How can you get liberals to look past the emotion?

Question

Liberal thinking is emotional in many ways. Conservative thinking more rational. For instance, take taxes, we know on the conservative side the evidence is clear - cut taxes and the government eventually increases its revenue because of the impact on the economy (worked for Reagan and Bush Jr). It is fact, and that is rational, but liberals can't get past the "emotion" of tax cuts for the rich. Take that emotional stance and add in the rational they don't define rich, and the fact only 1/2 of our society actually pays taxes means tax cuts are in deed for the top 1/2 of societies wage earners. Why do liberals get stuck on emotion and refuse to accept facts?

Answer 1

I am a shoe manufacturer (Not really) and I made a gross profit of one million dollars last year. The tax man will tax me on 29% capital gains if I take the profit out of the business.

Nevertheless, if I reinvest that 1M into buying some more modern factory equipment I will not pay a cent in taxes.

The net result of this action was to make my factory more efficient by 25%.
It also automated part of the factory make the job of my employees easier which will save them the strain of lifting 80lbs books of product onto a conveyer belt.

As a result I increased my market share by 25% percent this year and did it all with the same amount of employees.

Of this years profit of 1,250,000 I reinvested anther 1 Million 150 thousand dollars into my factory and took a 100K profit for myself.
Of the 100k I paid the taxman 29% or 29K dollars in taxes.

Now the Liberal will say that I didn't pay my fair share because I made $2.25 Million over two years and I only paid $29K (Slightly higher than 1%) in taxes.
What that liberal doesn’t account for is that 250K of the profit was deriving from an investment of capital (IT worked but might not have and could have returned a net gain of zero.)
Moreover, $2.25 Million are invested in the factory and are not liquid or of any befit to me personally unless I sell the company in which case I will pay 29% capital gains on it.
In reality I made 50K a year and paid the taxes on it. I have 4 employees that make 60K+ per year and no one in my company makes fewer than 27K per year.
Now it is true that in the end I will cash out and truly be a millionaire but at that point I will pay those taxes. On the other hand if my company fails I will have nothing except the memory of 12 years at 80 hrs. A week of work (No one else in the factory works over 50) for 50K a year.
That is capitalism in America and for every winner they is 2 losers and the grass is always green mainly because the Jones are spry painting it to deceive you into believing that they are better off than you.
So next time you turn on your computer, microwave oven, or use a power saw remember that capitalism rewards the people who make tools that make life easier and less burdensome for office workers, construction workers, and housewives alike. Whereas, those so called "progressive" taxers of capital make it less likely that those who would make life better will.
I chose to have companion for the leader that creates good and needed products or services and in sum makes a better world for us all to live in. This entrepreneur "undertaking" make the life of the worker and the consumer betters so I ask is he not worthy of a greater portion? I do not think casino owners (State included.) and usurers give anything to the nation and thus I do not support that kind of "oppressive" capitalism which dose nothing but take. But if we will bind those that are the doers in our world to make happier those that envy them it is better that we shackle none at all. The government should easily be able to support itself on 1% of consumption. This will also limit government and inversely expand individual freedom.
Now let the Liberal cogently show me that he is more compassionate than I for I think him a manipulative opportunist that wants something (Money) without the burden of working for it.
In sum the Liberal wants to divvy up the pie equally between eaters, yet he wants the same baker to keep on baking for diminished wages. If he resists he is called greedy and uncompassionate.
The conservative on the other hand seeks to gain more pie by making more pie. Those that help him end up with more pie thought a lower percentage.
"I would rather reign 1st in Hell than 2ed in heaven." is therefore a liberal sentiment. 5 points is a reward fair for my labor, I hope I have enriched you as well.

"Cons call fetus' babys" "we are scientific"
Fetus=is latin for "offspring" or "children-child" so samanticly you are off a bit. "Cons call babys babys"???-Yes we do.
According to any "principles of Biology" text book Life begins at conception and ends (For the scientist) when one reproduces. So we have established that you (Aself-proclaimed liberal) know absolutly nothing about the language you speak nor Science. I bet you are really mad right now. That is becuase you are more emotional than logical! Good day and you are as irrelivent as your liberalism.

Answer 2

You have to remember what Politics are in the first place. It is a race for power.

Democrats seem to be aiming for the Emotional thinkers
Republicans seem to aim for the more Logical thinkers.

Tax cuts are an example that is used and used well..

How can you give a poor man a tax cut when he does not pay taxes?
If a man making 10 Million a year is taxed at 45% his tax is 4.5 Million. He gets a tax break of 10% his tax is 3.5 Million.
Still is taxed way more then the middle class or lower.
A man making 20K per year is taxed at 15% minus the same basics all families are taxed. His tax is about $500. If he was taxed at the same rate as the rich man.. his tax should have been 9K.
The fairness isn't right.. Just because a man works hard and makes 10M should not be punished because of someone who makes 20K. (Besides the man making 20K usually pays NO tax or gets a Tax Credit)
Sounds like envy for the ones who dont like the man making 10M.

Personally, I think everyone should pay 17% accross the board. From the poor to the wealthy. It is ONLY fair and proper to tax everyone equally.

Answer 3

You must be 12 years old. Reagan increased spending and cut taxes and that basically sent the system crashing into debt, increasing the interest payments on that debt in 1988. Bush is doing the same. I would really hate for you cons to balance my checkbook, it would be frightening.
As far as cons not being emotional? Give me a break, you people are the most emotional non-issue oriented party in our history. Abortion is a national non issue but it is an emotional issue with you guys, fear is an emotion the GOP uses as sacrament against the American people every chance they get. This whole war on terror is the biggest example of that. You guys are the most irrational fear based party we've ever seen since Hitler's third Reich and you claim liberals are emotional? Please, we still have hopes that the American people will get all the facts one day and come to a conclusion that is similar to ours because they will use their reasoning ability to come to that conclusion. I don't happen to buy that liberal position because I don't believe most americans who are cons these days have the ability to reason. The biggest tax payers in America today are infact the middle class. They pay more of a percentage of their pay checks to taxes than the rich do. That's a fact. So far, you haven't presented any facts. You've presented falsehoods, lies and myths. Try posting facts based on research and then post the sites where you've done the research. So far, you just emote and provide no substance to your argument whatsoever.

Answer 4

As someone who considered themself a liberal last year (while in college...shocker?), I must respond...I originally thought "of course we should help out poor people, what kind of heartless person would be against welfare, etc?" However, I don't think liberals realize that the government takes your hard-earned money to give to others, without your consent and you have no choice in the matter. How is that fair? Sure the people need the money, but why are you stealing it from me? I am broke as a joke and busting my ***...So as far as taxes go, I think there should be no income tax. There is no need for it, we went almost 200 years without it, and it is hurting our economy. If we got rid of these programs that don't work and encourage dependence, average Americans would have a lot more money to sink into the economy...and maybe even private charities ::gasp:: Second, when you people say "why only give the rich tax cuts?" you must not be thinking. Even with tax cuts, they still pay a MUCH higher percentage of their income to the government than you or I. Not to mention the poor, who often pay NO TAXES. So, as it stands, I don't understand why liberals are so upset...they're getting exactly what they want. I'm upset that a large chunk of my paycheck is taken from me and given to others without my consent. There are plenty of other taxes out there to help the gov't pay for things it NEEDS, instead of playing Robin Hood...leave my paycheck alone.

Answer 5

Actually, cutting taxes did NOT work for Reagan--he was only able to keep the government running by borrowing from the Social Security fund. A practice that only stopped with Clinton (in his sixth year, as I recall--he was no fiscal saint). Reagan stimulated the economy by increasing military spending (with a major deficit as a result). You may want to bone up on your history.

As for Bush Jr., he cut taxes, and (war notwithstanding) we've gone from major surplus to major deficit--so where's the "increased revenue"?

And while we're on the subject of rationality, let's take a look at your assertion that cutting taxes increases revenue. If that is correct, then the more we cut taxes, the more money the government should have, yes? In fact, cutting taxes to zero should net infinite government revenue, right? Of course, this is completely illogical, but that doesn't stop you cons from insisting its true, does it?

Now, of course taxes can reach a point where they stifle growth. However, cutting taxes does NOT, repeat NOT, increase revenue. What it CAN do is stimulate the economy (depending on the general financial atmosphere and other things, of course. Taxes don't control everything) which MIGHT offset some of the losses from the cut. But the government cannot have money it doesn't collect.

My objection, as a "liberal" to the tax cuts was logical (I thought we should use that surplus money to reduce the national debt first, THEN think about cutting it), not emotional. I especially objected when Bush continued to push for tax cuts (yes, primarily for the wealthy, you can't ignore that) in the face of major war operations--the first president to initiate a war without paying for it--because I and my children will have to pay for that sooner or later--with interest.

So, why don't you try some of that rationality you so champion, hmmm?

Answer 6

actually most would say just the opposite.

cons run on values and moral- aka personal feelings. they call fetuses babies and think that a 'moral' sex life constitutes the ability to govern a nation

libs run on logic and fact. we believe in scientific research. we identify things for what they are and prioritize things based on helping people and our country, not on moral ideals.

tax cuts for the rich hurt the poor. Reagan ended the middle class as we knew it. the tax cuts that rich people got took money away from public schools where non-rich kids go (among other things)

Answer 7

reading some of these answers should give you an idea. Liberals take an emotional side of an issue, and refuse to analyze it honestly to see the outcomes of their theorys. For example, you will see many here wanting tax cuts for the poor. Well...... poor people don't pay freakin taxes! So its kinda hard to give them a tax CUT. Meanwhile, they also fail to see the logic that only wealthy people start large businesses and hire lots of people to work for them, which in turn creates jobs and stimulates the market. They get caught up in the "life's not fair, everybody should be equal" mentality, which is a nice thought, but totally unrealistic.

Answer 8

Why do people have feelings? You're pretty much calling conservatives cold hearted people, you know.

As a leader of the richest nations in the world, why not? Why can't we care about the good of ALL people and not do a half job of it?

Maybe some people just don't worry about, or have sympathy for the poor because they've never experience living in poverty? Maybe, who knows?

Answer 9

Is cold and calculating better? Not stopping to see what the people want and how they feel about how the government works when it affects them? We do accept facts. You won't admit that the republicans are screing over the American economy.

Answer 10

You don't know how liberals think because you are not a liberal. I am not "emotional"...but I still care about people. It is extremely hard to take you seriously because you are making assumptions about how I think and you are not me. Stop acting as if I have some sort of a mental block in my way.