- This topic has 121 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by JanS.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm #829556
waynsterParticipantStill won’t go the bust rout…….I thought the rnc candidates was the aliens red ……now if Ted or Donald were in charge way back when would they have done this……
December 20, 2015 at 3:38 pm #829557
TanDLParticipantAargh… logging in to the forums has become such a hassle these days that I can’t give timely responses. Sometimes it works after lots of wrangling and sometimes I can’t get in at all. Anyhow:
Mike: I stand corrected. I got the two dates mixed up… sorry about that and thanks.
redblack: Only if you want it to be, I suppose. :)
JanS: I think Bernie is an honorable man and will strongly encourage his supporters to get behind Hillary if she becomes the final candidate.
December 20, 2015 at 6:42 pm #829561
miwsParticipantDecember 20, 2015 at 8:06 pm #829562
captainDaveParticipantI like Ted Cruz from the standpoint that he seems to be the most likely to adhere to basic principals behind the founding of our constitution. I would expect that he would also be most likely to roll back the executive fiat doctrines of Obama’s imperial presidency to bring back a balance of power in the federal government. That’s why I am not concerned about his personal religious beliefs being used to mandate much.
I also like Ben Carson for the same reason and have supported his campaign from day one. His executive track record for fairness on a broad range of social issues has been stellar despite his personal religious convictions. He was on the board of Costco and Kellogg for many years. Both companies, for example, are highly ranked by the LGBT community:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elections-carson-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0SO0F120151030
Above all, Carson seems to deeply believe in the right for people to be free to think and believe what they want.
I think, more than anything, we need a president that respects individual rights, constitutional process and rule of law.
Whoever the next president is, they will be dealing with the unprecedented baggage of unsustainable entitlements, crippling debt, stifling overregulation and highest potential for massive civil unrest since the Civil War.
I personally think that Trump is only in the race to build his brand and will gracefully pass the baton to either Cruz or Carson. I hope anyway–because I don’t hear much from Trump about his support of constitutional government.
December 21, 2015 at 8:28 am #829565
dobroParticipantI don’t think any of the Republican candidates can win the general election. Carson is on his way out, Rubio is the emptiest of empty suits, Cruz is possibly the most unlikeable person out of them all, and the rest are circling the drain. I do agree that Trump is just in it for the attention and brand-building and will probably find a way to get out after a primary or two. I still think there’s a good possibility of a Romney rerun out of desperation.
December 21, 2015 at 10:31 pm #829573
JanSParticipantCapt. Dave…explain “unsustained entitlements”…what , in your mind, are they? And what exactly does the word “entitlement” mean to you?
December 22, 2015 at 11:51 am #829576
JoBParticipantcaptaindave
my daughter-in-law didn’t speak to me for a year because she got her panties in a bunch when i said that if you actually read Ben Carson in transcript you quickly find that the only things he says that makes sense are his soundbites… when he tries to back them up he quickly loses the reasonable argument test.
Before you start applauding her i want you to ask a simple question..
Why would it be such an insult to say that your candidate (and he wasn’t declared yet) wasn’t making sense in his written arguments?
and why would it be a good thing to shun a family member who actually spent time reading someone you thought was cool?
Say that to me and i will either defend the arguments or i will agree with you that what that person just said was all kinds of you know what….
but i won’t shun you. Not even you Captain Dave and you aren’t even family.
This is the biggest mystery to me.. how a nation with such access to education has been taught that thinking through a reasoned argument is a bad thing.
instead we get slogan food fight.
for that reason alone, unlike Redblack (i think it was) I am not any more impressed by the democratic caucus than i suspect i would be by the Republican.
December 23, 2015 at 8:09 pm #829586
captainDaveParticipantJanS, I have always understood entitlements to be “stuff” you get that you didn’t earn by way of your own productivity, but rather someone else’s work efforts. In the context of my comment, I was referring to government arranged entitlements and not entitlements earned through private property rights. I don’t believe the current level of government entitlements are sustainable. Too many people are living off the efforts of too few. Perhaps technology will someday make up the gap with robotic farms and goods production?
JoB: Media sound bits and interview transcripts don’t provide a very accurate way to judge a political candidates capability–especially if the interviewer is biased as often the case. For me, actual track record is a far more credible indicator of future performance. Constitutional governance is an important issue to me because I don’t believe politics should be about the ambitions of individual leaders, but rather should be about supporting the un-manipulated ambitions of “we the people”. Cruz seems to be the most likely to adhere to constitutional principals based on his track record.
With that said, there is one item that Bernie Sanders is exclusively talking about that I think is very important. Anti-trust was originally a republican issue a century ago. Leveling the playing field by eliminating monopolistic behavior is the only way to achieve true economic vitality for everyone. However, I believe Bernie’s plan for increased government domination will kill any advantages gained with new anti-trust measures.
December 23, 2015 at 8:42 pm #829587
wakefloodParticipantHow have the networks NOT billed the GOP debates as “Grinch Offs”???
Maybe because nobody’s heart on that stage has ever grown 3 sizes on ANY day in their lives?
Just askin’.
December 23, 2015 at 10:00 pm #829588
JanSParticipantCapt. Dave…most people out there (you?), say SS is an entitlement. That means I am entitled to it because I earned it. So…be more specific…what is an entitlement? Food stamps? Unemployment? What? …no need to be wordy, long winded. Be very specific …thanks.
Also…who atre you supporting in the next presidential election….and be specific about their track record as to how it can be good for the majority of people in this country? Rubios track record? How about Jebs, or…oh, god, heaven forbid, Trump…does he have any kind of track record that translates into how well he’ll run this country (besides bombing the crap out of the Middle East, something he knows not a damned thing about). I won’t even discuss Mr. Cruz…the “let’s just carpet bomb them all guy”…I mean…real track records of leadership, sanity(and not wanting his religion to rule in this country)…I think you understand…
December 23, 2015 at 10:02 pm #829589
JanSParticipantalso, Capt. Dave….what aspects of regulatory federal government would you like to see kept. Where, in your opinion, should there be regulations?
December 23, 2015 at 10:15 pm #829590
JoBParticipantCaptain dave
corporate entitlements are not only emptying middle class pocketbooks but severely limit the ability of small local companies to stay in business.
yet your guys would rather you complained about actual citizens getting benefits from their government.. the human safety net.. while decreasing regulations and adding to corporate entitlements.
tell me.. how does letting big corporations shelter their income overseas actually benefit our nation?
if we really can’t afford to provide basic services wouldn’t we be better off questioning where our money is being spent
and what kind of return we are actually getting from it?
take a good look at the total federal budget and tell me again why the small percentage we are currently paying for a human safety net needs to be shifted to corporate entitlements for us to break even?
December 23, 2015 at 11:22 pm #829592
JanSParticipantyes, where are all these entitlements? click on picture for the whole thing…including that big blue area on the right titled “military”
December 24, 2015 at 3:59 am #829596
JKBParticipantAh….no. Details of the debunking here:
December 24, 2015 at 7:40 am #829598
JanSParticipantJKB…so…from your link…”• Food and agriculture quadruples from 1 percent to 4 percent due to the inclusion of food stamps, a mandatory program, and agricultural income and price supports.” And I think that’s part of the “entitlements” that Capt. is talking about…you know…those welfare queens looking for a handout at every turn.A whopping 4%…Yep, we on food stamps, etc., are breaking the bank. And that gets lumped in with the mandatory spemding that was spoken of, SS Medicare, Medicaid. SS is paid into by the employed, and if the govt’ paid back what they borrowed from it, things would be cool…but there are those out there that also see it as a “handout”, and therefore should be reined in. Medicare? Medicaid? Yep, the poor people are breaking this country according to some. I find that attitude quite disgusting, actually. I’m thinking that’s what Capt. Dave meant by entitlements….any way you look at it, it’s on the lesser side of spending.
and a Merry Christmas to all..
December 24, 2015 at 7:45 am #829599
JKBParticipantJust looking for a little truth…when you purport to quote outside sources and to present quantitative data, I think there’s also a responsibility to get it right.
For fun, try looking up the average military spend in the GWBush administration vs that under Obama.
December 24, 2015 at 7:45 am #829600
JKBParticipantAnd whatever your religious/cultural background, Christmas here is a time of well-wishing. Also rampant consumerism and a few other issues, but never mind those. Merry Christmas to you all.
December 24, 2015 at 8:30 am #829601
captainDaveParticipantJanS: SS of course was not originally an entitlement program because it comprised of direct worker contributions. However, a lot more people today are receiving much more SS benefits than they put in (evan after inflation and interest are calculated) according to GAO reports. SS is just one of the many ways people received unearned entitlements. People should be concerned by the fact that food stamp use double under Bush and than doubled again under Obama. The trend toward subsidized living is increasing rather than decreasing, while the source for subsidies is decreasing (taxable income). At some point, the concept of private property rights will have to be violated in order to satisfy the demand for entitlement subsidies. Ask yourself what kind of government we will have if we don’t have private property rights.
As I mentioned in paragraph 2 of my first post, I have been supporting Ben Carson because of his position on constitutional government. Carson advocates giving poor people an opportunity not to be poor by reducing government dependency. As long as the government can get out of the way and let people work, innovate and build businesses, then reducing dependency will create broad based prosperity. However, if the government continues to support the growth of crony monopolies in nearly every sector of the economy, then a lot of people will always be poor.
As JKB pointed out, your graph is completely misleading. Entitlements are by far the largest segment of the US government budget and it seems to be on course for breaking America.
With regard to corporate entitlements, I think we agree, but I define it a little differently. The FTC and State governments are no longer enforcing anti-trust like they did for most of the last century. The big bailouts for the too-big-to-fail entities, of course, are just outright direct subsidies. Either way, all this is being done because nobody wants their pension funds to go into the toilet. The reality is that the economy is rapidly contracting. Politicians are protecting the biggest and most visible entities the most so you stay confident. You are less likely to notice the massive reduction in small private companies that once made up more than half the economy. Unfortunately, it was those companies that kept wages bid up and consumer prices competitive.
We either need more government intervention to complete the transition to a socialist state, or we need to reverse the trend with traditional anti-trust enforcement and reduction of government barriers to small business. I prefer the latter because the former provides little incentive for individuals to produce.
December 24, 2015 at 12:17 pm #829602
JanSParticipantCapt. Dave..I had a long paragraph written and just erased the whole thing. I am a proud 68 yo disabled woman, who is on SS, and Medicare/Medicaid, who works part time because what she gets from SS pays the rent with 10 bucks left over…and doesn’t feel “entitled”, and doesn’t need some “incentive” to produce, thank you very much. I know the reality, you know the numbers to quote. Sigh
Ben Carson has not a chance in hell…
Merry Christmas !
December 24, 2015 at 7:59 pm #829605
dobroParticipant“People should be concerned by the fact that food stamp use double under Bush and than doubled again under Obama. The trend toward subsidized living is increasing rather than decreasing…”
Another way of looking at this phenomena you mention…the trend that is actually increasing is depressed wages, skimming of wealth by the .01 percent, financial manipulation by way of bubbles (housing for instance) that inevitably burst, harming the lower economic levels and creating more opportunity for the rich to harvest assets. Yes, food stamp use is increasing, but I think blaming the victims is the wrong approach. I would advocate a more well rounded social safety net that includes health care, job creation programs that repair our infrastructure and improve our environmental well being, subsidized clean energy, and tax regulations that require corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.
“Carson advocates giving poor people an opportunity not to be poor by reducing government dependency.”
A roundabout way of saying ” I got mine, buddy, and you’re on your own”. An “opportunity” to not be poor. gimme a break.
I do agree that the gov’t needs to do a lot more to break up monopolies and a great place to start would be with the media, forcing the 6 rich white guys that determine what we hear and see to open the playing field so that we might hear some more diverse views.
December 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm #829606
captainDaveParticipantDobro: I think we are on the same page with a lot of things. However, I think that the free market is more efficient than government in the kind of sustainable job creation that can eliminate poverty.
I certainly agree that breaking up monopolies and cartels will go a long ways in reducing the stifling effect of uber rich domination.
Since this thread is about Ted Cruz, did you know that he was previously a director at the FTC many years ago? His work there seems to indicate a worthy track record in fighting against monopolies:
https://pjmedia.com/blog/what-no-one-seems-to-know-about-ted-cruzs-past/?singlepage=true
While Bernie talks a lot about anti-trust, Cruz has a history of doing something about it. Maybe Bernie and Cruz will team up to slay the dragons of finance and industry so that we all have a chance to prosper?
December 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm #829607
JanSParticipantDobro..agreed…
this one especially got to me “”Carson advocates giving poor people an opportunity not to be poor by reducing government dependency.”
Sounds like the good captain has never been there….it’s not a fun place…
Merry Christmas all..
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/22/1353470/-21-Ayn-Rand-Christmas-Cards?detail=emailclassic
December 25, 2015 at 2:40 am #829608
dobroParticipant“However, I think that the free market is more efficient than government in the kind of sustainable job creation that can eliminate poverty.”
The only thing wrong with that is that there is no such thing as a free market and there never has been. And even though you may cling to that fantasy, you know its not true because you, yourself, call for gov’t action to break up monopolies. That is a completely anti-free market position. Cognitive dissonance is what they call that, I believe.
The fact is that the American economy is and always has been a mix of socialist and capitalist ideas and has never, ever, been a “Free market” economy. A free market always tends to monopoly because as long as there are unregulated big guys and struggling small guys, the big guys eat the small guys. Always. The only way that doesn’t happen is if the gov’t provides regulations and infrastructure that allow the small guy to compete. And provide a safety net that keeps us from going full medevial and filling the streets with beggars while the kings look down from their castles.
What we need are regulations and tax codes that work, are properly enforced, corporations and rich people paying their share, politicians that aren’t bought and paid for ( real campaign finance reform), and fair wages and benefits that sustain a robust middle class. You won’t be getting any of that from Ted Cruz.
December 25, 2015 at 2:40 am #829609
dobroParticipantDecember 25, 2015 at 8:11 am #829610
captainDaveParticipantDobro: “You won’t be getting any of that from Ted Cruz. ” Why? Because you say so? Actual track record seems to tell a different story unless you get all your news from MSNBC and Politico. Hillary is the biggest monopoly advocate in the race. She is a huge believer in crony corporatism because that’s where she has gotten all her money over the years.
Since1890 free markets don’t always end up in monopolies–because of antitrust. You seem to be confusing free-market regulation with socialism ideology when they are really diametrically opposed concepts. Sustainable free market design is NOT laissez faire capitalism. Maintaining a free market (in modern terminology) requires regulation to promote fair competition. Fair competition keeps wages high and prices low.
Socialism is about the forced redistribution of wealth. Since LBJ, the US has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on the “War Against Poverty”. Five decades later, the result is more poor people in America than ever before. Tax the income of the rich at 100% and it won’t be a drop in the bucket towards solving the poverty problem in America.
Poor people need to be given the chance to lift themselves out of poverty by having the incentive to learn and innovate so they can build careers or start businesses. Not all will do it, but if some do, they will create jobs for others and there will be a whole lot less poor people to subsidize.
Merry Christmas!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.