The Left contends that:
1) Capitalism is evil.
2) Corporations are evil.
3) The stock market is a tool of the rich, who use it to exploit and oppress labor and the poor, the proletariat.
4) Money made via the stock market is "unearned," resulting merely from the shifting, manipulation, and gaming of capital. No "sweat equity" is involved in profiting from stock market trades.
5) Speaking of profit, the Left believes that profit is evil, a belief embodied in such slogans as "People before profit."
So tell me, Leftists, why do you invest? By investing, you are violating every precept, tenet, and conviction that you hold dear, the sum and substance of your entire ideology and worldview -- every last scintilla of it.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Your post is a good example of why the rightwing lost the last election: you are completely out of touch with reality. Speaking for my liberal brethren, we do not believe capitalism is evil, that corporations are evil or that profit is evil. Capitalism represents one of the crowning achievments of human rights as well as a great way to run the economy.
Liberals believe that the USA is the greatest country in history and that essential to keeping it great is a well-funded government that has the resources to keep us safe, make the investments that will keep us great and meet the challenges of the 21st century. That means that wealthy Americans, including myself, pay more in taxes and that very wealthy Americans pay a lot more. Under President Eisenhower, the highest federal tax rate was 91%, yes 91%, and the rate increased every ten thousand dollars or so rather than just having 3 or 4 rates. While I do not advocate a 91% tax rate, the uber-rich can afford to pay, say 50%, on income over, say, $100 million. Otherwise, you are balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class who are truly suffering. As to preferntial tax treatment of dividends, I agree with that great liberal, Ronald Reagan, who said that the tax on the fruits of a man's labor should never be less than the tax on the fruits of his capital. If Ronnie was alive today, he'd never make it in the GOP -- far too liberal for the tea party nut jobs.
P.S.: most liberals also acknowledge the need for entitlement reform and we would have had it 2 years ago if the Tea Party hadn't refused to agree to any tax hike.
I am always amused that right wingers will readily volunteer their or their neighbors sons and daughters to die in foreign wars for the US, but won't ante up a few bucks for the country they purport to love. When Bush I and Clinton increased the taxes on wealthy Americans in the 1990's, we had 10 years of prosperity and balanced budgets. Of course, right wing nut jobs may not remember the 1990's because they were preoccupied at the time trying to impeach Clinton for lying about getting a hummer. If only our current problems were so insignificant we could waste our time investigating the sex habits of the president.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
When you ENLIST in the armed forces, you swear an OATH, to die for your country if you have to. You don't sign up just because its a job and with good benefits. It is not a UNION JOB.
So please don't be offended when they put a weapon in your hand and ask you to defend the country.
Try telling the "Occupy Wall St." crowd that "Capitalism is one of the crowning achievements of human rights as well as a great way to run the economy."
Hope you have a really fast getaway car (i.e., not a Prius).
Sentiment: Strong Buy
My ol' Pop usedta say, If youre not a radical in your Twenties, ya got no balls..if youre not a liberal when when you hit Thirty, ya got no heart...AND if youre not Conservative when youre in your Forties...well.. ya got no brain.
I think the older people get the more liberal they become in all actuality because they realize you can't take it with you. I prefer passion over cold calculation in many matters, and liberals are generally more intelligent than greedy businessmen.
I enjoy listening to both sides, although the majority of the posts on this thread and elsewhere are from those with a liberal bent. I also assume that at least half of the readership here and elsewhere is conservative. Therefore, the math is rather straightforward...;-)
19th Century Filibuster
Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.
In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.
Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
To you anyone who doesnt buy the radical stupidity coming out of the republican party is a leftist.
I posted nothing but mainstream economics, stuff that was taken for granted by both parties before 09 but is now considered radical by this group of rightwing cave people who emerged squinting in the harsh sunlight after the 08 elections.
For posting mainstream economics, I was branded a 'communist' and invited off the board.
If you are rightwing, you are either stupid or dishonest, but in either case delusional. Everything the right says is counter factual and rages against modest common sense.
And, no reits r us, I want stop posting. $$$hole.
"""I posted nothing but mainstream economics,"""
Not on this thread, oh unless under a pseudonym...Tommy, or ?
""And, no reits r us, I want stop posting. $$$hole.""
The question is, if you "want stop posting" , why don't you?...;-)
As was mentioned in another thread, when substance fails, invective is all that's left....quite amusing....
My compliments to (most) of the participents on this message thread for their intelligent and well thought out comments. How refreshing to not have those that need to resort to name calling and insults because they are unable to express themselves in any other way. It's reassuring that such a bright group own AGNC and perhaps CYS NLY RSO too?
I find it interesting that the three most prosperous countries in the world are Norway Denmark and Sweden also the three most socialist countries in the world. What you fail to understand is that the left or the liberals or the progressives, whatever label you choose, are not against making money or acummulating wealth or prosperity, they are against the concept of the top percentage or two making all the wealth at the expense of the other 98-99% of the population.
A lot of what you repeat are falacies put forth by those benefitting most from what is currently a most unfair system of taxation in an effort to perpetuate a system that only benefits them.
Depends how you measure prosperity.
GDP per capita : only Norway outranks the US. (of the 3 you mentioned)
Just because someone invents the better mouse trap does not mean he has done so at the expense of others.
In Norway Sweden and Denmark, money is not as important as it is here.
Happiness is derived by doing what you love to do ,your realtionships, your family life.
Not about how big your house is and how muchh stuff you have.
There, people are happy to be the small cog in the big machine, get your paycheck, go home.
They are not capitalists.
Watch "House Hunters International" these people live in tiny apartments drive small cars and ride bicycles to work.
If haviing money was not important to you, not having money would not make you angry or sad.
I am not saying this is a bad thing. It is just different.
PS, I want the stuff. But I want everyone to work as hard as I do to get it.
The Left is divided up into two main groups One is the wealthy leadership class and the stupid (but earnest followers) who are assigned to post on message boards in support of their enlightened leaders. The public policy of leftest leaders causes more unemployment thus creating more followers. After more more years of the "God Heads"leadership the so called 47% will be 75% through supporting more entitlements and creating fewer jobs and opportunities for advancement.The future looks bleak when a majority trade their vote for a hand out.
It must be wonderful to be simple-minded such as you are. Everything is black and white with you. There's no gray area, not even between your ears. What I wonder, is why so-called conservatives destroy the environment rather than conserve it and why they think corporations are people. Why do conservatives think it's OK to privatize profits and socialize risks?