Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 108 of 108
Thanks Tree95Thanks

Thread: They've got their money and so the war on the poor begins.

  1. #101
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,691
    Thanks
    356

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation.

    You just called Adam Smith a Marxist.

    Funny stuff.
    Anyone who advocates progressive taxation in combination with subsidies for a segment of the population from said taxation is preaching marxism, whether knowingly or not. Was Mr Smith an advocate of the welfare state?

  2. #102
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,629
    Thanks
    4831

    From
    Englewood, Fl
    Quote Originally Posted by orangecat View Post
    I totally get it. That's why I posted this truth: Lowering tax rates is the exact opposite of wealth redistribution.
    I also totally get that you follow the marxist creed of from each/to each.
    Are you this absolute on corporations? Just curious. If the poor and disabled are "on their own" in your view then should govt's continue to invest in industry and should they not end corporate welfare? Gov't subsidies are always just fine with the GOP yet they target social programs when they give themselves and their corporate bosses these windfalls and then find a need to pay for it all. Do you ever think about these matters or is your economic philosophy simply in lock step with your chosen party? Do you really totally Get It? I don't think you do. You just throw out terms like Marxist when the subject is social safety net.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and Ian Jeffrey

  3. #103
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    32,834
    Thanks
    27981

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by namvet69 View Post
    Are you this absolute on corporations? Just curious. If the poor and disabled are "on their own" in your view then should govt's continue to invest in industry and should they not end corporate welfare? Gov't subsidies are always just fine with the GOP yet they target social programs when they give themselves and their corporate bosses these windfalls and then find a need to pay for it all. Do you ever think about these matters or is your economic philosophy simply in lock step with your chosen party? Do you really totally Get It? I don't think you do. You just throw out terms like Marxist when the subject is social safety net.
    Be aware that orangecat has his own very special definition of the word 'subsidy' that is to be found in NO economics textbook in existence. Very conveniently, it almost eliminates most forms of 'corporate welfare' from being viewed as being 'corporate welfare' at all. He has his own special definitionary, and he thinks he gets to make up his own definitions of scientific terms, willy-nilly. I'm sure it makes him a HOOT whenever he waltzes into freshman-level college courses and starts announcing that all the definitions in the textbooks are 'wrong', and starts providing his own definitions.
    Thanks from namvet69 and Ian Jeffrey

  4. #104
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    32,834
    Thanks
    27981

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by orangecat View Post
    Anyone who advocates progressive taxation in combination with subsidies for a segment of the population from said taxation is preaching marxism, whether knowingly or not. Was Mr Smith an advocate of the welfare state?
    Sounds very much like you would not recognize an INCH of difference between, say, Marxism and Keynesianism.

    And, I must say this, I feel OBLIGATED to say this, that is very, VERY stupid.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  5. #105
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,691
    Thanks
    356

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by namvet69 View Post
    Are you this absolute on corporations? Just curious.
    Yes. Corporations should not receive money that was taken from others either.
    Quote Originally Posted by namvet69 View Post
    If the poor and disabled are "on their own" in your view then should govt's continue to invest in industry and should they not end corporate welfare?
    I do believe there should be a social safety net for the truly disabled (which is a marxist position, I might add). I just believe it should be much smaller than it currently is. Corporations should never receive money from the public till. Tax cuts are not money from the public till. I believe everyone who pays taxes should get tax cuts.
    Thanks from Kallie Knoetze

  6. #106
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,691
    Thanks
    356

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Sounds very much like you would not recognize an INCH of difference between, say, Marxism and Keynesianism.
    You can take it any way you'd like. I'm quite certain there are differences as well as similarities between the two.

  7. #107
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,629
    Thanks
    4831

    From
    Englewood, Fl
    Quote Originally Posted by orangecat View Post
    Yes. Corporations should not receive money that was taken from others either.

    I do believe there should be a social safety net for the truly disabled (which is a marxist position, I might add). I just believe it should be much smaller than it currently is. Corporations should never receive money from the public till. Tax cuts are not money from the public till. I believe everyone who pays taxes should get tax cuts.
    And do you know what the expenditures for the disabled are? If they were below the poverty line would that surprise you? I spent 30 plus years dealing with these issues and I've seen the way the GOP has hammered them at every turn while showing no concern for corporate subsidies whatsoever except of course to add more to pork laden bills. The GOP has managed to paint a picture of greedy poor people taking massive amounts from the budget while industry suffers for it. It's quite the opposite. And now the newest cash cow for them is Soc Sec which they want to "Privatize" along with Veteran's Affairs. Privatize is a catchphrase that means raiding them. When you compare greed between the 1% and the poor and disabled, the latter are rank amateurs. So don't comment on these issues without taking a look at the other side. Marxism? Hardly.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  8. #108
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    32,834
    Thanks
    27981

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by orangecat View Post
    You can take it any way you'd like. I'm quite certain there are differences as well as similarities between the two.
    Just so you know, Keynes LOATHED Marxism.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 2nd May 2016, 08:00 PM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 9th March 2014, 09:00 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 7th July 2008, 01:20 PM
  4. Conservatives donate more money to the poor.
    By RonaldReaganRocks in forum Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 9th January 2007, 11:46 AM
  5. Liberals are trying to take money away from poor people.
    By RonaldReaganRocks in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 9th November 2006, 12:18 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed