Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Producers vs. Moochers, Freeloaders And Losers - The Cruel Pro-Rich Propaganda Of The Right

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 10, 2012, 10:59 a.m. EST by GildasSapiens (266)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

""Producers" and "parasites." Cruel language justifying extreme greed seems to be mainstream now. Even Presidential candidates feel free to disparage 99% of us! In today's right-wing folklore government by We, the People is an evil thing that takes from "producers" and gives to "moochers," "freeloaders," and "losers." Government and taxes "take money out of the economy." Decision-making by We, the People is "collectivism" and "mob rule." And those of us who think the insanely wealthy should pay fair taxes suffer from "envy."

In today's discourse wealthy elites receiving $20 million a year in “capital gains” while paying almost no taxes are “producers,” while janitors or nursing home workers, working two jobs and not making enough to pay rent and feed themselves, are “moochers” and “freeloaders.” Right."

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/41314/producers-vs-moochers-freeloaders-and-losers-the-cruel-pro-rich-propaganda-of-the-right

Crush the 1% Psychopaths!

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Yes, propaganda is part of the class war we have been suffering for many years, more so since Raygun.

Remember, Michael Moore and Obama are in the 1%. "Crush the greed-addled few in the 1%."

Let's do our damnedest to wipe the Cons, Baggers and DINOs out of Congress so Obama has a chance at making some FDR progress.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

You may see it a cruel propaganda but in the real world, people who want to keep what they earn are not considered greedy but those clamoring to take what they have earned for themselves are certainly considered greedy by any definition of the word.

Frankly, outside the liberal bubble your definition of greed seems pretty silly.

[-] 3 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 2 years ago

The problem is with the unqualified word "earn". They use it, and you seem to follow suit, to mean "acquire by any more or less legal means" while others understand it as "aquire in exchange of a useful contribution to society". The lie is in implicitely assuming that any wealth possessed is wealth earned (that is, earned justly), an equivalence that is simply not true (and increasingly so as social mobility declines) in the current system.

Greed is wanting more than your contributions deserve, and pretending the system is some sort of perfect, objective, fair and impersonal arbitrator of value is a morally perverse fallacy.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

One of the reasons I come here is to read the myriad rationalizations the left uses to take other peoples money for themselves. Your rationalization is particularly perverse.

Using your logic, I could decide your contributions don't warrant what you are being paid and so I will take the difference I believe to be fair. I genuinely believe you are vastly overpaid for your contributions to society therefore I will tell everyone who will listen you are greedy, you don't earn what you get and you are cruel.

What's that you say? Silly? You earn a pittance? You remind me of the old joke in which the old man ask the young lady if she would have sex for 1 million dollars? Yes, she cried.

Would you have sex for 100 dollars? Of course not she said indignantly, what do you think I am a whore??

We've already established you're a whore, we're just arguing over price now.