who best fits the derogatory definitions of the so-called 'evil rich' by concentrating vast quantities of wealth within itself through abuse of its own political institutions. The so-called 'evil rich' in America are pikers compared to these real power brokers who control the leavers of laws, commerce and money. Read this and have your eyes opened about true wealth inequality: [*kgdgxwb]
I salute you, American neighbor. I realize this essay was like pealing a bag of onions for you. Now wipe away the tears, and on to the next one – by comparison it will be a welcome breeze – but still a headwind nonetheless.bg
• Deprogramming exercise
Do you have any cognitive dissonance here, American neighbor? Are you feeling even a little tug of guilt or shame? How will you answer the "Have you paid the money back…" question? Will it be with a scoffing upraised finger and "f-you!" of a typical Michael Moore type liberal fed up with having their utter hypocrisy exposed? Which side of this question would you rather be on, American neighbor? Would you rather be on the side being asked, or on the side doing the asking? Now that you know that all of this mush about liberal compassion is nothing but a facade, if you can now analyze yourself with your Mr. Spock attitude of third person analysis, where would your self-interest be better placed? Wakey, wakey, American neighbor. Liberals are actually only generous with other people's money – like a charlatan they just project compassion as their own. So if you yourself actually are a personally caring and giving person, American neighbor, (or truly want to be), this is just more evidence that at your core you are not a liberal. Sleep well tonight, American neighbor, and then get up tomorrow with a renewed attitude toward compassion.
Here are some more comparisons of liberals versus conservatives: [*7upleyw, *6g5dm37, *7kpzhud] Don't miss this video about the real 1%: [*cr7yezy, c7twznn] And here is another study illustrating that the rich have not gotten rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. [*6qks29v]bh
• Humor, sort-of
My favorite kind of humor is biting humor with a vigorous sprinkle of irony:
Liberals demagogue conservatives with accusations of stealing from the poor, but liberals don't actually believe the things they say, and they don't actually care either. It is all just an ideological game to liberals – a game they feel they must win by any means necessary. If there are any liberals who still object to my characterization of them not really caring, they can put their money where their liberalism is and send in a check for their up to sixty years of supposedly stolen tax cuts along with the accumulated interest and any profits derived from them to reduce the federal debt. They can also arrange to make ongoing monthly payments for the continuing Contract With America and Bush tax cuts. The government will gladly take your redemptory payments here:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV26106-2188
Or here: [ybgbfov] Total contributions for 2009 were expected to be about 3.1 million dollars. [yl85umt] But now that I have gotten the word out to liberals 2012 should be a banner year measured in trillions of dollars (because liberals REALLY CARE!). Perhaps President Obama could kick it all off with a special presidential address to Congress and the nation from the House, where he and all liberal members of Congress could write out their own checks right there on primetime TV with the whole country watching. Talk about "redistributing the wealth!" Imagine, American neighbor, I could have single-handedly solved America's debt problem overnight!
[This is the end of #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?. Proceed to Essay #10 or Preview #10 or Previews & Links to 22 N.C. Essays.]