Donald Trump is running for President

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Waldo » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:27 pm

Yeah that Obama, he's been terrible for prosperity. :lol:

renatusvestifex wrote:With H. Clinton the US would soften further, gettin more and more socialized, robbing your country from its real strength: brutal capitalism. It may sound cruel, but that made you great and that made you stay great. As soon as you soften, other - hungry - civilizations will take advantage.


Brutal capitalism, isn't it great.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-hedg ... -per-pill/

Pure capitalism is and has always been a failure. There must always be some controls, there must always be some degree of socialism. I mean starting with the basics, without antitrust law, right now there would be one and only one business in the US. Capitalism-communism.

The medical (+health insurance) industry is one where it has been very clear for a long time that capitalism is a utter failure. It fails to improve outcomes, and preys on fear to make money. Providing better products and/or services is not a pathway to profits in the medical field, quite the opposite.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Papa John » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:06 pm

renatusvestifex wrote:So what do you think Trump would be like as a president? As far as I know he'd lock down the border to Mex. better, he'd probably liberalize a lot and he'd give the US a more imperial look in foreign policy. Overall don't you think he could give this country a real drive and do things Obama didn't even dream about?

With H. Clinton the US would soften further, gettin more and more socialized, robbing your country from its real strength: brutal capitalism. It may sound cruel, but that made you great and that made you stay great. As soon as you soften, other - hungry - civilizations will take advantage.


No no no no no!

Don't you understand? The USA was founded on illegitimate racist, bigoted principles! This country was rigged to spoil a rich minority at the expense of an oppressed majority from the outset! Over the years, America's prosperity has been built exlusively on the backs of tireless slaves and underpaid workers! The only reason why the U.S. was ever a world superpower was because we invaded other countries, destroyed their cultures, and raped their women! And of course, Americans in the year 2015 are responsible for all of these atrocities that the country has committed since its inception and we need to be punished for it! Good thing we elected and re-elected a president who adheres to all of these ideas so we can finally compensate for being so evil.
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4553
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby BF004 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:03 pm

Image


Image
Image
Image
User avatar
BF004
 
Posts: 11447
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:38 pm
Location: Galesville, WI

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Waldo » Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:44 pm

I'd love to see those same charts rerun with the median instead of the mean.

One would expect a standard distribution with that sort of chart, where beyond a point increasing freedom leads to dramatic income inequality and hence lower median income despite increasing mean income/per capita GDP. (edit, tho I bet the first chart you posted would fit a standard distribution just fine, probably with a higher R² too).

An extreme corporatocracy, despite being purely capitalistic, is no different than communism, instead of being serfs to the party, the people instead are serfs to the company, who is in complete control of the party(s).

The US's system is on the upper bounds of this already and likely past it. Further increasing economic freedom would likely further decrease median income. Median US income is equal to what it was in the late 80's; it peaked in the late 90's and has been declining since.

Image

Growth of all income quintiles was relatively constant in the US until the Gipper came to power and fundamentally rewrote the much US economic system. The D's haven't undone any of those changes, only making small tweaks instead of wholesale changes. Since that change, income growth is almost purely limited to the top 40%, with most going to the top 20%. Trickle down economics, still the law of the land, is a complete and total failure.

Middle income in the US will not rise with any increase in the freedom of capitalism; it instead requires a decrease, more injection of socialist market controls, to cause the median to rise. Income inequality (aka reduced demand) is the problem, not the stifling of innovation. Excessive income inequality, shown by the lack of median growth despite mean growth, is the symptom of excessively free capitalism. Excessively free capitalism is the problem.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby get louder at lambeau » Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:33 pm

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt


Daniel Guerin warned in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business to be vigilant against “an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs.” President Eisenhower updated that message with a similar warning to fear the rise of the “military-industrial complex.” Edward Snowden has updated the message that Americans must fear the rise of the “military-intelligence complex.”


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-complex/
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Papa John » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:13 pm

Waldo, I think very few would disagree that some degree of govt intervention is healthy for an economy. Very few are proponents of completely unrestricted, "Darwinist Capitalism," as liberals like to call it. It's a matter of how much government intervention is the right amount. This is more than just a matter of anti-trust laws.
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4553
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Waldo » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:32 pm

Papa John wrote:Waldo, I think very few would disagree that some degree of govt intervention is healthy for an economy. Very few are proponents of completely unrestricted, "Darwinist Capitalism," as liberals like to call it. It's a matter of how much government intervention is the right amount. This is more than just a matter of anti-trust laws.


Yet what I was responding to that prompted this little economics discussion was exactly that.

renatusvestifex wrote:With H. Clinton the US would soften further, gettin more and more socialized, robbing your country from its real strength: brutal capitalism. It may sound cruel, but that made you great and that made you stay great. As soon as you soften, other - hungry - civilizations will take advantage.


When it comes to "the right amount", one must always start with a proper frame, what is occurring right now and what has been occurring. BF004 and I basically cited the same stats, albeit with a slightly different means of measuring (median vs. mean) and that difference flips the outcome.

Frame is important.

For example, on a totally different tangent...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Somehow the framing isn't if it says people can or can't have guns, the question merely is how big or how hard to get, it is just assumed that is says you can. The well regulated militia part is utterly ignored. Bows and arrows and knives are arms, are they not? We draw the line on fully armed tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry and pretty much everyone agrees with that and that the 2nd amendment is satisfied. One could move that line anywhere, as long as some arms are allowed (again with the well regulated problem tho), the 2nd amendment is satisfied. It says nowhere that people should be allowed to have guns. An outright gun ban does NOT violate the 2nd amendment anymore than an outright ban on private ownership of nuclear bombs does.

The framing of any discussion on guns is so far out of whack and is just assumed and generally agreed to be so; any attempt to rein in that drift in frame is futile, and somehow concepts like background checks and having guns in schools has become a 2nd amendment issue.
Last edited by Waldo on Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Papa John » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:42 pm

Waldo wrote:
Papa John wrote:Waldo, I think very few would disagree that some degree of govt intervention is healthy for an economy. Very few are proponents of completely unrestricted, "Darwinist Capitalism," as liberals like to call it. It's a matter of how much government intervention is the right amount. This is more than just a matter of anti-trust laws.


Yet what I was responding to that prompted this little economics discussion was exactly that.

renatusvestifex wrote:With H. Clinton the US would soften further, gettin more and more socialized, robbing your country from its real strength: brutal capitalism. It may sound cruel, but that made you great and that made you stay great. As soon as you soften, other - hungry - civilizations will take advantage.



I'd like to know what he meant by "brutal capitalism," as there are different ways of interpreting this. Rezvanutexi (sp), how would you describe "brutal capitalism?"
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4553
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby get louder at lambeau » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:54 pm

Waldo wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Somehow the framing isn't if it says people can or can't have guns, the question merely is how big or how hard to get, it is just assumed that is says you can. The well regulated militia part is utterly ignored. Bows and arrows and knives are arms, are they not? We draw the line on fully armed tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry and pretty much everyone agrees with that and that the 2nd amendment is satisfied. One could move that line anywhere, as long as some arms are allowed (again with the well regulated problem tho), the 2nd amendment is satisfied. It says nowhere that people should be allowed to have guns. An outright gun ban does NOT violate the 2nd amendment anymore than an outright ban on private ownership of nuclear bombs does.

The framing of any discussion on guns is so far out of whack and is just assumed and generally agreed to be so; any attempt to rein in that drift in frame is futile, and somehow concepts like background checks and having guns in schools has become a 2nd amendment issue.


I think that the "shall not be infringed" part is ignored even by saying that people can't have nukes. I think they are saying the Government should have no power at all to disarm the populace, since Government itself is the biggest historical threat to liberty. They sought to limit the powers of the new Government. They never considered nukes, obviously, since nothing remotely similar existed. Maybe cannons were the biggest guns, and I think those would have been obviously protected without question. I think limitations (AKA infringements) are fairly recent aren't they? Guess I don't know when they actually started, but I would guess that it was in the last 100 years or so.

Modern day weapons have changed the dialog due to the obvious infeasibility of allowing average Joe Murrca to have WMDs. I think they should have updated the Constitution, but it is much easier to just ignore it or reinterpret it, so they did that instead. The people let them get away with it because no one wants to think about supervillains with nukes and machine guns living next door.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Papa John » Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:19 am

Waldo wrote:An outright gun ban does NOT violate the 2nd amendment anymore than an outright ban on private ownership of nuclear bombs does.


If you review the Federalist Papers, James Madison clearly intended for the word "arms" to include not only muskets, but also cavalry and naval weaponry.

Jefferson too believed that said militias had the right to employ units of cavalry, infantry, and artillery, including some of the most advanced naval weaponry of his time.



Liberals gave a nuke, ICBM launching capability, and $150 billion to people who have said outright that they intend to use it on us.

But the American people need to be disarmed...

Clearly I'm missing something, please enlighten me.
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4553
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Lord Ben » Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:48 am

get louder at lambeau wrote:I think that the "shall not be infringed" part is ignored even by saying that people can't have nukes. I think they are saying the Government should have no power at all to disarm the populace, since Government itself is the biggest historical threat to liberty. They sought to limit the powers of the new Government.


It's generally been regarded as individual weapons, but like all the other rights that are prevented from being interfered with there is a general clause of "where it doesn't start to infringe on other rights". Speech is protected but yelling fire in a crowded theater is causing harm to people, etc.

They never considered nukes, obviously, since nothing remotely similar existed. Maybe cannons were the biggest guns, and I think those would have been obviously protected without question.


Cannons were allowed in private ownership. Merchant ships, remote settlers outposts, etc carried cannon with them frequently (more frequently on ships than carrying it overland).

I think limitations (AKA infringements) are fairly recent aren't they? Guess I don't know when they actually started, but I would guess that it was in the last 100 years or so.


It started with state constitutions and bans on concealed weapons mostly. Sword-canes, bowie knives, etc. One side said "Bearing arms means you have the right to own them, not wear and carry them around in public with you." and the other said "Shall not be infringed jackhole!"

Here is a C&P from http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-k ... bear-what/

Reining in this expansive definition, though, Chief Justice Ringo thought it possible to legitimately restrict the right to keep and bear arms. He pointed out that the individual rights protected by the first ten Amendments could not possibly be absolute (and therefore free from all regulation) because otherwise great disorder and conflict would tear society apart.68 He illustrated his point when he mentioned certain justified limits on freedom of speech and of the press that were “necessary to protect the character and secure the rights of others, as well as to preserve good order and the public peace.”69 Justice Dickinson agreed when he wrote, “[t]he motive, then, for granting this power to keep and bear arms could not be extended to an unlimited, uncontrolled right to bear any kind of arms or weapons, upon any and every occasion; still less the terms, for they are restrictive in their language.”70 Here we see an early example of a court applying reasonable and constitutionally sound upper limits on weapon ownership, while still preserving the plain meaning of the Second Amendment’s protected individual right.
“Quite frankly, very few people know what they’re talking about." -- Ted Thompson
User avatar
Lord Ben
 
Posts: 4287
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Deep in the bowels of the Vandelay Industries server room.

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby wallyuwl » Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:41 am

Papa John wrote:Waldo, I think very few would disagree that some degree of govt intervention is healthy for an economy. Very few are proponents of completely unrestricted, "Darwinist Capitalism," as liberals like to call it. It's a matter of how much government intervention is the right amount. This is more than just a matter of anti-trust laws.


This. And history shows that limiting, though not eliminating, govt. control works best for economic growth, and not just in the US. The explosion of the welfare state, as a consequence of mostly liberal policies fundamentally weakening our education system over the last quarter century, has created a population of lazy and unskilled workers. Elementary school should be about teaching children how to read and do basic math, not indoctrinate them about GLBT issues or global warming.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby yoop » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:39 am

wallyuwl wrote:
Papa John wrote:Waldo, I think very few would disagree that some degree of govt intervention is healthy for an economy. Very few are proponents of completely unrestricted, "Darwinist Capitalism," as liberals like to call it. It's a matter of how much government intervention is the right amount. This is more than just a matter of anti-trust laws.


This. And history shows that limiting, though not eliminating, govt. control works best for economic growth, and not just in the US. The explosion of the welfare state, as a consequence of mostly liberal policies fundamentally weakening our education system over the last quarter century, has created a population of lazy and unskilled workers. Elementary school should be about teaching children how to read and do basic math, not indoctrinate them about GLBT issues or global warming.


eh, I don't know, it seems to me spiraling inflation takes the front seat, since the early 70's both parents where forced to work, supervision of children was left to day care, or someone besides the parents, children spent there free time watching the tube, often chores children normally would be doing was jobed out as well, imo it's not so much the schooling, our kids are smarter now then they have ever been, to me it's the lack of parental guidence and direction thats been missing.
this country has always carried 15 to 20% on some sort of entitlement program, unemplyment compensation was to help workers in the transition from one job to another, welfare was created to help unwed parents, or single parent familys.
the increase of jobless people is a direct result of corporate moving so many jobs off shore, now we can blame that on increased wages till ice tea is served in hell, but wages have never came close to keeping up with inflation, we all know that.

lack of direction is a two fold issue, not only does it stagnate growth and development with youth, it carries over into there adult lives, when a person doesn't see the chance to advance they give up trying, and I think thats what I've noticed the last 20 or so years, people become depressed and give up.

In my area it's easy to see the work accomplished from welfare programs of years passed, half of the rural roads up here where built from the CC camps, and government work programs, I guess those job creating services cost to much these days to enact and no one wants to pay for them, rather it seems we just prefer to give these people money to sit around and become lazy bums, or what we call wards of the state, again lack of direction rears it's ugly head, people always feel better about themselves when they have something they have accomplished, almost any chore will do, and it inspires them to do more.

putting people to work, doing anything, is better then what we have been doing, weren't taxes raised on the rich to support those work programs years ago? since inflation is the culprit, and corporate America caused the inflation, wouldn't corporate, or that 1% responsible for the problem also be responsible for the fix? seems only logical to me.

But NO, instead the rich want to take there money over seas, they figure they have milked this country for all it's worth, and don't want to spend a dime fixing the mess they created, instead all we hear from that group is how they can get out of paying a bigger share, just look how they freaked out when a flat tax was proposed.

now where going to blame it on the schooling or education of our youth, no sir, thats not where this problem started, it may be a issue, but it doesn't compare to the issue I just ranted about at a 4 am this morning, not even close, want to fix this country, get people off the couch, force them to work for there hand out, give people direction, self worth will increase, and eventually we'll get back to just 20% on entitlement programs, but someone has to get this ball rolling, and that someone is that group of rich people at the top.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 19304
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Waldo » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:31 pm

yoop wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:Elementary school should be about teaching children how to read and do basic math, not indoctrinate them about GLBT issues or global warming.

imo it's not so much the schooling, our kids are smarter now then they have ever been, to me it's the lack of parental guidence and direction thats been missing.


Yeah nowadays basic math is a pre-k/k thing; by the end of pre-k a decent % of the class can read, by 1st grade all but the slowest can. School nowadays is a full year ahead of where they were when I was in school in the 80's.

I don't think lack of parental guidance is an issue at all. If anything, the opposite is true. What they call "free range" parenting nowadays, stuff the will get child services all involved, was called "parenting" up to the 80's.

The broader issue is that we have no way or don't allow for early identification and branching of career paths. In more socialized countries (read, almost all of them), kids are funneled on career paths much earlier than we are; we end up prepping and sending a lot of kids to 4 year colleges who are totally unsuited for it (who then go on to get what they can degree-wise, or worse, fail to get one), there is just no intervention mechanism to stop that train before it has consequences. This is why skilled trades are seriously hurting for people and pay really well, while there is a glut of people with largely useless degrees that have almost no useful skills and huge loans to pay off.

We haven't yet moved away from the concept that you go to college then get a good job, it is still seen as the gateway to prosperity with no granularity. Yes, get a STEM degree and you're in a real good place. That is absolutely not true for the majority of other majors tho. And most people just aren't suited to getting a STEM degree.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: Donald Trump is running for President

Postby Pckfn23 » Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:00 pm

I would love to hear how education in America is systemically indoctrinating elementary school kids (or any age) "about" LGBT and "global warming?"

I would also like to hear about all these liberal policies that have fundamentally weakened our education system over the last 25 years and created a population of lazy and unskilled workers.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 40016
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests