By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - End of Liberalism/Return of Fascism

Kudistos Megistos said:
scottie said:

Oh, you're not American?

Nope

Then it's strange that you should focus so heavily on American politics. Maybe because that makes things much easier; the US has the worst conservative party in the Western world, after all...

Ist it  really that odd that I focus a lot of my attention on what is currently the most powerful and influential country in the world?

 

 

Trade unions aren't inherently bad, but they've very often been used to hold both employers and governments to ransom, and their political goals tend to be "big government" goals.

They also have a habit of bullying their members into supporting actions they don't agree with, and they often refuse to allow people to work for whoever they're striking against. This goes dead againt concepts of individual liberty and the free market.

Indeed, I never claimed that the left wing want a free market either. Marx certainly didn't, and (despite how his messege was warped) he was very left wing. What I claimed is that the right wing wants the government to crush the poor, and the left want the government to crush the rich.

It's interesting that you should bring up Thatcher. At the time she took power, union leaders in Britain were almost tyrants; they were close to ruling the country as an oligrachy. The people were damned sick of them, and they showed their support for Thatcher in the ballot box.

I never claimed that the left was better, or more popular than the right. I am simply saying what are typically left and right beliefs. If you really want to get into a discussion as to whether the left or right is better, or about corruption in the unions in the pre Thatcher age, I would be very interested to have that discussion. But this is not the place to have that discussion.

Of course, no left-wing government would oppose such activity; they need the union votes.

Just as no right wing government could support gay marriage, or abortion. They need the church votes.

 

Are you talking abot making tax more equal and refusing to punish the wealthy for their success?

Again, I am not saying which is better, worse, or more or less fair. I am simply saying that the right wing try to increase taxes on the poor (or lower them on the rich), while the left try to do exactly the opposite. It just reinforces my point that the right wing is the party that benefits the 1%, and the left benefits the 99%. That is the left, right divide/. It is not a small/large government divide.

Some of us think it's quite unfair that some pay so much more tax than other, so we support relatively flat rates.

And I am not trying to stop you from doing so, merely pointing out that doing so will result in you being associated with the right, and that those voting similarly to you will for the most part be right wing.

Of course, Bush took things too far, but if you're going to take his as the archetypal right-wing politician, I'm going to take Stalin and Mao to be the archetypal left-wing politicians. It's only fair.

And yet they aren't left wing at all. If you look at their policies, they bear extremely little resemblance to those of Marx.

Now, if you left-wingers love the poor so much, why do you always starve them to death?

Pardon?


Now the Democrats are right-wing? This is where I stop taking you seriously.

Yes, they are. The democrats are fairly similar to the Australian liberal party, which is commonly accepted as a right wing party. Sure, they are close to central, but they are still right wing.

 

Look all over Europe. Our continent has been almost universally left-wing for decades, and things seem to be much more skewed in favour of the big business status quo here than they are in the US.

Not sure I believe this, as an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GINIretouchedcolors.png

If you want a classic example of a corrupt left-wing government looking after its friends, look at the British Labour party. I could go on for days about the horrible things they've done...

Again, not claiming the left wing is better, or less corrupt. Many who claim to be left wing, and many who are actually left wing are corrupt. Just as many in the right wing are corrupt.






Around the Network
scottie said:
Kudistos Megistos said:
scottie said:

1) The tea Party is one of the few right wing parties that bucks some of the usual trends of right wing politics. In some ways, the Tea Party is less right wing than the democrats.

 

2) Right wing governments are not about free market capitalism, nor are they about small government. They are about limited government control over big business, and the maximum amount of government control over everything else, including economic rights of the 99%. Would you claim that Scott Walker, because he was intervening by banning trade unions, was a left winger? (This isn't a rhetorical question, please answer it, I honestly can't understand you and I think answering this question will help me to learn what you think right and left wing mean)

 

3) It is completely irrelevant to my point that the republicans voted against the bailouts. The Icelandic parliament is controlled by the left wing, and they did not bail out the banks. The Democrats are a moderate right wing party, and they voted for it. The Republicans, from what I can gather, voted against it simply because they knew it would win them votes to do so.

 

@ Kudistos megistos - How about you respond to my points instead of resorting to petty insults.


How about I respond by pointing out that there's a big difference between "The Republican Party in the United States in 2011" and "right-wing politics"?

You don't seem to know anything about politics outside of your own country and this current time period. Based on my experience, I could well say that left-wing governments are all about supporting their friends in big business at the expense of everyone else. That's what they've been doing all over Europe for the past few decades. Except Iceland, where there isn't enough money for the taxpayer to bail out the banks, and where the government would, no doubt, face a violent revolution if they even tried.


Out of curiousity, where do you think my country is? I find it amusing that you don't know which country I live in, and yet you claim that I do

I also used the example of Iceland (left wing) not giving bailouts, and the Democrats (and eventually Republicans) (both right wing, to varying degrees) giving bailouts.


Which was incorrect.  Since it was the Rightwing who didn't give bailouts.... and the leftwing who voted FOR bailouts after they took control of parliment in 09 and was shot down by the Icelandic population.



scottie said:
Kudistos Megistos said:
scottie said:

Again, I am not saying which is better, worse, or more or less fair. I am simply saying that the right wing try to increase taxes on the poor (or lower them on the rich), while the left try to do exactly the opposite. It just reinforces my point that the right wing is the party that benefits the 1%, and the left benefits the 99%. That is the left, right divide/. It is not a small/large government divide.





although nearly everything you said was bullshit about the american right wing.

i just had to respond to this. this is just so patently false, its hilarious.

the rupublicans want no such thing, not even close. the rupublicans want lower taxes on everybody. in fact most republicans just signed a pledge not raise taxes on the poor. 

also George bush cut the taxes on the poor.

republicans are the party for the poor, they favor more personal freedom, reducing regulation to help people get hired. so "poor people" can get jobs and money.



osamanobama said:
scottie said:
Kudistos Megistos said:
scottie said:

Again, I am not saying which is better, worse, or more or less fair. I am simply saying that the right wing try to increase taxes on the poor (or lower them on the rich), while the left try to do exactly the opposite. It just reinforces my point that the right wing is the party that benefits the 1%, and the left benefits the 99%. That is the left, right divide/. It is not a small/large government divide.

 

 

although nearly everything you said was bullshit about the american right wing.

i just had to respond to this. this is just so patently false, its hilarious.

the rupublicans want no such thing, not even close. the rupublicans want lower taxes on everybody. in fact most republicans just signed a pledge not raise taxes on the poor. 

also George bush cut the taxes on the poor.

republicans are the party for the poor, they favor more personal freedom, reducing regulation to help people get hired. so "poor people" can get jobs and money.

Republicans are the party for the poor?  You seriously believe that?  What do you call rhetoric about poor in inner cities have no work ethic by Newt, and also these comments about the 53% and repeatedly saying "everyone should pay something", despite the fact they do, even if it isn't income taxes?  The political reality is this: GOP candidates want to lower taxes on the wealthy, and raise taxes on everyone else (see Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan as an example of this).  In addition to raising taxes, they want to slash benefits.   The premise here is "You don't want to punish the successful".

And the slashing of regulations in no way, shape and form is to help the poor (even the words "Middle Class" is verbotten language for the GOP now).  It is there in order to help the wealthy get even more wealthy, and under some sort of miracle, this will end up translating into everyone benefitting.  Lift the boats on top, and they will drag everyone else along for a ride... maybe.

Let's just say that helping the poor isn't exactly a high priority for the GOP.



scottie said:

 

First, thanks for actually responding properly, you won't get very far by simply insulting people who disagree with you.


Out of curiousity, where do you think my country is? I find it amusing that you don't know which country I live in, and yet you claim that I do not know anything about politics in countries other than this one, unknown country. I also love that you claim my experience and knowledge is all based in the current day. If anything, the opposite criticism could be made of me. I read up on current politics because I know I should, I read up on the politics and economics of the 1900s-1970s because it interests me.

 

I provided several examples to prove my points;

 

Scott Walker (and there are plenty of other examples, such as Thatcher, to use an example that is neither from my country nor the present day, or John Howard, who is from my country and approximately the present day) and their union busting activities. All Right wing without a shadow of a doubt, all acting in defiance of the 'small government' concept in order to concentrate wealth in the hands of the already wealthy. I would also like to point out that after Howard was voted out of office, the Labor party (left wing) overturned John Howards ban on collective bargaining.

Of course, you could study the actual issue of union-busting in America. Wisconsin was broke. They had no money to continue to pay the union salaries that had been forced on the cities and state governments. We have the same thing going on in Ohio. We tried to break up the unions, and it failed. Now we're losing teachers, firefighters and cops every day, because unions would rather see people let go than re-negotiate contracts. Also, its not just a right-wing republican thing. We've had very left-leaning legislatures like Massachusettes do the same thing and break up their public unions.

 

You can also look at the tax cuts that Bush brought in, or the GST that Howard brought in as examples of ways the right wing shift the tax burden to the poor.

Except the fact that the total burden of taxes in America for the top 1% is higher today than at any point in the past 60 years.

I also used the example of Iceland (left wing) not giving bailouts, and the Democrats (and eventually Republicans) (both right wing, to varying degrees) giving bailouts.

You claim that there are left wing governments that are "all about" supporting their friends in big business. name some, as many as you can. I can't respond to your experience, if I don't even know what countries you are refering to.

The issue with both of your arguments are what actually make up a left-wing or right-wing government. Could you even empircally give a list of actual left-wing governments?





Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network

The union's fights are quite funny.

They want higher pay, they get it.

Then 10-20% get fired...

Unions protect who's interest?



mrstickball said:

Except the fact that the total burden of taxes in America for the top 1% is higher today than at any point in the past 60 years.

 

I am going to call bull on the above and ask you to prove it.  You are saying the past 60 years?  Now is your chance to correct and clarify, or defend this.   If you want to say the top 1% pays a greater percentage now, it would be because they have more money and the middle class is shrinking.



richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

Except the fact that the total burden of taxes in America for the top 1% is higher today than at any point in the past 60 years.

 

I am going to call bull on the above and ask you to prove it.  You are saying the past 60 years?  Now is your chance to correct and clarify, or defend this.   If you want to say the top 1% pays a greater percentage now, it would be because they have more money and the middle class is shrinking.

 

Its quite a bit faster than the increase of income inequality. The top 1% pays more taxes than the bottom 95%.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Also in the US isn't it true that many do not pay taxes at all?

 

I assume the 46 million Americans in poverty do not pay any income taxes...



lordmandeep said:

Also in the US isn't it true that many do not pay taxes at all?

 

I assume the 46 million Americans in poverty do not pay any income taxes...

That depends on whether you consider national pensions and unemployment insurance taxes.

They don't pay income taxes, or likely state taxes, however "payroll" taxes are used to fund unemployment, social security and medicare.   You get a lot of that back at the end of the year but not all of it. 

Also some of the people living in povery own their own homes. (43%... will get lower though thanks to the economy.)

So there are property and various city taxes to pay.

Really, think how awsome a place the US is to live, where you can own land, and be consdiered poor.