(06-26-2019 10:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Certainly Lemon are Cuomo are more in line with "mainstream" liberals than the Berkeley examples. I watched both clips. Both made the argument that, if choosing sides, that the anti-fascists had the moral high-ground over the fascists in their skirmish. Nothing to suggest that they supported unprovoked violence against the far right. It seems that unprovoked violence from antifa is what is mainly bothering you guys? A peaceful counterprotest is fine, right? Again, not a lot of meat here and still a far cry from proof that liberals "embrace" antifa.

I have a feeling that the vast majority of liberals would say that they condemn unprovoked violence from antifa against the groups that they oppose. Do you think differently?

The comments by "mainstream" Lemon and Cuomo sound a lot like the "middle-of-the-road" Germans of the 1920s, who made painstakingly clear that, between the red shirt thugs and the brown shirt thugs, they preferred the brown shirts. What they should have been making clear was that they were opposed to thugs.

(06-26-2019 10:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 03:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 02:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  "Liberals embrace antifa". Nope.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/c...-story.htm

Nothing here to suggest that mainstream liberals embrace antifa.

Quote:https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lib...&FORM=VIRE

Nothing here either to suggest that liberals embrace antifa. It's a quick clip with coverage of the clash between far-right groups and antifa. Nothing here that suggests that one side or the other started the violence first. The last speaker (Berkeley leader of an anti-police violence group) suggests that he wasn't sorry about the way the alt-right left the city. Not a lot of context here.

Quote:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...rfect.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/40169...e-of-right

Certainly Lemon are Cuomo are more in line with "mainstream" liberals than the Berkeley examples. I watched both clips. Both made the argument that, if choosing sides, that the anti-fascists had the moral high-ground over the fascists in their skirmish. Nothing to suggest that they supported unprovoked violence against the far right. It seems that unprovoked violence from antifa is what is mainly bothering you guys? A peaceful counterprotest is fine, right? Again, not a lot of meat here and still a far cry from proof that liberals "embrace" antifa.

I have a feeling that the vast majority of liberals would say that they condemn unprovoked violence from antifa against the groups that they oppose. Do you think differently?

I guess that would depend on how vast the "vast" majority is. Nobody has anything bad to say to about them until pushed by somebody like me. Plus, since according to Hillary, half of her opposition were in that bunch of fascists, I guess that means it is OK for them to attack a quarter of the nation. After all, their cause is righteous and therefore whatever they do is justified.

Re; the bolded;

Strange to consider that masked people inciting random violence hold the "moral high ground" over anybody. I guess that is like saying Idi Amin was morally better than Hitler.

The bolded is the key here. It's unclear whether the violence referenced in the clips was "incited" by antifa. Were they meeting violence from the far right with a violent response? I honestly don't know. I'm sure the scenes get confusing as things get out of hand. I'm pretty sure that not many would advocate that antifa should run up on a peaceful alt-right meeting and start beating them.

Quote:Yes, unprovoked violence bothers me. What really bothers me is that it seems to bother me more than it bothers most leftists.

Again... "unprovoked violence" is something that would bother most liberals. It's not OK to walk up to members of the alt-right and punch them in the face.

However, when both groups show up itching for conflict and various weapons have been brought in preparation... it's not surprising that violence breaks out. Both groups should accept blame.

Quote:Next time Antifa strikes, the left will be quiet.

I have a feeling that Antifa has become a bogeyman for many on the far right. Do they talk about them a lot on Fox News? The amount of discussion that they generate in the forum seems to dwarf their real-world significance.

Had the paraders in Charlottesville been allowed to march in peace and isolation, ignored, there would have been no incident and that young woman would be alive today. Somebody showed up itching for violence, and it was not the paraders.

Somebody showed up in Seattle to riot and protest Trump's election, and it was not Trump supporters. The left watched silently, without blaming anybody but the Russians.

Somebody showed up on college campuses to protest right wing speakers to the point of those speakers fearing for their lives and canceling their talks. The left thought it was OK.

Somebody went into restaurants to chant and jeer at Republicans. Nobody from the left expressed horror at the idea of the GOPer's privacy being invaded. Bastards deserved it.

Somebody laughed and cheered when Hillary said 1/4 of America was in a basket of deplorables.

Somebody laughs and claps when Colbert says Trump ran on a platform of racism.

Somebody laughs and claps when Joy Behar does similarly.

Somebody cheers when AOC talks about concentration camps on the border. Ask my cousin about those. He plans to vote Republican in 2020 for the first time in his life because he is tired of being labeled a nazi.

In truth, somebody on the left smiles knowingly when somebody else on the left says that the right is a bunch of Nazi thugs. Try it at your next meeting.

They laugh and smile and think all the above behaviors are no so bad, because they are secure in the righteousness of their thinking and beliefs. The other side is the Morlocks. Half of them are the "alt-right", and it is OK to throw stones at the alt-right. Bad people. Not at all like the stone throwers.

I stand firm in my opinion that the large majority of people in this country who think their exalted morals entitle them to bad behavior are on the left. Not all. And there are a few leftists who would not defend this kind of behavior. I know of one. she is not on this board.

But I cannot make any headway in discussing this with the Automatic Defenders of the Left. You guys go your way, firm in your faith, and I will go mine, firm in my belief of the left's haughtiness. I think we shall see this stuff again before election day, 2020. We shall see then who is in the streets and who is NOT protesting the actions of those in the streets.

Democrats savage each other

"Just before the vote, Pocan, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, inflamed tensions further when he called the Problem Solvers Caucus — a bipartisan group of moderates that pushed Pelosi to take up the Senate bill — the “Child Abuse Caucus.”

Good to see the Democrats are bipartisan in their name-calling.

I heard another Democrat pledge to repeal the Trump tax cuts, and I heard, once again, that it mostly put money in the pockets of rich folks.

Are they so ignorant as to think the money just sits in the pockets, gathering dust? Do you really want to vote for somebody that ignorant?

They appear to think the entire tax saving should immediately be distributed totally and equally to the employees. There are many other ways to use the tax savings that benefit people in the middle and/or lower classes.

Let's assume a midsize business has a tax saving of $200K.

Maybe they use the money to open another branch, hiring 6 new employees, leasing office space from another company.

Maybe they use the money to buy equipment used in their business, such as bulldozers or trucks, along with new employees to operate them. Of course, these purchases also help the companies that make the equipment, and their employees.

Maybe they use the money to pay off debt. The increased cash flow means Ellen in Accounting and Fred on the shop floor get to keep their jobs.

Unless the money is left literally in their pockets, it helps the businesses and it helps the economy. No wonder the Democrats want to shut it off.

Business owners don't want money burning a hole in their pocket. They want to expand their businesses, and that expansion helps more people than just themselves. Capitalism is the game, not socialism.

(06-28-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard another Democrat pledge to repeal the Trump tax cuts, and I heard, once again, that it mostly put money in the pockets of rich folks.
Are they so ignorant as to think the money just sits in the pockets, gathering dust? Do you really want to vote for somebody that ignorant?
They appear to think the entire tax saving should immediately be distributed totally and equally to the employees. There are many other ways to use the tax savings that benefit people in the middle and/or lower classes.
Let's assume a midsize business has a tax saving of $200K.
Maybe they use the money to open another branch, hiring 6 new employees, leasing office space from another company.
Maybe they use the money to buy equipment used in their business, such as bulldozers or trucks, along with new employees to operate them. Of course, these purchases also help the companies that make the equipment, and their employees.
Maybe they use the money to pay off debt. The increased cash flow means Ellen in Accounting and Fred on the shop floor get to keep their jobs.
Unless the money is left literally in their pockets, it helps the businesses and it helps the economy. No wonder the Democrats want to shut it off.
Business owners don't want money burning a hole in their pocket. They want to expand their businesses, and that expansion helps more people than just themselves. Capitalism is the game, not socialism.

Or maybe they put in the bank to draw interest, where it gets loaned out to Bob to expand his business or to Jim and Judy to buy a house.

Every American should understand this. But if democrats let the word get out, they would lose a major talking point in their class warfare mantra.

So why don’t republicans get the word out? Stupid party versus evil party.

(06-28-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard another Democrat pledge to repeal the Trump tax cuts, and I heard, once again, that it mostly put money in the pockets of rich folks.
Are they so ignorant as to think the money just sits in the pockets, gathering dust? Do you really want to vote for somebody that ignorant?
They appear to think the entire tax saving should immediately be distributed totally and equally to the employees. There are many other ways to use the tax savings that benefit people in the middle and/or lower classes.
Let's assume a midsize business has a tax saving of $200K.
Maybe they use the money to open another branch, hiring 6 new employees, leasing office space from another company.
Maybe they use the money to buy equipment used in their business, such as bulldozers or trucks, along with new employees to operate them. Of course, these purchases also help the companies that make the equipment, and their employees.
Maybe they use the money to pay off debt. The increased cash flow means Ellen in Accounting and Fred on the shop floor get to keep their jobs.
Unless the money is left literally in their pockets, it helps the businesses and it helps the economy. No wonder the Democrats want to shut it off.
Business owners don't want money burning a hole in their pocket. They want to expand their businesses, and that expansion helps more people than just themselves. Capitalism is the game, not socialism.

Or maybe they put in the bank to draw interest, where it gets loaned out to Bob to expand his business or to Jim and Judy to buy a house.

Every American should understand this. But if democrats let the word get out, they would lose a major talking point in their class warfare mantra.

So why don’t republicans get the word out? Stupid party versus evil party.

It's supply side economics vs demand side. Republicans do try and get the word out on horse and sparrow economics, it's just that it takes way more steps and altruism to help Jim and Judy buy a house when the increase in wealth has to pass through corporations and then management, that the argument isn't exactly compelling to Jim and Judy.

Jim and Judy need more money to buy the house. If their wages don't go up or their taxes aren't decreased enough to make a significant difference in their take home pay, then the bank having extra money to loan them doesn't mean squat. If Jim and Judy are the direct beneficiaries of tax policies and increases in wage, then Jim and Judy demand more. That increase in demand results in companies increasing production and needing to hire more and expand to meet demand.

Ford understood that paying his employees more meant they could buy the products they made and make him more profitable.

(06-28-2019 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard another Democrat pledge to repeal the Trump tax cuts, and I heard, once again, that it mostly put money in the pockets of rich folks.
Are they so ignorant as to think the money just sits in the pockets, gathering dust? Do you really want to vote for somebody that ignorant?
They appear to think the entire tax saving should immediately be distributed totally and equally to the employees. There are many other ways to use the tax savings that benefit people in the middle and/or lower classes.
Let's assume a midsize business has a tax saving of $200K.
Maybe they use the money to open another branch, hiring 6 new employees, leasing office space from another company.
Maybe they use the money to buy equipment used in their business, such as bulldozers or trucks, along with new employees to operate them. Of course, these purchases also help the companies that make the equipment, and their employees.
Maybe they use the money to pay off debt. The increased cash flow means Ellen in Accounting and Fred on the shop floor get to keep their jobs.
Unless the money is left literally in their pockets, it helps the businesses and it helps the economy. No wonder the Democrats want to shut it off.
Business owners don't want money burning a hole in their pocket. They want to expand their businesses, and that expansion helps more people than just themselves. Capitalism is the game, not socialism.

Or maybe they put in the bank to draw interest, where it gets loaned out to Bob to expand his business or to Jim and Judy to buy a house.
Every American should understand this. But if democrats let the word get out, they would lose a major talking point in their class warfare mantra.
So why don’t republicans get the word out? Stupid party versus evil party.

It's supply side economics vs demand side. Republicans do try and get the word out on horse and sparrow economics, it's just that it takes way more steps and altruism to help Jim and Judy buy a house when the increase in wealth has to pass through corporations and then management, that the argument isn't exactly compelling to Jim and Judy.
Jim and Judy need more money to buy the house. If their wages don't go up or their taxes aren't decreased enough to make a significant difference in their take home pay, then the bank having extra money to loan them doesn't mean squat. If Jim and Judy are the direct beneficiaries of tax policies and increases in wage, then Jim and Judy demand more. That increase in demand results in companies increasing production and needing to hire more and expand to meet demand.
Ford understood that paying his employees more meant they could buy the products they made and make him more profitable.

But somebody has to build the house before Jim and Judy can buy it. The house doesn’t magically appear out of unicorn farts. And the workers who build the house get paid, and the workers who make the appliances get paid, and that’s how the money gets down to all the Bobs and Jims and Judys of the world. If you want to do that by taxing and redistributing income and wealth, the problem is that you have to create wealth before you can tax and redistribute it. Supply side economics is not about “trickle down,” it’s about creating incentives to build those houses.

June 2019:

Dow: best June since 1938
S&P : Best June since 1955
NASDAQ: Best June since 2000

Oh, the misery. We have to get
Trump out or maybe this growth will continue. Best way to reverse this sickening trend is to elect a Democrat. They are all promising to stop it.

(06-28-2019 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard another Democrat pledge to repeal the Trump tax cuts, and I heard, once again, that it mostly put money in the pockets of rich folks.
Are they so ignorant as to think the money just sits in the pockets, gathering dust? Do you really want to vote for somebody that ignorant?
They appear to think the entire tax saving should immediately be distributed totally and equally to the employees. There are many other ways to use the tax savings that benefit people in the middle and/or lower classes.
Let's assume a midsize business has a tax saving of $200K.
Maybe they use the money to open another branch, hiring 6 new employees, leasing office space from another company.
Maybe they use the money to buy equipment used in their business, such as bulldozers or trucks, along with new employees to operate them. Of course, these purchases also help the companies that make the equipment, and their employees.
Maybe they use the money to pay off debt. The increased cash flow means Ellen in Accounting and Fred on the shop floor get to keep their jobs.
Unless the money is left literally in their pockets, it helps the businesses and it helps the economy. No wonder the Democrats want to shut it off.
Business owners don't want money burning a hole in their pocket. They want to expand their businesses, and that expansion helps more people than just themselves. Capitalism is the game, not socialism.

Or maybe they put in the bank to draw interest, where it gets loaned out to Bob to expand his business or to Jim and Judy to buy a house.

Every American should understand this. But if democrats let the word get out, they would lose a major talking point in their class warfare mantra.

So why don’t republicans get the word out? Stupid party versus evil party.

It's supply side economics vs demand side. Republicans do try and get the word out on horse and sparrow economics, it's just that it takes way more steps and altruism to help Jim and Judy buy a house when the increase in wealth has to pass through corporations and then management, that the argument isn't exactly compelling to Jim and Judy.

Jim and Judy need more money to buy the house. If their wages don't go up or their taxes aren't decreased enough to make a significant difference in their take home pay, then the bank having extra money to loan them doesn't mean squat. If Jim and Judy are the direct beneficiaries of tax policies and increases in wage, then Jim and Judy demand more. That increase in demand results in companies increasing production and needing to hire more and expand to meet demand.

Ford understood that paying his employees more meant they could buy the products they made and make him more profitable.

Thought Lad was an engineer.

So what does the engineer think businesses do with the tax savings? Where does it go?

More money in American pockets: good, unless it was a Republican who put it there.

The whole point of the examples was that money does not have to go directly into worker's paychecks to be of good use in lifting the economy. It also manifests itself in more jobs and more sales for businesses.

WHOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!

(06-28-2019 03:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard another Democrat pledge to repeal the Trump tax cuts, and I heard, once again, that it mostly put money in the pockets of rich folks.
Are they so ignorant as to think the money just sits in the pockets, gathering dust? Do you really want to vote for somebody that ignorant?
They appear to think the entire tax saving should immediately be distributed totally and equally to the employees. There are many other ways to use the tax savings that benefit people in the middle and/or lower classes.
Let's assume a midsize business has a tax saving of $200K.
Maybe they use the money to open another branch, hiring 6 new employees, leasing office space from another company.
Maybe they use the money to buy equipment used in their business, such as bulldozers or trucks, along with new employees to operate them. Of course, these purchases also help the companies that make the equipment, and their employees.
Maybe they use the money to pay off debt. The increased cash flow means Ellen in Accounting and Fred on the shop floor get to keep their jobs.
Unless the money is left literally in their pockets, it helps the businesses and it helps the economy. No wonder the Democrats want to shut it off.
Business owners don't want money burning a hole in their pocket. They want to expand their businesses, and that expansion helps more people than just themselves. Capitalism is the game, not socialism.

Or maybe they put in the bank to draw interest, where it gets loaned out to Bob to expand his business or to Jim and Judy to buy a house.

Every American should understand this. But if democrats let the word get out, they would lose a major talking point in their class warfare mantra.

So why don’t republicans get the word out? Stupid party versus evil party.

It's supply side economics vs demand side. Republicans do try and get the word out on horse and sparrow economics, it's just that it takes way more steps and altruism to help Jim and Judy buy a house when the increase in wealth has to pass through corporations and then management, that the argument isn't exactly compelling to Jim and Judy.

Jim and Judy need more money to buy the house. If their wages don't go up or their taxes aren't decreased enough to make a significant difference in their take home pay, then the bank having extra money to loan them doesn't mean squat. If Jim and Judy are the direct beneficiaries of tax policies and increases in wage, then Jim and Judy demand more. That increase in demand results in companies increasing production and needing to hire more and expand to meet demand.

Ford understood that paying his employees more meant they could buy the products they made and make him more profitable.

Thought Lad was an engineer.

So what does the engineer think businesses do with the tax savings? Where does it go?

More money in American pockets: good, unless it was a Republican who put it there.

The whole point of the examples was that money does not have to go directly into worker's paychecks to be of good use in lifting the economy. It also manifests itself in more jobs and more sales for businesses.

WHOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!

(06-28-2019 06:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard another Democrat pledge to repeal the Trump tax cuts, and I heard, once again, that it mostly put money in the pockets of rich folks.
Are they so ignorant as to think the money just sits in the pockets, gathering dust? Do you really want to vote for somebody that ignorant?
They appear to think the entire tax saving should immediately be distributed totally and equally to the employees. There are many other ways to use the tax savings that benefit people in the middle and/or lower classes.
Let's assume a midsize business has a tax saving of $200K.
Maybe they use the money to open another branch, hiring 6 new employees, leasing office space from another company.
Maybe they use the money to buy equipment used in their business, such as bulldozers or trucks, along with new employees to operate them. Of course, these purchases also help the companies that make the equipment, and their employees.
Maybe they use the money to pay off debt. The increased cash flow means Ellen in Accounting and Fred on the shop floor get to keep their jobs.
Unless the money is left literally in their pockets, it helps the businesses and it helps the economy. No wonder the Democrats want to shut it off.
Business owners don't want money burning a hole in their pocket. They want to expand their businesses, and that expansion helps more people than just themselves. Capitalism is the game, not socialism.

Or maybe they put in the bank to draw interest, where it gets loaned out to Bob to expand his business or to Jim and Judy to buy a house.

Every American should understand this. But if democrats let the word get out, they would lose a major talking point in their class warfare mantra.

So why don’t republicans get the word out? Stupid party versus evil party.

It's supply side economics vs demand side. Republicans do try and get the word out on horse and sparrow economics, it's just that it takes way more steps and altruism to help Jim and Judy buy a house when the increase in wealth has to pass through corporations and then management, that the argument isn't exactly compelling to Jim and Judy.

Jim and Judy need more money to buy the house. If their wages don't go up or their taxes aren't decreased enough to make a significant difference in their take home pay, then the bank having extra money to loan them doesn't mean squat. If Jim and Judy are the direct beneficiaries of tax policies and increases in wage, then Jim and Judy demand more. That increase in demand results in companies increasing production and needing to hire more and expand to meet demand.

Ford understood that paying his employees more meant they could buy the products they made and make him more profitable.

Thought Lad was an engineer.

So what does the engineer think businesses do with the tax savings? Where does it go?

More money in American pockets: good, unless it was a Republican who put it there.

The whole point of the examples was that money does not have to go directly into worker's paychecks to be of good use in lifting the economy. It also manifests itself in more jobs and more sales for businesses.

WHOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!

Clearly(to some), it makes a lot of sense for a paving company to give each of their workers $2000 bonuses in the expectation they will use the money to pave something. Silly me, i would use the money to buy a new paving machine and hire an operator for it. But, what would I know? I am just a business owner with an MBA, not an engineer.

Why are you surprised that lad clings to demand side and cites H. Ford as a demigod? Funny thing is, that while ol' Henry supported that, it is fundamentally debatable that ol' Henry's policies actually had any effect en toto.

The last two big scale excursions into demand side taxation policy were anemic at best, and pathetic in one instance.

The grand experiment of the Keynesians and demand side in the 30's produced bupkus after literally over a decade of implementation.

The 'grand experiment' in '08 of the Keynesian and demand side produced *some* growth (lucky for that, since one should hope for anything positive after that ebb tide), but gave rise to the idea that no way in hell would the nation ever experience more than 2.5 per cent growth, and that low 1 per cent growth was the new high norm. That was baked into the fabric of the expectation promulgated there. Funny how that orgasmic high point was blown out just with the hint of turning back the Keynesian/demand side.

But even after those two pretty terrible showings, that wing (which by the way kind of absolutely and utterly ignores the characterization of demand promulgated by the stalwarts and linchpins of post WW2 economic bedrock thought like David Ricardo and de Blay, for some) clings to the limited ideal of H. Ford as the ultimate proof positive of demand side.

But adherence to demand side like Super Glue by the progressives in the modern political realm is fundamentally tied to the antipathy of the progressive movement to the notion of 'fairness' and the vilification of for-profit to the great extent in lieu of collectivist thought.

And, demand side fits like Cinderella's glass slipper to the other hard pillar of progressive politics -- the politics of victim classes and class warfare. Cant have a good case for class division without a good villian, right? And the ideal of the corporate entity and pooling of capital is the absolute ideal for the progressive wedge in that regard. Nothing works the vicitimization card without some object of envy, right? And nothing fits the political stance of maintaining those divisions better in the economic world than the supposed 'total awesomeness' of demand side economics, even when the two best experiments are busts *and* the best ideal for them is the statement from someone that cant even have been shown to significantly impact the gross economic picture with that limited test bed.

I mean, just from the last tranche of debates there is a decent sampling and denigration of the profit motive:

Elizabeth Warren
So we've had an industrial policy in the United States for decades now, and it's basically been let giant corporations do whatever they want to do. Giant corporations have exactly one loyalty, and that is to profits. And if they can save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico or to Asia or to Canada, they're going to do it.

Cory Booker
Health care—it's not just a human right, it should be an American right. And I believe the best way to get there is Medicare for All. But I have an urgency about this. When I am president of the United States, I'm not going to wait. We have to do the things immediately that are going to provide better care. And on this debate, I'm sorry. There are too many people profiteering off of the pain of people in America, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers.

Elizabeth Warren
The insurance companies last year alone sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system, $23 billion. And that doesn't count the money that was paid to executives, the money that was spent lobbying Washington. We have a giant industry that wants our health care system to stay the way it is, because it's not working for families, but it's sure as heck working for them.

Cory Booker
I have been to some of the largest private prisons, which are repugnant to me that people are profiting off incarceration, and their immigration lockups.

Kirsten Gillibrand
The debate we're having in our party right now is confusing, because the truth is there's a big difference between capitalism on the one hand and greed on the other. And so all the things that we're trying to change is when companies care more about profits when they do about people.

Kirsten Gillibrand
I believe we need to get to universal health care as a right and not a privilege to single payer. The quickest way you get there is you create competition with the insurers. God bless the insurers, if they want to compete, they can certainly try, but they've never put people over their profits, and I doubt they ever will.

Bernie Sanders
Let's be clear. Let us be very clear. The function of health care today from the insurance and drug company perspective is not to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way. The function of the health care system today is to make billions in profits for the insurance companies.

Bernie Sanders
We will have Medicare for all when tens of millions of people are prepared to stand up and tell the insurance companies and the drug companies that their day is gone, that health care is a human right, not something to make huge profits off of.

Kirsten Gillibrand
But the worst thing President Trump has done is he's diverted the funds away from cross-border terrorism, cross-border human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gun trafficking, and he's given that money to the for-profit prisons. I would not be spending money in for-profit prisons to lock up children and asylum-seekers.

(06-29-2019 10:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Why are you surprised that lad clings to demand side and cites H. Ford as a demigod? Funny thing is, that while ol' Henry supported that, it is fundamentally debatable that ol' Henry's policies actually had any effect en toto.

The last two big scale excursions into demand side taxation policy were anemic at best, and pathetic in one instance.

The grand experiment of the Keynesians and demand side in the 30's produced bupkus after literally over a decade of implementation.

The 'grand experiment' in '08 of the Keynesian and demand side produced *some* growth (lucky for that, since one should hope for anything positive after that ebb tide), but gave rise to the idea that no way in hell would the nation ever experience more than 2.5 per cent growth, and that low 1 per cent growth was the new high norm. That was baked into the fabric of the expectation promulgated there. Funny how that orgasmic high point was blown out just with the hint of turning back the Keynesian/demand side.

But even after those two pretty terrible showings, that wing (which by the way kind of absolutely and utterly ignores the characterization of demand promulgated by the stalwarts and linchpins of post WW2 economic bedrock thought like David Ricardo and de Blay, for some) clings to the limited ideal of H. Ford as the ultimate proof positive of demand side.

But adherence to demand side like Super Glue by the progressives in the modern political realm is fundamentally tied to the antipathy of the progressive movement to the notion of 'fairness' and the vilification of for-profit to the great extent in lieu of collectivist thought.

And, demand side fits like Cinderella's glass slipper to the other hard pillar of progressive politics -- the politics of victim classes and class warfare. Cant have a good case for class division without a good villian, right? And the ideal of the corporate entity and pooling of capital is the absolute ideal for the progressive wedge in that regard. Nothing works the vicitimization card without some object of envy, right? And nothing fits the political stance of maintaining those divisions better in the economic world than the supposed 'total awesomeness' of demand side economics, even when the two best experiments are busts *and* the best ideal for them is the statement from someone that cant even have been shown to significantly impact the gross economic picture with that limited test bed.

I mean, just from the last tranche of debates there is a decent sampling and denigration of the profit motive:

Elizabeth Warren
So we've had an industrial policy in the United States for decades now, and it's basically been let giant corporations do whatever they want to do. Giant corporations have exactly one loyalty, and that is to profits. And if they can save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico or to Asia or to Canada, they're going to do it.

Cory Booker
Health care—it's not just a human right, it should be an American right. And I believe the best way to get there is Medicare for All. But I have an urgency about this. When I am president of the United States, I'm not going to wait. We have to do the things immediately that are going to provide better care. And on this debate, I'm sorry. There are too many people profiteering off of the pain of people in America, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers.

Elizabeth Warren
The insurance companies last year alone sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system, $23 billion. And that doesn't count the money that was paid to executives, the money that was spent lobbying Washington. We have a giant industry that wants our health care system to stay the way it is, because it's not working for families, but it's sure as heck working for them.

Cory Booker
I have been to some of the largest private prisons, which are repugnant to me that people are profiting off incarceration, and their immigration lockups.

Kirsten Gillibrand
The debate we're having in our party right now is confusing, because the truth is there's a big difference between capitalism on the one hand and greed on the other. And so all the things that we're trying to change is when companies care more about profits when they do about people.

Kirsten Gillibrand
I believe we need to get to universal health care as a right and not a privilege to single payer. The quickest way you get there is you create competition with the insurers. God bless the insurers, if they want to compete, they can certainly try, but they've never put people over their profits, and I doubt they ever will.

Bernie Sanders
Let's be clear. Let us be very clear. The function of health care today from the insurance and drug company perspective is not to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way. The function of the health care system today is to make billions in profits for the insurance companies.

Bernie Sanders
We will have Medicare for all when tens of millions of people are prepared to stand up and tell the insurance companies and the drug companies that their day is gone, that health care is a human right, not something to make huge profits off of.

Kirsten Gillibrand
But the worst thing President Trump has done is he's diverted the funds away from cross-border terrorism, cross-border human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gun trafficking, and he's given that money to the for-profit prisons. I would not be spending money in for-profit prisons to lock up children and asylum-seekers.

Yes, the Dems ARE the anti-business party. They want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Evil, evil, unfair, racist goose.

Maybe it worked for Henry Ford. Maybe some of his employees did buy cars. after all, it was the hot new invention, the Aplle Watch of its day.

But most businesses do not deal in anything their employees want to invest in or own. i usd a paving company. In my own businesses, nobodynwould have considered buying a truckload of building materials or a truckload of food with their bonuses. I womder what the employess of McDonalds or Jiffy lube would buy, but I doubt it would be much in the way of hamburgers and oil changes.

I have nothing against more money for workers. But first, employers need more money to pay/hire workers, amd that is where the Trump tax changes shine.

I am offended by the term MAGA-tard on several levels.

Quote:Yes, the Dems ARE the anti-business party. They want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Evil, evil, unfair, racist goose.

But without that goose, there are no golden eggs to redistribute. And the whole leftist, "Evil, unfair, racist," mantra appears to arise not from any actual evil, unfairness, or racism, but rather from their wanting to be nasty and having else to say.

Here's the thing. You don't have to be business-unfriendly to have a social safety net. Europe figured that out 30-40 years ago. Today the European countries provide both a more comprehensive welfare safety net and a more business-friendly climate for investors than we do. We still do okay economically, because we have so many natural advantages--largest agricultural belt in the world, half the world's inland navigable waterways, now approaching energy independence thanks to fracking, and generally strong natural borders. But instead of taking full advantage, we shoot ourselves in the foot way too often.

(07-01-2019 08:58 AM)OwlJacket Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 11:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 11:48 PM)OwlJacket Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am offended by the term MAGA-tard on several levels.

I'm guessing not more than three levels if you didn't drop your meth and natty light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6rJ52yDJDY

You are correct, the origin of that term is offensive and shouldn't have been used. MAGA-tard was meant to be a derivation of the favorite kkkonservative word "libtard", which is used by red hats. I was trying to make it simple for you guys to translate as higher level thinking skills are not exactly your strong point, Mr. Webb's recent discovery of Thesaurus.com not withstanding.

Making fun of people for something they can't control = not cool. Making fun of people for willful ignorance = fair game.

Making fun of people based or debasing them on the basis of a stereotype seems to be a strong point and foundation of the thinking on the left (deplorables, bitter clingers, etc.). In fact we were just discussing that, using you as an example. For example, the usage of KKK to demean every conservative. I know a person who speaks of AmeriKKKa.

I am not a user of the word "libtard", I don't do meth, I don't drink at all, much less Natty Light, I am not a member or supporter of the KKK, and I have no idea what a "red hat" is, outside of the Catholic Church(which I am not a member of) and old time train stations.

It may surprise you, but I have all my teeth and hate Nascar. I must admit, I do like country music, as well as blues and opera.

When the level of hate rises, the level of common sense ebbs. Your level of hatred is very high right now.

Yes, I was referring to the usage of "-tard", which demeans those mentally challenged, whether you throw the slur at the lowest or the highest IQ in the room, for whatever reason. Liberals like to lecture conservatives on the proper way to say things, then when they lose their tempers revert right back to what they cautioned us about. Your rationalization does not hold water for me. Just giving yourself permission to be demeaning.

Feel free to join us in our discussions. I must caution you however, screaming insults based on stereotypes is not going to garner much positive response.

Antifa assaults a right wing writer

"Portland police have claimed that some of the milkshakes thrown by the antifa activists on Saturday contained quick-dry cement. That may or may not be true. What is true is that an antifa mob beat up a journalist—one who is harshly critical of them, to be sure, but who posed no physical threat to them and was only there to document their activities—on a public street. This is indefensible, and yet there are tons of progressive-leaning people currently defending it, or at the very least rationalizing and making light of it."

(07-01-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Antifa assaults a right wing writer

"Portland police have claimed that some of the milkshakes thrown by the antifa activists on Saturday contained quick-dry cement. That may or may not be true. What is true is that an antifa mob beat up a journalist—one who is harshly critical of them, to be sure, but who posed no physical threat to them and was only there to document their activities—on a public street. This is indefensible, and yet there are tons of progressive-leaning people currently defending it, or at the very least rationalizing and making light of it."

One of the terrible things is that antifa specifically called the guy out by name in tweets for a beating in the days prior to the 'event'.

And many left leaning people have explicitly taken the stance that 'you put yourself into that danger.'

I have been following this since a couple hours after it happened. Just didnt post it.

(07-01-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Antifa assaults a right wing writer

"Portland police have claimed that some of the milkshakes thrown by the antifa activists on Saturday contained quick-dry cement. That may or may not be true. What is true is that an antifa mob beat up a journalist—one who is harshly critical of them, to be sure, but who posed no physical threat to them and was only there to document their activities—on a public street. This is indefensible, and yet there are tons of progressive-leaning people currently defending it, or at the very least rationalizing and making light of it."

One comment I saw was kinda funny:
"Antifa activists have physically assaulted right-wing journalist Andy Ngo, thereby proving irrefutably that he is guilty of inciting violence."