What Leftism Does to People

[Ravi]

When do they start calling lefties rats and filth and dehumanizing them while at the same time blaming them for all their woes like the Nazis did to the Jews?

Oh, wait....

 

[midcan5]

Reality never enters these discussions, instead assumptions abound. But....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR3jQOgs9gc]Hunger & Poverty In America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[xotoxi]

I am a numbnut who has nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

But thanks for asking.

yours is however one of the few honest and self-aware posts.

And yours is one of the few posts that speak the truth.

 

[Nosmo King]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

But why is it the leftists look to the corporations to "fix it" and not to government? Because to the leftist, the government is the supreme power and therefore must be revered, respected, and deemed to be without serious sin. Therefore the anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration must be directed to somebody else and the "rich" or the "corporations" are convenient targets.

How about we level the playing field and take away the corporations ability to buy influence by making it illegal for the federal government to dispense ANY form of charity or benevolence or favor on ANYBODY unless they do the same simultaneously for EVERYBODY? That takes away the ability of anybody to buy influence. And it takes away the ability of those in government to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

At the same time require those in Congress to fund their own retirement plans and health plans out of their salaries as most of us have to do, and end the liftime salaries and benefits for retiring elected officials. And that gives nobody an incentive to run for public office for personal benefit but rather would again encourage true public servants to serve.

This would seem to be attractive to those who have not been made dependent on entitlements or given an entitlement mentality.

Not so attractive to the Occupy folks, I would think, who should be occupying Washington and demanding their elected leaders clean up THEIR act. They are definitely targeting the wrong people to punish.

Liberals don't expect corporations to fix anything! They won't. they are not motivated to. They are motivated to get as much as they possibly can. As much money, as much power, as much influence as possible. It's government that can and must fix it.

Government establishes the rules we all play by. As Social Conservatives wish government to control personal lives, Liberals want government to be the buffer between the rabid dog Capitalism has become and a true arena of fair play.

Should a corporation be able to open a smelting plant in a residential neighborhood? Should a corporation be able to exploit the workforce by paying them less than what is fair while paying the executive suite exorbitant bonuses even if that corporation fails? Should a corporation avoid paying its fair share of taxes after exploiting the infrastructure and environment and workforce?

The government is answerable to the people. That's where their power comes from. Corporations are answerable to stock holders. But even when corporate heads screw up, their personal culpability is rewarded by lavish bonuses and compensation.

And what is it that needs fixed? The balance, which has served American Capitalism so well until the corporations gained the upper hand in government policy. The balance between executive pay and worker pay. The balance between community needs and corporate needs. The responsiblity corporations used to hold to their workers, their community neighbors and their stock holders.

Wealth, real wealth isn't earned by producing today. It's reaped from owning, selling and getting the most out of workers (even if that means the workers are now outside the United States and paid slave wages), the environment (by ridiculing the safeguards that ensure safe water, air and soil) and bending the rules of the market (by selling worthless junk bonds as premium holdings).

We hear Conservatives ridiculing labor as greedy, selfish and lazy. We hear Conservatives ridicule workplace safety regulations as intrusive, wasteful and costly. We hear Conservatives ridicule environmental regulations as onerous and restrictive. All to what end? So that corporations, those benevolent corporations can 'create' jobs? For whom? Asians, Latin Americans? Who do Conservatives figure the ultimate consumer of the products will be once the workers wages and quality of life and personal property values are consumed by the same corporations who ruined the show?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reality never enters these discussions, instead assumptions abound. But....

Hunger & Poverty In America - YouTube

One can always count on Middy to spread the propaganda.

"Twenty years ago, hysteria swept through the media over “hunger in America.”
Dan Rather opened a “CBS Evening News” broadcast in 1991 declaring,“one in eight American children is going hungry tonight.” Newsweek, the Associated Press and the Boston Globe repeated this statistic, and many others joined the media chorus, with or without that unsubstantiated statistic.

When the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture examined people from a variety of income levels, however, they found no evidence of malnutrition among those in the lowest income brackets. Nor was there any significant difference in the intake of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from one income level to another.

That should have been the end of that hysteria.

Ironically, the one demonstrable nutritional difference between the poor and others is that low-income women tend to be overweight more often than others.

The political left has turned obesity among low-income individuals into an argument that low-income people cannot afford nutritious food, and so have to resort to burgers and fries, pizzas and the like, which are more fattening and less healthful. But this attempt to salvage something from the “hunger in America” hoax collapses like a house of cards when you stop and think about it.

Burgers, pizzas and the like cost more than food that you can buy at a store and cook yourself. If you can afford junk food, you can certainly afford healthier food. ...the nanny state to the rescue!

An arrogant elite’s condescension toward the people — treating them as children who have to be jollied along — is one of the poisonous problems of our time. It is at the heart of the nanny state and the promotion of a debilitating dependency that wins votes for politicians while weakening a society."


Read more: SOWELL: Politicians need poverty to justify programs

 

[Neotrotsky]

When do they start calling lefties rats and filth and dehumanizing them while at the same time blaming them for all their woes like the Nazis did to the Jews?

Oh, wait....

or Like the OWS does to the Jews

Oh, wait...

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

But why is it the leftists look to the corporations to "fix it" and not to government? Because to the leftist, the government is the supreme power and therefore must be revered, respected, and deemed to be without serious sin. Therefore the anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration must be directed to somebody else and the "rich" or the "corporations" are convenient targets.

How about we level the playing field and take away the corporations ability to buy influence by making it illegal for the federal government to dispense ANY form of charity or benevolence or favor on ANYBODY unless they do the same simultaneously for EVERYBODY? That takes away the ability of anybody to buy influence. And it takes away the ability of those in government to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

At the same time require those in Congress to fund their own retirement plans and health plans out of their salaries as most of us have to do, and end the liftime salaries and benefits for retiring elected officials. And that gives nobody an incentive to run for public office for personal benefit but rather would again encourage true public servants to serve.

This would seem to be attractive to those who have not been made dependent on entitlements or given an entitlement mentality.

Not so attractive to the Occupy folks, I would think, who should be occupying Washington and demanding their elected leaders clean up THEIR act. They are definitely targeting the wrong people to punish.

Liberals don't expect corporations to fix anything! They won't. they are not motivated to. They are motivated to get as much as they possibly can. As much money, as much power, as much influence as possible. It's government that can and must fix it.

Government establishes the rules we all play by. As Social Conservatives wish government to control personal lives, Liberals want government to be the buffer between the rabid dog Capitalism has become and a true arena of fair play.

Should a corporation be able to open a smelting plant in a residential neighborhood? Should a corporation be able to exploit the workforce by paying them less than what is fair while paying the executive suite exorbitant bonuses even if that corporation fails? Should a corporation avoid paying its fair share of taxes after exploiting the infrastructure and environment and workforce?

The government is answerable to the people. That's where their power comes from. Corporations are answerable to stock holders. But even when corporate heads screw up, their personal culpability is rewarded by lavish bonuses and compensation.

And what is it that needs fixed? The balance, which has served American Capitalism so well until the corporations gained the upper hand in government policy. The balance between executive pay and worker pay. The balance between community needs and corporate needs. The responsiblity corporations used to hold to their workers, their community neighbors and their stock holders.

Wealth, real wealth isn't earned by producing today. It's reaped from owning, selling and getting the most out of workers (even if that means the workers are now outside the United States and paid slave wages), the environment (by ridiculing the safeguards that ensure safe water, air and soil) and bending the rules of the market (by selling worthless junk bonds as premium holdings).

We hear Conservatives ridiculing labor as greedy, selfish and lazy. We hear Conservatives ridicule workplace safety regulations as intrusive, wasteful and costly. We hear Conservatives ridicule environmental regulations as onerous and restrictive. All to what end? So that corporations, those benevolent corporations can 'create' jobs? For whom? Asians, Latin Americans? Who do Conservatives figure the ultimate consumer of the products will be once the workers wages and quality of life and personal property values are consumed by the same corporations who ruined the show?

But who is we? I have NEVER heard a conservative even criticize, much less designate as greedy, selfish, or lazy those who labor and put in a honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I HAVE heard conservatives--probably all of us--who criticize the able bodied who want a day's pay as their right to have whether or not they put in the work. And we do consider such to be greedy, selfish, and lazy. Don't you?

In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is important to include the whole picture when you criticize a huge number of Americans for their convictions and/or ideology.

And yes, corporations, as well as partnerships and sole proprietors are in business to make as much money as they can for the effort and resources expended. As is the laborer who works for such entities. Few of us would do it for long if the fruits of our labor was excessively confiscated and there was little profit to be had. Most especially if the profit was given to us whether we put in the effort or not.

As Adam Smith said:

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. . . ."

". . . .It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

So again, if you want the playing field leveled, do you honestly think that comes from reducing or confiscating the profits of those engaged in business and commerce?

Or would you consider a proposal to deny Congress the ability to use the people's money to benefit ANYBODY as the best way to remove the ability of some to buy influence and favors from the government?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, I have no idea what the left thinks the answer is, but that IS the actual answer: they DON'T like us, because they want to BE us, and they resent us for already having and being what they want.

Just to set the record straight....there is not a Republican that stands on this God given Earth, that I want to "BE" like......no envy exists towards any of you on my part!

come to think of it, there isn't a Democrat that stands on this god given earth, that I want to "be" like either, or am envious of....I am content with being me, thank you very much!

For the record, they were referring to Americans. Are you saying you don't want to be an American (democrat or republican or other)?

You were expecting Care to be able to read for context AND to remember the conversation for more than five minutes? Boy, are YOU optimistic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just to set the record straight....there is not a Republican that stands on this God given Earth, that I want to "BE" like......no envy exists towards any of you on my part!

come to think of it, there isn't a Democrat that stands on this god given earth, that I want to "be" like either, or am envious of....I am content with being me, thank you very much!

For the record, they were referring to Americans. Are you saying you don't want to be an American (democrat or republican or other)?

she IS an american, nutter.

and for the record, i think you'll find if you ask most of the non-americans on this board, they think we have a pretty stupid political system... at least as it's practiced now.

Well, if she IS an American, dumbass, then why is she trying to make a comment about people from other countries envying Americans about HER? I realize that it's the leftist kneejerk reaction to assume EVERYTHING is about them, but come on. Is it too much to ask that you silly bitches read for context, remember the conversation for the length of time it takes to respond to it, and then actually produce a response that is relevant?

And for the record, who said anything about them envying our political system? What the hell IS it with you, anyway? Why are you so damned incapable of ever responding to what's actually said, rather than obtusely trying to put words into people's mouths and pretend the conversation you'd LIKE to be having is going on? Are you really this stupid and illiterate, or are you just too big a poltroon to exit your safe little delusion for reality?

 

[Cecilie1200]

…rebuttal on the thesis.

One isn’t required to rebut a flawed thesis, if you understood objective historical analysis you’d realize the thesis is flawed. If you argued 4 + 4 = 6, it’s not incumbent upon me to rebut your ‘argument.’

Some don't seem too thrilled with actual conversation...Go figure... I thought thats what we were supposed to be doing here.

Conversation is fine – provided there’s an actual topic.

^I read this as:

Now please rebut yourself as I'm far too bright and busy to do more than post this drivel in the space of an actual definitive response. <-- wasting the same amount of time to say nothing.

Well, let's face it. Their side of the argument has a lot better shot at making some headway if it's articulated by one of us than it does if CC tries to express it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This poll is completely biased. There is such a thing as moderates, you know....

How does one have a "moderate" opinion on the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights?

Let me guess you don't agree with the second amendment but you agree with the first so you're a moderate??

You speak as though liberals hate the constitution, and that is where you and I disagree. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a MODERATE LIBERAL. You are fooled by the propaganda of Fox News that says that liberals are completely against the second amendment. Not true. Many liberals support owning hand guns, but believe that there should be restrictions on owning semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

I like to think I am a left-leaning moderate. I think the second amendment is very important, however I also believe that it needs limitation.

Well, I can't speak for Mr. Nick, but for my part, it's more that I think liberals don't UNDERSTAND the Constitution, which probably has something to do with the fact that none of them appear to have READ much of it, coupled with a generally low level of literacy.

As for the Second Amendment, you might want to contemplate that, whether or not there are random people on the left who like guns, it is the Democrat Party - political home of the American Left - that officially has infringement of the Second Amendment as part of its party platform.

And if you're such a Constitution-lover, perhaps you could show me where that beloved document allows for the "limitations" you've decided the Second Amendment "needs"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reality never enters these discussions, instead assumptions abound. But....

Hunger & Poverty In America - YouTube

One can always count on Middy to spread the propaganda.

"Twenty years ago, hysteria swept through the media over “hunger in America.”
Dan Rather opened a “CBS Evening News” broadcast in 1991 declaring,“one in eight American children is going hungry tonight.” Newsweek, the Associated Press and the Boston Globe repeated this statistic, and many others joined the media chorus, with or without that unsubstantiated statistic.

When the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture examined people from a variety of income levels, however, they found no evidence of malnutrition among those in the lowest income brackets. Nor was there any significant difference in the intake of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from one income level to another.

That should have been the end of that hysteria.

Ironically, the one demonstrable nutritional difference between the poor and others is that low-income women tend to be overweight more often than others.

The political left has turned obesity among low-income individuals into an argument that low-income people cannot afford nutritious food, and so have to resort to burgers and fries, pizzas and the like, which are more fattening and less healthful. But this attempt to salvage something from the “hunger in America” hoax collapses like a house of cards when you stop and think about it.

Burgers, pizzas and the like cost more than food that you can buy at a store and cook yourself. If you can afford junk food, you can certainly afford healthier food. ...the nanny state to the rescue!

An arrogant elite’s condescension toward the people — treating them as children who have to be jollied along — is one of the poisonous problems of our time. It is at the heart of the nanny state and the promotion of a debilitating dependency that wins votes for politicians while weakening a society."


Read more: SOWELL: Politicians need poverty to justify programs

This is very true. When my husband and I want to trim down the household spending, the FIRST thing we do is cut out all trips to eat out and virtually all prepared-food purchases from the grocery store. I can save a lot of money by buying fresh food ingredients and cooking from scratch.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOMI0ORGH44&feature=related]Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Nosmo King]

But why is it the leftists look to the corporations to "fix it" and not to government? Because to the leftist, the government is the supreme power and therefore must be revered, respected, and deemed to be without serious sin. Therefore the anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration must be directed to somebody else and the "rich" or the "corporations" are convenient targets.

How about we level the playing field and take away the corporations ability to buy influence by making it illegal for the federal government to dispense ANY form of charity or benevolence or favor on ANYBODY unless they do the same simultaneously for EVERYBODY? That takes away the ability of anybody to buy influence. And it takes away the ability of those in government to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

At the same time require those in Congress to fund their own retirement plans and health plans out of their salaries as most of us have to do, and end the liftime salaries and benefits for retiring elected officials. And that gives nobody an incentive to run for public office for personal benefit but rather would again encourage true public servants to serve.

This would seem to be attractive to those who have not been made dependent on entitlements or given an entitlement mentality.

Not so attractive to the Occupy folks, I would think, who should be occupying Washington and demanding their elected leaders clean up THEIR act. They are definitely targeting the wrong people to punish.

Liberals don't expect corporations to fix anything! They won't. they are not motivated to. They are motivated to get as much as they possibly can. As much money, as much power, as much influence as possible. It's government that can and must fix it.

Government establishes the rules we all play by. As Social Conservatives wish government to control personal lives, Liberals want government to be the buffer between the rabid dog Capitalism has become and a true arena of fair play.

Should a corporation be able to open a smelting plant in a residential neighborhood? Should a corporation be able to exploit the workforce by paying them less than what is fair while paying the executive suite exorbitant bonuses even if that corporation fails? Should a corporation avoid paying its fair share of taxes after exploiting the infrastructure and environment and workforce?

The government is answerable to the people. That's where their power comes from. Corporations are answerable to stock holders. But even when corporate heads screw up, their personal culpability is rewarded by lavish bonuses and compensation.

And what is it that needs fixed? The balance, which has served American Capitalism so well until the corporations gained the upper hand in government policy. The balance between executive pay and worker pay. The balance between community needs and corporate needs. The responsiblity corporations used to hold to their workers, their community neighbors and their stock holders.

Wealth, real wealth isn't earned by producing today. It's reaped from owning, selling and getting the most out of workers (even if that means the workers are now outside the United States and paid slave wages), the environment (by ridiculing the safeguards that ensure safe water, air and soil) and bending the rules of the market (by selling worthless junk bonds as premium holdings).

We hear Conservatives ridiculing labor as greedy, selfish and lazy. We hear Conservatives ridicule workplace safety regulations as intrusive, wasteful and costly. We hear Conservatives ridicule environmental regulations as onerous and restrictive. All to what end? So that corporations, those benevolent corporations can 'create' jobs? For whom? Asians, Latin Americans? Who do Conservatives figure the ultimate consumer of the products will be once the workers wages and quality of life and personal property values are consumed by the same corporations who ruined the show?

But who is we? I have NEVER heard a conservative even criticize, much less designate as greedy, selfish, or lazy those who labor and put in a honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I HAVE heard conservatives--probably all of us--who criticize the able bodied who want a day's pay as their right to have whether or not they put in the work. And we do consider such to be greedy, selfish, and lazy. Don't you?

In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is important to include the whole picture when you criticize a huge number of Americans for their convictions and/or ideology.

And yes, corporations, as well as partnerships and sole proprietors are in business to make as much money as they can for the effort and resources expended. As is the laborer who works for such entities. Few of us would do it for long if the fruits of our labor was excessively confiscated and there was little profit to be had. Most especially if the profit was given to us whether we put in the effort or not.

As Adam Smith said:

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. . . ."

". . . .It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

So again, if you want the playing field leveled, do you honestly think that comes from reducing or confiscating the profits of those engaged in business and commerce?

Or would you consider a proposal to deny Congress the ability to use the people's money to benefit ANYBODY as the best way to remove the ability of some to buy influence and favors from the government?

Foxy,

Think Labor with a capital "L". I've read posts by conservatives who don't even like the idea of Labor Day, much less the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Labor as a group has been consistently demonized by the Right. As have workplace safety regulations, the right to strike, and benefit packages. It seems to me, at least, the the Right sees Labor as a mere commodity necessary to produce profits at best, an enemy of Capitalism at worst.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is important to include the whole picture when you criticize a huge number of Americans for their convictions and/or ideology.

And what did you title this thread?

The question isn't about reducing or confiscating profits. It's about the fair sharing of profits with those who made those very profits possible: the workers actually producing the product.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals don't expect corporations to fix anything! They won't. they are not motivated to. They are motivated to get as much as they possibly can. As much money, as much power, as much influence as possible. It's government that can and must fix it.

Government establishes the rules we all play by. As Social Conservatives wish government to control personal lives, Liberals want government to be the buffer between the rabid dog Capitalism has become and a true arena of fair play.

Should a corporation be able to open a smelting plant in a residential neighborhood? Should a corporation be able to exploit the workforce by paying them less than what is fair while paying the executive suite exorbitant bonuses even if that corporation fails? Should a corporation avoid paying its fair share of taxes after exploiting the infrastructure and environment and workforce?

The government is answerable to the people. That's where their power comes from. Corporations are answerable to stock holders. But even when corporate heads screw up, their personal culpability is rewarded by lavish bonuses and compensation.

And what is it that needs fixed? The balance, which has served American Capitalism so well until the corporations gained the upper hand in government policy. The balance between executive pay and worker pay. The balance between community needs and corporate needs. The responsiblity corporations used to hold to their workers, their community neighbors and their stock holders.

Wealth, real wealth isn't earned by producing today. It's reaped from owning, selling and getting the most out of workers (even if that means the workers are now outside the United States and paid slave wages), the environment (by ridiculing the safeguards that ensure safe water, air and soil) and bending the rules of the market (by selling worthless junk bonds as premium holdings).

We hear Conservatives ridiculing labor as greedy, selfish and lazy. We hear Conservatives ridicule workplace safety regulations as intrusive, wasteful and costly. We hear Conservatives ridicule environmental regulations as onerous and restrictive. All to what end? So that corporations, those benevolent corporations can 'create' jobs? For whom? Asians, Latin Americans? Who do Conservatives figure the ultimate consumer of the products will be once the workers wages and quality of life and personal property values are consumed by the same corporations who ruined the show?

But who is we? I have NEVER heard a conservative even criticize, much less designate as greedy, selfish, or lazy those who labor and put in a honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I HAVE heard conservatives--probably all of us--who criticize the able bodied who want a day's pay as their right to have whether or not they put in the work. And we do consider such to be greedy, selfish, and lazy. Don't you?

In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is important to include the whole picture when you criticize a huge number of Americans for their convictions and/or ideology.

And yes, corporations, as well as partnerships and sole proprietors are in business to make as much money as they can for the effort and resources expended. As is the laborer who works for such entities. Few of us would do it for long if the fruits of our labor was excessively confiscated and there was little profit to be had. Most especially if the profit was given to us whether we put in the effort or not.

As Adam Smith said:

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. . . ."

". . . .It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

So again, if you want the playing field leveled, do you honestly think that comes from reducing or confiscating the profits of those engaged in business and commerce?

Or would you consider a proposal to deny Congress the ability to use the people's money to benefit ANYBODY as the best way to remove the ability of some to buy influence and favors from the government?

Foxy,

Think Labor with a capital "L". I've read posts by conservatives who don't even like the idea of Labor Day, much less the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Labor as a group has been consistently demonized by the Right. As have workplace safety regulations, the right to strike, and benefit packages. It seems to me, at least, the the Right sees Labor as a mere commodity necessary to produce profits at best, an enemy of Capitalism at worst.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is important to include the whole picture when you criticize a huge number of Americans for their convictions and/or ideology.

And what did you title this thread?

The question isn't about reducing or confiscating profits. It's about the fair sharing of profits with those who made those very profits possible: the workers actually producing the product.

The thread was title appropriately for the thesis which was Klavan's essay that leftism causes antisocial and destructive and violent behavior in people in a way that modern American conservatism does not. So far nobody, and I do mean nobody, has been able to rebut that thesis. There has been a lot of evidence presented to support it however. Does that mean all leftist are antisocial, destructive, or violent? No, nobody has said that. But leftism, nevertheless, seems to implant a mentality that can manifest itself in such behavior.

Look at your concept here. I haven't heard anybody protest unions that work hand in hand with business to improve the situation for everybody. But those are becoming rare.
You'll have to show me a post by any conservative, unless it was one of the few extremist wingnuts who I do NOT include among modern American conservatives, that complained about celebrating Labor Day.

And yes, many of us to object to collective bargaining that is destructive, that takes away the right of people to work, that confiscates money from the worker to use for political influence, that decreases the ability of employers to operate in the most efficient and effective manner, and that drives the costs of government or doing business to unsustainable heights. Don't you?

And you look at the worker actually producing the product as somehow the holy grail. Well the worker is necessary yes, but only because somebody is using their time, skills, know how, and risking their finite capital to operate a business who hires the worker. Without an employer, the worker has nothing to produce. To see one as somehow more necessary or virtuous than the other is short sighted. And such mentality seems to also be born of leftism.

You didn't answer my question re leveling the playing field however. Would you agree that the best way to do that is to forbid Congress or the White House from dispensing charity, favors, or benefits to ANYBODY unless they dispense the same to EVERYBODY? That would take away the ability of anybody to buy favors from the government while not taking any rights away from anybody.

 

[Nosmo King]

But who is we? I have NEVER heard a conservative even criticize, much less designate as greedy, selfish, or lazy those who labor and put in a honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I HAVE heard conservatives--probably all of us--who criticize the able bodied who want a day's pay as their right to have whether or not they put in the work. And we do consider such to be greedy, selfish, and lazy. Don't you?

In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is important to include the whole picture when you criticize a huge number of Americans for their convictions and/or ideology.

And yes, corporations, as well as partnerships and sole proprietors are in business to make as much money as they can for the effort and resources expended. As is the laborer who works for such entities. Few of us would do it for long if the fruits of our labor was excessively confiscated and there was little profit to be had. Most especially if the profit was given to us whether we put in the effort or not.

As Adam Smith said:

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. . . ."

". . . .It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

So again, if you want the playing field leveled, do you honestly think that comes from reducing or confiscating the profits of those engaged in business and commerce?

Or would you consider a proposal to deny Congress the ability to use the people's money to benefit ANYBODY as the best way to remove the ability of some to buy influence and favors from the government?

Foxy,

Think Labor with a capital "L". I've read posts by conservatives who don't even like the idea of Labor Day, much less the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Labor as a group has been consistently demonized by the Right. As have workplace safety regulations, the right to strike, and benefit packages. It seems to me, at least, the the Right sees Labor as a mere commodity necessary to produce profits at best, an enemy of Capitalism at worst.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is important to include the whole picture when you criticize a huge number of Americans for their convictions and/or ideology.

And what did you title this thread?

The question isn't about reducing or confiscating profits. It's about the fair sharing of profits with those who made those very profits possible: the workers actually producing the product.

The thread was title appropriately for the thesis which was Klavan's essay that leftism causes antisocial and destructive and violent behavior in people in a way that modern American conservatism does not. So far nobody, and I do mean nobody, has been able to rebut that thesis. There has been a lot of evidence presented to support it however. Does that mean all leftist are antisocial, destructive, or violent? No, nobody has said that. But leftism, nevertheless, seems to implant a mentality that can manifest itself in such behavior.

I think Klaven's thesis is designed primarily to bolster a Conservative's antagonism against Liberals. It certainly does not consider the anti-social, destructive and violent behavior displayed by, albeit a small group of highly motivated Right wingers. To think that something as universally human as anti-social behavior is motivated by political ideology is neither a scientific view, nor a responsible view. It does salve the emotions of someone simply wishing it were so.

Look at your concept here. I haven't heard anybody protest unions that work hand in hand with business to improve the situation for everybody. But those are becoming rare.
You'll have to show me a post by any conservative, unless it was one of the few extremist wingnuts who I do NOT include among modern American conservatives, that complained about celebrating Labor Day.

If it's convenient to dismiss the extreme Right wing of their views and behavior, why isn't it equally convenient to dismiss the extreme Left wing? I guess it all breaks down to that "football fan" mentality where politics come in. My team, my fellow fans, my group is better than yours in every way, in spite of reality.

And yes, many of us to object to collective bargaining that is destructive, that takes away the right of people to work, that confiscates money from the worker to use for political influence, that decreases the ability of employers to operate in the most efficient and effective manner, and that drives the costs of government or doing business to unsustainable heights. Don't you?

When I was in college, I worked two summers at a steel mill. The work was hard, it was somewhat dangerous, it was hot. But it paid far better than any other part time summer job I could find. Why? Because the USW had fought for and successfully negotiated a fair wage for such work, even if that work was performed by college kids during the summer. When I looked at my first pay check, I noted two things. First, it was substantially larger than any other pay check I ever received up to that time. Second, there was a deduction for dues to the USW. When I asked about that, I realized that the union helped make such a nice check possible. And, in return for those great wages and safety benefits, I was happy to dole out a small portion of my check to the union, even though I was not a member of the USW. Now, certainly a small portion of that small deduction went to the USW's political advocacy department. But, like the portion of my taxes that go to support programs I don't necessarily agree with, the difference wasn't about to make or break me.

And you look at the worker actually producing the product as somehow the holy grail. Well the worker is necessary yes, but only because somebody is using their time, skills, know how, and risking their finite capital to operate a business who hires the worker. Without an employer, the worker has nothing to produce. To see one as somehow more necessary or virtuous than the other is short sighted. And such mentality seems to also be born of leftism.

And here we have it. Who's more valuable to a company? The workers or the management? Ask this: if management makes 450 times what the average worker makes, does management work 450 times harder, smarter or more dedicatedly? What makes such exorbitant wage disparity fair? And how much steel can management make without workers? How much coal can management mine from a desk top? How many widgets can be produced away from the factory floor?

And what drives job creation? Lower taxes or higher wages? With lower taxes, local governments suffer because the cost of paving roads and providing fire and police protection gets tougher to do. Even though company trucks drive across and damage community road, company facilities are protected from fire and theft by local services.

Higher wages drives job creation. Higher wages give more people more disposable income which drives demand. Demand. The one area ignored by Supply Side policies. No wealthy person is going to open a factory if there aren't customers ready to buy. And without sufficient disposable income, there just aren't enough customers. Rich folks can't drive the economy by giving them more money. There aren't enough rich folks to stimulate the economy. But, if the middle class had the means to buy, their demand would incentivize more growth to keep up with the demand.

You didn't answer my question re leveling the playing field however. Would you agree that the best way to do that is to forbid Congress or the White House from dispensing charity, favors, or benefits to ANYBODY unless they dispense the same to EVERYBODY? That would take away the ability of anybody to buy favors from the government while not taking any rights away from anybody.

You lay out a really broad propositon here. Does the dispensing of charity include food stamps, Social Security benefits, Medicaid, housing subsidies and ridiculous military contracts fo r weapons systems never intended to be deployed?

the trouble with multi-quoting is ...

 

[Foxfyre]

To Nosmo, referring to your immediate previous post for full context, I will again repeat, as I have MANY times already in this thread, that Klavan does not condemn all liberals/leftists nor do I believe anybody in this thread has condemned all liberals/leftists in this thread. I went out of my way to name numerous exceptions in fact. It seems to be a failing in some that rather than analyzing a statement to see if there is any truth in it, they become immediately defensive and throw out accusatins that a criticism of anybody in a group is a criticism of everybody; i.e. if you criticize Obama you're racist or if you criticze a Democrat you're criticizing the entire party or if Klavan says "Leftism makes people awful" that means ALL people.

For the record it doesn't.

But rather than rebut Klavan's thesis, he is accused of (paraphrased) "bolstering a Conservative's antagonism against Liberals." Can you substantiate that with anything than his statement is offensive to you? And is it offensive because it is true? Or because it isn't? So far, nobody has been able to show that it isn't true because the Occupy groups have been out there for weeks now. And as yet, no conservative group has been tied to them. Numerous leftist groups have been tied to them.

How about we explore Klavan's thesis from the standpoint of whether it is accurate or not rather than attempt to attack it ad hominem by accusing his motives? Conservatives can easily separate those two things. Can leftists do you think?

Now then:

You didn't answer my question re leveling the playing field however. Would you agree that the best way to do that is to forbid Congress or the White House from dispensing charity, favors, or benefits to ANYBODY unless they dispense the same to EVERYBODY?That would take away the ability of anybody to buy favors from the government while not taking any rights away from anybody.

You lay out a really broad propositon here. Does the dispensing of charity include food stamps, Social Security benefits, Medicaid, housing subsidies and ridiculous military contracts fo r weapons systems never intended to be deployed?

Yes, that is what I am saying. The Founders never intended for the Federal Government to dispense any form of charity or benevolence to anybody. We can see in their writings that they saw the very clear dangers in that.

So as we gradually and carefully start phasing out the social security program as it has been and reformng it into something sustainable and self paying, let's also start shifting all the other subsidies back to the states where they should have been all along and where they will be managed much more efficiently, effectively, and economically.

And then there will be no 'favors' to be had from the federal government and the playing field will be entirely level because it won't benefit anybody no matter how much they funnel money to any politician's campaign or pet project. It's funny how motives drastically change when there is no personal benefit to be gained.

So instead of punishing the corporations for their affluence--an unacceptable totalitarian process in the eyes of conservatives--let's take away their ability to buy favors from the public treasury. That violates nobody's rights and maximizes freedom and the free market. Can you, a leftist, agree to that?

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes, that is what I am saying. The Founders never intended for the Federal Government to dispense any form of charity or benevolence to anybody. We can see in their writings that they saw the very clear dangers in that.

So as we gradually and carefully start phasing out the social security program as it has been and reformng it into something sustainable and self paying, let's also start shifting all the other subsidies back to the states where they should have been all along and where they will be managed much more efficiently, effectively, and economically.

And then there will be no 'favors' to be had from the federal government and the playing field will be entirely level because it won't benefit anybody no matter how much they funnel money to any politician's campaign or pet project. It's funny how motives drastically change when there is no personal benefit to be gained.

So instead of punishing the corporations for their affluence--an unacceptable totalitarian process in the eyes of conservatives--let's take away their ability to buy favors from the public treasury. That violates nobody's rights and maximizes freedom and the free market. Can you, a leftist, agree to that?

So, to understand the dichotomy you're suggesting here, let's phrase it like this:

Corporations can employ powerful lobbyists in order to have legislation and regulations written to benefit themselves particularly or hinder their competition. in order to rid ourselves of this "crony Capitalism" we must eliminate Social Security benefits to seniors and the disabled, food stamps to the hungry, housing subsidies for the homeless and all other social programs designed to benefit the destitute, elderly, youngsters and the most vulnerable in our society.

Really? The solution to corporate influence can't be something as simple and effective as reformation of lobbying techniques and gifts to legislators? We have to abandon the social safety net that keeps the least of us from falling into more desperate straights?

Just like the Tea Party obstructionists in Congress, Conservatives want to take advantage of a bad situation to screw the poor, the old, the very young and the disabled out of benefits.

It's a false dichotomy you present.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yes, that is what I am saying. The Founders never intended for the Federal Government to dispense any form of charity or benevolence to anybody. We can see in their writings that they saw the very clear dangers in that.

So as we gradually and carefully start phasing out the social security program as it has been and reformng it into something sustainable and self paying, let's also start shifting all the other subsidies back to the states where they should have been all along and where they will be managed much more efficiently, effectively, and economically.

And then there will be no 'favors' to be had from the federal government and the playing field will be entirely level because it won't benefit anybody no matter how much they funnel money to any politician's campaign or pet project. It's funny how motives drastically change when there is no personal benefit to be gained.

So instead of punishing the corporations for their affluence--an unacceptable totalitarian process in the eyes of conservatives--let's take away their ability to buy favors from the public treasury. That violates nobody's rights and maximizes freedom and the free market. Can you, a leftist, agree to that?

So, to understand the dichotomy you're suggesting here, let's phrase it like this:

Corporations can employ powerful lobbyists in order to have legislation and regulations written to benefit themselves particularly or hinder their competition. in order to rid ourselves of this "crony Capitalism" we must eliminate Social Security benefits to seniors and the disabled, food stamps to the hungry, housing subsidies for the homeless and all other social programs designed to benefit the destitute, elderly, youngsters and the most vulnerable in our society.

Really? The solution to corporate influence can't be something as simple and effective as reformation of lobbying techniques and gifts to legislators? We have to abandon the social safety net that keeps the least of us from falling into more desperate straights?

Just like the Tea Party obstructionists in Congress, Conservatives want to take advantage of a bad situation to screw the poor, the old, the very young and the disabled out of benefits.

It's a false dichotomy you present.

Are you mentally challenged? Nowhere in Fox's post was anything you suggest.

Good grief.

 

[Foxfyre]

The bottom line, dear Nosmo, is that you would put extra burden on the corporations. I would remove the ability of the corporations to buy influence. And at the same time remove the ability of those in the federal government to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by using the people's money to dispense favors or benevolence on anybody.

And at THAT same time we remove a great potential to enslave people, tear families apart, create permanent underclasses and permanently unemployed, and an entitlement mentality that generates the kind of inexcusable behavior we are seeing among some of the Occupy groups.

I am not saying there is no room for charity or benevolence in a moral society. I am saying that it does not have to come from the federal government and, as often as it isn't, it is counter productive and leaves a huge opportunity for corruption and graft when it comes from the federal government. The temptation for misuse of unlimited resources confiscated from others is too great for both those in government and the beneficiaries of government largesse. But Leftism wants government to have that power regardless.

In other words, I think Klavan would agree that Leftism is willing to make people dependent, needy, and potentially angry in order for some Leftists to feel noble and righteous. Which could be another way of saying that Leftism makes people awful.