The left and the left

[SD Realtor]

The recent wars we have seen in a few threads regarding the public sector have been interesting, although tiresome because the same arguments occur over and over.

However what has struck me is the logical conclusions reached by a few of the regulars in those threads. Naturally each side of the political spectrum always generalizes the other side in a negative light. The result is further polarization that distorts the reality of the situation. What I have learned is that at least a few, and perhaps many Obama supporters apply the logic of wealth redistribution, across the entire spectrum of our society. While I may not agree with the concept overall, my own views that all Obama supporters encourage the redistribution for only a select view, have at least been refreshed.

Taking a look at my own opinions, if I could somehow be sure that these policies would be applied evenly to union workers, to public workers, to basically everyone, I would feel less… untrusting of Obama and the democratic party overall. Part of that mistrust stems from the large contributions and endorsements he has received from these parties so I find it hard to believe the policies won’t be corrupted by these contributions. A case in point is all of the healthcare waivers unions have received from Obamacare.

At any rate I do believe Obama will prevail in 2012 and if/when he does, I hope that the implementation of his policies follows a logical path (kind of like what was set forth by the arguments that pr_dk has made and… well yes and some of what briansd has said as well)

[UCGal]

Obama talked a good lefty talk. But lets look at what he’s done.

The bush tax cuts have continues. These favor the wealthy (through the low cap gains rate vs the income tax rates) more than the income generated through wages.

Wall street banks have been bailed out.

Financial reform was largely lipstick on a pig. Glass Steagal was NOT reinstated.

Even HCR – it was a total giveaway to big pharma and insurance companies. Making it more expensive for working folks than ever. No real cost containment of any kind.

And that’s just the financial stuff. Don’t get me started on the wars, gitmo, etc.

I have a hard time hearing that Obama is a lefty that supports wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. His policies seem to continue the wealth redistribution from the middle class to the rich.

Don’t focus on unions and public employees… Look at the middle class as a whole. We’re all screwed and there’s no candidate that will change that.

[briansd1]

I think that voting for Obama is economically logical for several reasons.

1) If you believe in equity and promoting a society where wealth is equitably distributed, Obama is a better choice than a Republican candidate.

I certainly don’t want whatever wealth I have taken away. My position has nothing to do with redistribution of existing wealth but encouraging policies that promote equity and opportunity in the creation of new wealth.

2) If you belong to “middle-class America” then Democratic policies make more sense.

I question the logic and mental well-being of non-college educated, economically anxious whites who vote Republican. I’m talking about the Joe-the-Plumber types.

3) If you earn a high income and your purpose in life is the accumulation of more money for yourself, then Republicans are a good match.

Generally, I beleive that America is better off as a New Deal/Great Society country, than with Industrial Revolution laissez faire capitalism.

[briansd1]

I understand your frustration UCGal.

Obama is still the best choice we have.

[markmax33]

I don’t know how we can vote for any President who signed a budget that was 50% greater than we collected in taxes.

The concept that he is redistrbuting wealth from the rich to the poor is a complete falacy. When he allows the fed to print money and loan it to the rich people who get the benefit before the effects of inflation, the poor people are loosing massively. The poor have no concept of the inflation tax they are paying and it is really sad.

He is concentrating the wealth at the top, thus the shrinking middle class. Just because the lower income gets a little bit of money with food stamps, welfare, and a little bit of medical care, doesn’t mean they are getting anywhere.

[markmax33]

[img_assist|nid=15730|title=Mitt and Obama are the same!|desc=Just incase you thought there was a difference between Mitt and Obama, they have almost the same donors funding their campaign.|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=62]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=markmax33][img_assist|nid=15730|title=Mitt and Obama are the same!|desc=Just incase you thought there was a difference between Mitt and Obama, they have almost the same donors funding their campaign.|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=62][/quote]

A very “enlightening” chart, indeed. Thanks for posting, markmax!

[SD Realtor]

UCGAL I agree with you entirely, especially your points about Wall Street and Obamacare. The rich have certainly gotten richer and Wall Street has benefited greatly.

I guess my point was with regards to the voters or supporters, not Obama himself….to me there was little to no ideological differences between Obama supporters or the left in general. I think that the some of these threads have pointed out there are substantial differences…of course those are all my own shortcomings.

I believe that there is a very large segment of Obama supporters that fall into the CAR camp. That unions, public employees have been persecuted more the then private sector, and that the compensation of employees across all sectors public, private, union, non union is equivalent. That Wall Street is 100% responsible for all the woes in our country. That big business provides no benefits, and all profits should go to the workers. Never mind about capital investment, etc…

There is another substantial block that falls into the entitlement camp. They are the “I will take every advantage of the social safety net that is out there without really putting in the effort to help myself”.. and this president will see to it that I get more and more….

Then there is a more well educated and rational block like say pr_dk. I may not agree with him but his approach is grounded in logic. Brian not so much. He applies logic when it suits him but those rose colored glasses are glued on. Still though, the intelligence is there in a maddening sort of way.

Make no mistake UCG, like you said we are screwed either way.

[SK in CV]

I’ve been a bit mystified by this “redistribution of wealth” narrative that’s been so popular over the last few years. It seems that it applies to any tax increase on those in a high tax bracket. Almost as if current rates are somehow sacrosanct. A 35% marginal tax is not redistribution of wealth. But rise above that level, and all of a sudden there’s redistribution of wealth.

I remember when top marginal rates were 70%. I don’t ever remember hearing about redistribution of wealth. Top rates went down to 28%, then back and forth up as high as almost 40% (if I remember correctly) and never a peep about redistribution of wealth. Now, add a single dollar of tax bill of the upper income levels and it’s redistribution of wealth.

If you don’t support progressive taxation, the claim is valid. That would mean you support everyone paying the same amount. Not the same percentage, the same amount. The same $1,000 (or whatever) per person. Otherwise, income taxes ARE a redistribution of wealth. Using the “redistribution of wealth” argument about a minor change in the top rates is absurd.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]I’ve been a bit mystified by this “redistribution of wealth” narrative […][/quote]

Easy to explain:

Some folks in the media (e.g. Fox) figured out that the “slippery slope” argument is very effective with the masses.

[Anonymous]

I think I see a compliment in there somewhere. 😉

Yes, I may be a jerk, but I’m a logical one, and a reasonable one.

The only hope for our country is that there is a “silent majority” of level-headed, objective voters that can suppress the ignorant and extremist masses (on both sides.)

SDR, you have earned acceptance into our club.

Not all of us are jerks.

[briansd1]

We’re a big country with only two viable political parties. Unlike Europe, we don’t have governing coalitions of many parties.

There maybe disagreements on the left and on the right, but parties have to move to the center to win. The center is always changing because of demographics.

It seems like on the right, on social policies, religion, and the economy, the Republican party is moving further to the right.

[markmax33]

[quote=briansd1]We’re a big country with only two viable political parties. Unlike Europe, we don’t have governing coalitions of many parties.

There maybe disagreements on the left and on the right, but parties have to move to the center to win. The center is always changing because of demographics.

It seems like on the right, on social policies, religion, and the economy, the Republican party is moving further to the right.[/quote]

They are both exactly in the center. There is only one party. The overspend party that will eventually bankrupt our currency. What we need is a second party.

[briansd1]

[quote=markmax33]
They are both exactly in the center. There is only one party. The overspend party that will eventually bankrupt our currency. What we need is a second party.[/quote]

Feel free to get Ron Paul to form a new party if he’s not able to take over the Republican party. 🙂

[SD Realtor]

Cracking me up pri_dk.. Ever since you talked me out of flat rate taxation I have been watching your words.

SK I know I used the rhetoric (redistribution of wealth) in an improper manner. I think what I am trying to get at is that I find a hard time trying to figure out exactly where Obama and the dems in general stand? Is that utopia more like a CAR utopia or more like a pr utopia? You kind of see what I am saying?

To me there is no doubt that Obama (and any other partisan candidate blue or red) will pander to the voters class in order to get votes. So yes to the more disenfranchised voters Obama (or any other candidate) would demonize wealth no matter how it was accrued. Forget about taxes for the moment and throwing out the partisan rhetoric is that how he really feels? Is that how people like Harry and Nancy feel?

Or is there more logic that is in their reality… that yes we can improve social safety nets but we do have to make sure the playing field is level between public/private jobs, union verses non union, etc even at the expense of pissing off some of our lobbyists and that improvements of social safety nets will come at the expense of other programs given a limited budget?

In my opinion (and it is only my opinion.. .the reality of the situation for our society and utopia CAR espouses are quite far apart and they cement a stereotype that I have developed over time for dems in general) However I think and hope I am wrong and if Obama/Nancy/Harry are going to be in charge I would hope that the people who voted for them would demand some of the common sense ideas that I have seen posted. To me some of these ideas that came from brian and pri_dk are contrary to what I think Obama and the dems stand for. That could be because of my own misconceptions……..I am not sure.

[Author]

Posts