Dems Position on Wealth

[dgs49]

Since few of you pay attention to anything outside your comfort zone, I thought I'd pass this along. You should recognize the source within the first sentence or so...

Having given up on pillorying Mitt Romney for plundering his way to vast wealth -- because, unfortunately, it isn't true -- the NFM (Non-Fox Media) seem to have settled on denouncing him as a rich jerk.

Liberals are disgusted by people who made their own money, as Romney did at Bain Capital. But they admire ill-gotten gains, which is how John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and innumerable other spokesmen for the downtrodden amassed their fortunes.

Democrats are very proud of the rich, patrician FDR -- who inherited all of his money and then launched a series of federal entitlements designed to bankrupt America 60 years later.

JFK also inherited his wealth, from a father who made his money as a bootlegger and stock manipulator. (In their defense, both men went on to create lots of jobs for bartenders and prostitutes.)

Kerry is in a special category of the gigolo. He acquired his fortune by marrying someone, who married someone, who inherited the money -- leading Kerry's children to refer to Teresa Heinz Kerry as their "step-money." In what can only be described as sheer luck, Kerry's first wife was also an heiress.

I've been diligently searching for the shrieks of horror from the media over John Kerry's tax returns when he ran for president eight years ago, but I can't find anything. (Although I did find a reference to Kerry's having served in Vietnam. Anybody else hear about that?)

Even when Kerry refused to release his wife's tax returns in order to avoid the humiliation of revealing his allowance, the press was demurely silent.

John Edwards made well over $50 million by shaking down hardworking doctors with junk science lawsuits -- as The New York Times has since admitted. The highlight of his carnival sideshows was when he channeled unborn children in front of illiterate jurors. (In the Democrats' moral universe, the unborn have no right to life, but they're perfectly acceptable as witnesses for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit.)

As I recall, Democrats were overjoyed with Wall Street financier-turned Democratic politician Jon Corzine. It was just three years ago, in 2009, when President Obama was hailing Corzine as one of the "best partners I have in the White House."

Today, prosecutors are trying to find out what Corzine did with hundreds of millions of his customers' money.

The media do everything they can to avoid looking into these mountebanks when they are active politicians. Then, when they're out of office, the NFM summarily announce that they always knew the Democrats were sleazeballs, and why are we still talking about them?

It's never a good time to talk about Democrat plutocrats until it's way too late to talk about them.

With Corzine, we'll have a window of three seconds to talk about his financial shenanigans. He's innocent until proved gui -- Convicted! -- What? You're still burbling about that guy?

Liberals will be carrying on about Richard Nixon until we're all long dead. Why has the time passed for them to really examine the man who was their vice presidential candidate only eight years ago and was desperately seeking the presidential slot just four years ago?

Until we hear ferocious denunciations of FDR, JFK, Kerry, Edwards and Corzine, liberals have no business criticizing Bain Capital.

Maybe some people are irrationally offended by the rich, but Democrats aren't. This is the party of George Soros, Goldman Sachs and Nancy Pelosi!

The six wealthiest senators are all Democrats, half of whom married or inherited their money. Some of the multimillionaire Democrats are:

-- Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the second-richest senator after Kerry, inherited his money.

-- Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the sixth-richest senator, married her money.

-- Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was a bogus dot-com multimillionaire, cashing out before the stock crashed.

-- Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the ninth-richest senator, who failed to pay taxes on her private plane until she was caught last year, married her money.

Meanwhile, with few exceptions, Republicans either made money on their own or they don't have it.

It's not an accident that Democrats oppose a tax on wealth, which they have boatloads of, but strongly support taxes on income, something they typically do not have.

Democrats don't hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of "greed" for wanting to pay the government a little less.

Ann Coulter, of course.

[Grim Reaper]

the NFM (Non-Fox Media)

Speaking of comfort zones, you should try leaving yours one day.

[Sue U]

***
Ann Coulter, of course.

Hahahahahahahahaha, does she still even exist, somewhere in space? You must be the last person in America who thinks she is anything more than a joke.

[Liberty1]

Democrats don't hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of "greed" for wanting to pay the government a little less.

Democrats, or who I prefer to call collectivists or leftist, elites absolutely want their fortunes, just like they all have in all of their previouly failed utopias. These elitists believe they are smarter than all the little people and know better than them how countries, governments, societies and economies should be run, and that is obviously from the top down. Here we are 20+ years after the fall of the Berlin wall here is an excerpt from an interesting article. Our democrat leaders are afterall our equivalents of the leftest leaders from these failed utopias, if only another place and time....

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism which followed it are hugely important to any proper understanding of the present world and of the contemporary political economy. Why is it that they have failed to be addressed with anything like their appropriate awesome significance, let alone found their place in the sixth-form curriculum?

The failure of communism should have been, after all, not just a turning point in geo-political power – the ending of the Cold War and the break-up of the Warsaw Pact – but in modern thinking about the state and its relationship to the economy, about collectivism vs individualism, and about public vs private power. Where was the discussion, the trenchant analysis, or the fundamental debate about how and why the collectivist solutions failed, which should have been so pervasive that it would have percolated down from the educated classes to the bright 18-year-olds? Fascism is so thoroughly (and, of course, rightly) repudiated that even the use of the word as a casual slur is considered slanderous, while communism, which enslaved more people for longer (and also committed mass murder), is regarded with almost sentimental condescension.

Is this because it was originally thought to be idealistic and well-intentioned? If so, then that in itself is a reason for examining its failure very closely. We need to know why a system that began with the desire to free people from their chains ended by imprisoning them behind a wall. Certainly we have had some great works of investigation into the Soviet gulags and the practices of the East German Stasi, but judging by our present political discourse, I think it is safe to say that the basic fallacies of the state socialist system have not really permeated through to public consciousness.

It would, if one were so inclined, be fairly easy to assume that the grotesque activities of the Stasi, or the Soviet labour camps, were aberrations or betrayals of the true communist philosophy – and a great many people (even within the mainstream Labour party) did believe precisely that for decades. When the entire edifice simply dissolved with an almost bloodless whimper and its masses were free to tell their stories of what life had actually been like under the great alternative to capitalism, that was the end of self-delusion – and it should have been the beginning of the serious discussion.

But in our everyday politics, we still seem to be unable to make up our minds about the moral superiority of the free market. We are still ambivalent about the value of competition, which remains a dirty word when applied, for example, to health care. We continue to long for some utopian formula that will rule out the possibility of inequalities of wealth, or even of social advantages such as intelligence and personal confidence.

The idea that no system – not even a totalitarian one – could ensure such a total eradication of “unfairness” without eliminating the distinguishing traits of individual human beings was one of the lessons learnt by the Soviet experiment. The attempt to abolish unfairness based on class was replaced by corruption and a new hierarchy based on party status.

If the European intellectual elite had not been so compromised by its own broad acceptance of collectivist beliefs, maybe we would have had a genuine, far-reaching re-appraisal of the entire ideological framework. And that might have led to a more honest political dialogue in which everybody might now be talking sensibly about capitalism and how it needs to be managed. It is people – not markets – that are moral or immoral.

Communism’s fatal error was in thinking that morality resided in the mechanisms of an economic system rather than in the people who operated them. There is no way of avoiding the need for individual responsibility, which lies with citizens, not governments – or with bankers as people, not with the “banking system”. Some political leader (David Cameron?) needs to have the nerve to say this or we shall be talking nonsense forever.

[Grim Reaper]

Our democrat leaders are afterall our equivalents of the leftest leaders from these failed utopias, if only another place and time....

Place a Democrat in just about any other country and they'd be central or right of the real left there.

The Republican Party has drawn our politics so far to the right that anything approaching the center, or even slightly to the left, looks like socialism or communism. And there's an extra helping of confusion with people who can't really tell the difference between socialism or communism.

[Liberty1]

Place a Democrat in just about any other country and they'd be central or right of the real left there.

Like I said, another place, another time.......

Leftest idealism and a collectivist mindset, is what it is, our governmental system helps keep them in check.

[Grim Reaper]

At any point in time too. What the Democrats want is nowhere near the same as what the Soviets wanted. And it's disingenuous to even compare them.

And of course you never say what is wrong with the left, because you only point to an extreme view as if that's the only possible option of even looking to the left.

[Econoline]

Given a choice, I'd much rather live in a (failed???) "collectivist" utopia like one of the Scandinavian countries than in a libertarian utopia like Somalia...

[Liberty1]

I don't know why you consider Somalia a Libertarian utopia. From what I can tell, it has no rule of law (other than sharia). Libertarians believe much like that laid out in the Bible.


God laid out a few rules, in this case the 10 Commandments (government rules should be largely limited to the same ones, keep it general and simple, all laws should be written to maximize liberty for the individual).

God gave man free will, to guide his life as he wanted. In society we call it liberty.

Man lives his life using his free will, if he does not follow the rules, he faces the consequences. Biblically when he faces God, in society when he faces a judge following the rule of law.

If he chooses wisely he reaps the rewards.

[Econoline]

I don't know why you consider Somalia a Libertarian utopia.

And I don't know why you consider the prosperous examples of democratic socialism failures.

[Liberty1]

I consider them immoral.

[Andrew D]

I don't know why you consider Somalia a Libertarian utopia. From what I can tell, it has no rule of law (other than sharia). Libertarians believe much like that laid out in the Bible.


God laid out a few rules, in this case the 10 Commandments (government rules should be largely limited to the same ones, keep it general and simple, all laws should be written to maximize liberty for the individual).

Really?

Libertarians believe that we should prohibit paintings, statues, etc. of people, animals, plants ...?

("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4 (AV)).)

Libertarians believe that we should prohibit saying "Oh, Goddammit" when objects land on our toes?

("Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord the God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7 (AV).)

Libertarians believe that we should be required to "[r]emember the sabbath day, to keep it holy"? (Exodus 20:8 (AV).)

Libertarians believe that we should prohibit "covet[ing one's] neighbor's house ... wife ... manservant ... maidservant ... ox ... ass, nor any thing that is [one's] neighbor's" (Exodus 20:17 (AV)) even if one never acts on any of those covetings?

When did that happen?

[dgs49]

As for any statement that, "The Republican Party has drawn our politics so far to the right ..." one need only point out where the country was when it elected John Fitzgerald Kennedy (who was more "liberal" than Nixon).

Taxes were deemed too high and a significant cut was in the making (which increased government revenues),

Abortion was generally considered a form of infanticide, and was a felony in most states.

Sodomy was a crime, and "gay marriage" would have been considered an unthinkable absurdity.

Generations of Americans living on welfare was unimaginable and would not have been tolerated.

Schools were funded and controlled at the STATE level (remember that quaint document called the "Constitution"?).

Treating all races, nationalities, and religions EQUALLY was considered the ideal.

Oh yeah, we've come far, far, far to the right.

Right.

[dales]

Two Words - dgs:

Patriot Act.

[Grim Reaper]

Oh yeah, we've come far, far, far to the right.

Right.

And now taxes are lower than they've ever been, with income down to boot.

Abortion is still vilified, with doctors at risk of being murdered.

Sodomy is still a crime in many states, and the right wants to make homosexuality a crime.

Of course we didn't have the crash course on unemployment either. Along with rewards to companies for moving their operations overseas.

Schools are barely funded, because the right fears intelligence, and actively mocks people for going to college.

And treating all races, nationalities, and religions equally is something the right can't stand. Just look at all the trouble Mr. Romney has over being Mormon.

So, yeah, we are sliding right.

[rubato]

Hey, I know! Let's all invent opinions and ascribe them to other people and then lie about easily determinable facts to try to bolster our arguments!

yrs,
rubato

PS dimbulb: Newt Gingrich has been the loudest voice in recent months criticizing how Mitty made his money.

[Liberty1]

Libertarians believe that we should prohibit paintings, statues, etc. of people, animals, plants ...?

Really Andrew. I haven't known you to be this shallow and one dimensional in your thinking.

All of the scriptures you speak of have to do with “You shall have no other gods before me". In case you didn't know, people had a habit of creating there own gods back then. They do now too, but they are generally less "concrete", like money or sex, or power. Which really has nothing to do with libertarianism, as you well know. You're just trying to stir the pot.

Libertarians believe that we should prohibit "covet[ing one's] neighbor's house ... wife ... manservant ... maidservant ... ox ... ass, nor any thing that is [one's] neighbor's" (Exodus 20:17 (AV)) even if one never acts on any of those covetings?

Now Libertarians do believe essentially believe this. I know coverting is one of the basic beliefs and mindsets of the left, but if you get back to the basic rules, you copied the 10th commandment. Violating the 10th Commandment leads to the violations of all the other commandments related in how man treats others (an indivivual responsibility as opposed to governmental control). Coveting leads to stealing, or adultery, lies about your actions and in extreme cases can lead to murder due to these actions. The 10th Commandment is all about desiring anything that doesn't belong to you. Socialism or if that's too harsh a word for you, collectivism is based on exactly that desire. The idea of collectivism is that the ‘working class’ is oppressed (the reasons don't matter) based on the material possessions they have in relation to the other classes. Collecticvists rely on the resulting desire of this perceived inequality and the basic human nature of desire and envy they can create. They use it to obtain power with a promise to equalize the distribution of the “stuff”.

Collectivism, or socialism would not exist without the coveting of your neighbor’s ox, donkey, house, or money. Collectivism requires coveting what isn't yours, and then the confiscation what is coveted(stealing) by the governmet on it's way to redistributtion in whatever way the current administration believes is fair. Government forced wealth redistribution is to stealing as murder for hire is to killing. God said, don't steal, he didn't say don't steal unless you have a majority of Congress.

Man has free will, even the free will to reject Him. The framers of the DOI and Constitution knew this, and are a direct reflection of this understanding of God’s intent for man to be free. Collectivism/socialism restricts the will of the individual and the autonomy of the individual, and relies on coveting and theft to do it's own desires.. It makes that government into a deity with the power to control the individual in all things (see Obamacare)

And this conforms to libertarian beliefs.

Therefore, those "proposterous examples of democratic socialism failures, were failures before they evre started.

[Andrew D]

You're at least verging on the absurd, Liberty 1. Coveting is a sin which occurs entirely within one's mind:

covet ... long to possess something belonging to someone else.

I can covet someone else's property and not steal it. I can covet someone else's wife and not commit adultery with her. I can covet anything of anyone else's and not lie about. I can covet anything of anyone else's and not murder anyone.

What Libertarian has ever wanted to prohibit anyone from "long[ing]" for anything? What Libertarian has ever wanted to prohibit anyone from making, selling, possessing, etc., statutes and paintings? Or to prohibit anyone from working on the sabbath or on any other day?

There's your description of Libertarianism:

Libertarians believe much like that laid out in the Bible.

And then there's what the Libertarians themselves say:

We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

When it comes to what Libertarians think, I'll take their word over yours.

[Liberty1]

I can covet someone else's property and not steal it. I can covet someone else's wife and not commit adultery with her. I can covet anything of anyone else's and not lie about. I can covet anything of anyone else's and not murder anyone.

Very true, but the inverse is not true. You don't steaql something unless you desire it. You wouldn't commit adultry unless you desire the other person. etc. So my premis that coveting leads to other bad things is certainly true. Most improvements in life and society are motivated by discontentment with the status quo. People are driven to succeed and get a better education or search for a better job due to dissatisfaction in their life, not coveting. This is vcalled ambition.

When it comes to what Libertarians think, I'll take their word over yours.

I don't claim to have any affiliation with the Libertarian party, they are largely nuts. And I'm not saying that the libertarian philosophy is based on the Bible, but the DOI and the Constitution are based on Judeo/Christian philosophies and values , which as I've stated are based in individual liberty. One of those individual liberties is freedom of religeon. In liberty you have the freedom to lead your life the way you want and reap the rewares, or suffer the consequences. We need to have suffeceint liberty to allow failure, this makes people and society better. Joy comes from failing and then learning how to succeed. The left want to ellimnate risk, but life is not risk free, and in doing so they make everyone equaly miserable.

[Sue U]

the DOI and the Constitution are based on Judeo/Christian philosophies and values , which as I've stated are based in individual liberty.