Why, oh why, do people still insist on using the word preference? If anybody can honestly tell me that they can flip a switch and be sexually attracted to a person of their same gender (that isn't bisexual), then I would put some stock into this. That, however is very rarely, if ever the case. A gay man no more chooses to be attracted to men than a straight man chooses to be attracted to women. Other than that, good post :D
Agreed; this is utterly ridiculous. But it's less...distasteful...to hate people for something they decide to do, rather than for something they are.
Edit: Is it me, or is messageboard functionality degrading at an ever-increasing rate?
Which is why I support the fair tax system because it is neither a progressive tax which is unfair, nor a flat tax which disproportionately puts the burden on the poor because they get less with their percentage. A sales tax on new products is the best tax system because it burdens people based on their spending habits and the fair tax is "progressive" because it only taxes purchases on new products, the poor can avoid the taxes by saving and purchasing used products, which actually enables them to move out of their bracket easier than our current system which punishes you by taxing your savings on top of your income.
Nope. Not fair at all. Person A makes $20,000 per year, and person B makes $1,000,000. Now, lets assume there's a 10% flat tax. This means that Person A loses $2,000 and Person B loses $100,000. Which amount do you think is worth more, $2,000 for someone who only earns $18,000, or $100,000 for someone with $900,000?
Progressive taxes are fair, a flat tax just puts more money in the pocket of the rich.
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.
The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.
I could probably get behind something like the "fair tax" system as long as certain purchases (e.g. food and medicine) were tax-exempt.
John Stewart pretty much spells it out here... :)
On a more serious vein Paul Klugman an opinion columnist of the New York Times decided it was time to publish the liberal equivalent of a fairly famous tome.
Hmmm Stewart is still as vacant as ever.
If I come off as antagonistic, I apologize. It is not my intent. When considering something, I try to find flaws with it. It is how my mind works.
drugs
So you are suggesting legalize all drugs? What about drugs that are unsafe? I do not mean recreational drugs like cocaine and heroine. I mean drugs developed for purpose A, but that have been proven harmful or do not actually accomplish A. Snake oil. Or would that fall under some kind of advertising thing and be completely different from just drugs?
education
So no public education? Children go wherever their parents can afford to send them?
income tax
Where would the government get money for the things you do think they should pay for? Sales tax?
I believe I got into a discussion about a smaller military in a thread before. I am pretty sure it was not BT though.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
Is this the same way that conservatives/tea party activists/etc. are racists? Or do sweeping generalizations based upon personal bias only have accuracy when applied against your opponents.
Damnit, let's talk some more about Flo. This crap is...crappy.
The fact of the matter is that government is good, with a few notable and generally short-lived exceptions. Government is what protects us and ensures our rights. I would rather put my trust in an organization like government, which exists purely to serve me and all citizens, rather than an organization like a corporation, which exists purely to take as much money as possible from me as possible. I find the idea that greed should be the foundation of our society repugnant.
BS. Government is no more benign nor maliciious than the principles upon which it is based AND the willingness of those in positions of authority to support those principles.
Do governments provide good services? Yes --> Infrastructure (roads, etc.), national defense, etc. = all good.
However, governments can attract the power-hungry the way corporations can attract the greedy, and usually with far, far lower entrance requirements or less effort.
Corporations can't field an army or police force. Any act of force violates the law and makes the corporation subject to prosecution, fines, etc. Violate the law and you'll face lawsuits or criminal prosecution.
The government, if so inclined or populated with those willing to exert power maliciously, can do far worse. They can confiscate property, imprison you, divide your family, force you to relocate, place you in concentration camps, or execute you.
History has shown repeatedly that blind faith in government populated with power-hungry individuals and combined with a "it can't happen here" mentality amongst the governed often leads to horrible abuses of power and atrocities.
Capitalism does not equal greed. I want to be prosperous and work hard to be so. I don't take money from others to better myself.
If presented with the choice of self-reliance vs. government entitlement I'll go with self-reliance every time. I want my government to provide infrastructure, a fair legal & representative government, and to protect my freedoms as defined in the Constitution.
Aside from that? Stay the hell out of my way.
How is it not fair to let someone who managed to earn more money do what he wants with it? If you earn more, should you not be allowed to buy more?And I apologize, I did not mention that I support a prebate payment to cover all sales taxes up to the current 'you don't pay taxes' line. So the poor still don't pay taxes.
The major benifit of a progressive tax system is to stabilize society. One of the major problems with money is that it pools. Essentially one of the best uses of extra money is to use it to make more money. Over generations that results into society stratifying into a small group of very wealthy people and a very large group of very poor people. Low or flat taxes encourage this trend and generally lead to the erosion of the middle class.
After a certain point (political scientists have actually calculated the point but I can't remember the numbers) the result is the break down of society as a whole as the poor become so disenchanted with the system that they turn to radical and violent means of redressing the balance.
A sizable progressive tax system avoids this by siphoning off some of the wealth from the well to do and using that money for projects that include things like public schools for the poor and other progressive measures meant to convince the lower class that, if they use the tools provided, they have at least some chance of moving up the ranks into the middle and maybe even the upper classes. Failure to provide such outlets eventually leads to revolt.
|
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
Is this the same way that conservatives/tea party activists/etc. are racists? Or do sweeping generalizations based upon personal bias only have accuracy when applied against your opponents.
Damnit, let's talk some more about Flo. This crap is...crappy.
I made the mistake of poking my head in here to see "what progressives believe". Silly me.
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
Is this the same way that conservatives/tea party activists/etc. are racists? Or do sweeping generalizations based upon personal bias only have accuracy when applied against your opponents.
Damnit, let's talk some more about Flo. This crap is...crappy.
I'm sorry, did I miss the newsflash where members of Obama's economic team said there is no way they'd consider a VAT? How about Pelosi?
The reality is the progressives/liberals want big government - it's generally regarded as a core belief. Big government requires big budgets. Government agencies, from the local to the federal level, will spend their entire budget each year b/c if they spend less, they might be allotted less in the following year's budget. When the budget exceeds revenue, you have deficits. I've heard far more progressives/liberals arguing for increased taxes (VAT included) than I've heard arguing for decreased government spending.
Neither political party is willing to abolish the existing tax code and adopt a national sales tax b/c it would remove their ability to legislate sweetheart exclusions and tax breaks for the consitutents, contributors, or special interest groups they serve. (And unfortunately, most of the time, constituents rank last in that list.)
If that's a bit too much reality intruding on political theory, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks.
I didn't call anyone a racist. Trying to equate what I said to such a claim is disengenuous at best.
If I come off as antagonistic, I apologize. It is not my intent. When considering something, I try to find flaws with it. It is how my mind works.
drugsSo you are suggesting legalize all drugs? What about drugs that are unsafe? I do not mean recreational drugs like cocaine and heroine. I mean drugs developed for purpose A, but that have been proven harmful or do not actually accomplish A. Snake oil. Or would that fall under some kind of advertising thing and be completely different from just drugs?
educationSo no public education? Children go wherever their parents can afford to send them?
income taxWhere would the government get money for the things you do think they should pay for? Sales tax?
You don't come off as personally antagonistic at all. This is a wholly valid method for examining ideas.
The federal government regulating drug application and medical practice beyond interstate commerce is the problem I think.
Snake oil or some other drug with little or no demonstrable efficacy would be fraud if it were misrepresented, but as long as there is full disclosure I don't think the federal government should have a say in medical choices that don't directly harm anyone else.
As the law currently stands we criminalize doctors and often patients) who prescribe drugs and life saving treatment that aren't approved by the federal government.
I have a huge problem with a regulatory structure that says you and your medical care provider are too stupid to choose XYZ life saving treatment. XYZ hasn't been approved by the FDA for that application so you must die to comply with the regulations.
I oppose federal control of education not public education per se. I have a lot of problems with how we conduct public education now and the dreadful results that we are getting for a massive expenditure, but I don't local public education is unconstitutional.
I would prefer a consumption or use tax. I find income tax to be an odious practice, and I would like to amend the constitution to do away with all income tax. Of course I would prefer far far lower taxes and smaller government.
How is it not fair to let someone who managed to earn more money do what he wants with it? If you earn more, should you not be allowed to buy more?And I apologize, I did not mention that I support a prebate payment to cover all sales taxes up to the current 'you don't pay taxes' line. So the poor still don't pay taxes.
The major benifit of a progressive tax system is to stabilize society. One of the major problems with money is that it pools. Essentially one of the best uses of extra money is to use it to make more money. Over generations that results into society stratifying into a small group of very wealthy people and a very large group of very poor people. Low or flat taxes encourage this trend and generally lead to the erosion of the middle class.
After a certain point (political scientists have actually calculated the point but I can't remember the numbers) the result is the break down of society as a whole as the poor become so disenchanted with the system that they turn to radical and violent means of redressing the balance.
A sizable progressive tax system avoids this by siphoning off some of the wealth from the well to do and using that money for projects that include things like public schools for the poor and other progressive measures meant to convince the lower class that, if they use the tools provided, they have at least some chance of moving up the ranks into the middle and maybe even the upper classes. Failure to provide such outlets eventually leads to revolt.
Agreed. As I noted elsewhere, without a consistent effort to keep the playing field level, eventually there isn't even a game any more.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm sorry, did I miss the newsflash where members of Obama's economic team said there is no way they'd consider a VAT? How about Pelosi?The reality is the progressives/liberals want big government - it's generally regarded as a core belief. Big government requires big budgets. Government agencies, from the local to the federal level, will spend their entire budget each year b/c if they spend less, they might be allotted less in the following year's budget. When the budget exceeds revenue, you have deficits. I've heard far more progressives/liberals arguing for increased taxes (VAT included) than I've heard arguing for decreased government spending.
Neither political party is willing to abolish the existing tax code and adopt a national sales tax b/c it would remove their ability to legislate sweetheart exclusions and tax breaks for the consitutents, contributors, or special interest groups they serve. (And unfortunately, most of the time, constituents rank last in that list.)
If that's a bit too much reality intruding on political theory, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks.
I didn't call anyone a racist. Trying to equate what I said to such a claim is disengenuous at best.
If you say so.
The federal government regulating drug application and medical practice beyond interstate commerce is the problem I think.
Snake oil or some other drug with little or no demonstrable efficacy would be fraud if it were misrepresented, but as long as there is full disclosure I don't think the federal government should have a say in medical choices that don't directly harm anyone else.
As the law currently stands we criminalize doctors and often patients) who prescribe drugs and life saving treatment that aren't approved by the federal government.
I have a huge problem with a regulatory structure that says you and your medical care provider are too stupid to choose XYZ life saving treatment. XYZ hasn't been approved by the FDA for that application so you must die to comply with the regulations.
I oppose federal control of education not public education per se. I have a lot of problems with how we conduct public education now and the dreadful results that we are getting for a massive expenditure, but I don't local public education is unconstitutional.
I would prefer a consumption or use tax. I find income tax to be an odious practice, and I would like to amend the constitution to do away with all income tax. Of course I would prefer far far lower taxes and smaller government.
Oddly, despite being a progressive I agree with pretty much everthing you've written. You lose me at anyone wanting to teach dependency on the government, though.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I made the mistake of poking my head in here to see "what progressives believe". Silly me.
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
Is this the same way that conservatives/tea party activists/etc. are racists? Or do sweeping generalizations based upon personal bias only have accuracy when applied against your opponents.
Damnit, let's talk some more about Flo. This crap is...crappy.
Where do you fall on the more important issue of whether Flo is hot?
|
|
Where do you fall on the more important issue of whether Flo is hot?I made the mistake of poking my head in here to see "what progressives believe". Silly me.
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
Is this the same way that conservatives/tea party activists/etc. are racists? Or do sweeping generalizations based upon personal bias only have accuracy when applied against your opponents.
Damnit, let's talk some more about Flo. This crap is...crappy.
Depends...
I didn't call anyone a racist. Trying to equate what I said to such a claim is disengenuous at best.
Sebastian wasn't making any value judgements about the repugnancy of the accusations themselves; he was pointing out that you've condemned people for generalizing about the opposition, only to generalize about the opposition yourself a few posts later. Whether you choose to examine and adjust your own behavior is you own business, of course, but you most assuredly did exactly what he claimed you did.
I made the mistake of poking my head in here to see "what progressives believe". Silly me.
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
Is this the same way that conservatives/tea party activists/etc. are racists? Or do sweeping generalizations based upon personal bias only have accuracy when applied against your opponents.
Damnit, let's talk some more about Flo. This crap is...crappy.
There are some pretty good posts in this thread IMO.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There are some pretty good posts in this thread IMO.
I blame you for that. Your posts reflect an open mind and genuine curiosity, while still maintaining a solid set of beliefs. It's refreshing, but is easily lost in the usual partisan crap these things attract. Particularly the "Progressives believe in killing puppies" style comments that crop up.
But I still like talking about Flo better.
|
|
There are some pretty good posts in this thread IMO.I made the mistake of poking my head in here to see "what progressives believe". Silly me.
I'd prefer this over the flat tax myself. Those who buy more pay more in taxes. Period.The problem, at least in the US, is the progressives/liberals/pro-governement want a VAT - a sales tax on top of all the other taxes.
Is this the same way that conservatives/tea party activists/etc. are racists? Or do sweeping generalizations based upon personal bias only have accuracy when applied against your opponents.
Damnit, let's talk some more about Flo. This crap is...crappy.
Maybe originally. Most of the recent stuff is back to "discussing" what is "right". Which has more to do with opinion than "what progressives believe".
Why, oh why, do people still insist on using the word preference?
I think the word "preference" is as in "who would you prefer to get it on with," not as in "do you prefer to be attracted to X." In that context, it makes sense.
Re: Genetics vs. "nurture" -- that's a false dichotomy; there are a lot of other possibilities. Research indicates that later-born sons are progressively more likely to be homosexual (despite how/where/with whom they are subsequently raised), for example, indicating that hormonal levels in the womb might play a large part in determining how hard-wired sexuality develops.
I blame you for that. Your posts reflect an open mind and genuine curiosity, while still maintaining a solid set of beliefs. It's refreshing, but is easily lost in the usual partisan crap these things attract. Particularly the "Progressives believe in killing puppies" style comments that crop up.
But I still like talking about Flo better.
Where do I sign up to kill the puppies? I must have missed that at the meetings.
The federal government regulating drug application and medical practice beyond interstate commerce is the problem I think.
Snake oil or some other drug with little or no demonstrable efficacy would be fraud if it were misrepresented, but as long as there is full disclosure I don't think the federal government should have a say in medical choices that don't directly harm anyone else.
As the law currently stands we criminalize doctors and often patients) who prescribe drugs and life saving treatment that aren't approved by the federal government.
I have a huge problem with a regulatory structure that says you and your medical care provider are too stupid to choose XYZ life saving treatment. XYZ hasn't been approved by the FDA for that application so you must die to comply with the regulations.
I oppose federal control of education not public education per se. I have a lot of problems with how we conduct public education now and the dreadful results that we are getting for a massive expenditure, but I don't local public education is unconstitutional.
I would prefer a consumption or use tax. I find income tax to be an odious practice, and I would like to amend the constitution to do away with all income tax. Of course I would prefer far far lower taxes and smaller government.
Oddly, despite being a progressive I agree with pretty much everthing you've written. You lose me at anyone wanting to teach dependency on the government, though.
I sometimes think you may have a little libertarian in you. ;)
As for making people dependent, let me try to use Social Security and Medicaid as examples. Back when these started they were largely safety nets or backstops for those that desperately needed them. Now they have become default entitlement for most folks. Very few people could afford to retire without social security and medicaid. The government has built a structure over decades that tens of millions of people effectively can't live without. They have effectively changed the system from a safety net for the desperate to an entitlement system a great many people are entirely dependent on.
Does that help explain the teaching dependency position somewhat?
|
How is it not fair to let someone who managed to earn more money do what he wants with it? If you earn more, should you not be allowed to buy more?And I apologize, I did not mention that I support a prebate payment to cover all sales taxes up to the current 'you don't pay taxes' line. So the poor still don't pay taxes.
The major benifit of a progressive tax system is to stabilize society. One of the major problems with money is that it pools. Essentially one of the best uses of extra money is to use it to make more money. Over generations that results into society stratifying into a small group of very wealthy people and a very large group of very poor people. Low or flat taxes encourage this trend and generally lead to the erosion of the middle class.
After a certain point (political scientists have actually calculated the point but I can't remember the numbers) the result is the break down of society as a whole as the poor become so disenchanted with the system that they turn to radical and violent means of redressing the balance.
A sizable progressive tax system avoids this by siphoning off some of the wealth from the well to do and using that money for projects that include things like public schools for the poor and other progressive measures meant to convince the lower class that, if they use the tools provided, they have at least some chance of moving up the ranks into the middle and maybe even the upper classes. Failure to provide such outlets eventually leads to revolt.
Um can you give me one reason we can't use a sales tax to create the exact same effect. a percentage tax on sales still syphons off money from the rich (the most likely to buy only new products and expensive ones at that) thus meaning they still contribute more of their income to taxes. And there's nothing making progressive taxes pay for services that a sales tax couldn't. A sales tax can fund schools, libraries, etc. just the same. You haven't proven the need for a progressive tax, just for a system that uses taxes to create programs that educate and lift the poor.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Where do I sign up to kill the puppies? I must have missed that at the meetings.I blame you for that. Your posts reflect an open mind and genuine curiosity, while still maintaining a solid set of beliefs. It's refreshing, but is easily lost in the usual partisan crap these things attract. Particularly the "Progressives believe in killing puppies" style comments that crop up.
But I still like talking about Flo better.
You haven't just been doing it?
Sorry, you're not a true progressive. Clearly, you have a soul left. A true progressive understands that the most important thing is a facist government, the destruction of individual freedom, crushing tax burdens, and red tape for the sake of red tape.
And killing puppies.
I think you might just be a Green.
Or ... what pony boy said.I blame you for that. Your posts reflect an open mind and genuine curiosity, while still maintaining a solid set of beliefs. It's refreshing, but is easily lost in the usual partisan crap these things attract.
There are some pretty good posts in this thread IMO.
Wow! Thanks!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
A true progressive understands that the most important thing is a Communist government, the destruction of individual freedom, crushing tax burdens, and red tape for the sake of red tape.
Fixed that for you. Everybody knows conservatives are the fascists.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wow! Thanks!Or ... what pony boy said.I blame you for that. Your posts reflect an open mind and genuine curiosity, while still maintaining a solid set of beliefs. It's refreshing, but is easily lost in the usual partisan crap these things attract.
There are some pretty good posts in this thread IMO.
No, thank you. You're one of the small handful of posters who make politics threads a pleasent experience. Sorry to interrupt them with the silliness all the time, it's my way of venting and not engaging the political trolls that fester in these places.
|
|
I blame you for that. Your posts reflect an open mind and genuine curiosity, while still maintaining a solid set of beliefs. It's refreshing, but is easily lost in the usual partisan crap these things attract. Particularly the "Progressives believe in killing puppies" style comments that crop up.
There are some pretty good posts in this thread IMO.
what so now you're denying that progressives are puppy hating monsters, what more proof do you need? How many puppies do I have to line up to satiate Bugleyman's hunger before you're convinced that progressives are the scum of the earth when it comes to puppy hate, just watch him, he's not satisfied just eating them he has to break all their limbs first and watch them squirm.
|
|
No, thank you. You're one of the small handful of posters who make politics threads a pleasent experience. Sorry to interrupt them with the silliness all the time, it's my way of venting and not engaging the political trolls that fester in these places.Wow! Thanks!Or ... what pony boy said.I blame you for that. Your posts reflect an open mind and genuine curiosity, while still maintaining a solid set of beliefs. It's refreshing, but is easily lost in the usual partisan crap these things attract.
There are some pretty good posts in this thread IMO.
I would hope I'm one of the others, although I'm much more likely than BT to get sidetracked with humorous non-sequiters.
I sometimes think you may have a little libertarian in you. ;)
As for making people dependent, let me try to use Social Security and Medicaid as examples. Back when these started they were largely safety nets or backstops for those that desperately needed them. Now they have become default entitlement for most folks. Very few people could afford to retire without social security and medicaid. The government has built a structure over decades that tens of millions of people effectively can't live without. They have effectively changed the system from a safety net for the desperate to an entitlement system a great many people are entirely dependent on.
Does that help explain the teaching dependency position somewhat?
Yes, yes it does. That doesn't seem so much deliberate, however, as it does the result of poor fiscal discipline. I don't think progressives set out to teach dependence on the government.
For a long time I considered myself a libertarian; I even voted libertarian for president once (2000?).* However, a few things changed my mind. First, whenever I disclosed that I do not keep firearms in my home, I branded an idiot. Second, I don't view failures of government as deliberate...that is, I do not view the government as evil. I think it's too large, has inherent structural problems, needs to be kept a close watch on, and occasionally really screws things up -- but I'd say that pretty much applies to corporations as well. Finally, there seemed to be a non-trivial group of people who identify themselves as libertarians who advocated violent overthrow of the government, and viewed those who didn't (i.e., me) as idelogically impure.
Maybe I just had some bad experiences, but they pretty much soured me on the libertarian party. :(
* It doesn't help that the year I didn't vote Democratic, we got Bush. I hate to say it, but voting Libertarian does feel like "throwing your vote away." Yes, I know this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it's sorta a prisoner's dilemma thing.
Fixed that for you. Everybody knows conservatives are the fascists.
The thing is, fascism lies at the extreme end of either ideology, where we start advocating doing horrible things "for the greater good." Right, left, or in-between, that's BS, plain and simple.
If this talk keeps up I might have to buy a gun after all. :P
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
After all this I think I finally know what Progressives believe:
They believe in redefining themselves so many different ways that everyone will think he's a Progressive and then everyone votes Progressive!
"We know nothing about their language, their history or what they look like. But we can assume this: they stand for everything we don’t stand for. Also they told me you guys look like dorks!"
*And they like hot chicks that sell insurance apparently.
SHE
IS
NOT
HOT!!!!!!
Sebastian wasn't making any value judgements about the repugnancy of the accusations themselves; he was pointing out that you've condemned people for generalizing about the opposition, only to generalize about the opposition yourself a few posts later. Whether you choose to examine and adjust your own behavior is you own business, of course, but you most assuredly did exactly what he claimed you did.I didn't call anyone a racist. Trying to equate what I said to such a claim is disengenuous at best.
Unless you can show me that progressives and liberals have come out against the VAT tax, I most assuredly did no such thing.
I've also seen nothing to refute the government-budget-deficit-tax cycle I illustrated, either. Since part of my job entails dealing with and selling to local, state, and federal agencies, I can attest, with 100% certainty, the "We have to use our budget or lose it" mentality is very, very commonplace.
Enterprise customers (i.e. corporations) which I also deal with, by contrast, have individual departments that have their own budgets. You have a similar mentality of "use it or lose it" there as well but when executive managment says "your budget is being reduced by 10%" to increase profits, reduce expenses, and/or save jobs those departments have to fall in line.
In contrast, big-government proponents typically turn to "increase revenue through new and/or increased taxes".
Is that universally true across every politican? Of course not. But it's no more a generalization than any of the posts defining "what progressives believe". Or are you seriously saying that progressives are so homogeneous that there is no variation in political beliefs? 'Cause if you are I'd say you skipped over a whole lot of posts in this thread.
what so now you're denying that progressives are puppy hating monsters, what more proof do you need? How many puppies do I have to line up to satiate Bugleyman's hunger before you're convinced that progressives are the scum of the earth when it comes to puppy hate, just watch him, he's not satisfied just eating them he has to break all their limbs first and watch them squirm.
I prefer blending them as a convenient, on-the-go treat!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Unless you can show me that progressives and liberals have come out against the VAT tax, I most assuredly did no such thing.
Okay, but first you have to show me a conservative/tea party member who's not a racist.
Scratch that. You need to show me, using anecdotal evidence (the best kind!), that "most" conservative/tea party members are not racists. And I get to redefine racism each time you do. Also, I reserve the right to redefine "most" to be "the number of anecdotes you provide +1".
I just want to make sure we're both using the same set of standards when we make ignorant sweeping generalizations and setting the bar for rebuttal at the same impossibly high level.
I sometimes think you may have a little libertarian in you. ;)
As for making people dependent, let me try to use Social Security and Medicaid as examples. Back when these started they were largely safety nets or backstops for those that desperately needed them. Now they have become default entitlement for most folks. Very few people could afford to retire without social security and medicaid. The government has built a structure over decades that tens of millions of people effectively can't live without. They have effectively changed the system from a safety net for the desperate to an entitlement system a great many people are entirely dependent on.
Does that help explain the teaching dependency position somewhat?
Yes, yes it does. That doesn't seem so much deliberate, however, as it does the result of poor fiscal discipline. I don't think progressives set out to teach dependence on the government.
For a long time I considered myself a libertarian; I even voted libertarian for president once (2000?). However, a few things changed my mind. First, whenever I disclosed that I do not keep firearms in my home, I branded an idiot. Second, I don't view failures of government as deliberate...that is, I do not view the government as evil. I think it's too large, has inherent structural problems, needs to be kept a close watch on, and occasionally really screws things up -- but I'd say that pretty much applies to corporations as well. Finally, there seemed to be a non-trivial group of people who identify themselves as libertarians who advocated violent overthrow of the government, and viewed those who didn't (i.e., me) as idelogically impure.
Maybe I just had some bad experiences, but they pretty much soured me on the libertarian party. :(
It's always a risky proposition to speculate about peoples motives particularly a large and diverse group over generations. I don't imagine that everyone who casts a vote for someone with a d by their name is some kind of closet totalitarian. That would be silly on its face, but I do think the slippery slope argument is entirely valid regarding expanding government power. Of course I oppose the patriot act as much as Obamacare.
As to the firearms issue I find that attitude very unfortunate. The core principal is choice. The notion of decriminalizing firearms ownership or drug use for adults is personal choice. It is illogical to me to assume that someone who chooses not to exercise a choice is against that choice. I know a lot of folks view firearms ownership as a duty like voting, but it would seem logically consistent to respect individual choice. Isn't that the point of liberty?
I fall into the group of people who believe we have a right to decide how we will be governed, and I view force as a legitimate last resort to that end.
That said, the notion of a second American Revolution or civil war is a truly horrifying vision for me in this nuclear age.
Unless you can show me that progressives and liberals have come out against the VAT tax, I most assuredly did no such thing.
Okay, but first you have to show me a conservative/tea party member who's not a racist.
Scratch that. You need to show me, using anecdotal evidence (the best kind!), that "most" conservative/tea party members are not racists. And I get to redefine racism each time you do. Also, I reserve the right to redefine "most" to be "the number of anecdotes you provide +1".
I just want to make sure we're both using the same set of standards when we make ignorant sweeping generalizations and setting the bar for rebuttal at the same impossibly high level.
RIIIIGGGHT. 14 years of industry experience is equally ancedotal as your example of painting the entire conservative/tea party group as racist. My personal experience aside, from April 2010:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/16/senate-overwhelmingly-rejects-idea-of-val ue-added-tax-at-mccains-prompting/
The Senate went on record Thursday as overwhelmingly opposed to a value-added tax – something much talked about by Democrats and those close to President Obama of late – approving by 85-to-13 a resolution declaring the penalty a “massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/16/senate-overwhelmingly-rejects-idea-of-val ue-added-tax-at-mccains-prompting/#ixzz0th9sKXS1
The VAT idea went down b/c it was determined to be politically toxic but the opening paragraph above talks about how Democrats and the Obama administration were considering pushing for it.
Hardly anecdotal or a generalization.
Unless you can show me that progressives and liberals have come out against the VAT tax, I most assuredly did no such thing.
Really? 'Cause this looks a lot like you generalizing about progressives:
Progressives believe in imposing & enforcing their beliefs through government force, even if it's against the will of the voters at large.
and here:
Progressives (at least in the political class) seek to convince as many people as possible to believe that they are incapable of taking care of themselves so that they're dependent upon government.
Whether you believe these statements to be literally true or not (I suspect you do), they are explicit generalizations.
I've also seen nothing to refute the government-budget-deficit-tax cycle I illustrated, either. Since part of my job entails dealing with and selling to local, state, and federal agencies, I can attest, with 100% certainty, the "We have to use our budget or lose it" mentality is very, very commonplace.Enterprise customers (i.e. corporations) which I also deal with, by contrast, have individual departments that have their own budgets. You have a similar mentality of "use it or lose it" there as well but when executive managment says "your budget is being reduced by 10%" to increase profits, reduce expenses, and/or save jobs those departments have to fall in line.
In contrast, big-government proponents typically turn to "increase revenue through new and/or increased taxes".
I can't disagree, and I've also seen this behavior in individual departments in the various corporations for which I've worked. Perhaps, as you say, private industry does a better job of keeping a lid on things, but I'm all for reducing the deficeit to zero, right now, no exceptions, which would seem to have the same effect on government if we could find the stomach to do it.
John Stewart pretty much spells it out here... :)
On a more serious vein Paul Klugman an opinion columnist of the New York Times decided it was time to publish the liberal equivalent of a fairly famous tome.
I'm glad he is up front about being an opinion columnist because everything he writes is some of the most blatantly biased crap I've ever laid eyes on.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
RIIIIGGGHT. 14 years of industry experience is equally ancedotal as your example of painting the entire conservative/tea party group as racist. My personal experience aside, from April 2010:http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/16/senate-overwhelmingly-rejects-idea-of-val ue-added-tax-at-mccains-prompting/
The Senate went on record Thursday as overwhelmingly opposed to a value-added tax – something much talked about by Democrats and those close to President Obama of late – approving by 85-to-13 a resolution declaring the penalty a “massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/16/senate-overwhelmingly-rejects-idea-of-val ue-added-tax-at-mccains-prompting/#ixzz0th9sKXS1
The VAT idea went down b/c it was determined to be politically toxic but the opening paragraph above talks about how Democrats and the Obama administration were considering pushing for it.
Hardly anecdotal or a generalization.
Ah, I didn't realize your personal experience was different from other people's because you had 14 years of it! That's impressive. I'm only 10, so I don't even have 14 years experience doing anything.
I guess your carefully chosen articles to support your position are convincing evidence. All progressives/liberals believe in a VAT, and do so in large part because they like extra taxes. I hadn't realized the extent of the ideological uniformity within the group, but then again, I don't have 14 years of experience that would render me an expert on such matters. I defer to your expertise.
Edit: Woah! I just realized something: if the Senate voted 85-to-13 against a VAT, and there are 59 Democrats in the Senates, and all liberals and progressives support the VAT, then some of those Democrats must be conservatives (obviously, they can't be liberals or progressives, or they would've voted for the VAT)! I wonder if they're racist too...