Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Are you Progressive or Regressive?

Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 2:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A quote from Robert Reich:

What"s the difference between progressives and their opposite " regressives? Progressives believe we"re all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure, and from efforts to reverse climate change. We all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a progressive tax system. Progressives worry that the middle class is shrinking, a quarter of our nation"s children are poor, and the rich and privileged have become powerful enough to undermine our democracy. The issue for progressives isn"t the size of government; it"s who government is for: It should be for all of us, not a privileged few.

Regressives take the opposite positions. They believe each of us is on his or her own: Investments in schools or health care or infrastructure are better done through private individuals and corporations than government. Safety nets coddle the weak. Those who are losing ground lack adequate education and ambition, and must learn to take responsibility for themselves. Those who are thriving are entitled to their rewards; constraints and taxes on them only reduce their incentive to invest. They have every right to their disproportionate power and influence. Regressives want to take us back to 19th century social Darwinism.

So which are you?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 6:30:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 2:43:57 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A quote from Robert Reich:

What"s the difference between progressives and their opposite " regressives? Progressives believe we"re all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure, and from efforts to reverse climate change. We all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a progressive tax system. Progressives worry that the middle class is shrinking, a quarter of our nation"s children are poor, and the rich and privileged have become powerful enough to undermine our democracy. The issue for progressives isn"t the size of government; it"s who government is for: It should be for all of us, not a privileged few.

Government should only protect a person's negative rights, and not impose duties on created positive rights.

Regressives take the opposite positions. They believe each of us is on his or her own: Investments in schools or health care or infrastructure are better done through private individuals and corporations than government. Safety nets coddle the weak. Those who are losing ground lack adequate education and ambition, and must learn to take responsibility for themselves. Those who are thriving are entitled to their rewards; constraints and taxes on them only reduce their incentive to invest. They have every right to their disproportionate power and influence. Regressives want to take us back to 19th century social Darwinism.

So which are you?

Progressive are even more regresssive.

The results of progressives are very regressive, taking America back to the pre-revolution 18th century, where the state was the ultimate authority and could not be questioned.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 6:44:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 6:30:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:

Progressive are even more regresssive.

The results of progressives are very regressive, taking America back to the pre-revolution 18th century, where the state was the ultimate authority and could not be questioned.

Lol what? Progresivism challenged the unquestionable authority of industry. Without the early progressive movement things like sick leave and 40 hour work weak wouldn't exist. Workers rights in general wouldn't exist!
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:02:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I love me some false dichotomies
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:06:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 6:44:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:30:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:

Progressive are even more regresssive.

The results of progressives are very regressive, taking America back to the pre-revolution 18th century, where the state was the ultimate authority and could not be questioned.

Lol what? Progresivism challenged the unquestionable authority of industry. Without the early progressive movement things like sick leave and 40 hour work weak wouldn't exist. Workers rights in general wouldn't exist!

The progressive movement reliance on authoritarian government is extremely regressive. Government enforcement of worker benefits does not help workers, let workers negotiate their own employment terms.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:13:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:06:15 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:44:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:30:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:

Progressive are even more regresssive.

The results of progressives are very regressive, taking America back to the pre-revolution 18th century, where the state was the ultimate authority and could not be questioned.

Lol what? Progresivism challenged the unquestionable authority of industry. Without the early progressive movement things like sick leave and 40 hour work weak wouldn't exist. Workers rights in general wouldn't exist!

The progressive movement reliance on authoritarian government is extremely regressive. Government enforcement of worker benefits does not help workers, let workers negotiate their own employment terms.

Again I say, lol what? Let workers negotiate there own terms? A single worker has no bargaining power against a corporation. It's like you folks have no idea what the industrial era was like for the working class that started the progressive movement in the first place. So what if people turn to the government to level the playing field a bit and lessen exploitation? Do you think the companies themselves are going to do it? Of course not.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:50:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:06:15 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:44:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:30:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:

Progressive are even more regresssive.

The results of progressives are very regressive, taking America back to the pre-revolution 18th century, where the state was the ultimate authority and could not be questioned.

Lol what? Progresivism challenged the unquestionable authority of industry. Without the early progressive movement things like sick leave and 40 hour work weak wouldn't exist. Workers rights in general wouldn't exist!

The progressive movement reliance on authoritarian government is extremely regressive. Government enforcement of worker benefits does not help workers, let workers negotiate their own employment terms.

As rrgressives fight tooth and nail against labor unions and for misnamed "right to work ' legislation
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people
2. This was done without substantial influence from big business
3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 8:04:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people

Example is Henry Clay's tarriff system to protect favored businesses. These ideas were adopted by Lincoln and further by the progressive movement.

2. This was done without substantial influence from big business

3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.

That is easy, Henry Clay's tariff system to protect favored industries in the name of the people was the grandfather of today's progressive crony capitalism. A system that the free individual is replaced be the good of a few that can influence those in political power.

http://www.senate.gov...
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 9:42:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:04:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people

Example is Henry Clay's tarriff system to protect favored businesses. These ideas were adopted by Lincoln and further by the progressive movement.

2. This was done without substantial influence from big business

3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.

That is easy, Henry Clay's tariff system to protect favored industries in the name of the people was the grandfather of today's progressive crony capitalism. A system that the free individual is replaced be the good of a few that can influence those in political power.

http://www.senate.gov...

Interesting-- could you further expand on this as it relates to empowerment of big business over the American people?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 9:59:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 9:42:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:04:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people

Example is Henry Clay's tarriff system to protect favored businesses. These ideas were adopted by Lincoln and further by the progressive movement.

2. This was done without substantial influence from big business

3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.

That is easy, Henry Clay's tariff system to protect favored industries in the name of the people was the grandfather of today's progressive crony capitalism. A system that the free individual is replaced be the good of a few that can influence those in political power.

http://www.senate.gov...

Interesting-- could you further expand on this as it relates to empowerment of big business over the American people?

Henry Clay's support of tariffs to protect favored industries to maintain jobs in certain areas, thus more voters in district to keep the money coming, or in other words progressive crony capitalism. These tariffs caused prices for those goods to be higher for every American in protection of a few jobs and companies. This protectionism of a handful of industries demonstrated to other politicians that rent seeking could be utilized as political power.

Rent-seeking is another aspect of progressive policies. Progressives use governmental powers to extract money for groups that provide no benefit to others, that is noncompetitive companies.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:20:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Socialism sounds very similar to feudalism. Just more kitten smiles and rainbow hugs promised.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:29:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 10:20:20 PM, Skynet wrote:
Socialism sounds very similar to feudalism. Just more kitten smiles and rainbow hugs promised.

You must not understand socialism or feudalism to make this comparison.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:38:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 10:29:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:20:20 PM, Skynet wrote:
Socialism sounds very similar to feudalism. Just more kitten smiles and rainbow hugs promised.

You must not understand socialism or feudalism to make this comparison.

You must not understand "regressives" to make the this thread.

As a conservative, neither view you quoted above fits mine. It is typical for people to attribute bad motives to their adversaries.

Feudalism was invasive state control over the commoner "for their own good." Socialism is the same basic idea.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:43:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 9:59:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:42:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:04:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people

Example is Henry Clay's tarriff system to protect favored businesses. These ideas were adopted by Lincoln and further by the progressive movement.

2. This was done without substantial influence from big business

3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.

That is easy, Henry Clay's tariff system to protect favored industries in the name of the people was the grandfather of today's progressive crony capitalism. A system that the free individual is replaced be the good of a few that can influence those in political power.

http://www.senate.gov...

Interesting-- could you further expand on this as it relates to empowerment of big business over the American people?

Henry Clay's support of tariffs to protect favored industries to maintain jobs in certain areas, thus more voters in district to keep the money coming, or in other words progressive crony capitalism. These tariffs caused prices for those goods to be higher for every American in protection of a few jobs and companies. This protectionism of a handful of industries demonstrated to other politicians that rent seeking could be utilized as political power.

This has the potential to be very interesting for me because it is a piece of history on the issue that I have never examined before. But you are using phrases that don't seem to square solidly with what little background I have looked into, and they have a bit too much of an agendist tone:

"Favored industries"-- Clay was from Kentucky. Why would he favor northern industrialism over southern cotton?

"Certain areas"-- Clay sought to harmonize all aspects of the US economy. His tariffs, the most controversial part of his "American System," helped northern industry as whole, but he also wanted to build more roads that would also help the agrarian south. Even the agrarian west signed on to the package. How does all this-- even if it were solely the north that benefited-- constitute "certain areas"?

"Voters in the district"-- Clay's plan helped northern industry the most. How was he just catering to voters in Kentucky?

"Progressive crony capitalism"-- are you being purposefully redundant here, or do you acknowledge that cronyism isn't a problem unique to progressivism?

"a few jobs and companies"-- I don't see how all of northern industry comprises just "a few jobs."

"Political power"-- President Quincy Adams, who signed on to Clay's program, knew that it would cost him the presidency, and it did. Not only is this a sign of principle over cronyism, it is contrary to an example of a political power play.

Rent-seeking is another aspect of progressive policies. Progressives use governmental powers to extract money for groups that provide no benefit to others, that is noncompetitive companies.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 11:10:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 10:38:32 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:29:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:20:20 PM, Skynet wrote:
Socialism sounds very similar to feudalism. Just more kitten smiles and rainbow hugs promised.

You must not understand socialism or feudalism to make this comparison.

You must not understand "regressives" to make the this thread.

My understanding is irrelevant (although adequate for this thread), I was quoting Robert Reich.

As a conservative, neither view you quoted above fits mine. It is typical for people to attribute bad motives to their adversaries.

Feudalism was invasive state control over the commoner "for their own good." Socialism is the same basic idea.

And you've proven you know not the difference. To say feudalism was a system of invasive state control makes no sense seeing how the conception of the state did not exist. Furthermore, just because a king calls upon the divine right of kings to rule as commanded by god, doesn't mean that king supports socialist policies like universal healthcare and education.

But do you want to hear a comparison? Conservatism is like feudalism. Both empower the upper classes to lord over modern wage surfs. Both systems place a high emphasis on the authority of the church. And both are repressive of new and unorthodox views that challenge the status quo.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 11:21:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The whole idea is nonsense. Civilization doesn't 'progress' towards anything, it just changes, in myriad subtle ways, many of which involve politics. The whole idea of being 'progressive' is just a galvanizing slogan for one type of mass movement, the other side of the paligenetic ultranationalism which is the beating heart of fascism. Both are illusory and lead to bad decisions.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 12:37:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 10:43:18 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:59:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:42:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:04:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people

Example is Henry Clay's tarriff system to protect favored businesses. These ideas were adopted by Lincoln and further by the progressive movement.

2. This was done without substantial influence from big business

3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.

That is easy, Henry Clay's tariff system to protect favored industries in the name of the people was the grandfather of today's progressive crony capitalism. A system that the free individual is replaced be the good of a few that can influence those in political power.

http://www.senate.gov...

Interesting-- could you further expand on this as it relates to empowerment of big business over the American people?

Henry Clay's support of tariffs to protect favored industries to maintain jobs in certain areas, thus more voters in district to keep the money coming, or in other words progressive crony capitalism. These tariffs caused prices for those goods to be higher for every American in protection of a few jobs and companies. This protectionism of a handful of industries demonstrated to other politicians that rent seeking could be utilized as political power.

This has the potential to be very interesting for me because it is a piece of history on the issue that I have never examined before. But you are using phrases that don't seem to square solidly with what little background I have looked into, and they have a bit too much of an agendist tone:

An accurate description, not a tone.

"Favored industries"-- Clay was from Kentucky. Why would he favor northern industrialism over southern cotton?

Kentucky was not a cotton state.


"Certain areas"-- Clay sought to harmonize all aspects of the US economy. His tariffs, the most controversial part of his "American System," helped northern industry as whole, but he also wanted to build more roads that would also help the agrarian south. Even the agrarian west signed on to the package. How does all this-- even if it were solely the north that benefited-- constitute "certain areas"?

His agenda had pieces for many. Progressive learned how to use these ideas. Today's democrat party is a coalition of groups with ideas that are not always compatible, but government freebies are supported by all in the coalition.


"Voters in the district"-- Clay's plan helped northern industry the most. How was he just catering to voters in Kentucky?

"Progressive crony capitalism"-- are you being purposefully redundant here, or do you acknowledge that cronyism isn't a problem unique to progressivism?

Crony capitalist are in both major political parties, but much worse in the progressive movement, especially green energy and union dominated industries.

"a few jobs and companies"-- I don't see how all of northern industry comprises just "a few jobs."

People outside of those northern industries should not have been force to pay higher prices to protect those inefficient companies.

"Political power"-- President Quincy Adams, who signed on to Clay's program, knew that it would cost him the presidency, and it did. Not only is this a sign of principle over cronyism, it is contrary to an example of a political power play.

Henry Clay's ideas established principles of government economic intervention, that today's progressives exploit for regressive purposes.


Rent-seeking is another aspect of progressive policies. Progressives use governmental powers to extract money for groups that provide no benefit to others, that is noncompetitive companies.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 12:59:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 12:37:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:43:18 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:59:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:42:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:04:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people

Example is Henry Clay's tarriff system to protect favored businesses. These ideas were adopted by Lincoln and further by the progressive movement.

2. This was done without substantial influence from big business

3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.

That is easy, Henry Clay's tariff system to protect favored industries in the name of the people was the grandfather of today's progressive crony capitalism. A system that the free individual is replaced be the good of a few that can influence those in political power.

http://www.senate.gov...

Interesting-- could you further expand on this as it relates to empowerment of big business over the American people?

Henry Clay's support of tariffs to protect favored industries to maintain jobs in certain areas, thus more voters in district to keep the money coming, or in other words progressive crony capitalism. These tariffs caused prices for those goods to be higher for every American in protection of a few jobs and companies. This protectionism of a handful of industries demonstrated to other politicians that rent seeking could be utilized as political power.

This has the potential to be very interesting for me because it is a piece of history on the issue that I have never examined before. But you are using phrases that don't seem to square solidly with what little background I have looked into, and they have a bit too much of an agendist tone:

An accurate description, not a tone.

I disagree. Your choice of words does not give a sense of even an attempt at objectivity regarding the history.

"Favored industries"-- Clay was from Kentucky. Why would he favor northern industrialism over southern cotton?

Kentucky was not a cotton state.


"Certain areas"-- Clay sought to harmonize all aspects of the US economy. His tariffs, the most controversial part of his "American System," helped northern industry as whole, but he also wanted to build more roads that would also help the agrarian south. Even the agrarian west signed on to the package. How does all this-- even if it were solely the north that benefited-- constitute "certain areas"?

His agenda had pieces for many. Progressive learned how to use these ideas. Today's democrat party is a coalition of groups with ideas that are not always compatible, but government freebies are supported by all in the coalition.


"Voters in the district"-- Clay's plan helped northern industry the most. How was he just catering to voters in Kentucky?

"Progressive crony capitalism"-- are you being purposefully redundant here, or do you acknowledge that cronyism isn't a problem unique to progressivism?

Crony capitalist are in both major political parties, but much worse in the progressive movement, especially green energy and union dominated industries.

"a few jobs and companies"-- I don't see how all of northern industry comprises just "a few jobs."

People outside of those northern industries should not have been force to pay higher prices to protect those inefficient companies.

"Political power"-- President Quincy Adams, who signed on to Clay's program, knew that it would cost him the presidency, and it did. Not only is this a sign of principle over cronyism, it is contrary to an example of a political power play.

Henry Clay's ideas established principles of government economic intervention, that today's progressives exploit for regressive purposes.



Rent-seeking is another aspect of progressive policies. Progressives use governmental powers to extract money for groups that provide no benefit to others, that is noncompetitive companies.

No tariffs at all would have cost US consumers less, but at the expense of enriching foreign companies instead of US ones. This would have led to the loss of more than "a few jobs." Even when Jackson got elected, he didn't do as much about the tariffs as his voters hoped. His opposition to Adams was at least as much personal as it was ideological.

This is an interesting bit of economic history you bring up, but it seems more of a northern industrial economy vs. southern agrarian economy dichotomy rather than progressive vs. laissez faire economics. Even in the latter dichotomy, it is a continuum rather than either/or. Extremes have not worked historically...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 1:55:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I love the neutral language of Progressive or Regressive. Perhaps I should use the term freedom-lovers and freedom-haters.

Freedom-lovers believe that people have the right to their own self-determination and ownersnhip of body. Freedom-haters believe other people's incomes are their own.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 3:44:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 12:59:24 AM, Fly wrote:
At 3/4/2015 12:37:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:43:18 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:59:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:42:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:04:28 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:50:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:19:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:02:44 PM, Fly wrote:
Progressive thought leads to the people being the ultimate authority. Conservative thought leads to big business being the ultimate authority.

if you had to choose would you not prefer the people over big business?

The power of the free individual over both.

Big business is only powerful due to government enforcement of crony capitalist policies is the name of the people.

This sentence leaves some things to be substantiated:

1. Historically, US government first empowered big business over the people

Example is Henry Clay's tarriff system to protect favored businesses. These ideas were adopted by Lincoln and further by the progressive movement.

2. This was done without substantial influence from big business

3. #1 was done in "the name of the people"

Good luck with that.

That is easy, Henry Clay's tariff system to protect favored industries in the name of the people was the grandfather of today's progressive crony capitalism. A system that the free individual is replaced be the good of a few that can influence those in political power.

http://www.senate.gov...

Interesting-- could you further expand on this as it relates to empowerment of big business over the American people?

Henry Clay's support of tariffs to protect favored industries to maintain jobs in certain areas, thus more voters in district to keep the money coming, or in other words progressive crony capitalism. These tariffs caused prices for those goods to be higher for every American in protection of a few jobs and companies. This protectionism of a handful of industries demonstrated to other politicians that rent seeking could be utilized as political power.

This has the potential to be very interesting for me because it is a piece of history on the issue that I have never examined before. But you are using phrases that don't seem to square solidly with what little background I have looked into, and they have a bit too much of an agendist tone:

An accurate description, not a tone.

I disagree. Your choice of words does not give a sense of even an attempt at objectivity regarding the history.

"Favored industries"-- Clay was from Kentucky. Why would he favor northern industrialism over southern cotton?

Kentucky was not a cotton state.


"Certain areas"-- Clay sought to harmonize all aspects of the US economy. His tariffs, the most controversial part of his "American System," helped northern industry as whole, but he also wanted to build more roads that would also help the agrarian south. Even the agrarian west signed on to the package. How does all this-- even if it were solely the north that benefited-- constitute "certain areas"?

His agenda had pieces for many. Progressive learned how to use these ideas. Today's democrat party is a coalition of groups with ideas that are not always compatible, but government freebies are supported by all in the coalition.


"Voters in the district"-- Clay's plan helped northern industry the most. How was he just catering to voters in Kentucky?

"Progressive crony capitalism"-- are you being purposefully redundant here, or do you acknowledge that cronyism isn't a problem unique to progressivism?

Crony capitalist are in both major political parties, but much worse in the progressive movement, especially green energy and union dominated industries.

"a few jobs and companies"-- I don't see how all of northern industry comprises just "a few jobs."

People outside of those northern industries should not have been force to pay higher prices to protect those inefficient companies.

"Political power"-- President Quincy Adams, who signed on to Clay's program, knew that it would cost him the presidency, and it did. Not only is this a sign of principle over cronyism, it is contrary to an example of a political power play.

Henry Clay's ideas established principles of government economic intervention, that today's progressives exploit for regressive purposes.



Rent-seeking is another aspect of progressive policies. Progressives use governmental powers to extract money for groups that provide no benefit to others, that is noncompetitive companies.

No tariffs at all would have cost US consumers less, but at the expense of enriching foreign companies instead of US ones. This would have led to the loss of more than "a few jobs." Even when Jackson got elected, he didn't do as much about the tariffs as his voters hoped. His opposition to Adams was at least as much personal as it was ideological.

This is an interesting bit of economic history you bring up, but it seems more of a northern industrial economy vs. southern agrarian economy dichotomy rather than progressive vs. laissez faire economics. Even in the latter dichotomy, it is a continuum rather than either/or. Extremes have not worked historically...

The OP was attempting to frame opposition to today's progressives as regressive, my original point was today's progressives are the true regressives, by taking America back to an authoritarian system.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.