[cyphen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

Hey, JP, welcome back!

Oh, sorry, my mistake...

Ain't my fault these rags print stuff that sounds like it comes from the Communist Manifesto...

And there are plenty of people out there screaming "tax the rich more" "down with corporate capitalism" and the like. And hey - ain't like marxism is dead. Woefully. One almost won in Mexico, i hear. There's The Nation, Mother Jones, everything written by Howard Zinn. Then there's the World Workers Party. The president of Venezuela. Hollywood. The list goes on!

This particular rant is just about the insinuation...

Let me ask you something, Theo... Actually, it's a two-part question:
1) What was the determined purpose of radicals in the 60s?
2) What happened to those radicals?

The accusations made then are the same as they are now. It's all the same old tune... "Down with the bourgeois order..."

MTA - dunno how you can claim that the tax cuts didn't generate revenues. To say that is to defy the nature of capitalist economy. I know the idea that lowering taxes can actually result in increased tax revenues spins the liberal mind into oblivion - but look at it from this angle... it's akin to product pricing. If the product's price is too high, less people buy it. The profit margin is higher, but the receipts are low. Lowering the price of the product - reducing its profit margin - increases sales. The profit margin is lower, but overall receipts are much higher.

Taxes are to the economy what a dam or a water wheel is to a river. Too much taxation slows the economy. The economy thrives the faster it moves, or the more transactions there are. If people are taxed more (ie the water wheel is much much bigger) people spend less, and the economy slows. Businesses are less likely to start up, and are more likely to close. As a result, jobs are lost rather than created. Raises are less likely when the economy slows.