America this week, what the hell?

[Thefishguy77]

I have voted for Ron Paul every time I had a chance. And I thought Rand had a chance for a hot minute. But the powers in charge made sure he didn't get it. Same as Bernie it's just SOP for this current government. As long as we continue to elect progressives we will see more of the same. I believe trump is somewhat of a progressive but, Hillary is more of a progressive than Obama is. That's one reason she picked a democratic "conservative" VP candidate to try and bring the middle in to her left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hikenbike]

I'm not going to refute your post. You believe what you believe and that's fine. I would like you to do a bit more research though because I'm not going to do it for you. Go to census.gov and find out how many more people are on government assistance programs now compared to 2008. You should and will be astonished. The classic "makers vs. takers" is getting ridiculous. Sure, I think Obama did a lot of well-intentioned things while in office but unfortunately we cannot continue many/most of them because, guess what, we cannot pay for them! Look at the debt. Sure, the unemployment figures are not bad but look at the number who have dropped out of the workforce. They are still getting paid though through government programs.



I don't think we can afford four more years of Obama without massive, and I mean painful and profound tax hikes across the board. I don't mind paying my "fair share" but in order for all of Obama's programs and ideals to be fiscally responsible we would have to pay around double in taxes, assuming more just don't drop out of the work force and get on government programs. Is that what you want? If so, fine and more power to you. Good luck because if that's the case, I will quit being a "maker" and start being a "taker."

The debt is what it is largely because there was absolutely no choice but to stimulate the economy in an unprecedented way. Everyone knows that was not the desirable thing to do and it would actually be debilitating in ways but sometimes there is no other logical choice. Remember what was inherited.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[1engineer]

The debt is what it is largely because there was absolutely no choice but to stimulate the economy in an unprecedented way. Everyone knows that was not the desirable thing to do and it would actually be debilitating in ways but sometimes there is no other logical choice. Remember what was inherited.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah but eight years later there is no slow down of spending. Eight years...

 

[Gunslinger-13]

Yeah but eight years later there is no slow down of spending. Eight years...

And eight years later, REAL unemployment is hovering at 23%, more folks are on food stamps, more folks have to get second jobs just to survive, the deficit continues to get worse, the dollar buys less, more people are giving up on finding jobs/exiting the work force to get on the government dole, etc...

 

[Thefishguy77]

First first rule is when you find yourself digging a hole you do not want to be in you stop digging. We have a president that tried to spend his way out of a recession. That is foolish logic. We're "Bail outs" necessary? One can argue either way. We had companies that were deemed "to big to fail". How is that possible. Why did GE get a bail out when they did not need one, invest their free money till the repayment needed to be mad and then give the free money back. They didn't even say thanks for the free investment money. Oh yea they also got a seat on the council that Obama put together to figure out how to send our way out of a recession. If a company mismanaged its money and needs to go bankrupt the. Should it be in business anymore? Studsbaker was told his cars had fallen out of style and he needed to keep up. He said I will build what I want and his company is no more. That's how pure capitalism works. By the government selecting which companies will survive that is Currupt capitalism and that is one of the things Obama campaigned on the first time. How the voters didn't pay attention for the second election is beyond me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nevada]

The debt is what it is largely because there was absolutely no choice but to stimulate the economy in an unprecedented way. Everyone knows that was not the desirable thing to do and it would actually be debilitating in ways but sometimes there is no other logical choice. Remember what was inherited.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the only logical choice was to let them succeed, OR fail on their own. no government intervention.

you either fix the leak, or get rid of the boat.

First first rule is when you find yourself digging a hole you do not want to be in you stop digging. We have a president that tried to spend his way out of a recession. That is foolish logic. We're "Bail outs" necessary? One can argue either way. We had companies that were deemed "to big to fail". How is that possible. Why did GE get a bail out when they did not need one, invest their free money till the repayment needed to be mad and then give the free money back. They didn't even say thanks for the free investment money. Oh yea they also got a seat on the council that Obama put together to figure out how to send our way out of a recession. If a company mismanaged its money and needs to go bankrupt the. Should it be in business anymore? Studsbaker was told his cars had fallen out of style and he needed to keep up. He said I will build what I want and his company is no more. That's how pure capitalism works. By the government selecting which companies will survive that is Currupt capitalism and that is one of the things Obama campaigned on the first time. How the voters didn't pay attention for the second election is beyond me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

agreed.

 

[Bigshankhank]

First first rule is when you find yourself digging a hole you do not want to be in you stop digging. We have a president that tried to spend his way out of a recession. That is foolish logic. We're "Bail outs" necessary? One can argue either way. We had companies that were deemed "to big to fail". How is that possible. Why did GE get a bail out when they did not need one, invest their free money till the repayment needed to be mad and then give the free money back. They didn't even say thanks for the free investment money. Oh yea they also got a seat on the council that Obama put together to figure out how to send our way out of a recession. If a company mismanaged its money and needs to go bankrupt the. Should it be in business anymore? Studsbaker was told his cars had fallen out of style and he needed to keep up. He said I will build what I want and his company is no more. That's how pure capitalism works. By the government selecting which companies will survive that is Currupt capitalism and that is one of the things Obama campaigned on the first time. How the voters didn't pay attention for the second election is beyond me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you wholeheartedly, any company which cannot stand on its own deserves to fail. I would consider myself a definite free-market advocate. At the same time, I understand the reality of our current political situation made that option impossible. How would it look, politically, if any president allowed a major employer such as GM or GE to fail under their watch and all of those workers were on the street the next day? Chaos, they would be pilloried. There unfortunately is no other safety net for those people except for my tax payments, and as I understand it it was cheaper for the american people to shore up the finances of a struggling company with a loan because at least the loan would get paid back as opposed to the unemployment disbursements. Meanwhile we work our a$$es off and we keep getting stuck with the bill.
Income inequality is a much larger driver of this problem than who is president, and that is a multi-generational issue not likely to be fixed in my lifetime short of a literal revolution. Political corruption is, in my humble opinion, as symptom of that larger problem.

 

[Yukon4Runner]

Yeah but eight years later there is no slow down of spending. Eight years...

And when democrats are called on the recovery dragging on for eight years, they point to Bush II.

If Barak had campaigned on an 8+ year recovery plan, he would never have been elected.

Is Hillary asking for 8 years to fix the economy?

What then, another 8 years for Kaine?

 

[ThorInc]

Lesson:
The biggest difference between a business and a government is this:
Governments are designed to spend money.
Businesses are designed to make money.

It's that simple. Anyone can spend it but can they only spend what they have? My biggest concern.

Total simplification & lack of understabding of the concept.

What is the purpose of government?

I will simplify it: the redistribution of income (a resourse)


edit: I think the purpose of a business is self explanatory.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[RunninInGA]

Total simplification & lack of understabding of the concept.

What is the purpose of government?

I will simplify it: the redistribution of income (a resourse)


edit: I think the purpose of a business is self explanatory.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

Um, no. Nice try Mr. Marx.

 

[ThorInc]

Um, no. Nice try Mr. Marx.

Redistribution of income does not mean giving a resource to say the poor.......it could be for roads, a national dam, a war...........using Marx is narrow thinking. What is not for is to make a profit.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[nevada]

Redistribution of income does not mean giving a resource to say the poor.......it could be for roads, a national dam, a war...........using Marx is narrow thinking. What is not for is to make a profit.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

why not? if that happened, it would reduce the amount stolen from the citizens. why would that be a bad thing?

 

[RunninInGA]

Redistribution of income does not mean giving a resource to say the poor.......it could be for roads, a national dam, a war...........using Marx is narrow thinking. What is not for is to make a profit.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

Referring to income only is binary thinking and very telling of your responses in this discussion - government does MUCH more, like protect liberty and the rights of its citizens first and foremost, it also provides infrastructure and enforce laws.

 

[ThorInc]

Referring to income only is binary thinking and very telling of your responses in this discussion - government does MUCH more, like protect liberty and the rights of its citizens first and foremost, it also provides infrastructure and enforce laws.

And how does it do this? By move money around.....,protecting liberty is not free & the people that do it, don't do it for free.....the concept is redistribution of income.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[ThorInc]

why not? if that happened, it would reduce the amount stolen from the citizens. why would that be a bad thing?

Ok, consider a government surplus, a profit. The last surplus was decimated by Bush, did you get some? If the government runs a surplus, special interests find a way to get their hands on it. Do you have that kind of influence? I am really simplifing and the business concept and government are like night & day.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[nevada]

Ok, consider a government surplus, a profit. The last surplus was decimated by Bush, did you get some? If the government runs a surplus, special interests find a way to get their hands on it. Do you have that kind of influence? I am really simplifing and the business concept and government are like night & day.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

ok, so status quo doesn't work.

you are saying we should keep doing the same thing.

if we want different results we HAVE to do things differently.

 

[ThorInc]

ok, so status quo doesn't work.

you are saying we should keep doing the same thing.

if we want different results we HAVE to do things differently.

I ask you this, do you believe that Trump can achieve this? Do you think he has the will and connections across the isle to achieve this or will you let him use Presidential decrees. The system works for everyone when your chosen ELECTED official who is representing your interest can come to an agreement with a different rep repping for his constitutients (a meeting of the minds, a vulcan mind meld) and compromise to represent both sides. When they don't have to agree on anything, then you know you are f'ed because they don't have to work.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[nevada]

I ask you this, do you believe that Trump can achieve this? Do you think he has the will and connections across the isle to achieve this or will you let him use Presidential decrees. The system works for everyone when your chosen ELECTED official who is representing your interest can come to an agreement with a different rep repping for his constitutients (a meeting of the minds, a vulcan mind meld) and compromise to represent both sides. When they don't have to agree on anything, then you know you are f'ed because they don't have to work.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

do I think he can get the job done? absolutely.
its not like hes new to making deals, or dealing with high power people. in fact, I would say he probably has more experience with that than Hillary does.

to directly respond to the above, yes I think he can. he has clearly shown us he does not do things "the way they have always been done". in another word, DIFFERENT. which is exactly what we need.

 

[hikenbike]

the only logical choice was to let them succeed, OR fail on their own. no government intervention.

you either fix the leak, or get rid of the boat.

agreed.

Wow. As simple as that huh? Just let 100's of thousands of workers go and let major businesses just crumble? Ha ha. You're all a joke.

The look on this mans face tells it all.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bmEv2-rFA



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[hikenbike]

I ask you this, do you believe that Trump can achieve this? Do you think he has the will and connections across the isle to achieve this or will you let him use Presidential decrees. The system works for everyone when your chosen ELECTED official who is representing your interest can come to an agreement with a different rep repping for his constitutients (a meeting of the minds, a vulcan mind meld) and compromise to represent both sides. When they don't have to agree on anything, then you know you are f'ed because they don't have to work.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

Well what do you think he's going to say?

Remember who loves Trump?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk