The High Cost of Liberalism - Dr. Thomas Sowell


#1

Brilliant expose on the reality of liberalism and its effects on society by Dr. Thomas Sowell. I’ve included parts I, II, and III.

Part I: (On the economy)
The High Cost of Liberalism - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Part II: (On gun control)

The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Part III: (On income inequality & government waste)

[quote=Thomas Sowell]“Poverty” is in the eye of the statisticians – more specifically, the government statisticians who define what constitutes “poverty,” and who are unlikely to define it in ways that might jeopardize the massive welfare state that they are part of.

  In terms of income statistics that produce liberal outcries about  "disparities" and "inequities," millions of people who don't have to  earn incomes typically don't. 
  The more people who are in a non-income-earning mode, the greater the  disparities with the incomes of those of us who have to work for a  living, and who have to earn more to offset high tax rates. Yet liberals  often act as if this is an injustice to those who don't work, rather  than an injustice to those who do work, and whose taxes support those  who don't.[/quote]

The High Cost of Liberalism: Part III - Thomas Sowell - Page full


#2

The effects of the liberal policies in these three columns are so stark and apparent, so obvious, it’s a wonder liberals can even sleep at night. Not only do they not help whatever causes they supposedly support, they actively work against their causes.

I live in a state that regulates the snot out of land, like California. In fact, I think my state was the poster child for “successful planning.” In the urban areas, prices can be pretty bad too. I was just reading Portland has a shortage in rentals.

Sowell talks about a 1,010 square foot home built in 1942 selling for $1.7 million. That’s absurd. That home, where I live, would cost $60,000. We still have some land supply left thanks to the death of the timber industry. Then we had a lot of Californians cashing in on their government-created real estate windfall, buying cheap property here and driving prices up some. Before 2008, also caused by stupid liberal policies, that house would have sold for $110,000 here. The Californians stopped coming sometime around 2008.


#3

I cannot understand Liberals and most of all their supporters. Most of my family are BlueDog democrats. They cannot see that the policies the left enacts to fix a problem in fact makes the problem worse. Also Dr. Sowell is spot on with his analysis on “income inequality”. The more we work and the more we make the bigger the gap becomes. They drive up the cost of living and in turn forces tax rates up and cause much of the miserly they suffer.


#4

I couldn’t believe the price of that home, either. But, years ago, my sister’s best friend moved to Hawaii and at that time (in the early 80’s) she and her husband bought a tiny little shack of a home for $80,000.00, which was unheard of back then. So, if California homes are going for millions I can’t imagine what Hawaiian homes are going for. My sister’s friend said that EVERYTHING in Hawaii is 10 times more than what you’d pay on the mainland U.S. I suppose that has to do with Hawaii having to import everything except sugar and pineapples…


#5

My guess is that most liberals, especially political liberals, know exactly what happens because of their policies. But, they are bought and whored out by very powerful PACs and special interest groups which helped them get elected. So, to oppose their slave-master pimps would mean political ruin=lots of money in their pockets, and power.


#6

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:4, topic:43348”]
I couldn’t believe the price of that home, either. But, years ago, my sister’s best friend moved to Hawaii and at that time (in the early 80’s) she and her husband bought a tiny little shack of a home for $80,000.00, which was unheard of back then. So, if California homes are going for millions I can’t imagine what Hawaiian homes are going for. My sister’s friend said that EVERYTHING in Hawaii is 10 times more than what you’d pay on the mainland U.S. I suppose that has to do with Hawaii having to import everything except sugar and pineapples…
[/quote]Hawaii definitely has some unique factors, positive and negative, that affect its economy in addition to bad liberal public policy.


#7

I pity these liberal policy makers.


#8

I pity the people who have to PAY for these policies.


#9

In that case, I pity them both.


#10

First of all Sowell is a historical revisionist and overall loon:

Sowell wrote of FDR and asked incredulously: “How can a President of the United States be re-elected in a landslide after four years when unemployment never fell below 15% for even one month during his first term?”

unemployment fell every year during the first four years of FDR’s first term. It dropped seven points during that period. This would be like President Obama taking office with unemployment at 12% and it falling to 5% by the end of his first term. You think he would be re-elected? And let’s not forget FDR’s rival in the 1936 election; Alf Landon, a man who ran on repealing Social Security, which had just been passed the year before.

Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus | Tomfoolery


#11

To each his own…


#12

FDR prolonged the depression. Same as Obama.


#13

FDR prolonged the depression, BO IS the depression.


#14

They both were.


#15

And as to the effects of their supported economic policies, by extension I don’t like what it has done to individual cities. The nearest city where I live used to be in Top 100 populations in USA but has fallen since the 1960s.

Frack your ineffective economic policies and their effects too.


#16

From Thomas Sowell’s, Part II

As with so many things that liberals do, the disarmament crusade is judged by its good intentions, not by its actual consequences.

Dead, spot on. With Liberals, it’s all about appearances and intentions, rather than substance and consequences.
It’s why I can’t stand them; they’re phonies, with a capital “P!” They just love to be ever so lofty and generous…with everybody else’s money.
…then actually have the audacity to feel superior.


#17

Dang, can we resurrect this Alf Landon? I’d vote for him based on that alone!

And while it may be true that unemployment fell from 23.6 in 1932 to 16.8 in 1936, being a rather harsh on Dr. Sowell, aren’t you? Besides, you act as if what he stated wasn’t a fact, when indeed, it was.
So is the fact that unemployment went back up to 19.0 in 1938; although falling to 14.0 in 1940.

Meanwhile, there’s a little factoid here that’s being left out. (I’ll read your link when I get a minute.)
While more people may have been employed, FDR raised taxes; end result being, nobody actually having any spendable income to boost the economy. Yes, the economy did move some, and the GDP saw good gains, but they could’ve been great if not for the New Deal Policy of handouts that prolonged the Great Depression.


#18

Okay, I tried to read through that screed of hate and contempt, but could only manage 3/4 of a contemptible little snot who couldn’t bother to add any links to his claims so it’s impossible to tell if he was taking DR. Sowell’s words out of context or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Btw, Camery, time to change your profile.


#19

[quote=“cameryxle, post:10, topic:43348”]
First of all Sowell is a historical revisionist and overall loon:

Sowell wrote of FDR and asked incredulously: “How can a President of the United States be re-elected in a landslide after four years when unemployment never fell below 15% for even one month during his first term?”

unemployment fell every year during the first four years of FDR’s first term. It dropped seven points during that period. This would be like President Obama taking office with unemployment at 12% and it falling to 5% by the end of his first term. You think he would be re-elected? And let’s not forget FDR’s rival in the 1936 election; Alf Landon, a man who ran on repealing Social Security, which had just been passed the year before.

Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus | Tomfoolery
[/quote]Sowell is talking about something observable today, and his discussion about it is solid. His sanity is irrelevant, a distraction from the discussion. Your post is about as ad hominem as it gets, attack the guy who says the argument rather than the argument itself. You merely assert that he was mistaken on some other matter and declare him a loon. Your post is ridiculous.


#20

Thanks, 2cent. It is no surprise to me that there are “elements” out there who would love to discredit DR. Sowell. Sometime ago, I listed his credentials. I would challenge anyone who doubts his scholarly expertise to look closely at these impressive credentials and then try to discount his claims. My guess is that many liberals hate the idea of a conservative black scholar who openly and expertly exposes the liberal lies of politicians of any color. Thanks again, 2cent for your comments.