So do I understand Progressivism Correctly?

And YOU, my friend, obviously understand the nature of one of the more fundamental problems we face along with its solution. Also, in spite of my extreme distaste for debt, there are several legitimate situations where deficit spending is justifiable. Since we are asking future tax payers to pay for current expenses, the debt we incur now may be justified if we are making them pay for things that are necessary for THEIR maximal enjoyment of life, liberty, and the various enterprises that they elect to pursue. The incredible debt incurred to fight and win WW2 was necessary to prevent a Nazi-Nippon induced world wide disaster. Generations that helped pay for that throughout the late 40s, 50s, and 60s benefited directly from the what those deficit expenditures produced - a world free from Nazi and Japanese enslavement. Infrastructural investment is another area of large-scale expense where future tax payers directly benefit from the incurred debt. Spending on "bridges to nowhere", private jets for elitist politicians' personal use, federally funded studies on the social impact of Chinese prostitutes drinking on the job, etc. are obviously areas where future tax payers will have a legitimate gripe when handed the bill.

.

 

Its amazing that liberals run as fast as they can from their liberal title, then run from the socialist label, and now run from their progressive label. But now the OP perfectly analyzed the ideology behind a progressive's agenda and now they still don't own up to their own doing and makeup. Next, these libs/socialists/progressives/commies/collectivists/statists will be saying they have more of a capitalist sway to their makeup then we do as true Conservatives. You gotta love these people. Well, okay, love might be too strong a word to use in the same room with a progressive, so I'll substitute the word 'cope' instead.

 

The best is viewing the neoconservative running away from their true face, fascism and totalitarism.

 

Oh, and "everyone else" doesn't pay taxes. About half of the country pays absolutely nothing in income taxes, and many actually get back more than they pay in. It's a broken system. We keep turning the screws on a rapidly diminishing group of people to pay for our wasteful Government entitlement programs.

 

Sez the "Workers Paradise/Direct Democracy Anarchist" who refuses to understand that all social constructs.....especially those steeped in collectivist ideals....ultimately develop a hierarchy, and the authoritarianism and corruption that accompanies it.

 

There are different levels of progressivism. There is what the liberal progressive citizens think they are voting for, and there is what the progressive republicans and democrats are actually putting into action. Progression in action is forcing democracy upon other nations (policing the world), installing unconstitutional measures from the UN, hyper-globalization, social division, central planning (in partnership with global corporations), and controlcontrolcontrol.

 

True, that would only work if you had a system with significant wealth disparity, such that the standard of living for the working class could decline while the GDP increased because the wealthy were making a ton of money.

Wait. Isn't that what we have now?

 

No, I understand it well, and that can be true or not, depending on how you organize the system. If it is authoritarian with leaders, then yes you are right. But can be horizontal and that won't be true, never.

In difference to capitalism that always, with no exception, leads to a totalitarian organization because capitalism is totalitarian itself, and you canot avoid that. Capitalism is vertical. Capitalism is slavery, inequality and totalitarism. Capitalism while its basis is private property and ownership of the means of production by private hands always will be totalitarian, and more importantly the structure of the corporations is purely totalitarian. From a small business with one hired worker to transnational corporations.

 

why do we need to only tax the rich?

1st, I don't buy into your premise that your list is what it means to be progressive... but for the sake of argument here are some examples to achieve that list with little or no pain..if we were so inclined..

not unlimited, but basic.. you have a cold, go to doc. have a fever, get meds. have HBP? get your med and doc visits..

want a face-lift? Braces for cosmetic reason? permanent hair removal.. purchase an additional package through a private insurer that offers the type of extra bennies you want..

the benefit here is the basic care.. supplying it to people will pay for itself.. every year we see millions going to the ER because their throat hurts and they have a fever.. a $40 doc visit,$5 test strip,and $free antibiotics are out of the reach for some because of their poverty or area they live in.. so instead they show up at the ER and cost you and me and everyone else, $500 for the same visit.. why? we're giving these people 'free healthcare' anyways with the ER visits.. so why not give them the same opportunity that doesn't costs us billions a year?

its the same with BP meds.. they can't buy them, so they go to ER and rack up $1000's in tests only to findout it can all be control with a $150 rx each month... seems smarter to pay for that than a 5 day stay in the hospital when these people have heart attacks from not taking their meds.. we know one thing for sure, everyone will get sick and it sure as hell isn't working now..

are people getting something for nothinhg? yeah..but their getting it anyway so why don't we, the payers, opt for the cheaper route..aren't we better off as a country if we and our workforce is healthier?

make it merit and income base. Pay for 2-4 years for everyone who falls into a certain income and merit category. States with lotto can take an additional 2-4% out of the winning to go towards this..some states do this,but abuse it buy using that money to pay for schools instead of using it as additional funds to be in connection with federal funds..and then use the fed school money for bull-(*)(*)(*)(*) pet projects.. so outsource the oversight of this money to a private entity that is heavily regulated and controlled so as to dissuade abuse.

add additional taxes to cigarettes,alcohol,butter, rolling papers,pipes and additional 'sin tax' like items.. along with and additional 5-10% tax yachts over $1million, private planes,$10million pls homes..and a 0.5-1% tax on cap gains exclusively for this school fund.

the benefit of this schooling increases this country.. it increases or economy,our private sector, our global standing and buying power.. it makes our gov't smarter because our leaders can't pull the wool over the unintelligent masses who don't understand what's going on. It makes more entrepreneurs, which makes more money and brings more people up and out of poverty..

again, it pays for itself in the benefits this country gets from such a program.. are we not better off the more educated we are?

we have that with SS and with the above improvements, SS is more sustainable.. but also make income limits on eligibility... Warren Buffet, Sheldon G. Adelson etc... they don't need their SS. I know they paid into it, but call it a cost of living in and off this country..

get rid of farm subsidies..

The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

why? let farmers buy crop insurance instead and use that money to produce green energy... this issue should be a no-brainer for anyone who really believes in our national security..aren't we better of sustaining ourselves?

yeah, I don't know how this would work.. In some areas it would be awesome..but impractical.. so shelve it until something better comes along..

why can't everyone, including the top 25% pay for something? Why should the top be excluded from having to make this a better country for everyone instead of just themselves? they used this country to make it, but don't want to give anyone else the same leg-up.

You can't tax a person making $15,000 year the same way you can tax one making $15million a year.. so instead, you tax things everyone buys.. the 'sin tax', the lotto, and sometimes... yes, the more affluent pay a smidgen more.. in the long run, your country is better educated, healthier, more prosperous, and more secure..

you act like those are all evil and socialistic things.. they're not. They're part of being a country... they're the price we pay for the freedoms we have. .. we're more than willing to send our boys and girls to die for that freedom, but to ask a multimillionaire or multi-billion dollar company to pay 3% more is what is destroying the very fabric of this country? How nonsensical...

No, how Partisan!


Sarah Palin had one of the most brilliant ideas I've ever seen and, to her credit, she got it done.. She forced the oil industry to pay the residents of Alaska a stipend each year for the use of Alaskan lands and their oil.. Why not implement that on a national level, with the money going into a health fund,school fund, green energy fund.. etc.. pick one, pick two.. other country's corps use this country's resources.. domestic corps do the same.. what? they're going to leave the US and drill in... Bucharest? yeah, they're not because we've got the resources and other places don't... not too mention we're a bit safer here for them.

you're so afraid to give a hobo something he may not have earned, but will give a billionaire something he didn't earn (a tax break) because he's wealthier than the hobo? The hobo isn't going anywhere, but he can get better and become productive with the help... the wealthy? He ain't going anywhere either because even at 5% increase in cap gains tax and 3% increase in income tax.. we're still the best country out there.. and they know it.

everything can be accomplished with less to little spending.. the spending just needs to be smarter and in a few years, these programs will have paid for themselves and hundreds of others.

or we can close up shop,hang a 'for rent' sign on the door and call this experiment called the United States a fail and move on...

 

Delusional. Free trade between human beings...capitalism.... can operate entirely independent of an authoritarian entity or hierarchy....collectivist social constructs, on the other hand, MUST have an authoritarian hierarchy of "deciders" to equitably disseminate spoils "from those, to those"

"Workers" utopia, despite what you've been led to believe, is a laughable fairy tale

 

No, in anarchocommunism for example is pure freedom. Free exchange between people and no one over the rest.

In "Free trade" that it would be real if private property and corporations are abolished. Neither of both conditions are accomplished in capitalism, then it is always authoritarian.

 

No, in anarchocommunism for example is pure freedom. Free exchange between people and no one over the rest.

"Free trade" would be real if private property and corporations are abolished. Neither of both conditions are accomplished in capitalism, then it is always authoritarian. Mainly for its verticalism.

In collectivist constructs I don't have to follow any decider, because there is no one.

In capitalism I must follow at least one decider.

 

but has it?

ever?

has there ever been an entirely independent, capitalistic, Ayn Rand society or even one that's lasted? one that can be pointed to as the example to follow?

I'm not being factitious.. I really don't know the answer..

 

What happens when human nature takes over, and inherently self-interested folks begin to hoard, create, produce and develop black markets to trade their wares.... or refuse to make "equitable" trades or pull their weight?....Tada!...yes, an authoritarian hierarchy begins... to either whip the unproductive into working and trading, or crush the underground economies.

 

"Pure" capitalism is as mythical as "pure" liberty... when taken in the context of any organized social and economic construct of scale.... but both are at least theoretically possible without any authoritarian heirarchy of "deciders" to oversee trade and human interaction...

while all collectivist based social and economic constructs are not even theoretically possible without a power structure....as such must BEGIN with an authoritarian heirarchy of "deciders" to oversee and disseminate equitable shares of collective production.

 

I eventually I figured out that was the fatal flaw of collectivism. It makes you extremely selfish and greedy. You want yours, and you want to take it from someone else, and you're willing to throw a Molotov cocktail through a storefront window to make that point. That's why in Greece, no one wants to give back benefits to save their country. Of course eventually they'll end up with no benefits, and not much of a country, but the selfishness and greed overrides all that.

 

No, in capitalism you have deciders. Always you have deciders. From the moment that if someone is hiring your labour(becoming an employee) you are creating an employer, and in consequence a decider. Because he will be over you.

In communism, that won't be. You can have an absolute horizontal organization. No one decides for you. Maybe you will decide with other people, but never someone else will decide for you.

And about the black market? Why will you need a black market if you already can access to any object that you need and in any moment?

 

I forgot for a short minute there that libs not only run away from the titles of their disastrous ideologies, but they also from time to time, as with here, call us Conservatives the very same names or titles that are and have been reserved for them and their leftist movements. Hey kill, we Conservatives for the most part are Christians, Capitalists and Constitutionalists, and you can refer to us as the big 3 Cs if it will make it any easier for your deluded mind to comprehend.

 

I disagree. Pure capitalism requires a government to back, with military force, large property claims that nobody could make without that government structure.

 

You're indoctrination is complete, and impenetrable....
I can only suggest you spend more time studying and understanding human nature.... than reading utopian screeds that suggest humans can be herded to think and act alike.

 

I am not indoctrinated. And I've never thought that people will act alike. But people want to live in freedom and have a comfortable life.

Capitalism never will acomplish this goal. Capitalism is an economic system based in domination and as dabreaker says needs of the force(being private or government that is the normal) to protect the private property. For that reasons and its natural verticalism capitalism never will be a system that warrants the freedom.

I've read some capitalist works, and my education in school and all that has been pro-capitalist. Normally my ideology(anarchism) in school was portrayed as something utopic and by a bunch of terrorists. Yes the anarchists were portrayed as terrorists. Something absolutely far from reality.

 

"Pure capitalism" is nothing more than two or more free humans engaging in voluntary, mutually beneficial trade....such requires no authoritarian hierarchy or societal infrastructure whatsoever.

 

"Pure capitalism" needs of private property? Pure capitalism needs of corporation and hired labour? If both conditions are accomplished, then you will have an authoritarian hierarchy.

 

Does the phrase "voluntary, mutually beneficial trade" not translate into Spanish?

 

"This is my water hole. If you want water, you're free to trade with me in order to get some."

Yes, I think we've all heard that one before.