The expenditures of the State always rise to meet potential income. In other words, the politico, with the people’s total earnings at his potential legal disposal, will inevitably move toward taking it all. In return for votes the politico will, of course, hand most of it back as welfare—or as legalized patronage. But even in handing it back there will be strings attached to it: The politico will tell the people how the money is to be spent.
Why are the Marxist/Progressives so adament about collecting more taxes which is really taking more of the GDP for themselves. Marx said the total GDP should be distributed based on how Marxists define needs. He was against allowing the market place determine this distribution because he said it was simply a way for the capitalist to gain more. He admitted a capitalistic style economy would grow faster, but said equality in society is much better than to allow the capitalist to have his profits and make more investments, even though the standard of living for the entire society would increase. Yes, no growth, equality for all is better than an uneven growth for all. No profits for more investment because the capitalist will make more profit aend invest more and the economy will grow. This in the world of Marx, Obama and the Marxist/Progressive is bad.
Originally a legal term referring generally to the act of valuable property being taken into custody by an agent of the court and locked away for safekeeping, usually to prevent the property from being disposed of or abused before a dispute over its ownership can be resolved. i always thought the government was the people. Those elected were merely representatives of the people. The government has no assets as such because the assets are really the property of the people. The money that is supposedly being taken from the government in reduced spending is In fact just being returned to its rightful owners. We should not be using the word sequestration, but should be using confiscation. The argument of the administration is in fact the same argument Marx made. Marx said the total GDP should be distributed based on his definition of needs, and not left up to the marketplace. Is this not what the administration is sayingr?
Thomas Paine said in Common Sense he would not trade freedom for benefits nor would he trade dignity for a handout, but that it was his heritage to think and act for himself. In the name of bi-partisanship, Americans have been giving away their freedom. We have lost our dignity because we have desired handouts. Only if Americans will again start to think and act for themselves and insist on being self-reliant as
opposed to government reliant, can we again gain the common sense that will
restore a free and prosperous nation.
A demagogue is defined as a person who makes use of false claims and promises to promote his agenda. A politician who falsely claims a reckless policy was introduced by the other side when in fact it was he who introduced said policy and then makes false claims. For instance, he claims drastic cuts will bring about certain results when in fact there will be no cuts; the increase will be less than was proposed. This politician making these assertions would be a demagogue.
Reagan in 1961 said Aericans were slowly surrendering to socialism just as some socialists had predicted. He referred to the comment of Norman Thomas who was Socialist candidate for President six times. . Thoasmas had said the American people will never knowingly vote for socialism but that under the name of liberalism, they would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. Four years before Medicare was enacted and 50 years before Obamacare, Reagan explained how the left was already pushing for compulsory health insureance as an intermediate step toward complete governement control of medicine.
have a question what is the difference between
Communist, Marxist, Socalist. Thanks Marie
From Marx - he said he was not a socialist because the socialist in his day
did not specify a classless society. Also, Marx said it was okay for the worker
to keep his private property and the socialist was communal. Marx was a
communist based on tthe definition in his day. Today, communist mostly means an
autocratic, mosty tyranical form of government with a quasi socialist economic
system. Socialist today imeans many things depending on who uses it and most
people would tie Marx to one or the other with no common definition. This is
why it is so important to ask the user what is his definition.
During the Q and A portion of my talks, I am often asked,"How did we get here?" One of the reasons we are in the condition we are, is because of the teachers in our schools, or should I say the teachers unions. I have recently read the book "Education and Capitalism". Here are a couple of quotes from the book:
We heard in the State of the Union Address, we can spend all that money, but it will not add a dime to the national debt. That of course is ridiculous. So we must ask, why would a comment like that even be made? Marx said it is critical o raise the debt to the point of the gvoernment having to default on it's contracts, or in other words declare a financial default. The Marxist/Progressive has always used a crisis to futher his cause. This is the only plausible explanation to such a statement as all that spending will not add a dime to the debt.
I am a United States citizen who has always been interested in political happening and history. My understanding of leftist positions differed from the explanations that were given to justify many of the policies adopted in the United