This is so good, that I have read it twice.  This article was written by radio talk show host Neal Boortz, who is a libertarian.  So to any liberals, please read, and tell me where he gets it wrong:

THE DEMOCRATS' (SECRET) PLAN FOR AMERICA
The Democrats have begun their campaign to frighten voters before the fall elections. It's nothing but a replay of past elections, the only difference being that they seem to be starting the scare tactics a bit early this year. I guess you can't blame them. Nothing else has worked. The tried to hand the Florida election problems on Bush. No go. Then it was the economy, and that didn't work either. They gave a stab at the "Bush is stupid" routine, but Americans aren't buying it. Enron looked worse for Clinton than it did for Republicans, so the Social Democrats had to give up on that one too. So, it's time to go back to Democratic roots. Try to scare the beejezus out of older voters. It's worked in the past -- so it will surely work this time.

The ploy is simple. Convince wrinkled citizens that the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security. It's an old trick, tried and true. The Democrats roll this one out every single election. This time the point men are Richard Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe. They're both telling voters that the evil Republicans have a "secret" plan to reduce Social Security benefits as soon as they are reelected.

So .. now that the Democrats have opened this whole "secret plan" idea – what about the secret plans of the Democratic Socialists? Just what legislative agenda does the Democrat Party plan to pursue if and when they gain control of the Senate, the House and the presidency? Well, your Talkmaster has been watching these socialists for years, and taking notes. Here are just some of the goodies the Social Democrat Party has in store for the people of America.

Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes This is the biggie – and they've made no attempt to hide their goals here. The Democrats have been working on this plan for decades --- with no small amount of help from the cowardly Republicans. The idea is simple. Using "refundable" tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts – and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich. Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress.

Shift Social Security and Medicare Taxes to the "Rich"

Payroll taxes, as you know, are basically Social Security and Medicare taxes. The Democrats have almost achieved their goal of shielding the so-called "poor" from any income tax liability at all. But --- the poor saps still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that these same people will get full Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach the magic age ... and those benefits must never be touched! It's OK, though, to excuse these people from the responsibility of actually having to pay the premiums for these insurance and retirement benefits. So ..... the next element of the Democrats' Secret Plan! The elimination of payroll taxes for the poor!

This is a plan that was put forth by Democrat Robert Reich on the Cutie-Pie and Holmes show on Fox News Channel on July 31, 2002. The idea is to, as Reich puts it, "lift the tax burden off the poor" by eliminating payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of income. Here's how you do it. The Democrats pass a law which says that nobody has to pay any payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income. Bingo -- the poor now have a completely free ride! They are now life-long, dedicated Democratic voters. But wait! Isn't that going to cost the government money? Are you kidding? Of course it's not! It's not going to cost the government money because they're simply going to raise the salary cap for Social Security taxes by enough to cover the lost revenues! Right now the cap is around $88,000 on Social Security taxes. To cover the shortfall Reich says they will just raise the salary cap by $15,000 ... to $103,000 a hear. Reich forgets, though, that there is no cap on Medicare taxes, so raising the cap by $15,000 would not recover the Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income. In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000. They would just round it off to $20,000.

So, there you go. Shifting the burden for the cost of Social Security and Medicare for low income earners onto high income earners. The Democratic way.

Massive increase in Social Security taxes As we've said, Social Security is a mainstay when it comes to Democrat vote-buying. Social Security was, is and always will be nothing more than a giant income redistribution scheme designed to create dependency on government and loyalty to the program's protectors in congress. The more money you pour into Social Security benefits, the more the wizened class loves you, depends on you and will be dedicated to keeping you in office. The Democrats need massive new funding sources to pay expanded Social Security benefits --- but they must get that money without raising Social Security taxes on the middle and lower income groups. The solution? The Democrats have a "secret plan" to expand the wage base for Social Security taxes. Right now you only pay these taxes on the first $88,000 or so of income. Give the Democrats the power and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond. The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn ... no matter how much that is. There will no comparable increase in benefits for the high income earners. The extra money will be used to keep the Democratic middle and low-income constituency happy.

End the home mortgage interest deduction

Democrats have been after this income tax deduction for decades. They call it a "subsidy." Now the more intelligent among us will clearly understand that allowing someone to keep more of the money that they earn can hardly be called a "subsidy." But we're talking about the more intelligent among us. These people aren't likely to be voting for Democrats anyway!

As soon as the Democrats manage to gain control of the federal government they will move to eliminate this "subsidy for the rich." They know that there will be little adverse political fallout. After all -- the mortgage interest deduction is only valuable to people who actually pay income taxes AND who itemize their deductions. Democrats have already succeeded in removing most of their core constituency from the income tax rolls --- so what is there to lose?

When the Democrats ride into power you had better be prepared to kiss that mortgage interest deduction -- and a lot more of your money -- a fond farewell.

Socialized Medicine

They already tried this with Hillary Care. It failed. Democrats aren't discouraged by failure. They just try and try again until they finally get you to swallow the poison pill. There are two basic reasons the Democrats are working so hard for complete government control of this huge segment of our economy. One, of course, is power. Health care comprises about 15% of our national economy. If the government can seize control of this large a segment of our economy a giant step toward a socialist economy will have been achieved. The second reason is control. Think about it. If you control a person's access to healthcare ... you effectively control that person.

Right now the Democrats have had to put their plans for socialized medicine on hold. Those pesky Republicans in the House and the White House are making things tough. Democrats have to be satisfied with just sitting up there in the Beltway blocking any efforts to introduce competition into the medical marketplace.

Democrats live in quaking fear of free market competition. This was one of the reasons they worked so hard to defeat Bush's economic stimulus plan. There was a provision in that plan that would allow laid-off workers to go out into the marketplace to find health insurance. They would then be allowed a tax credit to cover the cost of that health insurance premium. Democrats wanted federal funds to be paid to employers to encourage employers to extend health insurance benefits to laid-off workers. Democrats knew that if private individuals ventured into the free marketplace to find health insurance they might just find that free market competition could deliver a superior insurance product at a reduced price.

Tax your pension funds

This idea first received serious consideration in the early Clintonista years. As soon as the Republicans took control of the Congress the idea disappeared. Right now it's being "secretly" incubated by Democrats to be hatched when they regain control. The idea is simple. There are trillions of dollars out there in various private pension and 401K plans. All of these trillions of dollars are earning interest for (gasp!) private investors and individuals and not for the government! To make matters worse – most of these private pension and 401K plans are owned by the evil, hated upper income earners.

The "secret" plan? A one-time 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all private pension and 401K retirement plans. This money would be paid into the general fund of the federal government and used to fund various social programs for low and middle-income earners.

Is this a dangerous plan for Democrats? Not really. The plan would take money chiefly from those who earn enough money to actually pay income taxes and contribute to pension plans. These people do not make up the core of Democratic voters.

Tax your pension contributions also

After the Democrats levy their 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all pension and 401K plans, they intend to follow up with a tax on all future contributions to these plans. The theory is that "rich" people shouldn't be allowed to contribute that money to these plans tax free when "poor" people don't have that opportunity.

The Magic of Imputed Income

Imputed? What does "imputed" mean?

One definition is to "credit." So, by imputed income, we mean that you are credited with income you didn't necessarily earn.

The goal is clear. Democrats want to milk the high-achievers for as much money as they possibly can. There are really only two ways Democrats can get more income tax out of you. One way is to raise the tax rates. At some point this is going to prove to be politically risky. So, how else can they bleed you for more? Even Democrats who have been to government schools can do simple math. They know they can get more money out of you if that line on your income tax return that reads "taxable income" can be increased. Forty percent of $120,000 is more than 40% of $90,000. All you have to do is impute – credit – more income to the poor taxpaying high-achiever.

So --- here is the idea that the Clinton Administration was tossing around prior to the voter revolution of 1994. They were going to impute – credit – extra income to people who own their own homes. This was going to be done for two reasons. First, to push more people into the higher income brackets where Clinton tax increases could reach them. Second, to increase the amount of taxes actually collected from these people. Here's how Clinton's imputed income scheme was going to work:

Let's say you own a home worth $250,000. Your payments on that home are about $2,000 a month. The government uses census data (there is a reason they ask all of those extra questions) to figure out what a $250,000 home in your neighborhood would rent for. Let's say it would rent for $3000 a month. This means that you could rent your home for $1000 a month more than your payments. But you're not renting your home, you're living in it. You must know that this just isn't fair to people who have to rent homes. They don't get the tax deductions you get. They don't own their own homes because, unlike you, they haven't, as Dickie Gephardt likes to phrase it, "won life's lottery."

Well .. since you're so rich and since you own your own home, the Democrats would really like to get a little more money from you, to spend on those poor renters and people who aren't as "fortunate" as you are. This would all be in exchange of their votes, of course.

So ... here is this element of the Democrats' secret plan for you and your bank account. When you fill out your tax return you will have to consult certain tables and government data to determine what a home like yours would rent for in your neighborhood. Using the example above, your home would rent for $3000. You're paying $2000 a month to your mortgage company. You will be instructed to take the difference ($1000 a month) and multiply it by 12. This gives you $12,000. That's your imputed income. Add that to your other earnings to come up with your taxable income. That adds up to more than $4,500 in additional income taxes if you're in the top tax bracket. Hey, it's only fair ... you being rich and all.

Don't gripe. This is all for those needed government programs for the "less fortunate."

By the way --- you should know that there is an imputed income bill in the Congress. It's about child support, not home mortgages. If you're a deadbeat dad who owes back child support you would, under this law, have to add the amount of your arrearage to your taxable income and pay taxes on it. Fact is, you've already paid taxes on this income once. The bill would just punish you for not forking it over to the ex-wife by making you pay tax on it a second time. Today, child support. Tomorrow, that money you could be making if you would only rent your home instead of live in it.

CONTINUED (20,000 characters limit):

Force employers to pay for "family leave."

Right now the Family Leave Act requires employers to give employees about 12 weeks of unpaid "family leave" to take care of certain family events and emergencies, such as having a baby, illness, death or some other situation. The key here is that the family leave is unpaid. The Democrats want employers to continue to pay the employees while they take their extended vacation. The Democrats "secret" plan is to begin with a law requiring payment of about one-half of the employee's salary. This will give Democratic candidates the opportunity to campaign in future years on the basis of increasing the percentage paid to those on family leave. Paying people for not working --- a Democrat staple.

Seizure of property of those who flee Democratic tyranny As Democrats work diligently for more control over our economy and increase levels of income redistribution many high-achieving Americans are making plans to run. The greater the confiscation of wealth becomes the more people start looking for other countries in which to base their businesses. Democrats have a "secret plan" to impose confiscatory taxes on any Americans who try to move their wealth or their business interests out of this country.

Government paid childcare for majority of voters

The absolute last thing a Democrat would ever do would be to suggest to anyone that they shouldn't have a baby they can't afford to raise. Democrats know that children are the absolute more important thing in the lives of millions of Americans. They have been working for decades to impose ever more expensive rules and regulations on private child care agencies. They have also been working to raise taxes to the point that it is difficult beyond reason to raise a child on the income of one working parent. Thus ... the necessity of child care. If the government steps in and provides the funds for that child care then, to that extent, the parents become just that much more dependent on government ... and Democrats.

Government control of all childhood education (indoctrination) Democrats are the party of big government. Democrats are more than thrilled with the increased propensity of many Americans to look to government for the solution to virtually all problems they face in their daily lives. Democrats know that to teach people that they can expect the government to be there to solve all of their problems you have to start with the children. Catholic schools can be expected to teach their students that Catholicism is good. Jewish private schools are going to sing the praises of Judaism. Christian schools will teach the children that Jesus is really cool. Government schools? Government schools will promote what? Government! Thus, Democrats see a clear need to keep as many children in government education programs as possible. The "secret" plan? Continue to work against any ideas that would make it easier for parents to remove their children from government schools. This means working against such ideas as vouchers or tax credits to help parents afford the cost of private schools. They will also work to add increased regulations to parents who make the decision to home school their children.

Government imposed limits on executive income

This one is really going to have to wait until Democrats have a solid control of the federal machine. The Social Democrat party has plans to institute limits on executive compensation. The idea is to impose confiscatory corporate income taxes on companies who pay their top executives more than X-times the compensation paid to the lowest-paid employees.

Repealing the Second Amendment

Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea? Well, there's a reason. Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms. Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed. Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.

And finally, destroy talk radio

Democrats aren't fond of talk radio. They know that Rush Limbaugh played a huge role in the voter revolution of 1994. Leftists realize that almost all successful talk radio shows are hosted by people who do not share their political views. They will try to neutralize talk radio through regulation. Since Democrats love the "fair" word so much, they'll try to resurrect something called the "Fairness Doctrine." How would this law work? Well, for example, a talk show host would not be allowed to voice opposition to a particular Democrat goal without finding some Democrat to go on the air to defend that goal. Talk radio soared in listenership and popularity following the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Democrats know that talk radio can once again be pushed into the radio background with new regulations that stifle conservative and libertarian voices. Give them the power -- and it's time for me to retire. You should be aware that at a recent meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon a resolution was adopted to use the power of government and the "fairness doctrine" to reign in those horrible right wing talk show hosts.


--Dam*, this is good.

Neil Boortz is a fascist, not a libertarian, for one thing.

Who is supplying him with these figures with which he is promulgating this self-serving fantasy for the self-pitying rich?  Why should I believe anything Boortz says?  Why should I care what Boortz says?  I hate to think folks on this board who haven't heard of Neil Boortz wasting their time reading all that drivel!
::)

Neil Boortz is a fascist, not a libertarian, for one thing.

Who is supplying him with these figures with which he is promulgating this self-serving fantasy for the self-pitying rich?  Why should I believe anything Boortz says?  Why should I care what Boortz says?  I hate to think folks on this board who haven't heard of Neil Boortz wasting their time reading all that drivel!
::)


Neal Boortz, though not my favorite radio talk show host (to socially liberal, like all libertarians,) got it right.  Maxwell, I didn't read you retort anything, or tell me where he is wrong.  He nailed it, plain and simple.

And, just as a little way of getting back for Israel in the other thread, it is N-E-A-L Boortz.

Neal Boortz, though not my favorite radio talk show host (to socially liberal, like all libertarians,) got it right.  Maxwell, I didn't read you retort anything, or tell me where he is wrong.  He nailed it, plain and simple.

And, just as a little way of getting back for Israel in the other thread, it is N-E-A-L Boortz.

I don't have time at the moment to "retort," and there is much in that screed of rubbish to "retort" to!
:P

I don't have time at the moment to "retort," and there is much in that screed of rubbish to "retort" to!
:P


I didn't read the whole thing, but what I read was a crock.  The one item I will respond to is the notion that the democratic party is socialist.  That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard, and it goes back to FDR, who "saved" the system from either a socialist revolution or a facist one and earned the emnity of his class for doing so.  What Democrates understand is that if you want to protect capitalism, you have to keep the middle class intact and you have to give the working class hope of joining the middle class, or at least achieving a middle class material standard of living.  If you don't want your inner cities to explode, you have to assure that minorities have at least the hope for bettering their lives and not face overt descrimination.  None of that sounds "socialist" to me, it sounds sensible, manipulative, but sensible.  Meanwhile, Repubs seem to be saying "just one more dance", "gluttony is good", "I got  mine, you go starve in the street".  Great social policy.

Hmm...still no one pointing out where he is wrong.

Neal Boortz, though not my favorite radio talk show host (to socially liberal, like all libertarians,) got it right. 

I think he got it right, too.  But isn't it funny how the principles of limited government are right on the money when it comes to things you happen to like (money, guns, etc) but somehow they stop making sense when it comes to things you don't like (drugs, abortion, etc)?  You conservatives are exactly like the liberals you criticize:  All gung-ho for freedoms you personally support, but very quick to turn to government to banish anything you dislike.  Typical.

Why don't these liberty-loving libertarians ever complain about the unwarranted power the private credit bureaus have over our lives?  Because they are, in fact, corporatists.  Any form of power, oppression, or bullying, no matter how onerous, is just fine, as long as it isn't "government."

You can't cut-and-paste 36 paragraphs of Neal Boortz and expect me to study it and respond in a scholarly manner.  I know Boortz's style, and he doesn't deserve that kind of respect. 

Somewhere in that dopey diatribe, Boortz might say "pigs can fly," and you can say, "Well, Maxwell, you haven't offered any argument, so Boortz must be right--pigs really can fly!"

I'd sooner play leapfrog with a unicorn than read Neal Boortz.  So suit yourself!
:o

Why don't these liberty-loving libertarians ever complain about the unwarranted power the private credit bureaus have over our lives?  Because they are, in fact, corporatists.  Any form of power, oppression, or bullying, no matter how onerous, is just fine, as long as it isn't "government."



Well, no, it's not fine.  The legitimate purpose of government is to protect individuals from oppression or bullying.  But too many people find it just too handy to simply use it to do their dirty work for them, so as often as not, it's government that ends up doing the bullying.  But you'll never admit that because you need the coercion of government to wage your war on greed.

Well, no, it's not fine.  The legitimate purpose of government is to protect individuals from oppression or bullying.  But too many people find it just too handy to simply use it to do their dirty work for them, so as often as not, it's government that ends up doing the bullying.  But you'll never admit that because you need the coercion of government to wage your war on greed.

I have no problem with a "war on greed."  Furthermore, I'm a realist on the issue.  For the forseeable future your life is either going to be dominated by big government or big business.  Neither is particularly appealing to me.  However, we can reform the government to work on behalf of the people because the people can vote directly for the government.  Not so with corporations, and I don't believe in the fairytale of the power of the investor.  The majority of corporate investments are held be the top few percentile.  That situation is far too unbalanced, and corporations have no intention of changing it.  They want workers to invest in mutal funds and so forth as a way of coercing the working classes to vote in the interests of Wall Street, interests which always hurt the working classes in the long run.

I think he got it right, too.  But isn't it funny how the principles of limited government are right on the money when it comes to things you happen to like (money, guns, etc) but somehow they stop making sense when it comes to things you don't like (drugs, abortion, etc)?  You conservatives are exactly like the liberals you criticize:  All gung-ho for freedoms you personally support, but very quick to turn to government to banish anything you dislike.  Typical.


Woah woah, I don't care about drugs, I've written that before.  I don't give a dam* about any f***ing pothead or crackhead who gets themselves killed, I really don't.

The only part I disagree with libertarians on is abortion and gay marriage.  Maybe I am a hypocrite on those issues.  So sue me. 

But still with the democratic party slowly falling apart, and the libertarians being the next biggest party, maybe one day soon the two major parties will be the republicans and the libertarians.  A win-win in my book.

 However, we can reform the government to work on behalf of the people because the people can vote directly for the government. 

The government is made up of people, too.  Selfish human people just like you and me.  As a government employee myself, I guarantee this is so.  I and the people I work with don't go out delivering mail in the pouring rain because our customers are counting on us.  We go because we have to if we want to continue to get paid.  You're naive if you think any government employee anywhere is selflessly doing what they do just to help people.  There may be policies designed to "help" people but the only true goal of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself.  A private bureaucracy has to serve its customers if it wants to survive.  A government bureaucracy doesn't -- once it's created, it's nearly impossible to get rid of it, no matter how useless, wasteful, or even destructive it is. 

And supporting the war on greed is no better than supporting the war on drugs.  Both are equally invasive.  The bottom line for people who want to ban drugs is that they simply don't like illegal drugs or their users, and they'll use any means to justify persecuting them, whether they have the right to or not.  And anyone who'd like to ban greed is exactly the same as they are.

Woah woah, I don't care about drugs, I've written that before.  I don't give a dam* about any f***ing pothead or crackhead who gets themselves killed, I really don't.

The only part I disagree with libertarians on is abortion and gay marriage.  Maybe I am a hypocrite on those issues.  So sue me. 

But still with the democratic party slowly falling apart, and the libertarians being the next biggest party, maybe one day soon the two major parties will be the republicans and the libertarians.  A win-win in my book.

Sorry for making that assumption.  So you support the immediate legalization of all drugs?  Excellent.  I'm also thrilled to see someone come right out and admit their hypocrisy.  This would be so much easier if everyone would do that. 

I don't foresee the Libertarians ever becoming a serious political force.  The two major parties would never allow it; they'd co-opt their ideas first (which would be fine with me).  I'm not as optimistic as you about the decline of the Dems though.  There will never be a shortage of people willing to take their "free" money.

I don't foresee the Libertarians ever becoming a serious political force.  The two major parties would never allow it; they'd co-opt their ideas first (which would be fine with me).  I'm not as optimistic as you about the decline of the Dems though.  There will never be a shortage of people willing to take their "free" money.


Well one can only hope. 

Democrats have always made me wonder how they do it.  Remember a day or two after Bush won the presidential election?  When Nancy Palosi (or however you spell it) came out saying something like ''oh what a great day to be a democrat, what a great day.''  She has to be on pot.  Does she not relize her party is losing funds, lost more seats in the US House and the US Senate, and lost again to President Bush, who, as she called him, was ''the most vulnerable republican ever.'' 

If the democrats fall apart, the next in line HAS to be the libertarians, MAYBE the greens, but I doubt that the American people would ever vote for ELF-members and eco-terrorists.

Well one can only hope. 

Democrats have always made me wonder how they do it.  Remember a day or two after Bush won the presidential election?  When Nancy Palosi (or however you spell it) came out saying something like ''oh what a great day to be a democrat, what a great day.''  She has to be on pot.  Does she not relize her party is losing funds, lost more seats in the US House and the US Senate, and lost again to President Bush, who, as she called him, was ''the most vulnerable republican ever.'' 

If the democrats fall apart, the next in line HAS to be the libertarians, MAYBE the greens, but I doubt that the American people would ever vote for ELF-members and eco-terrorists.


I don't know, GW, soundfs to me like you are on pot.  If the Dems self destruct do you really think all us liberals are going to fade into the woodwork?  We just might form a real socialist party, begin speaking to the real interests of working and middle class people, and turn this country around.  In many ways the Dems are a bigger obstacle than you Repubs.  It could be that your last dance is just a few tunes away, especially if the Dem. party collapses.

I don't know, GW, soundfs to me like you are on pot.  If the Dems self destruct do you really think all us liberals are going to fade into the woodwork?  We just might form a real socialist party, begin speaking to the real interests of working and middle class people, and turn this country around.  In many ways the Dems are a bigger obstacle than you Repubs.  It could be that your last dance is just a few tunes away, especially if the Dem. party collapses.

The right-wing does exactly what they often accuse the Left of doing...they appeal to people's base fears instead of logic.  All they encourage in their so-called patriotism is a blend of paranoia, rage, self-righteousness, aggression, bigotry, and a canine loyalty to "their" side.  To be a good Republican, you don't have to do no thinkin.'  Should you decide to go conservative, there is a ready-made Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter narrative for you to follow.  Throughout the entire Presidential campaign, the media gave free air time to the Swifties, ran endless stories on Kerry's negatives, and relentlessly pushed the message that "Americans like George Bush," and "Americans trust George Bush."  Got a blank in your head?  Tune in the TV and get it filled in!

If money buys campaigns and campaigns buy media, and Americans follow sheepishly, yes, the future is solidly Republican.
::)

I don't know, GW, soundfs to me like you are on pot.  If the Dems self destruct do you really think all us liberals are going to fade into the woodwork?  We just might form a real socialist party, begin speaking to the real interests of working and middle class people, and turn this country around.  In many ways the Dems are a bigger obstacle than you Repubs.  It could be that your last dance is just a few tunes away, especially if the Dem. party collapses.


You got to be kidding me.  Socialism?  That little thing that worked so well with the Nazis, the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, and now Cuba? 

Listen, I hate to break it to you.  But Karl Marx was wrong.  Capitalism does not deteriorate the standard of living for the middle class.  A command economy is not the way to go.

For a better example of economics, try Adam Smith.

You got to be kidding me.  Socialism?  That little thing that worked so well with the Nazis, the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, and now Cuba? 

Listen, I hate to break it to you.  But Karl Marx was wrong.  Capitalism does not deteriorate the standard of the middle class.  A command economy is not the way to go.

For a better example of economics, try Adam Smith.

Oh dear...we're back to that again!
Adam Smith is spinning in his grave over the Bush economic program.  The Bush Administration's brand of noncompetive, monopolistic, phony-baloney crony capitalism has N-0-T-H-I-N-G to do with  Smith's ideas.

And ain't going to 'splain the difference between no Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, and Castro.  I'll let DC do that, like he did before!
::)

Oh dear...we're back to that again!
Adam Smith is spinning in his grave over the Bush economic program.  The Bush Administration's brand of noncompetive, monopolistic, phony-baloney crony capitalism has N-0-T-H-I-N-G to do with  Smith's ideas.

And ain't going to 'splain the difference between no Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, and Castro.  I'll let DC do that, like he did before!
::)


Adam Smith would certainly enjoy the "invisible hand" that is Bush's economic policy.  Tax cuts, less government restrictions, and even free trade.  Adam Smith gives an "A" to President Bush.

Adam Smith would certainly enjoy the "invisible hand" that is Bush's economic policy.  Tax cuts, less government restrictions, and even free trade.  Adam Smith gives an "A" to President Bush.


Ok Max, here goes.

GWB, when was the last time you read The Wealth of Nations (my guess is never)?  Adam Smith postulated that in a totally competative economy of many small producers commodities would exchange for their value.  In 1776, when he published it, it made sense.  He also said that businessmen hateed the idea of competition and would do everything they could to avoid it, so they had to be watched.  Bush's crony capitalism, no-bid contracts to favored companies, drilling companies that drill only dry holes and yet made him $$$ would all be abhorant to Adam Smith, who gives Lil' Georgie an F-.

As to the Moor, who you also probably haven't read, let me remind you that the title of his magnum opus is Capital, and it correctly explains the workings of the system you are so enamoured of.  You might try readsing it, although it is tough going (I say that not as a put down).

Now to your again repeated historical illiteracy, there is a vast difference between Naziism, Facism, and socialism.  The first 2 were based on state sponsored capitalism, which is to say that the state ran the economy for the benefit, in Germany, of Mercedes Benz, I.G. Farben, Krupp, etc. which remained privately owned industrial corporations.  There is a vast difference between that and socialism, which has to do with public, or social ownership of the means of production.  So there is a vast difference between Hitler and Castro's Cuba, about which I suspect you know only what the State Dept. and your conservative guru's tell you.  I could recommend a reading list, but what would be the point?

Max, you may find this disappointing, but in my own defense lets just say that more isn't worth the effort.

Ok Max, here goes.

GWB, when was the last time you read The Wealth of Nations (my guess is never)?  Adam Smith postulated that in a totally competative economy of many small producers commodities would exchange for their value.  In 1776, when he published it, it made sense.  He also said that businessmen hateed the idea of competition and would do everything they could to avoid it, so they had to be watched.  Bush's crony capitalism, no-bid contracts to favored companies, drilling companies that drill only dry holes and yet made him $$$ would all be abhorant to Adam Smith, who gives Lil' Georgie an F-.

As to the Moor, who you also probably haven't read, let me remind you that the title of his magnum opus is Capital, and it correctly explains the workings of the system you are so enamoured of.  You might try readsing it, although it is tough going (I say that not as a put down).

Now to your again repeated historical illiteracy, there is a vast difference between Naziism, Facism, and socialism.  The first 2 were based on state sponsored capitalism, which is to say that the state ran the economy for the benefit, in Germany, of Mercedes Benz, I.G. Farben, Krupp, etc. which remained privately owned industrial corporations.  There is a vast difference between that and socialism, which has to do with public, or social ownership of the means of production.  So there is a vast difference between Hitler and Castro's Cuba, about which I suspect you know only what the State Dept. and your conservative guru's tell you.  I could recommend a reading list, but what would be the point?

Max, you may find this disappointing, but in my own defense lets just say that more isn't worth the effort.

Oh, that was plenty!  I just throw my hands up in frustration with people who equate Hitler and Castro.  Mind you, I don't consider the latter a nice guy either, but if Castro was a nice guy, he
would have been killed 40 years ago.

The problem with our GWB is he believes what the Bush Adminstration wants people to believe about them rather than assessing the Bushies by empirical observation. On the other hand, faith is the key concept on the American Right, empiricism is a wicked, liberal thing.

Bush's hand may be invisible, but I see his middle finger clear as day pointed in my general direction!

Oh, that was plenty!  I just throw my hands up in frustration with people who equate Hitler and Castro.  Mind you, I don't consider the latter a nice guy either, but if Castro was a nice guy, he
would have been killed 40 years ago.

The problem with our GWB is he believes what the Bush Adminstration wants people to believe about them rather than assessing the Bushies by empirical observation. On the other hand, faith is the key concept on the American Right, empiricism is a wicked, liberal thing.

Bush's hand may be invisible, but I see his middle finger clear as day pointed in my general direction!


I guess I would characterize Fidfel as a truly benevolent dictator.  He is vastly popular with the poor and especially those who remember the levels of poverty and degredation in Cuba under Batista.  More importantly for most Cubans, he is the symbol of Cuban independance and nationalism (we clearly love ours but have trouble with the nationalism of others).  One can go back to 1898 and think of counterfactual senarios, but my guess is that had Eisenhower and Kennedy accepted the fact that Cuba would no longer be a protectorate, Castro would have retired, or been retired long ago.

One thing is certain, though, the vast majority of Cubans live longer, better, are more secure, and feel more free than they did under Batista and US hegemony.  Castro's phrase - "Within the Revolution, ANYTHING, outside the revolution, nothing" suggests the right to differ, and  has been demonstrated in the process of ratifying the (I think) 1970 constitution, which went through at least 15 iterations before 2 different legislative assembies (Organs of Peoples' Power ), which incorporated almost 2000 changes before it was unanimously approved.  If you really study Cuba you have to ask - "What IS democracy?"  Just some imperical observations.

But you are right, GWB and people like him care nothing for facts and figures.  God, Gays, guns and abortion are what they have been convinced to care about, and faith in der... I mean President Bush.