one wing, two wings, right wing, left wing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 11 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]284551[/snapback]</div>

Well I'm not sure about that. It's my opinion that the "left wing" (as you state) is more interested in creating a environment where those that are not quite as fortunate have an opprotunity to rise above their station through the help of government programs.

While the "right wing" (as you state) agenda is more directed at making sure that as much of the available wealth as possible moves into the hands of the wealthy on the theory that they will use it to the benefit of those that are not as fortunate [Reagan's trickle down theory].

Trickle down is solely based on the altruism of the wealthy and, while there are some who follow this approch, the majority are usually interested only in amassing wealth. I like the recent point that Warren Buffet made when he said something to the effect [paraphrased] "the happen stance of womb shouldn't detemerine how well you succeed in your life" when he was asked why he didn't leave it all to his children.

FDR understood the "left wing" agenda was the way for everyone to benefit, including the wealthy. If you don't have consumers then all that money you have invested has no value except as numbers in a book. I cannot locate the quote but he was asked why the Republicans fought so hard against the New Deal and he said something like, "they just don't understand how much money they will make by the creation of consumers that will result from my [Roosevelt's] programs". I especially like this quote, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little." - FDR

I do not advocate giving money to people just for the sake of giving money but I happily pay taxes when I am sure that the money is used to benefit the common good. I decry paying taxes when all it does is put money into the pockets of corporations through tax incentives/cuts and they do little to return the investment the people are making to the people in the way of opprotunity.

Right now the social contract is broken and unless it gets fixed everyone, including the wealthy, will suffer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 11 2006, 03:41 PM) [snapback]284551[/snapback]</div>

While I agree with the first one, the second is illogical...There IS no wealth to transfer from the poor to the rich. What you mean to say is the right wing agenda is to KEEP their wealth.

Not that I agree with that....but it is where you are going with this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jul 11 2006, 08:24 PM) [snapback]284766[/snapback]</div>

Bullfeathers!!! All wealth is created by labor. And it's the working class who work. Every economic system sets up a structure whereby the product of that labor (the wealth) is divided up one way or another.

The agenda of the socialists (on the left) is to see that the workers keep all that wealth. The agenda of liberals (who neo-cons refer to as "the left") is to see that the workers keep enough of that wealth that they can live a dignified life on their share. And the agenda of the right is to get as much of that wealth as possible away from the workers and transfer it to the rich, leaving the workers with just barely enough that they continue working. To that end, conservatives oppose minimum wage laws and unions, since both tend to raise wages.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 11 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]284551[/snapback]</div>

Typical bumper-sticker sophomoric opinion, devoid of critical thinking. I expected better from you.

 

Last time I checked, both wings do a pretty good job of keeping wealth!

I'm pretty fed up with both sides! Time for something new! Prius driver's unite!

Oh yea, we Prius driver's can sometimes barely agree on things like tire pressure...politics...we'd be in big trouble - LOL!