GOP Debate on Fox News
- Thread starter Rmstn1580
- Start date
- Status
That caused me the biggest laugh yet today. Seriously, that cracked me up. Do you know anything about current economics or do you just regurgitate old stale goldwater era tripe? Why do I ask this? Compare the value of the "failed european model" currency to the value of the dollar.
I agree about letting people invest their own money, alas people do not do so they spend it on stuff. I am 46 and retired, I only stay retired if my money earns decent returns, luckily there is a bull market somewhere all the time so for now my money is europe and south america and Africa and China and India and gold mining and materials mutual funds. When our politicians get their collective heads out, economically speaking, then I can invest back in the good ole USA. "Failed european model" indeed, but then we all need a good laugh once in a while.
Actually their old economic model did fail. That is why Britain in the 1980s, and now Germany and France are trying to undo the welfare nanny states created in the radical 1960s. They are actually trying to reduce the burden of government on business and citizen to create a more dynamic market. The reason they are doing this is that they can not compete with the former Soviet bloc countries in eastern Europe or China. The only way they can keep business and jobs is to try to revers years of socialist regression. Even the Scandinavian countries, long know for cradle to the grave welfare are now cutting back their welfare entitlements, and lessing the regulatory burden of government. It was the socialist that started the change in Sweden by reduce the corporate income tax to help business compete internationally. Now it might take decades to fully reverse the damage done by the socialist, but maybe one day Europe will be more like what we in America preach, but have never come close too. I hate to say it but Europe is becoming more capitalistic while the USA is regressing towards the old European model. With Hillary I am sure we will become more like old Europe. I guess the Liberals in this country have not gotten the memo from their peers in Europe that socialism is out.
Maybe its just me, but I have this sneaking suspicion that Justme might be a troll. Now don't get me wrong we all have different views on politics, and it is great to here points from the other side. But Justme seems to like to stir the pot, instead of trying to have logical arguments with people. Much of what he say in geared to be offensive, inflammatory, and down right rude. For example, not too long ago he made some very childish, ignorant comments about Christians. All I am saying is maybe the moderators should be closely monitoring this person.
They do. As for christians, I are one. Ever heard of Bishop Spong or Dominic Croisson? Saving the bible from fundamentalists is one of my life missions. I try not to insult individuals, but have no qualms whatsoever about attacking ideas.
You make good points about europe. So why does the right wing not pick up the idea that you can have socially responsible govt plus free markets? It's really a pretty simple concept, let the market do it's job and make the government do it's job. Yes, there does need to be a social safety net and some income redistribution(if you have free markets there will be inequaties that need to be addressed), but make it blatant and after the fact and let free markets make everyone rich so there is more to share.
Well that is your problem. Attacking people might be the reason why some people here believe you are a troll. You see attacking people makes you come across as a partisan. All you are doing is turning people off from what ever your trying to get across to them. Why don't you try to be a little bit more rational and diplomatic in your debates with others instead of using inflammatory remarks. This goes for all the people on this board that use inflammatory language, and attack others because their opinions differ. I hate to see this board digress to that of the THR. I got so turned off from that site because of the constant immature bickering. The place was overrun with trolls, and all sort of idiots. Thank the gods they are trying to change it.
How about the Democrats? They seem to prefer the old European model.
I agree that there is a strong element within the democratic party that espouses discredited ideas. I find them less of a danger to freedom than their theocracy counterparts in the republican party. Frankly I am pleased that neither party has put forth a legitimate candidate that is from the radical edges. I could live with any of them from Thompson to Obama and everything in between, just not Kuchinic or Huckabee(or Paul for that matter though I'm not sure he's really a republican)
Manedwolf you will find many people who agree with you, especially here. However, you are wrong. The social safety net is a bit like insurance you buy before you are born. Most people, if they didn't know what talents or disabilities they might possess before the fact would choose to be born where there is at least some safety net. As for income redistribution, that is neccesary to prevent civil war, besides you don't have enough money to worry about it, or you wouldn't have to work for your income. The govt already does income redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy, it would be better if it were out in the open and helped the poor instead.
Anyway, continue to think what you want, it is a very popular position among the working classes. The wealthy do a good job of convincing the masses that they all are just one lucky break from the money stream, and wouldn't that suck if you were finally rich and the govt took it away?
Anyway, continue to think what you want, it is a very popular position among the working classes. The wealthy do a good job of convincing the masses that they all are just one lucky break from the money stream, and wouldn't that suck if you were finally rich and the govt took it away?
Here you see the difference. To traditional Republicans, wealthy are the most productive citizens, drivers of the economy, examples of how far one can get with determination in a capitalist system. Especially when they started with nothing and worked their way to the top. Especially when it was their own skill and drive that got them up there.
To liberals, the wealthy are the enemy, and everyone should be brought down to the level of the poor.
Read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" to see what "equality" would be.
To liberals, the wealthy are the enemy, and everyone should be brought down to the level of the poor.
Read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" to see what "equality" would be.
grymster2007
New member
So tell us why the government should take our wealth to help the poor! Not the “because there would be civil war if it didn’t happen” lie. That don’t fly. A rational reason! Tell us exactly how we owe it to them!
I've spent 25 years studying economics and don't feel like econ 101 lectures are a good use of forum resources. Of course there would be civil war without a safety net. There are also a lot of hidden costs that even poor people pay so why shouldn't they acrue some of the benifits? Furthermore we have to maintain a decent social safety net if for no other reason than to maintain liquidity in the labor markets. Illiquid labor markets are worse for economic growth than high interest rates.
John Locke was minister of poverty in england before he got really famous and wrote some very good essays on the responsibilities of the communities toward their own poor, you should read them sometimes, amazing how smart some of those guys were and many of the tenents hold true to this day.
A social safety net does not mean that everyone gets to be equal, but it does keep a large underclass from developing. Anyone who suggests that we do too much for the poor and that's what is wrong with the economy is just not looking into the matter deeply enough.
John Locke was minister of poverty in england before he got really famous and wrote some very good essays on the responsibilities of the communities toward their own poor, you should read them sometimes, amazing how smart some of those guys were and many of the tenents hold true to this day.
A social safety net does not mean that everyone gets to be equal, but it does keep a large underclass from developing. Anyone who suggests that we do too much for the poor and that's what is wrong with the economy is just not looking into the matter deeply enough.
grymster2007
New member
Wow... a lot of effort expended in not answering the question!
I find that people who support wealth redistribution usually directly benefit from it and always have a hard time answering questions like mine.
Maybe that answers the question!
I find that people who support wealth redistribution usually directly benefit from it and always have a hard time answering questions like mine.
Maybe that answers the question!
Sorry you could not understand my answer. I stand to gain by a stable economy, and that includes a social safety net. I am 46 and retired, I would not like the income off my investments to be "redistributed" any more than the next guy, however, I am smart enough to know that I am better off losing a little to "redistribution" than I would be losing a lot to social unrest and an inflexible economic environment. If the economy goes to hell in a handbasket I would have work, and I'm not all that fond of work to be honest.
grymster2007
New member
Insinuating that I’m stupid still does not answer the question…. but I’ll credit you for the effort.
I don’t live off them, but nonetheless have considerable market investments and I too desire a stable economy. But we’re not “losing a little to redistribution”; we’re losing a lot. There are certainly government services that a successful society requires and I don’t mind paying for those and even don’t mind for paying for most of the ones I think marginally beneficial to society as a whole. The problem we have here is that your “poor” are by and large poor because the government forcibly plunders our purses and gives them wealth generated by us, thus leaving no incentive for them to build their own. Continuing to pay people to be poor will result in more poor people and eventually, the unstable economy that will be detrimental to both you and I.
Meanwhile…. gold mining funds is good, just wish I didn’t have to give away so much of what I earn!
I don’t live off them, but nonetheless have considerable market investments and I too desire a stable economy. But we’re not “losing a little to redistribution”; we’re losing a lot. There are certainly government services that a successful society requires and I don’t mind paying for those and even don’t mind for paying for most of the ones I think marginally beneficial to society as a whole. The problem we have here is that your “poor” are by and large poor because the government forcibly plunders our purses and gives them wealth generated by us, thus leaving no incentive for them to build their own. Continuing to pay people to be poor will result in more poor people and eventually, the unstable economy that will be detrimental to both you and I.
Meanwhile…. gold mining funds is good, just wish I didn’t have to give away so much of what I earn!
I doubt we are all that far about on the details, just some of the theory and semantics. I would prefer that the govt did away with all social spending and simply give everyone $15,000 a year. It would save us billions since we spend more than that now. It would also have the benifit of letting people use the money in ways they decided they needed to use it. Some people would use it for education, some for healthcare, some for housing etc etc. We wouldn't have to have a whole bureaucracy to decide the "deserving" poor from the "undeserving" poor. Furthermore everyone could improve their circumstances by working to add to the 15,000 instead of the disincentives we have in place now where people lose if they work. Imagine how many people could become self employed if they had that type of safety net? Rich people might even use their 15,000 to help others or invest in businesses that help others, everyone wins and taxes go down since we would save all those billions.
But it won't happen. There is a whole class of self proclaimed "deciders" who seperate people into the deserving poor and undeserving poor who would be out of a job. On the plus side they would get 15000 a year to cushion the blow of having to get some useful skills.
See, I don't have quite as simplistic view of the economy as it might first appear. I admit to being a socialist, but am also fanatically free market, and don't see the contradiction, two seperate issues really.
BTW, I would also get rid of all govt subsidies to industry including tax breaks for healthcare insurance. On the flip side I would get rid of most labor restrictions too, I find the minimum wage an affront to the free market and downright communist.
But it won't happen. There is a whole class of self proclaimed "deciders" who seperate people into the deserving poor and undeserving poor who would be out of a job. On the plus side they would get 15000 a year to cushion the blow of having to get some useful skills.
See, I don't have quite as simplistic view of the economy as it might first appear. I admit to being a socialist, but am also fanatically free market, and don't see the contradiction, two seperate issues really.
BTW, I would also get rid of all govt subsidies to industry including tax breaks for healthcare insurance. On the flip side I would get rid of most labor restrictions too, I find the minimum wage an affront to the free market and downright communist.
grymster2007
New member
C'mon Justme, yur tarnishin' my fine reputation!
OK, so I've already besmirched my reputation, but I've never been favorably compared to a self-proclaimed socialist! Knock it off!Seriously, I don't think we're very close on the issues. My list of things marginally beneficial to society is pretty short and giving $15K cash to people, many of whom don't want actually earn anything is not something I would think a good idea. Goes back to the "paying poor people to be poor" is a bad idea theory. For many of them, rather than providing your "safety net" it would merely serve as up-front drug money. Think that's a good idea?
Only someone that good financial sense would be capable of using $15k to build a step up. Those with that discipline wouldn't be eligible. The great majority of those that would be eligible would likely be killed or far worse off with an amount they would perceive as becoming 'rich'. MORE drugs, MORE booze, new rims and a bad ass black leather something.
This is the United States. This is STILL the golden land of opportunity. There is NO PLACE like this place. Here a destitute, non-English speaking resident alien can become wealthy. And more do then don't by the way.
People with their primary needs taken care of by others tend to take the path of least resistance. More free money will only be perceived as even easier and will bring the loss of even more ambition.
Give them pot and tell em' they're enlightened and they will vote your party. Ask a California resident how that's going.
This is the United States. This is STILL the golden land of opportunity. There is NO PLACE like this place. Here a destitute, non-English speaking resident alien can become wealthy. And more do then don't by the way.
People with their primary needs taken care of by others tend to take the path of least resistance. More free money will only be perceived as even easier and will bring the loss of even more ambition.
Give them pot and tell em' they're enlightened and they will vote your party. Ask a California resident how that's going.
You're right only someone with good sense would use their 15,000 a year to build something better for themselves. Many would waste the money each month. Can't have it both ways though. Either you believe that people need a nanny to seperate out the deserving poor and just what they need and/or deserve or you do not. I believe that government should profide a social safety net and just giving everyone 15000 a year, less than we pay now, is the least intrusive method to do so.
Personally I believe that individuals are smarter than you guys give them credit for. They know what help they need. And for the small number that are too ignorant to help themselves small local agencies and churches made up of neighbors and family and friends would step in and use the 15,000 they are getting to help others.
We spend millions and millions of dollars a year trying to keep social services money out of the hands of those who don't deserve it. I really don't think we need to be wasting that money and I really don't think the government should be in the judgement business.
Personally I believe that individuals are smarter than you guys give them credit for. They know what help they need. And for the small number that are too ignorant to help themselves small local agencies and churches made up of neighbors and family and friends would step in and use the 15,000 they are getting to help others.
We spend millions and millions of dollars a year trying to keep social services money out of the hands of those who don't deserve it. I really don't think we need to be wasting that money and I really don't think the government should be in the judgement business.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
First off, my wife and I make a decent living and don't even come close to having $15000 taken from our checks from federal withholding. IIRC, the median income in the U.S. isn't consistent with qualifying having this amount withheld federally. So, where do you think the federal govt. is going to give us $15000 if we don't give them this amount per person anyways? I understand we are taxed when we purchase goods, etc. But, am I wrong in thinking these taxes are for other uses?
Second, if you say the poor gets $15000 and that's it, no other assisstance, we will end up in a vicious cycle. There will always be bleeding hearts that say $15000 just isn't enough. Let's open up (insert "new type of program" here) or give even more money. I don't see it as an incentive for a poor lazy person to get off ones duff and find an actual job to support him/herself. The status quo will be OK for that person and will always rely on my tax dollars to support his/her laziness...
- Status