Posted on 01/25/2022 12:59:26 PM PST by ProfessorGoldiloxx
"MSNBC host Tiffany Cross said during her show over the weekend that people on the political Left needed to “pick up a weapon and get involved” in “the war” for American democracy, which she suggested was under threat by Republicans. ..."
(Excerpt) Read more at dailywire.com ...
careful wut ya wish for there suckhole... (+)
Tough talk coming from someone named “Tiffany”.
That is just awesome. Armed “progressives “. It would be like the 2nd Marianas Turkey Shoot!
RE: Hitler.
Yes we do. Against her ilk.
Can you imagine the backlash that would occur if a famous media person on the right said Conservatives or Republicans should pick up guns and prepare to defend what they believe?
I can just see Democrats writing to the FBI and Home Land Security to establish a new Domestic Terrorism investigation.
Someone needs to hold a mirror up to this people and have them see what they are saying.
And bunker dwellers gotta breathe - hard to do when the fresh air tube is discovered.
How is this not a terror threat? The left is gonna get some Congress person killed, they already get innocents killed everyday.
Like James Hodgkinson? Tiffany wants more of that?
I don’t think Tiffany understands who has all the guns. 😆
Mercantilism is another matter and refers to the practice in that era of monarchies and nation states building their economies through protectives tariffs that forced the development of domestic industries. Adam Smith's insight was the free trade was generally better because offered general economic prosperity though comparative advantage. Predatory trade policies are an exception of sorts and raise of host of other issues.
In fairness to Hamilton, as the first Secretary of the Treasury he put America's finances on a sound footing. His fundamental insight was that if properly organized and regularly paid, America's national debt would become an economic asset by paying interest on currency reserves held by banks and the wealthy. This helped create the pool of capital that funded the country's development, then and now.
This may seem counter intuitive, but the national debt and the debt market and banking system it fosters are part of the reason that you can get a home mortgage and a car loan and that you have an employer who will hire you. They enable banks to act as intermediaries so that wealthy people can convert cash into a source of income through capital investment. In effect, lending to build and provide you (and the rest of us) with a home, car, a job, and an abundance of material goods and services is not charity or state socialism but income generating capital investment.
The alternative to Hamilton's system that you seem to suggest that the Confederacy offered was that instead of providing investment capital to fund internal improvements and productive jobs and better living for free people, the bulk of investment capital would go to funding the purchase and holding of slaves laboring under conditions of money-saving privation. That is mostly accurate, but keep in mind that since slavery also required capital, its financiers made a lot of money. In the end, the bankers and the wealthy always make money somehow.
I do not see the logic in that comment, which seems to cartwheel from the Confederate cause to a gripe about federal transfer payments today.
Of course they did. With 72% of the money funding Washington DC coming off the work of slaves, they wanted freebies from Washington DC to be paid for by others. These regions of the country *STILL* believe in freebies from the government.
The point of such public works was that they enabled an expansion of commerce for merchants and for farmers to move crops to market and gain cash income instead of remaining money-scarce subsistence farmers.
And guess who controlled their transport monopolies? If you guessed that same wealthy elite monied class in the Northeast that controls Washington DC, go to the head of the class.
Look up "The Graingers."
They enable banks to act as intermediaries so that wealthy people can convert cash into a source of income through capital investment.
Austrian school of economics calls this "rent seeking." They wanna be Lords. They want aristocracy where they don't have to work but the peasants do.
That is mostly accurate, but keep in mind that since slavery also required capital, its financiers made a lot of money. In the end, the bankers and the wealthy always make money somehow.
I've long said that if they had been successful in keeping their independence, it is likely I would be bitching about the wealthy elite in the South rather than in New York City and Boston.
I'm pointing out that everybody loves slaves, so long as they are the beneficiaries of the money produced by the slaves.
Taxation is fractional slavery. 100% taxation is 100% slavery. 50% taxation is 50% slavery.
I say we all have a responsibility to carry some load for the benefit of the general public, but I have long stated a reasonable amount of that load is 10%.
In any event, public works and internal improvements are a traditional role of government. In Europe, the government paying for such work on a professional basis was a great advance over the feudal method of the hated corvee' that annually drafted peasants to build and maintain roads, canals, and other public works.
In the US in the first half of the 19th Century, most internal improvements were free for use by all or had only enough fees and costs to pay the bonds used to fund their construction. State and local government funded internal improvements were common, with some, like the Erie Canal, having transformative economic impact throughout their region.
The problem in newly-settled territories and states was that state and local governments were either yet to be organized or lacked adequate funds and tax base to conduct internal improvements. Federal support was sought in their absence.
Hating bankers and wealthy people is foolish because it is a way of rejecting capitalism and banks as wealth creators. The best remedy for rent-seeking is to attack it directly, not to attack all rents and interest payments indiscriminately.
Calling taxation slavery is best thought of a metaphor rather than as a line of analysis. Laffer, Mundell, and other supply side economists usually put the most productive level of income taxation at 19 or 20 per cent. User fees that pay running costs and amortized construction costs are not thought of as taxes but as enterprise costs.
Calling taxation slavery is best thought of a metaphor rather than as a line of analysis. Laffer, Mundell, and other supply side economists usually put the most productive level of income taxation at 19 or 20 per cent. User fees that pay running costs and amortized construction costs are not thought of as taxes but as enterprise costs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.