Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSenator Bernie Sanders – founder and current member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus – wants to raise $100 billion to address the needs of ordinary Americans who are currently struggling, and another $30 billion to lower the deficit.
"It's very, very simple," Sanders told me, "if we have the guts to stand up to the wealthiest one percent of America."
Sanders has introduced the National Priorities Act to "expand the middle class, reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, and lower the poverty rate" – largely through rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of American taxpayers.
Speaking at a Senate Budget Committee meeting yesterday, Sanders said of a current Senate Budget Resolution for FY 2008: "While the Budget Resolution… is far from perfect, it is much more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans than the President's….But I think that over the long-term, we can and must do much better in establishing our budgetary priorities than this budget does."
Sanders' National Priorities Act makes his budgetary priorities crystal clear: providing primary and dental care to millions of Americans and health insurance for children; full funding for veterans health care; increasing access to affordable childcare and fully funding Head Start; lowering property taxes by federally covering 40 percent of special education costs for kids; providing 330,000 additional Pell Grants and doubling the maximum allowable amount; creating 200,000 jobs by investing in renewable energy, public transit, and high speed rail; creating 180,000 jobs by constructing, preserving, and rehabilitating at least 150,000 affordable housing rental units; reducing taxes for 10 million working families by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; and reducing the deficit by $30 billion.
"We're going to make people discuss the idea that if we were to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, this is what we could do," Sanders said. Not surprisingly, there are still plenty of Democrats – especially in the Senate – who don't want to have that discussion at all. The Republicans have had great success in scaring the bejeezus out of Democrats that come election year, any tax increase on the rich will be misconstrued (through successful Republican spin – and Fox) as raising taxes on everyone.
"It's like Bush with the so-called ‘death tax,'" Sanders says. "Never mind that the estate tax only impacts the wealthiest 3/10th of 1 percent of our population – the Republicans have people thinking it's about small businessmen, family farmers, and ordinary Americans…. And in this case – with my legislation – they scare good people into thinking that it's ‘radical' to rescind taxes on the top 1 percent… even though it's been poll tested and the American people support it!"
Because of the "radical" label there are currently no cosponsors of this legislation and Sanders doesn't seem to be holding his breath for any sudden rush.
"I'm in this for the long haul," he says. "We're going to push Democrats to begin to take on the Big Money interests that have held sway in this institution for too many years."
This truly independent Senator from Vermont has done a great service in providing a simple yet powerful vision of what might be achieved with the right priorities and a dose of courage.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Go! Bernie, Go! Maybe rescinding the tax break on the wealthiest 1% of our population will make them all move to Dubai. We won't miss the taxes they are not paying anyways.
Posted by bjkron at 03/15/2007 @ 2:07pm
Hoooo....love that Bernie Sanders...
1. "wants to raise $100 billion to address the needs of ordinary Americans who are currently struggling, and another $30 billion to lower the deficit." So I guess that's 130 Billion needed to be raised, 100 for the new spending and ....WOW...a WHOLE 30 billion to take on the 290 Billion deficit?!?!? Boy, those progressives ARE "fiscal conservatives", huh. Not like those free-spending Repubs, huh?
2. "Because of the "radical" label there are currently no cosponsors of this legislation and Sanders doesn't seem to be holding his breath for any sudden rush."
Then what the hell is the good about discussing it?
3. You think maybe the fact that Bernie is the only Democrat who ever admitted to being a socialist, might have something to do with his lack of allies?
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 2:09pm
Then what the hell is the good about discussing it?
Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 2:09pm
That seems to be your response to just about every thread topic on this site. Maybe we discuss these meaningless topics solely to give you something to do with your time. It is all an orchestrated effort including KVH, Maasch, LvLiberty and all the rest of us to keep you from doing whatever it is you would be doing all day if you weren't blogging here...
Posted by bjkron at 03/15/2007 @ 2:16pm
MASK Don't forget that you've admitted that you have no idea what a socialist is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 2:20pm
I'm sure we'll be getting more comments from the other right wingers who don't know what a socialist is.Fortunately,I have most of them on ignore.While I'm not a socialist I do like what I've seen from this person,so far.I know that poor and average income Republicans will say that the wealthiest 1% earned their money,but if they do a little checking they will discover that quite a few were born into the money like their beloved bush.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 2:50pm
Posted by MASK
Then what the hell is the good about discussing it?
Get the facts out there and people can begin to make informed decisions. Americans are inundated with propaganda from corporate America each and every day. Corporate US owns the media, they fund virtually all of the think tanks that have proliferated over the past twenty years (Why listen to the academics that can speak fact, the ugly truth due to tenure, when we can pay our own Dr.s to spread our gospel?). If all the fools that support repealing the Estate tax knew the true nature of the tax, who it applies to, and that information is supplied in the proper context then I sincerely believe they would not support it, not the vast majority anyway.
3. You think maybe the fact that Bernie is the only Democrat who ever admitted to being a socialist, might have something to do with his lack of allies?
And what of all the "socialists" that actively, routinely support corporate welfare? Those that like to socialize the costs and privatize the profit. Perhaps if the voters could get some accurate information regarding how the system truly works--and they can overcome the closed mind syndrome instilled by all these years of steady corporate propaganda--they could begin to make better decisions when they vote. Unfortunately the only choice most voters have today is between "Candidate A" supported with corporate money and "Candidate B" supported by corporate money.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 2:51pm
long overdue for a socialistesque redistribution of wealth. if socialist bernie does not get it, someone else, sooner or later, who has never said they were socialist will...
besides, within a few short years "socialism" will no longer be a dirty word, simply a descriptor like "capitalism". do we go more "socialist" for a few years or "capitalist"? well, when enough people feel they are being economically reamed there will be "socialist" programs to redistribute wealth.
add in the coming economic recession(or worse)and its going to be all "huzzah" for "socialism".
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/15/2007 @ 3:00pm
LVLIBERTY Most of us already know that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans.They're both owned by the same lobby groups.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 3:02pm
Posted by BJKRON 03/15/2007 @ 2:16pm
No, it's my response to articles about "Massive, new, social reform legislation"....that has NO co-sponsers and looks DOA before it even hits the floor of a Congress ....CONTROLLED by the sponsers' Party!
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:07pm
MASK Don't forget that you've admitted that you have no idea what a socialist is.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/15/2007 @ 2:20pm
No, I've admitted that I can't seem to find the "progressive" that can tell me IN SPECIFICS the difference between themselves and a socialists.
Open socialists are pretty honest about their beliefs and they follow the dictionary definition.
It's the ones "in the closet" I find trouble with!
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:08pm
well, when enough people feel they are being economically reamed there will be "socialist" programs to redistribute wealth.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE
It's not enough to know you're getting screwed; you also must understand how, why, and by whom.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:10pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 2:51pm
2. SO the "facts aren't out there", unless Katrina vanden Heuvel of "The Nation" get them out? You think the Congressional Dems are just standing by for KvH to let them in on the skinny?
And once they're "out"...does Bernie Sanders get ONE co-sponser for his "radical" legislation?
3. I'd LOVE for the voters to get some accurate information. Such as the information that Senator Sanders was once a self-proclaimed socialist, who ran as a "Democrat", because he knew he'd have no power in the Senate (not that it appears as if he has much NOW) as an "independent".
Seems some of the information to get out would be Senator Sanders leveling with the voters as to his political ideology, and not just party affiliation.
But that doesn't "sell", does it?
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:12pm
MASK You were told in specifics the difference between a progressive and a socialist,but were unable to grasp the simple concepts.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 3:12pm
add in the coming economic recession(or worse)and its going to be all "huzzah" for "socialism".
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/15/2007 @ 3:00pm
Just not using THAT term, huh, IBBLE? Now...hmmm?....what term WILL be used, I wonder???
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:12pm
Progressives are exactly that, Mask. Damn, stop trying to distract people with your bs. A socialist (in my opinion) is going to reject any and all capitalist approaches out of hand; a progressive is more flexible, more pragmatic (you know, like FDR and the like, i.e., they're still capitalists). It's not all that hard to grasp and I'm confident it's more than within your reach.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:13pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/15/2007 @ 3:12pm
No, I'M ...I was not.
I was told "a progressive is somebody who wants to progress" and I was told "a socialist wants government control over the economy"....
I was NOT told where the "progressive" determines that "government control over the economy" should STOP else it stops being "progressivism" and becomes "socialism", which they claim NOT to endorse.
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:14pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 3:13pm
Great....NAME a "capitalist approach" to an issue, that YOU (as a "progressive") would endorse OVER the socialist approach?
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:15pm
MASK It was explained to you in extreme detail and you couldn't get it.If you need to tell yourself otherwise,you may.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 3:16pm
MASK Not going to play your little game again.I'm too old for such nonsense.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 3:17pm
Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person
Please don't endeavor once again to figure out which label belongs on what politik. A political party isn't like a tailored suit custom made to exact measurements. Listening to your bookish rigidness and desperate cries for explication of anything that doesn't fit your one-size-must-fit-all philosophy makes me wonder if you're some kind of recluse like Boo Radley...
Posted by chimichenga at 03/15/2007 @ 3:21pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/15/2007 @ 3:21pm
CHIMI, before you start a NEW discussion of things you may or may NOT know anything about....finish the last one--
Yes, by today's definition Jesus was a terrorist - an agitator taking on the empire du jour and debunking the misbeliefs of his age.----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/14/2007 @ 10:05am
"render unto Caesar" was "taking on the empire"??!?!!?
He overturned some money-lenders' tables in the Jewish temple...but other than going after the local religious hierarchy on dogma, not sure what Jesus did to go after the Roman Empire.----Posted by MASK 03/14/2007 @ 10:23am | ignore this person
He only demanded they leave Judea.----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/14/2007 @ 11:20am
Oh, I'm sorry....what's the line from Scripture on that?----Posted by MASK 03/14/2007 @ 11:22am
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:26pm
MASK It was explained to you in extreme detail and you couldn't get it.If you need to tell yourself otherwise,you may.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/15/2007 @ 3:16pm
No, I'M....that's a lie.
I was given generics over and over...then told to "go to www.dictionary.com" for definitions which I noted above, and then told "I'm not going to play this game (which I have no straight answers for)".
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:27pm
I favor a mixed economy. Unregulated capitalism is an experiment that has been tried in the past. I'm very much in favor of the small business owner--big capital is its enemy, not organized labor. And there is nothing wrong with making a profit, either. And you know all too well that I preach for a balance of power between the competing interests in our economy. I advocate that ownership and labor work together, share power and responsibility, in an effort to make a profit for both.
Somethings should not be subjugated to the cruel logic of the "free" market. Education, health care, some housing issues, utilities,etc. should be above the crass profit motive. Schools should educate students, not strive to show a profit.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:28pm
then told to "go to www.dictionary.com
If you're sincerely interested in a definition, then go look it up yourself.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:30pm
BTW, before we get into "This is distracting us from the IMPORTANT NEWS of this article".....there is none. It's rah-rah stuff for the people who will rah-rah stuff like this, that's going NOWHERE in the Congress.
Ms vanden Heuvel even admitted it...
"Not surprisingly, there are still plenty of Democrats – especially in the Senate – who don't want to have that discussion at all. ....Because of the "radical" label there are currently no cosponsors of this legislation and Sanders doesn't seem to be holding his breath for any sudden rush."
So....the article is moot. ("moot" adjective- "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic."---www.dictionary.com)
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:32pm
Great....NAME a "capitalist approach" to an issue, that YOU (as a "progressive") would endorse OVER the socialist approach?
Posted by MASK
And when did I say I'm a progressive? I am an anarcho-communist at heart, but at the same time I'm also realistic and understand that you can't have it all your way (unlike some of the children that continually bleat their immature, misguided mantras with a cult like rythm).
I, myself, love working on commission (providing, of course, you are with a company that sells a quality product). If the system functions properly everyone is rewarded--me, the owner, the customer.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:35pm
I know what moot means. I also know what progressive means. (Maybe you should spend more time at dictionary.com.)
Unfortunately the corporate owned media will not give any coverage to proposals such as Mr. Sanders'. That's why I'm here, rather than at time.com or usnewsandworldreport.com.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:38pm
..."wants to raise $100 billion to address the needs of ordinary Americans who are currently struggling, and another $30 billion to lower the deficit. "
Raise = steal.
Wow, create govt jobs to fix delapidate govt houses so the govt dependents who live there generation after generation get to have them fixed over and over again...the pay off? Blind vote for dems...who pays? The saps who go to work and try to improve their station...
Hey nobody..
Inherited wealth represents less than 15% of the millionares...check out a book written ,called.."The Millionare Next Door"..
It will enlightened you and maybe break the stereotype of the Kennedys, Pockefellers, Bushes, and the rest of the govt.....
Posted by john maasch at 03/15/2007 @ 3:40pm
Bernie is a flake and sits in the choir loft,alone, soloist, of the kook section...a place of honor and needs no more posting on this article from me...the article speaks volumes as does the minions here who laud and echo him and his nut burger ideas..
And thats why not a soul will sign onto this shit except a certain group in the dem party..with hats and propellers spinning on top....red ones..
Posted by john maasch at 03/15/2007 @ 3:44pm
If you're sincerely interested in a definition, then go look it up yourself.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 3:30pm
okay...let's do that...
"progressive"---a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters
"socialist"---an advocate for socialism
"socialism"--- 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
So....why would a "progressive" be INCAPABLE of seeing "progress or reform" in "vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution...in the community as a whole."?
Can any progressive here name a FEW things (of production or distribution) that they would NOT like to see "vesting ownership and control in the community as a whole"?
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:46pm
You're so well informed, old man. Look up the money Georgie Jr made off the TX Rangers after the city of Arlington agreed to build a stadium for the team.
Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:47pm
Can any progressive here name a FEW things (of production or distribution) that they would NOT like to see "vesting ownership and control in the community as a whole"?
Posted by MASK
And here we go with more bitch games.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:48pm
I am an anarcho-communist at heart, but at the same time I'm also realistic and understand that you can't have it all your way...
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 3:35pm
So you admit your political ideology, but know that you can't "realistically" "sell it" openly.
Yep....that's a very COMMON excuse, I think MTSP!
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:48pm
a progressive is more flexible, more pragmatic (you know, like FDR and the like, i.e., they're still capitalists). It's not all that hard to grasp and I'm confident it's more than within your reach.
Read it again.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:50pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 3:50pm
So progressives are "capitalists"...great. Since you know them so well...but wait...you don't. You're an anarcho-communist.
Let's hear from them then. Where does the "progressive" say "NO" to the "vesting or ownership in the means of production and distribution to the community as a whole"?
I betcha Roosevelt could have answered....but then again, he was a "liberal", not "progressive". His cousin Teddy was a progressive...but could also have answered the question.
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 3:52pm
I am an anarcho-communist at heart, but at the same time I'm also realistic and understand that you can't have it all your way...
Posted by MTSPENCE05
I don't think Monet, Manet, Van Gogh or any of the other avante guard we getting rich while they were alive, were they? I mean, the market wasn't buying what they had to offer, huh? They were ahead of their time. I could care less what the market buys (goddamn, look at network tv).
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:53pm
Bitch games. Try and act like a man. (I know it's hard. Daddy wasn't there, all you had was mommie--when she had time. None the less...)
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:54pm
Let's hear from them then. Where does the "progressive" say "NO" to the "vesting or ownership in the means of production and distribution to the community as a whole"?
They're not ideologues! They don't goose step in unison, all agreeing like a bunch of sheep.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 3:57pm
MASK,
I told you, I was abducted and as a result had my Good Book nicked. I then went on to explain how I had given a few examples of JC's contumacy before telling you in the end, I really didn't give a shit. Stop your caterwauling.
Posted by chimichenga at 03/15/2007 @ 3:58pm
I betcha Roosevelt could have answered....but then again, he was a "liberal",
Ever hear of the TVA? Roosevelt used whatever worked.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:08pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 3:54pm
Now, why am I not surprised that it turned into an ad hominem attack?
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 4:15pm
Of course Bernie is right. He clearly sees the world-wide carnage that 1% of the United States of Everything can do to the universe. Bernie also knows it will take more than legislation to solve our problems. The roots of our problems are buried deep in ignorance and greed, and fed by racism and homophobia. Bernie is just a start. If there is any justice in the universe the American Military will follow the Thai Military and take back what rightly belongs to the people. Hoa Binh
Posted by namvet67 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:15pm
Now, why am I not surprised that it turned into an ad hominem attack?
Posted by MASK
Bitch games.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:17pm
Mask,
Put MT in the same clown barge as Will, Zero, Fromhellboolah...
I am having his hat with the propellar on top spinning(a red one of,course) made for him as I type...he is in good standing in the kook section and a fast entry too...it eliminates the need to argue or take seriously what they post, since it tends to non sequitor...kinda like a communist who believes in a capitalist system..and then wants to help others understand a socialist.
Posted by john maasch at 03/15/2007 @ 4:17pm
Now, why am I not surprised that it turned into an ad hominem attack?
Posted by MASK
Bitch games.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/15/2007 @ 3:58pm
Well, MTSP, atleast you don't make statements and then show that you're not man enough to admit you can't back them up. You merely get pissed about a question that nobody can answer specifically.
CHIMI on the other hand, makes up stuff and then when called on proving what he says....dodges the question, rather than show he's a man and admitting he was wrong.
He has this interesting view of the Bible. Jesus was a "revolutionary who called for the overthrow of Roman control over Judea". He can't back it up with anything evidentiary or even quote a line of Scripture...but since he believes it, that means it's true!
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 4:19pm
Put MT in the same clown barge as Will, Zero, Fromhellboolah...
Put you in the old foggey home, with the rest of the ancient fossils. Grab a diaper on the way in, old man.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:20pm
3. You think maybe the fact that Bernie is the only Democrat who ever admitted to being a socialist, might have something to do with his lack of allies?
Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 2:09pm
Says who?
Posted by hhemwm at 03/15/2007 @ 4:20pm
What lack of allies?
Posted by hhemwm at 03/15/2007 @ 4:21pm
Oh, Mask, you're so intelligent, so right....
Is that what you need to hear? I have to ask, what is it you are attempting to compensate for? Is it because Daddy wasn't around? The old man can be a father figure for you.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:22pm
Posted by HHEMWM 03/15/2007 @ 4:20pm
Just a guess, HHEM....
Dems are mostly moderates and don't like to be linked to socialists.
Sanders is a socialist.
Dems ignoring Sanders' proposals.
Of course, maybe they just don't like him...but he seems like a nice guy the few times I've heard him on AAR.
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 4:24pm
The old man can be a father figure for you.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 4:22pm
My "father figure" is Karl Marx....I'm a progressive!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 4:25pm
You merely get pissed about a question that nobody can answer specifically.
No, actually I grow impatient with people that want to play little bs games. You want a specific definition, go to the encyclopedia, dictionary. You wanna act like a bitch, expect to be treated as such. I don't see anything unfair with that. A spade's a spade, right?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:29pm
So Teddy Roosevelt was a closet socialist, Mask? Is that what you're saying? Interesting theory.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:31pm
MTSPENCE I commend your patience,but he will never grasp it.That's why he, mostly, just criticizes everything.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 4:32pm
MTSPENCE I commend your patience,but he will never grasp it.That's why he, mostly, just criticizes everything.
Posted by I'M NOBODY
Yeah, he likes sitting up on the fence, feignin superiority.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:39pm
MTSPENCE A superior feeling person who can't grasp simple concepts?Sounds like Paris Hilton.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 4:45pm
A spade's a spade, right?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 4:29pm
Oddly, I think we CAN define a "spade"....it's a garden tool and it's a suit in a pack of cards. One is used in digging in the dirt, the other is useless for such pursuits but needed to determine victory in a card game.
Now...why is it SO irritating and a "bitch game" to ask the difference between a modern (no, not TR style) "progressive" and a "socialist".
The answer is obvious. Either you CANNOT answer the question specifically or you DO NOT WISH to answer the question because there is no difference and for the "progressive movement" to be associated with, even DEFINED by socialism, is a recipe for failure with the voting public...even after the monumental failures of Bush.
So you get mad and start name-calling and claiming "We've told you once" when you never have.
And that anger and obfuscation....merely reinforce the theory.
It's also the reason that Senator Sanders now obfuscates or laughs off questions of his socialist ideology and calls himself a "Democrat".
And maybe THAT's the real source of the anger....the fact that your TRUE "closeted" political ideology....is still such a minority one that it must remain hidden and cloaked in vagueries like "progressive".
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 4:47pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/15/2007 @ 4:45pm
How's this for a "simple concept"....
Give me ONE specific policy difference between a person who holds a "progressive" ideology and a person who holds a "socialist" ideology.
Or go to name-calling and declare it a "bitch game", because you can't or won't give a specific answer.
Two simple choices for you....hmmm?...wonder which one I'll get.
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 4:48pm
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mask progressives are socialists. You're so right, so intelligent....
There you happy now?
Spade is inaccurate, you say? Fine. I'll just stick with bitch, then. Does that make you happy, too?
A Dem can't be a socialist? Are the two exclusive? What's the old joke about the Dem party? "I don't belong to a political party. I'm a Dem." It's not computers, chemistry or anything else that's exact. I'm sorry you can't wrap your mind around that; maybe that's why you must resort to these pathetic little bitch games.
I have no shame for being an anarcho-communist at heart. Nor am I shameful for being pragmatic enough to recognize that such an approach would not appeal to the vast majority of Americans (mainly because they have no idea what an anarcho-communist is, and are filled with negative stereotypes of anything that corporate America opposes). I am mature enough to appreciate that a lot of people would be unhappy if today I was to become "king" and all would have to do as I say. This is America; compromise is a necessity. I'm not an ideologue; my mind is open.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 4:58pm
Give me ONE specific policy difference between a person who holds a "progressive" ideology and a person who holds a "socialist" ideology.
Check out the New Deal! Look at FDR's approach to producing the arms necessary to win WWII! What is it that you can't understand? You are playing little bitch games. That or you are too dense to get it. Which is it?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 5:01pm
The Progressive Movement was an effort to cure many of the ills of American society that had developed during the great spurt of industrial growth in the last quarter of the 19th century. The frontier had been tamed, great cities and businesses developed, and an overseas empire established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism. Efforts to improve society were not new to the United States in the late 1800s. A major push for change, the First Reform Era, occurred in the years before the Civil War and included efforts of social activists to reform working conditions, and humanize the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners.
Others removed themselves from society and attempted to establish utopian communities in which reforms were limited to their participants. The focal point of the early reform period was abolitionism, the drive to remove what in the eyes of many was the great moral wrong of slavery.
The second reform era began during Reconstruction and lasted until the American entry into World War I. The struggle for women's rights and the temperance movement were the initial issues addressed. A farm movement also emerged to compensate for the declining importance of rural areas in an increasingly urbanized America.
As part of the second reform period, Progressivism was rooted in the belief, certainly not shared by all, that man was capable of improving the lot of all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism, the position taken by many of the rich and powerful figures of the day.
Progressivism was also imbued with strong political overtones and rejected the church as the driving force for change. Specific goals included:
The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;
the effort to include more people more directly in the political process;
the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.
The success of Progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers, writers who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor, among a host of other ills.
The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.
A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.
The Progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution, which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.
Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, efforts to place limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of blacks and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all -- a major shortcoming of the Progressive Movement.
Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in the states and municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.
Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the all-too-frequently corrupt mayoral system.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html
There, choke on that.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 5:08pm
I, and others on here, learned what the various political science and economic terminology meant either through education or independent research and if you don't know what these terms mean may I suggest you do the research necessary so you can return here and engage in informed discourse.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/15/2007 @ 5:08pm
". I'm not an ideologue; my mind is open."
Really? How can one tell?
Posted by john maasch at 03/15/2007 @ 5:10pm
I suppose supporting an effort to rid the electoral process of corporate money could be called "progressive". Adopting a system of proportional representation (as opposed to the first past the post system that leaves up to 49% of those casting a ballot sol) could also be labeled "progressive".
Now, as the era when the Progressive movement originated, is a time when the power of corporations and certain individuals dwarfs that of the average voter. It is another "Guilded Age" full of the similar abuses and wrongs that characterized the first, and thus there is a similar awakening among the population in response.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 5:14pm
". I'm not an ideologue; my mind is open."
Really? How can one tell?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Read my posts, old man. If the Alzheimers doesn't allow you to remember anything, change your diaper and reread the posts.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 5:15pm
Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person
I'm getting sick of your little jerkwater comments. Since you're the seer behind the harlequin mask, pray tell us who JC was and what he stood for. You're putting too much faith in parables and anecdotes. And as far as me sighting my nonchalant opinions when it comes to analyzing JC, well, you should give them the same importance I do to those you jaw about Che Guevara or your favorite Playgirl model.
Posted by chimichenga at 03/15/2007 @ 5:23pm
Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.
A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.
Just in case you failed to read that part.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 5:44pm
"It's like Bush with the so-called ‘death tax,'" Sanders says. "Never mind that the estate tax only impacts the wealthiest 3/10th of 1 percent of our population – the Republicans have people thinking it's about small businessmen, family farmers, and ordinary Americans….
Our State Estate tax impacts exactly small businessmen, family farmers, and ordinary Americans. It applies to "estates" of $250,000 and up. That's hardly what I would call rich. Now the Fed wants some too??
Posted by Sliver at 03/15/2007 @ 5:51pm
It's like Bush with the so-called ‘death tax,'" Sanders says. "Never mind that the estate tax only impacts the wealthiest 3/10th of 1 percent of our population
I think the 3/10th of 1 percent crowd are bringing in a little more than $250k. Can you read? And they're not talking about the tax in your state, now then are they?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/15/2007 @ 6:02pm
It applies to "estates" of $250,000 and up
this is a lie. back it up with facts, Sliv
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 6:42pm
Sliv, you are misinformed, or a liar, which is it?
With the Senate preparing to vote on permanent repeal of the estate tax in June, it is important to take stock of the changes that have already been made to the tax. As a result of legislation enacted in 2001, the portion of an estate that is exempt from taxation has more than doubled since 2000 and stands at $2 million ($4 million per couple) in 2006.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 6:47pm
the above is from; Center on budget and policy priorities website.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 6:48pm
Spence, your post on progressives is a good one. however your derogatory use of "bitch" revolts me and you are thus ignored.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 6:51pm
I think the 3/10th of 1 percent crowd are bringing in a little more than $250k. Can you read? And they're not talking about the tax in your state, now then are they?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 6:02pm
Dude...put down the Dr. Seuss. Between you and Herr Johann you guys can't read. The estate tax that I referred to was OHIO STATE TAX. Taxed at the STATE level. Your Fed rate may apply to a small percentage, but clearly the STATE one impacts many more.
Posted by Sliver at 03/15/2007 @ 7:04pm
Here you go, JR. http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/communications/publications/annual_reports /documents/estate_tax.pdf
Actually, it's worse than I thought. Prior to 2001, an Estate Tax was collected on any "estate" worth in excess of $40,000. That would be a couple of cars and a lawn mower.
Posted by Sliver at 03/15/2007 @ 7:11pm
Sliv, nowhere in your post does it state OHIO, you are a liar.
despite my teutonic name I am an american, for 40 years now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 7:13pm
Sliv, bait and switch. where was anyone talking about Ohia?
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 7:17pm
Our State Estate tax impacts exactly
Did you miss that? And am I exempt because you missed it?
Posted by Sliver at 03/15/2007 @ 7:27pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 5:01pm
Got anything on the "progressive movement" since...oh....your life-time?
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 7:35pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/15/2007 @ 5:23pm
I don't care what Jesus stood for, CHIMI. I'm an agnostic.
But I love watching you squirm when confront to BACK UP one of your bullshit remarks with some facts.
You've even had close to a full day to RESEARCH the Bible and TRY to find some verses about Jesus wanting to "throw the Romans out of Judea"...and can't.
But your monumental gringo-in-exile EGO won't let you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 7:37pm
Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 3:12pm
i call it "true blue conservatism"...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/15/2007 @ 8:04pm
Did you miss that? And am I exempt because you missed it?
Posted by SLIVER 03/15/2007 @ 7:27pm | ignore this person
yes you are. my regrets.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 8:22pm
i call it "true blue conservatism"...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/15/2007 @ 8:04pm
Well, it's no less honest than being a crypto-socialist and calling yourself a "progressive"...so...heh!
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 8:52pm
Good grief. NPA stands about as much chance as getting a binding resolution on Iraq. We don't need anymore social pork to please the masses thank you. What we need to do is stop pissing away money on pork whether it be social or military. Thanks Katrina for bringing this important legislation to my attention but I'll bet we never hear another word about it. Lets tackle some serious legislative issues eh? How about a well researched article on Nancy Pelosi pork?
Posted by OneVote at 03/15/2007 @ 9:00pm
Truly, Bernie Sanders' proposal represents only the first volley of an intense barrage of shit that progressives and lefty dems will be throwing at the wall, hoping some of it will stick......
It will hopefully have the effect of galvanizing republicans in their resistance, and alienating some of the more conservative democrats.......To Bernie Sanders, Long life, and fight the power! (heh, heh)
Posted by davebarlett at 03/15/2007 @ 9:13pm
It will hopefully have the effect of galvanizing republicans in their resistance, and alienating some of the more conservative democrats.......To Bernie Sanders, Long life, and fight the power! (heh, heh)
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/15/2007 @ 9:13pm | ignore this person
Count me in this camp. I sure as heck don't like what I am seeing out of our fiscally responsible DEMS thus far. Looks pretty much like business as usual to me.
Posted by OneVote at 03/15/2007 @ 9:20pm
I'm actually becoming convinced that the term "progressive" doesn't really mean anything. In order to see why, I think it's useful to go back to the definition. The only attribute that seems to be essential to a progressive is the desire to promote progress within society. This doesn't, of course, mean altering everything in society, but merely those things that need to be altered or that can be improved on. That, in turn, means that the only thing that necessarily differentiates a progressive from a non-progressive is the following statement: there are ways in which society can be improved. Since no one that I know of, and probably no reasonable person, believes that society is perfect, calling oneself progressive need not really tell constituents anything at all.
This doesn't mean that being a Progressive can never have any real connotations. Spence gave one earlier, in referring to those who sought to improve what they perceived as a dismal situation for workers. In the present, it's unclear what calling oneself a progressive would mean, though the use of such a vague name at least suggests an underlying ideology that might not be so popular were it explicitly stated.
Ultimately, one of two things must be true. Being a progressive in today's society either carries some kind of ideological meaning with it (in which case I would love to know what that is), or it does not carry any such meaning and is thus a worthless designator at best. I would honestly love to know which of these is the case.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/15/2007 @ 9:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/15/2007 @ 2:55pm
Hallelujah! LVLIBERTY1 is now a "responsible Democrat"! There are few things more hysterical than watching rats deserting a sinking ship.
Posted by fromredbird at 03/15/2007 @ 9:49pm
In the present, it's unclear what calling oneself a progressive would mean, though the use of such a vague name at least suggests an underlying ideology that might not be so popular were it explicitly stated.
Posted by THRAWN 03/15/2007 @ 9:44pm
Now, what would you GUESS that "underlying ideology" might be???
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 10:02pm
BTW, on topic, DAVE and ONEVOTE can count me in.
Enough with the "Newer Deals" and "Great Society II: Electric Boogaloos"....
cut spending on the war, let the tax cuts lapse, END the deficit, maybe build a surplus again (as Clinton and the GOP Congress did)...
and you'll do more REAL good for the middle class than all the re-heated "progressive" programs ever will.
Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 10:04pm
Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 7:37pm
Does it really matter *what* is in the Bible as it is a multiply rewritten conglomeration of fact nad fable and which is which is anyone's guess...like fer instance I'm beting the giants weren't real!
Posted by leftofcenter at 03/15/2007 @ 10:21pm
Thrawn asks an excellant question, how would progressive be defined? I would argue that the label has been hijacked by the far left of the democratic party....
I would define a progressive as a person who desires positive change on issues with a broad popular concensus. Problem is, few issues meet this definition of a progressive issue, None, I would argue, currently being set forward by Bernie Sanders or anyone else calling themselves a progressive. What then is a contemporary progressive? Sadly, most fall under the heading of socialist, another misused, but far more concise term if we apply the literal definition as one who favors the needs of society above those of the individual.........
Posted by davebarlett at 03/15/2007 @ 10:23pm
"I think Bernie Sanders would make a fine running mate for Barack Obama, should he win the nomination or for Hillary for that matter"
So do I....so do I...could be happier...go Bernie...I thik I'll send money to that end...
Posted by john maasch at 03/15/2007 @ 10:37pm
The root word of progressive is progress. That would imply moving forward, not backward as we've done for the last six years. Simple huh?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/15/2007 @ 10:37pm
Not even close, for two primary reasons. First, it is far from clear that being a progressive implies progress away from the past six years; progress can mean continuing a current positive course, or veering away from a negative one. Even if you disagree, a Bush conservative could still logically be considered a progressive. Second, even if being progressive means moving away from the past six years, the question must then be asked: where to? Even being "anti-Bush" can encompass a massive range of ideological positions.
Like I argued before, by a strict definition, anyone who desires change of any kind can be considered a progressive. Since all it really does is serve as stand-in for "good things," I don't calling oneself a "progressive" has any clear inherent meaning. For this reason, I think that calling oneself a "progressive" should immediately raise a red flag, because it suggests that one wishes to use this obviously positive designator instead of exposing one's actual ideological position.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/15/2007 @ 10:55pm
What's wrong with taxing the rich to help the poor and ease things up on the middle class?
If this would work in every situation we wouldn't have had to reform welfare a decade ago. War on poverty for what...40 years, and according to guys like you, things are getting worse. What's the exit strategy?
"Nobody ever washed a rental car" - unknown
Yeah, I think people have pretty much had it with the fat cat republicans. It's time for the revolution.
Sure. Unless someone reads them the newspaper. Our newly minted governor (Strickland) is proposing to do away with school vouchers for inner-city kids. This will close some parochial schools and send them back to the inner-city public schools where the graduation rate is less than 60%. Some progress. Sounds more like a big thanks for all that NEA money. Yet those urban areas keep electing guys like this.
Posted by Sliver at 03/15/2007 @ 11:38pm
Well, it's no less honest than being a crypto-socialist and calling yourself a "progressive"...so...heh!
Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 8:52pm
no less honest?! pfffph!
but sure, why not? "socialism" is where all sorts of "progressive" ideas were first germinated and circulated, later to be adopted by rooseveldtian democrats in various forms at a time when the alternative would have been fascism - unamerican activities [en.wikipedia.org]
when the inevitable hangover follows the big money grabbing grubathon, people want some system that regulates where needed and redistributes some wealth (some of which truly is ill begotten). eventually it gets obnoxious, things get better, and people forget (that generation/death wisdom thing).
so we call that thing we always turn to in shitty times when the hard core adam smithers have gotten too obnoxious, "socialism" or some form of it, because thats what 19th and 20th century mental masturbaters called it and because the cold war supposedly discreditted it forever and ever and ever, ever do psuedo-fascists and right wing anarchists bandy the big S word about as some kind of ideological/argumentative trump on anything thats not RANDIAN ECONOMIC GOSPEL.
bullshit.
the ironic (and in retrospect predictable) thing is that the actions of the psuedo-fascists were so "out of the mainstream" as well as financially/diplomatically NEGLIGENT, looks like we're going to need a dose of something resembling this "socialism" thing.
progressive? two steps forward, one step back...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/15/2007 @ 11:53pm
It's not enough to know you're getting screwed; you also must understand how, why, and by whom.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/15/2007 @ 3:10pm
but they do now...they are figuring out who owns them, how these people also therefore own oh so many of their politicians...
i used to play this game called "alpha centauri" by sid miers, kind of like his civilization series. when your "drones" got pissed off you could decide to just "nerve staple" them rather than allocate resources to make them happier...it worked great the first few times, but eventually the drones built up a resistance to the nerve stapling and all of a sudden one day you nerve staple the bastards and - SUPRISE - nothing happens...great "oh shit" monent.
thats kind of like whats happened to the peeps of the country, the drones have built up a resistance to the nerve stapling. they are in search of the truth and developing critical thinking and bullshit filtering mechanisms which allow them to see things as they really are (long url http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-771488600376041822&q=george+car lin) lol...
scary...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 12:15am
Our State Estate tax impacts exactly small businessmen, family farmers, and ordinary Americans. It applies to "estates" of $250,000 and up. That's hardly what I would call rich. Now the Fed wants some too??
Posted by SLIVER 03/15/2007 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person
well Sliv, a rudimentary google reveals that you are wrong about the amounts of estate tax in Ohio.
An Ohio estate tax return must be filed when the value of the gross estate exceeds $200,000 for deaths in 2001 and $338,000 for deaths on and after 01/01/2002.
one third of a million, that's rich in any part of the country.
the tax owed on $338,000 would be $13,880, leaving $324,120. hardly likely to put any rich person in the poorhouse.
so, you're full of shit, son.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 02:08am
the wife pays no estate tax no matter what size the estate.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 02:12am
First, the constant refrain here and elsewhere, of this countries primary monetary policy as being one of "capitalism." Merely reflects the success of the financial oligarchy's (usually misnamed, misconstrued ... as merely "corporate"), methods of propaganda on the one hand, and mis-education and ignorance, if not the outright dumbing down (my favorite, actually...), of the populace, on the other. One of the core reasons for our revolution was to establish what was called by name (until the aforementioned success) "The American System of political-economy." Google that phrase with "U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton" and thereby re-capture your history.
The degree to which one is unaware of the above fact, is the degree to which one can be considered a "dupe," or, if enamored of the GOP, finished product, pun intended ... Such people are actually capable of being led to believe that there is a problem with Social Security, believe it or not. The founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is on target, add another $100 billion or so for infrastructure and it could rightfully be considered a bulls-eye.
Posted by V at 03/16/2007 @ 03:42am
The dems have done a poor job attracting the middle class,, Reagan walked away with about haf of the working dems, the reagan Democrats,...the dems have done a good job woth all the special interest groups..from gays, feminists, communists, leftists, unions, blacks ..and so on,..which should add up to 45% or so,..the other 45% or so votes republican and the elections are about the middle 10 %...given these numbers change a bit....until 06, the dems have been on the losing side of independents and middle class...we will see in the next cycle...what the congress has done so far is nothing and if they don't lead somewhere and just pander with endless hearings and attacks, they will lose.
Posted by john maasch at 03/16/2007 @ 03:55am
Yeah, I think people have pretty much had it with the fat cat republicans. It's time for the revolution.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/15/2007 @ 10:41pm
What about all those super rich democrats who have their money safely tucked away?
Posted by john maasch at 03/16/2007 @ 03:57am
IBBLE, I'm not talking about people who are "liberals" and take the 50-50 approach to capitalism and socialism....if they were, they'd give me a DOZEN examples of where they WOULD oppose socialism.
I'm talking about people whose ideology IS socialism, and they lie (to sell themselves and their politics to an American electorate or political discussion) and call themselves a different, INNOCUOUS term.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 07:07am
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 07:07am
sure, my beef is the emotionalized demonizing of the word which makes meaningful discussion of policy difficult sometimes. good morning.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 08:12am
one third of a million, that's rich in any part of the country.
the tax owed on $338,000 would be $13,880, leaving $324,120. hardly likely to put any rich person in the poorhouse.
so, you're full of shit, son.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/16/2007 @ 02:08am
I'll use your example Johann to illustrate the point.
All investments/retirement savings, and other assets aside, what would it take to qualify for the $338,000 threshold?
Given that the average home costs about $240,000, and assuming a $100,000 life insurance policy, which is not unreasonable, clearly lots of people meet this criteria. It's not that much money for someone who's worked all their life.
My question is the "need". What does the state require for budget solvency? As it is, it seems to be a random, punitive measure with no baseline for how much money the program will generate, given that the death rate of any given year cannot be projected.
It seems more of the "soak the rich" mentality, when the threshold amount for qualification is fairly "middle class".
Posted by Sliver at 03/16/2007 @ 08:27am
MASK You caught us.Defining socialist and progressive differently is a massive conspiracy to fool people.We met out in the Nevada desert to plot this out with the space aliens,but you caught us.You and rese sure are good at exposing massive conspiracies.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 08:58am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/16/2007 @ 08:12am
Sanders isn't much better, but atleast he was honest ONCE, when he admitted he was a demcoratic socialist. I'll argue the philosophy and ideology with a socialist, but atleast respect them being HONEST about their views.
"Progressives" just want it both ways....both the "good stuff" of being socialist and wanting Government control and largesse, without the "bad stuff" of incurring the linkages to the socialist dictators or other failures.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 09:08am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 08:58am
Didn't say it was a "conspiracy", I'M.
Just a general tendency to ....cowardice or disengenuousness.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 09:08am
Progressives" just want it both ways....both the "good stuff" of being socialist and wanting Government control and largesse, without the "bad stuff" of incurring the linkages to the socialist dictators or other failures.
Posted by MASK
Progressives and socialists are two different things. Can you not manage to grasp that?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 09:13am
About The Third Way
America and the world have changed dramatically in the closing decades of the 20th century. The industrial order of the 20th century is rapidly yielding to the networked "New Economy" of the 21st century. Our political and governing systems, however, have lagged behind the rest of society in adapting to these seismic shifts. They remain stuck in the left-right debates and the top-down bureaucracies of the industrial past.
The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. The core principles and ideas of this "Third Way" movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age.
Starting with Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign in 1992, Third Way thinking is reshaping progressive politics throughout the world. Inspired by the example of Clinton and the New Democrats, Tony Blair in Britain led a revitalized New Labour party back to power in 1997. The victory of Gerhard Shroeder and the Social Democrats in Germany the next year confirmed the revival of center-left parties which either control or are part of the governing coalition forming throughout the European Union. From Latin America to Australia and New Zealand, Third Way ideas also are taking hold.
On Sunday, April 25, 1999, the President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D'Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From.
The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.
The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values. http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=895&knlgAreaID=85&subsecid =109
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 09:30am
The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.
Did you get that, Mask. Please, cease the silly little game. You're wrong.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 09:43am
Mask I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on you.We all have our subjects that we find difficult to grasp.For me it's physics.What a physicist views as a simple concept I view as a foreign language and this is the problem you're having.Just keep trying and it may come to you eventually.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 09:46am
Oh Sliv, you couldn't bring yourself to admit you were wrong.
that someone would have to pay a 4% tax on inheriting a third of a million, whether in real estate and a policy is suddenly this big tragedy, is as phony an argument as I've seen. hell poor people pay more than that in sales tax whenever they buy something.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 09:56am
Progressives and socialists are two different things. Can you not manage to grasp that?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 09:13am
Not until you tell me HOW they are different...in detail.
Now, again, either you CAN'T (in detail) or you won't.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 10:01am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 09:43am
See, NOBODY.....MTSP.....makes an attempt at DETAILED explanation.
Now, the only questions for him are...
A. Is "progressivism" "Third Way'ism" as outlined by Bill Clinton and the DLC?
B. Does a "Third Way'er" say "no" to a socialist? (This one should be "yes", but specifically...where?)
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 10:02am
Mask You've been told in detail the difference between the two,but you bought into right wing extremist propaganda about the left being socialist and you'll have to get that out of your head before you're ready to grasp these concepts.Right now,it's pointless to explain it to you just as it would be pointless to explain it to liberty,rio,or ponti.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 10:05am
The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.
Did you get that, Mask. Please, cease the silly little game. You're wrong.
Posted by MTSPENCE05
The terms progressive and socialist and not identical, nor are they exclusive of each other.
You're wrong. Now try and act like a man and admit it.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 10:15am
but you bought into right wing extremist propaganda about the left being socialist...Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 10:05am
Gee, ALL I thought I did was....ask "What's the difference?"
And got NO response from you on that score but "Well,uh, there's a difference!"
Atleast MTSP cited the "Third Way".....
so....do you count yourself as a "Third Way/Clinton/DLC" "progressive"???
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 10:16am
You're wrong. Now try and act like a man and admit it.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 10:15am
Happy to.....if "progressivism" is defined by "Third Way'ism"....
is it?
Say "yes" and I apologize immediately.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 10:17am
I think it's time to demonize 'conservative'.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/16/2007 @ 09:24am | ignore this person
the repubs have done a fine job of that themselves, vide the many Tories here who shun that label, preferring instead to call themselves libertarians. yeah, right.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 10:18am
the many Tories here who shun that label, preferring instead to call themselves libertarians. yeah, right.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/16/2007 @ 10:18am
Hmmm...shunning ONE label that's discredited and using another?!?!?!?
Who could IMAGINE such an idea?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 10:20am
Mask Please explain in detail as to why you believe the terms are defined quite differently,yet,according to you,are the same thing.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 10:22am
It's not defined as socialism, that's for sure. So please, try and grow a pair; admit that there is no definitive label that you can apply to "progressives". Some progressives are socialists, but not all; some socialists would object to being called a progressive. I know it's complicated and fails to fit into your little black/white view of the left.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 10:23am
Hmmm...shunning ONE label that's discredited and using another?!?!?!?
Who could IMAGINE such an idea?!?!?!
Posted by MASK
Segregationist, for example. Fascist comes to mind as well. Both, knew and improved. Oh yeah, religious zealot. Ideologue.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 11:00am
"new"
I had a "John Maasch" moment.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 11:01am
Hmmm...shunning ONE label that's discredited and using another?!?!?!?
Who could IMAGINE such an idea?!?!?!
Posted by MASK
I wonder what the neocons will be calling themselves next?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 11:03am
All right; since no one has responded to my earlier analysis to the effect that the word progressive doesn't really mean anything substantive, I'm going to ask again. Does progressive have any specific ideological meaning, or indicate anything in particular about what a candidate believes? If it doesn't, in what way can the use of the term progressive be understood as anything but deliberate obfuscation?
Posted by Thrawn at 03/16/2007 @ 11:46am
Thrawn A progressive believes in what America is.A capitalist Democracy.Progressives simply believe in compassionate capitalism where greed isn't everything.Things like providing health care to all people,caring for poor children,the elderly etc.Unlike socialists,progressives believe in solving these problems within the capitalist framework.Not all progressive believe in socialized medicine.Some have shown that the problem can be solved using private insurance.Progressives believe that the means of production should stay in private hands,whereas,socialists believe the state should own everything including the farmers tractor.Progressives say the farmer can keep his tractor.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 11:59am
Posted by THRAWN 03/16/2007 @ 11:46am | ignore this person
as opposed to the term conservative?
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 12:06pm
OK, this is getting quite stale. This parade of questions over progressive, socialist, social democrat, ect., is drawing an inordinate amount of bickering as the drummers carry their beat down a blind alley. No one is willing to accept anything but an echo of their own opinon. This is about as edifying as debating the differences between Coke and Pepsi.
Posted by chimichenga at 03/16/2007 @ 12:09pm
perhaps i'm a slave to dualistic thinking, a natural outgrowth of my nationality, but economically i see two extremes - extreme government control/regulation of the economy and extreme lack of gov involvement - the first being "socialist" the second being "capitalist". in reality neither of the ideals has ever been truly achieved by anyone. this is seperate from the amount of "freedom" of the people and "democracy" in the polity.
when i hear talk of the "third way", i dont discount it, but tend to think of it in terms of falling somewhere along the spectrum.
but then as a true blue old time conservative i believe that corporate and business interests can be redirected so as to be less antagonistic to social progress and gov regulation - its all about the morality and ethics of the ruling elites. such ideas seem to eventually approximate some form of benevolent fascism, ironically enough, but lets not go there. i also have often mused about the possibility of economic progressives co-opting small and medium sized business to balance out big corporate influence and at the same time blunt charges of "socialism" by rightwing detractors...
but then with the shift in political climate, such silliness ay not be necessary..."socialism" may come to be seen in a much kinder light.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 12:15pm
A word that is synonymous with progressive is reformer.A reformer doesn't want to change from one system to another.That would be defined as "radical" change under political science definitions.A reformer wants to keep the existing system,which in America would be capitalism,but improve on it based on that persons definition of "better".The term progressive used to apply to right or left wing reformers,but it became associated with early liberal social reformers that it became a left wing term.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 12:37pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 10:22am
Which terms?...."conservative" and "libertarian"?
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 12:59pm
admit that there is no definitive label that you can apply to "progressives".
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 10:23am
Uh, MTSP....YOU are the one for atleast two threads that's been telling me there IS a specific definition of "progressive" and that you've "told me already" and that it DEFINITELY IS NOT "socialist".
NOW you say "there is no definitive label that you can apply to "progressives""?!??!?!??! And that "some" ARE socialists?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 1:01pm
This is about as edifying as debating the differences between Coke and Pepsi.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/16/2007 @ 12:09pm
Want to discuss the Bible and "revolution"? Might take a bit of knowledge of the Bible though!
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 1:35pm
Posted by THRAWN 03/16/2007 @ 11:46am
Were you sincerely interested in the term you could have, would have, Googled "progressive +defined" Indeed, I would suggest that some of the proponents of same do so as well. That way, interesting as this dialog is, it would do much towards everyone at least being on the same page.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 11:59am
"Progressives simply believe in compassionate capitalism where greed isn't everything."
Really? If true (functionally it is in error if done so, but in speaking to "belief..."), that's the problem. As "capitalism" in it's very methodology and essence is nothing of the kind, and was never meant to be. Again, it was in direct response to what "capitalism" really was-is, that the "The American System of political-economy" was brought into being.
Now, either this is true or it is not. If it is, then to continue to promote the contrary is to promote ignorance. It is to directly imbibe and propagate a psychic, functional, moral and intellectual if not cognitive, submission ... to that which is most contrary to that which is truly Progressive.
Posted by V at 03/16/2007 @ 1:44pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/16/2007 @ 12:09pm
I agree totally. I find the ab nauseam trek away from the subject bordering on the brink of, if not past, masturbatory. It seems to be that some consider such their duty ...
Posted by V at 03/16/2007 @ 1:53pm
V Are you an adult?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 1:59pm
It's funny how you get people on here acting like they're forced to read the whole thing and then make some comment implying that they're superior to the entire thread.I just scan through and read what interests me and ignore the rest.It's quite easy to do.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 2:18pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person
this reminds me of a Yogi Berraism. when talking about a watering hole he said: "nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded".
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 2:43pm
Tell ya what....let's make it simple...
"Some progressives are socialists, but not all..."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 10:23am
Okay, how do we tell the "socialist progressives" from the "non-socialist progressives"....specifically?
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 2:49pm
JR Good one.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 2:18pm
Fascinating, how the wheel which in turning (for now, unlike the worm), squeaks, at times ends up being the one, which one gave little or no thought to. Didn't consider the web as being cast that wide, so be it. Read the posts here howsoever you will, I of course, will do the same.
You're in part projecting, as the only personal investment of myself here, is in the truthfulness of the ideas conveyed. True, mere opinion does creep in, here and there, but I do stand behind them as to their accuracy as well.
Any superiority that may (or may not) be attributed to yours truly, lawfully comes from same, ideas. As anyone who functions within the epistemological framework of "The American System of political-economy" is by definition superior to someone who functions, through lack of character or simple ignorance, as a mere capitalist. "Progressive" or no.
Posted by V at 03/16/2007 @ 4:17pm
Uh, MTSP....YOU are the one for atleast two threads that's been telling me there IS a specific definition of "progressive" and that you've "told me already" and that it DEFINITELY IS NOT "socialist".
NOW you say "there is no definitive label that you can apply to "progressives""?!??!?!??! And that "some" ARE socialists?!?!?!
Posted by MASK
It is an amorphous movement you insufferable git! There is a definition provided by the dictionaries, but you're not interesting in defining, you want only to defame. You're not fooling anyone; that's why I have grown to call you a bitch.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 4:36pm
Okay, how do we tell the "socialist progressives" from the "non-socialist progressives"....specifically?
Posted by MASK
Pulling your head out of your ass would be a good start.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 4:46pm
"Some progressives are socialists, but not all..."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 10:23am
Okay, how do we tell the "socialist progressives" from the "non-socialist progressives"....specifically?---Posted by MASK
Pulling your head out of your ass would be a good start.---Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 4:46pm
It was YOUR statement, MTSP.....just asking for how you DEFINE the difference between the two "progressives"?
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 4:52pm
V Don't try so hard to sound intelligent.It isn't working and makes one wonder why you're putting so much obvious effort into it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 5:00pm
It was YOUR statement, MTSP.....just asking for how you DEFINE the difference between the two "progressives"?
Posted by MASK
Bitch games. Biiiitch games.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:08pm
(Hey, V, does the "V" stand for vagina?)
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:09pm
Okay, how do we tell the "socialist progressives" from the "non-socialist progressives"....specifically?---Posted by MASK
I believe they stencil it on their underwear.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:12pm
Okay, if all progressives are socialist, then it would be fair to label all conservatives as fascists. It would be disingenuous and dishonest--just like calling all progressives socialists--but that doesn't really matter, does it?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:31pm
Sounds pretty clear to me. Socialists believe that by influencing the Dem Party through the primaries and elections, and by eventually taking control of the Democratic Party, they can achieve their goals.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1
Duuuh! And the religious right wants to establish an American Taliban through it's strong, undeniable influence of the Repub Party.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:33pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 5:08pm
MTSP, YOU said you knew there were socialist progressives and NON-socialist progressives....I merely ask...
how do YOU know the difference exactly?
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 5:54pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/16/2007 @ 5:26pm
LVLIB, I wasn't even "labelling them that"....If they gave me some SPECIFIC difference between the two, maybe that would label them "correctly".
A while back MTSP said it was related to "Third Way'ism" (Clinton, DLC)...and he STILL hasn't explained if those are the "non-socialist progressives" or not?
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 5:56pm
I told you, bitch, you have to check their underwear.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:56pm
LvLiberty The reason that progressive and socialist are defined differently is because they're different.The reason these terms have definitions is the same reason all words have definitions and just because you and Mask don't know what these definitions are simply shows your ignorance.The Democratic socialists have no relevance to progressives.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 6:02pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY
Don't waste your time. LibertyLiar is a robot incapable of processing anything other than the fascist program in his extremely limited memory space. Mask is just trying to be cute.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:07pm
Where do you get such infantile thoughts?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1
It's stenciled on my underwear.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:08pm
Where do you get such infantile thoughts?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/16/2007 @ 6:03pm | ignore this person
same place you get yours, one supposes.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 6:25pm
The reason that progressive and socialist are defined differently is because they're different.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 6:02pm
See? totally explained.
But wait, MTSP said SOME progressives ARE socialists????
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 7:01pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 5:00pm
Fascinating, I was hoping to spark a conversation on economics as they related to the subject of this post. The more so, as finally ... there is someone in congress beginning to move in a direction, that in regards to economics, coheres with the preamble to the constitution, but alas, lol. Here, let me dumb it down for you, if I can, and this is where the effort lies. Never mind. Perhaps when you grow up you'll get it. Because for now, you speak with a child's psychology, logic and immaturity. The constant reference to "superiority" and trying to be "intelligent" are simply your projections alone, to me it is just English. And to some would reference an acute sense of inferiority on your part.
For what I had to say to you, I used your name, and that you have yet to speak to. And indeed, it no longer matters because now I know I was dealing with a child. Or perhaps more tragically, this does come from what has crystalized, nominally ... into an "adult."
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 5:09pm
LoL, ask your mother, since after a long list of failures, starting with you. She should have no problem remembering one of the bright moments in a life of relative mediocrity, again, starting with you.
Posted by V at 03/16/2007 @ 7:05pm
V You have childish put downs and something earlier about masturbation.Are those your only two fields of expertise?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 7:55pm
LoL. You read them hunh? Putdowns? Please. Read the sign, putdowns are only between 9 - 5. Fridays after 5 you get totally dissed. And although they weren't my best, I thought they were pretty good, oh well, no matter, really. Hmmm, you are always disposed to be in between myself and someone else, and find insult where none was meant. When I am not speaking to you, when you are irrelevant to the point being made, you respond.
Anyway, I told you what I thought about your conversation, speak to that. Though as far as I am concerned you have nothing relevant to say, naught that I couldn't find in any halfway decent middle school in any case. There is no value in this, just cost ... Ignore me please.
Posted by V at 03/16/2007 @ 8:54pm
V Lighten up and try something intelligent instead of pathetic attempts at put downs.Find out why you need to do that.Typically insecurity is the cause for one being the pompous ass that you are being.Stop trying to sound like my old college term papers.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 9:38pm
Dude, this is now just a pissing contest on your part. You went to a place of higher learning? I'd get my money back. Just think, if you had put all this energy into hearing, let alone understanding what was said, instead of presenting yourself as a poster child of arrested development. You would not be revealed as the liaison to the essence of ignorance, and hypocrisy you have shown yourself to be. It's amusing how people attack, then start whining when a mirror is held up to their stupidity. How's this, if you wont ignore me, I'll ignore you. So post your next piece of idiocy I will not respond, I promise.
Posted by V at 03/16/2007 @ 9:59pm
V You claim you came on here to post something intelligent about the economy,but put downs are 100% of your posts.Not one mature or intelligent statement about any subject.If putting people down is your way of feeling better about yourself then I feel sorry for you,but that is all you have done.I noticed you dropped the sound like a term paper speak,though.That was an improvement.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 11:07pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/16/2007 @ 11:07pm
Actually, my friend, that last post was a conglomeration of the words and thoughts of others. I do consider the sentiment involved in the request that you seek a return on your "investment" in higher education, lawful though. I told them to ignore you, obviously they didn't. As they were reading, they began to comment on your immaturity, as only someone immature (frankly I consider your responses infantile) would consider the first few posts "put downs." In truth I held back, as I am trying to, more or less successfully now. And I asked them to do the same, and after reading what they said, believe it or not, they did.
Since you have taken on the onus of what I've written, personally. This is written directly to you. Your comments show that you have been duped. And even after your term papers written, are wholly ignorant of the founding chain of ideation that formed this nations economic policy. And only a child (one immature, more accurately) would consider those statements, though somewhat less tactful than the originals, a put down. Prove me wrong (or not...). As if I am wrong, then you have not been duped. And your comments not steeped in, and only an exposition of, your ignorance. And sorry, after said comments, your immaturity.
The case I made is now part of the record of this blog. And therefore easy to disprove. I know that you cant, that you are only capable of proving me right, but go for it. And if you can't, then such is life, and I was right in my analysis of the current state of your intellectual affairs. And proof that what I wrote was not a put down, as none was necessary. That such was done quite well by those to whom you handed your papers.
Posted by V at 03/17/2007 @ 03:40am
you responded
your promises aren't worth shit.
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 03:55am
Posted by V 03/17/2007 @ 03:40am
V, what you have to realize is, a lot of the posters here ARE quite young (20 somethings, even younger) who have NEVER been challenged in their political beliefs and have never tried to explain or logically debate them.
They've grown up on the Internet, where it's all "LOL, I pwn'ed him!" and liberal applications of Godwin's Law for anybody one smidge to their political Right. (even sometimes to their political Left)
And it's interesting that they are (both in age and politics) the MIRROR IMAGE of the older right-wing types here. RIO, LVLIB, PONTI...knee-jerk conservatives who collapse under logical scrutiny of their views; reflected by these young adults (granting that as a biological term) on the Left ...who are just as knee-jerk, and just as often...just jerks.
Posted by Mask at 03/17/2007 @ 07:45am
V is speaking to the mirror, extolling his putative intelligence. mirror mirror on the wall... the rest of us are rolling in laughter, whattatwit.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 09:04am
V You already dropped the pretentious speak once so there isn't any point in going back to it.You can stop sounding like you're regurgitating a term paper now and just be yourself.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/17/2007 @ 11:26am
V I knew you wouldn't be able to ignore me which is why I responded.Your type is quite predictable.Drop the pretense and be yourself.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/17/2007 @ 11:30am
V I can't find where you told others to ignore me nor can I find anyone telling me to get back the money invested in my education,but you, so you must be quoting the paranoid extremists that I have on ignore.So it's you, and people suffering from irrational paranoia, who have the belief that the money invested in my education was wasted.Do you really believe I'll take such sources to heart?Besides,I'm retired.My education already gave me a successful career.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/17/2007 @ 12:02pm
Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 03:55am
"Actually, my friend, that last post was a conglomeration of the words and thoughts of others."
I was downstairs preparing dinner for visiting family and friends, and getting dressed for a limited evening on the town. Shouting upstairs my points, counterpoints ... so learn how to read. As for now your reading and comprehension is on a par with your view of my alleged promises. Though they do (next to last post) cohere some what with my sentiments at the time the last post to the child was an attempt to engage him on another level. I think that much is obvious, so let me reaffirm what I said about what's on par.
Posted by MASK 03/17/2007 @ 07:45am
I've begun to think so, as well. He's wound to tight to hear what I am saying.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 09:04am
I don't think so, your response isn't from laughter, it's from getting your backside handed to you in another thread. You weren't honest (or completely rational) there, either.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/17/2007 @ 11:26am
LoL
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/17/2007 @ 12:02pm
You where challenged. A few more snipes in the process of joining same would have been acceptable and understood. As I tossed in some few of my own, in leaving the bottom basement "dialog" that was in effect. You ignored it, and decided to stay there and feed, so be it. You'll be there by yourself, now. This is simply for the record. Were I speaking to your face I would doubtless be (unconsciously) speaking slow. Here's why;
"V I can't find where you told others to ignore me" A person of even moderate intellect would have understood that I was speaking to them, not posting.
"V I knew you wouldn't be able to ignore me which is why I responded." Oh, I can ignore you watch what happens. I remember a comedian in referencing the news media (hereinafter named the ministry of information, or MOI), say "it's like booing at the special Olympics." Which is something I wouldn't do there and it feels close to what's happening here.
Posted by V at 03/17/2007 @ 6:12pm
As for now your reading and comprehension is on a par with your view of my alleged promises.
Posted by V 03/17/2007 @ 6:12pm
yes... they are
How's this, if you wont ignore me, I'll ignore you. So post your next piece of idiocy I will not respond, I promise.
Posted by V 03/16/2007 @ 9:59pm
It's OK, all conservtives are as brain dead as you. Don't sweat it.
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 8:36pm
Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 8:36pm
I could, as they are here now ask them to tell you themselves, that the words (speaking slow again) were not mine. Though, again, they did reflect at the time, my sentiments, but how would you know? Again ... as said in my response to you, I did even so, attempt to engage Nobody on another level. This zero nuance, linear application of attempted "logic" on your part explains, much.
I now issue challenge to you, you said (for future reference if you're going to call someone "brain dead" at least use correct spelling, (conservtives, is spelled conservatives) as to effect it adds much if you do...); "It's OK, all conservtives are as brain dead as you. Don't sweat it."
What statements have I said would lead one to the view that I am a "conservative?" Prove it, if you will. This nonsense might end up adding to something of worth, after all. Prove it. You cant, but go for it, nonetheless ... If you cant it doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot but it doesn't do much to dissuade one from the belief that you're not.
Posted by V at 03/17/2007 @ 9:33pm
Need to know, since the MOI wont do it we have to;
"...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public's interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight."
U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in a Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Sibel Edmonds from an interview;
"First, the FBI management accused me of having gone to congress, and disclosing this information to congress, and I had not done so at that point. I didn't believe that I needed to go to Congress at that point. They did not believe me - they said 'we are suspicious that you have been communicating with congress on these classified issues and doing this via email communication' - so I had agents coming to my house and removing my home computer - my husbands computer - without a warrant! They took it, and then took it to pieces, and they didn't find anything - and so I said 'OK - maybe it was a misunderstanding.' Two weeks later they issued an order for me to take a polygraph test, and the polygraph test was to determine whether I had gone to Congress. Their fear was not the classification, the fear was whether this was going outside the FBI - and I passed the polygraph because I had not gone to congress at that point. Then they started removing my jobs, and as you know, finally I was terminated, and during these 3-4 months, I presented them with these 3 or 4 different categories of very important issues.
The other important case (that I reported on), had to do with certain public officials, corruption cases, that the FBI had obtained - and again, this was the operation that was taking place between 1997 and 2002 - and I'm talking about solid evidence. And these officials are high-profile public officials."
more info [justacitizen.com]
Posted by V at 03/17/2007 @ 9:57pm
V I noticed you haven't posted one opinion or engaged in debate on any subject on any board.All you have done is to try and childishly put people down on this board while trying to sound like your regurgitating a college term paper.Why are you avoiding intellectual debate?Do you know anything about any of the variety of subjects?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/17/2007 @ 9:58pm
V You finally posted something requiring maturity beyond the age of 12.Congratulations.Didn't think you had it in you.Your response to Will was childish,but then,finally,after many many hours you came through with something.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/17/2007 @ 10:07pm
I think there's been a fair amount of debate about the meaning of the word "progressive," though I think it's been somewhat muddled. I want to try and clear it up if I can, but would like to start off by explaining why this is actually important. There are people within the public sphere who continually identify themselves primarily as "progressives." In order to decide whether or not to vote for them, and how to engage their positions, we have to have some kind of clear idea what they represent, and so it's important to understand what the labels they apply to themselves actually mean.
I actually think that Will suggested a really interesting question earlier: what does it mean to be "conservative"? If you just look to the literal definition, isolated from any context, all it means is a kind of committment to the status quo. In a vacuum, it's somewhat more concrete than "progressive" insofar as it latches you onto something definite as opposed to just "something that isn't the status quo."
However, I don't think that this meaning is all that important, insofar as it doesn't quite match the way we understand conservatism in the status quo. What it has come to mean, and mean fairly consistently, is a willingness to endorse particular moral codes in the social sphere, and a resistance against government intervention in the economic sphere. Liberalism entails exactly the opposite.
What I think differentiates these two from progressivism is that progressivism doesn't really seem to have gained a clear meaning in our political discourse. Depending on who you read when (since none of the sites that have been mentioned give a clear and conclusive account), it seems to refer to anyone from socialists, to followers of the Third Way, to moderate liberals and maybe even some conservatives, and virtually anyone in between. In fact, it almost seems to serve as a catchall for "anyone who is probably also a Democrat," if it can be even that narrowly construed.
At the end of the day, I tend to know what someone means when they call themselves a liberal. I can evaluate a politician's policies to see if they really are conservative. However, I don't think I have any way to evaluate whether a politician actually is "progressive." I have no basis for challenging a politician who claims to be "progressive," unless they're really really conservative, and even that's uncertain.
So, I think a better way of formulating the question that people have been asking is this: what is the standard for determining whether a politician can be defined as "progressive"?
Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2007 @ 12:05am
What statements have I said would lead one to the view that I am a "conservative?" Prove it, if you will.
Posted by V 03/17/2007 @ 9:33pm
you lied.
let me demonstrate
How's this, if you wont ignore me, I'll ignore you. So post your next piece of idiocy I will not respond, I promise.
Posted by V 03/16/2007 @ 9:59pm
As for now your reading and comprehension is on a par with your view of my alleged promises.
Posted by V 03/17/2007 @ 6:12pm
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 12:47am
when are the hamsters going to send us one that even stands a chance
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 12:47am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/17/2007 @ 9:58pm
...
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/17/2007 @ 10:07pm
...
For the record, you are officially ignored.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Sibel Edmonds issue is off topic, but do to it's importance I decided to add her story at each thread that I post to. If you read it I'm sure you'll understand my position. Mayhaps it'll grow some legs thereby.
Posted by V at 03/18/2007 @ 12:54am
Posted by WILL C. 03/18/2007 @ 12:47am
LoL, whatever ...
Posted by V at 03/18/2007 @ 12:57am
A few pertinent points. Bernis is not a member of the Democratic party; he is an independent member of the Senate who usually votes with the Democrats as their position is usually better, ie more humane, than that of the Repubs. He ran in the Democratic primary in VT at the request of the Dems so there would not be a three man vote split. Thus, the general election was between Bernie Sanders, I, and Rich Tarrent, R. Rich was that and dropped about $10 mill in his race - more per voter than any other jurisdiction. He was creamed. Bernie got around 70% of the vote, IIRC - AS AN INDEPENDENT. So he's a party of 1 (lie berman claiming to be an independent Dem but really is a R - who funded his race: you dance 'wit dem dat brung you.' So the Democrats are not his party; he is respected for himself. (Plus, he still has a lot of influence in the house. And we shall get more progressive Senators in '08 as some more of the moonbatty Senators "retire," Coburn, anyone?)
Bernie is not trying to turn US into a socialist country but rather to act to humanize the policies that we live with. This one piece of legislation is not oll he is working on. No way is he looked upon as a radical nor is this proposal a radical one; looks more like common sense to me.
Secondly, Bernie tends to be effective: see his past history in the house. He knows this is a long term project and can also can use this as an educational tool. It is a good idea too see what priorities can look like. Many congress critters agree that the upper level tax cuts should be rolled back -- this shows what could be bought by allowing this to happen. It can get people thinking. Now, no legislation is required to roll back the cuts; the Bush scheme was to pass them with a sunset clause so that they looked less expensive than if they were made permanent. That's why the Bushies have their knickers in a twist - if they don't get legislation extending them, the super rich tax cuts are toast. Some did get extended in the waning days of the Total repub regime - but I forget which - so same tinkering may be needed.
[But the Billionaire saving estate tax cut evaporates in 2011. The super rich may think it is best they all die in 2010 when the estate tax is at is lowest. If it's not extended, we may have mass suicides in the 18 super wealthy families that are funding the fight against the estate tax. What I think is funniest is that most of them are folks who inherited their wealth - and didn't work for it in the first place like the kids of Sam Walton - who incidentally never protested the estate tax.]
By putting this proposal out it may stimulate discussion of what our priorities should be, especially on forums such as this, and later in the wider electorate.
So far, the comments that I've read here have been just purile attacks, ad hominen attacks and stupid arguments about words such as "socialism" and bickering incited by mask, et al. Frankly I have skipped reading most of the comments due to the nature of the page I have read, so perhaps I've been wrong and there has been some discussion of whether these are good things to have as top priorities for the next 5-10 years or not. What are competing interests that could be valuable? What are details of some the specifics?
Those who are interest is discussing the IDEAS presented should ignore provacatuers like mask unless he makes a comment on the topic, not just attacking or arguing irrelevancies. I can and will hit the ignore this person button but then the rest of the comments are just responses to the disrupter. These disrupters just want attention, which too many of you are giving him. Thus the whole thread is worthless. As I said, I haven't read all of this but I see no hope that it will improve and my time isn't worth wasting on this.
sam
Posted by samdoberman at 03/18/2007 @ 01:42am
Posted by THRAWN 03/18/2007 @ 12:05am
Mk stated that way I understand. Highlights from a site [mydd.com] dealing specifically with this issue;
19th Century Roots. The term "progressive" first came into use in an American political context in the late 19th century. It was the ideological term many American leftists self-identified with, from women suffrage activists, to Teddy Roosevelt supporters, to backers of Robert LaFollette.
The Flip. Until FDR, "progressive" was actually the most common term used to describe the mainstream of American leftism. In what can be considered an early example of triangulation, FDR instead chose to call himself a "liberal," thereby poaching some of Hoover's turf while also distancing himself from the left-wing label "progressive."
The 1990's revival. After nearly fifty years in the post-Wallace wilderness, the term "progressive" saw a revival in our political discourse in the 1990's primarily from two sources. First, "third way" triangulation types such as the DLC took to the term as a means to avoid being labeled as "liberal." Second, left-wing creative class types, at first primarily in the Bay Area, took to the term in order to disassociate themselves with the exiting "liberal" political infrastructure on both ideological and identity-based grounds.
The New Big-Tent Term. Entering 2007, "progressive" appears to be the new and emerging "big-tent" term for the American center-left. The term is used just as comfortably by New Dem types as it is by the Democratic Party's left-wing. Whether or not this has drained it of any significant meaning is open to debate. Whether or not it still has any significant difference from the term "liberal" is also open to debate.
It ends up pretty much on the same page, as yourself and most other people when asked about the term. After reading, I consider it as meaning a work in progress, a living progress. As in something yet unfinished. But it begs a question, on a functional level, the same one as conservatism. In that it cannot be abstracted away from the human beings who identify themselves as such, or the organic processes which they used to bring it into fruition.
George Bush, is the axiomatic result of an equation that had Nixon (one can go back further) and Reagan as terms of same. Said another way, they were the baby steps that ended in the slouch towards Bethlehem that the rough beast of the present administration represents. The saying that "Bush isn't a ‘real' conservative" simply prepares the ground for the next beast.
We have to go past names, deeper than bones, to the marrow. Where the names end, and the history, the fraternity, the money, the ideas, and ideology begin.
Posted by V at 03/18/2007 @ 02:22am
Posted by V 03/18/2007 @ 12:57am
V, as far as young WILL goes...he's a hyper-partisan who believes that ALL Democrats are "liberals" and liberalism is anything a Democrat espouses, even if contradicting what other liberals espouse.
Case in point...his support of Hillary's plan to CONTINUE the occupation of Iraq.
Posted by Mask at 03/18/2007 @ 08:04am
Posted by SAMDOBERMAN 03/18/2007 @ 01:42am
Why can't the term "socialism" be discussed? Does it not exist? Does Senator Sanders not repudiate his former ADMITTED status as a democratic socialist?
or is it as I said, the term in indefensible and must remain "in the closet" to sell the policies put forth by people such as the Senator?
Posted by Mask at 03/18/2007 @ 08:06am
V Before I put you on ignore with the other children who post more put downs than anything with substance let me clue you in to a fact of life.People who really are intelligent feel no need to sound intelligent in the same way that people who really are tough feel no need to talk tough.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/18/2007 @ 10:51am
MASK You're sounding more and more like LvLiberty,Rio,and Ponti.Are we, now, seeing your true colors?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/18/2007 @ 11:18am
Whatever some of you may think, I genuinely believe that V has legitimate ideas to contribute when he chooses to do so, and his last post seems to be a pretty strong indication of that. He argues, and I think this makes a lot of sense, that we can never completely abstract political labels from the actual people that use them, particularly since different people will have different ideas of what those labels mean.
Building on that, it seems like the political labels we use actually involve a balance between abstraction and case-by-case analysis. I think the label "conservative" is a fairly indicative example. When someone is labeled a conservative, that gives us some idea as to what that person believes about the proper relationship between state, society, and market. In that sense, we can learn something about that politician through abstraction. However, not only are there different degrees of conservatism, but there are also different understandings as to how the goals of conservatism can best be met.
What's always struck me as interesting is that conservatives and liberals don't always disagree philosophically; in fact, they often have many goals in common. Both seek to preserve the external security of the country, to promote a strong economy, and to protect those who need it the most. A lot of times, the disagreement isn't even on which of these goals is more important philosophically. What a great deal of the disagreement seems to center on is the best means by which these goals can be achieved, and this is especially true in the economic sphere.
Labels like "conservative" and "liberal" tend to be important because they signify a broader philosophical framework. Although there are certainly issue areas where these two philosophies can overlap, there are meaningful areas where they conflict. When voters choose between a conservative and liberal candidate, that philosophical clash will often be important in their decision calculus, which is another reason why it's so important that we grasp what these labels really mean.
This is also why I think that Mask raises a very reasonable point about Bernie Sanders. The democratic socialist label that he adopted in the past presumably means something; it presumably indicates the overarching philosophy that he is coming from and which informs his political decisions. In changing that label, we have to believe either that he changed his political orientation altogether, that his original label wasn't really meaningful, or that his current label isn't really meaningful. That's a question that certainly deserves consideration.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2007 @ 1:16pm
LoL, whatever ...
Posted by V 03/18/2007 @ 12:57am
It really doesn't matter to you does it? Lying that is.
You don't care.
Is that why you find it so easy to lie?
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:32pm
Posted by MASK 03/18/2007 @ 08:04am
V, as far as young WILL goes...he's a hyper-partisan who believes that ALL Democrats are "liberals" and liberalism is anything a Democrat espouses, even if contradicting what other liberals espouse.
Liberalsm is any honest activity supported by the liberal agenda. Liberals can always disagree on the excution. Disagreement is allowed in the liberal agenda
Case in point...his support of Hillary's plan to CONTINUE the occupation of Iraq.
Case in point. Not all liberals agree with hiilary's position. And hillary's position is not identical to mine. In the end, the majority vote will determine which way we go
you still can't get your brain cell around that can you? You poor poor dumy
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by MASK 03/18/2007 @ 08:04am
V, as far as young WILL goes...he's a hyper-partisan who believes that ALL Democrats are "liberals" and liberalism is anything a Democrat espouses, even if contradicting what other liberals espouse.
Liberalsm is any honest activity supported by the liberal agenda. Liberals can always disagree on the excution. Disagreement is allowed in the liberal agenda
Case in point...his support of Hillary's plan to CONTINUE the occupation of Iraq.
Case in point. Not all liberals agree with hiilary's position. And hillary's position is not identical to mine. In the end, the majority vote will determine which way we go
you still can't get your brain cell around that can you? You poor poor dummy
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by WILL C. 03/18/2007 @ 4:32pm
One can dismiss someone, totally. But in consideration of the value of human discourse, and of them as human beings give them, perhaps grudgingly, another chance. I as much as said so. But ended up going with the former despite the attempt. Such is life.
If there was anything recognizable as thought involved. Thought and not mere opinion, it could be said that you "think" (doubtless by the application theurgy) that you're become worthy of being lied to. The self flattery of such sibilant (nahnah, nahnahnah) infantilism, from an adult is astonishing. Too witless to grasp the degree to which you embarrass yourself, you really expected a response to such, infantile drivel. You had your chance to have an adult conversation, instead you responded in a way that would embarrass some children I know. No matter that you patted yourself on the back. For something totally without wit, or substance. I guess you get it where you can hunh? Pathetic...
In anycase I'm done with this nonsense. You're not ignored, you're dismissed.
Posted by V at 03/18/2007 @ 6:33pm
Posted by V 03/18/2007 @ 6:33pm
One can dismiss someone, totally. But in consideration of the value of human discourse, and of them as human beings give them, perhaps grudgingly, another chance. I as much as said so. But ended up going with the former despite the attempt. Such is life.
A liar and full of yourself. I didn't really need to prove you a conservative. All I had to do was keep you talking.
If there was anything recognizable as thought involved. Thought and not mere opinion, it could be said that you "think" (doubtless by the application theurgy) that you're become worthy of being lied to. The self flattery of such sibilant (nahnah, nahnahnah) infantilism, from an adult is astonishing. Too witless to grasp the degree to which you embarrass yourself, you really expected a response to such, infantile drivel. You had your chance to have an adult conversation, instead you responded in a way that would embarrass some children I know. No matter that you patted yourself on the back. For something totally without wit, or substance. I guess you get it where you can hunh? Pathetic...
You know it's just part of human nature that we lie. But the true test of character is when caught, do you fess up or do you squirm like the worm.
You... squirm like the worm, another conservative trait. Your making this too easy for me V
In anycase I'm done with this nonsense. You're not ignored, you're dismissed.
and now he flees.
Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
son you are conservative to the bone
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 6:53pm
By the way V. I forgot to italicize this paragraph
One can dismiss someone, totally. But in consideration of the value of human discourse, and of them as human beings give them, perhaps grudgingly, another chance. I as much as said so. But ended up going with the former despite the attempt. Such is life.
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 6:56pm
Posted by SAMDOBERMAN 03/18/2007 @ 01:42am
Considering the environment that Mr. Sanders seeks to impact, in terms of metaphor, a prison. Unless something is done in the greater society in preparation of the release of the inmates they will still hit a wall when passing through the gates. Which is why I spoke of infrastructure. Would that we were able to get them, better yet make them (despite the nonsense of this thread, and any part I played in it) take the net seriously, outside of the usual pandering for our votes.
Infrastructure means jobs. The benefit from the overflow from an investment in our core structures is too wide ranging for me to give justice to (life is intruding) at the moment. But it would be to my mind like the turns in a mobius strip turned into a spiral. A self fulfilling economic driver.
Posted by V at 03/18/2007 @ 8:49pm
good boy. keep your mouth shut
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 10:09pm
V, what you have to realize is, a lot of the posters here ARE quite young (20 somethings, even younger) who have NEVER been challenged in their political beliefs and have never tried to explain or logically debate them. Posted by MASK
Oh, so that's what you're doing! You're challenging political beliefs, logically debating them? I did not realize that's what you're doing. Stupid me, I just thought you were playing little games, splitting hairs and playing a fool. I had no idea you are a sage. Still, if you're really wise, all knowing, I would think you could comprehend that some progressives are socialists and some are not. Obviously you know much more than I or anybody else here; maybe "you" can be so kind as to explain the blatant and more subtle differences between the various movements within the Dem party (as opposed to doing nothing more than playing your little gotcha game that allows you to impersonate a reasonable, objective, intelligent, well informed individual.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 12:00pm
Ben & Jerry just wrote a letter in support of Bernie Sanders, their Senator in Vermont: Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced the National Priorities Act which would spend America taxpayer dollars on what the people actually want. The bill would save $130 billion by ending tax cuts for millionaires and eliminating Pentagon weapons designed to fight the now defunct Soviet Union but are useless in protecting us from real current threats. Then the legislation would invest the savings to provide the world-class education, healthcare, veterans benefits and energy independence that Americans deserve. Oh, and it would cut the deficit. Leave it to Bernie to take on what President Eisenhower first called the military-industrial complex. Defense contractors have billions of dollars to lose when their heavily-marketed weapons get eliminated. And some millionaires want to avoid paying their fair share. But Bernie's willing to take them on. Let's help him pass this bill on our behalf.
Ben Cohen Jerry Greenfield
Posted by linisreen at 03/21/2007 @ 3:50pm
I'm curious as to what those weapons would be, precisely. If he's defending cutting down our nuclear arsenal somewhat, that's fine, though it's problematic if he's proposing to virtually eviscerate it. I'm also curious as to what the investment he's talking about would entail, particularly given the shifting labels that he's taken on.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/21/2007 @ 5:00pm