Five Ft. Three

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman

The “Just take it from someone else” attitude of the left

on November 2, 2011

Leftists obviously think taking from someone else using force (for example, income redistribution) is all fine and dandy, so it should be no wonder that the leftists at Occupy Wall Street think rape is okay because hey if you want sex, just go ahead and take it with force from someone else.


31 responses to “The “Just take it from someone else” attitude of the left

  1. Dave Miller says:

    Beth, using your logic, would I be justified to say that since some conservative Republicans favor sending mailers depicting the President as a zombie with a bullet hole in his head, all conservatives Republicans agree with this sentiment?If it is okay to paint the entire left with a broad brush, it's alright to do so to the right also, correct?This is why our well has been poisoned.

  2. soapster says:

    I wondered the same thing Dave.

  3. Beth says:

    I am talking about leftist policies, not immature images put out by politicians who may or may not be conservative (just because they have an "R" next to their name does mean they are conservative) and who think this will help them get re-elected.The leftist policies are indeed akin to rape in that it is something forced from one person to another. I'm sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable to be on the side of the leftists, Dave, but that is how I feel about them anymore.

  4. Dave Miller says:

    Beth, it makes me no uncomfortable to be called someone who supports rape, than it should you to be branded a racist because of the actions of some.If the right is not in agreement with the portrayal of President Obama as a zombie with a bullet hole in his head, then by extension, we should expect to hear Speaker Boehner and Mr. McConnell, as well as the Presidential candidates say that those types of images have no place in American politics and that people that publish them, or spread them are racists, and are not welcome in the GOP.That seems to be what you want the left to do with our wackos, why not the right too?

  5. Beth says:

    I want the leftists to change their way of thinking, that is what I want Dave. It's their way of thinking that if they want something they can just take it from whomever that I believe leads to the rapes in the Occupies all around because it's the same line of thinking, isn't it?

  6. Dave Miller says:

    Well Beth, I know a lot of lefties, and none have ever said to me that they have a right to take things from others.Quite the opposite, they are pretty big law and order people, wondering why no one is in jail for killing our economy. Is it at all possible that big business ever takes advantage of workers and the small guy?And if so, shouldn't we have laws and regulations to protect those workers and small guys?

  7. BB-Idaho says:

    Glenn Beck likes Thomas Paine……in 1782 Paine addressed the relation of rich and poor:"When the rich plunder the poor of his rights, it becomes an example of the poor to plunder the rich of his property, for the rights of the one are as much property to him as wealth is property to the other and the little all is as dear as the much. It is only by setting out on just principles that men are trained to be just to each other; and it will always be found, that when the rich protect the rights of the poor, the poor will protect the property of the rich. But the guarantee, to be effectual, must be parliamentarily reciprocal."

  8. Beth says:

    Dave, if you can explain to me how you have a progressive tax system whereas some people pay zero income tax and others pay a lot how that is not forcibly taking from one and giving it to another? If you can do so, then I will take back my analogy.

  9. Beth says:

    To your second point, Dave, if big business takes advantage of their workers, then the workers can leave. If big business does something illegal, then sue them.

  10. Beth says:

    By the way, if you want to start jailing people for the collapse of the economy, why don't we start with Congress?

  11. Doug says:

    Now Beth, that is the first comment of yours I can agree with!

  12. Beth says:

    Thanks, Doug (I think).I should amend my challenge to Dave, not only do a large segment of our population pay zero income taxes, some of those same people are calling on the richest taxpayers who already pay a high percentage of taxes already to pay MORE! Seriously, the audacity is astounding!

  13. Doug says:

    And yet, some of the plans being floated around by the GOP would put most of the burden on the poor and vanishing middle class who already are being challenged by the current system and economic environment. Personally, I think the entire tax and legislative system is broken with too many loop holes. Just look at all the corporations and people who do have a zero tax rate or even a negative tax rate. Too bad nobody has the audacity to fix what is broken instead of looking for a quick band-aid fix.And doing away with income redistribution (social security and medicaid/medicare) would endanger basic health and well being of the very same people being affected most by today's events. And who by the way have paid into the system themselves and now find that they are not getting their monies worth.I've heard of survival of the fittest, this is survival of the richest.And unfortunately it starts with everybody in Congress – Republican, Democrat and otherwise.The audacity indeed.

  14. soapster says:

    Roughly half the people don't pay income tax. That said we've got it half right.

  15. Dave Miller says:

    Beth, I would 100% agree that some on congress should be held responsible for our mess.And I hope you could agree that we will be able to find culprits on both sides of the aisle.This was a bi-partisan screw-up.

  16. Dave Miller says:

    Beth, if the employer you have is taking advantage of you, saying just leave seems a bit simplistic.Doesn't government have a place in regulating business?Or are you more on the "employee is on his or her own" side of the ledger?Do you believe that a majority of businesses will act in the interest of the employee, or the business, given the choice?

  17. Dave Miller says:

    Beth, you are correct in that a large portion of taxpayers pay no federal income tax.Primarily because they earn an amount determined to be so small, that they are financially unable to do so.This was understood by President Reagan when he signed into law the Earned Income Tax Credit that in addition to keeping in place the concept of no income taxes for the poorest among us, also gave them an additional stipend on which to live.President Reagan, the champion of conservatives here in America understood that our country could not succeed if we had a permanent underclass and took steps, through the EITC to address that.Do you think he believed in forcibly taking from some to provide for many?And was he wrong to do so?

  18. soapster says:

    "Do you think he believed in forcibly taking from some to provide for many?"YES."And was he wrong to do so?"YES.There's about as much revisionism for Reagan as there is for Lincoln. For the truly limited government ilk none of it is good.To quote Murray Rothbard:"There was no "Reagan Revolution." Any "revolution" in the direction of liberty (in Ronnie’s words "to get government off our backs") would reduce the total level of government spending. And that means reduce in absolute terms, not as proportion of the gross national product, or corrected for inflation, or anything else. There is no divine commandment that the federal government must always be at least as great a proportion of the national product as it was in 1980. If the government was a monstrous swollen Leviathan in 1980, as libertarians were surely convinced, as the inchoate American masses were apparently convinced and as Reagan and his cadre claimed to believe, then cutting government spending was in order. At the very least, federal government spending should have been frozen, in absolute terms, so that the rest of the economy would be allowed to grow in contrast. Instead, Ronald Reagan cut nothing, even in the heady first year, 1981.At first, the only "cut" was in Carter’s last-minute loony-tunes estimates for the future. But in a few short years, Reagan’s spending surpassed even Carter’s irresponsible estimates. Instead, Reagan not only increased government spending by an enormous amount – so enormous that it would take a 40 percent cut to bring us back to Carter’s wild spending totals of 1980 – he even substantially increased the percentage of government spending to GNP. That’s a "revolution"? The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion. Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time. Reagan’s handlers, as we have seen, annoyed by the stubborn old coot’s sticking to "no new taxes," finessed the old boy by simply calling the phenomenon by a different name. If the Gipper was addled enough to fall for this trick, so did the American masses – and a large chuck of libertarians and self-proclaimed free-market economists as well! "Let’s close another loophole, Mr. President." "We-e-ell, OK, then, so long as we’re not raising taxes." (Definition of loophole: Any and all money the other guy has earned and that hasn’t been taxed away yet. Your money, of course, has been fairly earned, and shouldn’t be taxed further.)"

  19. Dave Miller says:

    Soap, of course you are correct in your assessment of the Reagan record.However, don't expect any of the current crop of "conservative" thinkers to admit that. While I don't agree with your remedy, and stand firmly in the belief that at times, we need the scale of the Feds to do somethings, I love your efforts to be intellectually consistent.It is not a quality we see from many, myself included at times.It should be noted that for years, the right/conservative base of the GOP has shouted from the roof tops that we should not vote for Dems because they have no principles to which they adhere.You Paulistas at least have that going for you.

  20. soapster says:

    Thanx. Don't misunderstand us. I.deed there are things the federal government can do. However, they are a numbered few.

  21. Z says:

    Beth, extremely good analogy and nothing to do with broadstroking all liberals as rapists. (which is ridiculous)the black or white stuff going on in these comments is breath taking……..And, by the way, Reagan over Obama? OH MY GOD……oh, for those days.

  22. Beth says:

    Exactly, Z, the left thinks that the ends justify the means, and their sense of entitlement and instant gratification that excuses their wrongful behavior.Doug – ever since I graduated college and started my career over 20 years ago, I have proceeded with the assumption that social security and Medicare was going to be bankrupt by the time I would be eligible for it, so am I the only one bright enough in the last quarter century to figure this out and plan accordingly? And, nobody is going to fix it when it will cost them their votes, this is why the government should never have started those programs, because then they become political game pieces instead of actually beneficial programs. Which is why conservatives wants LESS government so they can't buy votes!Dave, what a deflection from my challenge, you cannot deny that the progressive tax is theft, can you? Really, you think that 47% of the population so poor that they cannot pay income taxes? How many of those 47% have cell phones I wonder?As for government regulations, as long as they protect a persons life, then I would agree they are necessary, but over-regulation hurts businesses and the economy. It is in a business's best interest to treat their employees and their customers well, or else they lose them. That is what the free market is all about, which means quality for all, why regulate when you have the free market able to dictate?

  23. soapster says:

    If taxation is theft, which of course it is, then the argument shouldn't be centered on the 47% who don't pay income taxes but instead on the 53% who unfortunately do.

  24. Dave Miller says:

    Beth, if progressive taxation is theft, then all taxation is theft.What is it about progressive taxation that makes it anymore theft like than a flat tax?If you believe that taxes are theft, then to be intellectually consistent, you should believe all taxes are theft.And of course, as Soap pointed out, you should be admiring the 53% who have managed to avoid having their money stolen at all.But all of this really misses the point. At least in my opinion, which as usual, may be wrong.I believe that efforts to boil our problems down to short, simple seemingly easy solutions are just not serious.The thought that there are some simple answers that the seemingly too dumb other side [which ever side that me be] just cannot see, is laughable.To advocate for solutions without taking into account the politics is not going to work. Which is why Ron Paul, sorry Soap, continues to struggle to get above the 10% level in most places.He may indeed have some good solutions, but he offers no political path to get them into law.Same thing with Dems who are trying to fix this solely with new taxes, and the GOP who fail to accept that we are going to have some new taxes.Beth, I remember one time I asked you to describe what an extreme right wing person would look like.Your response was along the lines of there can be no extreme right wing, because the right is right.It is that type thinking, rooted in black and white, where nothing the other side does is ever good, that is the root of the acrimony in the US.And it is rampant on both sides as can be seen at places like Huff Post, Media Matters, Meda Research Center and FOX News.All of those sites, and a large portion of the partisans that follow them, seem to be of the belief that no matter what, it is always best to portray the other side in the worst possible light.And of course, that is their right, but it does not help us move forward.And yes, as you have charged, I am a moderate, trying to see the good, and what's correct, on both sides.

  25. Beth says:

    Dave, it really is as simple as getting back to the basics of the Constitution, and I will never concede to today's leftists because what they want is so far removed from the Constitution that is makes me want to vomit.

  26. Dave Miller says:

    Yes Beth, let's go all the way back.3/5 laws, no women voting, no direct election of senators, no term limits on Presidents…Thankfully, we are a people who never saw that document as perfect…By the way, as Soap alluded, where in the Constitution does the US Government derive it's powers to purchase land and over throw democratically elected leaders in other countries?You see, liberals can just as easily find that conservatives also act outside of constitutional authority.It is so much easier to claim to be 100% right, or correct, than it is to seek common ground, for the common good.And yes, both sides are guilty, and unfortunately, they do not care to work together.

  27. Why don't the Wall Street (Hippo-crates) I mean Occupiers protest about the Big,Greedy, Hollywood Actors who make a Million dollars PLUS per movie or per TV episode, and do nothing else but bitch and moan about this country! . Or the salaries paid to Professional Athlete's, who earn Multi-million's a year only because they are 7 foot tall or can swing a bat or catch a football? And for that they have the gall to strike and ask for yet more! Is that not “Greed” Are they not Greedy and Overpaid.? Most of them are so stupid, that they couldn’t get a job at Walmart.

  28. Dave Miller says:

    Mal, they are not protesting high salaries. They are protesting a corporate takeover of the governmental process.High salaries perse are not the redl flash point, although they are part of the debate. My opinion of this crowd is that they are more concerned with "Crony Capitalism" something even the conservatives have railed against.

  29. They are protesting “corporate greed” and If I remember it correctly, the Guy in the White House guy is the one who bailed out the greedy banks and greedy corporations, is he not? So why not protest the White House? Who is the one that decides how much is too much? And isn’t true that without these so called greedy corporations the Fleabaggers wouldn’t have any jobs at all? The Socialist movement should be protesting against the government, the ones who bailed out the banks, and gave more and more to the “greedy corporations” and ruined the economy while doing so. Thats the real problem here, not the corporations, the corporations are not evil and they are not greedy. They are the backbone of America, the ones who create jobs and who put people to work. Where else do you want the jobs to come from. The government? Perhaps instead of making a mess in the streets by urinating and defecating these people should try running a business of their own and see how much is involved, with unions, and permits, and taxes, and people stealing from you, and working long hours, and wiping the noses of these whining protesters.

  30. Beth says:

    Sorry not not getting back to the comments this week, it has been an crazy one.Dave first. The amendments that ended slavery and gave women the right to vote were in line with the Constitution, in other words, they made sense; so when I said get back to the basics, I didn't mean to forgo amendments that are consistent with the Constitution. Socialism is not consistent with our Constitution.Mal, the protesters wouldn't have a clue how to run a business, which is why they want the government to take care of them, so they don't have to be responsible nor actually work.

  31. Dave Miller says:

    No Beth, they were not in line with the Constitution, they corrected faults in the constitution, or areas where people came to believe that the constitution was lacking…That is the very definition of an amendment…1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletionIf everything was perfect and without fault from the git go, why amendments?How do we determine just how far back we should go in getting back to the basics?

Thanks for joining in on the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s