Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What is so progressive about progressives?

Posted 2 years ago on March 10, 2012, 5:07 p.m. EST by 1sealyon (434)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Progressives are anti-progress. They fight progress that lowers the cost of living like cheap-energy which in turn reduces the cost of almost everything including , food, clothing, heating and AC, manufacturing, and transportation. If there is an old, termite ridden, health-department-condemned fire tarp in your town that should be torn down and replaced with a hospital, progressives will halt the progress by calling the dump historic and chaining themselves to the rotting porch posts.

Progressives limit free speech. We are only allowed to use the words and talk about subjects that are approved by the progressive elite. Newspeak.

Progressives regress pushing 2000 year old technology to generate energy. It takes 100 square miles of ear-piercing, ugly windmills to generate the same amount of power as a nuke the size of a Wal-Mart. Nukes can be located near water which is also convenient for major cities where most energy is needed, provides energy independence, produces no green house gasses, and can provide electricity and heat for all sorts of new technology like electric cars. Wind turbine accidents account for 87 fatalities in the last 10 years. Number of fatalities at US Nukes over the same period (or ever for that matter), zero.

Progressives want to give rights to whales and take them away from little children. This thinking reverts to a time when the family goat was more valuable than the family daughter, who was frequently traded for livestock. Examples: Princeton ethics Prof. Stephen Singer (kill children with disabilities), PETA, “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”.

Progressives believe that killing newborns is no different than abortion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Progressives insist that we must trust the scientists when it comes to things global warming but shun the scientists when it comes to modern medicine. When ill progressives prefer sleeping with crystals, putting magnets in their pockets, and drinking herbal tea to proven vaccines and antibiotics. Example, Steve Jobs was a progressive business man that demanded excellence in hi-tech Apple products but chose a low-tech cure for his cancer that probably cost him his life.

Progressives want to solve difficult problems like global warming by cowering at home warming their hands over a CFL lamp. We used to get off our butts and fix things with great projects like the Hoover Dam, disease eradication, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the US Interstate Highway System.

Once we threw off the bonds of monarchs and dictators, now progressives constantly whine for more from the state turning it into our master, while beatifying murderous despots like Mao, Castro, and Hugo Chavez.

Dr. Martin Luther King asked that his children be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Progressives want pigmentation preference when punishing the daughter for the sins of the mother. Examples; race preference for University admission, government contract set-asides based on race, and tax-exempt status for race-based lobbying groups.

Progressives like regressive taxes like the VAT, Import Tax, and Corporate Tax.

What is so progressive about progressives?

156 Comments

156 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Completely Confused Conservative Crap.

Or CCCC, is comprised of mis-represented reality.

Or if you prefer, this post is just another example of a wanker whipping up fear.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What is consevative about equality under the law, freedom of action and movement, the priority of human rights, advancement of science and technology, and improving the human condition?

That sounds like the preamble to the progressive charter.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What does that confused question have to do with either the OP or what I posted?

CCCC.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why would anyone be fearful of the above post? Thoughtful maybe, but why fearful?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thoughtful how?

Lies and misrepresentations?

Sounds like crap cut from a Glenn Beck cloth.

Will you be calling us the Anti-Christ next?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Thoughtful because if I tell myself that people who disagree with me must immediately be liars, fools, or pick your pejorative then it is easy for me to dismiss them and I will never learn anything beyond my own biases.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There was nothing truthful in your OP, so don't try and play the FLAKESnews reversal game on me. It won't work.

I always disagree with lies and mis-truths.

Aita pe'ape'a.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you about the post. You have hit on its exact meaning.

A good rule of thumb before accusing a large group of people of some uncomplimentary trait like racism, sexism, homo-phobia, wanting to kill babies, etc. is to go and meet a number of people in that group equal to 1% of the total. Learn their names and after talking to them convince yourself that they are guilty of the accusation.

If you follow this rule you can still only be sure about 1% of them. That means that you could be wrong 99% of the time when you accuse someone of a particularly dastardly belief.

So it is better to avoid making accusations about whole groups of people , no matter how good it feels, because it is likely to be inaccurate.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

This justifies the lies and mis-truths in your OP in what way?

It's OK for you to lie through your teeth, because that's what they do on FLAKESnews?

It's OK for you to believe and disseminate dis information, because they told you so on a popular program?

That's nothing but strange.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

This forum is replete with sweeping and insulting generalizations offered by folks with a variety view points. You don't have to look far to find them.

The point is that the generalizations are likely to be inaccurate and provide an excuse to ignore each other. Insults usually end any kind of useful discussion.

Imagine that someone called you a liar, and you believe that you are telling the truth. What is your first reaction? Will you give credence to anything else the person has to say?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Let's see.

You've been here for a little over a month. You came here to insult this movement, and now you want to play the reversal game?

I don't think so. It's not going to fly.

I was here when trolls attacked everyone from little old ladies in Ohio, to Occupiers in other parts of the World. Those people came here for some level of support, and were mercilessly insulted and attacked.

You think I'm not supposed to be a little pissed about that?

So far, you have offered NOTHING of a positive nature at all.

So why are you here?

It certainly wasn't to defend you own lying dissemination's.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

FLAKESnews is a good example of the problem. Anyone that tuned into Fox today and reads your post gets offended by your comment. 25 million people watch Fox every day. What is useful about offending 25 million people? I don't see how that serves as a convincing argument to your point of view.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

the insult it because it doesn't say what they want it to say. Its the same reason people don't like MSNBC. I will say fox got bad about the time Obama got elected but it turned around and is getting back to where it used to be. But the real problem is the that people go on websites that are one side or the other. It is offending that we have to deal with this just because some one is one way or another people hate them don't respect them and would let them die. In the end to people like Girlfriday in shooz its not their fault they are told to be that way by media , to them anyone who doesn't believe in Unions or certain right is evil. You shouldn't view them as evil but just people who have different opinions. This is why they attacked you its because they really view you as evil because the Media tells them too.

this video explains some of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiajoemGSeE&list=UUj41LMgg5G085QyTsSgy1TQ&index=16&feature=plcp

i've also tried to explain it here

http://occupywallst.org/forum/red-vs-blue/

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Are you for real?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How does insulting people help solve anything?

[-] 0 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

GirlFriday and other liberals like he or she will attack you. They live in a World of make believe and cannot handle the truth

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The ability to persuade is a useful skill regardless of political slant. I just don't see how insults help. Once an insult is hurled the other side stops listening.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The CCCC, doesn't help anything either.

That guy up there? onetime?

He lies a lot. A whole lot.

So would you say you're OK with blatant, repetitive lying?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You lie.

You lie poorly.

[-] 1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

This is an example of the counter attack for telling the truth

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You don't speak truth.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Where is that???

You started telling some truth?

Now that would be a change of pace for you.

If it's true.....Kudos 2 U.

If not? Please move to the back of the bus.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Fox is not a trustworthy source. Never has been. Doesn't have to be.

For you to actually attempt to defend this demonstrates that you are full of shit. However, we already knew that.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

That may all be true but still does not explain the usefulness of insults beyond self-satisfaction.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Save it. There is no justification to defend it.

[-] 4 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Let us all remember that this is a Scab post and that the issue is the Banks

[+] -6 points by Frank (19) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

If the issue is the banks why are you not protesting in front of Bush/Obama, Congress and the Senate? They are the ones who doled out our money, don't blame the banks, many were forced to take funds even IF they didn't want it.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Computer - $2,199.87 + tax

Internet Connection - $49.99/month

Watching conservatrolls make fools of themselves on the internet - priceless!

"Progressives want to give rights to whales and take them away from little children."

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

lol. And I was thinking this post didn't deserve a response.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Oh, OK, we're playing connect-the-dots. So let's see, conservatives want to stay in Afghanistan:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/republican-address-stay-the-course-in-afghanistan/1#.T11wIMxF7_I

And Rick Santorum wants to defund public schools:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57378842-503544/rick-santorum-suggests-opposition-to-public-schooling/

So I guess it's fair to say:

"Conservatives want to build Madrases to educate the next generation of terrorists in Afghanistan but refuse to do anything about the crumbling schools in America."

Yep, that sounds fair.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lol

if the current administration had wanted to be out of Afghanistan,

it would have already happened

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Maybe. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that "conservatives want to build Madrases to educate the next generation of terrorists in Afghanistan but refuse to do anything about the crumbling schools in America."

;-)

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you.

That is exactly the point of this post.

A good rule of thumb before accusing a large group of people of some uncomplimentary trait like racism, sexism, homo-phobia, wanting to kill babies, etc. is to go and meet a number of people in that group equal to 1% of the total. Learn their names and after talking to them convince yourself that they are guilty of the accusation.

If you follow this rule you can still only be sure about 1% of them. That means that you could be wrong 99% of the time when you accuse someone of a particularly dastardly belief.

So it is better to avoid making accusations about whole groups of people , no matter how good it feels, because it is likely to be inaccurate.

If I tell myself that people who disagree with me must immediately be liars, fools, or pick your pejorative then it is easy for me to dismiss them and I will never learn anything beyond my own biases.

[-] 4 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

As far as I can tell, you have no intention of learning anything beyond your own biases. I've seen plenty of your posts here. Nice effort at suddenly becoming rational but I'm not buying it from you. You didn't craft this post as a syllabus for a lesson on applied sociology, you believe everything you said in this post and nothing anyone says that contradicts your preconceived notions. Let me repeat, I know that you believe everything you wrote in this post, 100%.

You can write all the pretty philosophy you want, peanut, I've seen your M.O. and I'm not pretending you're anything but a rebel without a cause.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you believe that everything you wrote in the following post is likely to be true? Or were you trying to say something else?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/conservatives-hate-america/

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Once I changed the operative word from "conservative" to "conservatroll," yes. Yes, I do. 100% Originally the post was designed to antagonize because of all the obnoxious conservatroll posts. But then I decided not to over-generalize and pick an unnecessary fight with moderates. But, yes, I do believe what I wrote about "conservatrolls" completely. Because I know.

I can almost guarantee that I've been debating on the internet for longer than anyone here. I was a moderator on the CNN Talkback Live! forum on CompuServe all the way back in 1994. Any veterans from that service and time period would remember me as "Westy." There is nothing in anyone's methodology here that is new to me. I've seen it all backwards and forwards and twice on Sunday. I know where the lines are and I know when I've crossed them.

If you look at my comments on that thread, you'll see that I specifically tempered the post after the fact. So, you were right to call that specific language out, but didn't notice that I caught myself before you did. It's easy to get caught up in the tit-for-tat mentality of the trolls (conserva or other) but I do own my mistakes, 100%. If you want to turn over a new leaf and start having legit debates that aren't based on overblown or blatantly false right wing talking points, I'm game.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Consider the leaf turned.

I have read your other posts. I think that you could teach me a thing or two. We may not always agree, but I am looking for new interpretations of data.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I appreciate and respect your last comment very much. I think we can all learn from each other when we're sincere. I try to be sincere as much as possible and when I'm being cheeky, I'm pretty careful to telegraph it. I'll be sure to consider your comments in light of this discussion going forward. Thanks for the reasoned reply.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

There will always be contradictions and exceptions. You need to look at the big picture.

It is destructive right wing ideology, policies and decisions that got us to this point. Increased government corruption, the worst financial crisis in 100 years, 30 years of middle class wage stagnation and a dangerous level of wealth inequality.

Evangelicals/Religious Right and other conservatives will vote against their own economic self interest. Eschewing the facts about destructive economic Republican ideology that has led to us here. Because they don't vote based on facts. They vote based on God talk and religion. That's what go us here and thats what keeps getting Republicans elected. Despite the facts.

"...in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate. In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts." Sen. Edward Kennedy

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you in part about Evangelicals/Religious Right but it does not seem like the whole story. Take the Rep nomination for example. Right now Romney (the moderate) has twice the delegates as Santorum and Gingrich (the hard right) combined. Some of them must be voting their pocket books or giving up on their core values in the interest of picking a viable candidate.

BTW, it is a pretty brave thing to vote against your own economic self interest, and there are many causes where that bravery is merited.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

We already talked about this. Look at the popular vote in the Republican primary. Watch how Rick Santorum performs in the upcoming Southern state primaries with high concentrations of Evangelical voters. He'll be ranting about religion non stop.

To the degree Romney is picking up any moderate Evangelicals, yes, there's probably some that might be voting for him as the most viable candidate in the general election. Even as voting Republican is against their own economic self interest. Because they're either: a) ignorant of the facts of destructive right wing economic policies, b) racist, c) conpiracy theorist birther nuts, d) just completely stupid, or a combination of some or all of the above.

To the extent that any lower or middle class person is aware of the facts of destructive right wing economic policy, and still votes Republican, what you call brave, I call absolute stupidity.

When the real unemployment rate is somewhere around 20%, there are record high levels of poverty, middle class wage stagnation and a dangerously high level of wealth inequality, and a person votes Republican for some pious religious reason, ignoring these facts - if that's not stupid, I don't know what is.

That is exactly what puts us all in danger - of a continuation of more of the same destructive Republican economic policies. Middle class wage stagnation, record poverty levels and increased wealth inequality. That's what got us here and if the Republicans have anything to say about it, those policies will continue.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree, it is a puzzle; but I don't see enough evidence to buy b), c), or d). I further agree that there is a large segment that vote with the party that least offends their god. That is job 1 after all.

But there is still a pretty large chunk (enough to swing an election) with other motivations. Some possibilities: less gov intrusion on their lives, more local and state gov power, less funding of gov programs that they disagree with, Dems are sometimes considered east and west coast clusters maybe there is some geographical resentment. They surely don't like the "fly-over country" cracks. I just can't find good data on this.

I do believe that it is brave to vote against your economic interest.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence risked a lot, including their lives, to cast their public votes; all for the concept of liberty.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Romney does slightly better with Evangilicals in urban areas. I would suspect they are also better educated and more moderate. This proves item d) because they must be pretty stupid to vote, what is likely, against their economic self interest.

Have you been brainwashed by Fox news?

Less government intrusion? Like less financial regulation? That worked out oh so well.

Do you consider higher taxes on the wealthy government intrusion too? Is progressive tax policy government intrusion? Others would call it good social policy. And the way to provide and maintain a healthier economy by spreading wealth and consumer spending across a broader and vaster section of society. I would argue that our current regressive tax policies are alot more intrusive. It harms alot more people than progressive policies would.

More local and state power? For what exactly? I thought you wanted less government intrusion?

Less funding of government programs? Government social programs are the direct result and reaction to record high poverty levels, high unemployment, 30 years of middle class wage stagnation, and staggering increases in the cost of basic necessities like health care. Perhaps if we hadn't had 30 years of middle class wage stagnation more people could afford the cost for their own healthcare. Perhaps if an inordinate amount of weath had not been transferred to 1% of the population more people could afford the cost for their own healthcare. High poverty levels, middle class wage stagnation and wealth transfer to 1% of society leads to more socialism.

http://bosilawhat.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/income-disparity-and-the-road-to-socialism/

It might be brave to vote against your economic self interest if there was some enormously serious issue. If there is a more important issue than the economy and government corruption right now, tell me what it is.

Hopefully people today will not be put in a position that they have to risk their lives to correct destructive Republican economic policies and government corruption. People have already lost their lives for our democracy.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Don't you think that local gov might have a better understanding of the needs of a community than a federal gov located 3000 miles away?

The problem is not the progressive income tax it is the many regressive taxes that hurt the poor like: sales tax, gas tax, corporate tax, cigarette tax, liquor tax, vehicle registration the list is ponderous.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Local govt v federal govt - depends entirely on what the issue is. I think the reason it's even an issue is people react negatively to federal government because it is so corrupted by special interests, and it's very visible. Less visible in many ways than smaller scale corruption at a local level.

We should have no reason to fear federal government if it is acting in the interests of all people. Government should be a reflection of ourselves. So why should we fear it? The problem is that we have allowed it to become corrupted.

Regressive taxes - exactly. That's why we need a more progressive tax policy.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

One of the causes for the poor performance of our public schools is that we ask them to do too much. In addition to teaching the three R's they also have to provide meals, sports, health care, mental counseling, and day care. After a while the schools become overloaded and ineffective at everything.

The same is true about the Federal gov. If the gov takes on too much it becomes ineffective. We have the advantage, and the ability, to flow some of these tasks down to the State and Local govs. We should do this where it makes sense.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I disagree about schools doing too much. Is there evidence showing this is a pervasive problem? There are schools that do all of these things and more and do them well. If there are functional problems at a school, then the functional problems need to be corrected. Rather than cut programs that are very beneficial.

Same thing with federal government. Fix the functional problems.

Public schools are run at a local level. And they still have functional problems. So administering something at a local level rather than federal level is not necessarily a panacea.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There is a lot of evidence that our schools are failing.

In cost per student for education the US is among the top three nations in the world but we rank 27 th in math and science.

Businesses often suffer or even fail when they lose focus. When they try to do too much. When they lose sight of their goal. (a good treatment here: http://bradyuselman.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/The-Goal-Book-Review.pdf).

Most businesses (and armies for that matter) try to keep the size of an operating unit below 200 people. This is sort of a magic number beyond which the people fail to work together because they simply do not know one another and then begin to fragment. (Ref: http://richard-wilson.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-excellence-summary.html) This is the advantage that local Govs have over State govs, and State over Federal. It has been an effective organization structure for thousands of years. The problem is that the organizations with greater power often try to use that power to steal authority from those below them. The problems of a community are better solved by that community. It is easier for them to build consensus and the people that make the laws and the people that have to live with the laws must look each other in the eye almost every day. Good system.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I don't disagree that there are optimal amounts of people for effective structures. And local administration for certain government programs is appropriate. Like public education. But the federal government still has a role to play.

I don't disagree that our education system needs work. But I'm not at all sure that applying business strategies is the answer.

I think we would do better to learn from other countries, what works.
Finland, Japan, Canada, Australia, all have excellent education systems. And all of those are public. And all of these have fully comprehensive programs. Their schools do as much and more than our schools and do it well.

A few things we can learn from other countries - quality of teachers is one of the most important components of success. Other countries recruit teachers that are the top in their class. Our top college graduates go into professions like investment banking and then proceed to destroy the economy. : (

Also, I'm a big fan of lengthening the school year, which has been proposed by Pres. Obama, and has been advocated for a long time by education reformers. And correlates with better performing systems. Also, a more integrated approach to learning (ie: learning about a new subject while incorporating other discplines) has proven success. More emphasis on building problem solving skills and critical thinking skills.

And there are tons of other strategies we can learn from other countries school systems. These are just a few.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you about sports taking too much time, however I am a fan of sports for young folks. For many it is the first time that they are given personal responsibility for things like: being on time, following instructions, sticking to the rules, and acting in concert with a team.

I would be in favor of experimenting with an already failing school using the following plan (every goal must be measurable, achievable, realistic and timely):

  1. Eliminate everything but reading. Nothing else except reading. Everybody learns English only (other languages come later). Get every student to the point where they read for recreation. (No sports, no heath , no art, no self-esteem classes, no music, no nothing)

  2. Then start on Math. Get every student up to grade level. All reading and math at this point. Cultivate logical thinking.

  3. Then Engineering-Science. A child should not spend six months learning the inner workings of a volcano and have no understanding of how a car works.

  4. Maintain. Repeat 1 -3 until the school becomes a proficiency machine.

  5. Keep measuring performance and start to add other subjects in the following order:

  6. IT Skills

  7. Public Speaking
  8. History. This is taught backwards today. Start from the present and work your way back (most important to least).
  9. Art and Music.
  10. Foreign Languages (Start with Chinese). The need for foreign languages is dwindling. I travel all over the world, everybody speaks English or is racing towards it. It is one of the few advantages we have, let’s exploit it.
  11. I doubt that you can add anything else for 5 – 6 years. Revisit other courses later.

Use the Japanese model. No special Ed or accelerated classes. Teach to the center of the Gaussian Distribution. Smart kids that get bored with the pace mentor the kids that need extra help. School week is six days, six hours per day, tutoring after school, every child should play at least one sport (organized by the community, not school). Sunday: learn to play the piano. Students take 15 minutes at the end of every day to scrub the classroom. This cultivates a gentle spirit (according to the Japanese).

Do this and you will fix the schools in one generation (I am afraid that it will take that long).

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

It seems the author is suggesting there is too much time and energy placed on sports that is distracting kids from other aspects of school? If that is what the author is suggesting then I might agree. But that is far different from saying that, in general, our schools are trying to do too much. A better title might be "Non-Academic Extra-curriculars are Taking Up too Much Time and Energy".

That is far different than saying our schools are trying to do too much by providing "meals, sports, health care, mental counseling, and daycare". All of these things are highly beneficial. I don't see any of this as trying to do too much which is what you are suggesting.

I would suggest that spending alot of time and energy in the Debate Club or Science Club would be a great extra- curriculum activity. That's a parenting thing. And for more schools to provide this and encourage it would be wonderful. Is that an example of a school doing "too much"? Schools (and parents and communities) don't need to do less. They need to do better. At encouraging academics as opposed to sports perhaps.

Part of this I think is societal. Sports figures are highly revered in our society, very visible, and kids pick up on this at a very early age. Sports stars are our kids heros. Not Einstein, unfortunately.

[-] -1 points by OWSJesus (20) 2 years ago

Thin ice and it has nothing to do with your far left DNC idiocy.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Is this you Sweet Potato?

Really? Thin ice - how so? Or are you just being your usual funny self? : )

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Back in 2000 I knew somebody in the Green Party who actually wanted to run a whale for President

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I was going to make a joke about Chris Christie right now but thought better of it.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

What is so progressive about progressives?

PROGRESS

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

The Marxists have learned they need to control the narrative. They have hijacked all the good words like progressive - who could be against progress? Liberal - go look up what classical liberal means - they have turned that on it's head. Democrat - there is nothing democratic about the democratic party's policies they are all implemented by force.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I usually disagree with you, but on this one I agree.

The atheist/marxists here have really made occupy into an extreme leftwing movement.

Mention the word God or prayer, and these marxist jackwads show how tolerant they really are(not really)

But at least we can depend on their work ethic when it comes to them accomplishing their goals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhakRQCkC3k

Have to watch till the end to really appreciate.

[-] 3 points by DocJones (3) 2 years ago

We find that many people disagree with the prejudices and misinformation regarding true progressives of this article. Please reconsider the divisive nature of this and the potential negative impact on the support of our movement. Remember solidarity is key and calling progressives more like regressives is definitely stereotyping and is not a good thing.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Here's one you forgot. Progressives want corporations and other special interests to stop bribing Congress with campaign contributions, vacations, extravagant meals, and box seats at sporting events. I'm sure you agree with progressives on the issue that corruption must be removed from Congress.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you. Corruption is opportunistic like a weed. It will spread whenever there is an opening and the progress is geometric. People can be weak and easily tempted, particularly when it appears that everyone else is doing it.

How do you stop or curb it?

  • Start by electing the most honest people you find. I don't think that we vet our politicians enough about this issue.

  • Systematic changes:

  • Give the president the line item veto

  • Outlaw ear-marks

  • Stop using the tax code for special deals and behavior modification (a flat tax might work)

  • Convert the US House to an administrative body that crafts legislation and let the people vote directly on major bills (there are only 2 - 3 per week, we could make a popular reality show out of it).

  • Reduce the concentration of power. Move more authority from the Fed Gov to the State and (preferably) Local levels.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Good post 1sealyon. There is no progress in limiting freedom.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You might start off by relating some facts, before you ask a question. Then you might be mistaken for a student who is interested in the answers.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I missed how the corporate tax was regressive. It's like raising property taxes. You seem like a politically involved person. Landlords can only pass on so much of the tax to renters otherwise they kill the market. The main issue is actually causing shortages. See nyc. With companies it is even more competitive. If the tax makes business unprofitable it won't be done.....but I really need an iPad

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

A corporate tax is particularly regressive because it applies to all goods including things like food and clothing that are normally exempt from sales tax. The corporate tax is an expense that a business will pass on to consumers wherever possible and disproportionately hurts the poor.

I agree with the landlord example. If the tax is high enough (like a cap) it will kill the market and create shortages like in did in NYC.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I'm familiar with the economic theory, but I don't think it fits real business life. If you lower my corporate taxes, I'm not going to lower the price of my goods. Price is part of my marketing strategy. Any money I make I would reinvest. That's good as a stimulus, but not so good for lowering prices.

I think we don't think about shortages enough, because there is no way to know what is not made. Have you read the Little Prince? He draws a picture of a plain bag. Adults lack imagination, so they don't see that it's a picture of an elephant and a snake. I see it as relevant, because there are very few small businesses started in the US and and our trade deficit is huge. This could be part of the cause.

Avoiding all regressive taxes is really hard. When I was part of the Democratic Party, I would work with them on tax policy and actually they really wanted to try to avoid them, so in my personal experience I don't find the author to be correct. They would come up with other crazy stuff, but that's besides the point.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

What do you think of the Buffet rule tax increases? The Ryan tax plan? Or, what are your overall thoughts about tax policy?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I would like to see increased capital gains taxes. Taxes on land speculation to include estates holding property and not using it exempting only one second home. Estate taxes on estates valued over 10 million. I would lower corparate taxes and close most loop holes.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Suppose there are a row of ice cream stores on a street and instead of dropping the corporate tax on ice cream the cost of milk drops 25%. Initially each store pockets the 25% but then one gets the idea that they can garner more business if they lower their prices (they can do that because they just saved 25% on raw materials) . The store down the block sees the drop in price, along with their business, so they drop their prices and the free market drives down the price and the consumer wins.

This is why corporate tax is regressive. It is an artificial increase in the price of milk.

The US produces domestically 85% of all the goods and services that we consume and export. Not too shabby. We export $1.3 trillion worth of stuff produced in the USA. We import about $ 2 trillion, 25% of which is oil and gas. Without oil the trade deficit is small and there may be some wisdom in taking everybody else’s oil and keeping ours for when things really get tough.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Why the heck is there a street with a row of ice cream stores? Who are these business owners?

Lol. Anyway. If someone lowers the price of their ice cream-here's an idea. Don't compete on price! Compete on selection. My store has 20 types of toppings. Or organic milk. Or I roll it out on a cold stone which people will think is awesome for some reason.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree. It is never a good idea to compete on price.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

You're right. The ice cream makers should all decrease their prices by another 20 cents. Sales will sky rocket.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There is also money to be made when the base of the pyramid is enlarged.

Amazon only makes $ 0.01 for every dollar in sales, but they have a lot of sales.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2439) 2 years ago

blargheny blah blah whatever - your ideas are chained to corporate propaganda - that prevents progress - How about the fact that monopolies are patenting everything under the sun and suing for infringements (even on things like cancer genes and stifling research) -even on things they will never even create just to stifle someone else from creating it. How about the fact that when corporations reach monopoly status and drive out competition they are never forced to strive to be more than what they are and never need to strive for better or to be more innovative or inventive?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The government issues patents not to benefit the inventor but to get the invention into the public domain. The purpose is to encourage innovation and prevent the secrets associated with the innovation from dying with the inventor.

By nearly every measure I can find innovation is increasing every year and is accelerated by free-market competition. Apple, with the largest market cap on the planet, did not exist 40 years ago and nearly went bankrupt in the 90s . This is compelling evidence that companies can move freely in and out of markets and are subject to market forces.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2439) 2 years ago

Patents on things that will never be invented but to simply prevent someone else from inventing are designed to stifle the free market system - the public can view all the patents they want to but they can never ever infringe. It's also supposed to be illegal to patent things like life or seeds but yet they are doing it - seeds are being patented to prevent farmers from saving their own, and breast cancer genes are being patented so none but the patenting company can do research on the gene. I am sooo beyond sick of hearing about apple - their success has been created on the backs of slave labor and unethical ruthless practices. They are also a monopoly. Fuck apple - I will never ever own one - I promise you that - despite that they are trying at every turn to drive out any and every competitor. A real free market - if you can ignore the corruption all over it. As well as the fact that when all of your information and all the world information is stored in a cloud database owned by them and the pc is extinct we'll see how innovative you think they are as they charge you your monthly subscription to access your own information photos or files and make the cost of your business too high to continue.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

A patent only lasts 17 years. After that anyone may manufacture or offer the invention for sale.

I agree with you that there are some companies that build walls around their core IP to discourage competition, however these walls are temporary and expensive. That said stealing someone's IP is the same as taking their wallet.

BTW did you see that TAL retracted its story abut Apple :

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2439) 2 years ago

17 years is a long time if you think about the advances made in society with the last 17 years (17 years especially of medical research /repression number one as well as other advancements - hope it's not your child that might have been saved with a cure) There is hope though - the courts are giving pause ....Todays WSJ http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-supreme-court-blood-patents.html

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

In the case of medical treatments and drugs 17 years is not long enough. It can take 15 years to get FDA approval and make the first $ on the investment.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2439) 2 years ago

Odd since the FDA is stacked with former big pharma big wigs - maybe they want to create scarcity and drive up the value ? I can't think of any other reason they would take 15 years to approve a drug for their own shareholdings or former industry for which they will go back and retire from after serving in the FDA. 17 YEARS - HMM, in ten years think of all the medical advancements and advancements in technology - I remember a time before the vcr and televisions without remotes now we have robots and have mapped our DNA (remember when donated blood wan't even tested for hepatitis?)

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The answer may be to reform the FDA and reduce that 15 year lead time.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 2 years ago

Break it up girls and boys! Too many issues in one post - it damages the language, rendering the meaning of "progressive" meaningless.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Why do conservatives conserve their prejudices against, women, the elderly, the Latinos, the Asians, the teachers, the postal workers, the film industry, Europeans, Africans, Muslims, intellectuals, the elite of every sort except the rich, Methodists, scientists, environmentalists, social workers, artists, professors, protestors, philanthropists, pro human rights advocates, the disabled, the poor, the middle class, classical musicians, attorneys, firefighters and policemen, veterans, administrators, artists, news media, chefs, children, black people, just to name a few? If you can answer these you will be well on your way to understanding the absurdity of your original question,

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you believe that all conservatives have prejudices against:

women, the elderly, the Latinos, the Asians, the teachers, the postal workers, the film industry, Europeans, Africans, Muslims, intellectuals, the elite of every sort except the rich, Methodists, scientists, environmentalists, social workers, artists, professors, protestors, philanthropists, pro human rights advocates, the disabled, the poor, the middle class, classical musicians, attorneys, firefighters and policemen, veterans, administrators, artists, news media, chefs, children, and black people?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Apparently it is only a solid majority, based on surveys.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Which surveys?

Can you name three conservatives in the US House of Representatives that have prejudices against:

women, the elderly, the Latinos, the Asians, the teachers, the postal workers, the film industry, Europeans, Africans, Muslims, intellectuals, the elite of every sort except the rich, Methodists, scientists, environmentalists, social workers, artists, professors, protestors, philanthropists, pro human rights advocates, the disabled, the poor, the middle class, classical musicians, attorneys, firefighters and policemen, veterans, administrators, artists, news media, chefs, children, and black people?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Start with the Blount amendment. Then look at every piece of legislation that the house has passed since 2010. You will find many of these constituencies there. And when you get through with that look at the legislation passed by state legislatures with GOP majorities. You claim to want to learn something. Do your home work. It is all there for you. Don't challenge me, Challenge yourself. Others have called you out on your record here. If you won't do your home work they must be right.

Here go read this:http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-republicans-and-muslims-need-to-control-wom/

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why are you afraid to back up a sweeping generalization that slanders millions people? You should feel obliged to give at least a few names and provide evidence.

My issue is that negative generalizations about millions of people are usually wrong and always alienate the very people that you wish to persuade. It is an ineffective and divisive approach.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Read the Paul Ryan budget. If you want education you have to put in some effort. It ain't slander if it is true. I have suggested sources. Campaign speeches of the GOP presidential candidates are easily accessible sources of undeniable proof, as well. I have no interest in persuading you. Who are you? Can you influence millions of people? Not likely. The probability of you educating yourself, making a philosophical 180 and becoming effective in repeating the process with your cohorts in what is left of my lifetime is approaching zero. Don't flatter yourself.

Generalizations are the essence of human thought, when they are correct. The one I just made is correct. You just need the maturity of judgement to know when to generalize. Those who don't, generally criticize generalization, foolishly.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If you are certain that the generalization is correct can you point to one instance of prejudice by a conservative against chefs?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Certainly, if you will concede the rest?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There is no way to justify knowing insulting tens of millions of people with sweeping generalizations, and serves little purpose other than to alienate potential allies.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Was this a concession? If you went looking I am sure you easily found that most of the list was easily substantiated. Enough so that you chose to Ignore the obvious conclusion. I didn't insult anyone. I was only talking to you. If you were offended by the truth, represented in my generalizations, I am not looking to make you an ally. It is too heavy a lift. You won't do any homework to correct your distorted view of reality, when I made it easy for you.

Potential allies are those who are willing to seek truth and have the courage to act on it. Please note I didn't call you a name.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Your post copied below accuses conservatives of massive un-substantiated bigotry. Rarely is bigotry ever considered a compliment.

There are more than 100 million folks in the US that self-identify as conservatives. Why do you suspect that they would not be insulted by your post? Even if it was half true as your surveys report you would still be insulting 50 million people. For what purpose?

"Why do conservatives conserve their prejudices against, women, the elderly, the Latinos, the Asians, the teachers, the postal workers, the film industry, Europeans, Africans, Muslims, intellectuals, the elite of every sort except the rich, Methodists, scientists, environmentalists, social workers, artists, professors, protestors, philanthropists, pro human rights advocates, the disabled, the poor, the middle class, classical musicians, attorneys, firefighters and policemen, veterans, administrators, artists, news media, chefs, children, black people, just to name a few?"

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The word "all" was conspicuously absent from my post and deliberately so. However, I am sure with very little work you can find many examples of conservatives prominent enough to be quoted holding positions that would be disadvantageous to the groups mentioned, so I am confident that you can satisfy yourself that more than half are true. If your leaders can be documented as holding those positions, you know there will be many in the rank and file who will push it a little further, because they are macho men.

And when you get to that point, I am sure that you can generalize that this is a highly prejudiced group. Then you have to consciously chose to continue to associate yourself with bigots, or not. No not all of them. Some are probably old and consider themselves as conservative as Barry Goldwater, who would not be welcome at a GOP convention because he would accuse those assembled, as I just have. He would have done it because he was a man of courage and would have called them as he saw them. The innocent would not be insulted but would have to acknowledge that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

The GOP was once mostly patriots who would have accepted ALL of their fellow Americans because they did go to war together and they brought each other back. How can patriots demean the group on my list? They should be ashamed. Remember, fleas.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The word "some" was also conspicuously absent from your post.

I disagree with your flea theory. Guilt by association is not a very progressive philosophy; unless you're Joe McCarthy.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No, it isn't association. You really do get fleas. You hear Limbaugh and other talkers, and hosts of politicians say demeaning things about these groups and the silence of those who identify themselves with the same group, would lead to a set of conclusions. You might say that they don't disassociate themselves with those they disagree with but that is given the lie by the fact that the vociferously disassociate themselves with what others say, Obama for example. It is intellectually dishonest to do it in only certain cases and not in others and then claim it is your consistent practice to do so or not to do so. So, "some" wasn't necessary.

I notice you didn't disassociate yourself with any on the list.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Why do conservatives want to preserve the worst of our history rather than as Edmund Burke suggested, to preserve the best and go forward?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Which are your favorite historical features that conservatives are trying to discard?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I rather prefer that we retain all of it. The 3/5 compromise, Andrew Johnson's and Sumner's misdeeds, all of it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

See above. Progressive Republicans and Progressive Democrats have a long tradition of recognizing the rights of groups who have been denied equality, or expanding freedom and liberty, while conservatives and been taken over by people who try to reduce the freedoms (equality) of all of the groups mentioned above.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well of all the historical freedoms that people have enjoyed and conservatives are trying to take away today which are the most significant?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Conservatives have opposed the equality of rights and freedoms of all minority groups. They conserve the status quo. "I got my rights and you aren't entitled to the same rights."

The right to vote. The voter suppression in the face of no credible evidence of a problem in any state, shows a conspiracy to suppress the vote of groups who vote Democratic. The elderly, the poor, people of color, and legal immigrants are all targeted.

Women's rights: Domestic violence, equal pay, access to contraception coverage, privacy.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you about the right to vote. I can find little evidence of wide spread voter fraud that would be helped by voter ID cards. I do not agree with you that efforts for and against IDs are motivated by Republican prejudice or Democrat altruism. They are motivated on by sides by a lust for power.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There is some hope for you. Some times the lust for power puts you on the right side of the issue, sometimes on the wrong. The Dems happen to be right on this one. The GOP siding with us old white guys against EVERYBODY else is both wrong and monumentally stupid. It is sacrificing the long term to lose in the short term.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Dems may be on the right side but I suspect their motives. There are an estimated 8.7 million people in the US that entered illegally, there are another 10 million that are ineligible to vote (non-US citizens, ex-cons, etc) . This is a huge number (about 130 million people voted in 2008) and it is almost irresistible to encourage these folks to register and vote. Do you think that any of these folks voted in 2008?

All you have to do to vote in MA is to complete an affidavit of registration. No proof of residency or citizenship is required. You can register and vote in multiple locations under different names up to three weeks prior to the election. Do you think that this is a good system?

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleifv/howreg.htm

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Every place they have checked this out, and believe me the GOP is highly motivated to find justification, they have found very little evidence that people were fraudulently voting. If you are concerned about voting irregularities, there have be several instances in the GOP primary process, Iowa, Maine, and a hand full of other caucuses and primaries where the reporting is questionable, numbers have been reported before they were counted, counts changed, precincts excluded, rules have been changed during the process (from winner take all to proportionality or vice versa.) So if you are interested there is a real situation in process where voters are being disenfranchised by the party who has claimed the need to solve a problem of voter disenfranchisement. Curious?! Let me know what you find out. Or are you only interested when you can question the motives of a party who is obviously doing the right thing, and ignore the motives of a party who is obviously doing the wrong things to its own members?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I enjoyed reading your post. It made me introspective of my own ideas.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

good post

i agree we need to move forward in a way that is cheap and possible for all

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Weapons are one of the US exports that the world still seems to want.

Interesting that France is such a big player, and that the top six all have nukes.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

go ahead

invade a country with nukes

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 2 years ago

Let's face it. It all talk. It's been going on for the 200 years and not much changes. This is real.

"We Are Free!"

http://WeAreFree.osixs.org

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( Http://www.revolution2.osixs.org ) Free people should act or live like slaves...

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What's wrong with work? I like to work. I also noticed that the harder I work the more money I make.

Besides most folks that I know work much harder having fun than they do at work. Why would I want to make my life any harder?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I thought progresso was an uper middle class can of soup

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

No that's espresso; and it's not soup, just a really fast train.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It's also true that conservatives don't seem to want to conserve much and liberals really don't seem to want to liberate anything, but I do think that the activist base of OWS is quite different than any of that, which is well articulated in the Declaration of the Occupation.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Agreed. The 99% does have a mix of both liberals and conservatives. It would be useful to find common ground. Accepting that there are pros and cons on both sides would be a place to start.

[-] 3 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It is interesting to note that while most people self identify as conservatives, when the question is disaggregated the responses are quite different. That is, when people are asked about labor rights, the rights of labor unions, minimum wage, social security, gay rights, women's rights, national health insurance and questions of disarmament, they tend to be all for these things while at the same time continuing to characterize themselves as conservatives. So from a strictly academic perspective most Americans are really social democrats even though the self identify as conservatives.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So in your experience are most (more than half) of Americans moderates?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

No, just the opposite. I think there is a lot of cognitive dissonance here. Obviously, consciously, most Americans think of themselves as conservatives, but practically, unconsciously, when view from the perspective of a series of specific questions about society and their place in it, most Americans are not only not moderates, they are not even liberals but significantly to the left of what is typically described as liberalism and are probably most accuratedly described as social democrats regardless of their self image as conservatives,

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

They don't seem to vote that way.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

People vote for what is available to them. IMHO voter participation is down precisely because so little is available to them. People don't vote for third party candidates no matter how appealing their program because they are so unlikely to be elected and frankly very few third party candidates especially lower down on the ticket are at all qualified to govern or legislate. And the range of choice between most Democrats and Republicans is really quite narrow when compared to virtually any other industrialized democracy,

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Some part of poor voter turnout is encouraging. It means that government is not an important part of their lives. They do not depend on gov and gov does not interfere with their lives so the just don't bother.

I do agree with you that the choice between Dem and Rep is not substantially different.

Would things really be that much different today if Bush had still been in office for the last four years instead of Obama?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

For decades Gore Vidal has advocated what he calls conscientious nonparticipation in the electoral process. I really see OWS as America's last best hope, Ultimately I think OWS will have to enter the electoral process in some way, but I believe for it to do that now would be premature and only reveal the weakness of the movement,

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Has anybody every surveyed OWS on the % that voted in the last election?

Young folks have notoriously poor turnout.

Old people vote like crazy! We need a Grey-OWS movement.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

More power to you, pops. Luckily, liberal policies have made the public space wheelchair accessible, have at it. :)

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Agreed.

But we have to be careful about labels. The ADA was enacted by George Bush (the elder). Maybe the right thing to do is not liberal or conservative, it is just the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

he was not a half bad president from what i remember. If i remember right, he did what was right for the nation, with regards to tax policy, at a political loss for himself. That is all right in my book.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But he did not get second term.

That said his replacement was pretty good. He mostly stayed out of the way and focused on pro-growth policies.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Occupy started last year... How would a survey even be remotely relevant, considering that the group wasn't even in existence before the last election? Don't try to bullshit me that you can draw a correlation after the fact...

Your OP is a complete mess and a joke for that matter. Please keep your hyperbole, generalizations, and outright lies away from this forum.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

OWS may have started last year but many of the folks in the group were of voting age in 2008. It would be useful to know what % voted, and how many plan to vote in Nov. Does involvement in groups like OWS promote involvement in the election process, or discourage it?

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

The Marxists have learned they need to control the narrative. They have hijacked all the good words like progressive - who could be against progress? Liberal - go look up what classical liberal means - they have turned that on it's head. Democrat - there is nothing democratic about the democratic party's policies they are all implemented by force.

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

Just one comment -- this guy has no clue what "regressive tax" actually means!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you believe that a tax on gasoline is regressive?

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

Capped social security and medicare taxes are regressive -should be no cap and no surplus - they are supposed to be pay as you go programs.

A VAT tax is better than a corporate "Income Tax" and is not regressive.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The VAT tax is regressive since it adds cost to a product that is borne disproportional by the poor. Think of the VAT on gasoline or a snow shovel. It is also a hidden tax that the gov can impose that is invisible to all but the most observant consumer. The VAT is added at points in the production of a product that the consumer does not see. (see link)

A corporate tax is worse than the VAT because it applies to all goods, even food which is often tax exempt. If onerous enough (like price controls) the corporate tax can also cause shortages in key commodities like fuel, food, and housing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

All costs get passed to the consumer - VAT is better because other countries use it and it creates an artificial tariff on our products since we dont use it -- VAT countries credit the VAT tax to their exports and add the TAX to their imports -- we could do the same -- credit it to our exports and add the VAT to all imports and increase revenue

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I don't like the VAT for three reasons:

  1. It dis-proportionately hurts the poor.

  2. It is a tax on consumption. If we want more jobs we need to encourage consumption, not the other way round.

  3. It is a hidden tax. The Gov should have to look you in the eye when they raise taxes.

A progressive income tax without loop-holes should be an adequate and equitable way to fund government.

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

VAT tax taxes services and goods - so yes consumption but like I said it is better than a corporate Income Tax which most don't pay anymore anyways.

As for a Progressive Income Tax how about a flat rate of 40% - with the first 50K tax free and other deductions capped at 50K and a 10% surcharge on every dollar over one million.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you. If the choice is between the VAT and corporate tax the VAT is the lesser of two evils, but in application (like much of Europe) the VAT is full of set-asides and loop holes.

How much revenue do you reckon the Fed Gov will get with a 40% flat tax?More or less than now? Also, are all income sources treated the same (wages, interest, capital gains, etc.)?

The President has proposed a 0% rate on capital gains for investments made in small businesses. Are you in?

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

No - all income should be considered income under the income tax -- 40% is higher then the current top 35% rate and with 10% on anything over a million more than makes up for not taxing the first 50-100 K (50K + additional deductions).

Small businesses - sole proprietors etc. should have additional credits/deductions - but any profit taken out of the business for personal use is "Income" and should be taxed as such.

Low capital gains taxes are responsible for up to 80% of the increase in wealth disparity over the last two decades.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So you don't agree with the Obama plan of 0% capital gains for small business investment?

Also, this plan would kill LLCs. They would all convert to C or S-corps to avoid the tax. I suspect that 40% + 10% (not really a flt tax is it) would result in a decrease in revenue for the Gov. It is over the hump in the Laffer curve.

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

No I doubt that -- we used to tax at 70%+ in the higher brackets - you aren't gonna see any reduction at 40% due to people choosing to make less -- studies show you can almost go to a total tax of 70% before that happens -- and it is a flat a flat tax rate with just a surcharge for excessive wealth -- plus removing the caps for Medicare and Social Security -- truth is if you removed the cap for Social Security you could cut the rate especially if we start paying back the three trillion we owe it - it was always supposed to be a pay as you go program to keep the elderly from being destitute and dying in the streets.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Say you make $100k and the tax rate is 40%. You spend another $ 10k in state and local taxes. Why would you not switch to part time, earn $50k and pay no tax?

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

No one pays on the first 50K -- if you dont want the extra 30K then stop working at 50 --- not gonna happen.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you about SS and Medicare. Caps don't make sense nor do payouts to millionaires. Let's face it, these programs are no longer retirement plans. Current recipients are taking out 2X what they paid in.

Are you in favor of turning over operational control to American Express or VISA? They claim to be able to save $100 million annually in administrative costs.

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

SS is not a retirement plan - it was meant to be a pay as we go program to prevent the elderly from being destitute and dying in the streets.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But we are not paying as we go.

Does a 20 year old today have any expectation that SS will exist when they retire?

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

Actually we are paying more -- the general budget owes SS 3 trillion dollars -- thanks Reagan!

You remove the cap and its good till 2050+ -- the only real danger to SS is the GOP actually gutting and dismantling it.

[-] 0 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

An excellent and very edifying post. There is nothing progressive about Proglodytes. They've co-opted the word progressive and the word gay,but they are regressive and not very happy.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I had to look up the definition for Proglodyte.

I try to avoid stuff that puts people off. I don't learn anything.

I do miss some words that were once ok to use. In my work we use chemical retardants. I find myself stumbling over that word these days.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=proglodyte

[Removed]

[Removed]