Is it True that Liberals are Functional Parasites?

We can survey the various social segments of our society and note that, broadly, there are two distinct parts: the takers and the givers. This implies that many contribute nothing to the host much as mistletoe and various chronic diseases do.

This must be a touchy subject as Mitt the Snitt was bashed profoundly for sharing the news that some 47% of the population pay nothing for their housing, grub, healthcare, drug rehab costs and such.

 

““There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. …These are people who pay no income tax. …and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

—Mitt Romney, remarks at private fundraiser, Boca Raton, Fla., May 17“

But, this is true---is it not? The facts tend to indicate that this is true.

Comments

Dino Manalis Added Dec 29, 2018 - 4:48pm
 Not necessarily, some wealthy individuals are very liberal, political ideology differs.
Ryan Messano Added Dec 29, 2018 - 5:54pm
Yes, it's true.  Even wealthy liberals constantly use their money to get more power and money.  They are all lying,  selfish, charlatans from the rich to the poor.
FacePalm Added Dec 29, 2018 - 11:17pm
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
 
Yeah, ol' Mittens Robme had had his "deplorables" moment a good while before The Liar, but it had the same result.
 
If, instead of saying, in effect, "i give on those kind of people," he'd just reached out to them, instead of generalizing them into that basket, he'd've stood a better chance of winning.
 
That said, i'm glad he lost.
 
What surprised me is that Trump treated him with respect and kindness even AFTER Robme had worked hard against him, and when Robme takes his place in the Senate, he'll never be able to count on his vote; he's a globalist shill, through and through.
 
I've heard it said that "A wise man's mouth is in his mind; a fool's mind is in his mouth," and there's a lot of truth to that, even though it exposes me as a fool.  Does the same for everyone, if they're honest about it.
 
But to refer back to the CS Lewis citation, there are "christians" not a few who fit his description to the T, more's the pity.
 
To generalize is generally never a good idea.  If you say "Liberals are all" or "Conservatives are all" and you find just ONE exception, *poof!*  There goes your argument.  Better to say "some," or "many," or even "most," otherwise someone will seek out an exception to your "rule," and use it to refute your pretentiousness.
Phoenix Added Dec 29, 2018 - 11:26pm
Romney was right. The problem was he was simply not authentic and he wouldn't really fight for what he said he believed. It is very true that those who would willingly sponge off others and feel no remorse nor shame nor need to remedy -- these people are liberals. Those who have an entitlement mentality and think that someone, the government, whomever owes them something -- those people are liberals. And like all parasites, eventually the parasite destroys the host.
Jim Stoner Added Dec 29, 2018 - 11:38pm
Of course you have it backwards:  the rich liberals tend to "give back"; the conservative ones just want more and more, and they are focused on security. 
 
If you're speaking of those who don't have any disposable income, or can't get out of poverty because they don't have skills, or have disabilities, or even psychological problems, of course they are not happy, they want more, they are often envious. 
 
The third group, who are the true "takers", are those who inherit their wealth and produce nothing.   I don't have much to say about them, but they are not 47%. 
 
The fourth, and by far the largest group, are those who are working hard to get by; most of them don't have the luxury of investing time in things like politics.  That lets the tricky, acquisitive ones on top take advantage of them. 
 
Jim Stoner Added Dec 29, 2018 - 11:40pm
Mitt Romney was not in a good position to be judging those who have less, as he was born to wealth.  People resented that 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 30, 2018 - 6:29am
Is it True that Liberals are Functional Parasites?
 
Are the Kennedys gun shy?
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 30, 2018 - 7:46am
Grampa Joe Kennedy certainly was not ... making his living from running guns and bootleg booze. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:20pm
Stoned
 
"The third group, who are the true "takers", are those who inherit their wealth and produce nothing.   I don't have much to say about them, but they are not 47%. "
 
Read carefully, that was direct quote from Mitt the Snitt and was the fraction of takers who do not pay fed income taxes,  thus parasites .
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:22pm
Phoenix
 
"It is very true that those who would willingly sponge off others and feel no remorse nor shame nor need to remedy -- these people are liberals."
 
There is a strong political movement based on 'rights' to receive monies and benefits with no inputs. These people are certainly liberals hence classic parasites like lice or crotch bugs. .
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:25pm
Ryan Messano
 
"Yes, it's true.  Even wealthy liberals constantly use their money to get more power and money.  They are all lying,  selfish, charlatans from the rich to the poor."
 
I read this and thought you were too generous. Parasites are ugly, host destroying entities who care not if the host dies. They would like to see 100% tax rates, direct confiscatory laws on property and inheritance and much more. 
 
They would out do Lenin given the chance. 
Cullen Kehoe Added Jan 2, 2019 - 7:08pm
Mitt Romney is the son of a governor and presidential candidate who had the best education money could buy, dodged Vietnam by being a Mormon missionary in France, then decided to go into private equity banking in the early 1980's to kill off companies and loot the pensions of countless working stiffs. 
 
He screwed the FDIC in paying them what one of his acquisitions owed them in the early 1990's. 
 
He funded the Olympics in Salt Lake City by getting the federal government to pay for all of it. 
 
It's a little rich for him to talk about 'takers'. This is a guy who I suspect has never worked to build or produce anything in his life. He just knows how to make millions siphoning off the productivity of others. 
Jim Stoner Added Jan 2, 2019 - 8:40pm
rycK,  I was well aware it was Romney's comment.  He was talking about the people who vote Democratic, more than about the people who do not pay taxes--who are not 47% and are not in any way equivalent to those who vote Democratic.  It was just bad politics. 
 
Yes, my children are parasites.  Yes, my parents on Social Security are parasites.  Those statements do not apply to me personally, but to illustrate how wrong-headed the tax=parasites equivalency is.  You can see it that way, but it's wrong. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 3, 2019 - 12:13pm
So, we can excuse this talk and stats about those who do not pay taxes and call them what? Just good citizens??
 
Conclusion [?]: There are no penalties for the criminals, welfare cheats and more and we should tolerate and venerate them as they provide essential votes for Democrats. 
Katharine Otto Added Jan 4, 2019 - 10:40pm
rycK,
The federal income tax is fraud, created to provide perpetual interest on federal debt to the Federal Reserve.  The establishment of the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 put Congress in the debt creation business, which is still the major government pastime. It invents reasons to create money it can spend.  It is what provides the pseudo-funding for all our wars and why the US is imploding.
 
Government is the parasite.  If you don't believe it, suggest either to "liberals" or "conservatives," that a massive tax protest be initiated, and let me know what happens.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 5, 2019 - 9:13am
ryck
 
I always wanted to know what a "US liberal" is. Can you define that to me in detail so I get the bigger picture ?
Ward Tipton Added Jan 5, 2019 - 1:24pm
It depends on whether you are referring to the modern day usage of "liberal" or the historical usage, now more commonly known as a Classical Liberal. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 1:54pm
Katherine Otto
 
"rycK,
The federal income tax is fraud, created to provide perpetual interest on federal debt to the Federal Reserve.  The establishment of the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 put Congress in the debt creation business, which is still the major government pastime. It invents reasons to create money it can spend.  It is what provides the pseudo-funding for all our wars and why the US is imploding."
 
[1[ The federal income tax was, before 1913, used to run the federal government and was less a fraud than today. 
 
[2] The Fed was established by Wilson to conduct and fund warfare. "He kept us out of war!"
 
[3] The Fed system creates money since it uses the reserve banking system, as do all countries since about 1805. There is no other way to avoid lots of little banks and is a way to inject monies into the economy. State banks are all the world has now. 
 
This system was  abused by Wilson as I suspect the BoE went down in 1916 and we bailed out England. We probably did that again in 1934, 1942  and perhaps 1955 during the dock strike. 
 
LBJ refused to issue war bonds for Viet Nam and if he did the sales might have been very poor. 
 
We have had war on this planet for 5000 years, non stop, and that is apparently what we do well. We live with war and we live with the Fed. 
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 5, 2019 - 3:30pm
Can we live with war with the fed?
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 4:21pm
Can we live with war without the fed?
 
There has never been peace on this planet except in local areas a few years or decades after a major war was  won or lost. Therefore, it appears that only war forces temporary peace. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 5, 2019 - 4:27pm
Let me clarify ... can we live with a war with the fed? The economic and financial systems are far beyond broken, and debt based economics are beyond the pale. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 5:12pm
A war with the fed is another matter. We are stuck with the fed, it has never been inspected in my view, all postings are secret and we do not know if there is a secret balance sheet. 
 
The financial systems are indeed broke and our economy is clearly debt based. In 2008 the phony CRA wrecked the financial system:
 
 Meet the Real Villains of the Financial Crisis—the CRA [Community Reinvestment Act], “Affordable Housing” and the US Government
From 2010
The Depression of 2007 was initiated by a collapsing real estate asset bubble that formed not only in the US but in many places in Europe.  Our global economy works such that trading in real estate is fast and profitable in certain areas.  Speculation can be identified by merely looking at the time property owners hold their properties and if they live in them. The driving forces were easy credit, very low interest rates [Greenspanism[1]] and speculation over housing for decades in some cases. This social contagion can be defined as the process whereby growth is encouraged by government directly funding house purchases, maintaining low interest rates and setting very low to zero level mortgage requirements to buy those houses.
Thus, when people could not or would not pay their mortgage payments then these mortgages, subsequently bundled into groups as investment instruments, became ‘toxic’ assets. Mortgage defaults continued to grow and that meant that toxic assets were growing in toxicity and banks would not trust each other in the credit markets so they froze up. The Libor rates for inter bank loans shot up. The process was magnified by the fact that although the banks and lending institutions knew their buyers with low credit standing would not be able to afford those homes they had the convenient outlet of shedding their liability by sending these phony real estate instruments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in discount.  This risk dumping process amplified the bubble as more mortgage money was generated and this outcome was the result of a vote-for-substance [quid pro quo] bet by politicians whereby they could trade votes for ‘affordable housing.’ Congress set this up as a social program for the ‘poor.’ A bursting asset bubble vacates the intrinsic equity of the asset hence erases wealth within the bubble so home equities contracted and the credit based on such equity collapsed and so did consumer spending from this source.
 
[1] http://offshoreinn.com/investing/greenspanism-the-root-cause-of-this-depression/


Our banks failed because their mortgage asset books crashed from loaning money to people who could not pay it back. That was called cheap credit by von Mises. The left will do this again if they can. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 5, 2019 - 5:48pm
"We are stuck with the fed, it has never been inspected in my view, all postings are secret and we do not know if there is a secret balance sheet. "
 
It has indeed never been inspected, but we do know that there is a "secret balance sheet" ... or rather a few of them. Off Ledger accounts, the actual amount of the real debt amount that has been loaned to the government to grant us the right to use that debt, the amount of interest on said debt ... a whole lot of balance sheets that they keep secret. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 6, 2019 - 1:25pm
Ward Tipton
 
"Off Ledger accounts, the actual amount of the real debt amount that has been loaned to the government to grant us the right to use that debt, the amount of interest on said debt ... a whole lot of balance sheets that they keep secret. "
 
My thinking exactly. Now, we cannot know if the monies created by the off-ledger accounts were successful in any of a list of terms. 
 
I still wonder if we bailed out the Brits several times and if they paid us back.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 6, 2019 - 1:46pm
We did and it depends on which "us" you are referring to ... the taxpayer? Nope. No more than Deutschbank or the German Central bank paid anything to the American taxpayer despite being largely subsidized by us. 
 
The feds? I almost doubt it as they all tend to sit on hard assets while printing pretty little numbers or pretty little pieces or worthless paper and loaning it to the government who then loans it to us to pay them taxes that they pay as interest on monies that they have illegally borrowed ... as they have not been coined by the government. At least it would have been illegal under the constitution, but not these days. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 6, 2019 - 5:04pm
Ward Tipton
 
Ward, I agree on all the above but the salient question is: can we dump  the Fed or [2] could we have done better with other banking systems?
 
BTW, Deutschbank is almost certainly going down. 
 
An Analysis of Deutsche Bank's Likely Recapitalization - German Tax Payer Bailout or German Bank Depositor Bail-in--https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-22/analysis-deutsche-banks-likely-recapitalization-german-tax-payer-bailout-or-german-b
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 6, 2019 - 5:15pm
Filtering out the formatting:
 
An Analysis of Deutsche Bank's Likely Recapitalization - German Tax Payer Bailout or German Bank Depositor Bail-in?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-22/analysis-deutsche-banks-likely-recapitalization-german-tax-payer-bailout-or-german-b
 
As of 2016 and things are getting worse.
 
“Deutsche Bank is going to need some money, and it's going to need some quite soon. The next two or three articles that I write will focus on why there is such a need. In a concerted effort to reduce or potentially eliminated the risk of taxpayer-funded bail-outs of European banks, the EU implemented a new “bail-in” regime beginning on January 1, 2016. As such, rules which require banks and certain systemically significant market participants in EU member states will have to write-down, cancel, convert into equity or otherwise modify certain unsecured liabilities if such steps are required to recapitalize the institution. What is the most bountiful unsecured liabilities of a bank?”
 
Deutsche Bank Stock Plunges 71% Since Quant Ratings Downgrade
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/deutsche-bank-stock-plunges-71-percent-since-quant-ratings-downgrade-14795888
Nov 29, 2018
“Deutsche Bank has declined by 71.4% to around $9.56 a share in the five and a half years since our quantitative model downgraded the stock to sell from hold on April 18, 2013.”
Ward Tipton Added Jan 6, 2019 - 5:20pm
I think it highly doubtful, but that is due to personal experience with the WB and IMF and some people from Basel. They may be slapped around in a battle to see which group has the "real power" but at the end of the day, it will be business as usual. Same holds true with HSBC for London. (Yeah, I know Hong Kong and Shanghai but it was established by the Brits and the top three are still Brits running it out of London ... with a lower tier being operated in China through the Communist Chinese in a loose cooperation with London) 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 7, 2019 - 1:05pm
Ward Tipton
 
All the banks you list are in fiscal trouble with Deutsche bank having to buy billions to protect their phony Greek bonds and other horrors. 
 
a 71% share price certainty means something. 
 
June 24, 2018
 
"It would be an understatement to say Deutsche Bank AG is going through a difficult period. It chalked up its third straight annual loss in 2017. The new chief executive officer, Christian Sewing, has unveiled the bank’s fourth target="_blank">turnaround plan in as many years, yet shares have fallen to a record low. Almost daily, senior executives are being pushed out or are jumping ship. The U.S. Federal Reserve has placed the lender on its list of troubled banks. And its U.S. unit was the only bank to fail the Fed’s annual stress measuring the adequacy of capital and risk controls, pushing back the day when shareholders will see any upside from its biggest foreign operation.
 
 
1. Why does Deutsche Bank seem mired in problems?
Chief Financial Officer James von Moltke has said the bank is suffering from “a vicious circle of declining revenues, sticky expenses, lowered ratings and rising funding costs.” It’s repeatedly tried to revive growth, without success. The bank’s problems include outdated information technology, weak leadership and heavy fines -- $17 billion in the last decade -- for misconduct. Adverse market conditions, such as 2017’s long stretch of low volatility, which limited opportunities to profit from trading, and a recent credit-rating downgrade have compounded the homemade problems."--https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-24/why-deutsche-bank-can-t-just-shake-off-its-problems-quicktake
 
Looks bad to me...........

Recent Articles by Writers rycK the JFK Democrat follows.