05 Feb 14
Originally posted by whodeyYou have a bizarre definition of "progressive" one that apparently includes Ronald Reagan.
Progressives have overseen the demise of the middle class and the increasing gulf between the rich and poor.
In the interim, they distance themselves from it by blaming conservatives even though conservatives have not been in power.
Originally posted by no1marauderRonald McDonlald expanded the size and scope of government. How much more progressive can you get?
You have a bizarre definition of "progressive" one that apparently includes Ronald Reagan.
What made him anti-progressive?
Incidentally, blaming the nations problems on Reagan who served decades ago, who is now dead and buried, is just plain absurd.
Buck up and take some accountability!! ðŸ˜
My guess Progressives like yourself are incapable of accountability. If that be the case then you need to elect another smuck Progresive from the GOP like Reagan to blame your failures on.
Originally posted by whodeyTo you, "progressive" is just some kind of "bad" word to label virtually anybody that in your historically ignorant mind somehow contributed to policies you don't like.
Ronald McDonlald expanded the size and scope of government. How much more progressive can you get?
What made him anti-progressive?
Incidentally, blaming the nations problems on Reagan who served decades ago, who is now dead and buried, is just plain absurd.
Buck up and take some accountability!! ðŸ˜
My guess Progressives like yourself are incap ...[text shortened]... n you need to elect another smuck Progresive from the GOP like Reagan to blame your failures on.
To me, "progressive" has a fairly specific meaning having to do with the pro-labor policies and anti-monopoly stances of various groups around the late 19th Century and earliest 20th Century. Many of these policies were carried forward by various administrations after Hoover and contributed to the strong growth in the middle class during the period of say the late 1940's to early 1970's.
These policies were then abandoned and policies which favored the moneyed class over workers (policies that your Tea Party strongly support) were adopted in their stead. This has led to economic instability, increased income inequality, persistent levels of high un and underemployment and other chronic problems which you have little understanding of and no solutions for.
Basically, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about and are happy in your extreme ignorance.
05 Feb 14
The Progressive Party of Oregon platform is what real progressives want and it is far different from the two big money parties and the billionaire backed Tea Party:
Dem
Rep
Progressive
Real campaign finance reform NO NO YES
Oppose extension of income tax cuts for the rich NO NO YES
Oppose Wall Street bailouts NO NO YES
Oppose Cuts in Social Security Benefits NO NO YES
Employment for All (WPA style) NO NO YES
Increase minimum wage to living wage ($10 or more) NO NO YES
Single Payer comprehensive health care NO NO YES
Oppose Cuts in Medicare Coverage NO NO YES
End wars in Iraq and Afghanistan NO NO YES
Oppose use of mercenaries ("contractors"😉 NO NO YES
Cut military spending NO NO YES
Equal rights for all; same-sex marriage NO NO YES
Oppose NAFTA & WTO; encourage local sourcing of products & services NO NO YES
Oppose spying on American civilians NO NO YES
End occupation of Palestine NO NO YES
Oppose shipping coal for export through Columbia Gorge NO NO YES
Oppose offshore drilling NO NO YES
Clean energy; no nuclear NO NO YES
Repair, improve infrastructure (transportation, water systems, etc.) NO NO YES
End the drug war NO NO YES
End the Senate filibuster; restore majority rule NO NO YES
End “corporate personhood” NO NO YES
http://progparty.org/
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by no1marauderAccording to CNN, workers are choosing to work less so that they can stay under income caps for Medicaid or other federal subsidies.
😴😴
Giving people the opportunity to work less if they don't want to without being penalized by being left helpless if they get sick is a fine policy. If they choose to make less money, what's your complaint?
Are you also in favor of abolishing Social Security and Medicare? After all, if old people couldn't have any money or health insurance they'd be "encouraged" to continue to work.
In essence, instead of having people who would otherwise be employed and contributing to society they are forcing others to pay for their benefits without doing their fair contributions. It further causes those who work to pay for those who rather just get a check for doing nothing and everyone who contributes to society should be outraged.
Originally posted by quackquackSo be outraged. Those people are working, not getting a check for "doing nothing". If they chose to forego some income because it is advantageous to them to do so, that is their business.
According to CNN, workers are choosing to work less so that they can stay under income caps for Medicaid or other federal subsidies.
In essence, instead of having people who would otherwise be employed and contributing to society they are forcing others to pay for their benefits without doing their fair contributions. It further causes those who work ...[text shortened]... r just get a check for doing nothing and everyone who contributes to society should be outraged.
You lack such outrage at the hundreds of billions in corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich.
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by no1marauderPeople, as a result of Obamacare, are working less than they otherwise would and having others pay for their benefits. This is a classic example of freeloading. It is not a personal choice as others are forced to pay for their behavior. It is offensive that you continually support policies which put more and more burdens on people who actually work and contribute to society.
So be outraged. Those people are working, not getting a check for "doing nothing". If they chose to forego some income because it is advantageous to them to do so, that is their business.
You lack such outrage at the hundreds of billions in corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich.
Originally posted by quackquackThose people DO work. It is not their fault that rather than adopting a single payer system that would have no economic disincentives, the system adopted actually punishes them for working more in some cases. They aren't "freeloaders" but people making a rational economic decision. They work and contribute to society far more than someone cashing a dividend check (who gets a special, lower tax rate for doing nothing of any economic value).
People, as a result of Obamacare, are working less than they otherwise would and having others pay for their benefits. This is a classic example of freeloading. It is not a personal choice as others are forced to pay for their behavior. It is offensive that you continually support policies which put more and more burdens on people who actually work and contribute to society.
It's the same as Social Security; you can chose to retire at an earlier age and forego income and added benefits if you chose. I suppose old people are "free loaders" too.
Most of the ACA is paid for in two ways: by taxes on industries that are benefiting from the increased business caused by having more people with health insurance (25 million according to the CBO) - those industries are directly benefiting and thus have no cause to complain about how hard they are working - they are making more money directly because of the "freeloaders" you are bitching about.
The other main funding source is a 3% surcharge on investment income for the wealthy. Even with that surcharge, the tax on such investment income is significantly lower than on actual work. So if anybody is a "freeloader" "placing more burdens on people who actually work" it is these people who are getting an unwarranted tax benefit simply because they have the political muscle to insist on it.
So your complaints are ignorant BS.
EDIT: And besides all that, if you had the faintest understanding of economics you'd realize that if labor supply is reduced by some and demand for labor is constant, other workers will be in a more advantageous position for increased wages. So ALL workers should potentially benefit(look up the law of supply and demand some time).
Originally posted by no1marauderYour comments are complete BS. The economic analysis is simple. When people freeload, the rest of society pays for the benefits and everyone else is worse off. To the extent that you argue otherwise you are simply wrong.
Those people DO work. It is not their fault that rather than adopting a single payer system that would have no economic disincentives, the system adopted actually punishes them for working more in some cases. They aren't "freeloaders" but people making a rational economic decision. They work and contribute to society far more than someone cashing a divid ...[text shortened]... ages. So ALL workers should potentially benefit(look up the law of supply and demand some time).
Your bashing of dividends is also BS. People who contribute money get reimbursement. Just like those who 9-5 jobs, people who invest cash in companies make an essential contribution to commerce.
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by quackquackHow is working freeloading again?
Your comments are complete BS. The economic analysis is simple. When people freeload, the rest of society pays for the benefits and everyone else is worse off. To the extent that you argue otherwise you are simply wrong.
Your bashing of dividends is also BS. People who contribute money get reimbursement. Just like those who 9-5 jobs, people who invest cash in companies make an essential contribution to commerce.
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by quackquack"Simple" you sure are.
Your comments are complete BS. The economic analysis is simple. When people freeload, the rest of society pays for the benefits and everyone else is worse off. To the extent that you argue otherwise you are simply wrong.
Your bashing of dividends is also BS. People who contribute money get reimbursement. Just like those who 9-5 jobs, people who invest cash in companies make an essential contribution to commerce.
A lower tax on dividends discourages work. IF government policy makes someone make a rational economic decision to forego some work in order for an insurance company to receive more money (that's who get the subsidy), they are "freeloaders". IF government policy encourages someone to work less and rely on dividend income, they are making " an essential contribution to commerce"!
Hold your breath until you true blue, QQ.
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by quackquackFrom, of all people, Paul Ryan regarding your type of argument:
Your comments are complete BS. The economic analysis is simple. When people freeload, the rest of society pays for the benefits and everyone else is worse off. To the extent that you argue otherwise you are simply wrong.
Your bashing of dividends is also BS. People who contribute money get reimbursement. Just like those who 9-5 jobs, people who invest cash in companies make an essential contribution to commerce.
"There's been an undertone of disrespect in this hearing as I sat through it about people who just don't want to go to work," Ryan said. "So I appreciate your being very clear that this isn't about 2 million jobs. This is about average people having an opportunity to reduce the burden on their own family."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/cbo-obamacare-jobs-tim-ryan