Test for the rightwing: tell me the differences between the far left and the moderate left

[Harry Dresden]

"moderate left knew that raising the debt passed $6 Trillion was unamerican
prog left thinks spending more and more and more and more is a great idea and everyone that doesn't agree is a racist"

Thats the best post considering a Bush President with a GOP Congress actually brought debt past $6trillion...

Foot must be placed firmly in the mouth...

Obama added more than $6T in his first 5 years. WHy arent you objecting?

I was not the one which was bitching...

I was just pointing out that one of your RWers was complaining about 'raising the debt passed $6 Trillion was unamerican' when it was GOP who did it...

Yet another far left drone!

I see someone is "stalker" mode again..

i was in this thread before you kosh....are you stalking me?.........

 

[Billy000]

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

 

[amrchaos]

(joke)
Q:
Tell me the differences between the far left and the moderate left

A:

Far left--loonies off the meds
Moderate left--loonies on the wrong meds

 

[kaz]

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

Circular answer. How much is enough? Enough...

 

[Billy000]

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

Circular answer. How much is enough? Enough...

At least $15 per hour. That is the wage that would be kept up with today's average of cost of living.

 

[OKTexas]

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

So you want the government to control the markets? Keep in mind that labor is a commodity, you can't control it without controlling other commodities.

I want a private economic system that is highly regulated.

Damn, talk about an oxymoron.

 

[Billy000]

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

So you want the government to control the markets? Keep in mind that labor is a commodity, you can't control it without controlling other commodities.

I want a private economic system that is highly regulated.

Damn, talk about an oxymoron.

The market is already regulated. It's not like I am asking for a stretch.

 

[OKTexas]

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

So you want the government to control the markets? Keep in mind that labor is a commodity, you can't control it without controlling other commodities.

I want a private economic system that is highly regulated.

Damn, talk about an oxymoron.

The market is already regulated. It's not like I am asking for a stretch.

Have you ever signed the front of a paycheck?

 

[kaz]

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

Circular answer. How much is enough? Enough...

At least $15 per hour. That is the wage that would be kept up with today's average of cost of living.

And what happens when we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and prices go up because of it and people can't live on that again?

You know the problem with your argument is that it's a zero sum game.

Let's say our economy is A, B and C. B is worth double A, C is worth double B.

So if

A = $7.25, then B = $14.50 and C = $29

What happens if you raise A to $15?

Well, then B adjusts to $30 and C adjusts to $60.

You haven't accomplished anything. And that's the best case. In reality, you cause a slew of A's to get fired or their hours cut for automation and process improvements

 

[Harry Dresden]

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

so then what does "that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth" mean?....
and paying someone fairly to you may not be to someone else....

 

[Anathema]

There are no differences.... There are only 2 types of people in the world - Devoted Conservatives and Liberals. If you aren't 100% Conservative you are a Liberal.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

And what is fair? Let's take McDonald's for example, since they are in the media loop the most.

The jobs available at McDonald's outside of management levels were originally filled primarily by high-school students seeking temporary work experience and a few bucks in their pocket. The jobs are all low skill and take little smarts or training to accomplish, and the salaries paid were set accordingly. Turnover was extremely high. Frankly, the jobs weren't worth more. Any moron can load a burger on a grill or flip the fry basket.

Now over the years these jobs have been taken by the hordes of illegal alien adults (hence the high rate of unemployment among American youth) who are as equally uneducated and unskilled here as they were in their country of origin. These folks are intent upon making these jobs a career since their options here are quite limited, and they are now in the streets goaded on by the Democrats demanding a "living wage".

Why is it fair - or even logical - to expect a business to pay exorbitant salaries for low level unskilled work? No study or apprenticeship is necessary to smile and say "Ya wan fries wit' dat?" or to make change for a $20.00 bill.

It seems your idea of "fair" is trapped in that realm of "charity at gunpoint" that the Left loves so much.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are no differences.... There are only 2 types of people in the world - Devoted Conservatives and Liberals. If you aren't 100% Conservative you are a Liberal.

I am 100% neither. Does that make me a Pushme-Pullyu?

 

[Anathema]

I am 100% neither. Does that make me a Pushme-Pullyu?

No. It makes you a Liberal. Anything other than 100% Conservative makes you a Liberal.

 

[Harry Dresden]

There are no differences.... There are only 2 types of people in the world - Devoted Conservatives and Liberals. If you aren't 100% Conservative you are a Liberal.

bullshit.....the 2 you describe will not question what they are told.....anyone who does ask questions are not "devoted" to anyone....

 

[Billy000]

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

Circular answer. How much is enough? Enough...

At least $15 per hour. That is the wage that would be kept up with today's average of cost of living.

And what happens when we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and prices go up because of it and people can't live on that again?

You know the problem with your argument is that it's a zero sum game.

Let's say our economy is A, B and C. B is worth double A, C is worth double B.

So if

A = $7.25, then B = $14.50 and C = $29

What happens if you raise A to $15?

Well, then B adjusts to $30 and C adjusts to $60.

You haven't accomplished anything. And that's the best case. In reality, you cause a slew of A's to get fired or their hours cut for automation and process improvements

The problem with yours is that it isn't a zero sum game. The price increase would be pennies on the dollar. If the wage is raised gradually over a few years and the market has time to respond, the price increase would be slight. This is mostly due to the fact that the increase to consumer demand from bigger paychecks would help the market. Eventually, the market would begin to thrive erg so much extra money being pumped into businesses. Well beyond the cost of businesses having to pay their employees more.

 

[Billy000]

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

And what is fair? Let's take McDonald's for example, since they are in the media loop the most.

The jobs available at McDonald's outside of management levels were originally filled primarily by high-school students seeking temporary work experience and a few bucks in their pocket. The jobs are all low skill and take little smarts or training to accomplish, and the salaries paid were set accordingly. Turnover was extremely high. Frankly, the jobs weren't worth more. Any moron can load a burger on a grill or flip the fry basket.

Now over the years these jobs have been taken by the hordes of illegal alien adults (hence the high rate of unemployment among American youth) who are as equally uneducated and unskilled here as they were in their country of origin. These folks are intent upon making these jobs a career since their options here are quite limited, and they are now in the streets goaded on by the Democrats demanding a "living wage".

Why is it fair - or even logical - to expect a business to pay exorbitant salaries for low level unskilled work? No study or apprenticeship is necessary to smile and say "Ya wan fries wit' dat?" or to make change for a $20.00 bill.

It seems your idea of "fair" is trapped in that realm of "charity at gunpoint" that the Left loves so much.

Fast food workers mostly being teenagers is a thing of the past. The average age of people in fast food is 29. I also don't think you give these workers enough credit. Sure it doesn't require any prior skill, but that doesn't make the job easy. It is non stop productivity with asshole customers on top of it. It is much more than flipping a burger. It's a miserable job and someone has to do it. All this being said, they deserve to make a decent wage. Given today's inflation and cost of living standards, it must be at least $15. I'm all for paying skilled workers more, but if 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour, something must be done about it

 

[Socialist]

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

So you think you can alter human nature, what a fool.

I'm sorry, but I have to jump into this with a simple posting I found, feudalist supports could have made the same argument..
You capitalists are profoundly deluded. Your economic system is bad for these reasons:

• A land baron deserves all of his great wealth because of the great risk involved in his job. He has to manage an entire region full of serfs and direct the entire economic process. If he fails, there would be total disarray, but since he has not then this system is clearly justified. In exchange the serfs keep some of the food they produce and a hovel. Everybody gains!
  
  
• Feudalism is a part of human nature. Like a child needs a parent, humans need a baron to control the land while the serfs work the land. It represents an orderly and stable system based upon our real human nature. If we gave this land away to capitalists then serfs would have to wander and find employment and their own new parent. There would be no incentive to work from all this chaos in economic society.
  
  
• Capitalism and liberal democracy sound nice in theory but can only fail in practice. Have you not heard of the Reign of Terror? Every time capitalism is put into practice it ends up either failing or surviving but producing misery and death.
  
  
• Feudalism has produced wonders for society and should be celebrated rather than attacked. All your pitchforks, swords, daggers, armor, and horses you own - that was created by the wonder of feudalism. A serf is better off now than they ever were in history through the growing standard of living feudalism provides.
  
  
• Instead of ending feudalism, it would be smarter to reform and better it. We should concentrate on increasing the amount of grain a serf is allowed to keep while still respecting the hard work, wisdom, and intelligence a baron possesses that entitles them to their riches.
  

I urge you to reconsider your position. It is just a phase in your youth and you'll see how quickly you'll abandon it.

Long live the King!
See what I'm saying? Plus, human history is massive, and the majority of our history takes place in a world without capitalism, markets, feudalism, more so, primitive communism, if you will. Human nature, a funny term, is formed by the economic, social, etc effects, it's not concrete nature to do one thing. Anyone who has ever looked into anthropology, history, etc would know this.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

So you think you can alter human nature, what a fool.

I'm sorry, but I have to jump into this with a simple posting I found, feudalist supports could have made the same argument..
You capitalists are profoundly deluded. Your economic system is bad for these reasons:

• A land baron deserves all of his great wealth because of the great risk involved in his job. He has to manage an entire region full of serfs and direct the entire economic process. If he fails, there would be total disarray, but since he has not then this system is clearly justified. In exchange the serfs keep some of the food they produce and a hovel. Everybody gains!
  
  
• Feudalism is a part of human nature. Like a child needs a parent, humans need a baron to control the land while the serfs work the land. It represents an orderly and stable system based upon our real human nature. If we gave this land away to capitalists then serfs would have to wander and find employment and their own new parent. There would be no incentive to work from all this chaos in economic society.
  
  
• Capitalism and liberal democracy sound nice in theory but can only fail in practice. Have you not heard of the Reign of Terror? Every time capitalism is put into practice it ends up either failing or surviving but producing misery and death.
  
  
• Feudalism has produced wonders for society and should be celebrated rather than attacked. All your pitchforks, swords, daggers, armor, and horses you own - that was created by the wonder of feudalism. A serf is better off now than they ever were in history through the growing standard of living feudalism provides.
  
  
• Instead of ending feudalism, it would be smarter to reform and better it. We should concentrate on increasing the amount of grain a serf is allowed to keep while still respecting the hard work, wisdom, and intelligence a baron possesses that entitles them to their riches.

I urge you to reconsider your position. It is just a phase in your youth and you'll see how quickly you'll abandon it.

Long live the King!
See what I'm saying? Plus, human history is massive, and the majority of our history takes place in a world without capitalism, markets, feudalism, more so, primitive communism, if you will. Human nature, a funny term, is formed by the economic, social, etc effects, it's not concrete nature to do one thing. Anyone who has ever looked into anthropology, history, etc would know this.

OMG, you read it on the internet so it must be true, right? LMAO Grow up and get a freaking life.

 

[Socialist]

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

So you think you can alter human nature, what a fool.

I'm sorry, but I have to jump into this with a simple posting I found, feudalist supports could have made the same argument..
You capitalists are profoundly deluded. Your economic system is bad for these reasons:

• A land baron deserves all of his great wealth because of the great risk involved in his job. He has to manage an entire region full of serfs and direct the entire economic process. If he fails, there would be total disarray, but since he has not then this system is clearly justified. In exchange the serfs keep some of the food they produce and a hovel. Everybody gains!
  
  
• Feudalism is a part of human nature. Like a child needs a parent, humans need a baron to control the land while the serfs work the land. It represents an orderly and stable system based upon our real human nature. If we gave this land away to capitalists then serfs would have to wander and find employment and their own new parent. There would be no incentive to work from all this chaos in economic society.
  
  
• Capitalism and liberal democracy sound nice in theory but can only fail in practice. Have you not heard of the Reign of Terror? Every time capitalism is put into practice it ends up either failing or surviving but producing misery and death.
  
  
• Feudalism has produced wonders for society and should be celebrated rather than attacked. All your pitchforks, swords, daggers, armor, and horses you own - that was created by the wonder of feudalism. A serf is better off now than they ever were in history through the growing standard of living feudalism provides.
  
  
• Instead of ending feudalism, it would be smarter to reform and better it. We should concentrate on increasing the amount of grain a serf is allowed to keep while still respecting the hard work, wisdom, and intelligence a baron possesses that entitles them to their riches.

I urge you to reconsider your position. It is just a phase in your youth and you'll see how quickly you'll abandon it.

Long live the King!
See what I'm saying? Plus, human history is massive, and the majority of our history takes place in a world without capitalism, markets, feudalism, more so, primitive communism, if you will. Human nature, a funny term, is formed by the economic, social, etc effects, it's not concrete nature to do one thing. Anyone who has ever looked into anthropology, history, etc would know this.

OMG, you read it on the internet so it must be true, right? LMAO Grow up and get a freaking life.

That's all you got out of that comment? That's... saddening, but whatever, trying to reason with someone who uses the "human nature" argument is a joke to me at this point.