As in, they like them as a talking point and a voting block, but when it comes to actually considering how their regulations and pointless bans will effect the poor, they are either grotesquely misinformed about the economic consequences or they just hate poor people.
You can take your pick.
What am I talking about you ask? Well let’s just discuss a few of the negative side effects of some popular liberal bans and regulations.
First up on our list: California State Senator, Alex Padilla, really wants to ban plastic bags in California, which would mean switching over to paper bags (which would include an extra charge) or reusable shopping bags (which are breeding grounds for bacteria if not cleaned regularly, an extra expense for those who don’t have their own washer). This creates extra expense for low income people in the state of California (and any where this kind of ban is implemented) in multiple ways. The obvious extra expense to either buy paper bags constantly or buy/wash or buy new reusable bags on a regular basis.
The hidden cost is that people of low income no longer have those plastic bags to recycle. Look, I grew up poor (not much has changed) and those plastic bags we brought home our groceries in played many roles in our household. They were lunch sacks, waterproofing, litter box liners, trash can liners, dirty laundry bags, insulation (one winter in a house with really leaky windows), and most of the other uses on this list (plus probably more I’m forgetting). All of these jobs, instead of being accomplished with recycled plastic bags from the grocery store, will now have to be accomplished with more purchases by low-income families.
This ban doesn’t help anyone, except the green peace liberal movement types who need to feel like they are “making the world a better place” by banning something. Something that serves a lot of purposes in the lives of the low-income family’s they claim to care so much about.
No. 2 on the list: California costs a lot to live in (it’s got the 6th highest cost of living of all the states and 5 out of 10 of the cities with the highest cost of living are in that state) but in Los Angeles, the city had the plan to ban people from sleeping in their car. Apparently it was ‘unsightly’ or something like that. What, exactly, is someone supposed to do if they do not have the money for both a car and an apartment?
Would you prefer they quit their job, sell their car, and go on welfare instead? I mean, anything to get those unsightly homeless people of the streets of your idyllic seaside towns right? Instead of making it possible for people to do what they have to do in order to support themselves by letting them live in their car (which is there property anyway), you want to ban it and make it more difficult for them to live and work? Yeah, that’s real understanding and supportive of low-income people in an expensive town. Unless they are parking on your property or causing a nuisance by blocking a street or drive way, then get over it.
Luckily, in this case, the law was struck down by a circuit court judge, but the people who want it passed are most likely the same kind of people who talk about how we need to “support” the poor and how Republicans are so very evil for hurting them by trying to cut welfare programs. Poor people are all well and good when they are a distant talking point for your political agenda, but a lot less fun when they are in your neighborhood, bringing down property values I guess.
Last on our list: SeaTac’s decision to raise their minimum wage, which shows such a lack of basic economics (or even just long term, big picture thinking) that it’s completely appalling.
Northwest Asian Weekly reports that employees earning the new wage in SeaTac have lost benefits such as 401k, paid holidays and paid vacation, free food, free parking and overtime hours. One hotel waitress said she is earning less because tips have decreased since the high wage has been in effect. In many cases these benefits plus the lower state minimum wage added more value to workers’ earnings than the new $15 wage.
As one SeaTac worker put it, “It sounds good, but it’s not good.”
– Washington Policy Center
Of course liberals will deny that this shows that their, oh so compassionate, ideas are actually harmful to those on the lowest rungs of income in our country. This can’t be a failure on their part, it must be those “greedy” business owners!
However, anyone with a little common sense (not something liberals have in bulk exactly) can see that these “compassionate” liberal ideologies backfire onto the people that they are supposed to be helping.
Do liberals really care though? Doubtful, the poor are more of a convenient card to pull out in debate than an actual concern for most liberals, who really seem to not know what being “poor” actually means (I’m looking at you Hillary and Chelsea). In fact, they are so valuable as a rhetorical tool that maybe they don’t want to see them gone at all.
In any case, they certainly don’t know how to benefit the poor, whether that was actually their goal or not.