Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

This Panic to Terminate a Presidency...

135

Replies

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    das68 said:
    Problybisley said:
    Socialist governments last until there are no wealthy people or corporations left to tax. Then they look to the middle class to support them. When they run out of money, everyone has achieved equality. That is when you get a few crumbs. Look it up.



    We don't have anything close to that. We have a middle class that gets taxed to support the wealthy and the corporations. I'm glad you explained it. Now I really have no fear of us becoming socialist.
    Edit
    I meant to quote the socialism explanation. Didn't work. :/
    just like socialism
    Exactly👍
    Except it's mostly accomplished by conservative politicians in the name of Capitalism.

    Republicans tax the middle class to give to the rich who don't need it.

    Democrats tax the middle class to give to the poor who refuse to work for it. 

    Both choices end up with the middle class screwed. 
    If you could find some way to turn off the repetitive talking points for awhile, you could understand this issue...assuming that you want to, that is. You are still in the bag for Democrat politics during the Reagan era, when they vilified David Stockman for coining the phrase "trickle-down economics."

    For someone who pretends to be the guru of "elite theory," you apparently do not even understand what capitalism is, once you remove the phony facade that politicians erect in front of it. Capitalism  is trickle-down economics, period. It is not a new variation of capitalism, nor is it anything else invented by a politician to dominate that 99% of the world's population that are not in the 'elite.'

    Capitalism has always been the way the world works, no matter what, except for very brief interruptions when socialism flares up brightly, before burning out. The elites have always  been there, just as the poor have always been there. The only variable involved is the extent to which the poor are poor, the rich are rich, and everybody else is somewhere in the ever fluctuating middle. The middle class is the key to having a system in which nobody starves, and the poor have an achievable goal to strive for - not the politicians, despite whatever they will tell you.

    All that any 'honest' government can possibly do is attempt to provide a structure in which the non-elite classes do not suffer any more than necessary, and give them reason to believe that they can improve their own lot in life with hard work and intelligent thought. The only way to do that is to help the middle class thrive, so that entrepreneurship will flourish and create small businesses that will provide jobs for the poor to use as stepping stones to the middle class.

    Lowering corporate taxes always results in increased employment rates. Democrats always portray corporate tax cuts as subsidizing the rich, when it is really just offering incentives to those that have the necessary capital to embark on ventures that create good opportunities for the middle class. It is an intelligent investment, if done properly, and Democrats know it. It just doesn't fit the narrative they need, to be elected.

    Pretending that capitalism is not a natural force driven by basic human behavior is the reason socialism has never and will never deliver the poor from their despair. At one time, both of the major political parties understood this so well that it was the one subject that they didn't even bother to argue about, to any great extent.

    Recognizing that government cannot destroy the elites without starving the poor and wrecking the middle class is a good place for a recovering socialist to start his 'twelve step program' of shedding a corrupt ideology. Take whatever is usable from every economic theory and see if it can improve the problem, but understand that punishing your political enemies does not solve the nation's problems. It just makes your politcal enemies regroup and plan for the time when the numbers favor them. We have been traveling down that road to nowhere for a long time, and it leads to no familiar place. Apparently it just circles.



  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,849 Senior Member
    Its all in Ayn Rand...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,816 Senior Member
    I don't believe the ideology of capitalism is flawed. I believe the execution has been pushed over a cliff.

    Speaking for myself, I don't want the elites destroyed. I just want to see my society have the opportunity to earn fair compensation for their labor, and useable infrastructure returned for their contribution. Things like a tax payer subsidized labor force that qualifies for public assistance must end. The burden of information, transportation, energy and other essential network services that promote the common wefare must be if not equally shared at least more equally shared. I don't want a 50/50 split. I just want to have enough to afford the Model T I built without a ten year mortgage to pay for it. That's all.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,849 Senior Member
    And then the unions got greedy just like the "elites" did, and did themselves in.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,131 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    And then the unions got greedy just like the "elites" did, and did themselves in.
    Right. So things swung the other way. Maybe it is time for things to start heading the other direction again-- toward that happy medium.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,849 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    And then the unions got greedy just like the "elites" did, and did themselves in.
    Right. So things swung the other way. Maybe it is time for things to start heading the other direction again-- toward that happy medium.
    Too bad it never stays there...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,816 Senior Member
    Im pretty sure that if there weren't so much money to be extracted from the oligopoly by our elected policy makers there wouldn't be a panic to terminate a presidency. Im not advocating money free politics. Im advocating less money politics.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,444 Senior Member
    Unions gutted the auto industry and propelled robotics to taking over those union jobs. And robots don't go out on strike, work while drunk/high, and don't get a big fat pension and benefits package. Fast food franchises are doing the robotics and order kiosk things to cut costs and get rid if high priced low output workers that used to use that first job on the bottom rung as a step up the ladder to higher paying jobs. And I don't care who doesn't believe it, a minimum wage job has never been a living wage job, and it certainly has never been a career choice.

    Robotics are taking over lots of menial low paying jobs. And it really started further back than the auto industry. The electronics industry was using robots to stuff the parts on circuit boards and other robots to do the soldering of the parts to the boards. And accuracy of parts placement, and better soldered joints by the robotics sealed the deal.

    cap·i·tal·ism
    [ kap-i-tl-iz- uhm]
    NOUN
    1.
    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

    An oligopoly tends to be its own worst enemy. When one or a few individuals control all of an industry, they tend to rest on their laurels, and innovation suffers or ceases. That is why Ma Bell/AT&T are sucking wind due to the explosion of cell phones, computers, and tablets. They thought it was a fad, and got slammed against the wall. Same for other industries. They fail to innovate, and some bright up and coming maverick knocks them on their butts, and leaves them to suck in the dust. And speaking of computers, silicon is on it's last legs as a medium for computer chips.

    Bonus Michio Kaku video

      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,849 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    The electronics industry was using robots to stuff the parts on circuit boards and other robots to do the soldering of the parts to the boards. And accuracy of parts placement, and better soldered joints by the robotics sealed the deal.
    Yep - I worked with - and helped maintain the computer end of - some of the 1st robotic pick and place equipment in the industry back in the 80s. Some of the issues were "interesting"...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,444 Senior Member
    Some of the automobile robots had some 'interesting' growing pains, too, from what I've read.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    edited February 2019 #72
    It's the same tired old class envy argument, Alf. You try to change the argument by saying 'unfettered' capitalism, so it becomes an accusation instead of a discussion of facts, and then use the same old robber-baron arguments from a hundred years ago, before the communists started calling themselves 'progressives,' to invoke visions of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    There is just no way to cut through your ideological indoctrination and have an honest discussion about true things.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    Well Alpha, you're absolutely right. I remember well when Clinton passed NAFTA and took a major segment of wealth away from the elite corporations and control away from the unions and gave it to the underdogs. Unfortunately the underdogs were in Mexico and other foreign countries.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,849 Senior Member
    PLUS - NAFTA was shoved down our throats by BOTH parties.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    PLUS - NAFTA was shoved down our throats by BOTH parties.
    Actually, it was negotiated by Bush, Mexico, and Canada and voted for by more Republicans that Democrats but yet when Trump wanted to repeal it, the democrats fought tooth and nail.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,131 Senior Member
    When was Trump prevented from repealing NAFTA by Democrats? And when given the opportunity to renegotiate, why were there only minor tweaks and now suddenly it is a "good deal"?
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,849 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    PLUS - NAFTA was shoved down our throats by BOTH parties.
    Actually, it was negotiated by Bush, Mexico, and Canada and voted for by more Republicans that Democrats but yet when Trump wanted to repeal it, the democrats fought tooth and nail.
    I just remember both Bush and Clinton pushing for it.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    It's the same tired old class envy argument, Alf. You try to change the argument by saying 'unfettered' capitalism, so it becomes an accusation instead of a discussion of facts, and then use the same old robber-baron arguments from a hundred years ago, before the communists started calling themselves 'progressives,' to invoke visions of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    There is just no way to cut through your ideological indoctrination and have an honest discussion about true things.
    And explain to me how today is massively different than 100 years ago? Maybe you can't see it because you grew up before it got as bad. And btw to counter your idealogical indoctrination, we dealt with the robber barons and shifted the pendulum back in favor of the little guy back then so you and your parents and grandparents generations could have it reasonably good without becoming socialists. We can do it again. 
    I've spent years trying to make my arguments using historical facts and I still the get the same canned responses that liberals were giving me when I was your age. I grew up during a time when history was not taught as a political narrative, and then read actual books, instead of Internet blogs, to learn about the parts I didn't understand, or didn't believe.

    You cherry-pick the historical evidence (or conjecture) for the exculpatory bits that any good historian includes in any exercise that seeks to form a reasonable conclusion, and then you extrapolate those bits and pieces to further your narrative.

    As for repeating the break-ups of the monopolies of a hundred years ago, without furthering socialism, that's going to be very hard to do, when socialism is blazing through the Democrat Party like a brush fire. The Democrat establishment is terrified of having to move so far left to control their base that they won't have a chance in the general election.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    When was Trump prevented from repealing NAFTA by Democrats? And when given the opportunity to renegotiate, why were there only minor tweaks and now suddenly it is a "good deal"?
    It wasn't a good deal then and it's not a good deal now regardless of which side is in charge. The left opposed Trump doing anything with it superficially just because of their hatred for Trump and resistance to anything that he tries to achieve regardless of how insignificant or inconsequential it might be.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,131 Senior Member
    They may have pissed and moaned, but they haven't done anything that would have stopped him.

    And yea-- if it was such a bad deal then, the new changes to it didn't make it a good deal, but we are being told that it is anyway. I think we have been played.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • mitdr774mitdr774 Member Posts: 1,493 Senior Member
    Just about anytime a politician tells me something is a good deal, I expect it to be a raw deal for the majority of the people out there.

    I dont know the exact cut off and dont really care to look it up again, but last time I looked the "1%" bracket started a lot lower than most people think.  I wouldnt be shocked if most of the politicians screaming to tax the 1% are dangerously close to that mark, which is why it will never be an evenly applied increase if they manage to implement it.  Anyone that feels they are under taxed can gift the government money above and beyond what is owed in taxes, but I dont see anyone doing that.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,816 Senior Member
    Spin has become the end all.
    Party over policy.

    Reality no longer matters. We've been yanked into the congressional mud where we argue and debate according to their rules, language, and procedure. 

    Pundit punch is no longer consumed with caution, but swallowed whole with complete abandon in reaction to whatever gaseous fog gets blown across the air by the media thought indoctrinators. Parroted and repeated to the complete annihilation of independent thought.

    Just make sure mine has the right capitol letter in front of it.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,444 Senior Member
    edited February 2019 #83
    I see that most people don't understand how trade agreements with foreign nations work. The President isn't the sole arbiter in trade agreements.
    For your information and edification.


    ROLE IN TRADE
    The U.S. Constitution grants the legislative branch authority to regulate international trade
    including establishing tariffs, drafting and implementing trade agreements, and other provisions
    affecting commerce within the United States. The House Ways and Means Committee and the
    Senate Finance Committee have primary congressional jurisdiction on trade matters.

    In order to facilitate the passage of trade agreements, Congress has delegated (temporary)
    Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to the President. TPA (also known as “fast-track authority”),
    is a mechanism whereby the Congress defines U.S. negotiating objectives and establishes a
    consultation process with the Executive Branch as it negotiates trade agreements. Congress
    delegates negotiating activities to the Executive Branch through TPA. Most importantly, TPA
    traditionally commits the Congress to vote “yes” or “no” on final agreements, but without any
    possibility of amendment.
    TPA has been part of the U.S. trade negotiation process for over thirty years but expired in 2007.
    It is under review for extension.


    Don't be laying all the trade problems at Trump's feet; Congress has had a big hand in the mess that we have now, and isn't really interested in fixing it.

    I like facts over fiction, innuendo, and opinion.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,816 Senior Member
    I thought we were saying Trump made a minor adjustment to an already existing trade policy???
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,444 Senior Member
    Congresscritters still have to approve it. And it wasn't a minor change in the big picture scheme of things.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,131 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    And it wasn't a minor change in the big picture scheme of things.
    If that toots your horn, go ahead and run with it while I am eating a big nothing burger.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Capitalism versus socialism is an argument based on false supposition.
    I know this is an old post, in terms of where this thread has drifted to, now, but I can't turn this one statement loose, without comment.

    I think you have to be careful in coming to such a conclusion, without first coming to a few 'smaller' conclusions. If the object of this exercise is to defend one side or the other (left or right), then the defender of either will usually decide on a conclusion first, and then cherry-pick the evidence, i.e. omitting the parts that don't support it. In many cases, the quantity and quality of the evidence will point to something close to the truth, which is an honorable goal to have.

    A good example is 'Clinton Welfare reform,' and 'Clinton Budget Surplus.' It is true that Bill Cinton signed both bills, and that both benefited the economy and resulted in lower taxes for awhile. But it is also true that it was the centerpiece of Newt Gingrich's 'Contract for America.' It was a hard-fought battle in Congress, and Clinton actually vetoed the welfare reform bill three times, mainly because of the 'work requirement.' He eventually signed it, the fourth time, even though the work requirement was still in it. Each party will spin the reasons why, but the fact remains that there were no significant differences in the bill from the three times he refused to sign it. The passage of that bill went a long way towards actually balancing the budget, and the requirement for healthy welfare recipients to seek employment stayed in, until Barack Obama ended it, by executive order, and the Republicans ignored it, for 'political' reasons that I still do not understand.

    Using this example, my 'smaller' conclusion is that, without considering any of the party campaign machinations that were involved, the Republican Speaker of the House still deserves at least half of the credit for getting a bill passed that did actually benefit the country. That leads to a reasonable conclusion, based on quality evidence, and cancels out the party politics, on a one for one basis. Feel free to throw in any political calculations that might be involved to come to other 'small' conclusions.

    It may be that when all of the small conclusions are made by confirming the quality and quantity of the evidence, you will get the same overall conclusion, but I didn't. I also think that if you performed the same exercise on the capitalism vs.socialism question, you might be less sure that capitalism vs.socialism is not the real battle going on, right now.

    Determining who the elite is, is really a side issue, since voters don't get to select them. But the people they elect will have a major influence on who the elite will be, and how hard they will make it for the rest of us. It seems likely to me that destroying the elite will simply replace the elite with the destroyers, since known civilization has always had its elites. But you can come to your own conclusion about that.

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,816 Senior Member
    Bisley
    I made that statement based on my own supposition that right now we don't have capitalism as the ideology. We have a mutated form thats failing the majority of common people, IMO.

    It may or may not be important to remember that Im not a talking head pundit with an agenda. Im a middle aged truck driver with little education in the formal sence. I have an adolescent son and adult age step children. My agenda is a hopeful future.

    Why do you suppose that some people ( I don't know how many) are supposedly clambering for socialism???

    I figure they're not being pulled in that direction. They're being pushed. They're compensation dollars received for their time on the job no longer provide a living. The infrastructure they need to get those dollars has crumbled, well they're told to pay more taxes. Trumps cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to the last 30 years. Then they're told any failings in their financial wellness are because of inferior content of character. Meanwhile, the middle class has become all but effectively suppressed well the poor get oppressed. Im not talking about me. Im relatively wealthy compared to my community. The policies that caused this are called capitalism???? They don't correspond with the explanation Ive read here.

    Also.
    It seems to me that the current conservative right needs boogeymen to fuel their agenda. The muslims, the millenials, the illegal immigrants, the socialists, the communists, the women, the poor, anyone that disagrees are all going to get us. Be afraid, be afraid.

    Socialism don't work. Fine I get it. If capitalism does and it needs to be sold, the representatives selling it are doing a poor job.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,444 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    And it wasn't a minor change in the big picture scheme of things.
    If that toots your horn, go ahead and run with it while I am eating a big nothing burger.
    Here's three articles on how Congress has to pass any changes to trade deals. Instead of a snarky comment, show me where I'm wrong that Congress has to pass/change laws to implement what Trump wants to do on existing trade deals. This constant sniping at me is getting old.






      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,131 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    tennmike said:
    And it wasn't a minor change in the big picture scheme of things.
    If that toots your horn, go ahead and run with it while I am eating a big nothing burger.
    Here's three articles on how Congress has to pass any changes to trade deals. Instead of a snarky comment, show me where I'm wrong that Congress has to pass/change laws to implement what Trump wants to do on existing trade deals. This constant sniping at me is getting old.
    I learned that in civics class in high school. I don't need three links to show me. I do not recall saying you are wrong about that, or anyone saying that Trump is the sole arbiter in trade agreements. And I am not sniping at you-- you said the changes from NAFTA to USMCA aren't minor changes. I disagree, but know anything that I say is not going to change your mind. Will it be a pain to get through Congress? These days... heck yea! Everything is. They can't even pass a damn budget. 
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,395 Senior Member
    Great lively debate.

    You know, when "Representation" became a profession, special interests became the customers, and the voters became the currency. Democrat or Republican.

    This I say to anyone who suggests the "poor" want a way up. They don't. Largely, there are poor who have become "Comfortable" in their poverty. I know. I've been in their homes as a home health nurse. I see what they have, I see how they live. I call them the "middle poor" because they have learned how to game the system and work under the table. They are comfortable and enjoy free money, free food, free housing and will put up with cockroaches and crime because they are very much like the criminals we fear. They just don't rob you with a gun. They rob you with your own conscience. 

    It is an undeniable fact that there is a class of people who have no interest now, or ever again, to strive to achieve the middle class. They simply want access to the benefits of your achievement. 

    Then you have those who want to achieve, but they haven't the patience to. They want it now, or not at all. They see the stairway to success but demand an escalator...

    We have created this monster because everyone likes sweets. We've become a nation of citizens who have suspended our distrust in government for gifts debited against our own accounts. Representation has become a business. But once representation has both the desire and the power to take, it's not longer representation. We've already lost that battle. 

    The big question is, at which point to we throw in the towel? It may very well be that naive voters will actually eventually vote for socialism. The next generation or two will suffer under it. Then will come the generation that dies to rid themselves of it. 

    Or we can pray for an asteroid.  
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement