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.
Why do the liberals feel this need for snarky little comments in all of their posts?
Does it give them some form of amusement or make them think that their quick wit somehow makes their opinions more valid, or is it that they are attempting to invalidate others opinions through ridicule to feel success?
Regarding the OP, I'm not sure I understand his point. Is he "seeing the light" that the progressive movement is based on increasing income and reducing tax burdens to working and middle classes at the expense of the wealthy?
Not exactly. Try looking at it from a different perspective. How about reducing the net worth of the wealthy by claiming that the goal is to increase income and reduce tax burder of the working poor.
That is the problem. Its a false directive. The poor are not poor because the wealthy are rich. Thus, attempts to assist the poor by taking from the wealthy is the mask that progressives put on, when the real goal is to simply make the wealthy less rich.
If that benefits others, then so be it. But based on what I am seeing in this heavily progressive government of current, the motivation most certainly doesn't seem to be taking from the wealthy to provide for the poor. Its simply about taking from the wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
That's the definition of progressive taxation. It's not some nefarius plot to use "code words" to take over the world.
This isn't about solely taxation. Thats simply the MEANS to the progressive end. The agenda is about taking from the rich, purely out of envy. When somebody claims that a "poor" garbage man making 26 dollars an hour SHOULD get a raise, simply because some executive is earning X dollars, or because sports players earn X millions of dollars, thats envy.
The garbage mans raise has absolutely nothing to do with how much a star pitcher makes. However, if I thought that it was wrong for that star pitcher to make that much, then saying that the garbage man deserves a fair wage and that I am just looking out for the poor as justification to take from the rich; it sure seems like a great way to make a reduction in salary to the baseball player happen out of the false flag of giving a rat about the garbage man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
The OP, though, really should have learned that by at least high school. It's basic textbook info he's relaying, not some groundbreaking insight.
Oh and another cheap line at the end of a liberal post. You win, you are the winner for the argument! You were able to provide a one liner that got me real good! Congrats!
One cannot raise the "wealth" of another person by transferring it from a third. In general, the poor are poor for a reason and the rich are rich for a reason. These "reasons" will keep the poor person poor regardless of the money that is given to him/her, and the rich person rich because he/she knows how to create wealth. Bad habits and poor decision-making won't change without a change in perspective and direction.
I think that you are referring to one's preferences in any given area. Yes, we work together to some extent with others in our lives. Whether it is for mutual benefit or out of charity. (Even though at the small scale I don't see the justification for the use of force either.) What I am talking about is on the large scale. What justifies the use of force on the societal scale for specific special interest agendas? Why are whole swaths of people forced to sacrifice themselves to other's particular interest? Implying that others don't have a clue does not answer the question.
As an individual, your health and well-being depends on the health and well-being of society at large. "Sacrifice" is a loaded term. "Contribute" is more proper.
Not exactly. Try looking at it from a different perspective. How about reducing the net worth of the wealthy by claiming that the goal is to increase income and reduce tax burder of the working poor.
That's still the basis of progressive ideology. It's nothing new.
Quote:
That is the problem. Its a false directive. The poor are not poor because the wealthy are rich. Thus, attempts to assist the poor by taking from the wealthy is the mask that progressives put on, when the real goal is to simply make the wealthy less rich.
And the wealthy aren't rich because the poor are poor, which, using your logic on the other side of the aisle, makes conservative ideology a false directive as well.
Quote:
If that benefits others, then so be it. But based on what I am seeing in this heavily progressive government of current, the motivation most certainly doesn't seem to be taking from the wealthy to provide for the poor. Its simply about taking from the wealthy.
Yet, this progressive government has just passed the most sweeping health care reform in history that has provided health care to the poor and working class who could never before afford it.
I don't want to get into a health care debate, as I am well aware of its many flaws. But, at its core, it is taking from the wealthy to give the poor proper access to health care.
You can label that anything you want, but every other developed nation provides universal health care not as some source of envy, but because it makes for a better quality of life.
Quote:
This isn't about solely taxation. Thats simply the MEANS to the progressive end. The agenda is about taking from the rich, purely out of envy.
It's not about envy for most. That's just the conventional conservative argument. Again, I'm not yet grasping where this great reveleation resides. You're just reiterating what I could hear on Hannity 5 nights a week.
Quote:
When somebody claims that a "poor" garbage man making 26 dollars an hour SHOULD get a raise, simply because some executive is earning X dollars, or because sports players earn X millions of dollars, thats envy.
Or is it people trying to shift the values of a society? Do executives earn the millions of dollars in bonuses when they run companies into the ground and drag our entire economy with it, forcing those garbage collectors to be unemployed?
Would a successful society pay athletic entertainers millions of dollars a year and force educators to buy supplies for their classrooms out of their own small income?
I'm defending an ideology right now that I don't adopt myself, but I appreciate where they're coming from. You are trying to view this issue from the perspective of the individual, and missing the core motivation to simply make society work better.
Quote:
Oh and another cheap line at the end of a liberal post. You win, you are the winner for the argument! You were able to provide a one liner that got me real good! Congrats!
I didn't mean that as an insult (and I'm not a liberal! ) I was simply pointing out that what you have conveyed, in both your OP and this response, is basic civics. Sorry if the tone came off as aggressive. I didn't mean it to be.
Why do the liberals feel this need for snarky little comments in all of their posts?
I couldn't tell ya. Go ask a liberal. You wouldn't be stereotyping would you? Putting people into neat little boxes?
Quote:
Does it give them some form of amusement or make them think that their quick wit somehow makes their opinions more valid, or is it that they are attempting to invalidate others opinions through ridicule to feel success?
Like I said, go ask a liberal. Myself, I tire of the false dichotomies, which is why I remarked in the manner I did.
As an individual, your health and well-being depends on the health and well-being of society at large. "Sacrifice" is a loaded term. "Contribute" is more proper.
Isn't that we as a society already provide a means to mediate issues caused by poverty through social services like police, county hospitals, and the like?
So now, not only are we responsible for protecting our own means to success, but now are tasked with the responsibility to help others through forced contribution, to get out of the position that makes us vulnerable in the first place?
At what point do we as a society start expecting that people, their actions, and their choices are alone their own responsibility?
Contribute is a word that usually means voluntary. What is being asked of society in so many ways in these times is by no means a contribution, but forced acceptance into a policy you believe to be righteous.
Eitherway. Even if our poor were the best fed, best housed, best cared for, most wealthy in the world (oh.. wait a minute, they are), I have a feeling that people would still advocate taking from the rich to help the "poor", because at the end of the day it has nothing to do with the poor, and exclusivly with taking from the rich.
As an individual, your health and well-being depends on the health and well-being of society at large. "Sacrifice" is a loaded term. "Contribute" is more proper.
You are still not addressing the issue. I don't care what the "cause" is, I want to know what justifies the initiation of force.
I have absolutely no problem in paying for any services that I request and receive. I don't think any rational person would feel any different. I do however, have a problem with being forced to offer myself up as a slave to provide services to others or simply to obey their personal beliefs.
When any individual is forced to act against their own interest, it is always dressed up in the guise of what is "good for society". If whatever policy one wants to address was really beneficial to all individuals no force would be needed to implement it.
So why the need for force?
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.
) I was simply pointing out that what you have conveyed, in both your OP and this response, is basic civics. Sorry if the tone came off as aggressive. I didn't mean it to be.
