It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So... I'm a progressive... You can regress all you like.

page: 18
39
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

By cutting federal taxes, I'm going to assume you mean taxes on the rich. Reagan cutting taxes. Bush's tax cuts.
Bush' tax cuts, the sequel.

Those are the tax cuts you mean, right?

As for the individual rights of states : Gov. Christie has already declared that if elected hi will crack down on states that legalized marijuana by a vote of the people.. Cruz, Jindal and Santorum have put their voices to a federal ban on same-sex marriage, regardless of what individual states wish. So, those are the rights you mean, right?

As for " Obama wishing to use the federal government to oversee healthcare.", the ACA was originally called Romneycare. Felt I needed to point that out. You know, because a single payer mandate is all about rights, right?

Come to Light Side..screw the cookies, we have pie. And Freedom(tm).




posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ironhawke

Romneycare in Mass got partly gutted by the ACA.



ACA is wholly owned by all Democrats.

No Republicans voted for it in 2010.

DaaHaHaHa



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Ironhawke

Romneycare in Mass got partly gutted by the ACA.



ACA is wholly owned by all Democrats.

No Republicans voted for it in 2010.

DaaHaHaHa
Considering the Republicans have pretty decided to say screw America and screw Americans, can honestly say I'm not surprised.....



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Ironhawke

Clever formatting.



chick-a-boom



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I think we can give all credit for ACA, Iranian Foreign Policy, high unemployment, record numbers on food stamps, a lousy economy on progressives.

Wonder what they'll think up next?

Fast and Furious?
Gun grabs?
Free Speech Zones?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
Charlie, I don't often agree with you, but I love you brother.

In my opinion you are playing games with words. Here is the deal for me...I am happy to give and help others on my own terms. It is when Government steps in and legislates my 'giving' that I get angry. People should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labor and be free from Government meddling. If that makes me 'regressive' then I can live with that label.


Are you worth over 10 million dollars? I think one of the greatest tricks the ruling class has pulled off has been to convince the conservative working class that their interests are aligned with the ruling classes interests. Anyone talking about raising taxes on people making less than 300k a year is talking a foreign language.

The real issue isn't even so much working people, it's old money. Inherited wealth and we're talking about 10,000 to 15,000 people who together own and control a vast majority of the worlds land, resources and wealth. Not a doctor, or successful attorney, or anyone making money by their own skill/hands/labor. More so old money, multinational corporations, new money (people like Bill Gates).

Take Bill Gates for example. Sure he's a smart guy and sure he has earned wealth but at what point does wealth accumulation like that become a detriment to society? When is enough enough? 500 million? A billion? 10 billion? 80 billion?

Talk of raising taxes is aimed at "them" not you. Although since "they" control our government you can best believe you will always end up paying a larger % of your income in taxes. so not only do they have much much more money than you but they pay less of a % in taxes. Obviously they pay more overall money, but less of a %.

This set up helps keep working people running on that rat wheel. Especially the lower/middle class.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   
It blows my mind that no matter what people's political affiliation is, most seem to forget that the leaders of both parties are equally as corrupt, though the areas in which they are corrupt may vary. It's all good and well if one supports dems or reps but at present, support for either party is so utterly pointless until some major reform takes place; realistically we need to clean house and start over from the ground up. Basically a separation of business from government needs to happen and we all know there's no way that's going to happen any time soon unless there is some kind of revolution. The chaos we will have to endure to get there will be better than the chaos that is waiting for us if we don't do anything about it.

I guess it just gets my goat sometimes when people argue over which horrible party should be in power.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


And led the way for the next 100 years with legislation for black Americans when democrats wouldn't touch it. Until JFK and Johnson.

The parties have 'flipped' in terms of labels.

You are correct that Republicans were the ones at that time (150 years ago) who wanted to abolish slavery. The two teams have swapped uniforms now, however.

The mindsets have remained the same, but the labels have changed.

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff.

Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?


See the link for an explanation. It is a fact - what were once called "Republicans" were working with ideas that are now called "Democrat."
It happened between Lincoln and FDR.
Please learn about it, so you understand why you are mistaken in terms of 'party platform'. Technically, semantically, you are correct. But you have to understand that the two parties SWAPPED NAMES.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




They're all very old State worship mantras and thus regressive...

No one looking for progress wants less individualism or personal liberty.

Well I don't.


I do want less individualism if it's only expression could be found in the different types of meaningless dayjobs many people spend big chunks of their lives with, some trendy clothes, the shiny new iPhoneX or an expensive ride/ boat/ house/ cat whatever. Actually we all do this in a world, that quite literally goes down the drain. Yeah, sorry and all that. But you ought to know that by now. Individualism is not him- or herself anymore. We would have to revive this beauty first and I don't know if we are on the same page here.

And I most def don't like personal liberty anymore as those liberties are completely meaningless by now and apply to corporations as well, to render them finally ad absurdum. Guess what? You are actually riding dead horses on both occasions. And that shouldn't come as a surprise to you, this is ATS. We have tons of threads on all of this.

I would propose to think further and ask some bigger questions, as our recent livestyle only led to this mess. But that's just me beeing in my head and one of the few things I would consider really progressive. "Open Source Everything" in general is a very good example for a progressive take on things and quite the opposite of individualism and personal liberty, wouldn't you say so? At least regarding personal copyrights and individual distribution of profit.


"We are at the end of a five-thousand-year-plus historical process during which human society grew in scale while it abandoned the early indigenous wisdom councils and communal decision-making," he writes in The Open Source Everything Manifesto. "Power was centralised in the hands of increasingly specialised 'elites' and 'experts' who not only failed to achieve all they promised but used secrecy and the control of information to deceive the public into allowing them to retain power over community resources that they ultimately looted."

www.theguardian.com...
edit on 30-6-2015 by PublicOpinion because: spells and pointy sticks

edit on 30-6-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
The problem is that the word progressive has different meanings so to use it as a stance is extremely vague in what your point of view in anything might really be about. I think you need to define what you are calling "progressive" for anyone to debate whether your directions are ones to agree with, or not.

I get tired with the whole white/black debate though. I think blacks in general have a lot of personal issues as their numbers dwindle from close to 20% of the US population to a little over 13% of the population due a large percentage of abortions within their culture, black on black crime, gang violence and dysfunctional families, so I think they have huge personal hurtles to overcome that are pretty much caused by their own behaviors that are the bigger factors in their "struggles".



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The problem is that the word progressive has different meanings so to use it as a stance is extremely vague in what your point of view in anything might really be about. I think you need to define what you are calling "progressive" for anyone to debate whether your directions are ones to agree with, or not.

I get tired with the whole white/black debate though. I think blacks in general have a lot of personal issues as their numbers dwindle from close to 20% of the US population to a little over 13% of the population due a large percentage of abortions within their culture, black on black crime, gang violence and dysfunctional families, so I think they have huge personal hurtles to overcome that are pretty much caused by their own behaviors that are the bigger factors in their "struggles".


Oh that surely has nothing to do with poor or next to no proper healthcare, the lack of employment opportunities and general poverty.

Can you prove this 7% decline in the population?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

When it comes to "progressive" however, why is this a title given strictly to "liberals" or "Democrats"? I mean Jesus was pretty progressive in his time, and so was the Protestant Reformation.



I think the start was when far left liberals and socialist started to use the word progressive as their lable... I guess it rolls off the tongue easier...

I personally view progressives as elitists on the left, though we are all progressive. The difference is we just do not call ourselves Progressives, as a formal noun, as the left elitists seem to wear as their badge of honor.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I think we can give all credit for ACA, Iranian Foreign Policy, high unemployment, record numbers on food stamps, a lousy economy on progressives.

Wonder what they'll think up next?

Fast and Furious?
Gun grabs?
Free Speech Zones?


ACA is what the Republicans wanted when Bill put Hilary in charge of trying to come up with a universal healthcare law, it was rejected.

Iranian Foreign Policy is good compared to another war!!

High Unemployment, compared to when?

Record number on food stamps goes back to the last Conservative president and his economic collapse.

The economy is what the elites want. They are making a ton of money I guess where all just waiting for it to trickle down.

Free speech zone was invented by the last conservative president.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

Oh that surely has nothing to do with poor or next to no proper healthcare, the lack of employment opportunities and general poverty.


So what proper healthcare was I born with due to my color? Lack of employment opportunities has a lot to do with lack of skills, education, drive etc. Also black on black crime, gang violence, dysfunctional families and drugs I'm sure has had little to do with all this though...rrrriiight...

My personal perspective is all the black people I work with have achieved quite well. They made good life choices, worked hard to get ahead in life and did. How do I compare their lives to lets say a large percentage that live in Ferguson when both are black but have led a much different life styles.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
So the blacks you know have done well? So why label the entire race like you did? Where the ones you knew the exceptions or a fluke?

How can you compare your life to theirs? Have you tried to get a job as a black person? Have you lived in a black neighborhood? Did you go to a poor school in a black neighborhood?

The myth of a decline of blacks in the population is because of the rise in the Latino population in the last 30ish years.... There hasn't been a Decline because of abortion and gang violence, any study on this subject will bear out what I say. Right wing educated people from infotainment sites will not show you the truth about things....



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: beezzer

what ticks me off is the state of african countries where the system is designed to keep them as poor as possible. we start a campaign to raise charitable donations, and by the time the money gets there, there's hardly any left, and then that is stolen by drug lords.

Huh? Wha? There are drug lords in Africa? That's news to me. I agree that for the most part there is a lot of corruption over there as well as a lot of exploitation. If you are going to be progressive, then that means the developed countries must be willing to settle for a much lower standard of living to raise up all the poor countries. Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: JeanPaul

The real issue isn't even so much working people, it's old money. Inherited wealth and we're talking about 10,000 to 15,000 people who together own and control a vast majority of the worlds land, resources and wealth.


Old money is not taxable, so what is your plan, to nationalize their funds?


A billion? 10 billion? 80 billion?
Ya ya bill got 80 billion over 30 years...might as well be old money now that taxes are already paid...

Well it seems 300k is also too much , how about 100k?


Obviously they pay more overall money, but less of a %.


What is the % that lower 50% income of Americans pay in federal taxes? not much.. I pay about 28% year after year, how much should I pay to be an American over the guy down the street? It seems we are so worried about the top .001% that we are willing to go after the top 10% to get to them, when the .001% is, as you say, old money. The top 9.99% is mainly new money and a lot less than your 10 million.

This is the area that I think will do harm when we tax all the top 10% heavily since this is a large part of small businesses. The guy who makes 300k with a hand full of workers might as well work less and make 100k, since his net pay would most likely come out the same.

If you wanted to tax the top .1% go at it, but once again like the lower 50% not much new money there to tax.


edit on 1-7-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
So the blacks you know have done well? So why label the entire race like you did? Where the ones you knew the exceptions or a fluke?


I'm not labeling, I'm suggesting why the black population has a large percentage of poor. Why that maybe there are other interpersonal factors other than "The Man" is holding them down...I would not be in the job that have today without the skills and education that I worked on my whole adult life, same as all the other people I work with from all walks of life and ethnic backgrounds.



How can you compare your life to theirs? Have you tried to get a job as a black person? Have you lived in a black neighborhood? Did you go to a poor school in a black neighborhood?


I guess that is my point...why is the black neighborhood so bad, and as example, a Chinese neighborhood is thriving? BTW I did go to a black school for my 7 - 9 grades... Newburgh NY.


edit on 1-7-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LDragonFire
So the blacks you know have done well? So why label the entire race like you did? Where the ones you knew the exceptions or a fluke?


I'm not labeling, I'm suggesting why the black population has a large percentage of poor. Why that maybe there are other interpersonal factors other than "The Man" is holding them down...I would not be in the job that have today without the skills and education that I worked on my whole adult life, same as all the other people I work with from all walks of life and ethnic backgrounds.



How can you compare your life to theirs? Have you tried to get a job as a black person? Have you lived in a black neighborhood? Did you go to a poor school in a black neighborhood?


I guess that is my point...why is the black neighborhood so bad, and as example, a Chinese neighborhood is thriving? BTW I did go to a black school for my 7 - 9 grades... Newburgh NY.


You have to see what Black neighbourhoods you are referring to, and Asians like most immigrants including Africans and Caribbeans tend to do better than their old line counterparts of whatever back ground, however race can still be a factor in hiring practices ,this is off set by immigrant folks opening small businesses and are usually clannish and cohesive ,by the second generation most would be well on their way to middle classdom, I am saying this using my own family and neighbourhood history, so why are there a lot of poor old line AAs??.. simple a cycle of poverty forced upon them, some made it out others do not and for the record most old line AAs are not poor but working or middle class although earning less than their white counter parts.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join