Socialism Fails when it runs out of other peoples money. M Thatcher.

[Pete McCluskey.]

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read:

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

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. 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 is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?

Neither could I......

 

[Ian Anderson]

Oh so true.

Ian

 

[Terry Oxandale]

I guess it depends on the context. Here in the US, the term Socialism (depending on the group) is thrown around as a huge blanket that covers every service that is provided by even a single penny of tax.

I can't imagine anybody, with any desire at all to do the best that he can, accepting Socialism...but I also think it's a shame that this word is so often politically abused in describing people, systems, and actions that resemble socialism about as much as a penny represents the value of a dollar.

Last week's Iowa straw poll was actually won by a person who states our country's debt problem can be [relatively quickly] resolved without any tax increase, and without an increase in the debt ceiling. This result illustrates the level (or lack thereof) of sophistication of the US voter. It's going to be a LONG year!

 

[Damian]

Careful Pete the Dem's / Socialists on here are not going to be to happy about this. In the eternal words of Margaret Thatcher "Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

 

[Max Walter]

on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said,

She wasn't actually PM then, but was Leader of the Opposition (Conservatives).

 

[40 Bud]

Terry, I hate to tell you but based on when I was born (1934) the relationship of 1 penny to 1 dollar is pretty close!

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Actually, I looked favorably upon PM Thatcher, but I wasn't as engaged then as I am today, with worldly political, economic and social activities. I suppose even now though, I still do.

 

[Tod]

I find it hard to believe (or maybe not) that politicians don't see this in more simple terms...

If you are trying to run a household and you determine that your job does not earn you enough money to cover your expenses every month, what do you do??? You either get a second job to increase your income and/or reduce your expenses. Same in business - add additional revenue streams and/or reduce overhead. Government needs to approach it the same way - spending cuts where appropriate and finding a way to increase revenue (taxes, fees, etc.). If you do enough of it and over a long enough period of time you might just even have a surplus. We all have to work within the confines of a budget, government should be no exception.

Unfortunately, politics are so polarizing these days that it's more about posturing rather than really solving the problem.

 

[Paul Brameld]

I find it hard to believe (or maybe not) that politicians don't see this in more simple terms...

If you are trying to run a household and you determine that your job does not earn you enough money to cover your expenses every month, what do you do??? You either get a second job to increase your income and/or reduce your expenses. Same in business - add additional revenue streams and/or reduce overhead. Government needs to approach it the same way - spending cuts where appropriate and finding a way to increase revenue (taxes, fees, etc.). If you do enough of it and over a long enough period of time you might just even have a surplus. We all have to work within the confines of a budget, government should be no exception.

Unfortunately, politics are so polarizing these days that it's more about posturing rather than really solving the problem.

Agree in principle but the credit card was created in the USA in the 1920s and too many people and now governments have been bashing the plastic a little too much. Or a lot too much in some cases!

 

[Terry Oxandale]

The politicians know what is practical and correct. Listen to any "retired" politician, and they'll sound wise beyond their years, but for some reason, when in office, the focus is solely on the next vote, and not what's right. Which then passes the buck of "what's right" to the voter. The inability of our public to vote on someone that will keep the country's best interest in mind, instead of their own little interests, tell volumes for the intellegence, expectations, and priorities of the electorate.

I'm afraid to say that we are finally getting our just desserts.

 

[Paul Brameld]

I'm afraid to say that we are finally getting our just desserts.

Could not agree more !!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Bob Fechter]

Ox, read you statement; "Last week's Iowa straw poll was actually won by a person who states our country's debt problem can be [relatively quickly] resolved without any tax increase, and without an increase in the debt ceiling."

How do you reduce the debt while not reducing the debt ceiling??

The combination of unlimited government borrowing and the threat of new taxes is not a climate to stimulate growth. Why can't people remember what Carter's taxes did to the country?

 

[Terry Oxandale]

You're correct, a reduced debt no longer requires a increase in the ceiling. My point was that I'm appalled that anybody thinks we can get out of this 40% debt problem with no additional revenue. How many of us are willing to say that from now on (to balance the budget), I'll accept the fact that no government provided or funded service will take place outside of three days of the week. The other two business days will be unpaid absence for government employees, and unpaid services for all the rest. I've no time to look at numbers more closely, but my assumption is the combination of lower income for many thousands of people, reduced turnaround time for permits and government required services, and reduced benefits for those least able to respond, will in the short and mid term, set the final nail in our economic coffin. To think that you can turn a huge ship like our economy around, when we don't even have a powerplant is incredulous. Pandering to the ever-optimistic, that no-taxes are an option, ought to be a criminal offence for anybody in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = " border=" /><st1lace w:st="on">Washington</st1lace></st1:State>.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

<o></o>
The other day as I listened to yet another spiel about how lower taxes promote job growth because a “I don’t want to work harder to later pay it back out in more taxes” mentality. This kind of thinking is like looking at a mirror and saying, “I’m no longer going to go to work harder because I’m now making less money just so the CEOs I work for can make more money”. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">America</st1lace></st1:country-region>’s expanding bi-polar income picture is not the result, nor the driver, of a successful economy. Instead it mimics more and more a third-world economy.<o></o>
<o></o>
Who in their critically thinking mind thinks we have the population growth, demographics, and moral social fortitude to maintain economic growth numbers of years and decades past. Do these people think that we can grow at 3 or 4 percent annually until eternity? At some point a balance, or equilibrium will’ and must be reached. This same logic equates to population growth. We cannot continue to have 3 or 4 children for each and every family, forever. I can only surmise that these same folks believe that "it will never happen in my time". Lord, how many times has that thought pattern bitten us, yet, this mentality is what drives the speeches we hear from those running for office. <o></o>
<o></o>
Are we, as an electorate, so gullible or naïve, that we believe and subsequently elect these folks simply because they say things we want to believe, regardless of the painful truth? The electorate is simply the mirror of our politics. We have only ourselves to blame.<o></o>
<o></o>

</SPAN>

 

[Bob Fechter]

What the congress is debating on is whether or not to cut some of the built in 8.5% automatic spending in the budget every year. Trying to reduce the amount of growth in spending is considered a cut!

I know I have to cut back on a lot of things in this economy, but the government goes right ahead and spends more each year automatically. Whenever a tax cut is mentioned, the government says, "We can't afford that." Have you ever heard the government worry about whether we can afford a raise in taxes? Never.

What we really need to do is audit the government. I think even the most liberal tax and spenders, deep down, knows the waste and theft in the government is massive, beyond comprehension.

So, why can't the government, as a good faith measure, cut 10% right off the top of all spending. In reality, that would be only 1.5% when figuring in the automantic 8.5%.


t

 

[Bob Fechter]

As far as demographics go, the Arabs are overrunning Europe because the Europeans are eliminating themselves by this adherence to population control. The US barely breaks even in reproduction. Japan is disappearing. If 52 million Americans weren't aborted since 1972, would we need illegal aliens to do the jobs we don't want to do?

 

[Graham]

As far as demographics go, the Arabs are overrunning Europe because the Europeans are eliminating themselves by this adherence to population control. The US barely breaks even in reproduction. Japan is disappearing. If 52 million Americans weren't aborted since 1972, would we need illegal aliens to do the jobs we don't want to do?

Bob, as they too would be Americans, surely they wouldn't want to do the jobs either, and you'd have an extra 52 million on state welfare?

 

[Damian]

lonesomebob that is absolute nonsense and you know it. There are millions of people out of work right now that can barely afford bread and that would do anything to earn a salary. The problem is that the older generation feels as if they are entitled to something and will not work for anything under what THEY value their time to be worth. One might say that they are bitting their nose to spite their face.

 

[Jeff Young]

Are you really this crazy in person or is this just your internet persona?

Also, corollary of the original thread title:

Capitalism fails when it runs out of other people to exploit.

Top 400 families in the US own 1/2 of the wealth. Same as the bottom of 150 million.

As far as demographics go, the Arabs are overrunning Europe because the Europeans are eliminating themselves by this adherence to population control. The US barely breaks even in reproduction. Japan is disappearing. If 52 million Americans weren't aborted since 1972, would we need illegal aliens to do the jobs we don't want to do?

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff,

Here is another recent post from lonesomebob:

Aaaah, the Liberal Turd plops into the punch bowl! Tell me, Craik, do your legs get all tingly when you see Bill????<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

I think you called it right, CRAZY seems to cover him.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Come on Jeff and Jim, you are doing it again. Calling someone names, (crazy) when they disagree with your views. I think you are both better than that.