Here is what the progressive economic ideology boils down to:

[Beef_Supreme]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

“Progressive economic ideology”, you say?
I could have saved you a lot of typing.
The “theory” has very nice sounding goals.
In actuality it looks like this...

 

[22lcidw]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

You have implemented all these things to some degree. Tell us about the all the success as compared to the costs. Many Prog elites want to curb Medicare for the aged.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

You have implemented all these things to some degree. Tell us about the all the success as compared to the costs. Many Prog elites want to curb Medicare for the aged.

The successes? Look at “the war on poverty”!!! That has been wildly successful, expanding the welfare state and spending shitloads of money while creating scores of people dependent on the government.
What about “Obamacare”? The subsidized some people by essentially just expanding Medicaid, while making tons of new regulations and putting government in more control of a huge portion of the economy, while driving medical/insurance costs up.
Need i go on?

 

[Mac-7]

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain.

again, what we do in America is none of your business.

if lukewarm is your pleasure be my guest

our public education system does suck

but its not because we dont give it enough money

our problem is that its been taken over by euro-worshiping libs who encourage everybody to not be outstanding so that the dumb and lazy are not left behind

this is my final communication with you on this topic because as a non American you dont belong in this conversation

 

[Cellblock2429]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

/—-/ And why didn’t Obozo accomplish any of this? He had 8 years. Was he just an incompetent boob?

 

[forkup]

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain.

again, what we do in America is none of your business.

if lukewarm is your pleasure be my guest

our public education system does suck

but its not because we dont give it enough money

our problem is that its been taken over euro-minded libs who encourage everybody to not be outstanding so that the dumb and lazy are not left behind

this is my final communication with you on this topic because as a non American its none of your business

As a non-American I find your reasoning flawed and your reason to not want to further communicate a sign of a coward. Your intrepid ancestors would be ashamed.

 

[Mac-7]

As a non-American I find your reasoning flawed and your reason to not want to further communicate a sign of a coward. Your intrepid ancestors would be ashamed

There is no reason for me to negociate my rights with a foreigner

 

[Markle]

3) There might be an initial shock to raising the minimum wage, but overall the economy stabilizes because if people have bigger paychecks, they are spending more money. That helps the economy. This is a consumer based economy after all. Republicans are apparently too stupid to realize economic growth doesn’t happen if all you do is stimulate supply. There must be demand to meet that supply. Do you notice how all the states who have raised their minimum wages aren’t shitholes like the red states that don’t?

You seem to be proud of your ignorance of our economy. Why is that?

I understand that facts confuse you. None the less I will present them for others to consider.

TESTIMONY Jobs And Labor
What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy
June 26, 2013 31 min read

James Sherk
@JamesBSherk
Research Fellow, Labor Economics

Minimum-wage workers under 25 are typically not their family’s sole breadwinners. Rather, they tend to live in middle-class households that do not rely on their earnings—their average family income exceeds $65,000 a year. Generally, they have not finished their schooling and are working part-time jobs. Over three-fifths of them (62 percent) are currently enrolled in school.[10] Only 22 percent live at or below the poverty line, while two-thirds live in families with incomes exceeding 150 percent of the poverty line. These workers represent the largest group that would benefit directly from a higher minimum wage, provided they kept or could find a job.

Adults who earn the minimum wage are less likely to live in middle- and upper-income families. Nonetheless, three-fourths of older workers earning the minimum wage live above the poverty line. They have an average family income of $42,500 a year, well above the poverty line of $23,050 per year for a family of four. Most (54 percent) of them choose to work part time, and two-fifths are married.

Many advocates of raising the minimum wage argue it will help low-income single parents surviving on it as their only source of income. Minimum-wage workers, however, do not fit this stereotype. Just 4 percent of minimum-wage workers are single parents working full time, compared to 5.6 percent of all U.S. workers.[11] Minimum-wage earners are actually less likely to be single parents working full time than the average American worker.

Though some minimum-wage workers do struggle with poverty, they are not representative of the typical worker in minimum-wage jobs. The data simply does not support the stereotype of minimum-wage workers living on the edge of destitution.

What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and Members of the HELP Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. My name is James Sherk. I am a Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not...

www.heritage.org

 

[Markle]

5) Do you realize how much we spend on defense? These programs can be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and reducing defense spending. We waste billions on that shit.

Specifically, who pays each and every dollar paid by corporations in taxes?

 

[Markle]

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society priorities the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

As you know, President Donald Trump is the first President to narrow the gap between the upper-income and the low-income worker. Obviously, you hated him having done that so you rallied to get him out of the office.

 

[forkup]

As a non-American I find your reasoning flawed and your reason to not want to further communicate a sign of a coward. Your intrepid ancestors would be ashamed

There is no reason for me to negociate my rights with a foreigner

What exactly are we negotiating? I think the word your looking for is discuss.

There is no reason for any of us to spend time and effort talking to one another in a place like this. You, just as me have chosen to do so. That's why what you are saying is so transparently an attempt by you to break of a conversation because you are losing the discussion.

I'm here to test if what I believe is thruthful enough to withstand being examined by people who believe differently. For it I use facts and reason. (With just a hint of sarcasm.)

If I fail that test I have the courage to say so bruising to my ego as it is. If I'm lucky I might even find that I'm completely wrong and as such will have learned something.

Are you simply interested in reinforcing your own beliefs and dread being wrong? If so I can say that being wrong wich I sometimes am is liberating. And in my view is the only way an adult can still grow as a person.

 

[Mac-7]

As a non-American I find your reasoning flawed and your reason to not want to further communicate a sign of a coward. Your intrepid ancestors would be ashamed

There is no reason for me to negociate my rights with a foreigner

What exactly are we negotiating? I think the word your looking for is discuss.

There is no reason for any of us to spend time and effort talking to one another in a place like this. You, just as me have chosen to do so. That's why what you are saying is so transparently an attempt by you to break of a conversation because you are losing the discussion.

I'm here to test if what I believe is thruthful enough to withstand being examined by people who believe differently. For it I use facts and reason. (With just a hint of sarcasm.)

If I fail that test I have the courage to say so bruising to my ego as it is. If I'm lucky I might even find that I'm completely wong and as such will have learned something.

Are you simply interested in reinforcing your own beliefs and dread being wrong? If so I can say that being wrong wich I sometimes am is liberating. And in my view is the only way an adult can still grow as a person.

Are you still here?

see post #27

 

[forkup]

As a non-American I find your reasoning flawed and your reason to not want to further communicate a sign of a coward. Your intrepid ancestors would be ashamed

There is no reason for me to negociate my rights with a foreigner

What exactly are we negotiating? I think the word your looking for is discuss.

There is no reason for any of us to spend time and effort talking to one another in a place like this. You, just as me have chosen to do so. That's why what you are saying is so transparently an attempt by you to break of a conversation because you are losing the discussion.

I'm here to test if what I believe is thruthful enough to withstand being examined by people who believe differently. For it I use facts and reason. (With just a hint of sarcasm.)

If I fail that test I have the courage to say so bruising to my ego as it is. If I'm lucky I might even find that I'm completely wrong and as such will have learned something.

Are you simply interested in reinforcing your own beliefs and dread being wrong? If so I can say that being wrong wich I sometimes am is liberating. And in my view is the only way an adult can still grow as a person.

Are you still here?

see post #27

I chose to ignore post 27. So are you by the way. Considering this is now 2 posts after you decided to run tail. Thanks for answering my question though. Says all I need to know about your courage.

So if you don't want to continue I suggest you don't reply to this post. Because I will continue as long as you do.

 

[badger2]

In post #3, point 2 about value is one of the many reasons why, even camouflaging Sanders with Biden, is pathological:

‘The working-class struggle puts the functioning of the law of value in definitive crisis, not only on the sense that its practices determine and reinforce the functioning of the law of the tendential fall of the rate of profit, but in the even more profound sense of destabilizing the very terms on which the law holds, in other words, taking away the meaning of the relation between necessary labor and surplus labor. At this very moment, socialism becomes impossible.’
(Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State Form)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is what the progressive economic ideology boils down to:

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

When they are being under cut by illegal foreign labor willing and able to work for less $$$ without the employer paying the cost to employ them, wages for Americans are going to tank.

And the only guy at the fed level willing to fix it, you idiots are trying to remove with a fixed election process.

The establishment GOP will just sit back and let it happen because big employers are in their pockets and they know that illegal labor drives down your wages, which is what big employers want.

So, take your idiotic communist nonsense outta here. (Yes, the definition of democratic socialism is literally the same as the definition of communism--means of production held in common with decisions made by direct democracy).

You don't (and likely will never) understand the real issues. Your best bet to improve wages is to help build the wall.

This bit of realism I have given you will likely go in one ear, hit nothing, and come out the other ear.

Peace

 

[forkup]

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society priorities the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

As you know, President Donald Trump is the first President to narrow the gap between the upper-income and the low-income worker. Obviously, you hated him having done that so you rallied to get him out of the office.

So glad to come across someone who knows what I know. But since I'm always someone who questions what I know I've decided to actually research my knowledge. Income Inequality - Inequality.org. Hmm I guess my knowledge of Trump being the first president to narrow the gap was in error. He was in office in 2018 right?
And in 2019? Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019

Care to state something else I know?

 

[bripat9643]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

Pure fantasy, in other words. It's one giant swindle.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

 

[bripat9643]

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society priorities the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

As you know, President Donald Trump is the first President to narrow the gap between the upper-income and the low-income worker. Obviously, you hated him having done that so you rallied to get him out of the office.

So glad to come across someone who knows what I know. But since I'm always someone who questions what I know I've decided to actually research my knowledge. Income Inequality - Inequality.org. Hmm I guess my knowledge of Trump being the first president to narrow the gap was in error. He was in office in 2018 right?
And in 2019? Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019

Care to state something else I know?

Inequality.org? Yeah, I'll bet they are a real moderate organization.

Why should anyone believe your propaganda?