Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2015 - 07:12am PT
|
John posted I haven't even started with the crony capitalism involved in "green" energy.
In America we call that "democracy." Let me know when it hits 1% of the cash doled out to fossil fuel companies and then I'll read up on it.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Marco Rubio’s Mistress is Coming Forward … Things Are About to Get UGLY
http://thepatriotnation.net/marco-rubios-mistress-is-coming-forward-things-are-about-to-get-ugly/
The thing about running for president is that all of those pesky skeletons in your closet get exposed for the world to see.
For Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), his biggest skeleton apparently has a nice pair of gams and an irresistible sex appeal.
According to one South Carolina insider, Rubio had an affair with a Washington, D.C. lobbyist and her identity is about to be revealed to the world.
Apparently, the woman was identified by researchers who were delving into Rubio’s disastrous financial past.
Her identity is reportedly being leaked to “multiple mainstream media outlets” this week.
Will this doom Rubio, probably not, he will say he asked for God's forgiveness and the dupes will be OK with that,
then he'll go back to his normal compulsive lying and no one will care until he gets caught again
My prediction. Chris Christy will come out of the shadows
He's the only Mainstream GOP left that has any broad appeal.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2015 - 08:43am PT
|
I don't think anyone will care.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
It's not his fault. Had Hillary not used a private email server and lied about Benghazi, he wouldn't have cheated.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
I guess there is no Conservative Job's plan
Nor any plan to strengthen the economy
Nor is there any plan to control health care costs
to help the middle class
to feed hungry American white children
to enforce criminal actions on employers that employ illegal aliens
But that makes sense;
The Conservatives were the ones that destroyed our economy through deregulation
They shipped the jobs oversees
they are in bed with the big insurance companies
They have no empathy for starving children, or empathy for anyone except their small tribe
they want cheap labor
They hate green energy
they hate considering the environmental factors
They don't care the future, exploit now, dump the problems on the future
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
John, you're falling into a bit of a false equivalency trap as well as the same kind of generalizations the mass media is guilty of. People who think we need tighter gun control don't want these events to go to waste because America has proven immune to any kind of progress on the issue without it.
I think (or at least hope) you're missing my point. I'm not saying that every reason for keeping mass shootings in the forefront has equal validity. I was simply explaining why it will prove unlikely that the media will change its coverage of them, viz. that both sides of the debate have incentives to keep mass shootings in the spotlight. They may emphasize different aspects or reasons, but the result is the same. They remain front and center, and the killers get the attention they seek.
John
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
The more mass shooting are sensationalized
The more gun sales
More guns have been sold in the last 2 weeks than ever before
Hysteria, fear, paranoia, doom, and all the rest of the base reptilian brain emotions..
Gun nuts feed on it.
do the killers really seek attention??
I don't think so, they do it out of anger and hate
an emotional overload of anger to the point that they feel they must kill and screw the consequences
This is all a media caused situation, it sells like nothing else
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Anyway, that source reporting Rubio's affair is pretty lame. One article addresses a singer's "nip slip" on live tv; another addresses a sexy weatherwoman's wardrobe malfunction. Not exactly the NY Times.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
I hope it's not true about Mr. Rubio either
for heaven's sake, his party has suffered enough at their own hands lately
they just have to catch a break
why just this week Senate Majority Leader McConnell is refusing to allow a vote on
extending healthcare for the 9/11 First Responders, even knowing that there are enough vote vote for it to pass in the Senate
because doing so would be fiscally irresponsible, or something
why do some people vote Republican again?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
John!!
I say something about the GOP and you predictably shift the blame to Hillary and the Dems
Can you ever be objective?
answer me this one question
What is a conservative policy that creates jobs and strengthens the economy?
Craig, please don't interpret a delay in responding as a lack of a reasoned response. Conservatives have a tendency to work. In my case, I also have a rehearsal for a chamber chorale in which I sing that ends at 9:00 p.m. on Thursdays, and a meeting that begins at 5:00 a.m. on Fridays.
Conservative policies that create jobs and strengthen the economy have their basis on a fact that Hillary Clinton apparently denies: businesses employ people and thereby create jobs. HC claims businesses do not create jobs, NBC creating one for Chelsea to the contrary notwithstanding. (A cheap shot, I know, but I couldn't imagine any of the Democrats on this board not beating to death stupid things Republican politicians say, so fair's fair. But see, Democrats who say "that's a false equivalence!"
Conservative policy therefore prescribes governmental action that allows the private sector to function in a way most likely to optimize job creation. These include, but are not limited to:
1. Stable prices. This means the government should not pursue policies such as rapid changes in the money supply. Instead, the money supply should expand as the economy expands. Fiscal policy is a much more effective tool for dealing with short-term shifts.
2. Predictable laws enforced with consistency. The more the government acts like a two-bit dictatorship, the less desirable that country becomes as a target for investment. This means you don't make a KXL Pipeline applicant jump through a million hoops and then kill it just because your megabuck contributors paid you to do so. It also means you don't change multi-decade precedents in labor or securities law just because your megabuck contributors paid you to do so.
3. Intelligent taxation laws. This means that government does not impose one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrial world, and then tax on top of that any corporate earnings abroad when they are repatriated. You also aren't surprised that if you have taxes described in the previous paragraph, those foreign earnings don't get repatriated.
4. Encouragement of the free movement of goods and services. This means you don't impose tariffs on foreign goods just because your megabuck contributors paid you to do so. You don't impose regulations or enact laws that penalize the movement of goods and people just because your megabuck contributors paid you to do so. This means you have policies that allow foreign nationals to work in the United States without undue interference, despite opposition by your megabuck contributors who think they paid you to keep the foreign nationals out. The only intelligent interference with the free flow of goods and services would be in externalities such as pollution or national security.
5. Understanding that business is a friend of jobs and growth, not an enemy.
This is only a partial list, but it illustrates the major difference between conservative policies and those which Craig advocates, namely more regulation, higher taxes and less freedom. When conservative policies are in effect, the economy grows. When the government takes over, as it has during the current administration, it stagnates, except for those in power.
The current Democratic party gets most of its contributions from the following:
1. Government employee unions. They believe they have bought and paid for a party that will seek to maximize the employment of unionized government workers;
2. Plaintiff's attorneys. They believe they have bought and paid for a party that will seek to maximize the recovery for plaintiffs generally, and the employment of lawyers generally;
3. "Green" businesses. They believe they have bought and paid for a party that will seek to force people to buy "green" products they would not otherwise purchase;
4. Businesses afraid of competition. They believe they have bought and paid for a party that will seek to enact large barriers to entry in their markets; and
5. Wealthy individuals who are happy with their lifestyles. They think they have bought and paid for a party that will make it difficult to change anything (called by them, environmental protection) and also make it difficult for others to join their ranks.
Understanding this enables one to understand the shortcomings of the Democrats in economic policy. The Democrats tend to be economic reactionaries. Their policies reflect a terror of change, and a terror of allowing people to choose for themselves. Not surprisingly, the economy does better when people are free to choose what they want to do and what they want to buy, because such freedom tends to make for a much better match of resources to desires than one imposed by a plethora of "leeches" (to use Gary's word) whose only function is to prevent people from getting what they want.
Ok, I'm being too harsh. A good economy requires a good legal system, which requires intelligent regulation and laws. I believe that the vast increase in costly regulation, the arbitrary and capricious nature of the regulators, and the tendency to make economic decisions based on the identity of the parties, rather than the economic value involved, all during this administration's tenure caused the dismally weak recovery the U.S. has experienced.
The rapid recovery under Reagan shows what can happen with intelligent policies. The anemia the economy exhibited during most of the Obama administration shows what happens with stupid policies. If the massive increase in domestic hydrocarbon extraction -- which occurred despite tremendous obstacles placed by Democrats -- had not taken place, we probably would be in even worse shape.
Craig, your argument against deregulation assumes a free lunch -- that the regulators will have the knowledge that will enable them to make intelligent regulations. Let's see how that worked in the housing bubble. While those adhering to your argument blame the (bipartisan) repeal of Glass-Steagall, they fail to show a causal connection. More importantly, they ignore what the bureaucrats running federal housing policy did during the time of the bubble. If those regulators saw a bubble, and saw the consequences, you sure can't tell by their actions. The Wall Street Journal, among other conservative voices, was shouting about the danger of Fannie and Freddie, but both the regulators and congress, particularly Barney Frank and Charles Dodd, resisted calls for reform. That makes the irony that the bill that allegedly fixes the problem, whose regulations continue to multiply, came from those same two individuals.
OK. That's enough for now. I have work to do, and see diminishing marginal utility in repeating our discussions. I will let others decide which, if either, of us is objective.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Neither of you is objective.
That's what I suspected, which is why I worded my comments the way I did.
Back to work.
John
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
The rapid recovery under Reagan shows what can happen with intelligent policies. Yes of huge Government increases in spending and employing people was a boast to the economy
And which policies of Obama's aren't working?
The austerity imposed by the GOP and is which NOT a Obama policy
Thanks for the effort John, but it's mostly just partisan spin
blame this, shift blame away from that
some of it is just plain wrong
You add a lot of magic dust to your description of how things work, and that has been tried over and over, and has never worked (insane)
We had practically 35 years of Reaganomics, and this is predictably the outcome of it all
No Jobs, and a weakened economy
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Conservatives have a tendency to work."
Cheap shot!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
The rapid recovery under Reagan shows what can happen with intelligent policies.
I remember the Reagan recovery. That is, if a recovery is picking your self up after having your ass thrown out on the street because the plant you worked in was moving to Mexico and cashing in on a tax break for doing so.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
The rapid recovery under Reagan shows what can happen with intelligent policies.
oh, you must mean the RECESSION and doubling of the national debt under Reagan?
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
Sounds like this thread needs bacon. Yup. Machine gun bacon.
Back to work. Guess I'm more republican than I thought :)
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
Businesses create Jobs????
Nonsense. Buyers create a market which businesses then fill, which creates jobs. Without buyers, you have no market, and hence no businesses.
As for our countries recovery under Reagan. You need to look deeper. Supply side economics is the economics of greed. Our countries economy has devolved to become greed based, so its no wonder that it recovered well under Reagans policies.
This is not to condone Obama, just simply to point out the fallacy of supply side economics.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
John, Thank you.
well said.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"This is not to condone Obama, just simply to point out the fallacy of supply side economics. "
Sorry, that will be unacceptable to the Right. Anything less than a tender Reagan ballcupping is consider Obamalove.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
The thing that I think that needs to be discussed is what exactly is the core of the dissatisfaction this country is currently undergoing. The dissatisfaction that Trump is tapping into. How much is real, and how much is manufactured dissatisfaction.
Such as.. I believe that it is real that we have too many poorly thought out regulations which are open to abuse. Example. Overly complicated tax code. I don't head towards oversimplification, such as a flat tax, but I do see a need to rewrite the tax code.
Also the overextension of powers of the IRS. Where one is considered guilty until one has proven themselves innocent.
I also see the broadening of the gap between wealthy and everyone else as a problem.
What other problems or issues are leading to this overall dissatisfaction?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!