The End of Liberalism

[ihopehefails]

Why do you add such juvenile silliness to an interesting, if flawed, post?

Why would I tremble?

What thought makes me tremble?

You see, you invalidate your own message by inventing meaningless concepts, such as 'corporatism," as though it supported your - and I use the term loosely, 'idea.'

You see the actual corporatism means "groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body."

Please identify such groups in your premise. If you are able.
Or is this a 'red herring.'
(That's laughter you hear.)

For your edification, impossible though it seems, consider healthcare, a regulated-free market, with ever increasing costs, to food, an actual free market, whose costs have fallen over time.

This is why a free market real economy, not the financial markets, which require regulation, is the best way to be sure of the high standard of living for ever working citizen.

The proof is all around you.

Wise up.

'Corporatism' is a meaningless concept? To whom? People with limited vocabularies?

Anyone else here not know the meaning of 'corporatism'? Other than P chic?

Its usually when the government writes regulations in order to tell them how they are to conduct business so that they conduct their businesses the way government wants them to in order to achieve some goal of the government. The interest of the business owners are usually not a concern to the government and the owners lose control how they are going to conduct business.

It kind of reminds me of how democrats like to write regulations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And . . . buzz goes the ringer . . . wrong answer for saveliberty. Try again!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wait, so you think the entire war was fought over slavery, and I have a narrow view?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Proletarian, never think to speak for me. You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. I have stated often the primary cause of the war was slavery. All other causes were secondary and motivated by the issue of slavery -- sectionalism, states' rights, economic differences, tariff, white economic opportunity, the territories, so forth and so on, can be reduced to slavery. Two nations, one in the South and one in the North, developed, one anti-slavery and racist, one pro-slavery and racist.

 

[ihopehefails]

Proletarian, never think to speak for me. You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. I have stated often the primary cause of the war was slavery. All other causes were secondary and motivated by the issue of slavery -- sectionalism, states' rights, economic differences, tariff, white economic opportunity, the territories, so forth and so on, can be reduced to slavery. Two nations, one in the South and one in the North, developed, one anti-slavery and racist, one pro-slavery and racist.

We know that the south wanted to leave so they can retain their right to create laws that would allow them to own slaves. This was wrong but that does not change the fact that they had the legal right to leave if they wanted to.

Its like saying that the "freedom of speech" is about porn and passing out racist propoganda. These are clearly wrong in the eyes of many but that does not negate someone's legal right to do those things. The same goes with southern succession. It was wrong to own slaves but that did not negate their legal right to depart from the union.

 

[Big Fitz]

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

All of them. The Clinton Administration, through Janet Reno and the Treasury department demanded "no redlining" of housing loans even though the people were known to have no ability to pay off the mortgage. Those loans were made knowing full well they'd blow up in their faces, and so they were forced to go to derivatives to protect their assets and make what is now laughingly being called 'predatory loans'.

When a {deleted noxious racial epithet} with no money doesn't get a loan, ACORN sues and the government backs up the lawsuit

Pretty much. That's the other side of the coin. Damned if you do... damned if you don't. So cut a slice out of the middle and protect your ass as best you can. That's why we're in the straits we're in financially on housing.

 

[Big Fitz]

Uh, I think that would mean that more regulatory oversight of F and F would have been in order.[/quote]

No. The whole system was being profiteered from the inside by political hacks wracking up big bonuses by lying about profits. I can't remember the schlub's name who ran it before, and then Jamie Gorelick, the woman responsible for helping blind us to 9/11, PERSONALLY made tens of millions off these bits of bad paper.

The fox was guarding the hen house and now the dumbass farmers who put them in charge are acting like they never knew this would happen.

 

[Big Fitz]

Conservatism when its responsible.

Capitalism and free markets that are regulated.

Sure.

You do see that the devil is in the details, the term 'regulated.'

Case in point, at what point does progressive taxation become slavery?

The income tax in this country was much more progressive in the 50's than it is now. Were we more enslaved then, or now?

The income tax only affected millionaires back when it was first created. Yes. I think we are having a taxation problem brought on by government largess and entitlement mentality.

 

[EriktheRed]

The End of Liberalism

Is that kinda like Hegh Hewitt's and Karl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority"?

Or maybe this little gem:

?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry dwiddle, liberals & progressives are not at all like lock-step conservatives; it's very difficult to honestly characterize liberals, progressives or Democrats - quite easy to frame the modern conservative: Avarice, Bigotry, Censorship, Fear, Hate and Sloganism. All you need to know.

I keep hoping for a higher level of post from you on the left, so here, as a Christmas present, let me point out some things that might be helpful

1. Compare your post with mine.

2. Note how yours is all fluff and opinion, none documented nor supported with examples of individual that you see as most evil.

3. Note how mine is extended through the use of links that allow the reader to investigate more fully.

4. Now, stop being lazy and do some homework.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you add such juvenile silliness to an interesting, if flawed, post?

Why would I tremble?

What thought makes me tremble?

You see, you invalidate your own message by inventing meaningless concepts, such as 'corporatism," as though it supported your - and I use the term loosely, 'idea.'

You see the actual corporatism means "groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body."

Please identify such groups in your premise. If you are able.
Or is this a 'red herring.'
(That's laughter you hear.)

For your edification, impossible though it seems, consider healthcare, a regulated-free market, with ever increasing costs, to food, an actual free market, whose costs have fallen over time.

This is why a free market real economy, not the financial markets, which require regulation, is the best way to be sure of the high standard of living for ever working citizen.

The proof is all around you.

Wise up.

'Corporatism' is a meaningless concept? To whom? People with limited vocabularies?

Anyone else here not know the meaning of 'corporatism'? Other than P chic?

Clean your spec, old timer.

I gave the definition in the post your quoted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your definition is inaccurate, incomplete, not clear, not on spec.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Corporatism' is a meaningless concept? To whom? People with limited vocabularies?

Anyone else here not know the meaning of 'corporatism'? Other than P chic?

Clean your spec, old timer.

I gave the definition in the post your quoted.

No, you gave a definition. Try again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You do see that the devil is in the details, the term 'regulated.'

Case in point, at what point does progressive taxation become slavery?

The income tax in this country was much more progressive in the 50's than it is now. Were we more enslaved then, or now?

The income tax only affected millionaires back when it was first created. Yes. I think we are having a taxation problem brought on by government largess and entitlement mentality.

I'll repeat the question:

The income tax in this country was much more progressive in the 50's than it is now. Were we more enslaved then, or now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

All of them. The Clinton Administration, through Janet Reno and the Treasury department demanded "no redlining" of housing loans even though the people were known to have no ability to pay off the mortgage. Those loans were made knowing full well they'd blow up in their faces, and so they were forced to go to derivatives to protect their assets and make what is now laughingly being called 'predatory loans'.

When a {deleted noxious racial epithet} with no money doesn't get a loan, ACORN sues and the government backs up the lawsuit

Pretty much. That's the other side of the coin. Damned if you do... damned if you don't. So cut a slice out of the middle and protect your ass as best you can. That's why we're in the straits we're in financially on housing.

I'll repeat the question:

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

 

[xsited1]

The income tax in this country was much more progressive in the 50's than it is now. Were we more enslaved then, or now?

The income tax only affected millionaires back when it was first created. Yes. I think we are having a taxation problem brought on by government largess and entitlement mentality.

I'll repeat the question:

The income tax in this country was much more progressive in the 50's than it is now. Were we more enslaved then, or now?

Now. You're leaving out a few critical details. The main detail is that our overall tax burden as a percentage of income has increased to fund more government programs. (But you knew that, right?)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Proletarian, never think to speak for me. You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. I have stated often the primary cause of the war was slavery. All other causes were secondary and motivated by the issue of slavery -- sectionalism, states' rights, economic differences, tariff, white economic opportunity, the territories, so forth and so on, can be reduced to slavery. Two nations, one in the South and one in the North, developed, one anti-slavery and racist, one pro-slavery and racist.

We know that the south wanted to leave so they can retain their right to create laws that would allow them to own slaves. This was wrong but that does not change the fact that they had the legal right to leave if they wanted to.

Its like saying that the "freedom of speech" is about porn and passing out racist propoganda. These are clearly wrong in the eyes of many but that does not negate someone's legal right to do those things. The same goes with southern succession. It was wrong to own slaves but that did not negate their legal right to depart from the union.

No they did not have the legal right to leave. The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes it illegal to secede.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The income tax only affected millionaires back when it was first created. Yes. I think we are having a taxation problem brought on by government largess and entitlement mentality.

I'll repeat the question:

The income tax in this country was much more progressive in the 50's than it is now. Were we more enslaved then, or now?

Now. You're leaving out a few critical details. The main detail is that our overall tax burden as a percentage of income has increased to fund more government programs. (But you knew that, right?)

I was addressing this:

Case in point, at what point does progressive taxation become slavery?

Read before you attack.

 

[xsited1]

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

All of them. The Clinton Administration, through Janet Reno and the Treasury department demanded "no redlining" of housing loans even though the people were known to have no ability to pay off the mortgage. Those loans were made knowing full well they'd blow up in their faces, and so they were forced to go to derivatives to protect their assets and make what is now laughingly being called 'predatory loans'.

When a {deleted noxious racial epithet} with no money doesn't get a loan, ACORN sues and the government backs up the lawsuit

Pretty much. That's the other side of the coin. Damned if you do... damned if you don't. So cut a slice out of the middle and protect your ass as best you can. That's why we're in the straits we're in financially on housing.

I'll repeat the question:

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

Forced? None. Coerced? All of them. You'd have to know a little bit about banking regulation to understand how it works. All banks are regulated. If you don't give out enough loans to low-income Americans, you get a lower rating. A lower rating from the government hurts your business.

Someone once posted a thread about the percentage of overall loans given to people with low incomes and said, "Lookie here! The percentage is so small, it could not have had an effect on the crash!" WRONG! (That's obvious, right?)

 

[xsited1]

I'll repeat the question:

The income tax in this country was much more progressive in the 50's than it is now. Were we more enslaved then, or now?

Now. You're leaving out a few critical details. The main detail is that our overall tax burden as a percentage of income has increased to fund more government programs. (But you knew that, right?)

I was addressing this:

Case in point, at what point does progressive taxation become slavery?

Read before you attack.

I'm not attacking. The more taxation, the more enslaved a people become. That's common sense and something you are well aware of. You really can't put a number on it like you're trying to do because taxation is only part of the enslavement process. Just look up tax freedom day and you'll get the idea.