Liberals Only Like Poor People in Theory

images (1)As in, they like them as a talking point and a voting block, but when it comes to actually considering how their regulations and pointless bans will effect the poor, they are either grotesquely misinformed about the economic consequences or they just hate poor people.

You can take your pick.

What am I talking about you ask? Well let’s just discuss a few of the negative side effects of some popular liberal bans and regulations.

First up on our list: California State Senator, Alex Padilla, really wants to ban plastic bags in California, which would mean switching over to paper bags (which would include an extra charge) or reusable shopping bags (which are breeding grounds for bacteria if not cleaned regularly, an extra expense for those who don’t have their own washer). This creates extra expense for low income people in the state of California (and any where this kind of ban is implemented) in multiple ways. The obvious extra expense to either buy paper bags constantly or buy/wash or buy new reusable bags on a regular basis.

The hidden cost is that people of low income no longer have those plastic bags to recycle. Look, I grew up poor (not much has changed) and those plastic bags we brought home our groceries in played many roles in our household. They were lunch sacks, waterproofing, litter box liners, trash can liners, dirty laundry bags, insulation (one winter in a house with really leaky windows), and most of the other uses on this list (plus probably more I’m forgetting). All of these jobs, instead of being accomplished with recycled plastic bags from the grocery store, will now have to be accomplished with more purchases by low-income families.

This ban doesn’t help anyone, except the green peace liberal movement types who need to feel like they are “making the world a better place” by banning something. Something that serves a lot of purposes in the lives of the low-income family’s they claim to care so much about.

No. 2 on the list: California costs a lot to live in (it’s got the 6th highest cost of living of all the states and 5 out of 10 of the cities with the highest cost of living are in that state) but in Los Angeles, the city had the plan to ban people from sleeping in their car. Apparently it was ‘unsightly’ or something like that. What, exactly, is someone supposed to do if they do not have the money for both a car and an apartment?

Would you prefer they quit their job, sell their car, and go on welfare instead? I mean, anything to get those unsightly homeless people of the streets of your idyllic seaside towns right? Instead of making it possible for people to do what they have to do in order to support themselves by letting them live in their car (which is there property anyway), you want to ban it and make it more difficult for them to live and work? Yeah, that’s real understanding and supportive of low-income people in an expensive town. Unless they are parking on your property or causing a nuisance by blocking a street or drive way, then get over it.

Luckily, in this case, the law was struck down by a circuit court judge, but the people who want it passed are most likely the same kind of people who talk about how we need to “support” the poor and how Republicans are so very evil for hurting them by trying to cut welfare programs. Poor people are all well and good when they are a distant talking point for your political agenda, but a lot less fun when they are in your neighborhood, bringing down property values I guess.

Last on our list: SeaTac’s decision to raise their minimum wage, which shows such a lack of basic economics (or even just long term, big picture thinking) that it’s completely appalling.

Northwest Asian Weekly reports that employees earning the new wage in SeaTac have lost benefits such as 401k, paid holidays and paid vacation, free food, free parking and overtime hours.  One hotel waitress said she is earning less because tips have decreased since the high wage has been in effect.  In many cases these benefits plus the lower state minimum wage added more value to workers’ earnings than the new $15 wage.

As one SeaTac worker put it, “It sounds good, but it’s not good.”

Washington Policy Center

Of course liberals will deny that this shows that their, oh so compassionate, ideas are actually harmful to those on the lowest rungs of income in our country. This can’t be a failure on their part, it must be those “greedy” business owners!

However, anyone with a little common sense (not something liberals have in bulk exactly) can see that these “compassionate” liberal ideologies backfire onto the people that they are supposed to be helping.

Do liberals really care though? Doubtful, the poor are more of a convenient card to pull out in debate than an actual concern for most liberals, who really seem to not know what being “poor” actually means (I’m looking at you Hillary and Chelsea). In fact, they are so valuable as a rhetorical tool that maybe they don’t want to see them gone at all.

In any case, they certainly don’t know how to benefit the poor, whether that was actually their goal or not.

Advertisements

Tagged as: , , , ,

Categorised in: America, Conservative, Economy, Politics, Welfare

9 Responses »

  1. Liberals don’t ‘like poor people’..In fact they’d like to not have so many. Liberals would like to bring them up to join in the (supposed) best economy in the world. Look to the Conservatives, who feel their job is to create more poor. You see, a large pool of poor depresses wages, which allows businesses to hire a few more bodies at discount rates..like Walmart or mcDonalds…and that’s the RW idea of ‘job creation’. The obvious downside to this RW preoccupation (and even businesses are starting to talk it up) is that with a society that’s living hand to mouth, you have no customer base… And that’s bad for business. Only a fool thinks that crushing the Middle and Lower Classes would result in a better business climate.

    • Except liberal policies DON’T bring people out of poverty, despite their supposed intentions, and you have zero understanding of free market capitalism if you think that it benefits businesses to keep people poor and that is in no way what conservatives/Republicans advocate for. Welfare is false wealth and does not benefit the recipients long term (mostly because of the way it’s regulated) and does not benefit society in the long term either.
      We’d like people to have real jobs and an actual shot at education. Unfortunately government regulations and subsidies do not allow either of those things to happen in our economy. And guess who loves to pass education subsidies and regulations on businesses? Oh right…liberals. Good job there proving that liberals are trying to help poor people, when the exact opposite is actually true.

      • Actually, I majored in Econ in college and am very familiar with its principles.

        What you are implying is that “Libtard” attempts at helping our poorest is a failure, yet in fact, through our boom years those policies did lift people out of poverty.

        You also imply that trickle down would be a success if allowed it’s free rein. That has been debunked so many times it isn’t worth debating again. But..

        ** The Trickle-Down Hoax http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_trickle-down_hoax.html

        ** Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn’t Work | United for a Fair Economy http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

        ** Trickle-down economics is the greatest broken promise of our lifetime | Alex Andreou | Comment is free | theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

        You see, when a small percentage of the population earns all the money, the poor aren’t spending, which is bad for businesses.. A hard concept to grasp for a person with your absolute knowledge of econ.. And, the wealthy can’t pick up the slack, because they can only buy so many Ferraris and high end wines. The rest goes into the bank. How hard is that to grasp?

        And although I agree with you that we want more jobs, in truth, we want more quality jobs. What does Conservatism have to offer? Tax shelters for the wealthy and corporations, offshore shelters and offshore jobs, while sticking the citizenry with minimum (and whenever possible, below minimum wage) jobs. Nice try.

        • You don’t understand conservative principles of economics even the least little bit. Quite frankly you are embarrassing yourself.

          • I think I do. I read about them daily, and have for decades. Unlike you, I don’t think that realizing the failure of ‘conservative economic principles’ is an embarrassment. I lived in Britain during the failure of Margaret Thatcher’s ‘conservative principles’, voted for and watched Reagan’s ‘conservative principles’ start us on the path of economic ruin for the middle class, voted for and watched the Bush Jr ‘conservative principles’ in action and presently view half a dozen foreign TV News feeds, where I can see the resulting misery caused by ‘conservative principles’ in Greece, Britain, Portugal, Spain (all countries I’ve lived in BTW), while countries like Germany (Look ma! A welfare state with free healthcare) do better than we do. Remember the old adage: “The definition of insanity, etc..”

            • Okay, so you are further embarrassing yourself. You are acting like Reagan and W. Bush were both conservatives.
              Bush jr. as you call him, was not fiscally conservative in the LEAST.
              And the problems in Greece and Britain (and likely Portugal and Spain as well, I have spent very little time studying their countries) did not start because of conservative fiscal concepts. They started because of those country’s complete and utter reliance on a large welfare state which was completely unsustainable.

              So yeah, you don’t know anything about conservative economic principles.

        • Wow for someone who majored in Economics you seem to be able to only quote hacky leftwing non-academic sources…probably because you education, if you actually had any, was just propaganda and not any real information. Quite frankly if you think you got an education in Economics, you should ask for your money back.

          • And yet, rather than show me where I’m wrong, you slip back into RW mode, nothing but unsubstantiated insults. And that means one thing, and one thing only. You’re full of hot air.

            • Well that’s because your comments are so ineptly stupid that they deserve nothing but insult and mockery…but if you insist on be flayed in detail I will oblige.

              Let’s deal with your first article. You quote an article from the American Thinker,a publication I have problems with my issues with them have nothing to do with this as the article you linked to “The Trickle-Down Hoax” Actually is a whole article lambasting and making fun of liberals and how they misrepresent complex economic thought with the stupid statement “Trickle Down” Congratulations you linked as proof of why you’re right and article whose who point was to show people who make the point you are making are idiots. You didn’t do anything more than read the title. And rather than check any of your sources before making you less than witty response your oh so derserved insults, you just brazenly went for it, with you first link being an article explaining why you’re an idiot. I gave you a chance to not say anything, but you wanted to defend putting up the article that disproves your point. Bravo sir. Bravo.

              Then let’s deal with you second article from faireconomy.org (yes that sounds wonderfully reputable) it uses poorly made Excel graphs and figures that are not cited anywhere to show that there is no correlation between GDP growth or unemployment numbers. Of course it only shows top tax rate (real economists know that things are far more complex and deal with all tax rates and sources as well as regulation burden, you might know this too if you went to a reputable school for Economics) but it does actually show that GDP growth rate does reach higher levels of course had they used actual numbers instead of charting it against rate of growth numbers (http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/US_GDP_over_time.html) it would have been clear that when averaged out there were real rate of changes when taxes go up or down. Also I find it interesting they use unemployed numbers and not more accurate workforce participation numbers which would have shown more people working when tax rates were down (more often than not, again it has more to do with top tax rate).

              Your third article makes the preposterous claim that because the benefits of an economically conservative country don’t seem to immediately have an effect on the third world that proves that economic conservatism doesn’t work. Meanwhile back in the real world someone who had ever been in the general vicinity of an Economics class might understand that the economic policies of one nation (even when they’re great) do not immediately cause prosperity in countries with terrible economics. In fact a strong correlation can be shown between a nation’s economic freedom (which includes low taxes, low regulatory burdens, low corruption, rule of law etc.) and all economic indicators (GDP, health, happiness).

              Now you did say something correct
              “You see, when a small percentage of the population earns all the money, the poor aren’t spending, which is bad for businesses.. A hard concept to grasp for a person with your absolute knowledge of econ.. ”
              Yes when you have actual economic knowledge idiotic drivel, like the kind you spout, is difficult to grasp. Quite frankly I’m not sure where to start, with the idea that a small percentage earn “all the money” a small percentage might earn a good portion of the money, but (at least before Obama) the vast majority earned enough to survive and most would eventually earn enough to achieve security in life (please remember that all long term studies show that people are seldom stuck in any income bracket when in an economically free economy).

              “What does Conservatism have to offer? Tax shelters for the wealthy and corporations, offshore shelters and offshore jobs, while sticking the citizenry with minimum” You seem to only deal in propaganda so let me explain a few things. The two main pushes for tax reform in conservative movement are the Flat tax and the FAIR tax, both of these, if you bothered to read them, but I worry about your ability to comprehend them are rather against “Tax shelters for the wealthy and corporations, offshore shelters” they in fact, in most variations get rid of almost all deductions. Now yes other nations may allow for people to hide their funds without reporting them back the US, but that has little to do with US policy (except for the fact that the US is the largest tax shelter allowing people to store money in US banks away from corrupt officials in whatever country they’re in). I might comment here on how you want to hurt people in other nations, as storing money in US banks is often a method people use when planning to flee from foreign tyrannies…but given your racist remark about “offshore jobs,” (because I guess only Americans should be allowed to earn wages and all foreigners should starve even if they provide a similar service for less costs) I doubt the plight of anyone offshore matters to you at all. But thank you for trafficking in not only liberal stupidity but in populist drivel as well.

              As to you comment about the minimum wage, you should know that the minimum wage was started as a racist tactic to keep minorities from competing (you sure do seem to have a track record on this subject) and has been shown over and over and over again (http://conservativenewager.com/2014/05/29/raising-the-minimum-wage-is-always-stupid-and-always-a-bad-idea-and-heres-why/) so the question really becomes why do you keep proposing things that hurt people (especially minorities).

              ” lived in Britain during the failure of Margaret Thatcher’s ‘conservative principles’, voted for and watched Reagan’s ‘conservative principles’ start us on the path of economic ruin for the middle class,” Okay…umm…Thatcher and Reagan provided economic growth for all brackets of society…it is the fact that their policies were not continued and in some cases reversed that caused problems for the middle class.

              “and watched the Bush Jr ‘conservative principles’ in action” Really which conservative principles would those be? The expansion of federal power over education? Not putting in permanent tax cuts? Expanding regulatory power? Not taking down Freddie and Fannie? Cutting and running like a liberal once he got his photo opp over seas? Bail outs? Medicare and Medicaid expansion? Please list for me a conservative policy put in place by Bush.

              “‘conservative principles’ in Greece, Britain, Portugal, Spain (all countries I’ve lived in BTW),” 119, 14, 69, 49. Those are the rankings of economic freedom for those 4 nations (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) hardly what I would call economic conservative policy.Britain gets the highest score at 74.9 out of 100 (50 or below is considered repressed)…now while the US is pretty low right now we still are more economically free than the four you mentioned (you seem to be doing a lot of jet setting for someone who knows so much about the poor) it’s still more economically free than any of those you listed and I might add even at the end of the Bush era was still in the 80’s (and the top 10)…but that was all before Obama.

              “while countries like Germany (Look ma! A welfare state with free healthcare) do better than we do. ” Okay 1, they don’t do better, they have a lower per capita GDP, they have a lower quality of life (according to the Human Development Index http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries) and many of the policies that do keep them up there (such as not over spending on everything) is something conservatives actually like. They also have a lower corporate tax burden than we do. Would you like to bring that over here because I can get behind that.

              “Remember the old adage: “The definition of insanity, etc..” Yes but facts show that every time we have higher taxes, more regulation and more government things get worse…yet liberals like you keep forgetting this and try keep trying it again. I’m glad though that you agree that this is because of insanity.

              Now run along, you are of no use to anyone here with your drivel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Copyright © 2015 Elementary Politics and Authors. All Rights Reserved.

Follow me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: