Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As a young man in college I was not always the most diligent student. One weekend, near the end of term, was particularly eventful and I found myself on Monday morning sitting, looking at a Dynamics final and no memory of any of the fine formulas we had studied that semester. Then I remembered F=ma. From that kernel I was able to derive all of the formulas I needed and ended up doing pretty well. More importantly, I realized the importance of fundamental concepts; I found that if one has a good understanding of core principles the smaller details are easier to work out. This led me a few years ago to ask myself, aside from the individual policies which align my thinking with “liberals”; why am I a liberal?

 

After some consideration I arrived on four succinct statements, which I believe also gave me some insight to what motivates the “other” side.

 

I am a parent.

As a parent I will do anything within my power to advantage my child.

I am a citizen.

As a citizen I believe it is vitally important that we write rules that prevent that.

 

It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. This is the threat that concerned Jefferson when he spoke of the need for inheritance taxes, not as a form of revenue but a means to protect the democracy from citizens that might become too powerful, and then threaten the will of the people. It is easy to see how this has become the case in America today.

 

The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than one’s labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes “inherited wealth” it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators. The world’s financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them.

 

I do have some specific suggestions that I feel would be helpful long term:

 

Public financing for public elections

Flat rate Social Security Tax, first dollar to last all forms of income

Index minimum wage to the average increase in CEO pay for the S&P 500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a Obama supporter because he finally knows whats best for our cuntry., i don't have no health insurrance and cant afford no doctor. soon i can get taken care of like all others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a Obama supporter because he finally knows whats best for our cuntry., i don't have no health insurrance and cant afford no doctor. soon i can get taken care of like all others

I support Obama to! Life has been so much better for me these pas few years, i cried when he got relected and hope he gets nother term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by Chuck!, April 21, 2013 - Filthy spammer
Hidden by Chuck!, April 21, 2013 - Filthy spammer

i pretend to be liberal, liberal chicks are easy

Share this post


Link to post

As a young man in college I was not always the most diligent student. One weekend, near the end of term, was particularly eventful and I found myself on Monday morning sitting, looking at a Dynamics final and no memory of any of the fine formulas we had studied that semester. Then I remembered F=ma. From that kernel I was able to derive all of the formulas I needed and ended up doing pretty well. More importantly, I realized the importance of fundamental concepts; I found that if one has a good understanding of core principles the smaller details are easier to work out. This led me a few years ago to ask myself, aside from the individual policies which align my thinking with “liberals”; why am I a liberal?

 

After some consideration I arrived on four succinct statements, which I believe also gave me some insight to what motivates the “other” side.

 

I am a parent.

As a parent I will do anything within my power to advantage my child.

I am a citizen.

As a citizen I believe it is vitally important that we write rules that prevent that.

 

It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. This is the threat that concerned Jefferson when he spoke of the need for inheritance taxes, not as a form of revenue but a means to protect the democracy from citizens that might become too powerful, and then threaten the will of the people. It is easy to see how this has become the case in America today.

 

The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than one’s labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes “inherited wealth” it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators. The world’s financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them.

 

I do have some specific suggestions that I feel would be helpful long term:

 

Public financing for public elections

Flat rate Social Security Tax, first dollar to last all forms of income

Index minimum wage to the average increase in CEO pay for the S&P 500

 

Hi factsrfun, inherited wealth creates growing inertia against the idea of equality, long term... agreed.

 

But when you observe the range of comments to your post, and note that few to no one even grasps what you are talking about, let alone can comment on it... does it give you pause to consider why you remain a liberal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi factsrfun, inherited wealth creates growing inertia against the idea of equality, long term... agreed.

 

But when you observe the range of comments to your post, and note that few to no one even grasps what you are talking about, let alone can comment on it... does it give you pause to consider why you remain a liberal?

Why should it give him pause? What other set of beliefs would you suggest?

 

As Margaret Meade said:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should it give him pause? What other set of beliefs would you suggest?

 

*le necro*
Socialism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe Democratic Socialist, I don't worry about those that don't understand

That don't understand what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi factsrfun, inherited wealth creates growing inertia against the idea of equality, long term... agreed.

 

But when you observe the range of comments to your post, and note that few to no one even grasps what you are talking about, let alone can comment on it... does it give you pause to consider why you remain a liberal?

 

Why should it give him pause?

 

That would be for him to answer.

 

What other set of beliefs would you suggest?

 

None. I was not asking him to change his view.

 

 

yeah bludog I didn't get the question either, that's why I never posted a response to Ashley.

 

What makes you a liberal is the insistence on curbing private advantage that is accrued over time, over generations. Right? Now here in your own thread that began in January 2013, you accrued a total of 7 responses to May this year. 7 posts that indicate no understanding of what you are even talking about.

 

My question, the 8th post in May this year, simply was, does this make you wonder (even in the slightest) about your described rationale for being " a liberal" by your own definition. I wasn't looking to challenge your rationale.

 

As for the rationale itself, well, it's not as though conservatives don't believe in curbing private advantage.

 

 

 

*le necro*

Socialism?

 

maybe Democratic Socialist, I don't worry about those that don't understand

 

That don't understand what?

 

Weird liberals don't even know what they are talking about half the time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a young man in college I was not always the most diligent student. One weekend, near the end of term, was particularly eventful and I found myself on Monday morning sitting, looking at a Dynamics final and no memory of any of the fine formulas we had studied that semester. Then I remembered F=ma. From that kernel I was able to derive all of the formulas I needed and ended up doing pretty well. More importantly, I realized the importance of fundamental concepts; I found that if one has a good understanding of core principles the smaller details are easier to work out. This led me a few years ago to ask myself, aside from the individual policies which align my thinking with “liberals”; why am I a liberal?

 

After some consideration I arrived on four succinct statements, which I believe also gave me some insight to what motivates the “other” side.

 

I am a parent.

As a parent I will do anything within my power to advantage my child.

I am a citizen.

As a citizen I believe it is vitally important that we write rules that prevent that.

 

It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. This is the threat that concerned Jefferson when he spoke of the need for inheritance taxes, not as a form of revenue but a means to protect the democracy from citizens that might become too powerful, and then threaten the will of the people. It is easy to see how this has become the case in America today.

 

The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than one’s labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes “inherited wealth” it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators. The world’s financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them.

 

I do have some specific suggestions that I feel would be helpful long term:

 

Public financing for public elections

Flat rate Social Security Tax, first dollar to last all forms of income

Index minimum wage to the average increase in CEO pay for the S&P 500

 

What makes you a liberal is the insistence on curbing private advantage that is accrued over time, over generations. Right? Now here in your own thread that began in January 2013, you accrued a total of 7 responses to May this year. 7 posts that indicate no understanding of what you are even talking about.

 

The message seems crystal clear to me The content of the OP is so unambiguous, that it would have been gratuitous for any one of the 7 posters who responded up to that point, to explain that they understood what he's talking about.

 

The OP believes that unregulated inheritance of wealth pose a threat to himself, his family and the vast majority of citizens. Moreover, without adequate inheritance taxes, our Representative Government will be in jeopardy. The OP obviously cares deeply about our Republic and those he loves..... Just one aspect of being a Liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That would be for him to answer.

 

 

None. I was not asking him to change his view.

 

 

 

What makes you a liberal is the insistence on curbing private advantage that is accrued over time, over generations. Right? Now here in your own thread that began in January 2013, you accrued a total of 7 responses to May this year. 7 posts that indicate no understanding of what you are even talking about.

 

My question, the 8th post in May this year, simply was, does this make you wonder (even in the slightest) about your described rationale for being " a liberal" by your own definition. I wasn't looking to challenge your rationale.

 

As for the rationale itself, well, it's not as though conservatives don't believe in curbing private advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weird liberals don't even know what they are talking about half the time :D

 

 

Conservatives do not support policies that curb private advantage, anyone can claim "to believe" whatever, however all GOP support all policies that make the rich richer and money more powerful, the death tax is a good example, monarchy was the prevailing form of government for centuries and many people today still support it, they are called Republicans. I will say your teachers did a fine job of teaching you to count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservatives do not support policies that curb private advantage,

 

I know a few that do.

 

Maybe you mean Republican politicians. That would be a lot more accurate. But even there there are a few that do.

 

anyone can claim "to believe" whatever, however all GOP support all policies that make the rich richer and money more powerful, the death tax is a good example

 

Republican politicians, yes agreed. But funny you call it the death tax. The "death tax" is a right wing ideological slant on "estate tax"... to make it sound evil.

 

You knew that right? :) Your welcome.

 

monarchy was the prevailing form of government for centuries and many people today still support it, they are called Republicans.

 

Republicans support monarchy? Where?

 

Not in America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States

 

Not in Britain

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/republicans-monarchy-royalists-taunton

 

Not in France, if you heard of the french rev.

 

Not in Canada or Australia or anywhere in the commonwealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_Canada

 

 

Republicanism has been the antithesis of monarchy. This comes as news to you, no doubt. Your welcome :)

 

 

I will say your teachers did a fine job of teaching you to count.

 

Yes they did. It was private school. Lol

 

We could take this to the NHB, and demonstrate everything else your teachers didn't teach you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The message seems crystal clear to me The content of the OP is so unambiguous, that it would have been gratuitous for any one of the 7 posters who responded up to that point, to explain that they understood what he's talking about.

 

All of their posts were completely irrelevant to the op. You see that right?

 

The OP believes that unregulated inheritance of wealth pose a threat to himself, his family and the vast majority of citizens. Moreover, without adequate inheritance taxes, our Representative Government will be in jeopardy.

 

I dont disagree.

 

.... Just one aspect of being a Liberal.

 

I disagree. For the op, it isn't just one aspect of being a liberal. It's the only aspect. He says... quite crystal clearly and unambiguously.... it's why he IS a liberal.

 

Your welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All of their posts were completely irrelevant to the op. You see that right?

 

"Completely irrelevant"? A gross exaggeration... Most of the posts were personal venting stimulated by the content of the OP. It's evidenced by the fact that none of the posts disputed the OP's main premise.

 

 

 

I disagree. For the op, it isn't just one aspect of being a liberal. It's the only aspect. He says... quite crystal clearly and unambiguously.... it's why he IS a liberal.

 

Not true.

 

From the OP:

I do have some specific suggestions that I feel would be helpful long term:

 

Public financing for public elections

Flat rate Social Security Tax, first dollar to last all forms of income

Index minimum wage to the average increase in CEO pay for the S&P 500

These are typical points made by :Liberals, with which I agree The estate tax is obviously not the only aspect of his Liberalism. And these suggestions hint at more aspects to his Liberalism, also.

 

 

 

Your welcome.

 

No one thanked you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As for the rationale itself, well, it's not as though conservatives don't believe in curbing private advantage.

 

 

Of course they don't. In fact, not only do they not believe in curbing private privilege but they pretty much want to abolish all public authority.

 

Republicanism has been the antithesis of monarchy. This comes as news to you, no doubt.

 

 

 

Small-r republicanism, sure. But the Republican Party are not republicans. The word "republic" means "public thing," and connotes a state in which government is a public affair.

 

Since the Republican Party believes government should be a private affair (this is why they try to privatize the government and why they believe government should be run by big private money and private lobbyists a la Citizens United) they are not actually republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Completely irrelevant"? A gross exaggeration... Most of the posts were personal venting stimulated by the content of the OP.

 

A gross exaggeration... < that's a gross exaggeration lol. NONE of those posts have any bearing on the OP. They dont. Even if they were "stimulated by the content" of the op, their content is IRRELEVANT TO the op. Nothing you can say is going to change the fact.

 

Bludog, you have to dance around something so blatantly obvious as this because you are in ideological turf protection mode. This is what happens when people are in turf protection mode. Know it. And thank me.

 

Your welcome.

 

It's evidenced by the fact that none of the posts disputed the OP's main premise.

 

Lets see, people posting things that have nothing to do with an op is EVIDENCE for them being "stimulated by the content of the OP" Lol. Thats not 'evidence' Whatever it is, it's NOT EVIDENCE. You're just spinning words now to present something seemingly sophisticated. This also happens.

 

 

I do have some specific suggestions that I feel would be helpful long term:

 

Public financing for public elections

Flat rate Social Security Tax, first dollar to last all forms of income

Index minimum wage to the average increase in CEO pay for the S&P 500

 

These are typical points made by :Liberals, with which I agree The estate tax is obviously not the only aspect of his Liberalism. And these suggestions hint at more aspects to his Liberalism, also.

 

I'm wasn't talking about "aspects" of his liberalism Get it right. I was talking about his rationale for being a liberal..... which you felt the need to correct me about. And now you're reduced to talking about "aspects".

 

Suggestions/recommendations are NOT rationales for why someone is a liberal.

 

Stop dancing. Slow down. Open your eyes.

 

 

No one thanked you.

 

No shit sherlock :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they don't.

 

I know a few that do. There are lots of people who are fiscally and socially conservative who believe in estate taxes.

 

Small-r republicanism, sure.

 

True.

 

But the Republican Party are not republicans.

 

The "party" cant be anything. The individuals that make up the party can. Many of them are.

 

Since the Republican Party believes government should be a private affair (this is why they try to privatize the government and why they believe government should be run by big private money and private lobbyists a la Citizens United) they are not actually republicans.

 

Privatizing something removes it from government control, it ceases to be a governmental asset. "Privatized government" is a misnomer.

 

I'm not for privatizing public assets myself btw.

 

 

Asoka, it's interesting that you wanted to inform me about the above. Are you going to inform factsrfun that capital R Republicans do not support monarchy? If not, why not? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Privatizing something removes it from government control, it ceases to be a governmental asset. "Privatized government" is a misnomer.

 

 

"Contradiction in terms" or "oxymoron" would have been better.
Regardless, this is a quibble. You know what I mean. The Republican Party is not a republican party.

I'm not for privatizing public assets myself btw.

 

Good to hear.
Asoka, it's interesting that you wanted to inform me about the above. Are you going to inform factsrfun that capital R Republicans do not support monarchy? If not, why not?

 

 

I'm too ignorant of monarchy to inform anyone about it.

I suppose that depending on the definition of monarchy the Republicans might be considered to support it, but I think they are oligarchs and support what I'd term "industrial feudalism" rather than monarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A gross exaggeration... < that's a gross exaggeration lol. NONE of those posts have any bearing on the OP. They dont. Even if they were "stimulated by the content" of the op, their content is IRRELEVANT TO the op. Nothing you can say is going to change the fact.

 

Your're making a mountain out of a molehill, at least. Whether they responded directly to the OP or not, any explanation of the OP's content, on their part, would have been gratuitous.

 

AshleyXI, on 30 May 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:snapback.png

 

Hi factsrfun, inherited wealth creates growing inertia against the idea of equality, long term... agreed.

 

But when you observe the range of comments to your post, and note that few to no one even grasps what you are talking about, let alone can comment on it... does it give you pause to consider why you remain a liberal?

 

First you agreed with the main premise of the OP. But the last two sentences makes no sense.

The original OP can be easily understood by anyone. Just because no one commented directly about it, is no indication that they didn't grasp what the OP said.

 

 

Bludog, you have to dance around something so blatantly obvious as this because you are in ideological turf protection mode. This is what happens when people are in turf protection mode. Know it. And thank me.

 

Your welcome.

 

Don't hold your breath. You appear to have some labored fantasies causing you to do this defensive song and dance act of your own.

 

 

Lets see, people posting things that have nothing to do with an op is EVIDENCE for them being "stimulated by the content of the OP" Lol. Thats not 'evidence' Whatever it is, it's NOT EVIDENCE. You're just spinning words now to present something seemingly sophisticated. This also happens.

 

Lots of things happen. At least you know what "happens" after it happened.

 

Most of the posts were about Liberalism which was the exact subject of the OP. They gave their own take on it. Not one post contradicted the OP..... In passive acknowledgment that they did not disagree.

 

I'm wasn't talking about "aspects" of his liberalism Get it right. I was talking about his rationale for being a liberal..... which you felt the need to correct me about. And now you're reduced to talking about "aspects".

 

Suggestions/recommendations are NOT rationales for why someone is a liberal.

 

Although they may not explain everything, suggestions and recommendations are certainly indicators of a rationale. In this case, they indicate that the OP's rationale as a Liberal is more extensive than the inheritance tax.

 

 

Stop dancing. Slow down. Open your eyes.

 

Do you give psychic readings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...