The Progressive Patriot

Try LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of.....But more than a fact, it's an expression of altruistic values, something sorely lacking in the party of Ayn Rand aficionados. What would you do in response to a system that has built in poverty? Let people die in the street? I believe that’s what conservatives would do, but don’t have the guts to say it. And, as I previously said, social programs actually make good business sense, you know, like common sense,? Something else you guys lack.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Enjoyed the humor and recognized the t***h behind it on explaining the history of math education - thanks a bunch

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

What economic system eliminates poverty?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

What economic system eliminates poverty?

The Progressive Patriot

I didn't say that any system eliminates poverty. The real question is what system is more likely to exacerbate poverty vs. alleviate it. Today in America, more and more wealth is concentrated in the top 2% or so. The middle class is being eroded. A plutocracy is not good for democracy but that's where we're headed. And I submit to you that it's the Republicans with their Ultra-Capitalist bent who are leading the way. As usual, you guys can only conceive of two polar opposites; socialism or capitalism / good vs. evil / you have all the answers and we have none of them. Yet there are no pure systems so please get over the socialism thing and look at what we might draw from overall that will work to reduce the disparity. It seems like people were actually able to do that once upon a time before BO was president. Why is that?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Let me start by correcting an assumption you made - I am not a Republican, I once was a liberl Democrat and as I've gained experience, knowledge and some wisdom I became independent - capable of v****g for candidates of either party. However, that experience led me to go from liberal to conservative, so I'm more likely to v**e for a Republican than a Democrat.

Now, in your response you conflate poverty and middle class. While you admit that no economic system eliminates poverty, you seem to imply that capitalistic market systems creates more than some other form you seem loathe to describe.

Your comment about the inability to work together seems new with Obama ignores two realities. W Bush was attacked vehementelty by Democrats despite his moving to the left on social issues, and seeking the support of the Democrats before initiating military action. Even then he was accused of treason by one of the leading lights of the Democratic Party - Al Gore.

Now, as to the erosion of the middle class - it can be tied directlty, in my opinion, to the explosion of government involvement at every level of the economy - introducing far more costs in the production of values than the values it attempted to create - rendering us less competitive to all the rest of the world.

Now, to the concentration of wealth being a Republican caused phenom - have you paid attention to how many billionaires support the Democratic Party - and are you aware of the term crony capitalism? You have many very wealthy people and corporations that look to the federal government to maintain their competitive advantage - to make it difficult for new competitors to compete. I've lived in the real world of private enterprise - and I've worked in both large and small corporations - so I've seen it at work. Earlier in my career, for example, I worked for United Technologies. They are one of the largest corps in the world. As a member of management I was asked to and encouraged to contribute to the UTC PAC - which I did until I saw the actual distribution of funds raised - over 80% given to liberal Democrats. Perahap you believe that corporation had only the interests of the middle class and the poor at the center of those contributions - common sense and empiracal observation prohibits my beleiving that.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

I disagree. I think it started with Clinton. People either loved or h**ed him, then it was the same with Bush and now Obama. When GWB was president the left had what can only be described as a visceral hatred of him. Now the left loves Obama and can see nothing wrong with anything he does.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Do you understand the concept of "negative rights" vs "positive rights"? The constitutional protection of LIFE means the govt cannot take your life away without good reason (although Obama just changed that). It does not mean the govt is obligated to do for you what you won't do for yourself.

I don't think conservatives want people dying in the street, and every survey ever done indicates conservatives are more charitable than liberals. That makes sense and is shown in your statement about altruism. To liberals altruism means taking money at gunpoint from some, and then giving it to others the libs deem more deserving. To conservatives, altruism means freely giving of oneself and/or one's resources.

Social programs only make good business sense if you believe in the "broken window" theory of economics, which is fundamentally flawed.

As for common sense, that is the thing most lacking in virtually all govt programs.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

This is one thing I find both amazing and sad about today's progressive liberals like Chardo, as opposed to those in power. They h**e corporations and the wealthy in general, and don't realize that the policies they support are specifically devised to further enrich the wealthiest in our society at the expense of the middle and poor.

They have become shills for those they despise the most.

The Progressive Patriot

Perhaps I did make an assumption about your political affiliation. However, you have also made an assumption about me, that I do not see the shortcomings of the Democrats, the crony capitalism, and that I think that socialism ( not loath to describe) is the answer. The point that I think you and many others have missed is that as is the case with Marxism, pure and unbridled capitalism is detrimental to democracy and social justice. The things that government does to soften the effects of the inevitable greed, to hold capitalism accountable, that provide a social safety net …..the things that you guys call socialism have been part of this fabric of this country since at least Teddy Roosevelt….yes that Roosevelt and are necessary to make the system work. If you can agree to that, we are having an unnecessary argument. If you can’t it’s hopeless. ( I do however reject the idea that the erosion of the middle class is the result of big government) Now I'm going to th gym!

The Dutchman

[b]I would be extremely interested in where you found the facts to support "the workers have a right to be sustained by the system." What appears to be only your opinion is as socialistic as it comes!
The only rights we have in this country are the ones we are willing to fight for!]/b]


Try LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of.....

"Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness is" is attained through hard work and determination and doesn't come from free government handouts.

But more than a fact, it's an expression of altruistic values, something sorely lacking in the party of Ayn Rand aficionados.

[b]A Russian fiction novelist??]

What would you do in response to a system that has built in poverty?

[Like all the socialist countries of the world that you would have the U.S. emulate?[/b]

Let people die in the street?

Like what is happening in all the socialistic countries in the world today?

I believe that’s what conservatives would do, but don’t have the guts to say it. And, as I previously said, social programs actually make good business sense,

Social programs only make people more dependent on a socialistic style government eliminating the need for people to fend for themselves creating a lazy useless society making them easier for a socialist government to control.

you know, like common sense,? Something else you guys lack.

Now like all far left wing liberal whacko's you never come up with a logical response, just mindless ramblings.

I'm beginning to think you are no more than one of those people the obozo's administration pays to infiltrate these groups to help them spread their socialistic garbage.

MannyB

I'd bet anything that you wouldn't consent to live under Chavez's rules. That's OK for the masses of ignorants that need to be led like cattle but your destiny is just to support the tyrants and dictators that (IN NAME OF THE POOR) steal the patrimony of a whole country, eliminate all dissent with the destruction of the free press. A l********e p*******t of a democratic country has the obligation of govern for the good of all the people not for just a few, however only who bow to these dictators can receive any benefit from them.
Chavez, Castro I, Castro II, Sadam Hussein, Ghadaffi, Kim Il Sung and dinasty, etc.

MannyB

How about to teach values instead of adoctrinat.?
How about to stop creating a sense of entitlement in all the population that only contributes to more easily make them dependent on the Government for every thing instead of showing the inmense benefits that bring the rewards of effort and private initiative.
Government does not produce wealth. Ans Socialism only distributes Poverty and Misery for all.

The Dutchman

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

The Progressive Patriot

[quote=The Dutchman][b]
Let people die in the street?

Like what is happening in all the socialistic countries in the world today? LIKE SWEEDED?



Social programs only make people more dependent on a socialistic style government eliminating the need for people to fend for themselves creating a lazy useless society making them easier for a socialist government to control.

IF THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE, WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON ANYTHING. WHY NOT GO BACK TO TEDDY ROOSEVELT'S DAYS AND DISMANTLE THE SOCIAL DEMOCRACY THAT WE'VE BUILT FOR OVER 100YEARS. iNSTEAD OF THE AMERICA THAT WE KNOW, IT WOULD BE THE HUNGER GAMES. GOOD DAY SIR!