Here's How The Left Sees It!

[PoliticalChic]

PC, do you have a position you do agree with or just one you disagree with? A politician, author, particular book, that best states your opinions?

Sure.....Grimm's cautionary tale:

"A man and his wife owned a very special goose. Every day the goose would lay a golden egg, which made the couple very rich.

"Just think," said the man's wife, "If we could have all the golden eggs that are inside the goose, we could be richer much faster."

"You're right," said her husband, "We wouldn't have to wait for the goose to lay her egg every day."

So, the couple killed the goose and cut her open, only to find that she was just like every other goose. She had no golden eggs inside of her at all, and they had no more golden eggs."
The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg



It applies to America today.

Something from the Grimm Brothers, excellent choice. Think of it this way however. You talk about lack of foresight for the future. Someone who will cut the golden goose down the middle for the quick riches. You say that applies to America today. But who is it that applied that to America? Was it a government making decisions for years and decades hence? Maybe. Or perhaps it was businesses who have built a model where job performance is judged by the quarterly statement? Yes, the Grimm Brothers are an excellent choice. Going back and reading some more of the classics rather than what you seem to reading these days would bring you over to our side, We the People.

You seem to have missed the point....let me guess: you're a product of government schooling?



Liberal/Democrat/Socialist polices (killing the goose that lays the golden eggs):

".... the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard



Could Obama be the worst president ever?
And...did you vote for him?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What lunacy.

You will speak for "the Left"

Now....don't run away and hide....

....how about revealing which of the thoughts in the OP you agree with, Lefty.



Let's see a little courage.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try again: you didn't find anything in the OP that ran counter to your...or other Leftists...beliefs, did you?


You'd merely be agreeing that the OP portrayed what it claimed to portray.

I did not find anything in the OP that accurately described my political opinions--hence why you got the sarcastic response. Perhaps I just don't qualify as "left" in your book. Fair enough.

I didn't read the OP, because - and here's the funny thing - when I want to know what the left thinks? I ask somebody who would know.

Not a deranged lunatic of the far-right fringe.

"I didn't read the OP,...."


Yet, you have a strong opinion about it.

Did you use the same technique in school?

Typical of the doltish Leftist cult.




"The result? Students who develop a suffocating sense of superiority, who pass judgment on authors as racist, sexist, capitalist, imperialist or homophobic before even reading their works. Political correctness is not designed to produce students who think for themselves, but, rather, cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take their orders from ‘the movement.’
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter eight.

 

[RandomVariable]

Liberal/Democrat/Socialist polices (killing the goose that lays the golden eggs):

You might as well lump Republicans in there too. There is a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. Let me rephrase that. There use to be a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. I am speaking Republican party long past here. Both Democrats and Republicans want a thriving capitalist system that works for all Americans. The Republicans can't see when something gets out of balance and need to regulated by a government that cares about its people. Democrats are not trying to squash capitalism. Capitalism as a pure concept works as well as any pure concept, it doesn't. Time and time again businesses that have gotten closer and closer to this notion of "pure capitalism" fail. It is just the inherent nature of capitalism, it does not work is its "pure" form. Don't cry, nothing does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberal/Democrat/Socialist polices (killing the goose that lays the golden eggs):

You might as well lump Republicans in there too. There is a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. Let me rephrase that. There use to be a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. I am speaking Republican party long past here. Both Democrats and Republicans want a thriving capitalist system that works for all Americans. The Republicans can't see when something gets out of balance and need to regulated by a government that cares about its people. Democrats are not trying to squash capitalism. Capitalism as a pure concept works as well as any pure concept, it doesn't. Time and time again businesses that have gotten closer and closer to this notion of "pure capitalism" fail. It is just the inherent nature of capitalism, it does not work is its "pure" form. Don't cry, nothing does.

You haven't answered as to whether or not you are a product of government schools...but, judging by all the mistakes in your post, the answer is clear.


And whether, as I surmise, you voted for the loser in the White House.

Embarrassed?

 

[RandomVariable]

Liberal/Democrat/Socialist polices (killing the goose that lays the golden eggs):

You might as well lump Republicans in there too. There is a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. Let me rephrase that. There use to be a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. I am speaking Republican party long past here. Both Democrats and Republicans want a thriving capitalist system that works for all Americans. The Republicans can't see when something gets out of balance and need to regulated by a government that cares about its people. Democrats are not trying to squash capitalism. Capitalism as a pure concept works as well as any pure concept, it doesn't. Time and time again businesses that have gotten closer and closer to this notion of "pure capitalism" fail. It is just the inherent nature of capitalism, it does not work is its "pure" form. Don't cry, nothing does.

You haven't answered as to whether or not you are a product of government schools...but, judging by all the mistakes in your post, the answer is clear.


And whether, as I surmise, you voted for the loser in the White House.

Embarrassed?

I did not answer your question because I found it insignificant. I am also a veteran. Any other questions of that nature? Stereotypes are not the product of an educated mind. I have voted for several people in government. And yes, President Obama is one of those people. Your voting record?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You might as well lump Republicans in there too. There is a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. Let me rephrase that. There use to be a lot of similarities between Democrats and Republicans. I am speaking Republican party long past here. Both Democrats and Republicans want a thriving capitalist system that works for all Americans. The Republicans can't see when something gets out of balance and need to regulated by a government that cares about its people. Democrats are not trying to squash capitalism. Capitalism as a pure concept works as well as any pure concept, it doesn't. Time and time again businesses that have gotten closer and closer to this notion of "pure capitalism" fail. It is just the inherent nature of capitalism, it does not work is its "pure" form. Don't cry, nothing does.

You haven't answered as to whether or not you are a product of government schools...but, judging by all the mistakes in your post, the answer is clear.


And whether, as I surmise, you voted for the loser in the White House.

Embarrassed?

I did not answer your question because I found it insignificant. I am also a veteran. Any other questions of that nature? Stereotypes are not the product of an educated mind. I have voted for several people in government. And yes, President Obama is one of those people. Your voting record?

I voted for the correct choice for America, not Obama.

Seems that a lot of folks are seeing that now.

And thank you for your service to this nation.


"I did not answer your question because I found it insignificant."
On the contrary.
It was significant based not only on your misunderstandings about the two parties....and based on your earlier snide comment about Ann Coulter.

Many who do so haven't read any of here scholarly documented 8-10 best sellers.

Government school grads tend to be that blind and oblivious. Propaganda tends to do that to one.


So....which ones have you read?

 

[RandomVariable]

You haven't answered as to whether or not you are a product of government schools...but, judging by all the mistakes in your post, the answer is clear.


And whether, as I surmise, you voted for the loser in the White House.

Embarrassed?

I did not answer your question because I found it insignificant. I am also a veteran. Any other questions of that nature? Stereotypes are not the product of an educated mind. I have voted for several people in government. And yes, President Obama is one of those people. Your voting record?

I voted for the correct choice for America, not Obama.

Seems that a lot of folks are seeing that now.

And thank you for your service to this nation.


"I did not answer your question because I found it insignificant."
On the contrary.
It was significant based not only on your misunderstandings about the two parties....and based on your earlier snide comment about Ann Coulter.

Many who do so haven't read any of here scholarly documented 8-10 best sellers.

Government school grads tend to be that blind and oblivious. Propaganda tends to do that to one.


So....which ones have you read?

Snide comment? Me? Never. OK, maybe once in a great while. I can only speak for myself but that line, "thank you for your service to this nation", I really dislike. Can't exactly say why. I will admit I have not read any of Coulter's best sellers. I am waiting for the movie, on Netflix. Oops, that might have been a snide comment. I must also acknowledge my blindness and obliviousness. Please enlighten me to the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Before you begin however did you hear the Republicans advocating for Pell grants on the Senate floor yesterday?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I did not answer your question because I found it insignificant. I am also a veteran. Any other questions of that nature? Stereotypes are not the product of an educated mind. I have voted for several people in government. And yes, President Obama is one of those people. Your voting record?

I voted for the correct choice for America, not Obama.

Seems that a lot of folks are seeing that now.

And thank you for your service to this nation.


"I did not answer your question because I found it insignificant."
On the contrary.
It was significant based not only on your misunderstandings about the two parties....and based on your earlier snide comment about Ann Coulter.

Many who do so haven't read any of here scholarly documented 8-10 best sellers.

Government school grads tend to be that blind and oblivious. Propaganda tends to do that to one.


So....which ones have you read?

Snide comment? Me? Never. OK, maybe once in a great while. I can only speak for myself but that line, "thank you for your service to this nation", I really dislike. Can't exactly say why. I will admit I have not read any of Coulter's best sellers. I am waiting for the movie, on Netflix. Oops, that might have been a snide comment. I must also acknowledge my blindness and obliviousness. Please enlighten me to the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Before you begin however did you hear the Republicans advocating for Pell grants on the Senate floor yesterday?

"Please enlighten me....."


That demand should have been made when you were in government schools.

 

[Bombur]

I don’t speak for the left and it is impossible to really talk about these issues in such a way but I will give my opinion on these issues.

1) I think it is a given that we are impacted by global events and we are left to make choices based on a long list of concerns. Chief among those concerns are economics, security (of ourselves and allies) and moral principles. I don’t see the world through the paradigm of state sovereignty versus international law.
2) Capitalism is great but it isn’t perfect. China’s growth demonstrates how a developing nation can grow rapidly given the right circumstances and the power of leveraging trade to spur growth. The lessons of China are very difficult to apply to the US because the situations are so different but the one thing that can be taken away is that demand is monumentally important to increasing production.
3) I have no idea what you were trying to say here but it wasn’t clear enough for me to comment. The analogy is bad and probably not worth trying to salvage.
4) I guess you are trying to talk about taxation and maybe progressive taxation in this point? The idea behind progressive taxation is that when a tax is needed we would prefer to limit the burden placed on individuals. In other words we would rather tax money that would otherwise be spent on a third house or a yacht than taxing money that would be spent on food or rent. Programs like Social Security can be taxed differently if the tax collected is closely related to a benefit received by the tax payer.
5) A desire for more economic equality and debt forgiveness are not the same thing. You are not being clear here but I will talk about income inequality here. Excessive income inequality in a nation causes economic inefficiency as parts of the population struggle to find work as adults which impacts their children and communities in harmful ways. The reaction by government can help mitigate the cost but there is still a cost. It also has a cost on our Democracy as political power can become more about money than representing people. This issue is complex and can be discussed at great length. The goal is not to have a world where everyone makes the same salary. The nation has always had economic inequality but it is growing economic inequality that is problematic.
6) The financial crisis was due to multiple failures in the system that happened both at the government level and within private industry. It had little to nothing to do with programs targeted at poor people. The programs that were initially targeted to help poor people find housing were expanded to include people who were not poor. That was one of the many problems that lead to the crisis but it was not even remotely close to the biggest factor.
A job is not a right, it is simply better for the economy to take full advantage of their labor force. You would not try and play football with only 9 men on the field.
7) You go off the rails here.
8) I agree that socialism as a word has changed so much that it has lost most if not all meaning and is really just used to call something bad/evil/etc.
9) Human ambition is a great thing but dangerous. History has demonstrated many times that power once wielded can and will be abused. Power throughout history tended to start with owning the means of production as much as if not more so than government. It was land owners that owned slaves, not the government. The government needs to step in and disallow these abuses of power.

 

[Moonglow]

Even Jesus commands the rich to give up their accumulated wealth to the poor, or no ticket to the Kingdom of Heaven will be given.
So with this paradox we see those claiming to be christian and attending church etc., etc., Do not follow what Jesus stated as a pre-requisite for obtaining that spot in Heaven.

 

[Moonglow]

Personal taxes in the US came about because of the anti-saloon league and women suffrage.

The Anti-Saloon League was the leading organization lobbying for prohibition in the United States in the early 20th century. It was a key component of the Progressive Era, and was strongest in the South and rural North, drawing heavy support from pietistic Protestant ministers and their congregations, especially Methodists, Baptists, Disciples and Congregationalists.[1] It concentrated on legislation, and cared about how legislators voted, not whether they drank or not. Founded as a state society in Oberlin, Ohio in 1893, its influence spread rapidly. In 1895 it became a national organization and quickly rose to become the most powerful prohibition lobby in America, pushing aside its older competitors the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party. Its triumph was nationwide prohibition locked into the Constitution with passage of the 18th Amendment in 1920

Anti-Saloon League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those damn pious progressive religious women!

Personal taxes took place of liquor and beer taxes. If you feel the need to throw trash upon progressives, the religious ones are the best place to start.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Personal taxes in the US came about because of the anti-saloon league and women suffrage.

The Anti-Saloon League was the leading organization lobbying for prohibition in the United States in the early 20th century. It was a key component of the Progressive Era, and was strongest in the South and rural North, drawing heavy support from pietistic Protestant ministers and their congregations, especially Methodists, Baptists, Disciples and Congregationalists.[1] It concentrated on legislation, and cared about how legislators voted, not whether they drank or not. Founded as a state society in Oberlin, Ohio in 1893, its influence spread rapidly. In 1895 it became a national organization and quickly rose to become the most powerful prohibition lobby in America, pushing aside its older competitors the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party. Its triumph was nationwide prohibition locked into the Constitution with passage of the 18th Amendment in 1920

Anti-Saloon League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those damn pious progressive religious women!

Personal taxes took place of liquor and beer taxes. If you feel the need to throw trash upon progressives, the religious ones are the best place to start.

"Personal taxes in the US came about because of the anti-saloon league and women suffrage."

Total nonsense.


1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.
[. Hylton vs United States, 1796...on the constitutionality of a federal carriage tax. " United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 respectively theArticle I, Clause 9 requirement for the apportioning of direct taxes. It found the carriage tax was an "excise" instead of a "direct tax" requiring apportionment among the states by population". Hylton v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While earlier decision (Ware v. Hylton) had nullified a state statute, in this case the court refused to nullify a federal statute, in effect giving Congress greater discretion in levying taxes than the ratifiers of the Constitution had intended. So much for federalism.]


2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.

3. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.

b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.



5. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.”

In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…
a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864. Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




6. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.


Covered more fully in chapter eight of "Hostile Takeover," Kibbee


Please.....take notes so you don't go around saying silly things.





"If you feel the need to throw trash upon progressives, the religious ones are the best place to start."

If you mean to lay the blame for theft at the feet of progressives/liberals/socialists/Democrats.....

...I sure do, and I just proved it.


Obama: "But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html