Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure bill is the biggest public spending bonanza in decades. The student loan amnesty was a $300 billion public gift to core supporters. He’s proposing to increase the corporate tax rate to 28 per cent.
In Canada, Trudeau rolled back Harper’s planned increase to the age for OAS eligibility, and mandated increases to CPP contributions. We’re also going to see Canada follow suit with massive public spending on green industrial subsidies.
We certainly don’t hear anyone on the left or centre-left today calling for restraint in government spending.
Please take it elsewhere, this isn't a generic left v right discussion, it's about a very dangerous faction of people attempting to foist their dogma on society.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure bill is the biggest public spending bonanza in decades. The student loan amnesty was a $300 billion public gift to core supporters. He’s proposing to increase the corporate tax rate to 28 per cent.
In Canada, Trudeau rolled back Harper’s planned increase to the age for OAS eligibility, and mandated increases to CPP contributions. We’re also going to see Canada follow suit with massive public spending on green industrial subsidies.
We certainly don’t hear anyone on the left or centre-left today calling for restraint in government spending.
That Trillion dollar bill isn’t a left wing bill in sense though. It’s a wealth transfer from the public to corporations. Calling that a left wing bill is a perfect example of there not being a left. There is no United States Solar Panel Service.
You look at Trudeau’s “roll back” it was to the status quo. That again isn’t left. Left right now would be continuing the Covid UBis and expanding them to everyone. Nationalizing telecom because people are getting ripped off. Or even basic changes to union legislation or federal minimum wages.
Left in an environmental sense would be banning all sorts of oil, coal and LNG expansion not using market based subsidies.
And look at lack increases in corporate taxes or wealth transfer taxes. People don’t even know what the left looks like anymore.
The equivalent of the “Christofacists” is real communists who want to labour to control the means of production.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
The equivalent of the “Christofacists” is real communists who want to labour to control the means of production.
This is the key point. The "both sides" talk ignores the fact that only one side of the political spectrum allows these extremist loons to end up in positions where they can influence and enact their preferred policy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Left right now would be continuing the Covid UBis and expanding them to everyone. Nationalizing telecom because people are getting ripped off. Or even basic changes to union legislation or federal minimum wages.
Left in an environmental sense would be banning all sorts of oil, coal and LNG expansion not using market based subsidies.
The equivalent of the “Christofacists” is real communists who want to labour to control the means of production.
Oh yeah.. this is the good stuff.. hook it directly to my veins!
And kudos on actually understanding that real communists don't want the government to control the means of production. Love me a good ESOP or Co-op.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
That Trillion dollar bill isn’t a left wing bill in sense though. It’s a wealth transfer from the public to corporations. Calling that a left wing bill is a perfect example of there not being a left. There is no United States Solar Panel Service.
You look at Trudeau’s “roll back” it was to the status quo. That again isn’t left. Left right now would be continuing the Covid UBis and expanding them to everyone. Nationalizing telecom because people are getting ripped off. Or even basic changes to union legislation or federal minimum wages.
Left in an environmental sense would be banning all sorts of oil, coal and LNG expansion not using market based subsidies.
And look at lack increases in corporate taxes or wealth transfer taxes. People don’t even know what the left looks like anymore.
The equivalent of the “Christofacists” is real communists who want to labour to control the means of production.
I don't agree with this. The current paradigm has the labour parties aligned on the left. So spending that supports unions or government employees is left wing.
I guess at the end of the day, you could argue that the "true" left means only spending on social programs and environmentalism, but at the end of the day left/right wing is just a made up term anyways. And what "left wing" - in its initial and purest sense as it originated in the French Revolution - truly means is opposition to existing institutions without any specific ties to any ideologies. Theoretically, the left wing should be in a constant state of change. As ideologies that used to be left wing get their own embedded institutions, the left wing should turn on those ideologies and take a newer stance pushing for individual freedom from those institutions.
The idea that you are "left wing" merely because you oppose one set of institutions (big business, the church, ect...) with your own institutions (unions, environmental/human rights lobbyists, etc) is incorrect.
I want a fiscal right, social left, and science-driven (rather than religious/superstitious) policy making. Is that so hard?
What is "fiscal right" though? Is that low taxes at any cost? Because that requires spending cuts that hurt the lower classes. Is it cutting bloat from government spending? I can't think of a single conservative government which that would actually apply to
The term fiscal conservative is something we hear a lot of, but we never get any actual positive examples. Yet somehow millions of people in this country and around the world continue to believe that conservatives are better with money, despite countless stories showing the exact opposite
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
I don't agree with this. The current paradigm has the labour parties aligned on the left. So spending that supports unions or government employees is left wing.
I guess at the end of the day, you could argue that the "true" left means only spending on social programs and environmentalism, but at the end of the day left/right wing is just a made up term anyways. And what "left wing" - in its initial and purest sense as it originated in the French Revolution - truly means is opposition to existing institutions without any specific ties to any ideologies. Theoretically, the left wing should be in a constant state of change. As ideologies that used to be left wing get their own embedded institutions, the left wing should turn on those ideologies and take a newer stance pushing for individual freedom from those institutions.
The idea that you are "left wing" merely because you oppose one set of institutions (big business, the church, ect...) with your own institutions (unions, environmental/human rights lobbyists, etc) is incorrect.
Not really.
You can't on one hand suggest that "left wing" has a fluid definition and on the other try to define "left wing" in its most original form possible (which also happens to be incorrect).
Left wing, originally, was against the monarchy, religion, and an economic system purposefully designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer (sound familiar?). They were for democracy and secularisation. Suggesting that left wing is actually just against any institution at all isn't based on any historical fact or observable truth.
Though evolved, "left wing" still holds many of the same motives it always did. And certainly, by today's definition, someone who is against big business/the church and for worker's rights and human rights would be considered "left wing," regardless of whatever definition you're using (though I would recommend using today's definition today).
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
You can't on one hand suggest that "left wing" has a fluid definition and on the other try to define "left wing" in its most original form possible (which also happens to be incorrect).
Left wing, originally, was against the monarchy, religion, and an economic system purposefully designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer (sound familiar?). They were for democracy and secularisation. Suggesting that left wing is actually just against any institution at all isn't based on any historical fact or observable truth.
Though evolved, "left wing" still holds many of the same motives it always did. And certainly, by today's definition, someone who is against big business/the church and for worker's rights and human rights would be considered "left wing," regardless of whatever definition you're using (though I would recommend using today's definition today).
If you wanted to try to break it down, really the left is progressive and the right is conservative.
A left outlook isn't simply to oppose institutions, it is to progress them. Like you said, it was a push from the status quo (monarchy) towards something more inclusive (democracy). The right is more "don't rock the boat" or "if it ain't broke don't fix it". And even there I think "Progressive" vs "Conservative" is more apt today than Left v Right.
And we see that in modern politics, particularly on the right hand of the spectrum and why I see less and less conservatism from conservative parties. Locke has said many times Fiscal Conservatism is dead, because most conservatism is dead.
A conservative isn't against "big government", they are against "wasteful government". They aren't about giving tax breaks, they are about ensuring the tax rates can match the services required for the people to maintain their status quo. Mulroney is the one who brought in the GST in order to ensure there was enough money to maintain services. He would also prudently cut where available, but it was never the clear cutting we saw in the 90s from Chretien or Klein.
It is the rise of Neoliberalism, not only as economic policy, but as public policy overall that has lead to the rise of current right wing thinking. It wasn't classic conservatives that were dumping all of the Crown Corporations for a quick buck, they would be protecting our institutions from change. It was the new right wing reformers who were looking to break the current system, not conserve it.
The left's progress also is for more individual freedoms and rights. Sure, we need to protect society, which is why the left is stronger on gun control and against that freedom, but when it comes to practicing religion, customs, going against the norms of society, the left embraces individual freedom. Look at all fights for equity and you see the left trying to progress society through changes to those institutions. We fight for union rights, because unions protect workers from exploitation. Unions are a progress from the total control business had in the 19th century.
To swing this back to the Christofascists - what they are doing is "right wing" but I wouldn't call it conservative. They are looking to break current societal norms, not for progress and individual rights and freedoms, but in order to establish an archaic system that focuses on living strictly to a novel a couple thousand years old. They are outside of the Liberal/Conservative Left/Right paradigm and are part of this change that occurred in the 80s in the states and the 90s in Canada. It is not conservative and not progressive, it is regressive and a party wanting to bring back "the good ole days" where women had no rights and stayed in the kitchen baking pies. TBA and the TeaParty are no different.
If I was a conservative I would be very worried that their type of ideology has found a home in my party and are pushing policies that are not conservative at all, they are self serving in a way that will be a detriment to most of society.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
You can't on one hand suggest that "left wing" has a fluid definition and on the other try to define "left wing" in its most original form possible (which also happens to be incorrect).
I didn't suggest the definition was fluid, only that the organizations and potentially ideologies they support are fluid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Left wing, originally, was against the monarchy, religion, and an economic system purposefully designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer (sound familiar?). They were for democracy and secularisation. Suggesting that left wing is actually just against any institution at all isn't based on any historical fact or observable truth.
I disagree somewhat. The left wing was also opposed to the many institutions that supported the institutions in power at the time.
They were definitely for democracy. However, they would also be opposed to secularist groups who supported the ruling institutions, of which there were and are many.
They also promoted secularism of government, which is totally different than supporting pure secularism. The initial left wing supported freedom of religion, not atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Though evolved, "left wing" still holds many of the same motives it always did. And certainly, by today's definition, someone who is against big business/the church and for worker's rights and human rights would be considered "left wing," regardless of whatever definition you're using (though I would recommend using today's definition today).
I don't disagree. Once again, the term left wing has now just become part of the left/right dichotomy and often holds little resemblance to its initial intention.
I tend to use 'progressives' and 'reactionaries' instead. I agree with many folks on here who say that 'Conservatism' as classically thought is not the policies or the intent of folks like TBA or what has become the base of the Republicans in the US.
__________________
"The Oilers are like a buffet with one tray of off-brand mac-and-cheese and the rest of it is weird Jell-O."
Greg Wyshynski, ESPN
So... this thread is basically just about branding, yes?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I tend to use 'progressives' and 'reactionaries' instead. I agree with many folks on here who say that 'Conservatism' as classically thought is not the policies or the intent of folks like TBA or what has become the base of the Republicans in the US.
Agreed. Gone are the days where "Conservatives" push for things like creating national parks.
So... this thread is basically just about branding, yes?
Apparently no one actually cares about insane people following millennia old writings and foisting them upon the rest of society "for our own good," so ya, may as well let Cliff ruin another thread.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Apparently no one actually cares about insane people following millennia old writings and foisting them upon the rest of society "for our own good," so ya, may as well let Cliff ruin another thread.
Give him a break, it has been a while since he’s had the chance to.
At least he didn’t go with “Christofascists have some good ideas.”
Apparently no one actually cares about insane people following millennia old writings and foisting them upon the rest of society "for our own good," so ya, may as well let Cliff ruin another thread.
Apparently no one actually cares about insane people following millennia old writings and foisting them upon the rest of society "for our own good," so ya, may as well let Cliff ruin another thread.
Maybe part of the 1.3m dollar spend is on disrupting Calgary message boards.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
