So do I understand Progressivism Correctly?

I didn't call anyone a lie. I said the claim that people who work and pay medicare and social security taxes do not pay taxes is a lie.

These funds have gone into the general fund for more than 30 years just like the 14% Willard pays and the 20% Obama pays.

 

I want a Ferrari.

How's that work in leftist frootloop land?

 

You'd have to go and build it yourself from whatever scrap parts you could find from before the revolution. Like Cuba.

 

You want a Ferrari, you don't need a Ferrari. You need transportation. You'll get transportation.

Good playing non sequiturs innit?

 

Yeah, he'll get transportation. Crappy lowest common denominator transportation like that the miracle of communist engineering, the Trabant.

He'll get the food he needs. He'll get the collective issued 2000 calories a day, in gruel and potatoes.

He'll get medical care he needs, in a dirty, underfunded and understaffed hospital that you wouldn't want to take your dog to for treatment, but he'll get it.

He'll get clothing I'm sure. Collective issued polyester, only available in red with Communist Party slogans.

He'll get what he needs to survive in the same way a peasant got what he needed to survive under feudalism while the nomenklatura that distributes these goods grafts off the top for themselves to live a much higher quality of life than the lowly proles.

 

Think of Progressive this way ... it's like putting the Car in Drive and pressing the Gas Peddle when you actually want to go somewhere. If you're going in the wrong direction, turn on the Nav System ... either way ... you're not still in your driveway.

 

Following the slippery slope to complete and total control of the economy by a massive bureaucracy is not progress, it's regression.

The New Deal is out of date and needs to die and be replaced with private market alternatives, otherwise old people WILL be dying in the streets.

We're rolling back your New Deal and if we have sacrifice the party to do so we will. The days of a social safety net and pension scheme that sucks up the majority of tax dollars are over and done with.

Either we accept austerity voluntarily and suffer through the recession that comes with it for awhile until the economy recovers naturally, or it will be forced on us when the bond vigilantes cash in their markers and refuse to loan us anymore money, like in Greece or California.

 

I make a lot of money. A lot of money. My hourly is high enough that I don't even have to go in every day. Due to the rising crime rates I will end up making more. Whatever the market will bear, right?

How do you suppose that I got to this point in life? According to the Republican/Fiscal conservative myth I either achieved this through a "negative" means: Affirmative Action, EEO, or sleeping my way to the top, or through a "positive" means: hard, hard work and a little gravel in my gut.

None of this is true. It's a comforting myth, but untrue. I was born with a genetic makeup that enabled me to learn faster, retain the information longer, and with a high linguistic ability. I was also given genes that would prevent me from becoming overly large and that I would be above average in the attractiveness area. As a result I not only did well in school, but also had the looks that gave me an extra step up when it comes to hiring.

Because I also receive bizarre (thanks Jesus) windfalls or unexpected opportunities, I can also rest my life upon the whims of Providence.

There are people who did not have what I have and they are still poor like I would have been. There are also people given Angelina Jolie's looks or Mitt Romney's financial assistance. They are richer than I am.

Screw "reality" for a moment. Do you think it is fair that there were kids that worked harder than me who now work at a Casino for a living while I got to go to a top school? Shouldn't their effort, their stick-to-it-ness have raised them above their station?

Unlike soooooooo many people who have money, I am well aware that it is by the Grace of God that I have what I have. I do not for one moment mistake that I was fortunate and therefore will never begrudge others who did not have my talents or opportunities the right to have a nice place to live, good food to eat, or health care for their children. I'm not so selfish or unloving that I would deny the poor the right to have children and raise them in a healthy home. I'm not that big of a dick that I see the poor as scumbags looking for a handout.

Are there some poor people that act ridiculous? Sure, but I hang out with a lot of rich people and my opinion of 90% of them is that I'd rather spend my day talking to the E-class felons we get in the office any day of the week.

So tell me...what is FAIR, not what is fair, but honestly in a perfect world...is it fair to first make thieves and then punish them? Is it fair to tell someone with an IQ of 85 that they didn't work hard enough, save long enough, or that they aren't worthy of a roof over their head and healthcare for their kids?

 

The MOST progressive senator in the US is not even a Democrat, he's an indipendant, and he has this to say;

Together, through strong grass-roots activity in Vermont and around the country, we can change the direction of this country. Please don’t ever forget that, even in these difficult times.

As an example of what can happen, and happen quickly, the recent elections in France, Germany and Greece are sending a shock-wave throughout the globe -- including the United States. At a time when much of the middle class around the world is collapsing, while many of the wealthiest people, big banks and large corporations are doing phenomenally well, ordinary people are standing up and saying loudly and clearly: NO MORE AUSTERITY FOR WORKING FAMILIES. IT’S TIME FOR AUSTERITY FOR THE TOP ONE PERCENT.

In the United States today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the 1920s. Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America -- 150 million people. Today, the top one percent own forty percent of all wealth, while the bottom sixty percent owns less than two percent. Incredibly, the bottom forty percent of all Americans own just 3/10 of one percent of the wealth of the country.

The distribution of income is even worse. If you can believe it, the last study on this subject showed that in 2010, 93 percent of all new income created in the previous year went to the top one percent, while the bottom 99 percent of people had the privilege of enjoying the remaining seven percent. In other words, the rich are getting much richer while almost everyone else is falling behind.

Not only is this inequality of wealth and income morally grotesque, it is bad economic policy. If working families are deeply in debt, and have little or no income to spend on goods and services, how can we expand the economy and create the millions of jobs we desperately need? There is a limit as to how many yachts, mansions, limos and fancy jewels the super-rich can buy. We need to put income into the hands of working families.

This week, I will be speaking at a rally in DC with other progressives to fight against the proposed cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that Republicans (and some Democrats) are demanding. It is absurd to be talking about austerity for the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor -- people who are already experiencing great financial hardship -- while protecting the interests of the rich and the powerful. This will be the pivotal issue of the next six months and we must be prepared to fight back vigorously.

When we talk about the national debt and the deficit, let us never forget that the current deficit was primarily caused by Bush’s unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and huge tax breaks for the rich. Even more importantly, the deficit is the result of a major decline in federal tax revenue because of the high unemployment and business losses that we are experiencing as a result of this recession -- caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street.

 

I am honored that my comment inspired such a well written, thoughtful post.....none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the culture of vitriolic begrudgement and mocking class envy that permeates the modern "progressive" movement.

 

Sure, why not? If only 25% of the households in America are paying taxes, think of the salaries they will be making. Busboys will be making $250 grand.

 

How is it "class envy" to want good, healthy food? How is it class envy to want a roof over your head? How is it class envy to want an education? All of these things are given to the children of the rich without their ever having worked for it. Should not all children have the opportunity to eat good food, sleep in a warm bed, or receive an education?

It is not envy. It is requiring the ability to get basic needs.

There is no longer an ability to "settle" land and forge a life from the work of your two hands or to grow enough food to sustain your family. Perhaps, these people seem "whiney" or that they want what they didn't work for, but many a CEO **cough Bush cough** was given a company to run, many a college acceptance came through the fruit of donations and not academic excellence...these things are injustices that fill the stomach with gall.

Should we not ask of Life that it be fair? Is this suddenly wrong? There is not one "progressive" who has said that they wish to take money out of the pockets of the middle class. In fact, many also support the rights of the middle class.

The rich have access to politicians that we do not have. They have back room influences. They meet in secret, yet in the open (Bilderbergs). They flaunt their power and influence to the point where we all know the system is corrupt and we either go along or be painted terrorists.

 

As a progressive, I consider the next destination devolution of government complexity. Exorbitant government, just like any complex system, creates innovation coupled with robustness leads to fragility and homogeneity, inefficiency, and a lack of diversification, making it prone to collapse. New progressivism must acknowledge such, and provide remedies to scale back this system and promote less robust, innovative, heterogeneous, efficient, and diversified governance.

 

Correction: governments suffer from a lack of robustness. Governance, therefore, must be more robust.

 

Federal, state and local governments (taxpayers) spend a combined $941 billion dollars a year on educating our youth...
Federal government has removed, and prohibited states from placing any obstacles to an individual's access to collectively available opportunity...

The infrastructure is there, the protected individual rights, liberty and equal opportunity (even enhanced *Affirmative Action*) to access it is there....that's all you get.

Currently... and this is important...federal, state and local governments control/disseminate/devour $6.58 trillion dollars of our 15.16 trillion dollar GDP...or almost 45%....

Exactly how much more government spending/effect/control over the economy is required....what is the magic number...before poverty and inequity are relegated to "acceptable levels", and this mythical social/economic "justice" is realized? 50% of GDP?... 70%?... 80%?.....state ownership and "equitable" dissemination of all of it?

 

Trains? What's wrong with jetpacks? It's not like I'm asking for a flying car. Maybe a hovercraft?

If I have to have a train then I want an energy independent magnetic one that goes at least 200 mph.
I don't have all day.

Yeah, it might cost a lot of money but the banks can create that stuff out of thin air. Just ask for a loan and build it and charge commissions. You probably know how that works.

Also, we can save money by legalizing drugs. Did you know that in prison people have to be fed and given medical care? For free. I am not making this up.

 

So which socialist economy are you familiar with which would have these characteristics?

Have you ever been in a country with a socialist economy? They vary greatly, depending on a number of factors.

I could just as easily trash any capitalist economy in the same way, with generalised smears and lack of specifics but it would be pointless.

 

This is true.

Look at many websites and many describe, especially the CIA Factbook, Laos as communist. Nothing is further from the truth. Laos has a free market economy where whatever you grow or make you can sell and reap the profits. Tax is difficult to control because it's mainly a cash society. Land and business owership has been encouraged since 1986, and women own most of the businesses and property. People are able to buy consumer goods like cars, electrical, clothing etc. Heck, many even go abroad on holidays or to study. Day trips into Thailand for shopping are very common for Lao.

Naturally Laos is well behind in terms of development and this is evident in healthcare and education due to lack of money, but it's slowly improving. Religious freedom is also evident and has always been.

Laos isn't even really socialist, in the purest sense. No UHC, no social security and no pensions for the working man (woman). Education is relatively cheap and compulsory.

Rightwingers in these forums cast a very wide net when talking about socialism but no one size fits all.

 

Soviet Union

All of them rely on too much State Authority and not enough economic freedom. In fact NO economic freedom at all.

Capitalism is the State of nature economy, everything else is a bull (*)(*)(*)(*) failed invention of man.

 

No, you really don't.