Or Phillip to Hank?

Or Keating to Roark?

Nobody could have made them better because it's the same distinction between a nit and a louse.

My father was fond of saying, "You can't get a man to eat a whole can of peas all at once. But you can get him to eat a whole can of peas, one pea at a time."

The left has used that tactic to reshape the minds and character of the U.S. for nearly a century now. The war on tobacco is a fine example of it at work in microcosm, if anyone would freaking PAY ATTENTION.

"Keynesian economics" is just a roadsign on the superhighway to Marxism.

There are one of two possibilities; you were born yesterday, or, like a goose, you wake up in a new world every day.

Or maybe you were asleep the day they taught history in school.

As Dr Floyd Ferret said, times change. There was a time before Keynesian economics, there will be a time after it; hopefully that time won't be Marxist, but before the Marxists took over, wherever they took over, they were "reasonable", too.

When the Viet Cong was formed, only a small minority was communist. But, they played faction against faction, until, by the end, the communists were left in charge. (That only ended thanks to the United States military and the insane foolishness of the Tet offensive.)

TODAY it operates on Keynesian economics. Yesterday it operated on free-market capitalism. Tomorrow it may well fail-to-operate on Marxism.

Which seems darned likely, since you can't get much more Marxist than Obamacare.

How much do they cost, and do they come with a $ band on them?

Thanks. :)

Haha, there may be a good argument there. I wasn't trying to defend Keynesianism, just simply pointing out that it's very different from Marxism, and doesn't come with the same risks.

Now if we want to make an argument against Keynesianism, we can certainly do that, but we should do it from the perspective that Keynesianism is merely counter-productive and inhibits progress, rather than painting it an equivalent to Marxism, which destroys nations.