Here's an excerpt to show you what I'm talking about:
When Robin was a man of forty-eight, large of stomach and of
mouth, he grew restless. And the restlessness grew and grew until
one day bold Robin stopped paying his taxes completely, because he
was weary of his money going to the government and not into his own
bank account, where it would sit forever. Instead, Robin gave this
money to the rich, and told them "Invest it in your businesses!"
and the rich took the money and put it in their bank accounts,
where it sat forever. But everyone felt good about themselves, and
Robin assumed the poor did too, because they did not say
anything.
I'm fully aware that no political affinity group spends a whole
lot of time worrying about intellectual honesty, but it really is
too bad the people who love to play the haughty
my-politics-don't-fit-on-a-bumper-sticker game rarely engage the
arguments of their opponents at a level higher than this.
that shows a typical liberals understanding of economics ...
which is to say less than zero ...
All American American| 5.24.11 @ 4:28PM
I can never get an answer to this question from
lib/socialists/commies:
Let's assume there was a way to redistribute all the wealth in
America so everyone got $30,000. What do we do next year when
everyone spent this year's $30,000? Where does the next pot of
money to redistribute come from?????
Nate| 5.24.11 @ 5:03PM
I am no fan of redistribution...but I am not sure I understand
the scenario you have concocted. Where does the money go after they
have "spent" it? Is everyone flushing their $30,000 down the
toilet?
Quartermaster| 5.24.11 @ 7:51PM
The Banksters are certainly sitting on a lot of money. So are
some businesses. Frankly, it makes a ,lot of sense to do so given
the moron we have in the White House, and the morons we have in
Congress and presiding over so many courts. I don't blame a
business man for not wanting to risk something when much of the
return will be stolen by the government at all levels.
martin j smith| 5.25.11 @ 7:31AM
The trick is to force the dbate on this issue on a broader
scale. If Republicans could find a "Netenyahu" to confront the
Socialists such a debate could happen. But mainstream Republicans
are crony capitalists at heart and will never do that unless---a
bunch of conservatives enter the Presidential race and force the
debate on THEM ( THE RINOS ).
Jeff| 5.24.11 @ 3:39PM
that shows a typical liberals understanding of economics ... which is to say less than zero ...
All American American| 5.24.11 @ 4:28PM
I can never get an answer to this question from lib/socialists/commies:
Let's assume there was a way to redistribute all the wealth in America so everyone got $30,000. What do we do next year when everyone spent this year's $30,000? Where does the next pot of money to redistribute come from?????
Nate| 5.24.11 @ 5:03PM
I am no fan of redistribution...but I am not sure I understand the scenario you have concocted. Where does the money go after they have "spent" it? Is everyone flushing their $30,000 down the toilet?
Quartermaster| 5.24.11 @ 7:51PM
The Banksters are certainly sitting on a lot of money. So are some businesses. Frankly, it makes a ,lot of sense to do so given the moron we have in the White House, and the morons we have in Congress and presiding over so many courts. I don't blame a business man for not wanting to risk something when much of the return will be stolen by the government at all levels.
martin j smith| 5.25.11 @ 7:31AM
The trick is to force the dbate on this issue on a broader scale. If Republicans could find a "Netenyahu" to confront the Socialists such a debate could happen. But mainstream Republicans are crony capitalists at heart and will never do that unless---a bunch of conservatives enter the Presidential race and force the debate on THEM ( THE RINOS ).