Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It appears that I am finally begining to understand the progressive movement. Let me tell you, what a truely sad thing to see. Typically, we see the liberals proclaim that their agendas revolve around the poor and helping the less fortunate, because as a collective we have that reponsibility.
Nobel you might say. Then you begin to understand.
Based on my years of discussions with and readings from the typical self-identified charity czar, it has occured to me that their motivations have very little to do with helping the impoverished man out, and more to do with penalizing those with material wealth.
Most people from the outside looking into this liberal progressive ideology often see the same captions played over and over again. "Yeah, people poor because the system keeps them down", while in the same breath proclaiming that "people are rich, simply because they game the system".
Simply point out somebody who is scamming the social charity programs, and defenders are quick to point to a relative argument about corporate welfare and big bonuses for executives.
The light bulb in my head recently shined bright as I was following a discussion regarding the trash collectors union in Seattle. This thread here on City-data was the second that I viewed regarding pay... followed by a discussion in a minimum wage debate.
Apparently, garbage men in Seattle make 26 dollars an hour, and are going to strike if they don't get a dollar an hour raise. Considering base salary and all benefits, these people are earning over 100,000 dollars a year. To drive a garbage truck around and collect refuse.
While following this discussion, somebody made the statement about if sports players are able to make millions, then its only fair that these garbage men make a "living wage". Ding. Light bulb.
"Living wage" is a buzz word. The term is used constantly and consistantly by the left in an effort to make it appear that they are looking out for those people who are considered working poor, who still have trouble rising out of poverty. The catch is this... it has nothing to do with the working poor.
This buzz term is utilized to gain acceptance of the progressive agenda, by making you feel like they base their opinions on a nobel cause. Most people calling them bleeding hearts, and in my opinion, I honor their effort to make the world a better place. However, when applied to reality, I feel that most of their positions afforded to promote their agenda don't actually pan out how they want.
As this lightbult went off, I realized, that their agenda has NOTHING to do with protecting and helping the poor, and everything with leveling the field. How could anybody make the claim that 26 dollars an hour is NOT a living wage? Its absurd, but ask many of these individuals what a living wage is in regard to the minimum wage debate, and you will be flabbergasted by the responses.
The call in this instance has nothing to do with the garbage man, and everything to do with feeling like pulling money away from the executives for the "poor man" (earning well above the median income) will help level the field. Provide a "living wage" of 26 dollars an hour. Laughable.
Now, as I apply this new found agenda, to many of the other principles of the left, its easy to see where the true motivation is. Moving money from the top, to the bottom, while putting forth a nobel cause to garner support, all the while painting yourself green with envy.
We have allowed these con men the ability to put forward their envy under a different color, and I believe many have been dooped. We legislate this envy through attempts at leveling the field. One would expect that poverty has lessened. One would also be surprised.
It appears that I am finally begining to understand the progressive movement. Let me tell you, what a truely sad thing to see. Typically, we see the liberals proclaim that their agendas revolve around the poor and helping the less fortunate, because as a collective we have that reponsibility.
Nobel you might say. Then you begin to understand.
Based on my years of discussions with and readings from the typical self-identified charity czar, it has occured to me that their motivations have very little to do with helping the impoverished man out, and more to do with penalizing those with material wealth.
Most people from the outside looking into this liberal progressive ideology often see the same captions played over and over again. "Yeah, people poor because the system keeps them down", while in the same breath proclaiming that "people are rich, simply because they game the system".
Simply point out somebody who is scamming the social charity programs, and defenders are quick to point to a relative argument about corporate welfare and big bonuses for executives.
The light bulb in my head recently shined bright as I was following a discussion regarding the trash collectors union in Seattle. This thread here on City-data was the second that I viewed regarding pay... followed by a discussion in a minimum wage debate.
Apparently, garbage men in Seattle make 26 dollars an hour, and are going to strike if they don't get a dollar an hour raise. Considering base salary and all benefits, these people are earning over 100,000 dollars a year. To drive a garbage truck around and collect refuse.
While following this discussion, somebody made the statement about if sports players are able to make millions, then its only fair that these garbage men make a "living wage". Ding. Light bulb.
"Living wage" is a buzz word. The term is used constantly and consistantly by the left in an effort to make it appear that they are looking out for those people who are considered working poor, who still have trouble rising out of poverty. The catch is this... it has nothing to do with the working poor.
This buzz term is utilized to gain acceptance of the progressive agenda, by making you feel like they base their opinions on a nobel cause. Most people calling them bleeding hearts, and in my opinion, I honor their effort to make the world a better place. However, when applied to reality, I feel that most of their positions afforded to promote their agenda don't actually pan out how they want.
As this lightbult went off, I realized, that their agenda has NOTHING to do with protecting and helping the poor, and everything with leveling the field. How could anybody make the claim that 26 dollars an hour is NOT a living wage? Its absurd, but ask many of these individuals what a living wage is in regard to the minimum wage debate, and you will be flabbergasted by the responses.
The call in this instance has nothing to do with the garbage man, and everything to do with feeling like pulling money away from the executives for the "poor man" (earning well above the median income) will help level the field. Provide a "living wage" of 26 dollars an hour. Laughable.
Now, as I apply this new found agenda, to many of the other principles of the left, its easy to see where the true motivation is. Moving money from the top, to the bottom, while putting forth a nobel cause to garner support, all the while painting yourself green with envy.
We have allowed these con men the ability to put forward their envy under a different color, and I believe many have been dooped. We legislate this envy through attempts at leveling the field. One would expect that poverty has lessened. One would also be surprised.
I wonder why.
Jake
Shouldn't you be out helping the downtrodden instead of writing all this claptrap ? They need you. We liberals have to stay home, and vegetate on the couch.
Shouldn't you be out helping the downtrodden instead of writing all this claptrap ? They need you. We liberals have to stay home, and vegetate on the couch.
Based on my years of discussions with and readings from the typical self-identified charity czar, it has occured to me that their motivations have very little to do with helping the impoverished man out, and more to do with penalizing those with material wealth.
So, so, so untrue. Full stop. I don't think those were lightbulbs that were popping around in your head, sorry.
This is so incorrect that what follows of your post isn't valid. It's theory based on an incorrect assumption so...it's fiction.
I'm a leftie and not technically wealthy, certainly, but my family sure isn't hurting. At all. I still believe in helping my fellow man and I still think it's number one on any society's agenda; that's just my belief...We are about to move into a new tax bracket and my husband and I have discussed it, and discussed what has to change and what doesn't based on this, but neither of us has minded the fact of higher taxes.
Shouldn't you be out helping the downtrodden instead of writing all this claptrap ? They need you. We liberals have to stay home, and vegetate on the couch.
I do actually volunteer my time at a local homeless shelter. I actually believe in helping the poor, and the rich executive in the ferrari has nothing to do with either them being poor, or my desire to help them out.
The mind set your describing I believe comes from the top of the chart---The U.N.--they are truely an evil organization---this crap is promoted all over the world. Billions are given to poverty stricken countries but are always still in poverty. Nothing ever balances----rich or poor-----by their design.
Read how your donations to help the poor in Haiti are going.
So, so, so untrue. Full stop. I don't think those were lightbulbs that were popping around in your head, sorry.
This is so incorrect that what follows of your post isn't valid. It's theory based on an incorrect assumption so...it's fiction.
I'm a leftie and not technically wealthy, certainly, but my family sure isn't hurting. At all. I still believe in helping my fellow man and I still think it's number one on any society's agenda; that's just my belief...We are about to move into a new tax bracket and my husband and I have discussed it, and discussed what has to change and what doesn't based on this, but neither of us has minded the fact of higher taxes.
I am sorry. You're completely incorrect.
Then I honor your selflessness. Unfortunately though, I am afraid that in my opinion (yes, my opinion) you are being dooped by the progressives.
See, helping people in poverty out, and making efforts to better society has no correlation with the wealthy. A poor man can assist a poor man, and somebody being wealthy has nothing to do with it.
The progressive movement isn't about helping people in need, its about punishing people who have more than they deem necessary under the mask of looking out for the poor.
How could it be considered any other way when they will argue that 26 dollars an hour isn't a living wage when arguing union demands? Or when they ask that executives eat the cost of increased minimum wages?
Its unpopular agendas masked as nobel ones out of pure envy.
So, so, so untrue. Full stop. I don't think those were lightbulbs that were popping around in your head, sorry.
This is so incorrect that what follows of your post isn't valid. It's theory based on an incorrect assumption so...it's fiction.
I'm a leftie and not technically wealthy, certainly, but my family sure isn't hurting. At all. I still believe in helping my fellow man and I still think it's number one on any society's agenda; that's just my belief...We are about to move into a new tax bracket and my husband and I have discussed it, and discussed what has to change and what doesn't based on this, but neither of us has minded the fact of higher taxes.
I am sorry. You're completely incorrect.
You sound like you have a very guilty conscious after reading that very astute write-up from the OP.
So what is the thinking that goes into justifying imposing one's will upon another with the use of force?
What is "enlightened" about forcing others to be slaves to one's personal beliefs?
That was exactly my point: There wouldn't seem to be ANY justification for slavery, yet there were still people who opposed its abolishment and felt it was to be the downfall of the U.S. (due to so many plantations closing down, to really simplify it--don't want to get into it right now, LOL). Hence, my assertion that the OP probably knew, before even posting, that there were going to be "Yay, we're progressing" from the leftists and "Oh my God, it's the apocalypse" from the conservatives.
So that's just my view on it, but carry on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
