1) In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith proposed taxes should be levied proportionally; not progressively. Smith wrote copiously on a number of topics and experimented with various ideas before fixing on the best of them. Wealth of Nations is Smiths definitive work on all things economic and comes later than other economic writings. So if he gave some thought to a progressive tax, this would supercede it.

2) The smear his cartoon makes of Eisenhower and Nixon bequeathing 91% and 70% tax rates, respectively, under these Republicans. However, it makes no mention these were down from 94% under Truman and maintained at the 70% level under LBJ to pay for his Great Society. Both Eisenhower and Nixon were saddled with Democratic Congresses, and it is Congress, not Presidents, who set these rates. Nixon tried to bring tax rates down, but Congress was determined to fund the LBJ programs indefinitely.

3) I won’t dispute with him McCain is weak on tax reform, though he did briefly entertain the Fair Tax. Nonetheless, he is far to the right of Obama on keeping taxes where the are if not actually lowering them further.

Yeah, why don’t you go ahead and do that. Remind me. Except to mock your utter and complete ignorance and simplicity, I never wrote a two word definition of a complex political philosophy, or generalized an entire group of people who subscribe to a particular political philosophy, or appealed to a mythical “third way” in place of a substantive argument or idea of my own.

“Conservatism = greed, and capitalism is a disease.” The latter is what you would call a metaphor my friend…..it seems you are only proving my belief of most conservatives….unable to think outside of black and white.”

Yes, I understand the metaphor. I guess you didn’t quite understand what I was criticizing: your use of metaphor is worthy of a high school English class gold star. So give yourself a pat on the back. The substance of the metaphor is what makes you a simpleton. You simply throw out broadly generalized statements, with no basis in fact, and no accompanying use of facts or analysis, because you are an ideological hack who is either unwilling or unable to undertake any kind of serious thinking. You are here simply to try to troll, and you’re too transparent to even be effective at that.

“As for Conservatism = greed, if you would like I will break it down for you in terms of logical proof…..or would I just be wasting my time because you seem to be anything but logical.”

You keep threating to break out logic and facts like a bank a robber with a concealed gun, but you certainly haven’t resorted to it so far. So I won’t be holding my breath. I doubt you could pull off making an actual logical argument instead of appealing to generalities, ad hominem attacks, emotion, and value judgments anyway. Besides, if any of us disagreed with your juvenile and ignorant proclamations, we’d all just be stupid, backward, ignorant, illogical, greedy old Republican Nazi fascists, right? So, if you’d like to use our supposed deficiencies as a cop out to escape having to reveal your own, by all means be our guest. Saves us both a good deal of discomfort, doesn’t it?

I think we’ve all cut you a lot of slack here, and we would expect the same from you. If I use a rhetorical device like “the best system ever devised” in the context YOU defined as “economic systems,” can I get some slack as well?

Ok, now, can you find it in you vast intellect to actually deal with the substance of my posts? Your attempt at misdirection refutes no point I have made.

And by the way, I have treated you with respect and answered your posts point-by-point. You in return call me names. Is that your version of intellectual?

ok mountain man….merriam and webster seem to disagree:

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

as it seems do you: “Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised, because it perfectly balances all the elements of human nature and economic forces. All other systems are interventionist, and therefore unbalanced.”

you contradict yourself. Come back when you decide…..until then you only sound like a buffoon.

“The end of work” is not a problem of capitalism. Capitalism didn’t force people to choose training in a vocation with no demand. Capitalism doesn’t cause companies to relocate overseas to escape the oppressive taxation and regulation of government.

Capitalism, absent government social engineering experiments, is the answer to your question.

You moved the goal posts, so I guess I have to kick again. No one is talking about “modern capitalism.” There is no such thing. Capitalism is exactly what I have defined it to be. Anything outside that definition is not capitalism.

“We are not a free people.” You are proving my point. Capitalism, by definition, requires free people engaging in relationships and exchanges (as defined above) unfettered by government intrusion. The fact we are not free is a failure of government, not capitalism.

“I just believe there is a greater philosophy out there. A combination of the best of all others…” Repeating yourself doesn’t change facts, and only amounts to wishful thinking. There is no superior “system,” because capitalism isn’t a system. It’s human nature, and it perfectly expresses that human nature.

“…equitable for all…” is a leftist worldview. Enforcing economic equity is also know as socialism. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, because it is contrary to human nature.

Worship of money is a sin, not a matter of law or government intervention. Therefore, the Gospel of Christ ought to be spread, not government power over people. Is that too broad for you?