And that belief of theirs suggests the following:
1. They obviously have given VERY LITTLE thought to the matter, since (I hope) anyone with an above-retardation level IQ could rapidly recognize the fallacy in that belief if they followed it to its logical conclusion: namely, we could all live the life of billionaires if the government simply printed a billion dollars for each of us. Or trillionaires, or quadrillionaires, etc.
2. Since they think government can conjure up wealth at will, they can't understand our objection to government action, except by attributing to us a desire to hurt the poor. In other words, in their minds the debate is not "can the government help or not," it's "should people be poor?" LOL....derpty derp derp derp
EDIT: Ah, lookee here
But my position, like all positions on the debt, is about morality, not arithmetic. Beneath the rhetoric of affordability, the question of whether we want to invest in infrastructure and promote full employment is truly a question of values.
See? That such government actions are helpful is simply assumed. He then frames the debate as being between those who want to help people and those who don't want to help people. Now, in some cases, I think leftists do this intentionally, dishonestly mischaracterizing their opponents; but in most cases they haven't a CLUE. The question of what's actually possible economically never blazed over their cortex for ten seconds in their entire life: it's all about their egalitarian FEELINGS. They're like children in that respect. Mom says "there's no more desert Billy, look, the plate's empty." Billy says "but I WANT it!" ...you can't argue with that, can you?
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: