“It’s going to take a crisis”: Why Republicans have a stranglehold on U.S. politics

Salon ^ | February 11, 2015 | Elias Isquith

[PGalt]

Great post in a great thread. BTTT!

[theBuckwheat]

It is going to take a crisis, so leftists can lie their way to more entrenched power for themselves and less liberty for everyone else.

This is why the left must gain control over the internet, but controlling the wires and fiber lines still doesn’t get them much further to controlling what people can read and what they can say to each other.

Truth is the real enemy to liberalism, which is by its very nature anti-truth. Anit-truth about how the free market works, anti-truth about the necessity of honest money, and anti-truth about liberty.

Happily, the truth cannot be silenced and the more people who get exposed to the truth as it bobs like a cork in the ocean of liberal lies, the more people who come to grasp the truth and reject the lies. It is a victory for every aspect of liberalism a person rejects. For example, how many people today consider themselves to be socially liberal yet fiscally conservative? Even one of the evil Koch brothers describes himself as such. Well, liberal programs are always money-wasters, they are never “sustainable”, a concept that liberals love to scold the rest of us about.

We may actually be experiencing “peak liberalism”. Which makes me happy. Yet, I beg anyone who considers themselves to be “conservative” to think deeply about what, exactly, they seek to conserve and why. Some of the values are godly, and some are not. For example, some conservatives relish in a government that is big enough that it can shape society according to what conservatives approve of. That is a government that is big enough to also shape society according to what leftists approve of should they be able to seize power in the future.

Above all, conservatives should be seeking to maximize liberty and that means we need to cut, cut and cut government so it can protect our liberty but not threaten it.

[thirst4truth]

"I haven't looked at Staples stock lately or what the compensation of the CEO is, but I suspect that they could well afford to treat their workers favorably and give them some basic financial security," BHO said.

I know this is what we don't want.

[thirst4truth]

I am encouraged lately as they (obama and his “girls”)are going to have to really step things up if they are going to complete America’s destruction. I get the sense that most of us are not going down without a fight and 2010 and 2014 proved it!

[Buckeye McFrog]

We may actually be experiencing “peak liberalism”.

Only if we can convince the unwashed majority that free-market capitalist economics are still the best option for them. At the moment I don't think they are buying it.

[greeneyes]

Marx was a putz.

[greeneyes]

middle class vs working class?
He means salaried workers vs hourly wage workers.

-PJ
*******************************************************
The he should say what he means. Even then, it is a false narrative. I have known quite a few middle class salaried workers/supervisors whose salary was actually less than the hourly wage workers they were supervising.

Like I said, the majority of the people either work and produce, or don’t work and depend on the workers to support them. Makers or Takers.

[Political Junkie Too]

His point was that salaried workers feel more personally connected to the companies than wage workers, which is why they relate more to big business and Wall Street issues. Many salaried workers participate in 40(k) plans made up of company stock, and naturally want to see that stock do well.

-PJ

[greeneyes]

And my point was that he used a poor choice of words, because they both work.

[Political Junkie Too]

But they don't have the same sense of loyalty and identification with the company, he says.

-PJ

[greeneyes]

So what! That’s totally irrelevant to the point I was making. People work or they don’t. People are producers or takers.

I am sick and tired of hearing about “working families” as if the only people that work are hourly wage employees or union members.

I don’t give a rip who they are loyal to as if it was as simple as whether they are an exempt or not exempt employee. The absolute only comment I was making was as to the choice of words.

I was not attempting to make any comment to do with loyalties or any thing else-got it?

[Political Junkie Too]

What I get is that we are discussing the AUTHOR's points which he backs up with statistics. I also get that you disagree, emotionally. I was clarifying the author's point in response to you first post.

-PJ

[greeneyes]

No WE are not discussing the author's points. YOU are. As I have explained before, I am not. The only comment I had was pertaining to a choice of words, which Dems often use and I particularly dislike.

Using the words working people to refer to salaried employees and union members as if other people don't work is a smear to all the other people who work, instead of sitting back and living on the dole.

I understood the author's point from the git go. I did not wish to make any comment about the worth of that assertion, just the choice of words.

If you like the word choice, fine. I don't.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Using the words working people to refer to salaried employees and union members as if other people don’t work is a smear to all the other people who work, instead of sitting back and living on the dole.” <<

.
You’re too sensitive.

“Working people” simply means those that are fully dependent on the income from their job.

.

[trisham]

I hear you, and I agree.

[tanknetter]

First, the guy completely validates the TEA Party, which has a primary emphasis on taxation and overspending.

Second, he talks up the need for some sort of crisis to shake things up, in the Dems favor. Which amounts to a yearning for a Cloward-Pivenesque outcome.

[greeneyes]

Thanks trisham!

[NorthMountain]

It should be the working classes vs the taking classes(ie the productive vs the non productive).

Classifying people by amount of wealth is part of marxist dialectic materialism. I agree ... classifying people by how they behave (ie makers vs takers) makes a lot more sense.

[greeneyes]

You’re too sensitive.

“Working people” simply means those that are fully dependent on the income from their job.
************************************************************
LOL. Typical dismissive response to avoid ramifications of words. Words matter. “Working people” means all working people.

So just say low income people totally dependent on the income from their jobs, or low income people, with no savings, and no discretionary income for a couple of examples.

[greeneyes]

Thanks for your response.