Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[flacaltenn]

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Translation: All the foregoing rights are entirely revocable should we decide so.

Can ANYONE explain Article 29.1 to me?? I've read it four times and I'm not getting it..

Without community -- our personality is not possibly developed? Say Wha?

 

[Intense]

Maybe a link would have worked better....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Iy5zLsF4g&feature=related]KING CURTIS - FEVER -.wmv - YouTube[/ame]
KING CURTIS - FEVER -.wmv

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's when you realize the simplicity and elegance of what we were given based on the opening premise of certain Natural and Unalienable Rights..

And who gets to decide what they are?

No one gets to decide, they exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Translation: All the foregoing rights are entirely revocable should we decide so.

Can ANYONE explain Article 29.1 to me?? I've read it four times and I'm not getting it..

Without community -- our personality is not possibly developed? Say Wha?

Rich people owe poor people money.

 

[Oddball]

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Translation: All the foregoing rights are entirely revocable should we decide so.

Can ANYONE explain Article 29.1 to me?? I've read it four times and I'm not getting it..

Without community -- our personality is not possibly developed? Say Wha?

It basically says that Articles 1-28 are null and void and your ass really belongs to the state, since you are nothing without it.

Clause 3 reserves all "rights" to the UN to dole out, like so much porridge at the orphanage, to those they deem best fit to have them.

 

[Intense]

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Translation: All the foregoing rights are entirely revocable should we decide so.

Can ANYONE explain Article 29.1 to me?? I've read it four times and I'm not getting it..

Without community -- our personality is not possibly developed? Say Wha?

See Post #247....... http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eralism-v-s-progressivism-17.html#post4237368

 

[Bfgrn]

Where in the blazes does this crap come from? And what are you babbling about Sean Hannity? Sorry kiddo -- Must be a language barrier here or you've been reading Chomsky but not really comprehending it -- one or t'other..

Noted. Fair. I wonder if my point depends on it though. Let's see if you see what I'm trying to say.

I was making a broader point about the effects of trade liberalization and the mobility of capital respective to labor. This country made a transition from protecting & strengthening labor, to protecting, strengthening, subsidizing, and bailing out capital.

Some history.

Strict trade laws, tariffs, tighter currency standards, powerful unions, a fed charged with maintaining full employment, and technological limitations tied American capital very tightly to American labor until the 70s (despite GATT in 1947, which had not truly blossomed until Reagan). After WWII many advanced industrial nations were in a shambles (e.g., Europe, Japan); and China & the far east were still off limits. This historical context - combined with the New Deal spirit of taking care of the middle class worker, which was supported by both major parties - gave Labor tremendous leverage over capital.

Consequently, business was "forced" to share more of its profits with workers. While this resulted in robust consumer demand, staggering economic growth, high employment, and upward mobility (freedom) for middle class workers, business wanted to keep a larger share of the pie. So it quietly started investing in the Republican Party, Think Tanks, & media. . . (and it waited for the right moment to change laws and minds).

Their opportunity came in the 70s with an oil shock and stagflation. Volker transformed the Fed's roll from maintaining "full" employment to busting inflation. It worked! Prices came down. As a side bonus, there was a massive recession which resulted in high unemployment and more docile work force, thus bidding down wages - preparing the stage for union busting and the replacement of solid manufacturing jobs with a sea of low wage, no-benefit temp retail jobs.

So, but here is the point about our 70s malaise: the special interests which put Reagan in office made their case successfully to the American people. They said that economic growth was being stunted by expensive labor, high taxes, useless regulations, and strict trade laws. They asked for cheaper operating conditions, which meant cheaper labor. They said that if capital was given more freedom, a utopia of investment, innovation, solid jobs, and competitive pricing would trickle down.

Who knew they were just going to ship our manufacturing to communist China, and replace high middle class wages with credit cards, crazy mortgages, and "no interest for 18 months" - and call it "Morning in America"… as both the American government and consumer traveled into historic debt (as the sultans of American industry quietly partnered with dictator-lead countries to make bank. And talk radio was paid to call it freedom. Brilliant). Yes, it was/is cheaper for Nike to get their sneaks made for pennies a day (by oppressed freedom hating countries, whose cheap labor made a small group of American owners and shareholders wealthy enough to fund elections and staff government). Ironically, they ship their product (courtesy of "trade routes" stabilized on the public's (Pentagon) dime) back to shopping malls staffed by the new low-wage no-benefit middle class - who were given credit cards instead of wages/benefits to buy shiny plastic objects made in "evil-doer" countries, as well as monopolized health care rising at 5x the rate of inflation (to pay for innovation [cough] "administrative costs", which innovation seems to have pumped the serfs up with antidepressants to keep them calibrated to their disappearing standard of living).

Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" should be re-titled "Capitalism, cheap labor, and the death of the middle class & environment"

So but wait: are you saying that we did not transition form a world of support/protections for labor to a world of subsidies/bailouts/regulatory-capture/global-mobility for the suppliers? The transition from the Keynesian/New Deal model to Reaganomics is not exactly a secret.

Nice fairy tale.. You and your cohort on this thread take waaay too much time looking at the world as it was --- not as it is today.. Truth is -- Americans probably shouldn't be making tennis shoes and basketballs anymore. We should be doing the harder stuff given our privilege and substantial lead. We should be filling our science and engineering schools with AMERICAN kids -- not foreign nationals on Visas. I don't know what labor force you're in meatpie.. Perhaps selling foundation garments at Sears. But in Silicon Valley, those folks are pampered primadonnas who leave a company for a better par course and a gourmet cafeteria and day care. We need to concentrate on Materials Science, Robotics, Artificial Intelligience and BioTech. We need to be first to prototype what 21st century manufacturing looks like. There are PLENTY of jobs available in those areas. Not union positions -- but I never missed the union when the company had free ski chalets in Lake Tahoe. If we don't stop thinking like Bangladeshis -- we will BE Bangladeshis. And our leadership needs to stop the charades of "internet superhiways" and "green jobs" and focus simply on producing innovators and allowing NEW COMPANIES to be borne without an army of govt compliance officers.

I don't want fantasies about Goodyear conspiring to keep Sean Hannity on the air. I don't want your conspiracy theories about Reagan. I want a FUTURE for this country where we outperform the rest of world in applying capital to good ideas..

It is not a 'fairy tale', no matter how much you emote and use snark. It IS what happened.

The New Deal through the Great Society created the most robust middle class in history. It IS what defined America as the 'city upon the hill'...how ironic Ronald Reagan used John Winthrop's phrase. Because Reagan gutted the city.

Ronald Reagan was the biggest socialist in history. He is the pied piper on the road to serfdom. He began a systematic dismantling of all the gains the middle class had secured through the New Deal. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. He tripled the national debt and when he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. Reagan catered to big business. The 'fairy tale' is the whole Republican propaganda that they see 'small businessman as the engine of growth', It is cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

 

[Oddball]

Dude, you really need to lay off the Ritalin....It'll make you start seeing crawling Christina Aguileras next.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn::

Reagan catered to big business. The 'fairy tale' is the whole Republican propaganda that they see 'small businessman as the engine of growth', It is cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

So because Ronnie did SOMETHING to adjust Soc Sec premiums at a time when the fund was threatening to go negative --- the ENTIRE Republican establishment is ANTI-SMALL Business?? And that ONE tortured factoid is all the proof we need in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? Ronnie mistake was trusting Congress to PROTECT the excess that was gonna be generated. But all of his big mistakes was relying on Congress to perform their part of the bargain.

See -- this is the exactly why we see you as a shit-slingin' zoo monkey. Because that entire response is voided by your blind hatred of R.Reagan. FICA went UP --- because it HAD TO. Not because Reagan was evil.. It was CONGRESS who stole that excess over the years....... Not Reagan.

 

[Intense]

Funny how Progressivism has throughout History supported Monopolies, Major Corporations, having Privilege and unfair Advantage over Small Enterprise. They liked Central Control and the National reach, that they themselves granted. Then they in some ways feel threatened and jealous over the success of those big Companies, unsatisfied with the arrangements They Themselves made, wanting more of the pie, and control. Tyranny is Tyranny by any name. The Label only reflects the Brand. Bottom Line, the Progressive Government uses the Monopolies to Milk the Commodities (Us), and then it tries to use Us to justify It milking the Monopolies, only it doesn't stop there. It is using Everyone to Justify It Milking Everyone dry. There is one thing for sure here, we will know who is getting the Life Preservers, and into the Life Boats, and who needs to start treading water. Sink or Swim. Hint... If you have yet to see a single dime of the "Bailout" start heading towards a friendly shore line. There's no room at the Inn.

 

[flacaltenn]

Strap yourselves down before you read this.. This is maybe the ugliest part of Progressive ideology...

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

During the second half of the Progressive Era, beginning roughly in 1908,
progressive economists and their reform allies achieved many statutory victories,
including state laws that regulated working conditions, banned child labor, instituted
“mothers’ pensions,” capped working hours and, the sine qua non, fixed
minimum wages. In using eugenics to justify exclusionary immigration legislation,
the race-suicide theorists offered a model to economists advocating labor reforms,
notably those affiliated with the American Association for Labor Legislation, the
organization of academic economists that Orloff and Skocpol (1984, p. 726) call
the “leading association of U.S. social reform advocates in the Progressive Era.”
Progressive economists, like their neoclassical critics, believed that binding
minimum wages would cause job losses. However, the progressive economists also
believed that the job loss induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it
212 Journal of Economic Perspectives
performed the eugenic service ridding the labor force of the “unemployable.”
Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1897 [1920], p. 785) put it plainly: “With regard to
certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not
a mark of social disease, but actually of social health.” “[O]f all ways of dealing with
these unfortunate parasites,” Sidney Webb (1912, p. 992) opined in the Journal of
Political Economy, “the most ruinous to the community is to allow them to unrestrainedly
compete as wage earners.” A minimum wage was seen to operate eugenically
through two channels: by deterring prospective immigrants (Henderson,
1900) and also by removing from employment the “unemployable,” who, thus
identified, could be, for example, segregated in rural communities or sterilized.
The notion that minimum-wage induced disemployment is a social benefit
distinguishes its progressive proponents from their neoclassical critics, such as
Alfred Marshall (1897), Philip Wicksteed (1913), A. C. Pigou (1913) and John Bates
Clark (1913), who regarded job loss as a social cost of minimum wages, not as a
putative social benefit (Leonard, 2000).
Columbia’s Henry Rogers Seager, a leading progressive economist who served
as president of the AEA in 1922, provides an example. Worthy wage-earners, Seager
(1913a, p. 12) argued, need protection from the “wearing competition of the casual
worker and the drifter” and from the other “unemployable” who unfairly drag
down the wages of more deserving workers (1913b, pp. 82–83). The minimum
wage protects deserving workers from the competition of the unfit by making it
illegal to work for less. Seager (1913a, p. 9) wrote: “The operation of the minimum
wage requirement would merely extend the definition of defectives to embrace all
individuals, who even after having received special training, remain incapable of
adequate self-support.” Seager (p. 10) made clear what should happen to those
who, even after remedial training, could not earn the legal minimum: “If we are to
maintain a race that is to be made of up of capable, efficient and independent
individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that
have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization . . . .”

HOLY MOLY -- that is wicked thought. That the social good included PROTECTING the workforce from the substandard, inferior workers from the immigrant, and black community. But WAIT--- There's more here than initially meets the eye.. If these economists are CORRECT (and I believe they are) -- then the Minimum Wage is STILL a tool that can wielded to screen undesirable workers due to race and national origin. And TODAY --- it's one of the favorite Leftist movement tools in the tool belt isn't it?

If you're interested in this thread -- you should read the ENTIRE piece. Because it's hard to believe that Progressive elites EVER put these thoughts and words in the public record. And this is only the TIP of the Eugenics factions that spawned Margaret Sanger and the Planned ParentHood crowd.. Unfreakinbelievable. Doesn't even take a Glenn Beck chalkboard to make the connections -- does it?

 

[FactFinder]

Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism

Philosophical mumbo jumbo totally detached from reality meant to inflict intellectual pain on the oppressed.

 

[Intense]

Strap yourselves down before you read this.. This is maybe the ugliest part of Progressive ideology...

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

During the second half of the Progressive Era, beginning roughly in 1908,
progressive economists and their reform allies achieved many statutory victories,
including state laws that regulated working conditions, banned child labor, instituted
“mothers’ pensions,” capped working hours and, the sine qua non, fixed
minimum wages. In using eugenics to justify exclusionary immigration legislation,
the race-suicide theorists offered a model to economists advocating labor reforms,
notably those affiliated with the American Association for Labor Legislation, the
organization of academic economists that Orloff and Skocpol (1984, p. 726) call
the “leading association of U.S. social reform advocates in the Progressive Era.”
Progressive economists, like their neoclassical critics, believed that binding
minimum wages would cause job losses. However, the progressive economists also
believed that the job loss induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it
212 Journal of Economic Perspectives
performed the eugenic service ridding the labor force of the “unemployable.”
Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1897 [1920], p. 785) put it plainly: “With regard to
certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not
a mark of social disease, but actually of social health.” “[O]f all ways of dealing with
these unfortunate parasites,” Sidney Webb (1912, p. 992) opined in the Journal of
Political Economy, “the most ruinous to the community is to allow them to unrestrainedly
compete as wage earners.” A minimum wage was seen to operate eugenically
through two channels: by deterring prospective immigrants (Henderson,
1900) and also by removing from employment the “unemployable,” who, thus
identified, could be, for example, segregated in rural communities or sterilized.
The notion that minimum-wage induced disemployment is a social benefit
distinguishes its progressive proponents from their neoclassical critics, such as
Alfred Marshall (1897), Philip Wicksteed (1913), A. C. Pigou (1913) and John Bates
Clark (1913), who regarded job loss as a social cost of minimum wages, not as a
putative social benefit (Leonard, 2000).
Columbia’s Henry Rogers Seager, a leading progressive economist who served
as president of the AEA in 1922, provides an example. Worthy wage-earners, Seager
(1913a, p. 12) argued, need protection from the “wearing competition of the casual
worker and the drifter” and from the other “unemployable” who unfairly drag
down the wages of more deserving workers (1913b, pp. 82–83). The minimum
wage protects deserving workers from the competition of the unfit by making it
illegal to work for less. Seager (1913a, p. 9) wrote: “The operation of the minimum
wage requirement would merely extend the definition of defectives to embrace all
individuals, who even after having received special training, remain incapable of
adequate self-support.” Seager (p. 10) made clear what should happen to those
who, even after remedial training, could not earn the legal minimum: “If we are to
maintain a race that is to be made of up of capable, efficient and independent
individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that
have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization . . . .”

HOLY MOLY -- that is wicked thought. That the social good included PROTECTING the workforce from the substandard, inferior workers from the immigrant, and black community. But WAIT--- There's more here than initially meets the eye.. If these economists are CORRECT (and I believe they are) -- then the Minimum Wage is STILL a tool that can wielded to screen undesirable workers due to race and national origin. And TODAY --- it's one of the favorite Leftist movement tools in the tool belt isn't it?

If you're interested in this thread -- you should read the ENTIRE piece. Because it's hard to believe that Progressive elites EVER put these thoughts and words in the public record. And this is only the TIP of the Eugenics factions that spawned Margaret Sanger and the Planned ParentHood crowd.. Unfreakinbelievable. Doesn't even take a Glenn Beck chalkboard to make the connections -- does it?

That is not what is happening today. Today, They are trading Votes for dependency. It is Atlas Shrugged. The Achievers are the used and despised Today. The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole. Some may blame Global Warming, I blame Corruption, when the Shit hits the fan, be it Earth Quake or Flood. All I'm saying is when Shit Happens, It's a good time to do some Soul Searching.

 

[Intense]

Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism

Philosophical mumbo jumbo totally detached from reality meant to inflict intellectual pain on the oppressed.

No, actually there are some very definite distinctions, reversals, and utter denials, in effect between the two. Thanks for not reading up on the Thread before Posting.

 

[FactFinder]

Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism

Philosophical mumbo jumbo totally detached from reality meant to inflict intellectual pain on the oppressed.

No, actually there are some very definite distinctions, reversals, and utter denials, in effect between the two. Thanks for not reading up on the Thread before Posting.

You are welcome! The title was enough Thank you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Strap yourselves down before you read this.. This is maybe the ugliest part of Progressive ideology...

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

During the second half of the Progressive Era, beginning roughly in 1908,
progressive economists and their reform allies achieved many statutory victories,
including state laws that regulated working conditions, banned child labor, instituted
“mothers’ pensions,” capped working hours and, the sine qua non, fixed
minimum wages. In using eugenics to justify exclusionary immigration legislation,
the race-suicide theorists offered a model to economists advocating labor reforms,
notably those affiliated with the American Association for Labor Legislation, the
organization of academic economists that Orloff and Skocpol (1984, p. 726) call
the “leading association of U.S. social reform advocates in the Progressive Era.”
Progressive economists, like their neoclassical critics, believed that binding
minimum wages would cause job losses. However, the progressive economists also
believed that the job loss induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it
212 Journal of Economic Perspectives
performed the eugenic service ridding the labor force of the “unemployable.”
Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1897 [1920], p. 785) put it plainly: “With regard to
certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not
a mark of social disease, but actually of social health.” “[O]f all ways of dealing with
these unfortunate parasites,” Sidney Webb (1912, p. 992) opined in the Journal of
Political Economy, “the most ruinous to the community is to allow them to unrestrainedly
compete as wage earners.” A minimum wage was seen to operate eugenically
through two channels: by deterring prospective immigrants (Henderson,
1900) and also by removing from employment the “unemployable,” who, thus
identified, could be, for example, segregated in rural communities or sterilized.
The notion that minimum-wage induced disemployment is a social benefit
distinguishes its progressive proponents from their neoclassical critics, such as
Alfred Marshall (1897), Philip Wicksteed (1913), A. C. Pigou (1913) and John Bates
Clark (1913), who regarded job loss as a social cost of minimum wages, not as a
putative social benefit (Leonard, 2000).
Columbia’s Henry Rogers Seager, a leading progressive economist who served
as president of the AEA in 1922, provides an example. Worthy wage-earners, Seager
(1913a, p. 12) argued, need protection from the “wearing competition of the casual
worker and the drifter” and from the other “unemployable” who unfairly drag
down the wages of more deserving workers (1913b, pp. 82–83). The minimum
wage protects deserving workers from the competition of the unfit by making it
illegal to work for less. Seager (1913a, p. 9) wrote: “The operation of the minimum
wage requirement would merely extend the definition of defectives to embrace all
individuals, who even after having received special training, remain incapable of
adequate self-support.” Seager (p. 10) made clear what should happen to those
who, even after remedial training, could not earn the legal minimum: “If we are to
maintain a race that is to be made of up of capable, efficient and independent
individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that
have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization . . . .”

HOLY MOLY -- that is wicked thought. That the social good included PROTECTING the workforce from the substandard, inferior workers from the immigrant, and black community. But WAIT--- There's more here than initially meets the eye.. If these economists are CORRECT (and I believe they are) -- then the Minimum Wage is STILL a tool that can wielded to screen undesirable workers due to race and national origin. And TODAY --- it's one of the favorite Leftist movement tools in the tool belt isn't it?

If you're interested in this thread -- you should read the ENTIRE piece. Because it's hard to believe that Progressive elites EVER put these thoughts and words in the public record. And this is only the TIP of the Eugenics factions that spawned Margaret Sanger and the Planned ParentHood crowd.. Unfreakinbelievable. Doesn't even take a Glenn Beck chalkboard to make the connections -- does it?

That is not what is happening today. Today, They are trading Votes for dependency. It is Atlas Shrugged. The Achievers are the used and despised Today. The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole. Some may blame Global Warming, I blame Corruption, when the Shit hits the fan, be it Earth Quake or Flood. All I'm saying is when Shit Happens, It's a good time to do some Soul Searching.

But but but but Intense.. Here is the fundamental economics that VALIDATES everything that we (conservatives, libertarians, defenders of the free market) have said about the Minimum Wage. That it adversely affects immigrants, urban ghetto youth, and the unfit. And here we have the PROGRESSIVE movement making that case FOR US. Only in the ultimate irony -- it was a principal MOTIVATION for them to impose the Min Wage!!!

Not to mention the proof of the Min Wage effect that we are currently measuring in the misery of those classes that the Progressives were targeting "for the social good".

 

[FactFinder]

Strap yourselves down before you read this.. This is maybe the ugliest part of Progressive ideology...

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf



HOLY MOLY -- that is wicked thought. That the social good included PROTECTING the workforce from the substandard, inferior workers from the immigrant, and black community. But WAIT--- There's more here than initially meets the eye.. If these economists are CORRECT (and I believe they are) -- then the Minimum Wage is STILL a tool that can wielded to screen undesirable workers due to race and national origin. And TODAY --- it's one of the favorite Leftist movement tools in the tool belt isn't it?

If you're interested in this thread -- you should read the ENTIRE piece. Because it's hard to believe that Progressive elites EVER put these thoughts and words in the public record. And this is only the TIP of the Eugenics factions that spawned Margaret Sanger and the Planned ParentHood crowd.. Unfreakinbelievable. Doesn't even take a Glenn Beck chalkboard to make the connections -- does it?

That is not what is happening today. Today, They are trading Votes for dependency. It is Atlas Shrugged. The Achievers are the used and despised Today. The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole. Some may blame Global Warming, I blame Corruption, when the Shit hits the fan, be it Earth Quake or Flood. All I'm saying is when Shit Happens, It's a good time to do some Soul Searching.

But but but but Intense.. Here is the fundamental economics that VALIDATES everything that we (conservatives, libertarians, defenders of the free market) have said about the Minimum Wage. That it adversely affects immigrants, urban ghetto youth, and the unfit. And here we have the PROGRESSIVE movement making that case FOR US. Only in the ultimate irony -- it was a principal MOTIVATION for them to impose the Min Wage!!!

Not to mention the proof of the Min Wage effect that we are currently measuring in the misery of those classes that the Progressives were targeting "for the social good".

So you are you are saying that you want to go through all this mumbo jumbo to try to justify in your spirit paying someone to work for you for less than they can possibly survive on in this f'in mainipulated world. May God forgive you your totally shortsided blindingly selfish stance.

 

[flacaltenn]

That is not what is happening today. Today, They are trading Votes for dependency. It is Atlas Shrugged. The Achievers are the used and despised Today. The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole. Some may blame Global Warming, I blame Corruption, when the Shit hits the fan, be it Earth Quake or Flood. All I'm saying is when Shit Happens, It's a good time to do some Soul Searching.

But but but but Intense.. Here is the fundamental economics that VALIDATES everything that we (conservatives, libertarians, defenders of the free market) have said about the Minimum Wage. That it adversely affects immigrants, urban ghetto youth, and the unfit. And here we have the PROGRESSIVE movement making that case FOR US. Only in the ultimate irony -- it was a principal MOTIVATION for them to impose the Min Wage!!!

Not to mention the proof of the Min Wage effect that we are currently measuring in the misery of those classes that the Progressives were targeting "for the social good".

So you are you are saying that you want to go through all this mumbo jumbo to try to justify in your spirit paying someone to work for you for less than they can possibly survive on in this f'in mainipulated world. May God forgive you your totally shortsided blindingly selfish stance.

You need only look at the EXCESS unemployments of urban ghetto youth and immigrants and less skilled workers and students to see the damage that your "charity" has bought them. Minimum wage is a TEMPORARY state. Never meant to define a career or even more than a foot in the door. You've SLAMMED the f-ing door in their faces.. Good Job. Praise the Lord..

 

[Intense]

Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism

Philosophical mumbo jumbo totally detached from reality meant to inflict intellectual pain on the oppressed.

No, actually there are some very definite distinctions, reversals, and utter denials, in effect between the two. Thanks for not reading up on the Thread before Posting.

You are welcome! The title was enough Thank you.

So that's two wasted Posts for you.

 

[Intense]

Strap yourselves down before you read this.. This is maybe the ugliest part of Progressive ideology...

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf



HOLY MOLY -- that is wicked thought. That the social good included PROTECTING the workforce from the substandard, inferior workers from the immigrant, and black community. But WAIT--- There's more here than initially meets the eye.. If these economists are CORRECT (and I believe they are) -- then the Minimum Wage is STILL a tool that can wielded to screen undesirable workers due to race and national origin. And TODAY --- it's one of the favorite Leftist movement tools in the tool belt isn't it?

If you're interested in this thread -- you should read the ENTIRE piece. Because it's hard to believe that Progressive elites EVER put these thoughts and words in the public record. And this is only the TIP of the Eugenics factions that spawned Margaret Sanger and the Planned ParentHood crowd.. Unfreakinbelievable. Doesn't even take a Glenn Beck chalkboard to make the connections -- does it?

That is not what is happening today. Today, They are trading Votes for dependency. It is Atlas Shrugged. The Achievers are the used and despised Today. The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole. Some may blame Global Warming, I blame Corruption, when the Shit hits the fan, be it Earth Quake or Flood. All I'm saying is when Shit Happens, It's a good time to do some Soul Searching.

But but but but Intense.. Here is the fundamental economics that VALIDATES everything that we (conservatives, libertarians, defenders of the free market) have said about the Minimum Wage. That it adversely affects immigrants, urban ghetto youth, and the unfit. And here we have the PROGRESSIVE movement making that case FOR US. Only in the ultimate irony -- it was a principal MOTIVATION for them to impose the Min Wage!!!

Not to mention the proof of the Min Wage effect that we are currently measuring in the misery of those classes that the Progressives were targeting "for the social good".

Good point on the Hypocrisy. The thing about Progressivism though, is rather than admit to contradiction, or Hypocrisy, the Progressive will claim that the Movement has evolved and adapted, though to us it may seem more like a Metamorphism, you know, more Reptilian, slimy, Tadpole/frog like. It's too technical and convoluted for their target audience to follow.