Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 686631" data-attributes="member: 2189">Re: Obamanation here today&nbsp;If money is taken from the middle class or any class for that matter and in any way shape or form moved to the so-called rich and through this re-allocation of resources (wealth redistribution) makes it possible for &quot;the rich&quot; to realize greater profits enabling bonuses than without said gov&#039;t resources would not have been realized in the natural function of private economic activity, then yes, that does fit the definition of socialism just as extracting resources from the middle class or again whoever for the re-allocation of resources to those who never earned it. A tax cut is not &quot;socialism&quot; if you will if the cut is equal across the board for everyone or if a tax cut is given for a specific area or corporate interest, an equal amount of Federal Spending (for said interest&#039;s benefit) specific only to the area in which the Tax cut applies and in equal value to the tax cut itself is also eliminated. We will give you no more bread therefore you don&#039;t have to pay for it and visa versa. And they ain&#039;t doing that and that&#039;s a fact JACK!&nbsp;Since Reagan and so-called Reaganomics, the idea of tax cuts to corp. interests has been defended by claims of increased revenue as the economy grew. To do such meant some form of limiting gov&#039;t and spreading free market capitialism. That all sounds good until you seriously look at the <a href="http://mises.org/daily/1544" target="_blank">Myths of Reaganomics </a>from a true free market, laissez faire POV which so many &quot;CONservatives&quot; think they hold. In truth and reality, that &quot;socialism&quot; word again doth apply!&nbsp;Depending on how you context it, you nailed it with the socialism claim IMO.&nbsp;Footnote: The Myth of Reaganomics was written by the late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard" target="_blank">Murray Rothbard </a>circa late 1987&#039;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 686631, member: 2189"] [b]Re: Obamanation here today[/b] If money is taken from the middle class or any class for that matter and in any way shape or form moved to the so-called rich and through this re-allocation of resources (wealth redistribution) makes it possible for "the rich" to realize greater profits enabling bonuses than without said gov't resources would not have been realized in the natural function of private economic activity, then yes, that does fit the definition of socialism just as extracting resources from the middle class or again whoever for the re-allocation of resources to those who never earned it. A tax cut is not "socialism" if you will if the cut is equal across the board for everyone or if a tax cut is given for a specific area or corporate interest, an equal amount of Federal Spending (for said interest's benefit) specific only to the area in which the Tax cut applies and in equal value to the tax cut itself is also eliminated. We will give you no more bread therefore you don't have to pay for it and visa versa. And they ain't doing that and that's a fact JACK! Since Reagan and so-called Reaganomics, the idea of tax cuts to corp. interests has been defended by claims of increased revenue as the economy grew. To do such meant some form of limiting gov't and spreading free market capitialism. That all sounds good until you seriously look at the [URL="http://mises.org/daily/1544"][COLOR=red]Myths of Reaganomics[/COLOR] [/URL]from a true free market, laissez faire POV which so many "CON[SIZE=1]servatives[/SIZE][SIZE=2]" think they hold. In truth and reality, that "socialism" word again doth apply![/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Depending on how you context it, you nailed it with the socialism claim IMO.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Footnote: The Myth of Reaganomics was written by the late [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard"][COLOR=red]Murray Rothbard[/COLOR] [/URL]circa late 1987'[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification