The Four Pillars of Progressivism

[Iceweasel]

republicans today don't oppose Medicaid, medicare and SS. WTF is wrong with you?

Oh so the Republicans are fully on board 3 of the biggest socialist institutions in America?

I guess that's what I mean when I say that liberalism always wins in the long run, isn't it?

The big three are doomed to fail. Like all liberal policies.

Redfish claims they're conservative policies.

NO, I said that they are not liberal policies. If SS and medicare were liberal policies we would not have money taken from our paychecks specifically for them. Try to think before posting, you might not look so dumb.

40% of Medicare is paid out of the general fund, not payroll taxes. ALL of Medicaid is paid out of the general fund.

All are socialist programs because all are run by the government instead of the private sector.

...and doomed to fail. The costs are skyrocketing. There's no money they collected in the SS coffers, where do you think payments come from?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Don't get me wrong, there are perks to Progressivism, just like there were economic perks under Hitler. Hitler swept into power and centralized power. Red flag. He then proceeded to jump start the economy and provide the people jobs and fostered a massive nanny state. Hitler then imposed a massive tax on the top 4% income earners. Red flag. He was also a rabid environmentalist and animal rights advocate. Red flag. All the money collected in his centralized government went to two things, the massive nanny state and the military. More red flags. Of course, all that money was simply not enough, so he simply printed money to the point that people were becoming concerned with all the spending. Hitler then forbad the government in the 1930's from passing a budget of any kind so as not to arouse more concern. Now the red flag is in flames. Hitler focused on the nanny state, not because he cared about the people, but because he learned about the lessons from WW1 where the people rose up because of a deteriorating standard of living during the war, which is something he was terrified of. In fact, the German people had a higher standard of living during the war than did their opponents. You might say that Hitler simply bought off a war weary populace steeped in genocide. The chilling part is exactly how well it worked.
It is argued that Hitler essentially burned all of his bridges economically. It was either world conquest or economic catastrophe.

To this point this sounds like a carbon copy of the Progressive movement, does it not?

Actually, no. I provided the links I did so people could discern what Progressivism was and was not.

 

[SeaGal]

What if taxpayers were allowed to put on their 1040s what percentage of their taxes should go to each government- spending sector? Those who wanted to destroy Islam could assign 100% of their taxes to the Defense Department; a feralphile could pay for welfare moochers with his own money, not ours.

Reminds me of an interview I listened to recently.

A college professor who claimed to be part of the progressive movement was asked to explain her position that the rich need to pay their fair share of taxes. ie more taxes. She didn't divulge her income but did reveal that she pays a 30% tax rate - which she stated she believes is a fair rate for her. But the 'rich' (definition undisclosed) should pay a higher rate (% undisclosed).

The funny part of this serious interview - is her response when it was suggested that she send more money than required to the IRS - 'Well, I would if I knew how to do that.' A professor! lol Then goes on to say - I send lots of money to the charities of my choice. Imagine that - a progressive acknowledging that she can do a better job of spending her own money than the government. "What is good for me, is not good for thee'.

On a side note - After 8 years of progressivism in the WH, 8 years of progressive leadership in the Senate, and 4 years of Pelosi leadership in the House - income inequality/disparity, one of Holy Grails of the movement - decreased considerably! j/k no, it didn't.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK was a liberal hero then and is a hero now

Liberals have no problem with having a strong military but recognize there needs to be a balance between our investment in the military and our social programs.....JFKs agenda had a strong social base

JFK cut WWII era taxes down into the 70% upper tax rate. Todays liberals would be happy with that tax rate....would you?

Whether or not he is your hero, the man and/or the myth, is irrelevant to the reality that much of his philosophy is in direct contrast to the tenets of todays Democrat Party leadership - Dean, DWS, Clinton, etc.

None of JFKs philosophy contrasts with todays liberal policies

 

[usmbguest5318]

So I know what your thinking. How does the Jewish persecution have anything to do with what is going on today in the world of Progressivism?

Actually, no, it's not what I was thinking. I was thinking about:

• "cherries,"
• which of the documents I linked that you could not possibly have bothered to read,
• how your reply doesn't address the fact that in both your OP and in your reply to me, you've trenchantly misrepresented what Progressivism was and is, and
• how you have resorted to demagoguery about Progressivism without proffering solution ideas for overcoming the correspondences between the Gilded Age and today even though you end your remarks by quoting scripture (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV).

It was the observation that allowed me to write the last bullet point that made, as you put it, my "eyes glaze over."

 

[rightwinger]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of Karl Marx. Kennedy and Truman would barf at what their party has become. Would any dem today have the balls to bomb Hiroshima or put up the blockade of Cuba? NO, not one.

You keep saying that, but none of the facts support your view

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

 

[SeaGal]

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

JFK was well known as anti-communist...he put MLK under FBI investigation for ties to communism...and you claim he's your hero. He also pushed defense spending to a higher percentage of federal expenditures than current military spending...and you claim to love him.

Kennedy would look today's progressive movement in the face and say - I do not know you.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

JFK was well known as anti-communist...he put MLK under FBI investigation for ties to communism...and you claim he's your hero. He also pushed defense spending to a higher percentage of federal expenditures than current military spending...and you claim to love him.

Kennedy would look today's progressive movement in the face and say - I do not know you.

Here is what Conservatives thought of JFK

 

[Rustic]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

That does suit the GOP establishment, who are just career politicians who happened to be progressive…

 

[Rustic]

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

JFK was well known as anti-communist...he put MLK under FBI investigation for ties to communism...and you claim he's your hero. He also pushed defense spending to a higher percentage of federal expenditures than current military spending...and you claim to love him.

Kennedy would look today's progressive movement in the face and say - I do not know you.

Here is what Conservatives thought of JFK

JFK was a corrupt piece of shit who had people murdered that were in the way of his agenda…

 

[SeaGal]

Here is what Conservatives thought of JFK

The harder you struggle the more I'm reminded of the truth in Reagan's famous words,
'The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

 

[Votto]

The 17th Amendment was the biggest coup d'etat for the progressive movement. Repeal it, and you may slow the inevitable advancement of liberalism and an ever bigger central government.

The 17th Amendment happened because people were tired of the corrupt buffoons that the state legislatures kept sending to washington.

We were quite capable of selecting our own corrupt buffoons.

The Founding Fathers would disagree. They did not want a direct democracy, rather, they wanted a mix.

This is why the House was directly elected by the people and why those in the Senate were selected by state governments.

Just see how the Founding Fathers valued direct democracy verses representation. Those in the House were only given 2 years to serve and those in the Senate were given 6 years to serve. In addition, there are only 2 Senators per state verses a myriad in the House. So I ask you, how much confidence did the Founding Fathers have with direct voting from the people to elect suitable candidates vs. those in state government? Obviously they trusted the states to pick better representatives.

Of course, Progs would scoff at this and refer to the US government in the same breath as a democracy. Well guess what, the US is a Republic, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers knew better than to create a direct democracy.

Every Media Mouthpiece for the 1% Can Go Eat a Knuckle Sandwich

You political bullies want us to worship the Constitution the way Fundamentalists worship the Bible or Koran. You want us to take the words of the Federalists as infallible Gospel inspired by God. The Founding Fodder, lawyers for the 1% working behind closed doors, established a theocracy with the political class and its owners as imams Real men make their own laws and spit at your insulting accusations about "mob rule, two wolves and a sheep," and all those talking points preached by conceited blowhards.

I grow weary of Progs trashing the Founding Fathers because of issues like slavery and then blaming such things as Christianity.

Well guess what, these Christians were divided and Christians ultimately took up arms to destroy slavery in the US, so stuff it. Can you imagine half the Islamic world rising up to end mistreatment of women and treating women as second class citizens under the Koran? I can't.

Just say that you have no respect for the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. Be an honest Prog for a change.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The 17th Amendment was the biggest coup d'etat for the progressive movement. Repeal it, and you may slow the inevitable advancement of liberalism and an ever bigger central government.

The 17th Amendment happened because people were tired of the corrupt buffoons that the state legislatures kept sending to washington.

We were quite capable of selecting our own corrupt buffoons.

The Founding Fathers would disagree. They did not want a direct democracy, rather, they wanted a mix.

This is why the House was directly elected by the people and why those in the Senate were selected by state governments.

Just see how the Founding Fathers valued direct democracy verses representation. Those in the House were only given 2 years to serve and those in the Senate were given 6 years to serve. In addition, there are only 2 Senators per state verses a myriad in the House. So I ask you, how much confidence did the Founding Fathers have with direct voting from the people to elect suitable candidates vs. those in state government? Obviously they trusted the states to pick better representatives.

Of course, Progs would scoff at this and refer to the US government in the same breath as a democracy. Well guess what, the US is a Republic, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers knew better than to create a direct democracy.

Every Media Mouthpiece for the 1% Can Go Eat a Knuckle Sandwich

You political bullies want us to worship the Constitution the way Fundamentalists worship the Bible or Koran. You want us to take the words of the Federalists as infallible Gospel inspired by God. The Founding Fodder, lawyers for the 1% working behind closed doors, established a theocracy with the political class and its owners as imams Real men make their own laws and spit at your insulting accusations about "mob rule, two wolves and a sheep," and all those talking points preached by conceited blowhards.

I grow weary of Progs trashing the Founding Fathers because of issues like slavery and then blaming such things as Christianity.

Well guess what, these Christians were divided and Christians ultimately took up arms to destroy slavery in the US, so stuff it. Can you imagine half the Islamic world rising up to end mistreatment of women and treating women as second class citizens under the Koran? I can't.

Just say that you have no respect for the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. Be an honest Prog for a change.

Actually I think he did say he has little or no respect for the constitution, or at least that is what I inferred from his "political bullies....." tirade.

 

[Redfish]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of Karl Marx. Kennedy and Truman would barf at what their party has become. Would any dem today have the balls to bomb Hiroshima or put up the blockade of Cuba? NO, not one.

You keep saying that, but none of the facts support your view

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

compared to today's democrats, Kennedy was a conservative.
We are comparing him to todays parties, not the parties of the 1960s.

Harry Truman was as far right as anyone could be in his time.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of Karl Marx. Kennedy and Truman would barf at what their party has become. Would any dem today have the balls to bomb Hiroshima or put up the blockade of Cuba? NO, not one.

You keep saying that, but none of the facts support your view

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

compared to today's democrats, Kennedy was a conservative.
We are comparing him to todays parties, not the parties of the 1960s.

Harry Truman was as far right as anyone could be in his time.

Really?

Then what do you call the conservatives from the 50s and 60s?
You can't be both you know?

 

[Redfish]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

That does suit the GOP establishment, who are just career politicians who happened to be progressive…

are the following career politicians?

Pelosi
Schumer
Reid
Clinton (both)
Waters
Rangle
Boxer
Feinstein

Yes, they are, and they have all gotten very rich sucking at the public tit.

You just make youself look stupid when you make stupid claims that only republicans are career politicians

 

[Redfish]

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of Karl Marx. Kennedy and Truman would barf at what their party has become. Would any dem today have the balls to bomb Hiroshima or put up the blockade of Cuba? NO, not one.

You keep saying that, but none of the facts support your view

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

compared to today's democrats, Kennedy was a conservative.
We are comparing him to todays parties, not the parties of the 1960s.

Harry Truman was as far right as anyone could be in his time.

Really?

Then what do you call the conservatives from the 50s and 60s?
You can't be both you know?

I call them intelligent people of both parties.

 

[emilynghiem]

All human beings have human rights. Discrimination against a group of people for any reason is bad for society. Equality is the best foundation for a civilized society.

Stop right there. The liberal quest for "equality" has alienated far more people than it has equalized. Human rights have limits too. One of those human rights, the right to life, can be forfeited if you present a danger to your fellow man. This kind of broad view of "equality" and "human rights" is a dangerous one. No offense.

Calm down Etherion
What is wrong with equal inclusion?
Where everyone is free to represent and be under the laws we subscribe to ourselves?
Isn't that the safest approach?

The problem is imposing beliefs or standards from one group onto another.
So why not allow "to each their own"

The retributive Jihadist/Armaggeddon types are free to bomb each other to bits,
but just not implicate anyone else in their wars who doesn't believe in that approach.

Those who believe in peace and justice, and decisions by consensus
should be free to affiliate and support each other WITHOUT disruption by
those who believe in bullying by force of coercion or exclusion.

Wouldn't EQUAL inclusion allow for
ALL views to co-exist among themselves?

If all the right to life people get along, why not let them run their own prolife
communities and programs and not force them to fund and support abortion if that's against their beliefs!

Wouldn't that be the most respectful, practical and safe way to manage diversity of beliefs and groups?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is wrong with equal inclusion?
Where everyone is free to represent and be under the laws we subscribe to ourselves?
Isn't that the safest approach?

What happens when that is taken to an absolute extreme? Then what? Inclusion then becomes exclusion.

 

[SeaGal]

Your reasoning is thoughtful and compassionate. Enjoyable reading. There are a few things I would like to respond to - not necessarily in agreement or dispute...but an exercise in thought.

What is wrong with equal inclusion?
Where everyone is free to represent and be under the laws we subscribe to ourselves?
Isn't that the safest approach?

The concept of equal inclusion is appealing. But given the 'nature' of human nature will it work? It's doubtful. If our society is to survive, we must be bound by common, widely held beliefs and a law that doesn't prevent opportunity and is applied equally. That also means allowing people to fail...or people to excel, without boost or hindrance from the law. It also requires freedom of association - preferences, choices, if you will.

The problem is imposing beliefs or standards from one group onto another.
So why not allow "to each their own"

One of mankinds greatest joys (deepest instincts) is to enlarge the tribe, by word or deed, so to speak. As long as the law does not engage in forcing beliefs - it must enforce broad standards. We have to balance 'to each his own' with the larger need of community...ie - supporting schools even if one doesn't have and never will have children. That said, there should always be respectable debate in the public square over how much money is to be collected and how it will be spent. Most of us need each other, and I still believe that vigorous yet peaceable public expression of diverse opinion is the safest and truest way for a society to live peaceably.

The retributive Jihadist/Armaggeddon types are free to bomb each other to bits,
but just not implicate anyone else in their wars who doesn't believe in that approach.

How will you contain them? What they do not do well is consider the rights of others.

Those who believe in peace and justice, and decisions by consensus
should be free to affiliate and support each other WITHOUT disruption by
those who believe in bullying by force of coercion or exclusion.

In what way do we not have that now? Here's the dilemma with forming separate groups of like minded people - folks with a different mind set, or different ideals of justice - will be excluded. If you are speaking of violent disruption, then we have laws addressing such. We actually have some pretty good laws...but lack of, or selective enforcement allows the bullies to run rampant.

Wouldn't EQUAL inclusion allow for
ALL views to co-exist among themselves?

If all the right to life people get along, why not let them run their own prolife
communities and programs and not force them to fund and support abortion if that's against their beliefs!

Wouldn't that be the most respectful, practical and safe way to manage diversity of beliefs and groups?

What I think you are describing is Utopia - long sought, never found. Yet, a workable version is not unlike what the founders sought to establish when forming our representative government in which the states have the power to make 'community based decisions'...within the broad framework of the Constitution. There are many issues that should be dealt with at a local (or state) level. It is much easier to hold a local politician accountable than a national one.

One further note - When a society takes from one person the rightfully earned fruits of their labor to give to another who has not labored, that society has made a slave of the laborer. When a society elevates a race or gender of people by giving preferences in work or education over another group - that society is racist and sexist. Good intentions aside - the fine folks of that society have become what they proclaimed was wrong.