mountainX.com > Forum Home  >  News  >  Non-Local  >  Thread
Forum Rules

This thread has multiple pages: 5 of 5 |  
5
Let’s debate socialism
 
Reply #61 • Aug 16, 2008  02:26 PM
Avatar
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  945
Joined  07/2008
Jason Bugg - 16 August 2008 02:10 PM

Is it wrong that I’m turned on by that picture?

Nope, you should see my whole collection.

Signature 

A man’s got to know his limitations

 
Reply #62 • Aug 16, 2008  08:10 PM
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  03/2007
barbara ann - 16 August 2008 01:54 PM

You consider yourself a socialist as long as the other guy is paying the higher taxes and you’re still able to buy a car and a computer. If you try living a socialist lifestyle where you give all your extra income to the poor, you will change your mind. It is easy to be a socialist when you live in a wealthy country under the protective umbrella of our military. This country is free and working people should not have their taxes raised. Let the rich Obama and his wife give their millions to the poor and the lazy. I’ll keep what I have earned.

Barbara Ann, a socialist should be against taxes, since they are often used to make the rich fat cats richer, in the form of kickbacks, government contracts, and weeding out the competition that can’t afford the taxes.

 
Reply #63 • Aug 22, 2008  11:44 PM
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  08/2008

Poster banned

(Edited: 01 September 2008 05:31 AM by TomH)
 
Reply #64 • Aug 23, 2008  05:07 AM
Avatar
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  945
Joined  07/2008

John Kennedy’s tax cut was not the same as Reagan’s or Bush’s.

....was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they’re wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan’s and Bush’s; it was a demand-side cut. “The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy,” said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy’s economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people’s hands, as a temporary measure, so that they’ll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/

Signature 

A man’s got to know his limitations

 
Reply #65 • Aug 23, 2008  11:30 PM
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  08/2008

Poster banned

(Edited: 01 September 2008 05:31 AM by TomH)
 
Reply #66 • Aug 24, 2008  04:45 AM
Avatar
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  945
Joined  07/2008

snore.gif

(Edited: 01 September 2008 05:32 AM by TomH)
Signature 

A man’s got to know his limitations

 
Reply #67 • Aug 24, 2008  05:58 AM
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  08/2008

Poster banned

(Edited: 01 September 2008 05:33 AM by TomH)
 
Reply #68 • Aug 27, 2008  04:40 PM
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  08/2008

Poster banned

(Edited: 01 September 2008 05:33 AM by TomH)
This thread has multiple pages: 5 of 5 |  
5