What are the goals and objectives of American liberalism?

Ok.... that is an interesting premise. So you believe that people should not be allowed (by the govt) to become too wealthy, because if they become too wealthy it is bad for society. I might ask you two questions then. And really.. I am interested in your thoughts...

1. Why exactly is it bad for people to be too wealthy for a society? Do you believe there is only a finite amount of money in the US, and that for every dollar a wealthy person earns is one that a poorer person is unable to earn because it is not there anymore for them?

2. If I accept your premise that it IS bad for society when too few people become too wealthy, could you define for me: How many is too few? and How much is too wealthy? I mean if this is the liberal goal... then I would sort of want to know how you would define victory (in numbers rather than a gut feeling), so you would know it when you got there. As in..... if no in the US made more than $X/year, then you goal has been achieved.... or at least you would be satisfied with the way it is...

Thanks....

 

To progress...

to what, who knows.

 

Liberty and justice for all.

 

I don't buy into all that finger pointing bs news media propaganda. The real problems is simple people being duped by BS to keep the same fools in the senate and house. Jumping on a band wagon and not knowing the details of what you are getting into is not wise. It does not show that people that you understand what is going on. I refuse to be duped in to political party finger pointing and stupidity.

 

Pff..yes yes you are so superior because you stay "above it all". Just like America should "lead from behind" and other foolish Obamisms.

 

The liberals always say they have good intentions. However, their attempts at "income redistribution" are always poorly thought out and often draconian in their unintended results, and consequently, their fixes often harm the economy and severely limit the growth of new jobs.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

 

Liberalism is hard to pinpoint, they do not all jump on a band wagon to support one issue, they are complex with complex logic and use their logic to analyse and evaluate conditons and ideas. Most have different goals, and different levels of liberalism. Some are activist, some are anarchist, some are for one thing and not the other. Some have no goals and just jump on what ever side they think is winning. And on and on.

So, Liberal goals are anything too complex to understand. The term Liberal on the other hand, is best left as a snipe to call someone who's ideas are too complex to understand.

 

Like I was saying in an earlier posting. The intent is probably not to "actually" help anyone really.... It is the process of "helping" that they desire. To be able to pat themselves, and have others pat them on the back, for all of the "helping" that they have done. For them it is the act, and the intention of helping things that matters. You will hear it often said, "Their intentions were noble and just.... etc". The results of those actions for them are mostly unimportant. It is true selfishness wrapped in the guise of altruism....

 

What are the goals and objectives of American liberalism?

To spread their pseudo-religion of secular humanist Marxism around the globe.


_

 

Your argument would make much more sense if there were actually enough decent-wage job opportunities for everyone. But there is not.
Expecting Blacks to go out there and earn there own way is both unrealistic and cruel when wages for most types of jobs are so low. As for expecting them all to just get more training and education, unfortunately much of the "training" and "education" we are seeing today is just more credentialism amongst workers competing for the limited good job opportunities available. More education will not help.

 

equal rights, a flat fair tax, a good living for anyone willing to work 40 hours a week, take care of our elderly and disabled, religious freedom for all, the list goes on and on

as for punishing the rich, a fair tax is not a punishment and they do not need to be rewarded with huge tax cuts for making lots of money, making lots of money is reward enough

.

 

What's so bad about that?

 

Per the OP....a simple statement should suffice.

The objective would be to crush corporate rape and prevent corporate rapists from being elected President. We'll start with billionaires who, in addition to their billions, have the ultimate power trip too. Remove endless cash streams from the elective process, and make elected folks ACCOUNTABLE to the people, NOT the special interests and the corporations.

 

The only way the government will ever be able to afford the cost of redistribution is by taking in a vast chunk of the corporate earnings annually. But as we all know, they don't want to. Further, they are mostly wealthy and enjoying the elite status that wealth inequality provides them and their families. Regardless of what they might say on camera. It's easy to decry the system and label causes from their places of comfort. Also, private earnings are viewed as the most sacred part of the American ideal. American business is all about making max amounts from the lowest payout. You'll never break the system, because Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America have major stakes in those corporate earning entities. You're not just fighting the federal government, you're fighting the global market's agenda.

Why else do you think we are hammered year after identical repetitive year with the corporate social goal of eventual American globalization?

 

Why does everyone quote Sir (Moneybags) Churchill on socialism? He was an obvious beneficiary of capitalist society!

I'd amend the phrase a bit.

The inherent wrong of capitalism is the gather unto me empathy against any other pursuits. The saving grace of socialism is it's collective desire to a least outwardly have a soul.