Liberal — Conservative..How do you handle it?

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

I’m not on board with student loan forgiveness. I’d rather subsidize the cost the of college directly rather than encourage people to borrow money with no consequences.

Lol…its the same god damn thing! Does it matter if you give a college 10,000 dollars per student or every student borrows 10,000 dollars more and then you forgive it? It still costs tax payers the exact same amount of money and doesn’t do anything about the outrageous cost of college in this country.

You should be asking yourself why has the cost of college been out pacing inflation for decades now with no signs of slowing down? The answer you may not want to find is because of government policies that have floated so much easy money into the education system.

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

I don’t get how you think this is winning the argument. Personally, I mind my own business and don’t care what other people do. If gay people want to get marriage, who cares?

…its not about winning an argument, its about getting a point across without engaging in an argument. People who support gay marriage are doing it because they value marriage. Introducing them to the idea that people are starting to think all marriage has no value is probably introducing them to a concept they have never even thought about.

Doing this kind of stuff to them might actually give them something to think about…where as saying I don’t care or getting involved in the same pro/con debate on so many topics that have already been beat into the ground over the years does not.

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

The idea behind a BIG is to scrap our current wasteful welfare system and give that money to people directly to prevent people from ‘working’ the system. It wouldn’t be a lot of money so you couldn’t just not work and be comfortable.

So float a dollar amount out there. You can’t come up with an amount that would afford someone a basic existence here in the states that wouldn’t provide a comfortable lifestyle elsewhere. Just rent alone, a lot of places in the states you are talking 700-800 and up for an empty, s~~~ty apartment with no utilities/internet included. Go down to South America or Asia and you can get a nicer apartment fully furnished with utilities and internet included and live within walking distance to the beach for 500 dollars a month and all your other expenses cost a lot less as well…even cheaper if you don’t want to be on the beach on in a city.

If they pay everyone 1000 bucks a month to do nothing and end all welfare, I can probably manage to scrape by here, or go be pretty comfortable somewhere else. If they pay us all 500 a month to do nothing and end all welfare, do you think people who really need that money who actually have legitimate reasons why they can’t work could get by on it? Its just a flawed, broken idea.

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

As for why you would work – do you work more than you need to right now to pay for your basic day to day expenses?

I most certainly do so that I have excess money to do something called investing. The entire purpose of said investing is so I don’t have to work in the future. 50-60 hours a week for the next 6 years then retiring and living off a passive income stream built by those investments is a hell of a lot less work over the course of my life time then scraping by working 20 hours a week over the next 50-60 years and being permanently tied down to a job.

If the equivalent of the passive income stream I am building for myself was just given to me by the government starting tomorrow, then starting tomorrow I’d be more than happy to start my early retirement. See how that works?

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Beer wrote:

Dude our government is running a DEFICIT, that means that if I retire at 36, I haven’t even been paying enough taxes to fund current spending, let alone current spending + extra taxes to pay down “my share” of the national debt + medical coverage for the next hopefully 50 years.

They don’t have some giant trust earning interest…they have a pile of debt we are paying interest on lol. If I could effectively stop contributing after 20 years of work and sponge for 50 years, its not because I’ve already paid enough in, its because the next generation will have to pick up the tab, with interest.

Don’t get me wrong…if given the chance I’d totally do it out of spite for our s~~~ty f~~~ed up system, and I’d do it hoping that I’m doing my part to hasten the collapse, but what it boils down to is I save a much higher % of my income than I pay in taxes…if I can’t afford to pay for my future healthcare for life with my savings that has been earning me returns there is no way I’ve paid enough in taxes that at best get a 0% return to fund my healthcare for life.

We are paying less than 2.4% interest on all that debt. The current inflation rate is 1.5%. That means the real interest rate were are paying is less than 1%.

Meanwhile, U.S. GDP growth is 2.5%. So in effect our GDP growth rate is slightly higher than our interest rate on the debt.

Is debt a great thing? Obviously not, and here’s the biggest issue:

– A huge debt makes it difficult to raise interest rates without costing the country enormous amounts in interest. This is why you hear a lot of talk from the Fed about raising rates but nothing happens.

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Beer wrote:

I most certainly do so that I have excess money to do something called investing. The entire purpose of said investing is so I don’t have to work in the future. 50-60 hours a week for the next 6 years then retiring and living off a passive income stream built by those investments is a hell of a lot less work over the course of my life time then scraping by working 20 hours a week over the next 50-60 years and being permanently tied down to a job.

If the equivalent of the passive income stream I am building for myself was just given to me by the government starting tomorrow, then starting tomorrow I’d be more than happy to start my early retirement. See how that works?

I have close to $1k a month in passive income from dividends, but have no intention of quitting work to live off of that – even if my health care were free.

I theoretically like the idea of a BIG (so did Milton Friedman) but there are a lot of problems with work out. One thing I believe it would do is discourage women was getting knocked up to collect a welfare check. If $1k a month was all they got no matter how many kids they had you’d see a lot more of them keeping their legs shut.

[GrumpyParticipant]

thisistheguy123 wrote:

Hearing a brother I’ve spent years supporting in every way possible say “I hate that you’re my brother” when I disagree with BLM was the last straw that proved to me he’s not worth engaging in heated conversations with

You have already lost your brother IMHO.
“I hate that you’re my brother”- Either he is serious about that hate, or he is throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled little girl to get his own way. In essence he is saying “shame on you for making me hate you”.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone who states “I hate that you’re xxxxx” is out of my life faster that an fly fart can dissipate in a tornado. No forgiveness and no reconciliation is possible EVER. However that is just me.

Back on subject though.
The fundamental difference is, in the word and attributes of Conservative, Conserve is the primary word.
In Liberal it is Lie.
A tad simplistic most certainly. However I have never met a liberal who hasn’t lied to me. Yet they have tried to liberate my personal finances to liberally spend on themselves or their chosen others.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[Anonymous 24]

I despise the terms Liberal and Conservative. These two terms help divide people the most easily, and in my opinion that is they are used and pushed by MSM.

Take me for example. I am a Libertarian… I am socially extremely Liberal, and fiscally extremely Conservative, and certainly against war/intervention/f~~~ing around in other people’s countries…

I prefer Democrat and Republican much more than Liberal and Conservative. Even then it is too small a grouping for everyone’s beliefs… When we pigeon hole ourselves like this the powers that be have a much easier time dividing us. This can most easily be seen when it comes to war. Neither party is now the anti-war party. The Democratic and Republican parties may as well just meld into one and become the “Israeli Military Industrial Complex Bankers Corporate War Party” at this point. Cause all I see is the train continuing down the same tracks that were laid down long ago no matter who is in the White House.

[Anonymous 11]

I remember getting my first real paycheck at my very first job fresh out of University. I instantly became a non-liberal after looking at the tax ass raping I took. I read today that some Hitlery donating Wall Street Bankster schmuck is proposing a 3% tax on all Americans to be sent directly to the Wall Street crooks.

I’ll admit that the neocon c~~~~~~~~~s like the Bushes had me fooled for about 12 years. When WTC 7 fell on it’s own, I began to question what was really going on.

I’m a paleoconservative now. I basically keep my mouth shut. It’s not like a libtard or neocon can be saved.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

We are paying less than 2.4% interest on all that debt. The current inflation rate is 1.5%. That means the real interest rate were are paying is less than 1%.

Meanwhile, U.S. GDP growth is 2.5%. So in effect our GDP growth rate is slightly higher than our interest rate on the debt.

Is debt a great thing? Obviously not, and here’s the biggest issue:

– A huge debt makes it difficult to raise interest rates without costing the country enormous amounts in interest. This is why you hear a lot of talk from the Fed about raising rates but nothing happens.

If we balanced the budget right now, we’d get literally nothing for 6 cents of every dollar we spent and we wouldn’t even be paying the debt off…just maintaining where we are at. You know what that has to do with GDP? Not a god damn thing. The only way to “reduce” that debt is via inflation. F~~~ the next generation with debt and interest, or f~~~ them with inflation…its the reason why liberal economic policies are terrible.

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

I have close to $1k a month in passive income from dividends, but have no intention of quitting work to live off of that – even if my health care were free.

Right…but its not just about you, its about the bigger trends. Going on right now, retiring abroad is becoming an increasingly popular thing to do. Why? Because social security goes a hell of a lot further in foreign countries. More people would simply do it sooner if they had more guaranteed income for life. Maybe you wouldn’t do it with 1000 a month, but if the government backs up your savings with some extra guaranteed income for life it suddenly puts you that much closer to a number you would be willing to say f~~~ it at. A lot of people would be trimming years of productivity off their life in favor of years of becoming a drain on society.

Its not going to make unproductive people more productive, and it incentivizes productive people to be less productive. How about some guy busting his ass at a 20 dollar an hour labor job…if he suddenly got an extra chunk of money every month, you think he’d still bust his ass or you think there is a chance he’d realize he could just work part time at Walmart instead in a temperature controlled environment with no heavy labor and end up at the same income level as when he really had to work for his money? I can assure you when I was busting my ass at a 20 dollar an hour labor job I hated I’d gladly have done just that if given the opportunity.

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

I theoretically like the idea of a BIG (so did Milton Friedman) but there are a lot of problems with work out. One thing I believe it would do is discourage women was getting knocked up to collect a welfare check. If $1k a month was all they got no matter how many kids they had you’d see a lot more of them keeping their legs shut.

Actually none of that is true. With a universal basic income, EVERYONE gets the same XXX dollars from the government each year. What Friedman thought we should replace our welfare system with was a negative income tax. Basically how that would work…

“One way Friedman tried to make the world better was by promoting a negative income tax (NIT) that would both help the poor and reduce destructive politics. The NIT would replace all income programs with a simple cash payment to every citizen. If, for example, the payment were $6,000, a family of four with no income would receive an annual payment from the IRS of $24,000. For each dollar earned by members of that family, the payment would be reduced by some fraction-Friedman suggested possibly 50 percent. Thus, if the family of four receiving $24,000 earned $12,000 in a year, their net payment from the IRS would be $18,000 (the original $24,000 minus $6,000 tax on their earnings). But they would still have the $12,000 so their total income would increase to $30,000.”

http://www.perc.org/articles/if-you-really-want-help-poor-remember-milton-friedman

So just running with that example…what would a single guy earning 12,000 a year get? That’s right…absolutely nothing.

Better than our current system? Maybe…but lazy s~~~ bags still aren’t going to work, and thinking women would be told if you want to breed what you can’t feed its not our problem by the government is a rather unreasonable thing to think. We won’t even tell a welfare mom of 5 now that she isn’t getting a raise if she pops number 6 out…no way would politics in this country suddenly shift so hard that that government no longer takes any responsibility for any children.

[JollyMisanthropeParticipant 3356]

There are certain principles the country was built on and that we as individuals choose to live by, assigning them a label is kind of pointless. Awhile back you would always hear someone who said they were a liberal say that they were for free speech. It was like the first thing any liberal would say because they considered free speech a liberal value. Now you have the progressives that hate free speech and so called conservatives are the ones vocally supporting it.

Free speech isn’t conservative or liberal, it’s common sense and an absolute necessity for a healthy nation.

MGTOW is neither a conservative or liberal value either, it’s a way of life we choose to lead that has the best interest of men in mind.

Associating principles with political parties or parts of the political spectrum only leads to fighting about the issues instead of actually discussing them like rational adults. People align their self-worth right alongside their ideology and from that point on cannot separate the two. Thus if you question a person’s beliefs they will immediately take that as a personal attack and bypass the discussion to go on the offensive and attack you.

The Children of Doom... Doom's Children. They told my lord the way to the Mountain of Power. They told him to throw down his sword and return to the Earth... Ha! Time enough for the Earth in the grave.

[Author]

Posts