Does the moderate left in the US need a more radical left

And cut back regulations for the wealthy and powerful. The right wing is NOT pro-small government, nor is it anti regulation. It wants a big, oppressive, intrusive government, and regulations designed to crush the common people and benefit the rich and powerful.

Nonsense; the tax burden have become less and less progressive, not more.

Revenues have increased because the population has increased. We have a massive deficit, because the Right spend like lunatics, and hate taxes, and care nothing for the future or the welfare of the country.

Oh, please. Why should anything they say be taken seriously?

I’m not sure what the point is here but I’ll make the obvious point often missed on these boards; Americans are encouraged to think of capitalism as a creed, an ideology, even implicitly a religion.

I would suggest the more balanced view is that capitalism is a tool to generate wealth, but a tool in a wider social context.

Got a cite for all that?

This is just not true. The top marginal under Reagan was 28%. Bush 1 increased it to 31%. It’s 35% today. Get your facts straight.

I referenced everything in terms of % of GDP, which factors in economic growth and population growth.

No argument that the right spends like lunatics. The left spends like lunatics on crack.

The man has to give himself at least a shot of being re-elected. Left of Clinton may have come in his second term.

Garbage. It’s the right, not the left that spends like crazy. It’s the right, not the left that digs the country deeper and deeper into debt every chance they get. It’s the right, not the left that has no sense of fiscal responsibility ( or any other kind ) and no concern for the future.

Well, I was referring to this:

Here’s video of the guy in question.

I replied with this:

Since the town hall guy lives on public assistance but is complaining about his taxes being used for something else (ex. his claim that it’s going into Specter and his cronies’ pockets), I assume the point of FUShakes is that this guy isn’t allowed to use public funds and have any libertarian beliefs. I countered with two rich guys that have consistently used the capitalism system to make money while expressing views that they don’t like capitalism. I thought it was fairly obvious that I was pointing out in both cases that people hold a certain ideology while not adhering to it completely. Get it now? “Human’s are quirky, huh?”

You think it’s an ideology for Soros and Moore?

I guess we disagree.

My original point was that you couldn’t come up with any semi-reasonable group to her left… glad to see you may have come around.

Who do you think that could seem like a legitimate alternative that would make her more appealing?

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is to the left of Pelosi and more than semi-reasonable. Which does not, of course, equate to “appealing”; but on that point you seem to be grossly overestimating Pelosi’s repulsiveness to the electorate. Probably because, except when posting here, you talk only to people who think the same way as you do. A lot of movement conservatives still seem to be in deep denial about how marginal movement conservatism has become. Obama (if not Pelosi) is probably to the right of the political center-of-gravity of the American electorate at present.

I’m basing that opinion, BTW, on what seem to be pretty solid sources:

The Death of Conservatism, by Sam Tanenhaus; Newsweek interview here; GD thread here.

The Pew Political Typology. Put all the conservative typology groups together and you still don’t have a majority.

2007 study by the Pew Research Center showing a changed political environment more favorable to the Dems/liberals/left.

2009 study by the Center for American Progress. This last one is very telling:

Tiiiiiiime is on my side
Yes it is! . . .

I gotta figure real progress in the U.S. won’t be made until everyone who remembers the 1950s (or more accurately, everyone who ideallizes and simplifies their vague memories of the 1950s, painting it as an American golden age that slipped away when the hippies fucked everything up) is dead.

If by hippies you mean baby boomers, they did fuck everything up. We’ll be cleaning up their mess for the next 50 years.

Starving Artist? 'Zat you?

Alts . . . why did it have to be alts . . .

Define “their mess.”

  1. The last eight years is a pretty good cite. The “left” aren’t too far behind in terms of civil liberties, state snooping etc but they just can’t compete when it comes to benefitting the rich and powerful.

  2. The facts are that top earners are paying less and less of the tax burden, which is shifting to middle/low income earners. Over the past few decades top earners’ share of the income tax bill has gone up but not as fast as their share of the income has. And that’s just income tax, roughly two-thirds of total income for really big earners comes from capital gains, which has been cut somewhat over the past thirty years. And really big earners thus pay a really small effective tax rate on their total income, normally under 20%.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123328187124731327-lMyQjAxMDI5MzIzOTIyODkxWj.html

  1. Of course Federal taxes are higher, historically they’ve doubled every decade! But they’ve been cut irresponsibly by two presidents (Reagan and Bush 43) which have mainly created the deficits. First we were told that the cut would pay for itself in increased revenue. When that failed and Reagan created a record deficit we were told that tax cuts were really to control spending, yet Bush increased spending by the biggest margin ever while also making tax cuts, hence record deficits. Our ongoing deficit is almost entirely due to the Bush tax cuts and the economic effects of them and his pro-growth policies.

  2. When Clinton took office he addressed the record deficits left by Reagan/41 by the Deficit Reduction Act, which put teeth in PAYGO, a cosmetic device that 41 had enacted that pretended to match every spending increase with a tax increase/cut with a cut. Thjat was done with a Democratic congress. He also raised taxes and the GOP told us this would bring about economic ruin. The GOP didn’t touch the mechanism when they took congress in 1994 and we ended up with a budget surplus for the first time in living memory. As a fiscal conservative I’m sure you have a big poster of Bill Clinton on your wall. 43 took over and with the same GOP congress abolished PAYGO and spent like a drunken sailor, the biggest (unfunded) spending increase in history.

And in regards to stuff further back, why do you have this fetish for reducing overall tax take? Where’s the evidence that it creates better gdp growth than high tax countries? And there are regulations and regulations. New products and new technologies require some kind of regulation, hence expanding regulation. Saying regulation in total is increasing is a get-out for avoiding the elphant in the room.The really important regulation, like, for instance, financial regulation, is the stuff that has been gutted over the past thirty years, almost all by the usual suspects.

A class war . . . iz an ugly thing.

UND IT’Z ABOUT TIME WE HAD ONE!!!

We are all products of our environment aren’t we. I’ll bet the percentage on this board who favor MSNBC is way higher than the national average. What do you think?

Speaking of MSNBC, I actually tried to watch for a while this evening. I thought if there was ever a good night it would be tonight. Unfortunately Olberman makes me want to puke. Worst person in the world comes to mind. I’d be willing to bet that he engages in more personal attacks than any other commentator on either side.

What’s MSNBC got to do with anything? MSNBC is mainstream, like CNN and the NYT and WaPo. Fox and the Washington Times are RW, and they have no LW equivalents. If you want LW American media, which apparently you do, you’ll have to go to fringe outlets like Democracy Now! and The Nation and In These Times. Take it all around, the center-of-gravity of the media establishment, like that of the political establishment, is somewhat to the right of that of people.

And Limbaugh’s a raving leftist in Syria and Singapore. What’s your point?

Western Europe isn’t the whole world, you know.