Liberals and Equality

[Agnapostate]

Progressive taxation shouldn't even be viewed in the context of "harm" at all, because again, referring back to the diminishing rate of marginal utility, higher tax rates would be a lesser imposition on the wealthy than they would on the poor.

 

[KittenKoder]

Lesser imposition or not, it's forcing people who do earn more through hard work to give up their only reward for that hard work. If I was working in a normal labor position again and knew that no matter what I earned I'd have the exact same quality of life I would never bother trying to work harder, and I know that I am not the exception in this area.

The pay rates are what's unbalanced, instead of paying people for hard work many corporations have decided that a having lousy piece of paper which only shows that someone else thinks you know something even though most of the time you don't is worth a raise more than hard work, that's the reason the laborers are getting ripped off, and also another reason many of them no longer try as hard.

 

[editec]

Reality. Ah yes, reality. Another 600,000 out of work last week. Aren't you conservatives so proud of how you handled the economy? Volker says that things are going down faster than they did in the last Great Republican Depression.

And all that money that Bush borrowed from China. Will China foreclose?

The government of China current holds $1,500,000,000,000 of our national debts.

I expect thanks to the bailouts of our banks PLUS the pittance (relative to how we spend money, I mean) that is the STIMULIS, I could see they owning $ 5 trillion of our debt in the next few years.

The masters of our universe (henceforth called the MOTU) have been screwing up for at least three decades, now.

One stupid wateful policy after the other, too generous tax cuts for billionsaires, bad FED policies, stupid wasteful wars of empire, all conspire to crash out economy.

This is not a Republican problem this is not a Democratic problem this is a MOTU problem.

Those geniuses that run our nation are either the dumbest bricks in the wall, or they set out to crash this economy.

I'll leave it to you to decide which you believe is the more likely explaination.

One thing we agree on is the bureaucracy that ate us, that's for sure. Wonder what it takes to get blind partisan hacks to see what pawns they are and what fools they're all being played for.

I think it will never happen, Gunny.

Wanting to be on a TEAM is much too part of human nature for most people to step out of the darkness of partisan thinking.

Additionally, wanting a scapegoat to blame things on, also part of human nature.

Finally wanting to feel superior to those not on the team is the third element of that troika in human nature that pulls the partisan sled.

Now when it comes to the events which have brought us to this economic meltdown, the evidence supports the argument that both parties played their roles in making it happen.

That evidence is irrefutable, but it is not ignorable if one is blinded by partisanship.

The "libierals" are at fault?

The "conservatives" are at fault?

Nonsense.

The LEADERSHIP OF THIS NATION is responsibile for the policies which brought us to this state.

These leaders aren't really conservative, as is evidenced by the ongoing deviation from what you and I both know conservative thinking claims to stand for.

They aren't really liberals, either, also as evidenced by by the ongoing deviations from what you and I both know is liberal thinking.

But this simplistic TEAM THINKING is so comforting to those unwilling (or unable) to look closely at the facts and understand their implications, that the partisan cleaves to their easier to understand, and self agrandizing myths.

The good cop/bad cop game that is played on us, is the standard methodology of ruling classes and probably always has been. And not JUST in democratic governments, either.

Even imperialistic ROME had their political teams.

They broke themselves into teams identified as four colors --red, green blue and white.

Those teams colors actually started out at the chariot races, but evolved over time to become the Roman equivalent of political factions.

Eventually two teams (red and green, as I recall) came to be THE PARTY affiliations of most Romans.

And my oh my! how the opposing memeber of those teams hated each other.

Riots and assassinations were commonplace aspects of how this partisanship political thinking worked out in the late Roman empire.

So really, what America is, is nothing especially new, at least as it comes to being a people divided and therefore more easily controlled by the leadership class.

Now I am NOT saying that there aren't very good arguments for both conservatism and liberalism.

But I am saying that attempting to pin the problems of this nation, on the deisenfranchised PEOPLE who support either school of political thinking, but who are not in positions of leadership, is rather missing the point.

 

[KittenKoder]

Who is responsible for the leaders being in charge?

... thus the root of all the problems.

 

[editec]

Who is responsible for the leaders being in charge?

... thus the root of all the problems.

The ruling class, Kitten.

We are essantially given two different people to vote for who are, in the final analysis, not very different in that they BOTH support the basic ssystem that keeps those on top on top forever.

When it comes to issues that don't really matter much to the ruling class, issue like abortion, flag burning, homosexuality and other feel good things, they can appear VERY different.

But when ti comes to REAL issues, trade policies, military adventurism, how the FED works, and so forth, there is really almost no difference (except rhetoric) between these so called diametically opposed camps.

The sooner you realize that you and the American partisans are being scammed, the sooner you realize the society is really the haves V the have nots, the sooner the American people can have a REAL DIALOGUE about how we want our nation to be.

But as long as enough people THINK that there's a significantly important difference between a patriotic liberal and patriotic conservative, this shadow puppert theater we call politics will continue.

 

[KittenKoder]

Who put the ruling class in power and lets them keep it?

As I said, look for the root of the problem.

 

[NOBama]

Liberals hate equality. For instance, let's take progressive taxes. They by their very nature promote inequality. They tax people at different rates in order to create equality. Yet, that presupposes all people are born equal. In fact, some people are born better looking, some people are born healthier, some people are born smarter. So, instead of letting an unattractive woman get equal thru hard work, or an unatheletic geek get closer to equality thru creating innnovative software, liberals want everyone to be hostage to the genetic lottery of birth. We wouldn't dream of taxing someone at a higher rate because they were born better looking than us -- something they didn't earn, yet , if a person earns more thru hardwork, than it's moral to tax them at a higher rate? Sorry that's immoral. Why should anyone vote for immoral people known as redistributionists/Dems/LIbs???

Hell, don't give them any ideas.

 

[editec]

Who put the ruling class in power and lets them keep it?

As I said, look for the root of the problem.

America started out with a ruling class, Kitten.

We inherited that from European values, actually.

Where did they get it?

Well the monarchies got their original power at the point of a sword, where else?

 

[KittenKoder]

So, you are saying that the people who fought against the original "ruling class" were the same as them already? Then why did they fight against it, much less why did all the "loser classes" fight with them?

Also, why is it impossible to have a revolution, we've had a couple already. A revolution is keeping them in check and the most patriotic and effective way to get the government to change. So again, who is letting them keep control?

 

[midcan5]

Liberals believe in SELECTIVE equality...

Jeez, did you think that all up by yourself or did mommy or Rush help? Such a profound cliche, one wonders how often silliness can be repeated. The years from FDR to Reagan make you a fool and the years from Reagan till now make Americans who bought into wingnut nonsense, fools.

"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

 

[DiamondDave]

Liberals believe in SELECTIVE equality...

Jeez, did you think that all up by yourself or did mommy or Rush help? Such a profound cliche, one wonders how often silliness can be repeated. The years from FDR to Reagan make you a fool and the years from Reagan till now make Americans who bought into wingnut nonsense, fools.

"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

Oooohhh.. QUOTES...

What next.. some quotes by marx about wealth redistribution that supports your bullshit far left stance??

And since you brought up Jefferson... choke on this, lib

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

 

[Bern80]

We enjoying the benefits of flattening the taxation system right now.

How's that working out for us?

Yes tax cuts are of course what caused this mess.

Well, yes, had a great deal to do with it. Cutting taxes, going to war on the basis of lies, then FUBARing that war, tends to bleed the government to death. The Bush admin had eight years to prove the efficacy of the conservative ideology, and here we are. The Second Great Republican Depression. You fellows have really proved your ability to govern.

The issue is one of those variables is ideological measure for how to strenghten and bolster an economy (tax cuts), which DO work. But other variables need to be in play as well. You can't cut taxes and spend more, which Bush did. Some of it was neccessary some was not. We did have 9/11 after all, which did force us to wake up see that we did need to spend more money militarily and defense wise to keep the country safe (we probably wouldn't have had to spend quite as much had your last wonderful President, Clinton not shredded the military).

It is easy to disagree in hindsight with Iraq. But really all you are you doing is saying that you were duped by a person you the left likes to portray as not much smarter than a chimp. Also another thing not considered is the assumption that had we not gone into Iraq that money would not have been spent. I think that is an incorrect assumption. Had we not gone into Iraq I would have to assume we would have continued and most likely upped our focus on the terrorist groups that actually attacked us. Something that would have been far more agreeable to more people, including yourself possibly. The point is even had we not gone into Iraq, it is highly likely that money would have still been spent on defense and the military anyway, so that's a wash.

Given those variables during his term in office, it is rather disengenuous to say the conservative ideology of tax cuts don't work. Considering the course of events during his presidency, and that we were in a war for almost all of it (and still would have been in some facet even if it wasn't in Iraq) I don't know how someone can say that conservative principles failed seeing as they never really had a chance to be tried. One of the few conservative efforts to reign in poor lending practices was blocked by your fellow democrats.

 

[KittenKoder]

Tax cuts won't help, no matter who gets them. It may have if everyone wasn't in so much debt (not even considering the governments debt). The reason is quite simple and often forgotten: They spend the extra money paying off the debt instead of making purchases. Making purchases is what would help the economy, but like that "stimulus check" we all got a short time ago, no one will.

 

[Bern80]

Tax cuts won't help, no matter who gets them. It may have if everyone wasn't in so much debt (not even considering the governments debt). The reason is quite simple and often forgotten: They spend the extra money paying off the debt instead of making purchases. Making purchases is what would help the economy, but like that "stimulus check" we all got a short time ago, no one will.

It will help individuals pay down debt, which is a good thing. There's a little false logic in there as well. Obviously some with debt will still make purchases. After all if people weren't purchasing things with money they didn't have or buying things before other oblgations were paid, they wouldn't be in debt in the first place, so many in debt will indeed spend it. For those that do save it or pay down debts first, that IS a good thing for the economy. they are getting money back to lenders and teh more money the lenders have the more likely they are to lend to other people. Those borrowers would be in a better position because they will be able to make new purchases sooner than they otherwise would without a tax cut.

 

[editec]

So, you are saying that the people who fought against the original "ruling class" were the same as them already?

Well I don't want to generalize, but in Roman Europe, after Rome began withdrawling its troops, some of the Roman ruling class left over from that time stuck around to become the homeRuling classes.

Some historians speculate the the Arthurian legion was about, and former Roman Aristo who kept his people together for example, to keep anarchy at bay.

But I cannot think of any ruling family of Europe which didn't get to the top of the heap without seizing control with an army behind him.

The ruling family of the Netherlands, for example, started out as pirates in the North sea.

Then why did they fight against it, much less why did all the "loser classes" fight with them?

People squabble over power to rule. Why do people join with them? To get some of the power, naturally.

Armies traditionally fought and were paid from the booty of the peoples they defeated. You don't know this?

Also, why is it impossible to have a revolution, we've had a couple already.

Revolutions come when some part of the population are terribly dissatisfied with the ruling class.

A revolution is keeping them in check and the most patriotic and effective way to get the government to change.

Well it may be an effective way.

It didn't work out for a lot of revolutions though right here in the USA. It didn't work out for Shay's Whiskey rebellion, or for the Truner rebellion, or for John Brown, or, for that matter, the Southern rebellion.

So again, who is letting them keep control?

Who is keeping who in control?

Our leaders? Or the disenfranchised and thoughly pissed off Americans?

Who keeps potential American revolutionists in check?

There's so many Federal law enfocement agencies I can't keep track of them all -- the FBI, Secret Service, Treasury agents, Alcohol Beverage and Firearms, Federal marshalls -- just off the top of my head.

As to who keeps the leaders in control?

Only the opposiing team of the ruling classes and, I suppose, their own somewhat limited sense of decency, perhaps.

 

[KittenKoder]

You are thinking like a partisan, Bern. Jr. tried that, it didn't work. What needs to happen before our economy will ever get better is for all the credit lenders to just crash and anyone owing will pay up or be liquidated, no exceptions. Quit bailing everyone out, quit babying those who owe money, and quit giving the corporations breaks. Then, with the taxes we do manage to collect, pay off what we owe and start over from scratch. Otherwise it's all just bandaids.

 

[Bern80]

You are thinking like a partisan, Bern. Jr. tried that, it didn't work. What needs to happen before our economy will ever get better is for all the credit lenders to just crash and anyone owing will pay up or be liquidated, no exceptions. Quit bailing everyone out, quit babying those who owe money, and quit giving the corporations breaks. Then, with the taxes we do manage to collect, pay off what we owe and start over from scratch. Otherwise it's all just bandaids.

See my reply to Old Rocks. I think it's in this thread or the who is resonsible for you thread. Suffice it to say, that really isn't much of a rebuttal unless you can tell me why what I said about human nature and behavior is untrue. In a nutshell it really isn't fair to say that tax cuts don't work considering some rather significant other variables during his presidency.

 

[editec]

Bernie informs us that:

In a nutshell it really isn't fair to say that tax cuts don't work considering some rather significant other variables during his presidency.

One might be tempted to specualte that the above really means

In a nutshell it really isn't fair to say that tax cuts don't work considering I did rather well as a result of his actions during his presidency.

 

[doeton]

And since you brought up Jefferson... choke on this, lib

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

i'm confused is this quote supposed to refute a progressive income tax?

 

[Bern80]

Bernie informs us that:

In a nutshell it really isn't fair to say that tax cuts don't work considering some rather significant other variables during his presidency.

One might be tempted to specualte that the above really means

In a nutshell it really isn't fair to say that tax cuts don't work considering I did rather well as a result of his actions during his presidency.

Why would it mean that? Your posts get more intellectually insightful every day.