"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of pros

[JBeukema]

I'll break it down for you, but you will refuse to accept it.

There are two types of people who advocate Communism:

1. Those who truly believe it's an effective socioeconomic platform for running a nation, and

2. Those who see it merely as a means to gain control of a nation's citizens and economy.

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

See? Communists are stupid. Communism seeks the dissolution of the capitalist state.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-- Ronald Reagan

'Facts are stupid things.'

--The same Idiot You just quoted

 

[JBeukema]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-7r3meEJFU&feature=related[/ame]


The New Idol < Thus Spoke Zarathustra < Friedrich Nietzsche <4umi word

A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.
This sign I give unto you: every people speaketh its language of good and evil: this its neighbour understandeth not. Its language hath it devised for itself in laws and customs.
But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.

 

[Care4all]

and then there is the lincolm qoute that our president tried to make his own (from washamericom)

if you're going to quote lincoln, try to get it right... in his greatest speech since the great depression, obama quoted abe lincoln at the coons rally in delaware... he said

"government should do for the people what they can't do for themselves" ....... not so much...

here's what the first republican president lincoln actually said:

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."



i knew abe lincoln ..... abe lincoln was a friend of mine, barrak obama, you are no abe lincoln...

Just an FYI

Apparently YOU do NOT know Abe Lincoln....

What you have attributed to abe Lincoln ARE NOT QUOTES OF ABE LINCOLN....

your quotes attributed to him, are SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

snopes.com: Abraham Lincoln on Prosperity

 

[FactFinder]

There is a quote that can be attributed to its true source. I see it as prophetic in how things are presently going in financial circles.

James 5
1Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

2Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.

3Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

4Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.

5Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.

6Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.

 

[daveman]

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

See? Communists are stupid. Communism seeks the dissolution of the capitalist state.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-- Ronald Reagan

'Facts are stupid things.'

--The same Idiot You just quoted

"Facts are stupid things," President Ronald Reagan said in a famous self-parodying moment. (He'd meant to say "facts are stubborn things.")

 

[Samson]

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

Except that it NEVER has.

yes, it has. Just see the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.

Where's that?

San Francisco?

 

[washamericom]

and then there is the lincolm qoute that our president tried to make his own (from washamericom)

if you're going to quote lincoln, try to get it right... in his greatest speech since the great depression, obama quoted abe lincoln at the coons rally in delaware... he said

"government should do for the people what they can't do for themselves" ....... not so much...

here's what the first republican president lincoln actually said:

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."



i knew abe lincoln ..... abe lincoln was a friend of mine, barrak obama, you are no abe lincoln...

Just an FYI

Apparently YOU do NOT know Abe Lincoln....

What you have attributed to abe Lincoln ARE NOT QUOTES OF ABE LINCOLN....

your quotes attributed to him, are SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

snopes.com: Abraham Lincoln on Prosperity

the quotes and philosphies of # 16 are well accepted. i'm not sure what it is you have here. as compelling as "snopes.com" is. no one will ever convince me that lincoln wanted the government to take full care of the people. it's simply not what he was, he was not of socialist belief. people should beware, because this is what obama does so cleverly. i also don't think he touted "i am my sister's keeper" as the president of obama declared... you decide.

 

[Trajan]

Except that it NEVER has.

yes, it has. Just see the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.

Where's that?

San Francisco?

nah, shes referring to twin oaks in Viginny there are a few others scattered about the mid west or in on the plain states......of course as stand alone commune, it could not survivor on its own in any case if its not inside a developed country. frankly its not germane to the conversation imho.If it were, Tugwells Greenbelt communes and other similar comm.'s would be the rage.

 

[editec]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Adrian Rogers, 1931

What?

Of course you can.

What you cannot do is legislate ALL THE POOR out of poverty by giving them the wealth of the all the rich.

If the government legislated that I owned Microsoft, and Bill Gates didn't?

Then they'd have legislated me into the super wealth class and Gates into the middle class.

 

[rightwinger]

well, no... but then again, Abe Lincoln wouldn't be a republican now.

but to the "point" of the thread... the middle class doesn't exist without protection and a society where businesses are unfettered looks like Dickens' England.

Or should we go back to the days of sweat shops so as not to somehow offend corporatists?

Why is it all or nothing? Why is any resistance of more government control today so often done by suggesting we want to return to a worse time?

The all or nothing straw man argument is ripped and read straight out of the liberal playbook.
These and other commonly heard phrases heard from libs are their campaign platforms and talking points.

Do you mean all or nothing like in the OP? Trying to make rich people poor rather than just pay your previous tax rate?

 

[rightwinger]

and then there is the lincolm qoute that our president tried to make his own (from washamericom)

if you're going to quote lincoln, try to get it right... in his greatest speech since the great depression, obama quoted abe lincoln at the coons rally in delaware... he said

"government should do for the people what they can't do for themselves" ....... not so much...

here's what the first republican president lincoln actually said:

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."



i knew abe lincoln ..... abe lincoln was a friend of mine, barrak obama, you are no abe lincoln...

Just an FYI

Apparently YOU do NOT know Abe Lincoln....

What you have attributed to abe Lincoln ARE NOT QUOTES OF ABE LINCOLN....

your quotes attributed to him, are SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

snopes.com: Abraham Lincoln on Prosperity

the quotes and philosphies of # 16 are well accepted. i'm not sure what it is you have here. as compelling as "snopes.com" is. no one will ever convince me that lincoln wanted the government to take full care of the people. it's simply not what he was, he was not of socialist belief. people should beware, because this is what obama does so cleverly. i also don't think he touted "i am my sister's keeper" as the president of obama declared... you decide.

These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people.
—&#8194;Abraham Lincoln (Jan. 11, 1837)

 

[rightwinger]

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.

Abe Lincoln First State of the Union Address (3 December 1861)

 

[editec]

Of course the source of all human wealth is human labor.

Abe was absolutely right when he reminded us that all capital is but a theoretical representation of past labor that has not as yet been spend.


Now in cases where there isn't enough capital to advance a society, it behooves us to pass laws and policies that allow the accumulation of capital such that it can be wisely invested in putting more labor into the field.

And in cases where capital has assumlated to the degree that there is no longer enough demand to warrant capital formation, then it behooves us to see to it that labor is better rewarded fro creating wealth.

This isn't exactly rccket science EXCEPT to those who cling to the silly notion that we either ONLY need CAPITAL FORMATION or we ONLY need to reward labor for consumption.

We had a pretty good balance between capital formation and consumtion formation back in the last 60s.

Since that time we've given too much advantage to capital formation at the expense of the consumptive side of the equasion.

How did we allow this to happen?

By thinking that FREE TRADE was a good idea for one.

By allowing SCABS to **** up[ collective bargaining for another.

And then there's our recent changes in tax laws that again, gave most advantage to capital formation at the expense of labor.

It's simple really.

The chiefs have all the wompom and the indians are slowly going off the reservation.

 

[JBeukema]

See? Communists are stupid. Communism seeks the dissolution of the capitalist state.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-- Ronald Reagan

'Facts are stupid things.'

--The same Idiot You just quoted

"Facts are stupid things," President Ronald Reagan said in a famous self-parodying moment. (He'd meant to say "facts are stubborn things.")

Fail. If he meant to say something else, it wasn't self-parody-it him making a fool of himself the same way Bush did when with his 'fool me once... shame on... uh... mushroomcloud 9/11 smoking gun iraq bin laden'

 

[JBeukema]

Except that it NEVER has.

yes, it has. Just see the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.

Where's that?

San Francisco?

google it

 

[JBeukema]

 

[JBeukema]

 

[JBeukema]

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why is it all or nothing? Why is any resistance of more government control today so often done by suggesting we want to return to a worse time?

The all or nothing straw man argument is ripped and read straight out of the liberal playbook.
These and other commonly heard phrases heard from libs are their campaign platforms and talking points.

Do you mean all or nothing like in the OP? Trying to make rich people poor rather than just pay your previous tax rate?

Paying taxes for the purpose of funding good government is one thing.
However, the Left looks upon taxation as a way to punish success and achievement. To level the imaginary playing field.
The idea that confiscatory taxation for the purpose of creating socialism out of capitalism is a failed concept.
Not once or never has a modern society been able to tax itself into prosperity.
This idea of "fairness" is modern day liberalism's mantra of "getting even".
It covers the liberal idea of the zero sum game with an excuse to redistribute wealth and use it the way THEY see fit.
If government used our tax dollars wisely, stayed within the parameters of a balanced budget, cut government waste, I'd be all for reasonable and equitable graduated tax rates. Ability to pay.
However, in the halls of the US Capitol we have politicians on both sides of the aisle that have an insatiable desire to spend money without considering the consequences of their actions. The laws of unintended consequences are violated more times than the speed limit on an Atlanta urban interstate. Which is to say A LOT!
Quite frankly we're sick of watching our hard earned money being thrown down a rat hole. We're tired of failed policies being tried anew with the expectation of a different result.
We are about get nailed with the largest tax increase in the history of the nation. A bad idea in light of the staggering economy.
Politicians such as Harry Reid (D-NV) have been quoted as saying "we cannot afford tax cuts right now. we need the additional $700 billion in revenue"...That's a lie.
There is no additional money. That figure comes from an estimate of anticipated revenue should the tax cut be allowed to expire. And what does Sen Reid want all that money for anyway?.
He won't answer THAT question.
If this does not get through your spend and tax bias, so be it.
Our money is NOT your money. Hands off.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Of course the source of all human wealth is human labor.

Abe was absolutely right when he reminded us that all capital is but a theoretical representation of past labor that has not as yet been spend.


Now in cases where there isn't enough capital to advance a society, it behooves us to pass laws and policies that allow the accumulation of capital such that it can be wisely invested in putting more labor into the field.

And in cases where capital has assumlated to the degree that there is no longer enough demand to warrant capital formation, then it behooves us to see to it that labor is better rewarded fro creating wealth.

This isn't exactly rccket science EXCEPT to those who cling to the silly notion that we either ONLY need CAPITAL FORMATION or we ONLY need to reward labor for consumption.

We had a pretty good balance between capital formation and consumtion formation back in the last 60s.

Since that time we've given too much advantage to capital formation at the expense of the consumptive side of the equasion.

How did we allow this to happen?

By thinking that FREE TRADE was a good idea for one.

By allowing SCABS to **** up[ collective bargaining for another.

And then there's our recent changes in tax laws that again, gave most advantage to capital formation at the expense of labor.

It's simple really.

The chiefs have all the wompom and the indians are slowly going off the reservation.

Scabs? To whom do you refer? Are you implying that all non-union people(93% of total private sector workforce) are scabs?
That old school union drumbeat has been dialed down to the loudness of a house cat walking across carpet. So just stop the nonsense. Unions wore out their welcome because they failed to realize the concept of competition in the workforce.
Had unions adjusted their thinking, I would imagine many more of us would be willing to be members of the various labor organizations.
I will agree that the notion of free trade is a fail. The concept of free trade was to not only protect American business interests but to also raise the standards of living with our North American trading partners. Unfortunately this is not the case. Instead of lifting up the poorer nations have have scuttled our own. Nobody wins.