Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: In the End, the Privleged Conservatives Always Lose

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 11:31 a.m. EST by PeteG2 (393)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I take solace in the fact that: In the end the Conservatives are always proved wrong and always fail to keep progressive reforms from being put in place.

The following were Conservative Causes, now on the trash heap of history ... Feudalism; the Monarchy; Slavery; No vote or other rights for women; Child labor; Imperialism; Segregation.

In their time, the following were all Liberal Causes, denounced by Conservatives ... Democracy; Abolition; Women's Suffrage and Rights; Labor laws; National independence movements; Civil Rights.

The following are current Conservative Causes not yet completely discredited and extinguished ... Discrimination against homosexuals; Denial of healthcare for all; Economic repression of the working poor and middle class. In the end, the Conservatives will lose all these battles as well.

The sad thing is: When Conservatives dig in their heels to try to preserve their privileges; the spread of freedom is delayed unnecessarily, causing the pointless suffering (and often the deaths) of many, many people.

We're coming ....

See the tax plan http://fairsharetaxes.org that will help save the working poor and middle class from poverty.

113 Comments

113 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Idaltu (662) 12 years ago

I like what you have to say....it rings true.

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Thanks. Take a look at my website http://fairsharetaxes.org and the Fair Share Tax Proposal there. The plan has been improved by the input of many. Make suggestions on the Contact page: http://fairsharetaxes.org/contactus.aspx Let others know about the website. Many ideas here: http://fairsharetaxes.org/Spredthetaxreformword.aspx

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

They aren't losing fast enough.

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Yes, I know. They always hang on to their privileges as long as they can, no matter how many others they make suffer.

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I think at the core goal of most in the OWS is to move progressive ideals along to bring about a better world a little faster.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

The problem is that for a great many people they can't hang on to ride this out.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

True.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

While I agree that keeping things the same is not always good, not all change is progress.

It was changes in the name of progress that lead to the collapse of the housing market.

A balance between conservatism and progressivism is what we need. Looking at each issue with an open mind is paramount to success. It is often in our best interest to keep some things the way they are and change others.

Bailouts, stimulus spending, government subsidies, and absurd government grants are not conservative or progressive.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I can't agree on issues I written about. A compromise between the South and the abolitionists would have done what? Freed half the slaves? Not good enough.

A compromise on the current practice of giving the very wealthy 3-fold lower tax rates rates than the working poor does what? Reduces the wealth of the top 1% from 40% of the nation's wealth (where it is now) to 35% and cuts the poverty rate from 16% (where it is now) to 12%. That's not good enogh for me.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

I did not say anything about compromising. I said that you need balance. I an conservative on some issues and progressive on others. You need to look at each issue. I would find it hard to believe that anyone is conservitive on every issue or progressive on every issue.

It was the progressive ideals of Republicans brought about an end to slavery.

It was George Bush and Obama, who are both progressives not conservatives, that brought about and extended that tax cuts for the rich.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I think we are talking past each other because I'm talking about liberal vs. conservative ideas and many are assuming I'm talking about people or parties that are labeled or label themselves as liberal or conservative.

So how do I define liberal ideas: Those that further the rights, freedom, and prosperity of as many people as possible (hopefully everyone)

And I define the conservatives ideas of those that act to stop the liberal changes.

I know the devil is in the details and there can be alot of disagreement about how to make the progress that I talk about under liberal ideas.

It's funny when we are in the midst of that debate it all seems unclear. During the 1850's they had the similar debates on both sides of slavery - even though it seems clear to us now who the right (correct) side was.

I think by the same token in 100 years they will look back and shake their heads that we debated whether of not it was OK to give tax advantages the wealthy (at rates 3 times lower than the working poor) and so allow the top 1% own 40% of all wealth in the US while 16% live in poverty.

http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

I find that most people are confused about the meaning of these terms. Often I see posts where people believe that liberal is the opposite of conservative or the Republican and conservative are the same thing.

Conservative vs Progressive

  1. A Conservative is disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions and is marked by moderation or caution.
  2. A progressive is more open to moderate change of political existing views, conditions, or institutions and is comfortable with aggressive change.

Liberalism vs Socialism

  1. Liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
  2. Socialism advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods or group living in which there is no private property.

Republican Vs Democrat

These are both political parties

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

Not really the point because we can't be sure this is the "End". Don't get too comfortable and let your guard down.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

You are right. There is much more work to do, and always the risk of back-sliding toward Conservative ideas. In fact that's what this country has been doing for the last 30years. During that time the richest 1% has gone form owning 22% of the nation's wealth to 40%. The lower half own less than 1%. We are slipping toward something like a feudal society - and alot of it is from tax policy that that tilts the playing field in favor of the rich.

That's the whole point of my website http://fairsharetaxes.org and the Fair Share Tax Proposal there. To reverse slide. That's my contribution to the liberal cause. OWS is contributing in their own way and I fully support those at OWS who keep it non-violent.

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

nice.. you have my support!

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Thanks alot. Take a look at my website http://fairsharetaxes.org and the Fair Share Tax Proposal there. The plan has been improved by the input of many. Make suggestions on the Contact page: http://fairsharetaxes.org/contactus.aspx Let others know about the website. Many ideas here: http://fairsharetaxes.org/Spredthetaxreformword.aspx

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

It's a nice manipulation of percentages and statistics you have there....

for those that would like to see the real income/taxation shares by quintiles (with breakdowns of the income/taxation shares of the top 10-5-1%) go to the link to see the latest figures by the CBO...

The 1% earns 18.8% of the income and yet pays 28.3% of ALL federal taxes, 39.1% of the income taxes, and 57% of the corporate taxes...but this guy thinks it would be more "fair" if they paid more....

You conveniently leave out the fact that the bottom 80% of tax payers only pay 30.7% of ALL (Yes...ALL, including Payroll, Corporate, Excise, and Income taxes)....and yet they earn almost half of the wages...your calculations are flawed and your philosophy is defective....

You want to punish those who's value/time ratio is high, to reward those who's value/time ratio is low....how will that motivate people to become more successful?

Just how much of each dollar earned is "enough" and fair in your estimation PeteG2? I am interested to know? should they earn 18.8% and pay 100% of the taxes? Would that be fair? How much of the available services of government do you think they are getting for their 28.3/39.1% shares..as compared to those who pay little or no tax, and do you find that to be "fair" as well....

Why is my dollar worth less than your dollar, or anyone else's dollar, for that matter? Why should my labor be less beneficial to me than it is to someone who doesn't provide the same value/time ratio that I do....can you answer that question?

and, I like the "Indirect Taxes" you have listed on your website....since the top earners are the ones who own the enterprises and manage the businesses that keep this country working and pay the salaries of all those workers I guess they pay almost 100% of the "Indirect Taxes" since tax withholding is a cost of employment to a business....

you can see the rest for yourselves at this link...

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/summary_table_2006.pdf

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Thanks for this post. It provides me a great opportunity demonstrate Conservative deception in their rhetoric on taxation. It will take several posts to demonstrate all the places you are wrong and how the wealthy are paying much less than fair share of taxes in this country.

[-] 3 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Let's start here. You write about the percentage of "ALL" taxes paid by the bottom 80% and then give figures for federal taxes only, as does the link you posted. Federal taxes account for less than 60% of the taxes collected in this country. The other taxes at the state and local level, especial sales, property, and state excise taxes shift the tax burden onto the working poor and middle class.

Take a widow living on a median social security benefit of $13,000 a year. She is among your slackers who pay no federal taxes (although she pays a Medicare premium of about $1150/yr and a bit of federal gas tax) or as you would erroneously put it "NO TAXES." She, in fact, pays about $2550 or 20% of that income in taxes. This assumes she pays typical property ($2030), sales ($400), and gas taxes ($120) for a retiree. That leaves her $9300 a year to live on. In some parts of the country, property taxes on typical homes are twice as high, bringing such a widow's total tax rate to about 35%.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

You make this too easy, and operate under a phony premise....

First, we'll continue with your phony example of the widow, although it's full of holes....I guess you are trying to say that the lower income levels pay a larger amount of state taxes than do higher income individuals, including sales and property taxes...which I know to be false, but please feel free to include some sourcing and proof, since it was you who made the assertion...Those with higher income own larger and more improved properties, and buy more, and more expensive, things, so those are out as comparisons of the amount of total taxation each group must bear...and state and local income taxes are largely flat-rate taxes, so the percentages are equal, or nearly so, depending on deductions...but the real dollar amounts are massively disparate.

You make the false assertion, to begin your argument, that "what's left over" is the thing we should base taxation on, which is simply foolish...you want to reward those who contribute less(so are compensated less for that disparity in participation), are foolish with their resources, and make poor lifestyle decisions...that is hardly an incentive for economic growth.... The purpose of the extra effort required to earn a larger income is to have more left over, I am not sure where you "fairshare" people missed that fact, or why you think it's "unfair" that someone who works harder (or smarter) and earns more and should get to have more left over....everyone isn't equal, and doesn't contribute equally, if they did, then perhaps the income levels would be less disparate.

Now, for your "widow" example.....I think the first thing that needs to be said of this fictitious example is that if this person, over a working lifetime (since she must have worked to receive the median Social Security benefit) had ZERO personal savings or investment, from either herself, or her departed husband...then she lived a foolish life filled with poor decisions and behavior. The elephant in the room that you and those like you never want to address is that the circumstances that people find themselves in did not instantly manifest, they are the result of a continuous series of decisions and behaviors all leading to the moment when you brand them as victims...the only thing they are a victim of is their own foolishness.

So, she lives on 13k a year because she has been foolish with the compensation of a life's work....so, yes, that puts her clearly in the slackers column and the emotional presentation of her as a widow, designed to tug at the heart strings of those who don't look at the back-story and see the events that create the hardship.

Also, if she pay's property tax, in your fabricated example, she must own a home, and if she pays $2030 per year in property taxes, then that home is worth a reasonable sum of money...so she has the option of selling, or taking a reverse mortgage, also...where is her family in this scenario? if she has children then they are a factor, and if not...that increases the amount of financial foolishness that she and her husband practiced during their lifetime, which is now being compensated for in her struggle in old age.....There are no guarantees to a comfortable life, for anyone...even though you on the left assume it to be a right, just like everything else you want for free, but the "rights" of a person do not extend to the forced service of other people...bottom line.

in many area's of the country...like NY, those in the highest income levels pay well over 50% in total taxation, and that isn't including sales and excise taxes....

Your assertions are false, but, I am sure you are used to discussing them with people who don't know this fact and just accept your assertions without investigating them..

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

So to summarize your tirade: You argue it's fine to go on taxing a widow with a $13,000 income at 20-30% so that Warren Buffett, for example, pay 11% (including his share of corporate taxes) on 8 billion dollar investment gains.

You are, in effect, maintaining that the very rich can't play on an even playing field with the working poor - That the very rich need special tax advantages to survive.

Really sad.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

No, I'm saying that you are manipulating the math, if that widow had investments and/or savings, she would pay the same rate on capital gains as does Warren Buffet....capital gains are not compensation for labor, or effort, they are gains on investment. It's an Apples and Oranges argument...

and living expenses are living expenses...everyone has them, comparing the cost of living, and subsequent taxation incurred, between two people and calling that unfair taxation is misleading and a false assertion.

You don't include the state and local, property, and sales taxes that Buffett pays, nor do you consider the estate tax that will be assessed upon his demise...your whole premise is foolish and false.

There is no tax advantage for the rich, capital gains are not wages, and are available to ALL who invest, not just "the rich", the reward is not a guarantee, it is not something that is direct compensation for labor...wages for the rich ARE taxed at a 350% higher rate than wages for the poor, 0-10% vs 35%

As for the playing field, those you advocate for don't play, so no playing field would be even for them, they sit on the side and demand that those who do enter and battle in the arena, pay for their existence....

You think that someone should be able to lead their entire life acting foolishly, making stupid decision, and behaving badly and still be rewarded with a comfortable retirement, and for that matter a comfortable life despite those mistakes, paid for by those who take more responsibility and create more abundance for themselves and the world, and that they should never suffer the consequences for the mistakes they make, so...they continue making them, instead of learning the lessons and changing their behavior...

The idea that people can be a parasitic drag on the system for their entire, or even a part, of their lives and be due the right to a comfortable life at the expense of others is an obscenity to "fairness" and to natural law, and the nations of Europe, and their failed collective "European Union" and it's currency are another example of the failure of group-think, and liberal idea's of fairness...

Money, is only an exchange medium for time and value, and time must be surrendered for its accumulation, when you steal the surplus of wealth from one, who justly earned it by providing value to the system, to reward those who do not justly earn it by equitable exchange, you devalue the currency, devalue the contribution that created it, and devalue the life of the person who surrendered their time to produce it....

I am saying that the enterprises managed and owned by Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway, create and add more value to the greater system

and the disparity in that value to the system makes the income disparity minuscule in comparison.

What is sad is that you think people should be rewarded things they have not earned, stolen and redistributed from those who have earned them...

Continue making up fabricated examples to prove your ignorant assertion, you have a lack of understanding of human character, psychology and the laws of nature...and think you can engineer a system based on faulty math and logic, but fail to take into account the variables of behavior, enterprise, Initiative, and effort....

You, my friend, are a deluded fool....but, there are many like you, blind to the reality and who unbendingly refuse to accept the facts and evidence of history and human behavior...

You and those like you will always fail, as have every group in the history of mankind who attempted to create a utopian collective...and the examples are many....yet you hijack the language and call the reformers "Liberal" when the liberals who changed the system were not modern socialists as the word liberal has come to mean, they were Lockean liberals...more in line with modern constitutional conservatives....

The collective Socialist, Statist, Communist, Marxist, idea's are a return to feudalistic and monarchial type governments where self appointed rulers, who rule by decree, and not by merit, dictate to the masses what will, and must be done, under threat of seizure, imprisonment and death...

Do you have any grasp on history, at all?...or are you just another foolish anti-capitalist with a myopic view of a system you have failed to participate in, and clearly don't understand the nuances of, are you angry at your own failings and feel the need to transfer that shame upon others, so you don't have to look into the mirror and face yourself and your deficiency?

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Contrary to your statement, I do include Buffett's state and local taxes in my calculations. It's clearly listed on the spreadsheet at the website. Obviously, you have not even looked at it and yet restate repeatedly that I am "manipulating the math." It may interest you to know that the site has been up for 2 years and no one has disputed my figures.

You wrote I am "deluded fool." I am not, nor am I your "friend," as you also write. I take offense at both remarks.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

your offense is not my concern...

your spread sheet is too foolish not to dismiss, as is your "wealth tax" idea, and all the manipulated figures you use..

Do you have Warren Buffett's tax return? or are you guessing at the figures and fabricating the information to suite your foolish idea's? You obviously don't, as your figures are incorrect, Buffett released his tax form for 2010, and unless the state of Nebraska gave him 4 million dollars...his income tax rate ALONE was 17.4% or a federal tax burden of 6.92 Million Dollars.....how many Widows on SS does that equal?

He took most of his income in capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate....and should be...remember those low deficits in the late 90's? they came immediately following a lowering of the capital gains rate in 1997...it's amazing what knowing the facts, rather than being emotional and misleading, does...huh?

maybe you should do the math on actual figures instead of making them up....just to eliminate the yearly deficit...which has EXPLODED under democrats in congress, and Obama...it would take a doubling of the rates on everyone earning 45k and over...how's that for fair, and how long before incomes, and subsequent revenues, decreased under such a plan? hmmm? Oh...wait, your model is static and assumes behavior would remain the same, right? hahahaha....idiot

You have great verbosity, but little understanding or intellect on the system and the differences in responsibility borne by the individuals...

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

  • Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations," 1776, Considered the father of economics and one of the first advocates of capitalism
[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Nice try.....here's the unedited text:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

it was written in reference to Georgian theory of higher taxes on property with greater improvements...not on taxes in general....

you should visit my personal library....It appears you need some education...

and....feel free to ignore the fact that you misrepresented Warren Buffett's income and tax liability...

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

As I wrote the Buffett numbers and all my number are correct.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations," 1776, Considered the father of economics and one of the first advocates of capitalism
[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

now you're resorting to re-posting out-of-context quotes.....nice!

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

"There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it." "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

  • Warren Buffett, World's third richest man
[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Then they can pay more taxes...there is a page on the treasury site where anyone can pay all they like, and people can also pay any additional amount they like on their 1040...If Warren wanted to pay more he could take a salary and pay income tax, rather than taking his revenue in capital gains and paying that rate... Don't perpetuate that nonsense about "we need to pay more", if he was serious, or any of the other "patriotic millionaires" they could be a leaders and do it themselves...but, you don't see that happening...do you?

I think Buffett is trying to muddy the political waters, he was a huge winner because of the bailouts, and he has also used the estate tax laws to make some pretty good deals on companies that heirs couldn't afford to keep, for the taxes...

and, just to clear up an untruth, from 2004-2007, this country (on the heels of the tax rate cut, for EVERYONE, not just the rich) saw it's largest period of expansion in history, over 8 million new jobs and a rise in the share of taxes paid by the rich, historically flat income shares...so the "has no worked in 10 years" is revisionist history...Just like the historically low deficits of the late 90's came on the heels of a capital gains rate cut in 1997....

Buffett is a tool of the Crony Capitalists in the current administration....

[-] 0 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Yes, in time the ultra-wealthy will stop moaning about total tax rates of 10-15% on their millions and billions in investment gains and pay their fair share, because as the original post says, in the end Conservatives always lose. That's all for tonight. http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

take your best shot....

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

The link above is a report of a study that link low IQ to prejudice, racism and conservatism.

http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Kirk Miller-Gilletti The conserve in "Conservative".. is generally recognized as placing emphasis, celebrating, and otherwise supporting those aspects of life worth keeping. Slavery was an institution supported by fewer and fewer people, and that support has no connection conservative as a political or cultural philosophy of the mid 19th century, let alone contemporary life in the West (including Australia). Did supporters of slavery want to conserve a way of life..? Yes, that conservation and the Conservative "movement" have about as much in common as modern day Conservatives have with the modern day environmental conservation movement have

Peter Gemsbok Yes Kirk, just like conservative segregationists in the south "celebrated" their grand tradition of separate lunch counters, schools, opportunities for blacks and whites ... they all claimed to be supporting those aspects of (their privileged) lives they thought worth keeping. Some felt so strongly they were willing to kill (ie lynch) for their conservative ideals.

Just like today, conservatives want to "celebrate" their form of capitalism in which the wealthy few pay total taxes at rates about one-third of what the working poor and middle class pay. Just as surely as in the segregationist south, people are suffering and dieing from this social injustice. Today's conservatives, just like all their predecessors will wind up defeated and on the wrong side of history.

http://fairsharetaxes.org/

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Kirk Miller-Gilletti I don't think your definition of conservative has any bearing on reality. I'll post more later.

Peter Gemsbok From the Dictionary: CONSERVATIVE: (adj) Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion. (n) A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Kirk Miller-Gilletti Exactly how was slavery (and many of the other examples given) a "Conservative" cause?

Peter Gemsbok What Conservatives each in their own era say: "Those [fill in: serfs, African, Female, Children laborer, Jewish, Immigrant, Black, Gay, Muslim, Financially distressed] people don't deserve the rights that I have. They have never had those rights, and it is God's will that they never get those rights. Those liberals in Washington, who want to change things and give them those rights are evil and are infringing on "State's rights."

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Peter Gemsbok Yes Kirk, just like conservative segregationists in the south "celebrated" their grand tradition of separate lunch counters, schools, opportunities for blacks and whites ... they all claimed to be supporting those aspects of (their privileged) lives they though worth keeping. Some felt so strongly they were willing to kill (ie lynch) for their conservative ideals.

Just like to today conservatives want to "celebrate" their form of capitalism in which the wealthy few pay total taxes at rates about one-third of what the working poor and middle class pay. Just as surely as in the segregationist south, people are suffering and dieing from this social injustice. Today's conservatives, just like all their predecessors will wind up defeated and on the wrong side of history.

http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

From the Dictionary: CONSERVATIVE: (adj) Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion. (n) A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Thanks for your connected post. In it you define their conservatives as the "aristocracy" , similar my "privileged" class who wants to hold on to their privileges by depriving others of the same privileges, no matter much suffering it causes.

http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 12 years ago

This is all a generalization, but it is generally true!

Today, Newt Gingrich dug in against poor kids, yes poor kids. He said "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal."

I can't help but feel sad, profoundly sad, that this is the America some Americans want (Incredibly, he is the leading Republican candidate!)

Are we really that far apart in our thinking?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

You know the guy speaking at the meeting, Frank Luntz, is the one that coined the term "Climate Change" for the Bush Administration to make sound less severe??

Now, Fox News likes to bash the change and blame it on Democrats.

He also came up with the phrase "government takeover" for Healthcare Reform.

I give the guy credit for being a genius wordsmith, though.. I've read several articles on him and you'd be surprised how many phrases originated with him.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 12 years ago

This post is a prime example of why OWS has failed to gain mass support.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

We'll see. And we'll see who is on the right side of history.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 12 years ago

Yes, we have seen how long national unions last. USSR? Europe sure is doing swell. We have seen how well governments can run a nation. So, I don't think history is on your side.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 12 years ago

They don't really lose, they regroup. It takes them a while but they find ways to tilt the field to their advantage, that is why they are still among us and stronger than ever. We fought against monarchies when this country, the USA, began and now they just call themselves capitalists. The super wealthy are no different than the feudal lords, dukes, and royalty of the past.

Yes, there are advancements in the condition of the "lower" classes but over time the "upper" class always finds a way to chip away at those advancements. They see themselves as royalty and expect to maintain this perceived position from generation to generation by rigging the system in their favor. This is why we are where we are today. Those who see themselves as royalty or privileged will do anything to maintain this status.

As I see it, the wealthy don't want an intelligent and thinking "lower" class of people who can see through their game. This is why education is rapidly getting beyond the means of the common person unless they agree to be indebted to them for years. You can see the effect of ignorance in social movements. It is corrosive and systemic. Education is the key to the locks on social shackles. If we really want sustainable change then we should allow anyone to rise through education.

I agree that the "common" person has brought the changes toward a more equal society. I also believe that the "rulers" will always search for ways to undermine any steps forward for the "common" man.

My solution: Tax ALL stock trades made, whether going up or down. It doesn't have to be much, 5% might be enough to begin bringing this country away from the brink.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Thanks for posting. I agree with most of what you write.

I think my proposal is more comprehensive than yours at straightening things out. Take a look: http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Don't kid yourself. Victory is not inevitable. The globalist plantation system is almost set up.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I'm not saying we can sit back and expect a better world to happen.

But it is inevitable, because people will always fight and die for better lives and a better world. There will be setbacks and there will be sacrifices and this decade might be worse than the last. However, if you view history over the long haul, every century brings better lives and less suffering than the last because of fols like most at OWS, willing to be ridiculed, arrested and fight for a better world.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Actually monarchy just took on a new name .. "Capitalism" ..think about it every company /business out there is a monarch ..

And Slavery is pretty much still around in a different form ..employees. companies are still profiting off the people that do their work .. just as slaves once did .. only now the companies do not buy there slaves , they just rent them .. and this comes to the company advantage .. since they no longer have to house them ..feed them ..cloth them .. just give them a meager wage .. and off they go .. other areas have improved I agree .. and I would like to agree with your vision of an "arc " .. but when I see history .. there was always the wealthy and the impovershed .. no arc there .. but a flat line top and bottom the poor do the work for the rich .. hasn't changed .. and yes back in the old days anyone could be on top .. with a strong enough army .. a comment on your tax code.. I have not seen you mention, unless I missed it , the wealthy do provide many jobs .. and when taken into consideration .. that should account for some tax relief .. also 11% of 8 billion = $880 million .. now that is a lot of tax for one individual to pay .. but when you only look at percentage .. you mislead ..

the bottom line: the tax system is a failed system all around . we have many unemployed looking for work in a sovereign nation but the government can not put them to work because of a tax collecting budget system .how nonsense is that ! .. when was it invented anyway? liberties are new , freedom is new .. but the tax system comes back from the times of tyranny .. why was that allowed into the new world ?

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

You make a thought provoking post. However, you seem to be arguing from both sides. On the one hand: "companies enslave employees." On the other hand you want to give the wealthy at tax break for doing so .. for that "job-creation" for that "enslavement." Businesses don't hire out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to make a profit. You and I as working tax-payers don't need to subsidize them for doing so as we are now doing. (If you give them a tax-break, working slobs like you and I and the already "enslaved" (your terminology) working poor have to pay more)

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Re Warren Buffett's taxes. That 11% (about 880 milion, as you say) includes his share of his company's corporate tax. Without that he paid less than 2% of his investment gains in taxes.

I think 2% or 11% is still way too low whenyou think of all the economic infrastructure provided by the government (all taxpayers) he uses to make is billions - road for his company's trucks, 12 years of public education for his thousands of employees .. there are dozens of govenment services that he makes use of a million times more than you or I.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Just another reply

What do you say to the lower tax payees that pay under say $5000 annual And they are allowed to drive on any highway in the country. !

That tiny amount of tax they pay only built ten feet of hey

Again just a thought

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Yes, we can disagree about what is fair. I just no know that its unfair for a min-wage worker or a widow on SS, both with annual incomes of about $14,000 to be paying 25-35% in total taxes while Warren Buffet pays 11%.

My proposal is for nearly a flat income tax (18-24%), but the amount under a living wage ($30,000 for a family of 3) goes untaxed; no other deductions. I'm happy to have someone just scraping by for whatever reason pay almost no tax. Social mobility, increased consumption, increased education, rewarding work, giving families just starting out a leg up ... will make the economy flourish for everyone. I think that's all worthwhile in exchange for Buffett's after tax income/gains going from $7.1 billion to $5 billion. That 5 billion is still enough to get by. From what he's said, he does to.

I do propose a hefty gas tax (as I remember 4 times the avg .50 one we have now) to encourage higher mpg. cars and so that could be a highway fee for your example. I know excise taxes are regressive put they are useful to get people pay for hidden costs (pollution, armies invading/prtotecting oil supplies)They are limited to 10% of gov't receipts and the very poor get a excise prebate.

Take a look at the detailed plan and we can talk more: http://fairsharetaxes.org/ProposedReform.aspx

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Did you know if you poll people, Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, they generally think an ideal wealth distribution would be to have the wealthiest 20% own 30-35% of all the wealth? And they think that's about where we are in the US.

The actual value is that the top 20% own 85% of the nation's wealth... up from about 50% 30 years ago and simulations I've done show it's mostly due to the tax cuts for the wealthy started under Reagan continued thru Bush II.

And economists have shown that that sort of wealth disparity is associated with lower economic growth - like the sputttering economy we have now.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Well there again you are looking at only one piece of the puzzle. Flat rate tax would have dire consequences.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Not if you do the numbers and look at the whole proposed tax system: Total taxes for a middle a middle class family of 4 making $73,000 would drop $12,000 a year (from 39% to 23% of income, the wealthy would pay their fair share, and with 2:1 spending cuts (Cut: tax increase) the we would have surpluses in 3 years...

Look at this page: http://fairsharetaxes.org/Whatif.aspx

In other words a more flat tax is an improvement. Right now if you add taxes paid at all levels of govt., the wealthy pay lower rates than the middle class and working poor.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

It's an interesting strategy. Good luck !

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

880 million goes a long way .. it is a huge contribution ..

please consider ..raising the wealthiest taxes .. has consequences on the return side ..

have you considered something of an opposite approach . Instead of trying to take it away from them once they have it , how about preventing them from making so much in the first place .. I' have developed a sales profit CAP idea .. I 've been throwing it around on this site .. it works on percentage of the actual product being sold .. and it only is applied between points of buy and sell .. basically the retailers would have a percentage profit margin CAP disallowing them to overly take from the consumer .. which inturn leaves money in the consumers pocket .. allowing for a more sustainable standard of living at the bottom.. and other benefits as well .. such as a CAP on profits would lower retail prices .. resulting in increased sales .. leading to increased jobs , and increased tax revenue .. = problem solved .

I would have to ask what your final outcome you are gaming for ?

Mine is to eleviate the conditions of poverty ..

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

My goal is also to reduce poverty and promote social mobility. If the wealthy paid tax rates similar to the working poor and middle class, then all but the wealthy would pay much less in taxes. That would help reduce poverty.

The end of the employer social security tax (SS paid out of general revenue) would be accompanied by automatic increase in the minimum wage and all wages below $100,000 to take up the windfall the employers would have from the end of their part of the SS tax . That would reduce poverty.

The middle class and working poor buy things, save college, etc with every dollar they take home after taxes, to a much greater extent than the wealthy. The economy would flourish. That would reduce poverty.

The special reduced tax rates investors get on their earnings would end - They are now causing our repeated investment bubbles which lead to recessions. That would reduce poverty.

I think my plan is more workable and powerful than your idea, if I understand your idea correctly.

See http://fairsharetaxes.org/Whatif.aspx for a full explanation of the reults of my plan.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Your concern about the "job creators" I think is unjustified. Corporation and the wealthy have far lower taxes and far more money than they've had in 80 years. Where are the jobs? Reduced tax rates for the wealthy are the real failed stimulus and cost the Treasury 10 times more than Obama's stimulus.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

And why can't the "job-doers" join the ranks of the "job creators" Under my plan some of those extra tax dollars the working poor and middle class get to take home after reducing their taxes wind up in tax-free automatic (with opt-out) education-retirement accounts. This is invested money in stocks and bonds (businesses) and banks (who invest in housing, businesses). That gives those workers an ownership stake. We still get investment and job creation but some of it comes form the new wealth of the bottom 80%. The Conservative have apparently convinced you only billionaires are capable of investing and so they need lower tax rates than the working poor and social security widows (who typically pay 20-30% of the SS check over to medicare, sales taxes, and property taxes).

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

yes I had a quick look at your website .. you have a lot of research packed in there ..

one last thought .. employers , on top of taxes , also pay other expenses .. compensation premiums , health care insurance .. etc .. ..

well I should probably leave you to your thoughts..

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

really it's neither side you are correct and I thank you for pointing that out .. it is a fair look at the whole picture ..

I respect your consideration.

the tax break for the job suppliers .. hmmn is that so bad .. raising their taxes would jeopardize jobs would it not ..

Another thought to consider .. the business also has to consider foreign competition ..

Again .. the tax system is old school and not a properly functioning idea .. it puts a strangle hold on production .. limits growth potential .. I am just saying.. surely you must agree if we raise taxes on corporations they will simply raise the prices on their products .. until they can no longer compete with foreign policies , at which point they either pack up or relocate where tax laws are more affordable .. everyone knows this..

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

The wealthy and corporations are sitting on more money and lower tax rates than they've ever had since the 1920's. Where are the jobs? There are no jobs since 80% of the country is financially on the ropes (thanks to economy-distorting tax rates for the rich) and not buying much.

Yep. My tax plan actually does away with taxes on corporations- since half are now passed along to workers in lower wages and consumers in higher prices. Instead under my plan businesses have to distribute a fixed percentage of their profits to their owners-shareholders in dividends and those dividends are taxed at the same rate that work is.

If they can't play on an even playing field with workers businesses don't deserve to be in business.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

There are a fair things wrong with statement. First of which I find a complete insult to history, Democracy was invented by the Greeks a couple hundreds years ago (I'm not certain of the exact date) and there were no conservatives around at the time, now if you are referring during the founding of our great nation you misunderstand that there were some against the revolution because they were loyal to the king. Now you have to understand the the current conservative/liberal view points that exist today have been constantly changing over the decades, as they should. Second Feudalism, Monarchy, Slavery, Child Labor, Imperialism are not conservative ideals nor were they ever, just as Democracy, Abolition (A Republican Viewpoint) , Women's Sufferage, labor laws, and civil rights, (Majority of those who voted for the civil rights bill were republicans) are not, nor were they ever Liberal causes. Now if someone disagrees with any of these I would love to be proven wrong as long as you back it up with hard cold evidence. Lastly Conservatives and Liberals both win. There are many instances were Conservative backed bills passed and work, I can recall the 1994 Welfare Reform which lowered the amount of people on Welfare at the same time lowered the poverty rate by 1%. There are also many instances of Liberals winning most recent the Healthcare reform. So to say that Liberals will always win is simply not true because not every Liberal idea is a good one nor is every Conservative view but the best solution is usually in the middle.

If anyone wants to challenge me please do some it's part of the democratic system, but please can we refrain from bad mouthing each other and use cold hard facts to back up our opinion.

If anyone was wondering I am a white male from the north side of Chicago and I neither vote Democrat nor Republican because I think the parties are stupid, but I consider myself middle leaning a little right.

Thank and may God bless America

PLEASE DON'T DELETE THIS COMMENT BECAUSE I DISAGREE

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

There are a fair things wrong with statement. First of which I find a complete insult to history, Democracy was invented by the Greeks a couple hundreds years ago (I'm not certain of the exact date) and there were no conservatives around at the time, now if you are referring during the founding of our great nation you misunderstand that there were some against the revolution because they were loyal to the king. Now you have to understand the the current conservative/liberal view points that exist today have been constantly changing over the decades, as they should. Second Feudalism, Monarchy, Slavery, Child Labor, Imperialism are not conservative ideals nor were they ever, just as Democracy, Abolition (A Republican Viewpoint) , Women's Sufferage, labor laws, and civil rights, (Majority of those who voted for the civil rights bill were republicans) are not, nor were they ever Liberal causes. Now if someone disagrees with any of these I would love to be proven wrong as long as you back it up with hard cold evidence. Lastly Conservatives and Liberals both win. There are many instances were Conservative backed bills passed and work, I can recall the 1994 Welfare Reform which lowered the amount of people on Welfare at the same time lowered the poverty rate by 1%. There are also many instances of Liberals winning most recent the Healthcare reform. So to say that Liberals will always win is simply not true because not every Liberal idea is a good one nor is every Conservative view but the best solution is usually in the middle.

If anyone wants to challenge me please do some it's part of the democratic system, but please can we refrain from bad mouthing each other and use cold hard facts to back up our opinion.

If anyone was wondering I am a white male from the north side of Chicago and I neither vote Democrat nor Republican because I think the parties are stupid, but I consider myself middle leaning a little right.

Thank and may God bless America

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I think we are talking past each other because we are using our terms differently.

Liberals: They are those who wanted to do things that history proved would make the world better: e.g. George Washington , Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King. I consider them liberals. They wanted to change things for the better and were ridiculed, fought tooth and nail, risked their lives. Two were killed.

The Conservatives: Those who wanted these things to stay the same. The monarchy, slavery, segregation - The Tories, the South, Bull Connor thought those things were God-ordained, the natural order of things and fought to maintain them (and in each case their own privileges.)

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

My only problem with that I see with this that conservatives also want to change the world for the better. There are very few people in this world who truly want to watch it burn. Conservatives and Liberals both have different views of which path we should take towards that bigger and brighter future we all want. Now at times Conservatives make a dumb move as do Liberals. So I would not consider George Washington, Abraham Lincoln are not Liberals. They are more along the lines of revolutionaries. Something everyone in America must realize is that when you attack someone's way of life they will get very defensive, and rightfully so. This is shown all throughout history. For example the south fought to preserve their way of life because it was being threatened. Now I will admit they were fighting to preserve the establishment of slavery which is extremely wrong on so many levels, I don't think anyone can argue against that. Just something to think about I would like to hear back on your thoughts

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by screwtheman (122) 12 years ago

We always have a good run at it though.

You never get on top. Always chasing behind.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Don't be too sure. You can't own slaves or subjugate women anymore. And we're coming for more.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 12 years ago

For a movement that publicly speaks all the time about not supporting one party or another, you all sure spend alot of time demonizing the Republicans and praising the Democrats. Reason #100 why this movement will remain .1% of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

We're coming...

http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 12 years ago

I think you ment going.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

No. As I said in the original piece, in the end the liberals always win and the conservative ideal, usually just a cover for protecting their own privileges at the expense of others, ends up on the trash heap of history. Of course the conservative's failure to see beyond their own self-interest delays justice and leads to alot of unnecessary suffering. It's a shame.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

Are you CRAZY?!?


1865 - Abolition - Both houses of Congress had a Republican majority


1919 - 19th Amendment (Women's suffrage) - Both houses had a Republican majority


1964 - Civil Rights Act - Republicans voted in favor 80% in the House, 82% in the Senate. Democrats voted 63% in the House and 69% in the Senate.


You are either a liar or a moron. Please, tell us which you are.

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I am neither crazy, a liar, nor a moron. I take offense at your unfounded accusations.

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Please read the original post more carefully. It distinguishes between world views. It says nothing about political parties.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I don't think he meant outside the U.S. except for monarchy and even that is related to the U.S.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I mean outside and inside the US. The US used to lead the way in progressive reforms and still often does.

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

Sure...you can play semantics and pretend, but your comment is more than implies that republicans (the conservative party in the US) are the oppressors of the weak. Too many do not know the history and record of the republican party and your post is an attempt to add credibility to misleading and incorrect assumptions of those that do not investigate the facts.


How have the liberal policies in Greece worked out? California is soon to follow.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I didn't say any political party are currently the oppressors of the weak. Apparently you think the current GOP is.

I think at one time, about 150 years ago, the Republican Party was Liberal and as such they eventually eliminated slavery over the the violent objections of the Conservatives of the time.

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

You're being childish again, "I didn't say any political party are currently the oppressors of the weak. Apparently you think the current GOP is."...What gave you the impression that I feel the the GOP is oppressive? Your examples of Conservative Causes were mostly examples of weak groups being oppressed. These were your examples, not mine. Your comment pits Conservatives against Liberals. Our two party political system has been divided on those very principles for decades. Now, I am supposed to believe that you were not referring to political parties because you chose to use Liberal instead of Democrat and Conservative instead of Republican? I'll ask again...are you a liar or a moron?


You think that, at one time, the Republican party was liberal? When? The day they ratified the thirteenth amendment? The basic platform of the Republican Party has remained unchanged since the party was formed.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I'm done with you.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

Lincoln advocated (and enacted) high tariffs. No free market free trade theology, as we have in the Republican platform today. Nixon advocated Universal health care. The R party of today has not always been as it .

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

My mistake. Thanks for the info. I thought you referring to a government run system. Nixon was an advocate for access to health care, but, again, I don't believe that he pursued a government run system.


From the article: " It would've built upon existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would've provided government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. "

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

To compare Licoln's policies to those of the party today is unfair. He led this country through unique and desperate times. Nixon was VERY pro health care, but I am quite sure that universal health care was never on his agenda.


However, I do admit that political parties sway with the times, but the Republicans basic platform has remained unchanged since its inception.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

During Eisenhower's administration the top marginal tax rate was over 90%.He was also behind the greatest expansion of Social Security coverage ever. http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/social-security.htm

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

The Dem party is the party of slavery, abortion (40,000 killed since 1973) , gun control, open borders, huge government. A lot to be proud of. We are the other half. Our favorite club is the NRA. Someday, we will have civil war. Now that will be Hell.

[-] 2 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Please read the original post more carefully. It distinguishes between ideas and world views. It says nothing about political parties.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

no...but it paints modern "Constitutional Conservatives" with the broad brush of oppression using the dictionary definition of conservative....which isn't applicable....all those things listed, as they existed, and those that were ended in the establishment of, this Republic were spearheaded by constitutional conservative individualists.... The collectivists like to subvert the use of language to suite their quest for power over the masses. They seek to bring down the protections of the individual and place us all in a mass collective, where each person surrenders their rights for the greater good...

There is no endowed right of man to the effort, time, or possessions of another man, and if one man's time is directed by force of government, that is slavery, not liberty.....the only "rights" men have are those they can engage in without the assistance or requirement of any other man. Those things that require the time and effort of others to realize are not "rights" at all....they are agreements and accord between men, if entered into by choice, they are aligned with liberty, if forced, they are servitude and bondage

You can throw around words like "liberal" and "conservative" or Republican and Democrat, but it comes down to the rights of the individual against that of the collective....bottom line. The rights of the individual is liberty, the right of the collective is tyranny..

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

The arc of history is long but it always bends toward liberty and away from the entrenched privileged group maintaining their position by restricting the freedoms of and causing the suffering of others.

Current laws, parties, elections, arguments and philosophies can slow or speed the process, but the march of the progressive movement is inevitable as people become smarter and more thoughtful.

There is no other way to read history.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

But...the Progressives seek to entangle men in the tentacles of the collective....that is not liberty.

It's disguised in the veil of libertine behavior masquerading as liberty...

Those who make demands upon others, or offer no equitable value in exchange, brand themselves as incapable of self-governence

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

The Collective - sounds like some malicious alien race. Please explain what you're talking about.

I think it is important to work together as a society. I know I could not have defeated Hitler on my own .. or come up with the polio vaccine myself .. or personally built the road that took me to work every day ... or given 12 years of training to all my employees before I hired them (I wasn't born when some were school age) ...

I've done well and am willing to pay toward "the collective" roughly in proportion to the extent I profited from the freedom and economic infrastructure provided by all those dead nor maimed soldiers and past tax payers.

It's little enough to do. I was very lucky. I was never asked to give my life for our country .. our collective. I consider myself very fortunate to only be asked to chip in my share of money to build the economic infrastructure (armies, roads, research labs, schools ...) for current and for future generations ... just like so many did for me.

http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Yes...it is malicious and alien to the founding of this Republic, the idea that we are beholden, en-masse to a community government that collects and inequitably distributes the product of the time and labor of it's citizens for the benefit of some, at the cost of others. This country wan't founded on equal outcomes, or equal distribution, it was founded on the opportunity to earn, and keep, the fruits of your own labors, in whatever means or measure you can trade them in the open marketplace....

You list things like Defense, Transportation pathways, and Education...those are things equally available and equitably distributed to each citizen, and are necessary expenses of a society,

But, the current state of our government, playing the role of charity, venture capitalist(Crony), nanny, doctor, landlord, and banker...those are NOT necessary duties of government.

It is each man's responsibility to meet his own needs, and cover his own essentials, and not to call on his representatives in government to extort, steal, by force at gunpoint, or threat of imprisonment, from those who HAVE taken that responsibility seriously, nor is it the role of government to support it's citizens unequally due to their poor behavior, or bad life choices. Life is a struggle, and to take away that struggle is to remove what it means to be human, to take away triumph and success, the things that make us the people we are, and should be.

The "collective" is the state of men, who with misleading rhetoric, try and enslave men to one another through the administrative state...they use words like fair, caring and compassion, as the explanation why they must steal a man's life (as money is merely compensation for time and value) to provide for another "lesser" (usually meaning less participatory) man's "needs" (but the needs always exceed simple means of survival, and now come to include convenience, amusement and recreation, as "rights") and try to use mob bullying and emotional argument to shame men into surrendering their liberty to this redistributive collective...but the shame should be placed upon the shoulders of those who refuse to take on the simple responsibilities of life, and those who accept and advocate for the rights of men to shirk their responsibility to provide for their own existence...

Each time you provide a man's daily needs, without that man providing equivalent value in exchange, you increase the likelihood that he will seek your provision in the future, and rely less and less on his own initiative to supply the necessary rations of life for himself....we see this in the rise of entitlement and welfare spending occurring over the course of years since the "Great Society" and "The New Deal'....People surrendering their effort and self-relience for a government check or benefit....no longer are we a nation of doers we are a nation of thieves and takers....all given the nod by the structures of government, a structure not contained in either the letter, or intent, of our founding as a nation. The incomes of the wealthy rise, of course they do, but not because they take anything from the lower income sector, as the lower incomes have nothing to take, and live now, hand to mouth, as they always have....they have no treasure to steal....the rise in the disparity of income lies in the disparity of effort and participation between the producers and the consumers....and that disparity, the disparity of effort and participation is far greater than the disparity of income has ever been...

But now, as more and more of the population resigns itself to only do what is explicitly required of them, and only when they are being observed, while they demand more and more, while providing less and less in value exchange, we wonder why there is an income gap, and we wonder why an enterprise would bear the enormous cost of closing facilities, moving and purchasing new equipment, building new facilities, training unskilled workers, shipping products tens of thousands of miles back to the place where they were once produced, and warehousing them in quantities that maintain supply lines to consumers....we wonder why, and call it greed, it's not greed, it's survival....the greed is in the organization that demanded less work for more pay, greed is in the thirst for power that creates regulation after regulation that increases costs and hamstrings business expansion and start-up, greed is in the inequitable progressive taxation model that punishes those who produce and create to reward those who laze and loaf, and operate at half-speed(on a good day)...it rewards them by requiring less participation in the system that they derive more benefit from than do those that provide them with the arena to market their limited skills and their poor work ethic for compensation that is in excess of the value they provide for it.

But, there are still more American's who earn their compensation than those who don't, there are still more American's who just need a chance to show what they can do, and they don't require a laundry list of freebies to be provided to them before they can begin, and it's THOSE American's that hold the only hope for this country....not a bunch of high-chair tyrants and weaklings looking to steal the earned treasure of others to support them in their inactivity, or leisure...

Some of us like to work for and earn our benefits and compensation...it gives us pride to do a job thoroughly and completely, and some of us still understand that extra effort is rewarded, although sometimes the reward is deferred, we don't demand, or expect...we perform and merit what we earn...

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Where do the handicapped fit in? What about those of limited ability who can't save 20 years of pay so they can eat when they're old?

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

Holy CRAP!!! Well done.....

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Hmmm. Interesting perspective. I don't believe though that it's based in reality.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Wow. That was great.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

No, there will not be civil war ... just civil society and a better educated more thoughtful citizenry. Then all the causes you hold so dear will be on the trash heap of history. It's inevitable.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 12 years ago

And we are waiting for you. Marxism was a liberal cause. So is Affirmative Action ( legalized discrimination) . And the expansion of Homeland Security.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I guess Marxism was a liberal cause ... and I think a bad idea - it too has wound up on the trash heap of history. No one bats 1000.

[-] 1 points by Redsuperficiality (96) 12 years ago

What do you know about Marxism?

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Quite a bit.

[-] 1 points by Redsuperficiality (96) 12 years ago

Good here is a chance to educate others. You have my interest.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I think the unstated goal of Marxism is to reduce human suffering. His heart was in the right place, but he was naive about human nature. He thought that production should be based on needs, not capitalism's invisible (self-serving) hand, and that eventually ownership of production capacity would be shared by everyone.

Perhaps his ideas were applied imperfectly in the USSR, China, Vietnam, but all were failures. The reason is that human nature (mine included) is more or less selfish. No-one wants to work harder than his neighbor if his neighbor get the same benefits.

This self-interest is a great engine for economic growth (which for example means more people get fed and educated). That's the main argument for capitalism. I think its the best system of those available. But as we've seen time and time again and recently, capitalism need to be carefully regulated. Otherwise those at the top grab to much money and power in a vicious cycle, and end up cheating everyone else.

Wiki's piece on Marxism is quite good for those who are interested in more .

[-] 1 points by Redsuperficiality (96) 12 years ago

The stated goal of Marxism is to develop humanity and there is no unstated goal. 'Human suffering' is a very wet idea and essentially a conservative's way of maintaining the disregard of others: seeing a veil of tears and a sob story enables one to get bored very quickly thinking of others. Marxism is not charity. Charity is a market economy's response to some of its most obvious victims. Obviously it is designed to have little effect.

Marx did not think production should be based on needs. He knew that as the productive forces developed so would needs. With capitalism the productive forces are already easily capable of producing enough to provide for all of life's necessities for all and a great deal more. For Marx, the problem with capitalism is, it eventually becomes a drag on the development of productive forces because of private ownership. The interest of those that privately own the productive forces is not to satisfy needs. It is to fabricate scarcity, chaos and the rat race and prevent the further development of the productive forces to stay in business. For example, it is in the interests of capitalists to invest in China because they make more profit out of redundant technologies than investing in new technologies in a more advanced economy like the USA. More advanced technologies would threaten the social relations of the private ownership of society's productive forces. Which brings us to 'self interest': to be content with what a market economy can provide you have to arrest your self-interests. The real self-interest of a human being is humanity and again not to be nice but because with humanity you can become more. You (PeteG2) may be more or less selfish but if you are content with what the market dictates is your lot you are not much of a self. You need to want more: you need to develop your self and your interests. The self interests of the market economy are the interests of a diminishing self and this is economically counterproductive, particularly in an advanced economy.

Vietnam defeated the US in its war for independence; China is now the most dynamic economy in the world; the USSR went from a basket case to a super power in 37 years and did the exemplary thing for any empire: it collapsed when enough of its citizens said enough. Success? Failure? It is easy to jump to conclusions. But not if you want to know.

Lastly, Wiki is not a good source for anything. Wiki is made for people who aren't that interested. It is an example of how the market economy demands less and less. Hence, it is revolutionary to want more.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

Affirmative Action had it's place, but was poorly devised. I think you should get some extra points to get into college and maybe applying for first job ... say up to age 25 ... if you can do the work .... but not for skin color ... if you came from an economically disadvantage background, terrible neighborhood, terrible school and still had the determination to overcome that. It's harder to measure that kind of background than just look at skin color, but worth it to make an color-blind affirmative-action-type program.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

As far as Homeland Security, seems like they went overboard in monitoring etc. But it was the idea of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and friends. However, I would not call that a liberal idea. Most of those in Congress considered truly liberal were very vocally opposed to the most intrusive parts of the bill.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

I thought Obama should try to roll some Homeland Security provisions back, but I don't see the daily security briefings that he does. And he would never get it past a mostly cowardly Congress, who was too afraid to even bring accused terrorists to a maximum security prison on the mainland for trial (or thought they could score political points).