- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 59,826
- Reaction score
- 30,567
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Think about it. Aren't we familiar with the idea - as a person, you can get government housing, government healthcare, government transportation, maybe a government cellphone, various needs met by the government. By a caring society. People recognize some progressive support for people getting those things when needed.
Alternatively, a person might have more money, and buy their own housing they want, their own car, their own choices whether to travel, on and on - that that is more freedom, and that wealthy people have a lot of it.
Here's the thing. While progress has had some positive effect at helping more people to have more affordable things, not everyone can be rich. By definition. It's not possible. So no matter how you design the system, most won't be rich. So you can say how great it is for rich people all you like, and you can lie that the solution is for people to just get rich, but it ain't gonna happen for most.
But we DO have some very important societal choices. We can have plutocracy - a much smaller number of extremely rich people, and others with much less, needing all those government programs; or, we can have progressive economics, which have higher growth, more total prosperity, and which divide the wealth to many more people, creating a much stronger middle class, so far more people CAN have that 'pay for your own things' lifestyle.
More growth, more wealth, more people with money, more spending, more business, fewer government programs needed - what's not to love? And that's the "pro-capitalism, pro-freedom" agenda, and it is the PROGRESSIVE agenda. That's what progressives want.
For progressives, the discussion id distorted, because they support government assistance as a last resort, a 'when needed' option, but it's not their first choice. On the other hand, the right favors causing that assistance TO be needed - but denying it!
As a result, even progressives can forget this, and fall into defending government programs, forgetting they actually would rather not need them.
Perhaps the most bleeding heart, care for the poor major politician in American history was Robert Kennedy; here's what he had to say, as he felt a job was the best solution for poverty:
It's really that simple. Progressives are the party that wants capitalism to do better. Capitalism has a dark side, a weak side; a side that involves things from monopoly, to the aforementioned plutocracy, to resources being used to protect fortunes and deny opportunity and competition and innovation, to deregulation allowing private wealth to be made at public expense like causing pollution with the public suffering the harm and cost, and more. The bad side of capitalism - that's what Republicans fight for.
But if you'd like capitalism that's more widespread, but operating within boundaries for the public good, with more opportunity, more broad ownership, more competition and innovation, more prosperous consumers strengthening the economy, without people suffering from things like a lack of healthcare or housing - those are progressive policies.
Even if you'd like 'fiscal responsibility', less debt - the Progressive budget does that better than any other proposed budget.
Icing on the cake: the least corrupt system is also the progressive system. Less money in politics buying outcomes against the public interest.
It's simple: the pro-capitalism, pro-private wealth, pro-freedom society is the Progressive society.
The sick society of plutocracy, of waste, of corruption, or tyranny, of a war on democracy, of many more poor, and yes, of either the government providing many more programs or people suffering without them, but huge wealth for a very few, that's the Republican plan.
Alternatively, a person might have more money, and buy their own housing they want, their own car, their own choices whether to travel, on and on - that that is more freedom, and that wealthy people have a lot of it.
Here's the thing. While progress has had some positive effect at helping more people to have more affordable things, not everyone can be rich. By definition. It's not possible. So no matter how you design the system, most won't be rich. So you can say how great it is for rich people all you like, and you can lie that the solution is for people to just get rich, but it ain't gonna happen for most.
But we DO have some very important societal choices. We can have plutocracy - a much smaller number of extremely rich people, and others with much less, needing all those government programs; or, we can have progressive economics, which have higher growth, more total prosperity, and which divide the wealth to many more people, creating a much stronger middle class, so far more people CAN have that 'pay for your own things' lifestyle.
More growth, more wealth, more people with money, more spending, more business, fewer government programs needed - what's not to love? And that's the "pro-capitalism, pro-freedom" agenda, and it is the PROGRESSIVE agenda. That's what progressives want.
For progressives, the discussion id distorted, because they support government assistance as a last resort, a 'when needed' option, but it's not their first choice. On the other hand, the right favors causing that assistance TO be needed - but denying it!
As a result, even progressives can forget this, and fall into defending government programs, forgetting they actually would rather not need them.
Perhaps the most bleeding heart, care for the poor major politician in American history was Robert Kennedy; here's what he had to say, as he felt a job was the best solution for poverty:
It's really that simple. Progressives are the party that wants capitalism to do better. Capitalism has a dark side, a weak side; a side that involves things from monopoly, to the aforementioned plutocracy, to resources being used to protect fortunes and deny opportunity and competition and innovation, to deregulation allowing private wealth to be made at public expense like causing pollution with the public suffering the harm and cost, and more. The bad side of capitalism - that's what Republicans fight for.
But if you'd like capitalism that's more widespread, but operating within boundaries for the public good, with more opportunity, more broad ownership, more competition and innovation, more prosperous consumers strengthening the economy, without people suffering from things like a lack of healthcare or housing - those are progressive policies.
Even if you'd like 'fiscal responsibility', less debt - the Progressive budget does that better than any other proposed budget.
Icing on the cake: the least corrupt system is also the progressive system. Less money in politics buying outcomes against the public interest.
It's simple: the pro-capitalism, pro-private wealth, pro-freedom society is the Progressive society.
The sick society of plutocracy, of waste, of corruption, or tyranny, of a war on democracy, of many more poor, and yes, of either the government providing many more programs or people suffering without them, but huge wealth for a very few, that's the Republican plan.
Last edited:
