I have tried to reason what the endgame for the Republicans of present is, and how that endgame is evidenced by the actions of the Congressional Republicans and the current administration. For the life of me, I can't figure out any rational explanation, save perhaps lower taxes and less regulation, which at their heart shouldn't be that controversial (especially the latter). But, if that is truly the endgame (which I doubt it is--I could add a lot more of my negative impressions of what I think they're really trying to accomplish, but I'm biased, so I'll stick to the innocent summation of "lower taxes and less regulation"), getting it done is certainly coming with a lot of unnecessary provocation (to put it mildly).

So, from the Republicans on this board, what is the endgame for Republicans? And do you think that the 63 million people that voted for Trump wholeheartedly understand and support that endgame?

The end game is a nation where individuals have freedom to make their own economic and social choices without the support or hindrance of government. The market should be kept as free as possible to determine winners and losers. Environmental, labor, and social protections distort the marketplace and ultimately lead to more problems in society despite their best intention. If the market is free to determine the price for goods and services then things like healthcare distribution and retirement solve themselves. It is true that some people may be hurt, but that would largely be of their own choice--they had the same opportunity to save for a rainy day as anyone else.

Basically, everything Trump does is to free the market and let it choose its own winners and losers. Abolishing net neutrality or privacy, letting coal miners into protected lands, whatever. Even reducing taxes on the rich--who will then be free to financially support their own enterprise, hire workers, buy things, and keep money moving through the economy.

The government's primary role is to maintain an accessible (not necessarily fair) marketplace, and to provide basic services like assisting with developing infrastructure and development, and in some cases utilities. And of course, security and defense.

I am a liberal Democrat who would not vote for Trump or most Republicans if you guaranteed me a brand new Lamborghini and all the tea in China.

N867DA wrote:

The end game is a nation where individuals have freedom to make their own economic and social choices without the support or hindrance of government. The market should be kept as free as possible to determine winners and losers. Environmental, labor, and social protections distort the marketplace and ultimately lead to more problems in society despite their best intention. If the market is free to determine the price for goods and services then things like healthcare distribution and retirement solve themselves. It is true that some people may be hurt, but that would largely be of their own choice--they had the same opportunity to save for a rainy day as anyone else.

Basically, everything Trump does is to free the market and let it choose its own winners and losers. Abolishing net neutrality or privacy, letting coal miners into protected lands, whatever. Even reducing taxes on the rich--who will then be free to financially support their own enterprise, hire workers, buy things, and keep money moving through the economy.

The government's primary role is to maintain an accessible (not necessarily fair) marketplace, and to provide basic services like assisting with developing infrastructure and development, and in some cases utilities. And of course, security and defense.

I am a liberal Democrat who would not vote for Trump or most Republicans if you guaranteed me a brand new Lamborghini and all the tea in China.

Fair enough--certainly a textbook definition--but it just doesn't seem that that's what the administration (especially) or the Congressional leaders are doing. Picking trade fights, dumb executive orders over immigration and "illegal voting," alienating our traditionally strongest allies, attacking the press, attacking intelligence agencies and government professionals, etc, etc, etc.

I know I'm not the first one to say this but it seemed like it should be a relative walk in the park for anyone who had a half clue about what he was doing, if only by not going out of his way to pick fights and feel sorry for himself.

So I DON'T think as described that's the endgame because that's certainly not what they seem to have been working toward.

N867DA wrote:

I am a liberal Democrat who would not vote for Trump or most Republicans if you guaranteed me a brand new Lamborghini and all the tea in China.

Then why are you responding to a request for input from Republicans?

jetero wrote:

I know I'm not the first one to say this but it seemed like it should be a relative walk in the park for anyone who had a half clue about what he was doing, if only by not going out of his way to pick fights and feel sorry for himself.

So I DON'T think as described that's the endgame because that's certainly not what they seem to have been working toward.

Be honest. You have no real interest in hearing from Republicans.

You merely want to create the illusion of a thread so that you can vent your admitted biases.

At least you were honest about being biased.

Thanks for that.

jetero wrote:

I have tried to reason what the endgame .........

Please define "endgame" in a very precise manner.

I've been a Republican for 58 years. Never heard of a Republican "endgame".

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

I have tried to reason what the endgame .........

Please define "endgame" in a very precise manner.

I've been a Republican for 58 years. Never heard of a Republican "endgame".

Endgame as in what is the party working towards now, the goal of whatever this tactical strategy may be.

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

I know I'm not the first one to say this but it seemed like it should be a relative walk in the park for anyone who had a half clue about what he was doing, if only by not going out of his way to pick fights and feel sorry for himself.

So I DON'T think as described that's the endgame because that's certainly not what they seem to have been working toward.

Be honest. You have no real interest in hearing from Republicans.

You merely want to create the illusion of a thread so that you can vent your admitted biases.

At least you were honest about being biased.

Thanks for that.

No I'm interested. On paper (based on a standard textbook definition), I should be a Republican but can't bring myself to stand behind more than a few here and there.

I wouldn't say I'm a bleeding heart, however, because at the end of the day, I do have to admit from a philosophical perspective that there are things that government should not be involved in (postwar public housing generally a disaster despite the best intentions, but a liberal could argue that's because funding was withheld), and say that I can understand (at least in theory) some of the big libertarian arguments about how the removal of government intervention could bring about increased welfare and standard of living for all citizens (although, strangely, I find the argument rarely presented this way (which would probably be way more palatable) . . . it's instead presented in a (or comes across at least) as "don't take what's mine, I don't care about you" (admittedly simplistic) kind of way).

I don't think this is just a Trump problem, either. I guess in the absence of a working-class base clinging to the low tax and low regulation ideal, they had to create somewhat of a moral majority base, which I believe (opinion) is directly contradictory of many conservative principles. As a result, they've been very successful (and Democrats at time have made it easier for them) equating the word "liberal" with:

-Anti-freedom (which as far as I can tell means pro-tax/pro-regulation)
-Anti-military/anti-police/pro-criminal/anti-law and order
-Anti-family
-Anti-religion
-Anti-any kind whatsoever of firearm
-Pro-killing babies
-Pro-redistributing wealth on a large scale
-Pro-giving up U.S. sovereignty to become some international state

And now pro-free trade, which is just crazy given the history.

These days, I fear that a full 20% of people also fear that liberals are all members of sinister conspiracies to promote the above, in addition to child trafficking via pizza joints, murder, etc., etc.

While I'm sure you will find some individual examples of the above in the Democratic party, it's universally as true in the party as all Republicans being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

So is the endgame for traditional Republicans to achieve the low taxes/low regulatory environment (defined as "freedom") at the cost of reestablishing some sort of religious-based moral order to satisfy its base because they can't achieve the first without the second? Is it just a problem of execution (to which certainly the same could be said of Democrats--I just don't think it comes across as vituperatively nasty)? Is it a problem of a coalition that is very fragile, with an ever-larger portion being those more concerned with "softer" side of the Republican Party platform (which to most probably comes across as the harsher)?

I just can't make the idea square in my head--what is being worked towards? Maybe the answer is it's just politics.

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

I have tried to reason what the endgame .........

Please define "endgame" in a very precise manner.

I've been a Republican for 58 years. Never heard of a Republican "endgame".

Endgame as in what is the party working towards now, the goal of whatever this tactical strategy may be.

Ah, you mean goals and objectives.

See the Republican Party Platform: https://gop.com/platform

Of course, that is a sort of "majority report" and many Republicans do not agree with some or even much of it.

Also, as with most Party Platforms, they are soon forgotten.

The Republican Party gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. Now there is a lot of foolish talk within the party about shutting it down.

Parties change, objectives change.

So much for parties and end games.

jetero wrote:

I have tried to reason what the endgame for the Republicans of present is, and how that endgame is evidenced by the actions of the Congressional Republicans and the current administration. For the life of me, I can't figure out any rational explanation, save perhaps lower taxes and less regulation, which at their heart shouldn't be that controversial (especially the latter). But, if that is truly the endgame (which I doubt it is--I could add a lot more of my negative impressions of what I think they're really trying to accomplish, but I'm biased, so I'll stick to the innocent summation of "lower taxes and less regulation"), getting it done is certainly coming with a lot of unnecessary provocation (to put it mildly).

So, from the Republicans on this board, what is the endgame for Republicans? And do you think that the 63 million people that voted for Trump wholeheartedly understand and support that endgame?

For most, I think the overall goal is to get re-elected above all else. All other ideas and values are somewhat malleable. Look how quickly most Republicans have backed Trump, someone who doesn't even stand for much of what the party used to stand for.

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

I have tried to reason what the endgame .........

Please define "endgame" in a very precise manner.

I've been a Republican for 58 years. Never heard of a Republican "endgame".

Let me ask you this, why do Republicans want to turn this nation into a third world country? Regulations only help to keep this country at first world status.

CaliAtenza wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

I have tried to reason what the endgame .........

Please define "endgame" in a very precise manner.

I've been a Republican for 58 years. Never heard of a Republican "endgame".

Let me ask you this, why do Republicans want to turn this nation into a third world country? Regulations only help to keep this country at first world status.

I can't speak for all, or even, for other Republicans.

I happen to be a liberal Republican (think Rockefeller Republican, if you are old enough to remember).

The United States is not going to become a second or third world country regardless of what our critics think or say.

So far, Mr. Trump has been unable to muster full support from Republicans in Congress, and I don't think he will be able to put much legislation through the process.

He will largely "govern" by Executive Orders and other trickery, much as President Obama did.

Until he is stopped entirely (just my guess, he will not complete four years).

I hope.

The Republican plan for the next 8 years : oppose everything President Clinton says and does.

No wonder it's not working out.

BobPatterson wrote:

Parties change, objectives change.

So much for parties and end games.

cledaybuck wrote:

For most, I think the overall goal is to get re-elected above all else. All other ideas and values are somewhat malleable. Look how quickly most Republicans have backed Trump, someone who doesn't even stand for much of what the party used to stand for.

You know, at the end of the game (endgame?), that's it, for either party. It's just politics. Zero long-term thinking. I equate the Republican version with, as I said above, vituperative and spiteful nastiness, but I'm sure people equate my brand with socialism, godlessness, criminality, and baby killing.

Again, coming from an obviously biased person, and one who does believe that adherents of either party actually have a positive rationale for their political philosophy (classifying, of course, Rand's virtue of selfishness as perhaps best exemplified by BMI as a positive), do you think that Republicans at their heart are more binary and less willing to see nuances, at least in politics? In a lot of this back-and-forth I honestly don't see much room for compromise in many of the views presented (obviously an opinion). Taxes and regulations must be cut--well, by how much until they're at an "acceptable" level (i.e., until people really feel "free")? Must morality be legislated (admittedly a question for both sides, with different views of morality)? To what extent? I guess that's another way of saying endgame.

I'd like to reconcile it in my head instead of wanting to jump down peoples' throats and resort immediately to name-calling.

BobPatterson wrote:

CaliAtenza wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Please define "endgame" in a very precise manner.

I've been a Republican for 58 years. Never heard of a Republican "endgame".

Let me ask you this, why do Republicans want to turn this nation into a third world country? Regulations only help to keep this country at first world status.

I can't speak for all, or even, for other Republicans.

I happen to be a liberal Republican (think Rockefeller Republican, if you are old enough to remember).

The United States is not going to become a second or third world country regardless of what our critics think or say.

So far, Mr. Trump has been unable to muster full support from Republicans in Congress, and I don't think he will be able to put much legislation through the process.

He will largely "govern" by Executive Orders and other trickery, much as President Obama did.

Until he is stopped entirely (just my guess, he will not complete four years).

I hope.

There are actually places where this country sadly already has become second or third world; if there isn't a strong federal government, the backward slide will continue. Yes, I do remember the Rockefeller Republicans. You must be one of the last ones out there :/.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. For example, crime is decreasing because the Trump Administration is kicking criminal illegals the hell out of the country. Deportations have increased by 40% from record high numbers during the Obama administration. Big cities have crimes and criminals had begun to spill out to the suburbs and commit robberies and burglaries in broad day light. There's still a long way to go but it's happening. America is indeed becoming safer under President Trump.

Nobody was investing enough in infrastructure because the Democrats were all too busy handing out food stamps and other benefits to the poor. I have nothing against that, but everyone is underestimating the large percentage of the poor who abuse the system and don't work a day simply because they can get paid to play video games all day through welfare. I hope the Republicans can change that and make everyone that can work, go to work.

Here's the real problem in America. The rich can provide for their family because they are rich. The poor are taken care by government benefits and welfare. However, the majority of Americans are middle-class and they get absolutely no benefit from the government. They get screwed over by high taxes and all their money goes towards welfare for the poor. In Europe, everyone benefits from the government including the middle class. Not in America! For college, the poor are taken care off because the government offers grants through FAFSA. The rich can pay for their kids. However, the middle class folks are screwed.

When it comes to Health Care, the media is saying 23 million people will lose their health care with the new Republican bill. However, they are falsely assuming that everyone in America has health insurance. Anywhere from 16-18 million people of that 23 million figure still do not have health insurance. Obama care premium is going through the roof and the middle class cannot afford it.

I request the people of Airliners.net to see America through the lens of the middle class people that make up around 51% of America. The poor make up 29% and the rich are 20%. it will slowly make sense of atleast some of the things the republicans are working on.

I cant speak for the party as I am not registered in any party. What I do think the honest goal of many right thinkers is to get every able bodied American to work in a good paying job. The more americans that work, the less money the government has to spend on food stamps and other safety nets because fewer people need these programs. The more Americans that work, the more discretionary income that people have, meaning more money gets spent. This would boom the economy, help all Americans regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, religion etc.

If this is what you believe, the question you have to ask yourself is, are the policies being proposed by our elected officials going to get us to this goal. I personally have my doubts that nothing being proposed by either party gets us there. And I believe this is intentional. Because as long as government is looked at as helping people, it means that those in office will likely to hold office. And while this may appear to be a good thing, it leads to politicians being addicted to power and that's when the special interests pounce, and ultimately in the end, the little guy who is supposed to be helped is actually hurt.

Ultimately, I actually believe solutions to these problems are going to be non political. We claim that we want to help the little guy, but yet instead of buying from local businesses and actually helping the little guy, we buy from WalMart, Amazon, and what we are doing is just giving our money to the wealthy and keeping it from the little guy. This is why I buy very little off Amazon, and I try to support local businesses as much as possible. Unfortunately most of them don't have the economies of scale that bigger corporations enjoy, and until we are willing to change our habits and pay a little more, this will continue to happen.

Climate Change is another issue that gets mentioned a lot. I am not going to take a position here on the Paris Agreement that Trump may pull us out of. What I can argue that if you believe as I do that climate change is real, take steps yourself and work to get others to take similar steps to help the problem at a grassroots level. What is happening in Washington is why I am not going to rely on governments to entirely solve the problem. We have to take action. Start by buying hybrid vehicles or even electric vehicles. Use Mass Transit if available in your area instead of your car. If you live in a deregulated energy market as I do, go with an supplier that supplies 100 percent green energy. Use recyclable shopping bags when possible. Plant trees. The list goes on. Until we put our money where our mouth is, there is no incentive for things to change among the elite. People talk a good game, but don't back it up. Al Gore, please take note.

CaliAtenza wrote:

Yes, I do remember the Rockefeller Republicans. You must be one of the last ones out there :/.

Nah, there are plenty. They took over the democratic party a fee decades back.

Best regards
Thomas

jetero wrote:

I have tried to reason what the endgame for the Republicans of present is, and how that endgame is evidenced by the actions of the Congressional Republicans and the current administration.

A dacha on the crimea it seems.

Best regards
Thomas

I would say that the end-game, at least the immediate and obvious one, is to allow the richer classes and corporations to pay less taxes and serve the interests of those who give more money to elected officials.

As much as I try to distance myself from my own views, I can't shake the feeling that the Republican party doing everything it can to serve one, and only one, small proportion of the population, while actively trying to fool the other, and larger, part of their electorate still believing in trickle down economics, even though the social gap has done nothing but grow since Reaganomics.

There is quite a lot of self-interest there, but behind the greed and indifference towards a large part of the population, there is also the belief that a modern society can somehow self-regulate into a free-market equilibrium which would naturally bring equality and freedom to all. Except there is no proof that this is the case.

A free and de-regulated market to the extreme allows for consolidation of wealth an power into the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else. This is obviously true nowadays even with some degree of regulations and social protections. The increasing wealth gap is, ironically, what helped populist Trump get to the White House. Ultimately, the downwards pressure exerted over the medium and low classes will lead to a reduced spending power and a shrinking economy.

America has succumbed to greed and short term thinking. Those with money control the government and will steer it their way, those without are being fooled into believing that this will be good for them and preferably dumbed down to servility and acceptance through hard-lined religious beliefs and a discriminatory education system.

Every successful 'rich' democracy has gained that status thanks to a regulated free market and a degree of government-promoted and funded social justice that has allowed them to have a healthy and educated middle class with spending power. This new and more extreme direction, along with Trump's disastrous foreign policy, is IMO the beginning of the end for the US as a major power, and will only help propel China upwards. With any luck, it will help Europe unite further and create its own leveraging power against China and Russia.

The issue is that the rising powers that will supersede the US are not champions of justice and democracy, on the contrary. They will even use Trump's example as proof that democracy doesn't work. It is not a bright World we're headed towards, I'm afraid.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

Actually, it's quite the opposite. For example, crime is decreasing because the Trump Administration is kicking criminal illegals the hell out of the country. Deportations have increased by 40% from record high numbers during the Obama administration. Big cities have crimes and criminals had begun to spill out to the suburbs and commit robberies and burglaries in broad day light. There's still a long way to go but it's happening. America is indeed becoming safer under President Trump.

OK, so here's a goal at the federal level: Lower crime, especially in the suburbs in broad daylight, by deporting people. I agree that deportations are up. I don't know what effect it is having on crime, but note that you think it's decreasing. I certainly wouldn't argue they're increasing crime.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

Nobody was investing enough in infrastructure because the Democrats were all too busy handing out food stamps and other benefits to the poor. I have nothing against that, but everyone is underestimating the large percentage of the poor who abuse the system and don't work a day simply because they can get paid to play video games all day through welfare. I hope the Republicans can change that and make everyone that can work, go to work.

OK, another goal at the federal level. Fund infrastructure by eliminating "entitlements" (charged word, but I'll use it) to the "large percentage of the poor who abuse the system and don't work a day." Increase employment. Certainly understand the latter and that's a positive goal, but not sure how many highways and airports can be funded with reduced food stamps and welfare.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

Here's the real problem in America. The rich can provide for their family because they are rich. The poor are taken care by government benefits and welfare. However, the majority of Americans are middle-class and they get absolutely no benefit from the government. They get screwed over by high taxes and all their money goes towards welfare for the poor. In Europe, everyone benefits from the government including the middle class. Not in America! For college, the poor are taken care off because the government offers grants through FAFSA. The rich can pay for their kids. However, the middle class folks are screwed.

So this to me sounds like an expansion of FAFSA for the middle class. That seems more like a part of the Democratic platform than the Republican.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

When it comes to Health Care, the media is saying 23 million people will lose their health care with the new Republican bill. However, they are falsely assuming that everyone in America has health insurance. Anywhere from 16-18 million people of that 23 million figure still do not have health insurance. Obama care premium is going through the roof and the middle class cannot afford it.

That's not how I understand the 23 million, but I'll run with it. So the implication here is to take away health insurance from 5-7 million people (your calculation) to contain the increase in health insurance premiums for the middle class?

If that doesn't contain increases in health insurance premiums for people similarly situated to you, should more people lose insurance? Should those cuts extend to Medicare?

AirplaneWizard wrote:

I request the people of Airliners.net to see America through the lens of the middle class people that make up around 51% of America. The poor make up 29% and the rich are 20%. it will slowly make sense of atleast some of the things the republicans are working on.

So if we're included in the 29% or the 20%, your advice is that the majority wins? Or you simply expect the 49% to reduce your burden? Is there an effective tax rate that you have in mind that will make you content enough? Or would you measure it in another way?

Jetero,

1. Illegal Criminals being deported is reducing crime. Thank you for agreeing with me that crime rates are now starting to fall.

2. An estimated $1,177 billion is spent for "entitlements." $716 billion goes to Medicaid and $411 billion for welfare. Let's just say you cut 1/3 of these entitlements for now. That gives you $390 billion. To better understand this figure, the Golden Gate Bridge cost $27 million or around $1.5 billion when adjusted for today's inflation. The Dallas Cowboys stadium cost $1.2 billion. You could build 325 Cowboy stadiums or 260 Golden Gate Bridges in America each year if you cut these "entitlements" down by 1/3. It's a lot of money that can be used somewhere else to make America better. Source: (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ ... ng_40.html)

3. College costs only started rising after the government intervened under the national student defense loan program. Things take a while. If the government stopped paying for college for people who cannot afford it through these grants, college would become far more affordable. Besides, a college education these days outside STEM and Business/Accounting/Economics/Finance is not worth it anyways.

4. Health care in the US is a disaster. The correct step here would be to get rid of patent rights for pharmaceutical companies, so everyone of them have to compete to sell their drugs to people. Take out entitlements and help everyone pay for their health care, and also make it cheap.

5. If you are paying taxes, you expect to see results and benefits. That doesn't happen anymore to folks who are middle class and higher. If you are making $75,000, you would pay an effective tax rate of 20%. Then you still have to pay property and sales tax. Wher is all the tax money going that benefits you? Property pays for municipal and city services such as police, fire, roads and etc. We are all being ripped off through taxes. If it were up to me, I would make it a 10% mandatory effective tax rate for everyone.

At the end of the day, all of us agree that we want a better world for ourselves and the future generations. We just have different ways of approaching it.

N867DA wrote:

The end game is a nation where individuals have freedom to make their own economic and social choices without the support or hindrance of government. The market should be kept as free as possible to determine winners and losers. Environmental, labor, and social protections distort the marketplace and ultimately lead to more problems in society despite their best intention. If the market is free to determine the price for goods and services then things like healthcare distribution and retirement solve themselves. It is true that some people may be hurt, but that would largely be of their own choice--they had the same opportunity to save for a rainy day as anyone else.

We have shown in the past that a "free market" doesn't work - just look at past monopolies. We do very well with a "private market" that maintains a reasonable market in terms of level opportunities, safety, and protections.

Environmental protections? Talk to the folks in Flynt MI.

Labor? You keep the minimum wage below the poverty level get ready for long term increases in social programs and/or explosions in crimes.

Medical? There is not one doctor or nurse trained in the US (and in most other countries) that have not benefitted from public dollars in their education and on the job training. They work in hospitals built with major public funding and those hospitals enjoy major public funding in an on-going basis. It also takes government dollars to ensure that a medical infrastructure is in place if ups need it on an urgent basis, be it close to home or anywhere else in the country.

Retirement? That is a bigger joke than you realize, unless you are in that are group. The Cheney/Bush Great Recession has been a killer for the average retiree. All that very low interest money needed to avoid a Depression has killed investments retirees have built up. Those CDs with less than a 1% return do not provide the income many people depended on. One article a few months ago covered this loss, which is estimated at $1 Trillion dollars.

N867DA wrote:

Basically, everything Trump does is to free the market and let it choose its own winners and losers. Abolishing net neutrality or privacy, letting coal miners into protected lands, whatever. Even reducing taxes on the rich--who will then be free to financially support their own enterprise, hire workers, buy things, and keep money moving through the economy.

Reducing taxes on the rich only ensure the rich get richer and the lower classes get screwed. If tax cuts were such a great deal we would not have had The Great Recession.

Trump is different however in that he wants to take away a Trillion Dollars from our health infrastructure in order to give a Trillion Dollar tax cut to the wealthy. If you believe that those wealthy folks will put their new riches to building their businesses and hiring new workers then you need to take a hard look at how aggressive these warm hearted folks fight like tigers to keep the minimum wage below the poverty level.

N867DA wrote:

The government's primary role is to maintain an accessible (not necessarily fair) marketplace, and to provide basic services like assisting with developing infrastructure and development, and in some cases utilities. And of course, security and defense.

You forgot the General Welfare of the people in this nation. And the idea of equal protection under the law.

Ken777 wrote:

If you believe that those wealthy folks will put their new riches to building their businesses and hiring new workers then you need to take a hard look at how aggressive these warm hearted folks fight like tigers to keep the minimum wage below the poverty level.

Of course they will! The only question is how much of that Trillion US $ will end up in Trumps personal Bank account, because I don't think he is giving that much direct investment to China/Vietnam, and what other communist labor camps they can find, for free. The Republicans love communism when it provides the with cheap labour to screw they US workers out of a job. That is why Nixon went to China, and Bush opened Vietnam up more for direct investments.

Best regards
Thomas

Francoflier wrote:

I would say that the end-game, at least the immediate and obvious one, is to allow the richer classes and corporations to pay less taxes and serve the interests of those who give more money to elected officials.

As much as I try to distance myself from my own views, I can't shake the feeling that the Republican party doing everything it can to serve one, and only one, small proportion of the population, while actively trying to fool the other, and larger, part of their electorate still believing in trickle down economics, even though the social gap has done nothing but grow since Reaganomics.

That's my sense (or bias)--I don't believe the flat tax view is anywhere near a majority view--certainly not even reducing the top marginal tax rates (although I understand the view as being completely rational to many). So are most of the other moralistic politics just a sideshow and distraction? Is the obsession with "activist judges" really an attempt to try to force through the federal court system an anti-taxation and anti-regulation platform, realizing that most people wouldn't otherwise vote for it? Would those "unelected judges" be considered "activist" if they upended the U.S. economic system?

Francoflier wrote:

There is quite a lot of self-interest there, but behind the greed and indifference towards a large part of the population, there is also the belief that a modern society can somehow self-regulate into a free-market equilibrium which would naturally bring equality and freedom to all. Except there is no proof that this is the case.

A free and de-regulated market to the extreme allows for consolidation of wealth an power into the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else. This is obviously true nowadays even with some degree of regulations and social protections. The increasing wealth gap is, ironically, what helped populist Trump get to the White House. Ultimately, the downwards pressure exerted over the medium and low classes will lead to a reduced spending power and a shrinking economy.

I can understand a theoretical argument that says that, in an environment of minimal regulation and fetishizing property rights above all else, employment could be maximized. Of course there's the question at what cost? Take the environment, for example. I (think) a free marketer would say that if resources were exploited, then that in and of itself would solve the problem once the resources are gone. Or that, in a completely free market, consumers would choose not do do business with those who are doing the exploiting. Sounds naive at best to me. And I fear that there are jurisdictions (since this is all supposed to be trading federal regulation for state regulation) that would use a lack of federal regulation to completely screw over certain minority groups because social and moral regulation seems to be as OK with the party base as economic regulation isn't. It may not be the party line, but it sure seems that way.

And does not history have a long pattern of turning to revolution when power is consolidated in a way that detrimentally affects the broader masses? Would today's right be as supportive of its free-for-all stance on firearms applying to those masses if we did ever transition into this Libertarian idea of a state?

Francoflier wrote:

America has succumbed to greed and short term thinking. Those with money control the government and will steer it their way, those without are being fooled into believing that this will be good for them and preferably dumbed down to servility and acceptance through hard-lined religious beliefs and a discriminatory education system.

Every successful 'rich' democracy has gained that status thanks to a regulated free market and a degree of government-promoted and funded social justice that has allowed them to have a healthy and educated middle class with spending power. This new and more extreme direction, along with Trump's disastrous foreign policy, is IMO the beginning of the end for the US as a major power, and will only help propel China upwards. With any luck, it will help Europe unite further and create its own leveraging power against China and Russia.

The issue is that the rising powers that will supersede the US are not champions of justice and democracy, on the contrary. They will even use Trump's example as proof that democracy doesn't work. It is not a bright World we're headed towards, I'm afraid.

I wouldn't disagree--certainly more in line with my view of today.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

At the end of the day, all of us agree that we want a better world for ourselves and the future generations. We just have different ways of approaching it.

Wholeheartedly agree. One (wo)man/one vote.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

1. Illegal Criminals being deported is reducing crime. Thank you for agreeing with me that crime rates are now starting to fall.

If you want to decide for me that I agreed with you, then that's your prerogative. I think that what you're saying is that any illegal alien is inherently a criminal, so by deporting them crime is reduced. But I thought earlier this had more to do with evil cities (which do generate most of the jobs and consumption in the U.S., BTW) maliciously exporting crimes to the suburbs in daylight.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

2. An estimated $1,177 billion is spent for "entitlements." $716 billion goes to Medicaid and $411 billion for welfare. Let's just say you cut 1/3 of these entitlements for now. That gives you $390 billion. To better understand this figure, the Golden Gate Bridge cost $27 million or around $1.5 billion when adjusted for today's inflation. The Dallas Cowboys stadium cost $1.2 billion. You could build 325 Cowboy stadiums or 260 Golden Gate Bridges in America each year if you cut these "entitlements" down by 1/3. It's a lot of money that can be used somewhere else to make America better. Source: (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ ... ng_40.html)

That doesn't look like a primary source website to me. CBO says $368 billion for Medicaid. Won't waste time finding a similar number for welfare, but will agree it's something. OK so we have decided as a proxy that 33% of Medicaid and welfare spending is fraud and should be abolished. With that, we can fund infrastructure. If you agree with the numbers, then, sure, that's a viable policy position.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52408

AirplaneWizard wrote:

3. College costs only started rising after the government intervened under the national student defense loan program. Things take a while. If the government stopped paying for college for people who cannot afford it through these grants, college would become far more affordable. Besides, a college education these days outside STEM and Business/Accounting/Economics/Finance is not worth it anyways.

Understand (and fully believe) the idea that subsidies can lead to higher prices.

I think you're referring to the GI Bill. And I think you're saying that if people can't afford college with only those grants, they shoudn't go at all. And that federal loans should target college education/vocational training in sectors that are needed by the economy. Since you do seem concerned with the quality of education, should federal dollars be going to the likes of the University of Phoenix, Liberty University Online, etc.?

Regardless, viable policy position.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

4. Health care in the US is a disaster. The correct step here would be to get rid of patent rights for pharmaceutical companies, so everyone of them have to compete to sell their drugs to people. Take out entitlements and help everyone pay for their health care, and also make it cheap.

I don't know how that would work while attracting the same level of R&D spend, and this seems somewhat contrary to traditional conservative view of property rights. But, sure, can be done.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

5. If you are paying taxes, you expect to see results and benefits. That doesn't happen anymore to folks who are middle class and higher. If you are making $75,000, you would pay an effective tax rate of 20%. Then you still have to pay property and sales tax. Wher is all the tax money going that benefits you? Property pays for municipal and city services such as police, fire, roads and etc. We are all being ripped off through taxes. If it were up to me, I would make it a 10% mandatory effective tax rate for everyone.

People who make $75k gross don't pay an effective tax rate of 20% after applying deductions and credits. The marginal tax rate for married couples making $76k is 25%, but that's after paying 10% on the first $19k of taxable and 15% on the next $55k. (Somewhat irking when people propose policy for things that they obviously don't have a full understanding of.)

But flat tax 10% would make AW happy. Do you think that wage levels or currency values would change negatively as a result of such a policy? If the 10% isn't enough to pay for whatever you think appropriate the federal government should do (including infrastructure above), what gives, the tax rate or spending? I'd guess the spending, but I'm biased.

So in AW's world, the rich and middle class benefit. (Or maybe the flat tax is thought to adversely affect the rich by eliminating deductions?) The poor benefit by working, in which case they can be middle class. Otherwise, it's a "transfer of wealth" from the existing system (I expect that concept will be irking to some) from the poor to the rich and middle class.

In any case, it's a macro policy proposal, so would be an easy one for most people to vote for, if that scenario ever occurred. Do you think most would vote in favor (or enact a constitutional amendment for a 10% flat tax)? If not, what then? It'd be democratic outcome, after all. Push it through the courts the right hopes to load or continue stewing?

AirplaneWizard wrote:

Jetero,

1. Illegal Criminals being deported is reducing crime. Thank you for agreeing with me that crime rates are now starting to fall.

Crime rates have been falling for the last 2 decades, pointing at the deportation on people and saying that's the cause of it is short sighted to say the least, while I will agree it doesn't hurt, it's no even close to the only reason for the drop.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

2. An estimated $1,177 billion is spent for "entitlements." $716 billion goes to Medicaid and $411 billion for welfare. Let's just say you cut 1/3 of these entitlements for now. That gives you $390 billion. To better understand this figure, the Golden Gate Bridge cost $27 million or around $1.5 billion when adjusted for today's inflation. The Dallas Cowboys stadium cost $1.2 billion. You could build 325 Cowboy stadiums or 260 Golden Gate Bridges in America each year if you cut these "entitlements" down by 1/3. It's a lot of money that can be used somewhere else to make America better. Source: (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ ... ng_40.html)

I don't consider Medicaid an entitlement, we as taxpayers fund it through the medicad/medicare payroll tax.

As for cutting 1/3rd of all welfare, go for it, see which states have the biggest problems, a hint, it will be the Republican base that gets hit the hardest.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

3. College costs only started rising after the government intervened under the national student defense loan program. Things take a while. If the government stopped paying for college for people who cannot afford it through these grants, college would become far more affordable. Besides, a college education these days outside STEM and Business/Accounting/Economics/Finance is not worth it anyways.

That I agree with, my niece is heading to Stanford this year, the tuition fees are eye watering.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

4. Health care in the US is a disaster. The correct step here would be to get rid of patent rights for pharmaceutical companies, so everyone of them have to compete to sell their drugs to people. Take out entitlements and help everyone pay for their health care, and also make it cheap.

.

Good luck with that, no way the pharmaceutical lobby will allow politicians from either party to even think about that.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

5. If you are paying taxes, you expect to see results and benefits. That doesn't happen anymore to folks who are middle class and higher. If you are making $75,000, you would pay an effective tax rate of 20%. Then you still have to pay property and sales tax. Wher is all the tax money going that benefits you? Property pays for municipal and city services such as police, fire, roads and etc. We are all being ripped off through taxes. If it were up to me, I would make it a 10% mandatory effective tax rate for everyone.

.

Again, good luck, while I do agree a flat tax would work, the money people will see to it that there are still loopholes to lower the effective tax rates.

What is this "welfare" you guys are speaking of?

This editorial summarizes my confusion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... f0e3728f60

jetero wrote:

This editorial summarizes my confusion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... f0e3728f60

While I am not an American, nor an Republic supporter, I think the reason why Republican can success despite all these is because they attracted a number of people who don't like the direction Democrats are heading despite the lack of their own opinion. Instead of wanting to do something new, what they want is to keep things as they are in the old times. People in Republican party might supply some of the changes and against others due to each of their own reasons, but for voters it is the general senses that they don't like the direction Democrats are taking them to and prefer what they were over the vision brought to them by Democrats. So I believe, even if there aren't really anything new made by a Republican president, as long as he keep things as they were, Republican voters would like them. Notice how Trump's slogan being "Make America Great Again", the focus of the slogan is "Again". They think the current America is not great, and the past America was great, thus almost any step back would be a good step.

I'll weigh in: it appears that the only end game for the GOP is to establish a permanent GOP-dominated nation, in other words, a dictatorship in which elections will continue (for now) but those elections will have no practical effect on the balance of power in Washington. They have done this with their REDMAP progect, a policy of disenfranchisement of likely opposition voters, gerrymandering, and the use of highly biased propaganda networks (FOX and now Breitbart) posing as "news." I've been watching them at it since 1994 and it's working. Ultimately, I suspect that some elements within the Party would like to establish a state of theocratic feudalism.

I don't know if we'll be able to stop it.

the end game for republicans came when they nominated Donald John Trump. they just don't know it yet.

DocLightning wrote:

I'll weigh in: it appears that the only end game for the GOP is to establish a permanent GOP-dominated nation, in other words, a dictatorship in which elections will continue (for now) but those elections will have no practical effect on the balance of power in Washington. They have done this with their REDMAP progect, a policy of disenfranchisement of likely opposition voters, gerrymandering, and the use of highly biased propaganda networks (FOX and now Breitbart) posing as "news." I've been watching them at it since 1994 and it's working. Ultimately, I suspect that some elements within the Party would like to establish a state of theocratic feudalism.

I don't know if we'll be able to stop it.

Sadly, I think you are absolutely correct and find your succinct explanation to be the best response so far.

But don't forget that demographics in this country are also changing. Last year, I believe, was the first year that more non-white babies were born in the U.S. than Caucasian, as America continues its move toward a majority minority state. On social issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, and the environment, even younger white Americans generally hold more liberal views than their parents. I think what we are seeing now is the last grasp of Baby Boomers and older trying to recreate the society they grew up in, where white, heterosexual, Christian (males) held all the power and everyone else was screwed. We are definitely heading to a more socially liberal American society in the future. The ugly happens with the changing of the guard between generations, and I think that is what is causing the political polarization we're starting to see now.

[threeid][/threeid]I think the Republican leadership strongly dislikes Trump and yearns for a powerful Establishment-Right leader like Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton or Rick Perry. This leader would protect the big banks, open the floodgates of immigration assassinating American wages, and would start new wars in order to kill as many people as possible.

I suspect many congressional Republicans voted for Clinton. A few stated publicly that they preferred her brand of capitalism, and her wild death sprees, to Trump's silly populism. Many continue to argue that she really won. The deep state continues to support her. This is real Republicans.

Trump is his own thing. I don't think he has much to do with who real Republicans are and what they want. Trump democrats is more accurate if we are talking about Trump and his crowd. Libertarians. They aren't the deep state and they aren't major business interests.

Flighty wrote:

I suspect many congressional Republicans voted for Clinton. A few stated publicly that they preferred her brand of capitalism, and her wild death sprees, to Trump's silly populism. Many continue to argue that she really won. The deep state continues to support her. This is real Republicans.

What does this matter if the Deep Congress continues to largely support Trump? Even Susan Collins is going out of her way defending behavior that may in the end not be illegal, but is certainly not presidential. Gave up on Paul Ryan months ago.

UALFAson wrote:

On social issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, and the environment, even younger white Americans generally hold more liberal views than their parents. (...) We are definitely heading to a more socially liberal American society in the future. The ugly happens with the changing of the guard between generations, and I think that is what is causing the political polarization we're starting to see now.

But I think there was a study that seems to indicate millennial voters are more conservative than earlier generations?

c933103 wrote:

But I think there was a study that seems to indicate millennial voters are more conservative than earlier generations?

If they are, it's a whole different kind of conservative than the traditional definition. But it would follow that a generation that was hit so hard by a crappy job market (I would argue not caused by liberals) would become "conservative."

jetero wrote:

What does this matter if the Deep Congress continues to largely support Trump? Even Susan Collins is going out of her way defending behavior that may in the end not be illegal, but is certainly not presidential. Gave up on Paul Ryan months ago.

Responding to myself here . . . forgot about "Little Marco" Rubio during the Comey testimony . . . that's even worse than Collins. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

UALFAson wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

I'll weigh in: it appears that the only end game for the GOP is to establish a permanent GOP-dominated nation, in other words, a dictatorship in which elections will continue (for now) but those elections will have no practical effect on the balance of power in Washington. They have done this with their REDMAP progect, a policy of disenfranchisement of likely opposition voters, gerrymandering, and the use of highly biased propaganda networks (FOX and now Breitbart) posing as "news." I've been watching them at it since 1994 and it's working. Ultimately, I suspect that some elements within the Party would like to establish a state of theocratic feudalism.

I don't know if we'll be able to stop it.

Sadly, I think you are absolutely correct and find your succinct explanation to be the best response so far.

But don't forget that demographics in this country are also changing. Last year, I believe, was the first year that more non-white babies were born in the U.S. than Caucasian, as America continues its move toward a majority minority state. On social issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, and the environment, even younger white Americans generally hold more liberal views than their parents. I think what we are seeing now is the last grasp of Baby Boomers and older trying to recreate the society they grew up in, where white, heterosexual, Christian (males) held all the power and everyone else was screwed. We are definitely heading to a more socially liberal American society in the future. The ugly happens with the changing of the guard between generations, and I think that is what is causing the political polarization we're starting to see now.

the last gasp of baby boomers? i am a baby boomer i just turned 57 and have 30 more years of voting ahead of me, might want to rethink your logic.
no, the problem is rural america has small town values, vs urban areas which should be more tolerant.

Our problem was caused by our electoral college electing a president who acts like Archie Bunker, .

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

the last gasp of baby boomers? i am a baby boomer i just turned 57 and have 30 more years of voting ahead of me, might want to rethink your logic.
no, the problem is rural america has small town values, vs urban areas which should be more tolerant.

Our problem was caused by our electoral college electing a president who acts like Archie Bunker, .

Of course, we'll keep you!

The last gasp of the baby boomers who spend countless amounts of energy absolutely obsessed with government and thinking that something has been stolen from them?

Where did this come from? Seems to be a 1990s thing that sprung out of the Clinton administration. Is this all because Bush 41 didn't win a second term "unfairly" thanks to Ross Perot, thereby putting the Reagan Revolution on hold? And the Republicans thinking that smooth-talker Bill Clinton disingenuously stole the election away from a political elite?

(Does any of this sound familiar????????????????????????? Guess the shoe's on the other foot now.)

I think the direct answer is; the Republicans are at their endgame when it comes to meeting their primary electoral goals; they have the national executive, legislative, senate and house, and judicial. They also have the the majority of state governorships and legislative halls. I think the Republican Party stayed relevant in the mind of the rank and file conservative voter by embracing the ephemeral conservative movements of the time like the Tea Party and Alt-Right movement of today as well as being very active in social media and appealing to cultural anxieties. The Democrats lost their majority quickly into the 2010s after they got overly comfortable, relied overly on demographics and played safe campaigns afterwards. Reince Priebus who took the GOP out of it's doldrums in the late twenty-hundreds and made it into the party of the conservative zeitgeist is out replaced by someone who few know. Cracks are starting to show between Republican elected officials and Donald Trump and when Trump is impeached or serves four or eight years, they do not have a lot to fall back after Trump leaves office as he is the leader of a movement.

Somebody needs to speak for America. The GOP think they are doing that. With the pseudo-liberal Democrats busy pandering to their immigrant votebanks, the Real, hard working White Christian America is feeling left out in the cold. There is a captive market right out there.

Core of America seems to believe that they are being ignored by the pseudo-liberal Democrats and the so-called moderate Republicans. Their vote for #SupremeLeader was a message that they will not be ignored anymore.

If only the Democrats led by Mohtarma Hillary Clinton would have paid as much attention to protecting American, Christian values as she did to protecting her Muslim/Hindu votebanks, America would have had a more sensible leader at the top today.

The end game is to remain in power, live the good life, the never ending gravy train. Do whatever is needed to keep that going. It's the same with most politicians.

USD$174,000 per year is a pretty nice gravy train. There should be some efficiency dividends. How is that salary justified? I don't see what they do that justifies such a large amount of money - the same job could be done quite well on half that amount of money.

BawliBooch wrote:

the Real, hard working White Christian America is feeling left out in the cold.

Oh for the days when I was a fake, lazy, nonwhite, heathen entitled elite. And I was warm, too! If only someone asked us to spring for heating for the real, God-fearing Americans doing all the work. After all, we love paying taxes!

But I don't disagree that there is a captive market out there. It's amazing what information the now-warm, real, God-fearing, hard-working Americans readily digest.

BawliBooch wrote:

If only the Democrats led by Mohtarma Hillary Clinton would have paid as much attention to protecting American, Christian values as she did to protecting her Muslim/Hindu votebanks, America would have had a more sensible leader at the top today.

Well there's a new one. Hillary Bhutto was overly concerned about the Hindu vote. I guess I did see a picture of her in a saree once. (That witch!) Anyway, makes perfect sense.

Inserting a religion between "American" and "values" is un-American. It's that part of the Constitution that the "textualist" right is happy to ignore, even though it's explicit as hell and there's not one mention of a silly militia.

2707200X wrote:

I think the direct answer is; the Republicans are at their endgame when it comes to meeting their primary electoral goals; they have the national executive, legislative, senate and house, and judicial. They also have the the majority of state governorships and legislative halls. I think the Republican Party stayed relevant in the mind of the rank and file conservative voter by embracing the ephemeral conservative movements of the time like the Tea Party and Alt-Right movement of today as well as being very active in social media and appealing to cultural anxieties. The Democrats lost their majority quickly into the 2010s after they got overly comfortable, relied overly on demographics and played safe campaigns afterwards. Reince Priebus who took the GOP out of it's doldrums in the late twenty-hundreds and made it into the party of the conservative zeitgeist is out replaced by someone who few know. Cracks are starting to show between Republican elected officials and Donald Trump and when Trump is impeached or serves four or eight years, they do not have a lot to fall back after Trump leaves office as he is the leader of a movement.

So permanent victory at any cost? No commonly accepted guiding principles--other than maybe "Hillary. Argh. That witch!" I don't disagree. While entirely rational and seems to be working, it sounds scary, though.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

the last gasp of baby boomers? i am a baby boomer i just turned 57 and have 30 more years of voting ahead of me, might want to rethink your logic.

Baby Boomers are those who were born after WWII, so from the early to mid-1940s until the early 60s, which would make them between 77 and 57 years old today. So you baaaaarely qualify as a Boomer and, theoretically, should have more in common with the older Gen X-ers, since you came of age during Vietnam, Watergate, etc.--a very different environment than your predecessors who grew up in the 1950s.

I still stand by my assertion that Gen X-ers and younger, who grew up with women in the workforce and African-Americans and other minorities legally integrated into society even if not always socially accepted, vote differently (i.e. more socially liberally) than Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation before and are more accepting of diversity in a variety of forms, including being less plussed at the idea of a black man and/or a woman being president of the United States.

AirplaneWizard wrote:

Nobody was investing enough in infrastructure because the Democrats were all too busy handing out food stamps and other benefits to the poor. I have nothing against that, but everyone is underestimating the large percentage of the poor who abuse the system and don't work a day simply because they can get paid to play video games all day through welfare. I hope the Republicans can change that and make everyone that can work, go to work.

Why don't you look up the amount of money that's spent on food stamps and "other" benefits for the poor and then tell us the percentage of the yearly federal budget they take up. And then look up the amount of money the the DOD wastes every year on cost overruns, waste, fraud etc.

I've been introduced to an acronym thanks to BawliBooch that I think it explains it all

IOKIYAR

I'm obviously way behind the times.

What's amazing to me is that while the Republicans have proven beyond imagination they can't govern, the Democrats have proven they don't have anything.

Maybe there should be a new thread about the Democrats and their endgame.

From my perspective, I just want to be left alone. I want an end to right-wing religion convincing a dangerously large percentage of the country that they are aggrieved when nothing could be farther from the truth.

But on the left we have done the same with identity politics. I'm with the left on this issue, though, because often enough I'm reminded of how many people on the right (in the name of "freedom") go out of their way to subjugate others legislatively, often in the name of God. I don't get the easy fascination with conspiracy theories (more often than not because no one ever invited me to the conspiracy!). I equate the right wing with playground bullies. Other than finding this recent "left-wing violence" oxymoronic, I find it scary. But I'm biased.

I'm sure many in the right feel as I do, i.e., want to be left alone. And want to practice whatever religion they want to practice, love whoever they want to, own guns without killing (as 99.9% (with a bar) of gun owners do), pay as little taxes as possible, etc.

As someone who has been privileged to have health insurance his whole life, however, I do think that healthcare is a right.

I consider myself a patriot, as most of the liberals I know do. We don't apologize for the U.S., we have very strong pride in our country and the ideas that it was built on.

God Bless America!

apodino wrote:

I cant speak for the party as I am not registered in any party. What I do think the honest goal of many right thinkers is to get every able bodied American to work in a good paying job.

All parties have been saying that for decades. Actions speak louder than words.

The endgame for Republicans is to give everything to the wealthy because they don't have enough. The wealthy need everything to make everyone else feel better. That is what they keep saying. Reality is very different. Once the wealthy get everything, the rest of us suffer because they need more. It is like drugs.

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

I cant speak for the party as I am not registered in any party. What I do think the honest goal of many right thinkers is to get every able bodied American to work in a good paying job.

All parties have been saying that for decades. Actions speak louder than words.

The endgame for Republicans is to give everything to the wealthy because they don't have enough. The wealthy need everything to make everyone else feel better. That is what they keep saying. Reality is very different. Once the wealthy get everything, the rest of us suffer because they need more. It is like drugs.

On paper this seems true, until you realize that the wealthy are the ones who support all the regulations because it makes them wealthier and hurts the middle guy. Do you think it is a coincidence that the Democratic Party in New Jersey nominated a Goldman Sachs executive as their nominee for Governor? And prior to Christie, the previous governor was a Democrat who was also a Goldman Sachs president? The democrats are just as guilty as republicans of letting Wall Street run things.

On your post. The funny thing is both the Democrats and Republicans are right on this. Why do I say this? Because Democrats and Bernie Sanders are correct in saying that Corporations and Wall Street are more concerned about profits and the bottom line than actually helping anyone out. If anyone watches Star Trek on here, these people operate like Ferengi. Profit at all costs no matter who gets hurt. This is not healthy for this country long term and no one in either party seems to really care enough about the issue, even though the left raises it a lot. The problem with this is the solution to these problems that they propose is more regulation, such as Dodd Frank. The problem with excessive regulation is that the people these regulations are supposed to rein in are these big corporations. Guess what? They are the only ones with the resources to comply with these regulations. The little guys and small businesses cannot not. They just don't have the resources to do so. Meaning they cant get off the ground or they go belly up, and the big guys swoop in and clean up the pieces and get even richer. This is one reason income inequality is highest in blue districts. its gotten so bad in San Francisco that very few people can afford rent in that city anymore.

The republicans are right to say that these regulations and taxes are bad. However while I do believe taxes need to be lowered, especially since lower taxes in other countries like Ireland have allowed companies to incorporate there and park money overseas, it needs to be done with care. Taxes alone are not going to stimulate business growth because of the Ferengi mindset I just outlined. Kansas is proof of this. Brownback tried to lower taxes, but given no infrastructure such as major airports in the state which would like the state with other places, as well as not a high population base, it could not have a chance at stimulating growth. But on the other hand, California has these things and they are going to town on Taxes. California is doing great now, but the cost of living is getting out of control in many parts of the state, plus they are forecasting budget deficits again. Texas is doing very well because they have low taxes, great connectivity, and a big population base.

While it is important to cut spending, the republicans cant be cutting for the sake of cutting. Infastructure needs investment. A lot of other things in this country need investment. There is plenty of waste, don't get me wrong. The waste is why we have a budget deficit despite record revenues in the federal treasury. But we cant have no investment either? There has to be a balance. Also, why do we need to spend 10 times as much as the next nation in defense?

So the truth is both parties are correct from a certain point of view on economic issues. But both parties are wrong on parts of that coin as well. We need to find a balance there. Sadly, what usually gets passed in congress are the parts where the parties are wrong on. And for that reason the wealthy continue to get wealthy, and the middle class and little guys pay the price. Both parties are responsible. We are partly responsible too. Anytime you shop at Wal Mart, or Amazon, or go with a big name instead of the smaller local guys, you are contributing to the problem. If you want to start fighting climate change, take steps yourself. Use recycled grocery bags. If you live in an area with a deregulated energy market, go with a 100 percent renewable supplier. If companies don't take care of their employees, don't do business with them. We have the power to make a difference with our pocketbooks. If we all did this, we can make a much bigger difference than congress ever will.

jetero wrote:

God Bless America!

Has in occurred to you that if there was a God who had an interest in blessing America that we would not have a (godless?) person such as Mr. Trump in the White House?

Albert Einstein said something like "God doesn't play dice with the universe". I think that, had he been asked, he would have added "nor in any part of it".

We certainly have dice-playing going on in America at the moment. It is surely not a blessing from God.

Just my opinion.

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

I cant speak for the party as I am not registered in any party. What I do think the honest goal of many right thinkers is to get every able bodied American to work in a good paying job.

All parties have been saying that for decades. Actions speak louder than words.

The endgame for Republicans is to give everything to the wealthy because they don't have enough. The wealthy need everything to make everyone else feel better. That is what they keep saying. Reality is very different. Once the wealthy get everything, the rest of us suffer because they need more. It is like drugs.

On paper this seems true, until you realize that the wealthy are the ones who support all the regulations because it makes them wealthier and hurts the middle guy. Do you think it is a coincidence that the Democratic Party in New Jersey nominated a Goldman Sachs executive as their nominee for Governor? And prior to Christie, the previous governor was a Democrat who was also a Goldman Sachs president? The democrats are just as guilty as republicans of letting Wall Street run things.

I am really sick and tired of this right wing excuse to make this great republic into a third world country. "Well, both sides do it..." is not good enough. If "both sides do it" then why say that when Democrats pull the exact same crap Republicans have been pulling for decades? You righties only complain when Democrats do it. You righties only feign outrage when Democrats do it. When it is pointed out that Republicans have been doing it for decades, out comes "yeah, well, both sides do it." Well, then, stop supporting the original party of corruption! You all don't like it when Democrats do it why did you hold it up as a model when Republicans do it?