Listen to this poor delusional woman....
So where has she placed her faith? Who is her savior? Wide is the road to destruction and it's so unfortunate that 93% of black folks are headed in that direction. Ok, that wasn't fair just because you voted for Barack doesn't make YOU delusional. But to borrow DJ Black Adams term... I'm jus sayin'. What in the world was this lady thinking? She isn't alone lots of people feel that Barack the "magic" President is magical enough to heal the land. But I did learn this afternoon that the stimulus will translate to an additional $13 per week.
(Did she say "we was gonna get it "tooken" care of?)
37 comments:
"We Not Rich Like Ya'll, But One Day We Will just bury the rich instead"
I like the sound of that quote a lot better. Now I'm gonna go take a nap on my union-fought holiday off.
"We Not Rich Like Ya'll, but we believe will will be one day, so we help them stick it to the ppor, even ourselves, on the hope that one day we will do the sticking as opposed to being stuck"
There, that's better....
How about this "We aren't rich, but we hope to be someday but in the meantime we will do our level best to pay are bills as we agreed to do when we took delivery of the vehicle...but since we are unable to we will return the car to you.(period) Why resent the people who LOANED you money in the first place. If they were not rich then WHERE would you have receive money to purchase the car that you now can not afford?
I'm not understanding the preoccupations with the wealth of others...that's their good fortune, or inheritance or whatever it's not my business. I am not defending them because there is nothing to defend they have not committed a crime by being wealthy.
BrotherKomrade when is the last time a poor person has given you a job?
People have lost their freaking minds!!! That woman was beyond pitiful. Calling her demented and delusional probably would be an actual compliment.
Never. That's why I bite the hand that supposedly feeds me because I know they aren't doing me any favors when they have zero obligation to those who make them rich in the first place. Was it poor people who downsized their own companies when they are actually profitable, and not in the red only to move production to China or India in order to maximize profits as women and children in those countries are practically slaves to further make those of "good fortune" rich. Sorry, but there is no cosmic hand that gives out millions to a chosen few.
"Never. That's why I bite the hand that supposedly feeds me because I know they aren't doing me any favors when they have zero obligation to those who make them rich in the first place. Was it poor people who downsized their own companies when they are actually profitable, and not in the red only to move production to China or India in order to maximize profits as women and children in those countries are practically slaves to further make those of "good fortune" rich. Sorry, but there is no cosmic hand that gives out millions to a chosen few."
Couldn't have quantified it better myself tovarisch...
@BrotherKomrade - Cosigned by DJ BlackAdam--"Never. That's why I bite the hand that supposedly feeds me because I know they aren't doing me any favors when they have zero obligation to those who make them rich in the first place. Was it poor people who downsized their own companies when they are actually profitable, and not in the red only to move production to China or India in order to maximize profits as women and children in those countries are practically slaves to further make those of "good fortune" rich. Sorry, but there is no cosmic hand that gives out millions to a chosen few."
Translation: No, I resent the persons who are able to give me a job (therefore I will bite his/her hands)because these persons have no loyalty to me and will do what is fiscally expedient in every situation regardless of how I am affected because they are corrupted by their greed. Their wealth is therefore ill-gotten and their booty should be pilfered and redistributed to me and all working class people such as myself.
So what happens when all the of the ill-gotten wealth has been redistributed? Who will produce? Who will "capitalize" new ventures once all of the "evil" rich folks have been converted to working class -- the government?
Yeah, bite the hand that feeds when it's the government and see what happens.
Oppressive governments are really into killing and imprisoning people that disagree with them.
You are SOOOO right about that, JudyBright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzAgg-2eQ9k
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/fred_hampton.jpg
http://www.iacenter.org/polprisoners/lp_primer.htm
I cosign on your comment.
Oppressive corporation in the US are into having governments anywhere else in to killing and imprisoning people that disagree with them...matter of perspective I guess.
They are aslo into having OPEN conservative governments (like reagan, Bush and Bush II) into promoting the suffering of the masses while they run away with the bank.
Most Rich people and the corproations they own have contempt for bthe people who make them their money, the worker and the consumer, and must always be keep in check by regulation.
@CBW:
No, I give people jobs, I have 2 NFP’s that I am a director for AND I have one for profit that does pretty well all things considered.
I love free markets, hope to make, currently make thousands, hope to make MILLIONS maybe BILLIONS.
However, I don't have a problem with paying TAXES that can go to HEALTH CARE for all Americans as opposed to trying to be completive and provide health care to my employees, which would currently drive me OUT of business.
In fact, I want food stamps to be expanded so that until I can hire more full time workers my part time workers can eat a little better.
I believe in free markets, and individual responsibility, I also believe that you should PAY to PLAY in this market of consumers and workers, I believe in CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY, whereas you seem to love Corporate HANDOUTS and Corporate Welfare in the guise of "tax cuts".
"I love free markets, hope to make, currently make thousands, hope to make MILLIONS maybe BILLIONS.
However, I don't have a problem with paying TAXES that can go to HEALTH CARE for all Americans as opposed to trying to be competive and provide health care to my employers, which would currently drive me OUT of business.
In fact, I want food stamps to be expanded so that until I can hire more full time workers my part time workers can eat a little better."
cosign
@DJ Black Adam-Cosigned by Brother Komrade~"I believe in free markets, and individual responsibility, I also believe that you should PAY to PLAY in this market of consumers and workers, I believe in CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY, whereas you seem to love Corporate HANDOUTS and Corporate Welfare in the guise of "tax cuts".
I believe in corporate responsibilty too and I also know that companies "really" don't pay taxes so if the taxes aren't cut the cost will be passed to both the consumer and the employee.
"No, I resent the persons who are able to give me a job (therefore I will bite his/her hands)because these persons have no loyalty to me and will do what is fiscally expedient in every situation regardless of how I am affected because they are corrupted by their greed. Their wealth is therefore ill-gotten and their booty should be pilfered and redistributed to me and all working class people such as myself."
Now you're getting it...
"So what happens when all the of the ill-gotten wealth has been redistributed? Who will produce?"
The rest of us. It acn be done and has been done - http://www.thetake.org/
"Who will "capitalize" new ventures once all of the "evil" rich folks have been converted to working class -- the government?"
It can be the government, but most likely could be any of us. Don't think so?
Look at the free software/open source movement - full of people creating software and ideas that can better our lives and they aren't trying to be Bill Gates. Why would that be?
Soooooo, who's gonna be in charge of this redistribution, so that it will be done with the utmost integrity and not just given to someone's buddies?
Will people be educated first so they know what to do with their new found riches? Or do you take the knowledge of entrepreneurs for granted, as if all people possess it?
This system is working great in Zimbabwe.
@brotherkomrade~"The rest of us. It can be done and has been done"
That doesn't make it right! Maybe I'm just not a revolutionary but it seems to me that one man's exopropriation is another man's theft. What it I worked for you as domestic help and you purchased for your wife a diamond ring and denied health benefits to me as well as a cost of living increase and yelled at me when I called in sick; would I be wrong to steal your wife's diamond ring, rummage through your personal effects, find the deed to your house, forge a quit claim deed and name myself a the new owner of your house because I perceive that you didn't care about my needs? Is that how that situation should be handled?
Or should I do what I need to do to find a new job or get innovative and find an enterprise which will allow me to prosper.
"Will people be educated first so they know what to do with their new found riches?"
Yeah..wow, I guess you people are really getting this faster than I thought you would. Should I start calling you comrades now?
Oh, Judy, the Zimbabwe example? Cheap and no, not a good example. Corrupt governments and corruptible revolutions can happen, just as non-corrupt revolutions can happen. The right-wing argument about "the evil" in men is old and unproven.
But try again Judy, I'm here all week!
CBW, your scenario is still lacking in the historical perspective needed to make a good argument defending the ruling class. One, as an employer of a domesticated worker, I would not be obligated to take care of you in benefits - unless I value your work, then you are at my mercy - which leads to the attitudes for the reason why so many domestic workers would be right to organize and form unions - too many people who employ them have the attitude that they 'own' these women, so if by chance someone were to steal a diamond ring from me because of my treatment of them and their needs, they would probably be jsutified in doing so if I had the attitude that was deserving of the theft.
Of course in reality, that domestic worker would most likely go to jail, being removed from, the family memebers she/he was trying to support, spo those actions are not very constructive - however a movement that ensured that domestic workers would be entitled to a living wage and benefits, supported by laws would ensure that you would get the benefits needed and also would create an environment that where I, the employer could not treat you in any kind of way other than civil and respectful.
In the case of class struggle/class war, it is a little more about who TRULY owns the profits to be made; the person who comes up with the idea or the ones who make the idea real and mass produces it with their labor? I'm siding with the latter.
@brotherkomrade!"Yeah..wow, I guess you people are really getting this faster than I thought you would. Should I start calling you comrades now?"
Comrade? Not so much. But only because connatation of that word in my mind still isn't positive. But you have already been coined my "bff"....lol
"In the case of class struggle/class war, it is a little more about who TRULY owns the profits to be made; the person who comes up with the idea or the ones who make the idea real and mass produces it with their labor? I'm siding with the latter.
Well see now we understand each other-- I side with the former. It's called intellectual property rights. If I develop a concept in my mind, and pay people to produce the prototype for me then I have not only skin in the game on two levels -- I came up with the idea and I paid for labor. Why should the laborer have a right to my profits when he/she contracted do do a job for me at a mutually agreed upon rate of pay. If I honor the contract by paying him/her then he/she should have NO right to my profits. He should come up with his/her own idea and capital to bring it to fruition.
You resent the person that gives you the job….lol…. that’s brilliant… anybody with that attitude should hope for socialism.
I don’t understand how (seemingly intelligent) people can be comfortable with relative morality. It’s ok to steal a diamond ring as long as the person you stole it from “deserves it”. And of course the thief should not have to bear any consequence because the poor person has a family blah etc. etc. It is amazing how Lefties can make victims out of anyone all the while being the offender
"You resent the person that gives you the job….lol…. that’s brilliant… anybody with that attitude should hope for socialism. "
Did somebody hear something? Like a fly or mosquito buzzing? No?
[quote]I like the sound of that quote a lot better. Now I'm gonna go take a nap on my union-fought holiday off.[/quote]
Brother Former Marxist:
There are MANY, MANY former workers who have PLENTY OF DAYS OFF......for they DON'T HAVE A JOB ANY MORE.
They have no one else but their UNION to thank for that.
"In the case of class struggle/class war, it is a little more about who TRULY owns the profits to be made; the person who comes up with the idea or the ones who make the idea real and mass produces it with their labor? I'm siding with the latter. (Brother Komrade)
<
<
That view is very close to that of another famous, or infamous 20th Century socialist;
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927)
In a market-based economy, a PRODUCER must raise capital, often putting up ALL of their own assets, plus whatever else they can cull from, and thus owe back to their investors, at risk, and ultimately assume all that risk and offer their wares and ideas in a fickle and ever-changing marketplace.
The worker has NONE of that risk, NONE of his/her own life’s savings invested in this project. If this company fails, the worker can simply move on to another job.
It’s the difference between a homeowner and a renter. With traditional lending rules in place (no more than 2½X your income borrowed on a mortgage, credit scores and other obligations considered, etc.) ONLY those who are responsible, “good credit risks” can get mortgage monies or business loans. When a home is damaged or needs work, it’s the homeowner who must put up their own monies to pay for those things, a renter can simply move to another apartment, where yet another owner picks up the costs/risks of maintenance, etc.
All of THAT assumed risk and the potential rewards and failures that come with that, are right and just.
Those banks that are loaning money, have their own shareholders/investors who are demanding ONE THING from those institutions – “Just keep making us money.”
An old saying goes, “You can’t get rich working for someone else.” If you want to do well, you HAVE to either invest wisely, OR have the skills and the means to bring a new idea or ideas to market.
So, is it an injustice that the homeowner gets all that equity as real estate prices, like gold, tend to keep pace with inflation?
Of course not. No more than it’s an injustice that the PRODUCERS (business owners, inventors, etc.) and their investors should reap the bulk of the profits THEIR efforts CREATED, with what’s left going to the workers.
Those two things highlight the power of private ownership or “private property rights”, which are the engine of economic creation.
@JMK"An old saying goes, “You can’t get rich working for someone else.” If you want to do well, you HAVE to either invest wisely, OR have the skills and the means to bring a new idea or ideas to market."
Cosigning JMK!
Who did Adolf Hitler kill along with Jews, gays, other ethnicities? Communists and socialists. A little history, JMK:
Ah, the old "National Socialist" Party (of the Nazis) trick..
Socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production and it takes strength from a mass movement made up by workers. This did not happen in Germany.
When Hitler took power in Germany, the private sector or capitalists owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. This is just nationalization pure and simple and lacking even the thinnest shreds of basic Marxism.
The words you so earnestly copied and pasted to make your wittle point (not a typo) are based on Hitler's earlier writings and out look and a basic misnomer.
Hitler's Germany was called the "German Democratic Republic" - Hitler was a dictator and shared power with noone. Doesn't sound like a democracy to me. Why? because it wasn't based on the fact that Hitler was a dictator! See? Another misnomer.
Socialism places those who are feel the brunt of capitalism in power and therefor are looking to dismantle it. Workers had no such power in Germany. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."
- William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), p. 263.
The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)
True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Basically Hitler struck a deal with the families that owned steel mills and other industries temporarily to strengthen his war effort. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
All of those things - based on RECORDED actions; not from the pages of his earlier works which were rooted poorly plagarized on his part, from a basic misunderstanding between nationalizing produsction and industries and socialism. And in light of Hitler's actions, JMK and CBW, I'm afraid old Adolf is more YOUR cousin than he is OURS.
Nice try though and I did see THAT argument coming. Next.....
"Who did Adolf Hitler kill along with Jews, gays, other ethnicities? Communists and socialists." (brotherkomrade)
<
<
No kidding! So did Stalin!
Stalin eradicated the Kerensky contingent and the Trotskyites (having Trotsky killed in Mexico)...dind't make Stalin (another Left-wing fascist) "anti-communist."
The fact that one group of Leftist scumbags has a problem with another group of Leftist scumbags, doesn't make either group (1) anti-communist, or anti-Left, nor (2) "good or decent" in any way.
<
<
<
<
"Ah, the old "National Socialist" Party (of the Nazis) trick.." (brotherkomrade)
<
<
I didn't call Hitler a socialist," his OWN WORDS DID; "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
And again, I can't think of a more perverse and disgusting set of sentiments than those.
<
<
<
<
"This is just nationalization pure and simple and lacking even the thinnest shreds of basic Marxism." (brotherkomrade)
<
<
Nationalization (the government taking control of business and industry) IS "socialism." Nationalization IS the "eradication of private ownership."
<
<
<
<
"Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance..." (BK)
<
<
Hitler forged alliances with both the Japanese and the Arabs, going so far as promising the Arab Baathists (their nazi Party) that they would assist the Arabs in eradicating the Jews in the Mideast after they were done in Europe.
Actually, all that indicated quite a bit of "racial tolerance" for those who were "different" from his Aryan ideal....and both the Japanese (Asians) and Arabs (non-European Caucasians) indeed differed from the German Aryan ideal.
<
<
"...eugenics over freedom of reproduction... (BK)
<
<
So did America, England, France and the rest of Europe at the time. In fact, Hitler took what he learned here in the U.S. and in England, where violent felons and "mental defectives" were being sterilized so they wouldn't "propagate their kind," and sought to short-cut that Darwinian ideal.
<
<
"...merit over equality, competition over cooperation..." (BK)
<
<
Every intelligent individual still DOES today!
Merit trumps "equality" EVERY TIME.
Our Civil Service uses COMPETITIVE EXAMS to decide who gets which jobs. I can attest, that in Police Departments and Fire Departments across the country, it is not only discouraged, by "strang forbotten" (strongly forbidden) for members to advance concepts like the possibility of "test bias" to explain things like "disparate impact." Since the courts have ruled AGAINST "disparate impact", those forces have become emboldened in recent years and those are topics you don't want to breach in those kinds of paramilitary settings.
<
<
"...power politics and militarism over pacifism..." (BK)
<
<
So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and virtually every OTHER Leftist.
<
<
"...dictatorship over democracy..." (BK)
<
<
AGAIN, so did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and virtually EVERY other Leftist.
<
<
"...capitalism over Marxism..." (BK)
<
<
Nope, Nationalization IS "collective ownership" via the government. It is NOT "capitalism," but it sure IS "socialism"/"Marxism."
<
<
"...realism over idealism..." (BK)
<
<
Well, EVERY intelligent individual puts REALISM over idealism...although in the case of Left-wing kooks like Stalin, Hitler and Mao, for instance, they ALL put the UNWORKABLE idealism of "Marxism" OVER the WORKABLE realism of the market-based economy, which always and everywhere delivers MORE prosperity to MORE people.
<
<
"...nationalism over internationalism..." (BK)
<
<
AGAIN, same as EVERY OTHER Leftist tyrant from Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot.
<
<
"...exclusiveness over inclusiveness..." (BK)
<
<
AGAIN, so did, most other Leftist tyrants, such as Stalin purged over 40 million Russians), Mao (purged over 70 million mostly rural Chinese) and Pol Pot (3 MILLION mostly religious Cambodians)
<
<
"...common sense over theory or science..." (BK)
<
<
Well, it's just common-sense to place pragmatic policies OVER idealistic, unrealistic theories and principles, isn't it?
<
<
...pragmatism over principle..." (BK)
<
<
WoW! You're just not trying any more....of course we ALL put pragmatic/workable, common-sense policies OVER idealistic, nebulously defined, utopianist theories and principles.
It's suicidal not to.
So to recap, you seem to be claiming that putting merit over equality, competition over cooperation, realism over idealism, common sense over theory or science and pragmatism over principle are Bad THINGS?!
Au contraire! Merit, competition, realism, common-sense and pragmatism trump "equality", idealism, theory and principle EVERY DAY!
So, while I heartily agree that Leftism/Marxism is rooted in idealistic theories and nebulous (undefined) principles like "equality" and "fairness", that's also the very reason why it FAILS miserably as a social and economic construct, especially when compared to the merit-based, competitive, realistic, common-sense, pragmatism of INDIVIDUALISM, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS and the Market-based economy.
TYPO: "it is not only discouraged, but "strang forbotten"
And it really IS. The Merit system is a sacrosanct issue within the Civil Service.
It took those jobs out of political patronage and control and made them available via the SAME SET of standards for everyone.
UNFAIR?!
So long as the exam's the same, the rim is the same 10' for EVERYONE.
If you come up short....try harder next time.
Merit WORKS.
Absent merit, is only political patronage.
The things you pick and choose in your weak-ass arguments never ceases to amaze me. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, JMK, so I'll suggests reading real leftist thought and theories so you'll be able to come from the correct historical perspective for a change.
Stalin, Mao, and [laughing now] Pol Pot lost and dropped all pretensions of being leftists the moment that they embraced the real movements that they said they believed in knowing what and who they truly were. The failures of their regimes were just that - failures and NOT marxists/socialist or even communist regimes. I guess you didn't really read my last comment which admittedly was not plain enough to understand. Sorry about that. FDNY, huh?
Btw, I took the CSE, hence the job I have now; it's hardly something to use a measuring point for anything.
It took me about eight minutes to construct that response BK...I have about two hours on my days off that I connect online. But I'm NOT the one having a problem making my arguments, that would be YOU.
You made a series of embarassing statements - "merit over equality, pragmatism over principle, common-sense over theory and realism over idealism"...YES, indeed ALL those things, merit, pragmatism, common-sense and realism are hallmarks of the market-based system and INDIVIDUAL Liberty, and YES, they are indeed preferable in ANY and ALL circumstances to the unworkable, utiopianist ideals you claim to laud.
Stalin, Mao, and [laughing now] Pol Pot lost and dropped all pretensions of being leftists the moment that they embraced the real movements that they said they believed in knowing what and who they truly were." (BK)
<
<
Now you're making me laugh...at your pathetic, defensive statements.
Yeah, Marxists laud state control and "the eradication of private property" and when the "revolutionaries" they support inevitably resort to the oppressive fascism needed to enact it....THEN, "they are not really Marxists."
Riiiiiight. Every revolutionary's a Marxist in theory, and a fascist when confronted with reality.
Ditto Hitler....nationalizing businesses and industries IS socialism - it IS "the eradication of private property."
And the CSE's ARE indeed an improvement, virtually a SALVATION for all those who saw the abuses innate to political patronage....the SAME patronage that marred the former Soviet Union throughout its existence.
Standards do not have to be perfect...in fact, they shouldn't be (they're manmade), to be better than arbirtrary political patronage.
Merit rightly trumps nebulous, ill-defined priniciples like "fairness" and "equality"....so long as the test is the same exam for all, the rim is the same 10' for all - NOTHING'S more FAIR than that.
Here’s the basic problem; almost all the flaws inherent in Leftist/socialist thinking are due to basic misunderstandings of fact, which is probably why most self-proclaimed “socialists” rely on feelings and emotions, rather than on reason and pragmatic, empirical evidence.
Not much different from the glaring error that DJ Black Adam made in asserting that the view that G W Bush inherited a large National Debt from Bill Clinton was a LIE, claiming that Bush inherited a SURPLUS instead.
In FACT, Bill Clinton left a $5.6 TRILLION National Debt despite a few years of BUDGET SURPLUSES due to the Gingrich Congress cutting the federal budget for the first time in over 100 years.
As I explained to DJBA, “OK, DEBT and DEFICIT...two different and DISTINCT things. Budget surpluses refer to the DEFICIT and “deficit spending” NOT the national DEBT.
“In short, a budget surplus does NOT mean there is no national debt at that time. DEFICITS refer to budgets – deficit spending = overspending, while the National DEBT is the accumulating DEBT over time.
It’s the same with the non-existent differentiation between “nationalization” and “socialism.”
Socialism is NOT predicated on the “communal ownership of all property,” MERELY, “the eradication of all private property.”
In the market economy we HAVE “communal ownership of business and industry," as the bulk of those are all publically traded entities, and as such, are OWNED, by their shareholders – people from the community.
No, “the eradication of private property” and “workers controlling the means of production” specifically means government ownership of those things.
Again, ALL revolutionaries are Marxists in theory and fascists when faced with reality.
When I was younger working in clinic defense I learned some things. I learned that one of those things is you can never convince a reactionary that the sky is blue; especially the sad cases who will never share the same power of even will BE those who truly rule this country, yet seem to at their defense only because they buy into the delusion that "One day, they'll be the one of them".
I posted one book reference as there are many that can disprove my arguments and instead you bring up up minor and incidental points about merit and civil service exams. You seek to redefine set principals of an ideology that you you don't know the first thing about or you regurgitate talking points from old movie house newsreels. So I'll just leave this discussion as ended.
Btw, I saw two drug dealers on the corner on my morning walk - should I applaud them for being capitalists and lovers of democracy? Yes?
"I posted one book reference as there are many that can disprove my arguments and instead you bring up up minor and incidental points about merit and civil service exams." (BK)
<
<
You must've skimmed or miscounted, as I brough up 4 points, the one about CSE's was the final point...minor but unquestionably accurate.
According o EVERY Marxist, "there has never been a truly socialist state"...even those run by obvious socialist tyrants,like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
If that's so, it can ONLY be because "true socialism" is an unworkable fiction, as I claim it is.
There's no debate about which works best (forget socialism - let's consider it unworkable,since it's never worked) and look at the continuum the market-based economy runs along - from the MORE market, LESS government suply Side policies TO LESS market, MORE government Keynesian policies - in every case the LESS market oriented countries have far HIGHER Misery Indexes (Venezuela's is 38 and Zimbabwe's is near 100), while the world's most market-oriented economy (Hong Kong's) also delivers the world's LOWEST Misery Index (6.0).
The matter is so settled that Keynesian are veritable "flat-earthers" today.
Opps, TYPO: "I posted one book reference as there are many that can disprove your arguments and instead you bring up.."
"I posted one book reference as there are many that can disprove your arguments and instead you bring up.." BK)
<
<
Funny story, none of those books turn out to prove any such thing.
Take the Misery Index comparison I gave...those figures are fixed and determined - Venezuela (perhaps the most state-managed economy on earth right now) - a whopping 38 annual Misery Index (Inflation rate + unemployment rate) despite its vast natural respources, while tiny, trade dependent Hong Kong, the LEAST government-regulated economy in the world comes in with the world's LOWEST annual Misery Index - 6.0!
Same with the idea that "tax cuts COST us revenues" is a false argument.
For instance, no less a figure than Paul Krugman laments the vast revenues that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts cost the U.S.
Of course, Paul Krugman's argument, on that score are bullshit.
WHY?
HOW?
Reagan's Economic Recovery Act slashed all income tax rates by a whopping 25%!
So they must've cost us 25% of all future tax revenues right?
WRONG!
What followed was sixty straight months of economic growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since the government began keeping such statistics...waaaay back in 1854!
Nearly fifteen million new jobs were created - a total of eighteen million by the time Reagan left office. Just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services, measured in actual dollars, were produced from 1982 to 1987.
To give some notion of how much that is, by the end of 1987 America was producing about seven and a one-half times more every year than it produced in John Kennedy's last year as president.
That expansion was felt everywhere, including the government's tax revenues. Total federal receipts in 1982 were $618 billion. Five years later, federal receipts were just over $1 trillion, an increase of $398 billion...an incredible 68% in increase in revenues!
So Reagan's TAX CUTS, not only didn't "cost" America anything, they INCREASED tax revenues by over 2/3s!
Detractors still insist that “IF those NEW profits and incomes were taxed at the old rates, we’d have had far more in revenues, thus those cost us those revenues.”
NONSENSE!
IF it hadn’t been for those cuts and the investments and spending and job creation they spurred, there wouldn’t have been those new revenues to tax.
Moreover, as people respond to incentives, when tax rates rise, higher income individuals, with more disposable income simply save/DEFER more of their income/compensation in tax-deferred vehicles.
The “If these new income streams had been taxed at the old rates” canard is an absurdist argument.
And you have to look at the context of the times in which Reagan worked. The U.S. was in FAR worse fiscal shape than we are now; double-digit inflation, high unemployment and a prime interest rate of 21.5 percent, the highest since the Civil War, along with the WORST annual Misery Index (22 in 1980) and the worst four year average (16.2 under Jimmy Carter).
Those are those "common-sense, pragmatic, realistic" FACTS again...ALL of them true.
Hong Kong vs Venezuela...Reagan vs Carter.....the evidence isn't merely clear, it's overwhelming.
So, what do you think, maybe you've been reading the wrong books?
You still talking? You're wrong, but you still talking?
"You're wrong, but you still talking?" (BK)
<
<
Prove it.
You haven't produced a shred of evidence against even one argument O laid out.
Take the "tax RATE cuts INCREASE tax revenues" charge of mine.
FACT: When Reagan took office, America's total federal tax receipts were $618 BILLION...after slashing all tax rates by a whooping 25% and the top rate FROM 70% down to 35%...total federal tax receipts came to OVER $1 TRILLION!
Tax RATE CUTS increased tax revenues....they did again, when the Gingrich Congress slashed the Capital Gains rate FROM 30% TO 20%!
I know you can't refute that, but don't beat yourself up, neither could Krugman or Reich.
Post a Comment