Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Dec 18, 2008.
Excellent, excellent advice. :thumbs:
You mean he's still around??
I thought he was dead after getting a round Burr under his shirt, or was that saddle?, or something like that, anyhow!
What about Ol' George, John, TeeJay and Sisters Betsy, Martha, and Dolly? How are they all doin'??
All them guys and gals must be gettin' really, really old by now. :laugh:
Yeah, talk was they would only be able to serve McCain's first term, had he been elected...
Now, back to the column of the OP...
the last line says,
I always find that funny for a liberal to say.
First of all, Hamilton did not speak for the entirety of the "founding fathers."
Secondly...keep in mind, liberals love to say when it comes to issues such as, for instance, gun control, "the founding fathers had NO IDEA that our society would be as it is. We need to be progressive, for today is a new era." So, which is it: should we listen to them, or not?
I guess it's OK to have a double standard, as long as your agenda is being forwarded...
Keep in mind, also...the author of the article denigrates every president since Reagan for not following Hamilton's advice...yet you will find that we have had percentage wise the most periods of economic growth and prosperity from Reagan until now. I'll forgive Hamilton for his error, since he is, after all, currently room temperature.
I think I'll pay attention to facts, thank you.
Yes, on the basis of a gigantic credit card - especially during the Reagan and both Bush administrations. Now we are paying the price for the destruction of our manufacturing base and dependency upon service jobs to make up the difference. It didn't work out for the long haul. Alexander Hamilton has been proven correct.
By the way, rbell, since you mention the last line I assume that means you read the entire article before replying. I commend you for so doing. :thumbs:
And, of course, the alternative--having the Almighty Government socialize industry--has been proven even more incorrect (look under "Communism, failed")
Socialism does not equal communism.
You're right, it doesn't. But our country is built on a healthy fear of both...because both are enemies of liberty.
And both are flawed systems, that have shown themselves to be rife with fundamental and inherent weaknesses that eventually cripple the societies which employ them.
Hamilton didn't write that in a manufacturing economy and he didn't write it in a global economy. How much difference that makes may be debated, but we should at least be accurate: Hamilton didn't have any advice for Obama, nor for people who live in this time. His advice was for his own time.
Sounds like you are describing the current mess caused by unrestricted capitalism and "free" trade rather than socialism.
Do you hold that same view toward all of the writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers or only toward those with which you disagree?
If we do away with the oppressive tax system in this country and people get to keep more of their own money employing and manufacturing in this country will go a lot easier.
Our tax system is not oppressive for the wealthy and the big corporations in the United States.
I's been better since Reagan.
And it certainly is not oppressive for the 40% of the people that pay no income taxes and yet they receive the earned income credit every year, and the recent tax "rebate" (when they had put no "bate" in the pot to begin with).
One mans welfare is another mans oppression.
Good for them. That's better than it going to the wealthy and big corporations. :thumbs:
Who said anything about earned income credit or the "tax rebate" going to thw wealthy or big business? You are jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
So you favor government enforced stealing from my paycheck to give to the someone who paid no income tax to begin with?
I think God said: "Thou shall not steal."
How about if the government just let us keep what we earn and imposed a flat tax (say 10% or 15% whatever) on everyone earning above the poverty line with no exemptions, deductions, or credits? Now that would be fair to everyone.
They don't want fair. They simply want socialism.
So, Ken, let's say that I'm wealthy, thanks to my own hard work and sacrifice. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you're poor, because of not applying yourself, and so on.
How much of my money do you have a right to come and take? I'd like a percentage, please. What should you be allowed to come and get, by force?
All of them. No one can seriously make the argument that they were writing for any other time, that they anticipated a global economy and the modern manufacturing society, or the information age, or whatever else. They were writing for their own time. It is absurd to say otherwise.
I don't know if I disagree with this or not. I don't know enough to have a position on it. Your assumption that I disagreed is unfounded. You jumped to a conclusion you should not have.
As I said (if you read it), "how much difference that makes may be debated." Honestly, I am not sure how much difference it makes. I don't know enough to know. I am inclined to think that if you support it, it is probably in our best interests not to support it, but that's just going on past history. Overall, I don't know whether Hamilton's advice is good for today or not. I am inclined to think there are some problems with it, but again I don't know enough to pass judgment.