What Do Progressives Really Stand For?

[JohnStOnge]

Riiiiigth, because the cost of labor can't also be kept artificially low, that businesses don't externalize costs, that dynastic wealth doesn't consolidate power.

I'm all for creating your own wealth to a point, but the reality is we are better off as a country when we have a strong middle class. The concept of a free labor market is utopic. [

No, the cost of labor cannot be kept "artificially" low as long as nobody is physically forced to work a job they don't want to work. The rest of your statements are a set of populist slogans.

Nobody should be forced to pay more for something than they want to pay for it. The idea that you or me or anybody else is "entitled" to some minimum amount for what we offer in terms of our labor is part of the entitlement mentality. It's related to the idea that we are owed something just because we exist. If you offer something that is coveted, you will be well paid. There are plenty of engineers, Doctors, etc., who are paid very well because what they offered is sought after. There is no need for consideration of something like a "minimum wage" in their cases because what they offer is in demand. There are plenty of people who offer skills that businesses are willing to compete for in order to gain the edge over other businesses.

This thing of thinking you are owed a certain wage because you can put a peg in a hole just like anybody else can put a peg in a hole is ridiculous.

[JohnStOnge]

Riiiiigth, because the cost of labor can't also be kept artificially low, that businesses don't externalize costs, that dynastic wealth doesn't consolidate power.

I'm all for creating your own wealth to a point, but the reality is we are better off as a country when we have a strong middle class. The concept of a free labor market is utopic. [

No, the cost of labor cannot be kept "artificially" low as long as nobody is physically forced to work a job they don't want to work. The rest of your statements are a set of populist slogans.

Nobody should be forced to pay more for something than they want to pay for it. The idea that you or me or anybody else is "entitled" to some minimum amount for what we offer in terms of our labor is part of the entitlement mentality. It's related to the idea that we are owed something just because we exist. If you offer something that is coveted, you will be well paid. There are plenty of engineers, Doctors, etc., who are paid very well because what they offered is sought after. There is no need for consideration of something like a "minimum wage" in their cases because what they offer is in demand. There are plenty of people who offer skills that businesses are willing to compete for in order to gain the edge over other businesses.

This thing of thinking you are owed a certain wage because you can put a peg in a hole just like anybody else can put a peg in a hole is ridiculous.

[native]

Riiiiigth, because the cost of labor can't also be kept artificially low, that businesses don't externalize costs, that dynastic wealth doesn't consolidate power.

I'm all for creating your own wealth to a point, but the reality is we are better off as a country when we have a strong middle class. The concept of a free labor market is utopic. [

No, the cost of labor cannot be kept "artificially" low as long as nobody is physically forced to work a job they don't want to work. The rest of your statements are a set of populist slogans.

Nobody should be forced to pay more for something than they want to pay for it. The idea that you or me or anybody else is "entitled" to some minimum amount for what we offer in terms of our labor is part of the entitlement mentality. It's related to the idea that we are owed something just because we exist. If you offer something that is coveted, you will be well paid. There are plenty of engineers, Doctors, etc., who are paid very well because what they offered is sought after. There is no need for consideration of something like a "minimum wage" in their cases because what they offer is in demand. There are plenty of people who offer skills that businesses are willing to compete for in order to gain the edge over other businesses.

This thing of thinking you are owed a certain wage because you can put a peg in a hole just like anybody else can put a peg in a hole is ridiculous.

+1

[native]

Riiiiigth, because the cost of labor can't also be kept artificially low, that businesses don't externalize costs, that dynastic wealth doesn't consolidate power.

I'm all for creating your own wealth to a point, but the reality is we are better off as a country when we have a strong middle class. The concept of a free labor market is utopic. [

No, the cost of labor cannot be kept "artificially" low as long as nobody is physically forced to work a job they don't want to work. The rest of your statements are a set of populist slogans.

Nobody should be forced to pay more for something than they want to pay for it. The idea that you or me or anybody else is "entitled" to some minimum amount for what we offer in terms of our labor is part of the entitlement mentality. It's related to the idea that we are owed something just because we exist. If you offer something that is coveted, you will be well paid. There are plenty of engineers, Doctors, etc., who are paid very well because what they offered is sought after. There is no need for consideration of something like a "minimum wage" in their cases because what they offer is in demand. There are plenty of people who offer skills that businesses are willing to compete for in order to gain the edge over other businesses.

This thing of thinking you are owed a certain wage because you can put a peg in a hole just like anybody else can put a peg in a hole is ridiculous.

+2

[houndawg]

The finish was both exciting and satisfying, I hope you didn't get it on your chin.

Doesn't sound like you're talking about a malbec, dawg, but after all, you're more of a kool-aid drinker... I DO sometimes dribble a bit on that handy-dandy shelf about 12 inches below my chin...

That's where real men set their beer.

[JohnStOnge]

In the feudal system, serfs were bound to the land. They were essentially slaves. They had no choice with respect to working for the Lord or not. Nobody in this country is bound to anybody else's land and nobody is forced to work for anybody else if they don't want to. Anybody is free to leave where they are, go to another job if they don't like the one they're working, ect.

[native]

Doesn't sound like you're talking about a malbec, dawg, but after all, you're more of a kool-aid drinker... I DO sometimes dribble a bit on that handy-dandy shelf about 12 inches below my chin...

That's where real men set their beer.

I've done that, too! My wife does not find it as amusing as I do.

[Skjellyfetti]

In the feudal system, serfs were bound to the land. They were essentially slaves. They had no choice with respect to working for the Lord or not. Nobody in this country is bound to anybody else's land and nobody is forced to work for anybody else if they don't want to. Anybody is free to leave where they are, go to another job if they don't like the one they're working, ect.

Capitalism has produced conditions no different (and in some cases worse) than feudalism. Luckily, progressive movements have won out time and time again to improve on the failures of capitalism.

[youngterrier]

In the feudal system, serfs were bound to the land. They were essentially slaves. They had no choice with respect to working for the Lord or not. Nobody in this country is bound to anybody else's land and nobody is forced to work for anybody else if they don't want to. Anybody is free to leave where they are, go to another job if they don't like the one they're working, ect.

Capitalism has produced conditions no different (and in some cases worse) than feudalism. Luckily, progressive movements have won out time and time again to improve on the failures of capitalism.

...for the short term while deficits and inflation loom in the background

[native]

Capitalism has produced conditions no different (and in some cases worse) than feudalism. Luckily, progressive movements have won out time and time again to improve on the failures of capitalism.

...for the short term while deficits and inflation loom in the background

The evils of "progressivism" are not as imaginary and speculative as you seem to think, YT.

Capitalism has done more to create and nourish a middle class than any other political or economic system in history, skelly.

[Skjellyfetti]

Capitalism has produced conditions no different (and in some cases worse) than feudalism. Luckily, progressive movements have won out time and time again to improve on the failures of capitalism.

...for the short term while deficits and inflation loom in the background

Short term?

I'm talking progressive initiatives going back 150+ years, young pup.

[houndawg]

In the feudal system, serfs were bound to the land. They were essentially slaves. They had no choice with respect to working for the Lord or not. Nobody in this country is bound to anybody else's land and nobody is forced to work for anybody else if they don't want to. Anybody is free to leave where they are, go to another job if they don't like the one they're working, ect.

Maybe not right now, but it hasn't always been that way, Johnny. Early factories and mines practiced wage slavery all the time. That's how the county next to the one I live in got the name "Bloody Williamson" County.

See: I owe my soul to the company store.

[Skjellyfetti]

Capitalism has done more to create and nourish a middle class than any other political or economic system in history, skelly.

No doubt. I'm a capitalist.

But, it has failures that needs to be kept in check.

[native]

Capitalism has done more to create and nourish a middle class than any other political or economic system in history, skelly.

No doubt. I'm a capitalist.

But, it has failures that needs to be kept in check.

Being kept in check, as in Roosevelt and Taft's trust-busting, is GOOD!

Being placed in a straighjacket (Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Obama...) is BAD.

[houndawg]

...for the short term while deficits and inflation loom in the background

The evils of "progressivism" are not as imaginary and speculative as you seem to think, YT.

Capitalism has done more to create and nourish a middle class than any other political or economic system in history, skelly.

Create? Maybe. Nourish?

Utter nonsense napalm, even by your high standards. Where is this middle class of which you speak?

[youngterrier]

...for the short term while deficits and inflation loom in the background

Short term?

I'm talking progressive initiatives going back 150+ years, young pup.

I'll go back 97 years instead, the founding of the Federal Reserve System--massive inflation to where the dollar loses its value to 4% today of what it was then, making it harder for the middle class to earn a sufficient like all inflation does

Welfare spending since 1964--$9 trillion, very little poverty rate decline

Medicare and Social Security spending will consume us in the next 50 years

solutions? All I see is problems

[native]

Short term?

I'm talking progressive initiatives going back 150+ years, young pup.

I'll go back 97 years instead, the founding of the Federal Reserve System--massive inflation to where the dollar loses its value to 4% today of what it was then, making it harder for the middle class to earn a sufficient like all inflation does

Welfare spending since 1964--$9 trillion, very little poverty rate decline

Medicare and Social Security spending will consume us in the next 50 years

solutions? All I see is problems

You make a good case, Terrier!

[Skjellyfetti]

I'll go back 97 years instead, the founding of the Federal Reserve System--massive inflation to where the dollar loses its value to 4% today of what it was then, making it harder for the middle class to earn a sufficient like all inflation does

Welfare spending since 1964--$9 trillion, very little poverty rate decline

Medicare and Social Security spending will consume us in the next 50 years

solutions? All I see is problems

What would be your alternative to the Federal Reserve System? You want to nationalize it? You want Congress to make the decisions instead?

[AZGrizFan]

I'll go back 97 years instead, the founding of the Federal Reserve System--massive inflation to where the dollar loses its value to 4% today of what it was then, making it harder for the middle class to earn a sufficient like all inflation does

Welfare spending since 1964--$9 trillion, very little poverty rate decline

Medicare and Social Security spending will consume us in the next 50 years

solutions? All I see is problems

What would be your alternative to the Federal Reserve System? You want to nationalize it? You want Congress to make the decisions instead?

Perhaps you missed that little nugget?

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, I disagree that there's been "very little poverty rate decline." It's dropped across the board. But, it's whether you consider it "signficant" or not. I do. You don't. That's probably part of why you're a Conk and I'm a Donk.

[youngterrier]

I'll go back 97 years instead, the founding of the Federal Reserve System--massive inflation to where the dollar loses its value to 4% today of what it was then, making it harder for the middle class to earn a sufficient like all inflation does

Welfare spending since 1964--$9 trillion, very little poverty rate decline

Medicare and Social Security spending will consume us in the next 50 years

solutions? All I see is problems

What would be your alternative to the Federal Reserve System? You want to nationalize it? You want Congress to make the decisions instead?

I don't want any form of central banking system. neither did Jefferson, neither did madison. all it does is inflate our currency and distort the market with easy money and easy credit that is made from thin air

[Baldy]

And the application makes all the difference in the world. One is an economic theory, the other killed millions. It's kind of like your confusion between studying Marxism in college and applying mixed economy principles as POTUS.

So again, which conspiracy theory do you subscribe to? Obama as a Marxist, or your original statement that he's a neo-Stalinist?

As usual, you're wrong. It's not obfuscation if you don't know the answer. Hopefully this will clear it up for you.

We're talking NEO-Stalinism. The emphasis is on the Neo part, not the Stalinism.
Neo = New, recent, modified, revived, etc.

There are many different definitions. All have slightly different forms, but Neo-Stalinism is (according to Gorbachev, anyway) a Stalinist state without the large scale oppression, but the total domination of all political activities and the persecution of political opponents.

Again, Neo-Marxism is the ideology and Neo-Stalinism is the application of the ideology. In fact, you can't have Neo-Stalinism without the Marxist ideology (Neo or not). In other words, to be a Neo-Stalinist, you have to have both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Larry Summers libertarian streak was on display when he pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagal and ignored Brooksly Born's warnings about regulating the derivatives markets, and Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin went like this

There's a reason Time put them all on the cover.

It's been apparent for some time that the neo-con economic theory of history doesn't pre-date Reagan, I didn't realize it only goes back 10 years.

There is a difference between being a Libertarian and having a Libertarian 'streak'. You clearly stated that Summers was a Libertarian. He clearly is not.

Some could claim my indifference over the gay marriage issue or abortion could be considered a "progressive" streak. I can promise you without a doubt that I am not a "Progressive".

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't want any form of central banking system. neither did Jefferson, neither did madison. all it does is inflate our currency and distort the market with easy money and easy credit that is made from thin air

I understand you don't want a central banking system. I asked what your alternative would be. It's easy to pick out weaknesses in things. It's much more difficult to produce more efficient and realistic alternatives.

And, PS... Madison created the 2nd National Bank after he found it impossible to fight a war without it.

[youngterrier]

Well, I disagree that there's been "very little poverty rate decline." It's dropped across the board. But, it's whether you consider it "signficant" or not. I do. You don't. That's probably part of why you're a Conk and I'm a Donk.

Sigh
notice that the 18-64 range stayed about the same as well a those under 18

do your history, centralized banks and paper money have been used in times of emergency to fund war (doesnt make it a good economic or monetary policy). as for madison, one of the reasons he split with the federalists was because of their stance on centralized banking

[Baldy]

Where is this middle class of which you speak?

There is one next door, one across the street, and several more all around the block I live. If I had to guess, I'd say about 85%-90% of the families who live within a 100 mile radius are all middle class too.

Where the fvck to you live? On the moon? Detroit? New Orleans? Cleveland?