rchapstick Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 I recently saw Laffer on the telly talking about this very topic. And you are correct' date=' he did not advocate cutting taxes as a means to raise tax revenues in these economic times. [/quote'] You lie. RY, Laffer and others are discussing how tax rises are a terrible move. The whole piece is about the supposed fear of Obama raising taxes. Nowhere does it explicitly state that Laffer and friends advocate tax cuts. They fear that the temporary tax breaks put in place by Bush will be rolled back. It is the author of the piece who refers to the Canadian governments tax cutting as cool. RY undoubtedly did not even watch the clip. As soon as he saw the Bill Maher was in it, he assumed that it was more commie socialist propaganda. Either that, or he watched it with his fingers in his ears, screaming LALALALALA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 RY undoubtedly did not even watch the clip. As soon as he saw the Bill Maher was in it, he assumed that it was more commie socialist propaganda. 99% of the time, that would be an accurate assumption. Hey, I bet you could get record TV ratings if you had Maher and Dennis Miller face off. :thumbup: HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Now we need to change the title of this thread to, "Hello $17B GM/Chrysler/Ford". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 ... make that GM/Chrysler. :grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 The Marshall Plan was a political scheme by which America used billions of our dollars to influence Western European countries to develop in a more capitalistic way than they otherwise might have. Lie...and its a biggie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 The Bible indicates he is a Socialist. Would you not agree? So far as I understand it the Bible does not indicate that God is a socialist. Did you ever read in the scriptures of returning to the original owner property that was formerly owned by the original owner without compensating the new owner? This later became the basis for our bankruptcy laws. Did you ever read the laws that helped the poor and the widows? Its believed in many circles that Marx's theories were based on Old Testament. He came from a long line of Rabbis and would have been well versed in the Torah and the Old Testament. The Hebrew society at various times in the old testament could only be described as socialistic. When the Hebrews wondered the desert for 40 years after leaving Egypt they had a society that was eerily similar to a "..from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" lifestyle. Other than the clothes on your back they shared everything. Livestock was community owned and they distributed food with that in mind. Jesus and his disciples shared everything as well. All their wealth were shared and in one pot. Judas was the one that held the community funds. Generally speaking they had personal property most of the time but not all the time as noted above. The early settlers of America practiced a form of socialism. Certainly the Pilgrims practiced a mild form of socialism for their own survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 The early settlers of America practiced a form of socialism. Certainly the Pilgrims practiced a mild form of socialism for their own survival. When the Pilgrims landed in the New World, they found a cold, rocky, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, Bradford wrote. No houses to shelter them. No inns where they could refresh themselves. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of sickness or exposure â??including Bradford's wife. Though life improved for the Pilgrims when spring came, they did not really prosper. Why? Once again, the textbooks don't tell the story, but Bradford's own journal does. The reason they didn't succeed initially is because they were practicing an early form of socialism. The original contract the Pilgrims had with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store. Each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community. Bradford, as governor, recognized the inherent problem with this collectivist system. "The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing â?? as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fir for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice." What a surprise! Even back then people did not want to work without incentive. Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of free enterprise. What was the result? "This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." As a result, the Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London much faster than expected. The success of the Plymouth colony thus attracted more Europeans and set off what we call the "Great Puritan Migration." Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 As usual, rogie avoids the initial questions. The pigrims probably would have never come to the New Country if they weren't originally organized as a 'communist group'. rogie, if you could answer my questions, you might start to realize [color:red]the world is not black/white, right/wrong, hate/love, Socialist/Capitalist [/color]as you claim. You claim to be a Christian but your beliefs do not resonate with the religion's founder. Jesus did say that a person(s) was coming who believed exactly the opposite as he does. Does that ring a bell? rogie, one of the great, prosperous and long running "communist communities" (communes) was the Oneida Community. One of their main products was Oneida Limited Silver. Was their prosperity based upon scriptural principles or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 << Its believed in many circles that Marx's theories were based on Old Testament. He came from a long line of Rabbis and would have been well versed in the Torah and the Old Testament. >> Marx's father converted to Christianity and married a Protestant. Karl was raised as a Lutheran. Don't know how much influence his rabbi ancestors may have had on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Funny interview with Karl Marx taken from 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.