Previous 11 - 20 Next
1. It is a common misconception, but the Left doesn't hate the rich. What we hate is the system by which the rich wield undue influence over our politicians, in order to rig the rules for privatized gain and socialized risk at the top. We don't believe this represents the ideals of Capitalism or democracy. Politicians will always listen to who pays them the most (for campaigns, kickbacks or future job prospects), and we feel that either they can work for the rich, or we can change the system and have them work for the non-rich majority, and thus for the public good. I don't think any rich person is by definition evil, but if their "speech" (money) drowns out mine and produces policies I think hinder the country, I have to view those
In response to:

Why Did Mitt Romney Lose?

Benga Wrote: Nov 11, 2012 4:38 AM
as their livelihood depends upon villainizing him in every way possible in order to rally their base. (Cf. the rhetoric of just about every desperate politician in the world.)
In response to:

Why Did Mitt Romney Lose?

Benga Wrote: Nov 11, 2012 4:36 AM
private citizens who use that road. Government firefighters don't "produce" anything, but if they save someone's business from a fire, that allows that company to continue making private sector money. Whether the private market could do these jobs more efficiently or not, and keep a standard of equal opportunity and requisite responsibility or not, is up for debate. But it is very narrow to conclude that our workforce is only hindered by the public sector, let alone that hiring public workers, as has been done by every president, is a "path toward Greece." Also, Obama has actually decreased the amount of public workers in the country, as far as my sources indicate. I'd avoid listening to the classifications of him by the opposing party
In response to:

Why Did Mitt Romney Lose?

Benga Wrote: Nov 11, 2012 4:29 AM
Again, I didn't vote for Obama, but from February 2010 to last month, about 5.4 million private sector jobs have been created. You must agree it is not fair to blame him for most of the 4.3 million jobs lost in his first year of office, when the economy during Bush's final months was losing over 700,000 jobs per month. So your argument that "Obama only created jobs on paper" is not so. Also, government does (of course) create jobs, because it gives paychecks to people who might otherwise be unemployed, and that money then is used to buy things in the private sector, thus necessitating private sector hiring. Also it is true that a public worker doesn't "produce" something by fixing a road, but that improves the productivity of the
and trade law, and (soon) a Grand Bargain that will cut trillions in Entitlements while LOWERING the corporate tax rate and mostly only closing middle class tax deductions. Obama opened the bottom half of the Keystone Pipeline and will soon open the rest of it. Ehud Barak has said that he is Israel's strongest American ally ever. Part of the reason Conservatives are so shocked when you lose elections is that the Stalinesque Obama you have conjured in your mind is utterly nothing like the man the rest of the country sees. They don't love him, but they prefer his Center-Right mediocrity to your lunatic Right doomsday screaming and your magical, anti-factual 30-year-old "tax cuts, deregulation and Jesus" plan.
Obama's governance is to the Right of Center. Not the Libertarian Right, but the Establishment GOP Corporate Right. More drone attacks than Bush. More deportations than Bush. More pot dispensary crackdowns than Bush. More oil production than Bush. Fewer public sector workers and more private sector jobs created than under Bush. More troops in Afghanistan than when he took office. Laxer gun laws than when he took office. Lower aggregate taxes than when he took office. No prosecutions of Wall Street fraud or Bush Administration war crimes. No progress on Net Neutrality, EFCA, the Fairness Doctrine, campaign finance reform. A Republican defense secretary, a Republican FED chair, a Republican health care law, a Republican cap
Right". Real "Conservatives" in several races also lost (Hoekstra, McMahon, Akin, West, Mourdock, Walsh, Allen). People don't want handouts and laziness--but they don't think the magical fix is the same "tax cuts and deregulation" GOP plan that has been trotted out for 30 years. They don't see the wealth trickling down, nor the playing field being leveled by these policies. In short, while the tenets of Conservatism are fluffy enough to appeal to anyone, the majority doesn't think your party/movement is the way to get those things. They look at Obama, and shrug and say "eh, not great but not extremist or crazy, good enough."
The majority of the country either rejects Conservatism or rejects Conservatives. Romney may not have been some sort of "authentic Palin extreme Conservative," but he pandered to every Conservative fantasy there is, and he chose Ryan as his running mate. Romney said he'd sign a personhood Amendment. He spoke of taking Capital Gains an the Estate Tax to 0. He spoke about sanctioning China on his first day and likely going to war in Iran. He spoke of illegals self-deporting, Scalia clones on the SCOTUS and the oil companies regulating themselves. What Conservative hero of yours was going to run to the Right of Romney and pick up all of the swing states that you lost? The country didn't reject Romney because he "wasn't far enough to the
we celebrate laziness and mediocrity. Privatizing the school system sounds great for the privileged, and "sorry, we're looking for only a ...certain kind of people, wink wink" to the underprivileged. Curtailing the EPA sounds great for the oil companies, and "well, if our ground water gets contaminated by the pollution and we have to drink bottled water from now on, there goes our gas money savings, as well as our environment" to the rest of us. It might be useful in the long term to get more concessions out of the unions, but the unions are the only way a lot of people have leverage to improve their working conditions or make a sufficient wage. You have to appeal to the rest of the country with something other than a 1982 strategy.
"fair" since that money shouldn't be taxed twice, but the resultant loss of revenue hurts services predominantly for less privileged people, and while those heirs did nothing to earn that money (other than be born to rich parents), some of the cuts go to Entitlements, which most hard-working people have been paying into for years. Ideally, the government wouldn't interfere in any class-related issues, but ideally a rich white kid would have the exact same opportunity as a poor black kid, and usually that is not the case, and so a laissez-faire government will lead to a permanently unequal, unfair society, which breeds tons of other problems. We don't see Conservatives trying to get us better opportunities, but talking down to us as though
Sadly, if you want to show compassion for your fellow human beings (98% of them anyway), you have to change your economic policies also. I am a Liberal. The Left doesn't want handouts. We want a fair playing field. We think that the rich have enough tax breaks and political power and huge executive bonuses, and that it isn't "trickling down" to the larger economy. And we don't think it is just a question of work ethic, but that a lot of the money at the top circulates (in bribes and favors) to and from the politicians to unfairly sustain a system rigged for the powerful and against their competition (everyone else), a system that privatizes profits and socializes risk. Abolishing the Estate Tax might be
Previous 11 - 20 Next