(02-09-2018 07:47 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 05:52 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 12:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 12:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  With this budget all of the checks and balances of the Boehner era are out the window. R’s only care about cutting spending when a D is President for political reasons. They have no held convictions.

At least the Dems stand by their convictions of tax-the-heck-out-of-the-American-people and spend-like-a-drunken-sailor.

No worse than spend like a drunken sailor to enrich the already rich, and cut taxes that benefit primarily the rich AND add to the national debt.
Dems would never pull a double whammy like this.

Uh, did you happen to notice how much the national debt increased under the last POTUS?

Uh, do you remember anything about those years? Do you remember Obama had to do something to save the auto industry and numerous international banks? Additionally, every single president sees the debt go up. There are built in increases no president can stop. I don't fault repubs for those increases, only the ones that come from giving massive tax breaks to the 1%

Wait. He HAD to save the auto industry? You mean "too big to fail?"

Hmm, interesting.

(02-09-2018 07:47 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Uh, do you remember anything about those years? Do you remember Obama had to do something to save the auto industry and numerous international banks?

Umm, no I don't, because that isn't what happened. The auto industry was never going to die, so he didn't save it. People really don't understand what bankruptcy means. They would have gone bankrupt, the doors would have stayed open, the assembly line would have kept running, and then everybody would have gotten into a room. Fiat or VW or Toyota or someone would have been willing to buy GM and keep it running, provided the union made certain concessions. The union would have made some, and things would have rolled on. What Obama did was step in so the unions didn't have to make big concessions, and restructure the deal so that the unions got the equity and the bondholders got screwed. He saved the unions, not the auto industry.

Quote:Additionally, every single president sees the debt go up. There are built in increases no president can stop. I don't fault repubs for those increases, only the ones that come from giving massive tax breaks to the 1%

You understand that our tax rates for corporations were the highest in the world and that was driving investment and jobs offshore, right? Did you want that to continue?

The corporate part was necessary. The rest was window dressing. I suppose a corporate cut without something for the middle class would have been a political disaster. So they gave everybody a little bit on the personal side, but the real impact was making US corporations more competitive in the global economy.

(02-10-2018 03:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When your drinking poisoned water tell me and choking down polluted air those pesky govt regulations will seem well worthwhile.

The Flint deal comes to mind. Righties like to blame the EPA but the fact if the matter is the Republican Governor wanted to squeeze Detroit and made Flunt switch their water supply. The water was fine to drink from the Flint river but was caustic and caused lead to leech from homes with lead pipes. Would not have happened if they kept Detroit water which the Republican governor made them switch.

which lends to why funding infrastructure support is critical moving forward......

see how that works, Mach???

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

outside of amending to implement congressional/judicial term limits.......yessiree bob.....

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

If you don't like the bill work to amend it. This follows the thinking of those that say the Bible is outdated. It's outdated because it follows set rules for living a pure life and people don't like it because they know it's too much for them to abide by the rules. Everyone breaks those rules that's why Jesus said we're all sinners and like everything He was right. But unlike the Constitution you can't/shouldn't change the words in the Bible. Changing them to suit one's lifestyle won't get you a thing, just more sin.

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

Not to mention the benefits that nation has shared with the rest of the world.

(02-10-2018 04:13 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

If you don't like the bill work to amend it. This follows the thinking of those that say the Bible is outdated. It's outdated because it follows set rules for living a pure life and people don't like it because they know it's too much for them to abide by the rules. Everyone breaks those rules that's why Jesus said we're all sinners and like everything He was right. But unlike the Constitution you can't/shouldn't change the words in the Bible. Changing them to suit one's lifestyle won't get you a thing, just more sin.

That's got to be the most simplistic statement I read on these boards. I think you also authored one other nonsensical post that I couldn't believe a grown up (you are a grown up?) could write.

There is a mechanism for altering the constitution,, it's called Constitutional .Amendments. Time does in fact change peoples thinking and our forefathers must have realized that. Thanks to Amendments, our citizens enjoy many liberties not originally available to them. It allows for the possibility of getting something wrong as well (prohibition)
Now if you want to argue the Constitution itself is a fixed unchanging document, go ahead. But it's essentially a distinction without a difference.

Who says the bible is outdated? NOT ME.
You really are stuck in one way of seeing the bible. Of course the essentials are necessary. The 10 commandments offer a way to live in harmony with the world. But there is much much more to it than that. The commandments are useful as a guiding mechanism. Once you become an adult, you are expected to live by those rules, but to also explore the deeper meanings of the bible. Some are afraid to do that, others are not. That's basically how evolution works. Not everybody grows at the same pace. Thus you have strict literalists and others who see so much more.

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire etc all had their day as # 1 and they all lost that position. What makes you think we won't also? We're hardly the first to be the most prosperous and powerful.
Our constitution is 236 years old? That's a historical drop in the bucket and capitalism is till an experiment. Could it be we have already peaked and will be remembered in history books as a grand experiment that could not be sustained? Time will tell.

(02-10-2018 04:45 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:13 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

If you don't like the bill work to amend it. This follows the thinking of those that say the Bible is outdated. It's outdated because it follows set rules for living a pure life and people don't like it because they know it's too much for them to abide by the rules. Everyone breaks those rules that's why Jesus said we're all sinners and like everything He was right. But unlike the Constitution you can't/shouldn't change the words in the Bible. Changing them to suit one's lifestyle won't get you a thing, just more sin.

That's got to be the most simplistic statement I read on these boards. I think you also authored one other nonsensical post that I couldn't believe a grown up (you are a grown up?) could write.

There is a mechanism for altering the constitution,, it's called Constitutional .Amendments. Time does in fact change peoples thinking and our forefathers must have realized that. Thanks to Amendments, our citizens enjoy many liberties not originally available to them. It allows for the possibility of getting something wrong as well (prohibition)
Now if you want to argue the Constitution itself is a fixed unchanging document, go ahead. But it's essentially a distinction without a difference.

Who says the bible is outdated? NOT ME.
You really are stuck in one way of seeing the bible. Of course the essentials are necessary. The 10 commandments offer a way to live in harmony with the world. But there is much much more to it than that. The commandments are useful as a guiding mechanism. Once you become an adult, you are expected to live by those rules, but to also explore the deeper meanings of the bible. Some are afraid to do that, others are not. That's basically how evolution works. Not everybody grows at the same pace. Thus you have strict literalists and others who see so much more.

I think (hope) he's arguing premise.....

as he is still a devout catholic, I was reared catholic that became atheist at the earliest age.....it simply didn't make sense to me....

what too many lose sight of is policy relative to the bible has become outdated.....that's why the forefathers knew better when they wrote the initial document and allowed it to be amended.....

the ones that cling onto hardcore tactics can only lose long term....

one only has to look at how catholicism has 'evolved' over the decades to see how they cannot adapt based on 'doctrine'.....

principle is all that matters.....

but that's simply my op-ed.....unless one is violent, I have to respect the belief of the individual.....

if one begins preaching......only then is it 'game on' and line 4.....

(02-10-2018 04:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire etc all had their day as # 1 and they all lost that position. What makes you think we won't also? We're hardly the first to be the most prosperous and powerful.
Our constitution is 236 years old? That's a historical drop in the bucket and capitalism is till an experiment. Could it be we have already peaked and will be remembered in history books as a grand experiment that could not be sustained? Time will tell.

what did they all have in common???

what did they all lose moving forward???

what advantage does capitalism and our geography have???

the brits screwed the pooch more than any other.....

take a guess what the brits are relative to the dippos of today???

(02-10-2018 04:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire etc all had their day as # 1 and they all lost that position. What makes you think we won't also? We're hardly the first to be the most prosperous and powerful.
Our constitution is 236 years old? That's a historical drop in the bucket and capitalism is till an experiment. Could it be we have already peaked and will be remembered in history books as a grand experiment that could not be sustained? Time will tell.

Well if we lose our way the way the Romans did. They got rid of the Roman Republic and switched to emperors. They relied on mercenaries for their armies. They depleted their countryside and agriculture. And, according to Gibbon, they really fell because they raised taxes too much.

Capitalism is what has worked for most of man's existence, even if it was done with barter and not money.

(02-10-2018 07:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire etc all had their day as # 1 and they all lost that position. What makes you think we won't also? We're hardly the first to be the most prosperous and powerful.
Our constitution is 236 years old? That's a historical drop in the bucket and capitalism is till an experiment. Could it be we have already peaked and will be remembered in history books as a grand experiment that could not be sustained? Time will tell.

Well if we lose our way the way the Romans did. They got rid of the Roman Republic and switched to emperors. They relied on mercenaries for their armies. They depleted their countryside and agriculture. And, according to Gibbon, they really fell because they raised taxes too much.

Capitalism is what has worked for most of man's existence, even if it was done with barter and not money.

XACLY!

the key to whole deal is protecting currency......it doesn't matter what it is....

you can travel anywhere on the planet, pull out the USD, and they'll take it with a smile....

that's the only power that matters.....the dippos simply don't understand that concept.....and the brits let go of that rope too.....

once you have 'em by the balls, you simply squeeze harder when the punks think they have clout....

Here's the problem with some people. They can't let go of the past long enough to see times are changing. The dollar aint worth what it used to be overseas. China is catching up if not equal to us in economic power. As someone else pointed out, Romans used mercenaries. Guess who else uses mercenaries?
You can't just assume because we've been on top for a few hundred years that it's destined to last. I'm not at all convinced isolationism is the way to go. The Chinese built their great wall to keep invaders out, much likes Trumps ill conceived hoped for wall, and all it did was put them a few thousand years behind the rest of the world.
The macho man "squeeze 'em by the balls" attitude probably makes folks feel good, but I sincerely doubt it's a long term answer.

(02-11-2018 11:25 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Here's the problem with some people. They can't let go of the past long enough to see times are changing. The dollar aint worth what it used to be overseas. China is catching up if not equal to us in economic power. As someone else pointed out, Romans used mercenaries. Guess who else uses mercenaries?
You can't just assume because we've been on top for a few hundred years that it's destined to last. I'm not at all convinced isolationism is the way to go. The Chinese built their great wall to keep invaders out, much likes Trumps ill conceived hoped for wall, and all it did was put them a few thousand years behind the rest of the world.
The macho man "squeeze 'em by the balls" attitude probably makes folks feel good, but I sincerely doubt it's a long term answer.

The solution to the weakening dollar is to balance the federal budget and curtail the actions of the Fed. I’ve already laid out my proposed approach.

I’m definitely opposed to isolation, but I’m a believer in non-intervention. Here’s the difference: North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. Speak softly but carry a big stick. Maintain the strongest military in the world, by miles and miles, and never use it because nobody dares pick a fight with us, and we don’t go picking on them. Never fight a war that you don’t intend to win.

The problem with that is unwinding the commitment we made to protect the world’s trade routes at Bretton Woods 70 years ago. We took the lead in fighting the Cold War, but nobody planned what to do after we won. I think Trump is spot on asking Europe to bear more of the NATO burden. Another factor that I think could help is closer alliance with the British Commonwealth. Brexit is at least in part an approach for Britain to move closer to Commonwealth countries. There is a proposal for the Commonwealth countries to combine armed forces. Not sure how India/Pakistan would work, but if they could achieve that kind of alliance, we could transfer some responsibility to them. India is well on the way to being the strongest naval force in the Indian Ocean, which could facilitate our reducing our 5th Fleet, for example.

(02-11-2018 11:25 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Here's the problem with some people. They can't let go of the past long enough to see times are changing. The dollar aint worth what it used to be overseas. China is catching up if not equal to us in economic power. As someone else pointed out, Romans used mercenaries. Guess who else uses mercenaries?
You can't just assume because we've been on top for a few hundred years that it's destined to last. I'm not at all convinced isolationism is the way to go. The Chinese built their great wall to keep invaders out, much likes Trumps ill conceived hoped for wall, and all it did was put them a few thousand years behind the rest of the world.
The macho man "squeeze 'em by the balls" attitude probably makes folks feel good, but I sincerely doubt it's a long term answer.

I'm no proponent of isolationism. What I am a proponent of is US leaders doing what is in the best interests of the US. It's not our job to make things easier for other countries if it winds up screwing Americans.

As far as people living in the past, there is a way to change how our government operates - and it has been changed numerous times. The problem with those that want to change things is they don't want to do it as it's spelled out - nope, just screw it and do what I want without following the way it's done.......why, because that is too hard. Well, it's not supposed to be able to be changed on a whim.....

(02-10-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Guess I follow leftism then because the idea that we should strictly adhere to a 330+ (sic) year old document down to the letter is pure nonsense.

Seems to me that following a document that has, in 230+ years, supported the growth of the most prosperous economy and most powerful nation in the world is not a half bad idea.

The problem is...We don't follow the document. If we did? We would avoid lots of problems.....Like getting into "undeclared wars". The document is greatest blueprint for organization since the Magna Carta. The document is not the problem. Politicians are the problem. The document allows for change. The next change should be term limits. We need to eliminate career politicians.

(02-11-2018 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 11:25 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Here's the problem with some people. They can't let go of the past long enough to see times are changing. The dollar aint worth what it used to be overseas. China is catching up if not equal to us in economic power. As someone else pointed out, Romans used mercenaries. Guess who else uses mercenaries?
You can't just assume because we've been on top for a few hundred years that it's destined to last. I'm not at all convinced isolationism is the way to go. The Chinese built their great wall to keep invaders out, much likes Trumps ill conceived hoped for wall, and all it did was put them a few thousand years behind the rest of the world.
The macho man "squeeze 'em by the balls" attitude probably makes folks feel good, but I sincerely doubt it's a long term answer.

The solution to the weakening dollar is to balance the federal budget and curtail the actions of the Fed. I’ve already laid out my proposed approach.

I’m definitely opposed to isolation, but I’m a believer in non-intervention. Here’s the difference: North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. Speak softly but carry a big stick. Maintain the strongest military in the world, by miles and miles, and never use it because nobody dares pick a fight with us, and we don’t go picking on them. Never fight a war that you don’t intend to win.

The problem with that is unwinding the commitment we made to protect the world’s trade routes at Bretton Woods 70 years ago. We took the lead in fighting the Cold War, but nobody planned what to do after we won. I think Trump is spot on asking Europe to bear more of the NATO burden. Another factor that I think could help is closer alliance with the British Commonwealth. Brexit is at least in part an approach for Britain to move closer to Commonwealth countries. There is a proposal for the Commonwealth countries to combine armed forces. Not sure how India/Pakistan would work, but if they could achieve that kind of alliance, we could transfer some responsibility to them. India is well on the way to being the strongest naval force in the Indian Ocean, which could facilitate our reducing our 5th Fleet, for example.

Well said.

(02-11-2018 01:09 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 11:25 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Here's the problem with some people. They can't let go of the past long enough to see times are changing. The dollar aint worth what it used to be overseas. China is catching up if not equal to us in economic power. As someone else pointed out, Romans used mercenaries. Guess who else uses mercenaries?
You can't just assume because we've been on top for a few hundred years that it's destined to last. I'm not at all convinced isolationism is the way to go. The Chinese built their great wall to keep invaders out, much likes Trumps ill conceived hoped for wall, and all it did was put them a few thousand years behind the rest of the world.
The macho man "squeeze 'em by the balls" attitude probably makes folks feel good, but I sincerely doubt it's a long term answer.

I'm no proponent of isolationism. What I am a proponent of is US leaders doing what is in the best interests of the US. It's not our job to make things easier for other countries if it winds up screwing Americans.

As far as people living in the past, there is a way to change how our government operates - and it has been changed numerous times. The problem with those that want to change things is they don't want to do it as it's spelled out - nope, just screw it and do what I want without following the way it's done.......why, because that is too hard. Well, it's not supposed to be able to be changed on a whim.....

Correct. Making it hard to change the Constitution was by design. Changes must occur because EVERYONE concedes they are necessary..not just the whims of 51%. There are IMO a few things that need changing. Term limits, repeal of the 16th amendment and installation of a consumption tax paradigm, end of anchor baby citizenship and balanced budget amendment...none of which will be easy to get passed.

(02-11-2018 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 11:25 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Here's the problem with some people. They can't let go of the past long enough to see times are changing. The dollar aint worth what it used to be overseas. China is catching up if not equal to us in economic power. As someone else pointed out, Romans used mercenaries. Guess who else uses mercenaries?
You can't just assume because we've been on top for a few hundred years that it's destined to last. I'm not at all convinced isolationism is the way to go. The Chinese built their great wall to keep invaders out, much likes Trumps ill conceived hoped for wall, and all it did was put them a few thousand years behind the rest of the world.
The macho man "squeeze 'em by the balls" attitude probably makes folks feel good, but I sincerely doubt it's a long term answer.

The solution to the weakening dollar is to balance the federal budget and curtail the actions of the Fed. I’ve already laid out my proposed approach.

I’m definitely opposed to isolation, but I’m a believer in non-intervention. Here’s the difference: North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. Speak softly but carry a big stick. Maintain the strongest military in the world, by miles and miles, and never use it because nobody dares pick a fight with us, and we don’t go picking on them. Never fight a war that you don’t intend to win.

The problem with that is unwinding the commitment we made to protect the world’s trade routes at Bretton Woods 70 years ago. We took the lead in fighting the Cold War, but nobody planned what to do after we won. I think Trump is spot on asking Europe to bear more of the NATO burden. Another factor that I think could help is closer alliance with the British Commonwealth. Brexit is at least in part an approach for Britain to move closer to Commonwealth countries. There is a proposal for the Commonwealth countries to combine armed forces. Not sure how India/Pakistan would work, but if they could achieve that kind of alliance, we could transfer some responsibility to them. India is well on the way to being the strongest naval force in the Indian Ocean, which could facilitate our reducing our 5th Fleet, for example.

You obviously have given this a great deal of thought and I admit I'm not as well versed as you in foreign affairs or economics. I certainly don't have any major problems with what you propose. My question is always Why? What's holding this country back from doing what needs to be done? We piss and moan about the politicians, but we're so fractured as a nation we can't pull together as one people long enough to force the politicians to do something. It seems hopeless at times, but Maybe Trump was right. Maybe we need a true assault on our shores by an army to bring us all together. We saw signs of it after 9/11