Current Topics
auto industry, unions and strikes
by Greger
The Impeachment of Donald trump
by Senator Hatrack
07:04 PM
RoundTable for Fall 2019
by Jeffery J. Haas
06:36 PM
What is a far leftist, anyway?
by Jeffery J. Haas
06:25 PM
Where have all the conservatives gone?
by Greger
06:16 PM
Public option vs Medicare for All
by logtroll
01:25 PM
The Trump/Biden/Ukraine thing
by Greger
03:41 AM
What is "old"?
by Greger
03:03 AM
Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies
by pondering_it_all
02:26 AM
Hyper-partisanship and irrationality
by logtroll
12:47 AM
If ISIS does the unthinkable...
by chunkstyle
01:09 PM
Are both "sides" equally corrupt?
by chunkstyle
12:18 PM
The Departed - 2019
by pdx rick
10/17/19 01:12 PM
Why do humans fight so much?
by Greger
10/15/19 02:13 PM
Global warming predictions
by logtroll
10/13/19 08:47 PM
Turkey's Erdogan threatens to release millions of refugees into Europe over crit
by pdx rick
10/12/19 07:35 PM
Partisans' Trust in Legislative Branch Has Shifted in Past Year
by perotista
10/11/19 03:37 AM
Trump unleashes ISIS in Kurd Country
by Greger
10/10/19 05:31 PM
SF Board of Supervisors declare NRA a domestic terrorist organization
by NW Ponderer
10/09/19 03:08 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by chunkstyle
10/07/19 02:44 PM
Forum Stats
6282 Members
59 Forums
16715 Topics
290928 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... 9 10 >
Topic Options
#313789 - 08/15/19 04:56 AM Good bye? Nope! Sticking around!
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
I am seriously thinking leaving the Reader Rant. Why? Because I am the only active classical liberal here. There are better things to do with my time to than to try and debate a bunch of modern day liberals who seem unable to accept anything they disagree with. The modern day liberals here are proof that they are not as open minded as they think they are.


Edited by Jeffery J. Haas (08/28/19 01:26 AM)
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#313794 - 08/15/19 05:32 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Disagreement is not a sign of a closed mind.

Top
#313799 - 08/15/19 12:26 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
BC Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/05/04
Posts: 7502
Loc: ...Grand Ledge...
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Disagreement is not a sign of a closed mind.

Indeed...
_________________________
- - - Bob


Top
#313801 - 08/15/19 01:59 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
HumblePi Offline
stranger

Registered: 08/15/19
Posts: 9
Isn't it the purpose of a forum to discuss and discover? Sure, things get heated because people are dug in with their own beliefs. There's nothing more difficult for some people it seems to admit they're wrong. People usually defend their opinion even if they themselves don't actually buy it 100%.

I don't put my opinions in a category of being either conservative, liberal or independent. My opinion is based on logic, circumstances and fact. Critical thinking is cast aside when one's opinion is strictly partisan based and not fact based.


Edited by HumblePi (08/15/19 02:01 PM)

Top
#313803 - 08/15/19 02:09 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14327
Loc: Whittier, California
Oh come on, Senator...why don't you just give us all a chance to rebuild the forum like we're doing. You're a pioneer but also, there ARE other conservatives here, like MA Republican, remember him?
Also bigswede is here, and others, and I've invited a bunch of others too.
You've only been back a few days.

Why don't you ask some of us about the conservative views we DO have on issues?
For instance, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment.
How do ya like that, a libtard gun owner...
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#313807 - 08/15/19 02:31 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Another suggestion: Invite some fellow feelers. Get some reinforcements.

Top
#313808 - 08/15/19 02:35 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14327
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Another suggestion: Invite some fellow feelers. Get some reinforcements.


Yeah there you go, go get some friends and bring their ass in here.
We're not ogres, and besides, you're an old friend and an old hand here at the Rant.

I asked you back because I believed in you.
Buck up, enjoy being challenged, I do.
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#313823 - 08/15/19 04:55 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
I'd sure hate to see you go, Senator. I didn't even know you were a classical liberal. Rock ribbed Republican is the way I saw you. I was just beginning to figure out that you really don't much care for Trump or the current direction of the Republican Party except when it happens to coincide with your own political leanings.

What I've seen since your return is page after page of you and Jefferey hashing over your interpretations of historic events. I don't much care about the past. But I'm very concerned about the future and want to know what the Hell conservatives plan to do about any number of impending social and environmental concerns.

I want to know your vision of the future. We can agree to disagree about how we got where we are today. It aint how you get into these things that count, it's how you get out of them.

The constitution requires government to provide for the common defense. Tanks and bombs. It does not require them to have the most expensive and powerful military in the history of the world and bases all over the world.

The Constitution also requires that it "promote the general welfare".

Something you seem to always read past and brush aside. I'd like to spend some time talking to you about that. Lot's of things I'd like to talk about. You gonna vote for Trump in 2020?

Let's spend some time thinking about that Utopian Social Democracy I dream of. It can easily be pulled off within Constitutional parameters.

Free healthcare? Where'd you ever get that idea? Medicare isn't free. Universal healthcare isn't "free" anywhere. The governments primary job is the collection and disbursement of funds for various things.

If your argument is simply that the government shouldn't do anything at all and that wealthy industrialists should go on about destroying the planet then perhaps goodbye is best.

I want solutions not excuses.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#313824 - 08/15/19 05:34 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
BC Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/05/04
Posts: 7502
Loc: ...Grand Ledge...
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I am seriously thinking leaving the Reader Rant. Why? Because I am the only active classical liberal here. There are better things to do with my time to than to try and debate a bunch of modern day liberals who seem unable to accept anything they disagree with. The modern day liberals here are proof that they are not as open minded as they think they are.

Two of my favorite Republicans...not famous, are my all time favorite PoliSci prof and the other, my next door neighbor 30 years ago. Neither tolerated the lack of disagreement. It was fundamental to our discussions. Civil discussions (why I came here originally) with little attempts or acceptance of bullshit.

I credit my late prof, Doc Castor, for instilling the ďdonít try to baffle me with bullshitĒ credo. If you have a point of view, state it, back it with facts not prose. If you have a legitimate factual argument on the point, make it. Politics, like life, is in no way black & white. Donít wrap yourself around an absolute unless it is an absolute fact, and we all know the differences. Opinions, leanings, ideas, theories, and the like, are not facts. They are points of view regardless of how strongly they are held. If you are honest and ďopenĒ be willing & able to debate either point of view. Doc, RIP, thank you.

Carl, my neighbor, and I would sit on his back deck sipping beers til 3 in the morning, discussing the (what seems tame now) politics of the late 80s and the history that got us to that point. We both were well aware of our point of political view, both well aware of, and honest about, the flaws of the people and the parties we strongly supported or opposed. We had so many honest, calm, civil, quiet political debates...always ready to return to them and always with friendship maintained. And we always had fun figuratively jabbing each other about our politics.

Itís not hard to have those types of dialogues when people base the foundation on honest, factual debate. It does none of us in this world any good to only talk to our like minded choirs. It does none of us any good to run to those choirs when meeting a folk from the ďotherĒ choir. Bluster isnít dialogue. And those who are decrying the lack of open mindedness are usually not willing to listen or allow their own input to be questioned, while fully expecting others to be fully questioned, deconstructed & reconstructed.

I am a socialist, a capitalist, liberal, progressive & conservative, a pragmatist, an idealist & a realist. And I believe that is what this country is & needs to be. There is a mix of political philosophies which made & make this country what it is. We arenít & shouldnít be what we were 240 years ago, 150 years ago, or 50 years ago. It is without doubt that people in the space 100 years from now will look back with a collective ďWTF!Ē and wonder. Hopefully those same people have enough honest historical facts at their disposal to appreciate the context of our times, the way we should appreciate (not glorify) the context of what we now know as history, and understand why some rationale should still be beneficially exercised and some should be exorcised.

A lot of us like to think of ourselves as more saint than sinner, but we are not purely either and more in the middle of that spectrum than we like to admit. Same for our political thoughts. We are neither righteous idealists or evil ďother guysĒ. We know the unpragmatic flaws of our own thoughts if we are being honest with ourselves.

This is a Ranting place, ainít it?
_________________________
- - - Bob


Top
#313853 - 08/15/19 09:29 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: BC]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
It is and that was a great rant, Bob!
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#313857 - 08/15/19 09:51 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9624
Loc: flyover country
In my experience, which, living in flyover country, nay not be that vast, is that no one is quite as liberal or quite as conservative as s/he would like to have us think. In the same way I think voting a straight ticket is often an excuse for not doing the research, and yes, I know whereof I think.

The point being that I'm not really interested in the label. I'm interested in what you think and why you think it.
_________________________
Julia
Long time passing

Top
#313861 - 08/15/19 10:48 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Mellowicious]
BC Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/05/04
Posts: 7502
Loc: ...Grand Ledge...
Originally Posted By: Mellowicious
The point being that I'm not really interested in the label. I'm interested in what you think and why you think it.

Good to ďhearĒ from you again Julia.
_________________________
- - - Bob


Top
#313863 - 08/15/19 10:53 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Greger
The constitution requires government to provide for the common defense. Tanks and bombs. It does not require them to have the most expensive and powerful military in the history of the world and bases all over the world.

Do you remember why our navy was created? It was created to protect our trade in the eastern Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Why did our trade in those bodies of water need protection? Because of the Barbary Pirates, the Islamist terrorists of that time, would attack our ships and sell the crews into slavery or pay a tribute (a tax) to the governments of the pirates. Thomas Jefferson believe that rather than pay the tribute he created our navy to stop the pirates. Our trade is now world wide to protect our trade, and the trade of almost every other country in the world, does indeed require the most expensive and most powerful military in the world. While you might not like it that the US does that but would want some other country to have that power? If you do, who should replace the US? Russia? China? How about Saudi Arabia? Iran? Think of the consequences if any of those countries, or any other, replaces the US as the most powerful military in the world. When the US replaced Great Britain the GDP of GB declined by about 25%. Would you like that to happen to our economy?

Originally Posted By: Greger
The Constitution also requires that it "promote the general welfare".

Greger, our government is supposed to promote the general Welfare in the way it's author James Madison said. Here is what Madison said about it.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#313871 - 08/15/19 11:41 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Greger]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Greger
It is and that was a great rant, Bob!

I am hoisting a libation to that rant as we speak type.
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#313877 - 08/16/19 02:54 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I am seriously thinking leaving the Reader Rant. Why? Because I am the only active classical liberal here. There are better things to do with my time to than to try and debate a bunch of modern day liberals who seem unable to accept anything they disagree with. The modern day liberals here are proof that they are not as open minded as they think they are.

You're asking "Liberals" to be ok with you pissing on their leg and saying its raining.

Hmm

This homey don't play like that. smile


You're also asking "Liberals" to accept modern Conservative bullshyte artistry. Again...nope. smile
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313878 - 08/16/19 02:59 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Mellowicious]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Mellowicious
In my experience, which, living in flyover country, nay not be that vast, is that no one is quite as liberal or quite as conservative as s/he would like to have us think. In the same way I think voting a straight ticket is often an excuse for not doing the research, and yes, I know whereof I think.

The point being that I'm not really interested in the label. I'm interested in what you think and why you think it.

Mellow!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!1!!1!!!!1!!!!!!1!!!!!

smile
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313879 - 08/16/19 03:08 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA


Why healthcare is a birthright smile


Originally Posted By: Greger
The Constitution also requires that it "promote the general welfare".

I will remind The Conservative of what the Preamble says:

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the SCOTUS agreed that Congress has broad powers to spend federal money on our Country's general welfare, but with limited funding. The decision essentially combined Madison's interpretation of the clause that "spending is not unlimited" and Hamilton's interpretation of the clause to mean Congress the power to spend without limitation for the broader general welfare of the nation.

promote - support or actively encourage.

general - affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

welfare - the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

Any society that aspires to nothing, will lose everything. Through an insidious devaluation of curiosity and intellectualism, lost empathy and abandoned governance, it will eventually fall victim to its self-engendered-ise.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313882 - 08/16/19 03:35 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
Quote:
The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power.


1. I'm not asking for carte blanche spending power.

2. The Defense clause also does not give our government carte blanche spending power. Perhaps you'd like to explain that "defense budget" to me?

We have a federal minimum wage. It is a silly outdated figure with no basis in reality. I'd like to see it immediately bumped to $12 with plans to increase it to $15 by 2024. I don't think that involves a great deal of federal spending.

The simplest route to universal healthcare is expanding and changing our Medicare and Medicaid programs. Possibly merging them with the Veterans administration. Anyone could buy into it and anyone could buy out of it. The "wealthy" would pay more than the middle class, the poor would pay less, the destitute would receive free care. Insurance would come out of your paycheck. There might be shortfalls and premiums might be tweaked up and down but we already know that the system works, so again no carte blanche spending required.

Bernie's plan to pay for "free" higher education is a transaction tax on stock exchange transactions. I love this tax! The stock market is nothing but a casino and I see no reason the government shouldn't get a cut of the action.

Senator, these are workable solutions, within constitutional parameters, and can be funded without difficulty.

And tell me again what it is you hate about a well educated, well paid, and healthy population?
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#313883 - 08/16/19 03:42 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Greger]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Greger
And tell me again what it is you hate about a well educated, well paid, and healthy population?


Conservatism is a breeding ground of anti-intellectualism, itís a sin to be smart.

Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313886 - 08/16/19 04:40 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
The Constitution also requires that it "promote the general welfare".

Greger, our government is supposed to promote the general Welfare in the way it's author James Madison said. Here is what Madison said about it.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power.
Two notes here that I think are very important. First, while that quote of James Madison is correct, it was a) not the last word on the subject (in fact, he lost the argument to Hamilton, who "argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare. Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams," (Wikipedia) and, ultimately, informed the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Butler, consistent with Justice Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. See also, Helvering v. Davis (1937), which upheld the Social Security Act; and South Dakota v. Dole (1987) validating a Spending Clause application that withheld a portion of federal highway funding from States that did not maintain a 21yo drinking age.), nor b) was he the final authority on the Constitution, as many would have one believe - he produced the first draft which was greatly modified during the constitutional debates.

Finally, I agree with the statement that "The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power" - but neither did Hamilton (or virtually anyone else) ever argue that. There is still a requirement that any spending be for "the General Welfare", but, at the same time, Congress is given great deference in making that judgment. The context, grammar and logic of Article I, section 8, cl. 1 militates toward the view that it is an independent authority, just as national defense is.

I appreciate the argument, and the historical basis for it, but that argument was lost immediately upon the passage of the Constitution, and has not been "the law of the land" for nearly a century. Of course, given the makeup of the current SCOTUS, it is entirely possible that they would overturn or simply ignore a century or more of contrary precedents and go back to the Madisonian view.

[I note that some of these points were already made while I was drafting this post.]

Top
#313993 - 08/19/19 05:13 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida

I'm just gonna leave this here...

_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#314187 - 08/25/19 10:32 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: pdx rick]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
The general Welfare clause that regulates government spending is NOT found in the preamble to our Constitution! If you don't know where the general Welfare clause is in our Constitution your comments about it are those of someone who does not know it.

Then since Hamilton was only at the Constitutional Convention for about half of it, that he only spoke at it once, and was not a voting member of it renders that Supreme Court decision of questionable Constitutional validity. Try reading James Madison's Notes om the Constitutional Convention.

It's too bad you don't have any curiosity about the creation of our Constitution pdx rick.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314190 - 08/25/19 10:56 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Greger
The simplest route to universal healthcare is expanding and changing our Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Yes, let's extend Medicare to everyone. What a great idea!
Originally Posted By: Greger
Senator, these are workable solutions, within constitutional parameters, and can be funded without difficulty.

http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Medicare is currently a $79,000,000,000,000.00+ unfunded liability. Our current on the books debt is $22,000,000,000,000+. Our entire country the land, and the wealth of everyone in it is $22,000,000,000,000. So if we were to sell the entire USA of and tax everyone in it at a rate of 100% we could only pay off our current debt. There would be absolutely nothing left to pay the unfunded liability of Medicare. So NO extending Medicare to everyone is NOT possible!

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Conservatism is a breeding ground of anti-intellectualism, itís a sin to be smart.

Do you ever do any research pdx rick? This conservative does and my research has repeatedly shown you to be wrong. The facts I have just posted to refute Greger's comments show that what he claims is not and cannot happen.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314191 - 08/25/19 11:05 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Two notes here that I think are very important. First, while that quote of James Madison is correct, it was a) not the last word on the subject (in fact, he lost the argument to Hamilton, who "argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare.

Madison wrote the general Welfare clause, therefore it is his comments on it should be how it is interpreted. That the Butler decision chose to use Hamilton's opinion of it and not what Madison intended it to be makes the decision of questionable Constitutional validity. The Butler decision was made during the New Deal which when FDR ignored our Constitution.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314193 - 08/25/19 11:29 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Medicare is currently a $79,000,000,000,000.00+ unfunded liability. Our current on the books debt is $22,000,000,000,000+. Our entire country the land, and the wealth of everyone in it is $22,000,000,000,000. So if we were to sell the entire USA of and tax everyone in it at a rate of 100% we could only pay off our current debt. There would be absolutely nothing left to pay the unfunded liability of Medicare.

Okay... so why are Republicans so excited to cut taxes, when it is clear that the revenues are already egregiously short?

And why is the amount of current private healthcare expenditures that would be displaced by a tax funded healthcare system always externalized?

We all agree that the cost of healthcare is too high. How it's paid for is not really the question, it's how can it cost less and deliver an optimal result that counts.

Nobody seems to be inclined to honesty about the math in these things...
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314194 - 08/25/19 11:29 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14327
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Medicare is currently a $79,000,000,000,000.00+ unfunded liability. Our current on the books debt is $22,000,000,000,000+. Our entire country the land, and the wealth of everyone in it is $22,000,000,000,000. So if we were to sell the entire USA of and tax everyone in it at a rate of 100% we could only pay off our current debt. There would be absolutely nothing left to pay the unfunded liability of Medicare. So NO extending Medicare to everyone is NOT possible!


You actually believe in unfunded liabilities?
Oh man, that's hilarious.
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#314198 - 08/25/19 11:38 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Since the unfunded liabilities do, unfortunately, exist I reluctantly believe in them. I would prefer to hide my head in the sand, and not believe in them, but they are real, despite any attempts at levity about them.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314208 - 08/26/19 12:03 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14327
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Since the unfunded liabilities do, unfortunately, exist I reluctantly believe in them. I would prefer to hide my head in the sand, and not believe in them, but they are real, despite any attempts at levity about them.


Oh I DO BELIEVE that they are tallied up somewhere in some ledger.
I do not however believe that they are the ticking time bomb they're cast as because the bigger time bomb is what we're doing now in the name of unfunded liabilities, which is basically actions which threaten to turn us third world in the next decade or even sooner.

Banking excesses, irresponsible lending practices, "malinvestment", credit-induced asset bubbles, the impact of wealth inequality and low interest rates on the poor and elderly, and even the overreach of government are all valid concerns.

The Unfunded Liabilities theory, on the other hand, carries the stench of End Times biblical prophecy and anti-government libertarian anarchy. Close the gates, shoot the poorz, man the battle stations!
We must shut off ALL spending!
To do what? No one is actually serious about cutting spending.
In fact, it's almost as if the unfunded liabilities gang wants to speed up the process of collapse because it fits their agenda of a dire spiral into world-wide chaos and rise of evil governments, which are to be defeated by a biblical savior.

There is a desire on the part of some to see financial collapse as it justifies their world view, political aims, and religious beliefs which dwarfs the occasional leftist grumble about hopes for a recession by several orders of magnitude.
It is pure apocalyptic paranoia.

A currency-issuing nation cannot have insolvency unless its significant debt is in another currency. See Argentina for examples.
There is no collapse of the US Dollar unless idiots in DC commit the monumental error of deliberately defaulting on our debt obligations.

Unfunded liabilities are simply an accounting entry that tries to forecast what our future monetary obligations are in certain categories - TRANSLATION: social security, healthcare, infrastructure, education.
Does the military get slammed with 20, 40 or 75 year unfunded liabilities? What about Congress? Nope, only the US Post Office so far! They're stuck paying for benefits 75 years into the future, for postal employees who aren't even BORN YET.

And I will make a wager here: Not ONE PENNY of the USPS 5 billion dollar annual ransom being paid will EVER get spent on benefits for future US Post Office employees. That money is in a lockbox alright, but that lockbox WILL BE PICKED and broken open, and the money will be spent TODAY, in this generation, just like the Social Security Trust Fund was raided before.

And that is one reason I think unfunded liabilities are BS.
No amount of money we put into a lockbox will EVER go to paying down debt. It will be raided, and in future it will most likely be raided by the private sector if Trump gets his way.

Consider the folly of taking a trillion dollars that could be being productive today and literally locking it up.
Does that help those in the future?
All it does is increase the likelihood of unemployment today due to a poor economy, if we assume that money could otherwise have been used to buy goods and services.
Money changes hands between the living. Money today is used for people today. Money in the future will go to people in the future. No tax today can be saved up by the government and spent 20, 40 or 75 years from now.
Nobody 75 years from now will give a damn what it was locked up for, and that money will be raided.

The REAL "unfunded liability" for this and all generations is the capital development of our nation. Our real "un-produced" liability is the real goods and services necessary to meet the real needs of our people.

State-of-the-art public infrastructure, roads, transportation systems, hospitals, schools, training facilities, research laboratories, continual improvement of our agriculture, food production, and the quality and nutritional value of our nation's food supply, investments in cleaner and sustainable energy sources that lower energy costs for business and consumers.

The nation will need doctors, technicians, engineers, tradesmen, researchers, there is a screaming need for a highly skilled and capable workforce, but screeching about unfunded liabilities is an excuse to skip out on investing in that, and kicking the can down the road.

There is no such thing as an unfunded liability for a currency-issuing nation.
But this toxic myth is keeping us from investing in the very things our nation needs to have a robust economy today and a prosperous future that provides for the needs of our people.

Again, no matter how many trillions you put in that lockbox, I will bet you a cool trillion that NOT ONE DIME of it will ever be used to pay down those liabilities.

_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#314210 - 08/26/19 12:15 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Jesus, Jeffery! I do believe that rant has earned you the title of Eyetallion Stallion!

_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314211 - 08/26/19 12:20 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: logtroll]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14327
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Jesus, Jeffery! I do believe that rant has earned you the title of Eyetallion Stallion!



To be fair I've been making this same argument for years.
I argued it with someone on FB two years ago.
I seriously doubt that ANY money sequestered for unfunded liabilities reasons will ever go toward paying those liabilities. Human skullduggery and greed will never allow it.
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#314214 - 08/26/19 12:31 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
No amount of money we put into a lockbox will EVER go to paying down debt.

Lockbox? Our government does not and never has put a dime in any lockbox! All of the money our government collects in taxes is spent long before it gets it!
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
To be fair I've been making this same argument for years.

And you've been wrong for years if you believe that our government ever had a lockbox! Our government spends about $2 for every $1 it collects in taxes.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314216 - 08/26/19 12:36 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: logtroll]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Medicare is currently a $79,000,000,000,000.00+ unfunded liability. Our current on the books debt is $22,000,000,000,000+. Our entire country the land, and the wealth of everyone in it is $22,000,000,000,000. So if we were to sell the entire USA of and tax everyone in it at a rate of 100% we could only pay off our current debt. There would be absolutely nothing left to pay the unfunded liability of Medicare.

Okay... so why are Republicans so excited to cut taxes, when it is clear that the revenues are already egregiously short?

And why is the amount of current private healthcare expenditures that would be displaced by a tax funded healthcare system always externalized?

We all agree that the cost of healthcare is too high. How it's paid for is not really the question, it's how can it cost less and deliver an optimal result that counts.

Nobody seems to be inclined to honesty about the math in these things...

Hatrack?
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314239 - 08/26/19 02:33 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: logtroll]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Medicare is currently a $79,000,000,000,000.00+ unfunded liability. Our current on the books debt is $22,000,000,000,000+. Our entire country the land, and the wealth of everyone in it is $22,000,000,000,000. So if we were to sell the entire USA of and tax everyone in it at a rate of 100% we could only pay off our current debt. There would be absolutely nothing left to pay the unfunded liability of Medicare.

Okay... so why are Republicans so excited to cut taxes, when it is clear that the revenues are already egregiously short?

And why is the amount of current private healthcare expenditures that would be displaced by a tax funded healthcare system always externalized?

We all agree that the cost of healthcare is too high. How it's paid for is not really the question, it's how can it cost less and deliver an optimal result that counts.

Nobody seems to be inclined to honesty about the math in these things...

Hatrack?

Because when taxes are cut the revenue to our government increases. Our government cannot create wealth, it can only tax it. Our government doesn't have the revenue to fund Medicare so the idea of a tax funded healthcare system has already been proven to be a solution that does not work! How many times does that FACT have to be repeated before people understand it?

The reason the cost of healthcare is too high is due to many factors. The primary factor is government interference in the private sector with a wage freeze shortly after WWII. Expecting our government to fix a problem it created is like expecting that no one will ever tell a lie again.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314240 - 08/26/19 02:47 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
WHOA! Canít argue with that... it would be crazy to try.

Now how about the question of externaliztion?
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314289 - 08/27/19 04:54 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
The simplest route to universal healthcare is expanding and changing our Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Yes, let's extend Medicare to everyone. What a great idea!
Originally Posted By: Greger
Senator, these are workable solutions, within constitutional parameters, and can be funded without difficulty.

http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Medicare is currently a $79,000,000,000,000.00+ unfunded liability. Our current on the books debt is $22,000,000,000,000+. Our entire country the land, and the wealth of everyone in it is $22,000,000,000,000. So if we were to sell the entire USA of and tax everyone in it at a rate of 100% we could only pay off our current debt. There would be absolutely nothing left to pay the unfunded liability of Medicare. So NO extending Medicare to everyone is NOT possible!

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Conservatism is a breeding ground of anti-intellectualism, itís a sin to be smart.

Do you ever do any research pdx rick? This conservative does and my research has repeatedly shown you to be wrong. The facts I have just posted to refute Greger's comments show that what he claims is not and cannot happen.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Two notes here that I think are very important. First, while that quote of James Madison is correct, it was a) not the last word on the subject (in fact, he lost the argument to Hamilton, who "argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare.

Madison wrote the general Welfare clause, therefore it is his comments on it should be how it is interpreted. That the Butler decision chose to use Hamilton's opinion of it and not what Madison intended it to be makes the decision of questionable Constitutional validity. The Butler decision was made during the New Deal which when FDR ignored our Constitution.
That, my friend, is an ideologue's conclusion, not a valid argument. "I disagree, therefore, you are wrong." Not exactly how discussion proceeds.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#314290 - 08/27/19 05:00 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
The simplest route to universal healthcare is expanding and changing our Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Yes, let's extend Medicare to everyone. What a great idea!
Originally Posted By: Greger
Senator, these are workable solutions, within constitutional parameters, and can be funded without difficulty.

http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Medicare is currently a $79,000,000,000,000.00+ unfunded liability. Our current on the books debt is $22,000,000,000,000+. Our entire country the land, and the wealth of everyone in it is $22,000,000,000,000. So if we were to sell the entire USA of and tax everyone in it at a rate of 100% we could only pay off our current debt. There would be absolutely nothing left to pay the unfunded liability of Medicare. So NO extending Medicare to everyone is NOT possible!
The fundamental flaw in this argument is consistent with the logical flaw in most conservative arguments. I can refute it in 30 seconds (time me): when you bought your house, did you buy it outright, or did you take out a mortgage? Debt is something repaid over time. Your argument ignores that obvious fact, and is, therefore, invalid.

Top
#314291 - 08/27/19 05:07 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 8781
Loc: North San Diego County
Quote:
Because when taxes are cut the revenue to our government increases.


Even Laffer said this is true only when the top tax rates are high. It does not work when tax rates are low. It's "the Laffer Curve" not the Laffer Straight Line! Most economists have figured out the optimal maximum tax rate for maximal government revenue is about 70%. We are way lower that that now, so lowering tax rates will only lower government revenue and increase the deficit.

Laffer Curve (Wikipedia)

Top
#314293 - 08/27/19 05:20 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Because when taxes are cut the revenue to our government increases.
That is not now, nor has it ever been, true. That, my friend, is what is called "fraud". It is fraud of long and storied history. Have you ever heard of the "Laffer curve" (which I refer to as the "laughable curve")? We have been at the low end of that "curve" for nearly all of our national history, so it has never been functionally accurate. At best, a tax cut will return about 28% in revenues. Even the tax foundation, a rah- rah proponent of tax cuts, acknowledges that "[the TCJA] will reduce federal revenues by $1.47 trillion on a conventional basis and $448 billion on a dynamic basis over the 10-year budget window."

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government cannot create wealth, it can only tax it.
Again, laughably untrue. Do you know how treasuries work?
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government doesn't have the revenue to fund Medicare so the idea of a tax funded healthcare system has already been proven to be a solution that does not work! How many times does that FACT have to be repeated before people understand it?
Repeating something that is demonstrably false does not make it "a fact", no matter how often you make the same claim. That only works in "conservaworld."

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The reason the cost of healthcare is too high is due to many factors. The primary factor is government interference in the private sector with a wage freeze shortly after WWII. Expecting our government to fix a problem it created is like expecting that no one will ever tell a lie again.
Again, a repetitive fantasy based upon a falsehood. I'd ask where you get these bizarre ideas, but I don't really care.

Top
#314295 - 08/27/19 06:05 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 8781
Loc: North San Diego County
I am participating in a massive fraud myself, and it's a big part of the expense of our health care system compared to most other countries. I have to take an MS drug that cost over $70,000 per year and costs the drug company less than $100 per year to make. There are other MS drugs I could take from other drug companies. Just by coincidence, they all happen to cost $70,000 or slightly more per year! Of course, I don't pay that myself. I used to top out and pay about $2500 per year when I was employed and had group coverage. I now pay about $6000 per year with Medicare Part D. The difference is paid by insurance companies or Medicare.

It's our patent system that lets drug companies siphon off huge amount from the insurance companies and Medicare. The drug company has a patent for the drug's time release mechanism for use in MS, although the drug has been around for about 60 years and was once used to preserve leather couches! It was used for decades in treating another autoimmune disease, psoriasis, but the generic psoriasis sufferers have used is being supplanted by this drug through patent cases, raising their costs immensely.

Want to stop the flow of huge amounts of cash into drug companies? Fix the patent system! Only let them charge royalties of 10 times the cost to make the drug. Or even 100 times. And dump the exclusivity rule. There would be dirt-cheap generics for me and every other patient who needs the drugs these companies are using to soak our medical system.

Top
#314298 - 08/27/19 02:35 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14327
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
No amount of money we put into a lockbox will EVER go to paying down debt.

Lockbox? Our government does not and never has put a dime in any lockbox! All of the money our government collects in taxes is spent long before it gets it!
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
To be fair I've been making this same argument for years.

And you've been wrong for years if you believe that our government ever had a lockbox! Our government spends about $2 for every $1 it collects in taxes.


You don't seem to get the point I am making.
Austerity and screeching about the need to provision "unfunded liabilities" IS the "lockbox" because when you tie up trillions of dollars, that is the lockbox

Have you ever heard of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act?
This law, which some have referred to as "the most insane law Congress ever passed", requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees' health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make.
It is a manufactured crisis.
It IS A LOCKBOX, and what do you THINK will happen to the over fifty billion dollars ransomed from the Post Office by the time 2056 rolls around?
I bet you ANYTHING that money will be raided and used for something else.
That is because there is no such thing as an ACTUAL lockbox, except in the mind of every person who talks about unfunded liabilities.

_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#314308 - 08/27/19 06:36 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: pondering_it_all]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 2569
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
I would suggest you google "canada drugs" that will get you a huge list of pharmacies that will fill prescriptions from the United States. You might be able to reduce your costs. I suspect you know this but have found it seems to be a secret with some friends I thought knew but didn't.

My wife, for instance, used to get most of her drugs from up there. Just like everything you have to make sure you are dealing with a legit pharmacy. We went to Victoria to make sure but the lists, for the most part are real and reliable.

Just a thought...........

Top
#314322 - 08/28/19 12:08 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Because when taxes are cut the revenue to our government increases.
That is not now, nor has it ever been, true. That, my friend, is what is called "fraud". It is fraud of long and storied history. Have you ever heard of the "Laffer curve" (which I refer to as the "laughable curve")? We have been at the low end of that "curve" for nearly all of our national history, so it has never been functionally accurate. At best, a tax cut will return about 28% in revenues. Even the tax foundation, a rah- rah proponent of tax cuts, acknowledges that "[the TCJA] will reduce federal revenues by $1.47 trillion on a conventional basis and $448 billion on a dynamic basis over the 10-year budget window."

Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799c

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government cannot create wealth, it can only tax it. Again, laughably untrue.
Do you know how treasuries work? Where does a government treasury get the money that is in it? By taxing people. A government's treasury is not and does not create wealth. A government's treasury is a repository for the wealth that has been collected through taxes.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government doesn't have the revenue to fund Medicare so the idea of a tax funded healthcare system has already been proven to be a solution that does not work! How many times does that FACT have to be repeated before people understand it?
Whether you like it or not NW Ponderer it is a fact.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Repeating something that is demonstrably false does not make it "a fact", no matter how often you make the same claim. That only works in "conservaworld."
Here is the proof that our government does not have, nor will it ever have, the revenue to fund Medicare in its current state much less extend it to everyone. Where is the $79,000,000,000,000 to pay for Medicare as it currently is going to come from?
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The reason the cost of healthcare is too high is due to many factors. The primary factor is government interference in the private sector with a wage freeze shortly after WWII. Expecting our government to fix a problem it created is like expecting that no one will ever tell a lie again.
It would be nice if you did some research NW Ponderer.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Again, a repetitive fantasy based upon a falsehood. I'd ask where you get these bizarre ideas, but I don't really care.

No it is not a fantasy based on a falsehood. But then since you just state your opinion and expect it to be accepted as fact you wouldn't know that. (I was a little bit mistaken about the wage freeze. It happened during WWII not after it.)
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/c...0224-story.html
"The Revenue Act of 1942 triggered another rush to enroll employees in health plans. By slapping corporations with tax rates of 80 or even up to 90 percent on any profits in excess of prewar revenue, Congress all but guaranteed a frenzied search for loopholes. Employee benefits, according to the new law, could be deducted from profits. As an anonymous employer observed in a study published on trends in health insurance, "it was a case of paying the money for insurance for their employees or to Uncle Sam in taxes."

In 1943, two rulings helped accelerate the movement toward employer-sponsored health insurance. The first was a directive by the Internal Revenue Service that employees did not have to pay taxes on premiums paid by their employers. The second was a decision by the National War Labor Board reaffirming the exemption of fringe benefits from the wage freeze."
Our government did create the healthcare problem.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314324 - 08/28/19 12:29 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Two notes here that I think are very important. First, while that quote of James Madison is correct, it was a) not the last word on the subject (in fact, he lost the argument to Hamilton, who "argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare.

Madison wrote the general Welfare clause, therefore it is his comments on it should be how it is interpreted. That the Butler decision chose to use Hamilton's opinion of it and not what Madison intended it to be makes the decision of questionable Constitutional validity. The Butler decision was made during the New Deal which when FDR ignored our Constitution.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
That, my friend, is an ideologue's conclusion, not a valid argument. "I disagree, therefore, you are wrong." Not exactly how discussion proceeds.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/297/1
"Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate,..."
The above is a quote from United States v. Butler. It proves that the Supreme Court used Hamilton's opinion of the general Welfare clause, not what the author of it, Madison, said it should be. Citing facts, as I have repeatedly done, is a valid argument. Pontificating with your opinion, as you have done NW Ponderer, is an ideologue's conclusion.


Edited by Senator Hatrack (08/28/19 01:43 AM)
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314355 - 08/28/19 03:32 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
To return to the topic of this thread I had thought to leave the CHBRR because the many of the people here are living in an information cocoon. They either refuse to accept the possibility that what they believe is wrong or are so condescending in their replies that I feel like throwing up. If an article that is critical of Pres. Trump were to be posted few, if any, would question it or the source of it. But should an article praising Trump be posted it would be attacked like a bleeding person in a shark tank.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314360 - 08/28/19 03:48 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
OK i'll bite

As a human Mr Trump is a complete piece of .... Perhaps you like having a racist as president, or pussygrabberinchief, or chaos chef ... are you really going to praise him for these fine qualities? Please tell me what is the virtue of being a racist?

What has he done? Due to a combination of narcissism and racism he has tried to rescind everything Pres Obama did. He passed a Republican tax cut, which Republicans would have passed whomever occupied the WH. He has disrupted the economy on a national scale and perhaps on a global scale. O ... he nominated SC justices vetted by the Federalist Society which were confirmed by a Republican Senate (it wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH).

So I am curious ... just what are you praising him for? Have you pledged your fealty to him?
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314361 - 08/28/19 04:00 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
So your argument is, since Pres Madison as main writer of Constitution, believed in a strict interpretation, only his opinion is valid, as opposed to other writers, other people associated with and elected to the federal government whom were involved with the Constitution. I suppose you could select a Greek philosopher from 300 bc and say only his view of the world is valid and everyone else is wrong, and you would have to agree.

Do you not see a problem? Why would you arbitrarily agree with Pres Madison?
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314376 - 08/28/19 02:57 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: rporter314
OK i'll bite

As a human Mr Trump is a complete piece of .... Perhaps you like having a racist as president, or pussygrabberinchief, or chaos chef ... are you really going to praise him for these fine qualities? Please tell me what is the virtue of being a racist?
You make idiotic comments rporter314 does that make you an idiot? No, it does not. That Pres. Trump has made some racist comments does not make him a racist anymore than your idiotic statements make you an idiot. What president has been charged with rape a number of times? Hint, it was not a president who made a comment about grabbing a pussy. Something probably every teenage boy and adult male has either said or thought of doing. No, the president who has been accused of rape several is William J. Clinton. But Clinton gets a pass because he is a liberal. Your double standard on this is disgusting!
Quote:
What has he done? Due to a combination of narcissism and racism he has tried to rescind everything Pres Obama did. He passed a Republican tax cut, which Republicans would have passed whomever occupied the WH. He has disrupted the economy on a national scale and perhaps on a global scale. O ... he nominated SC justices vetted by the Federalist Society which were confirmed by a Republican Senate (it wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH).

Everything Pres. Trump has done is because of narcissism and racism? What a crock of snit!

Quote:
So I am curious ... just what are you praising him for? Have you pledged your fealty to him?

Where in my comment did I praise Pres. Trump? I didn't! But like many liberals you seem to have trouble reading what I wrote. Instead you read into it something I did not say. I have not pledged fealty to Trump but you have shown that you have done so to Pres. Obama. You did by claiming that Trump's efforts to rescind what Obama did is not only wrong but bad for our country. If the lowest unemployment rate for blacks, Latinos, and women is bad for the country than Trump is a terrible president.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314378 - 08/28/19 03:10 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: rporter314
So your argument is, since Pres Madison as main writer of Constitution, believed in a strict interpretation, only his opinion is valid, as opposed to other writers, other people associated with and elected to the federal government whom were involved with the Constitution. I suppose you could select a Greek philosopher from 300 bc and say only his view of the world is valid and everyone else is wrong, and you would have to agree.

Do you not see a problem? Why would you arbitrarily agree with Pres Madison?

Again, you are reading into my comment something I did not say. When interpreting our Constitution looking at the views of its primary author is a very good way to understand what it is meant to do. But one must also remember that Madison had help from a number of very intelligent men. What they thought is also important. As important as their advice was the amount of their contribution to the writing of our Constitution should be taken into consideration. The views of the Pinckney's are rarely considered but they were active members of the Constitutional Convention. Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution" for a reason. The reason is that he wrote most of it and was instrumental in organizing the convention to write it.

Please try to read what I actually wrote, not what you believe I wrote.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314379 - 08/28/19 03:12 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
I don't think any of us are especially proud of Bubba Clinton's antics between the sheets. But he was impeached for his shenanigans. Do you, Senator, also endorse the impeachment of President Trump?
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#314382 - 08/28/19 04:05 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
LOL .... ROFLMAO

Quote:
Trump has made some racist comments does not make him a racist
so when a "real" racist makes racist comments apparently you believe that does not make him a racist.

Look!!!! ... if a person says something idiotic, then I can say they said something idiotic. If a person continues to say idiotic things, then I can conclude they are an idiot. So I am forced to conclude you do not believe people who continue to say idiotic things are idiots. Other options are they are .... {sheepishly} stable geniuses?

Quote:
a comment about grabbing a pussy
Comment??? He clearly stated he grabs pussy's because women and girls allow "stars" to do anything they want to do. He was not fantasizing or making juvenile locker room remarks. Mr Trump stated he grabs pussy ... because HE is a STAR. The reality is he is a putz, who has to pay porn stars for sex and then is too stupid to comprehend they may go public with this escapade and so pays them again to not say anything. And you think this character is brilliant.

So you made some kind of equivalence between someone who actually grabs pussy and someone who was accused of rape. Pres Clinton was accused of one act of sexual assault (I guess penetration is necessary for rape) and one account of rape and 2 accounts of sexual misconduct. He paid off one accuser and no charges were filed in other cases. Pres Clinton denies all charges. Now I have no direct evidence other than accusations of his conduct. Should I speculate? So we have one person who admits to his conduct and another who does not and you think I have a double standard? Better check your argument for partisan hackery.

It takes more than someone saying they are a stable genius for me to get weak in the knees. People with big egos had better have a large portfolio to impress me. Narcissists need not apply. They need help.

Quote:
What a crock of snit!
and yet you presented no refutation. .... that was the cue for you to present evidence Mr Trump does not act solely to benefit his own delusions of grandeur or as a racist.

Quote:
But like many liberals you seem to have trouble reading what I wrote. Instead you read into it something I did not say.
One of the most difficult problems in trying to discuss anything with a conservative (that being you) is their belief that no one can derive a conclusion based on what they say or to put it another way if the conservative did not use the precise words of a conclusion then they did not say it or believe it or think it.

If you say A, B, and C and they are logical parts of an argument then certainly I can conclude certain things about what you believe or think based on your own statements.

Quote:
Where in my comment did I praise Pres. Trump? I didn't!
you didn't say it but you suggested by your statement that liberals do not praise him, that praise is due Mr trump which also suggests YOU have or will praise him for something he has done or said. My question was WHAT has Mr trump done or said which deserves my praise? Now since you believe Mr Trump is deserving of praise ... that is also the cue for YOU to present the evidence. Maybe we can all praise him together.

Quote:
I have not pledged fealty to Trump but you have shown that you have done so to Pres. Obama.You did by claiming that Trump's efforts to rescind what Obama did is not only wrong but bad for our country.
Yikes. Wrong!!!! You have erroneously concluded your own belief of what I believe or think. I made no claim as to whether rescinding anything Pres Obama did was good bad or ugly. My observation was Mr Trump has made it a mission to rescind everything the black president enacted as if Mr Trump is repealing what he believes is a bad black presidency.

Quote:
If the lowest unemployment rate for blacks, Latinos, and women is bad for the country than Trump is a terrible president.
Are you for real????

By repeating administration talking points I have to wonder if you have ever really thought about what they are trying to say. Mr Trump is trying to suggest he is not a racist because ethnic rates are lower than previous administration. So just why would that be valid?

The rates for women and ethnic groups at end of Pres Obama's term was also the lowest. So should I derive some notion about Pres Obama's racism?

The rates are the lowest because the overall rate is lowest in years which has been the downward trend since 2010. If you want to impute Mr Trump has initiated some programs or laws or EO's which were purposefully directed to help women and ethnic minorities to mitigate the disparity found between those groups and whites ... here is your cue ... present that evidence, otherwise it turns out that the differences in rates are essentially the same from 2010 to now i.e. blacks about 100% more than whites ... Latinos about 50% more than whites ... and guess what .... women about the same as men

So again I ask .... what has Mr trump done to get your praise????
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314383 - 08/28/19 04:07 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Greger]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't think any of us are especially proud of Bubba Clinton's antics between the sheets. But he was impeached for his shenanigans. Do you, Senator, also endorse the impeachment of President Trump?

Since Pres. Trump has done nothing that justifies an attempt impeach him, I do not endorse it being done. The trumped up charges that have been made against him are worthless. (Pun intended.)
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314384 - 08/28/19 04:22 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
You are simply restating your belief, since Pres Madison was "father" of Constitution it implies we should only believe what he believed, which fails to comprehend the whole document was a compromise between people who wanted a strong federal government and those who essentially did not want a central government. Should we conclude Pres Madison also believed some men were property and should be only accounted as 3/5's of white folk. Perhaps we should apply Madisonian beliefs on black folks?

The Constitution allows laws to be written without hindrance of applying for Constitutional amendments. Pres Madison was the stickler but all other people involved in writing the Constitution immediately upon being elected to federal office began the expansion of the government. One has to know what the boundaries are, and there are boundaries, as is evidenced by the SC ruling on laws which they deemed as unConstititional.

So again I ask, why arbitrarily select Pres Madison's view and not Hamilton's.

aside: just musing .... I have to wonder what written in stonists view of modern government would look like from the 1790 perspective of Pres Madison? no army ... no air force ... 4 cabinet positions ... no judicial review ... NO INCOME TAX!!!!. Kinda looks like 50 independent countries with about 35 of them 3rd world nations /// sweet
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314386 - 08/28/19 04:30 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
If Sec Clinton had been elected and she had done what Mr Trump has done, wouldn't the list of impeachable offenses be long? I mean didn't she order Seth Rich to be assassinated? or run a child porn operation out of a Pizza joint? didn't Pres Clinton get some kind of emolument from the Russians for a speech which he donated to the Clinton Foundation? can you imagine Sec Clinton trying to get dirt on Mr trump from the Russians or making deals to lift sanctions?

Let me tell ya, if Sec Clinton had done the things Mr trump has done, I would have led the charge to impeach her.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314387 - 08/28/19 04:36 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
Quote:
Kinda looks like 50 independent countries with about 35 of them 3rd world nations /// sweet


That's the Madisonian Utopia.

Have you heard of that Broadway hit "Madison"?

Me either.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#314390 - 08/28/19 05:17 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: rporter314
LOL .... ROFLMAO

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump has made some racist comments does not make him a racist
Originally Posted By: rporter314
so when a "real" racist makes racist comments apparently you believe that does not make him a racist.

Look!!!! ... if a person says something idiotic, then I can say they said something idiotic. If a person continues to say idiotic things, then I can conclude they are an idiot. So I am forced to conclude you do not believe people who continue to say idiotic things are idiots. Other options are they are .... {sheepishly} stable geniuses?

As much as you would like to believe it Pres. Trump is not a racist.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
a comment about grabbing a pussy. Comment??? He clearly stated he grabs pussy's because women and girls allow "stars" to do anything they want to do. He was not fantasizing or making juvenile locker room remarks. Mr Trump stated he grabs pussy ... because HE is a STAR. The reality is he is a putz, who has to pay porn stars for sex and then is too stupid to comprehend they may go public with this escapade and so pays them again to not say anything. And you think this character is brilliant.

Unfortunately women do allow men to grab their pussy because they are stars or powerful men. Case in point Harvey Weinstein and other LIBERAL Hollywood stars. He offered Stormy Daniels money for sex. She did not take it. Later he did pay her keep quiet before the 2016 election. I never said or even suggested that I think Trump is brilliant. That is something you have, again, read into my comments. Something that wasn't and isn't there!
Quote:
So you made some kind of equivalence between someone who actually grabs pussy and someone who was accused of rape. Pres Clinton was accused of one act of sexual assault (I guess penetration is necessary for rape) and one account of rape and 2 accounts of sexual misconduct. He paid off one accuser and no charges were filed in other cases. Pres Clinton denies all charges. Now I have no direct evidence other than accusations of his conduct. Should I speculate? So we have one person who admits to his conduct and another who does not and you think I have a double standard? Better check your argument for partisan hackery.

Two accounts of sexual misconduct by Pres. Clinton? To downplay or ignore that Clinton was accused of sexual misconduct more than twice is a double standard and political hackery. Try ten accusations of sexual misconduct by Clinton. https://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bill-clin...hotos-pictures/

Originally Posted By: rporter314
It takes more than someone saying they are a stable genius for me to get weak in the knees. People with big egos had better have a large portfolio to impress me. Narcissists need not apply. They need help.

Where did I say, imply or suggest Trump is a stable genius? I didn't. This is another example of you reading something into what I said.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
What a crock of snit!
and yet you presented no refutation. .... that was the cue for you to present evidence Mr Trump does not act solely to benefit his own delusions of grandeur or as a racist.

Does Pres. Trump act solely for his own benefit? No, he does not. If he did he would not have run for the presidency and thus subjecting himself to all of the abuse he has received. Although to some extent Trump, like everyone else, does act for his own benefit. Doing so is a part of human nature.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
But like many liberals you seem to have trouble reading what I wrote. Instead you read into it something I did not say.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
One of the most difficult problems in trying to discuss anything with a conservative (that being you) is their belief that no one can derive a conclusion based on what they say or to put it another way if the conservative did not use the precise words of a conclusion then they did not say it or believe it or think it.

If you say A, B, and C and they are logical parts of an argument then certainly I can conclude certain things about what you believe or think based on your own statements.

When you do you your conclusions are wrong. They are because they are clouded by liberal bias.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Where in my comment did I praise Pres. Trump? I didn't!
Originally Posted By: rporter314
you didn't say it but you suggested by your statement that liberals do not praise him, that praise is due Mr trump which also suggests YOU have or will praise him for something he has done or said. My question was WHAT has Mr trump done or said which deserves my praise? Now since you believe Mr Trump is deserving of praise ... that is also the cue for YOU to present the evidence. Maybe we can all praise him together.
Show me some praise Trump has received from a liberal. If it has happened finding it will take a long time because it has not happened very often. When any of our elected officials do something that deserves praise I will give them the praise they are due.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I have not pledged fealty to Trump but you have shown that you have done so to Pres. Obama.You did by claiming that Trump's efforts to rescind what Obama did is not only wrong but bad for our country.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Yikes. Wrong!!!! You have erroneously concluded your own belief of what I believe or think. I made no claim as to whether rescinding anything Pres Obama did was good bad or ugly. My observation was Mr Trump has made it a mission to rescind everything the black president enacted as if Mr Trump is repealing what he believes is a bad black presidency.

Why are you injecting race into this discussion? I never mentioned Pres. Obama's race! If Trump had a mission to rescind what Obama did it was because he disagreed with what Obama did. NOT because of Obama's race! Thanks for showing who is the real racist here.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If the lowest unemployment rate for blacks, Latinos, and women is bad for the country than Trump is a terrible president.


Originally Posted By: rporter314
Are you for real????

By repeating administration talking points I have to wonder if you have ever really thought about what they are trying to say. Mr Trump is trying to suggest he is not a racist because ethnic rates are lower than previous administration. So just why would that be valid?

The rates for women and ethnic groups at end of Pres Obama's term was also the lowest. So should I derive some notion about Pres Obama's racism?

The rates are the lowest because the overall rate is lowest in years which has been the downward trend since 2010. If you want to impute Mr Trump has initiated some programs or laws or EO's which were purposefully directed to help women and ethnic minorities to mitigate the disparity found between those groups and whites ... here is your cue ... present that evidence, otherwise it turns out that the differences in rates are essentially the same from 2010 to now i.e. blacks about 100% more than whites ... Latinos about 50% more than whites ... and guess what .... women about the same as men

So again I ask .... what has Mr trump done to get your praise????

The difference was the spike in unemployment rates during the Obama administration that started to decline in 2010. Pres. Obama deserves praise for the start of the decline in the unemployment rates in the last two years of his administration. That Trump has continued what started during the Obama administration is a good thing.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314391 - 08/28/19 06:03 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: rporter314
You are simply restating your belief, since Pres Madison was "father" of Constitution it implies we should only believe what he believed, which fails to comprehend the whole document was a compromise between people who wanted a strong federal government and those who essentially did not want a central government. Should we conclude Pres Madison also believed some men were property and should be only accounted as 3/5's of white folk. Perhaps we should apply Madisonian beliefs on black folks?

Did you not read where said that Madison had help from a lot of very intelligent men in writing our Constitution? Or did you ignore it? It appears that you ignored it. Again you are bringing race into this discussion thus showing who the real racists is. Unfortunately, without the 3/5 compromise our Constitution would never have been written. Because of Article V, which was created by the committee of the whole, the idea that a black man only counted as 3/5 of a person was removed from our Constitution.
Originally Posted By: trporter314
The Constitution allows laws to be written without hindrance of applying for Constitutional amendments. Pres Madison was the stickler but all other people involved in writing the Constitution immediately upon being elected to federal office began the expansion of the government. One has to know what the boundaries are, and there are boundaries, as is evidenced by the SC ruling on laws which they deemed as unConstititional.

Our Constitution created the legislative branch of our government for the express purpose of writing laws that do not require amending it. In Madison's plan for our Constitution he wanted our federal government to have the power to negate state laws. Fortunately he lost that argument.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
So again I ask, why arbitrarily select Pres Madison's view and not Hamilton's.

There are several reasons why that should be done.
1) Hamilton was only at the Constitutional Convention about half the time it was in session.
2) He was not an active participant in the convention. The aforementioned Pickneys were more active in the convention than Hamilton was.
3) The New York delegation to the convention originally consisted of three men; John Lansing Jr., Robert Yates, and Alexander Hamilton. Lansing and Yates left the convention early and never returned to it.

The rules of the convention required that a majority of the delegates from a state must agree on what is being discussed for the state to vote on it. Each state had one vote. Since Hamilton was the only delegate from New York at the convention he was not allowed to vote on what was being discussed. Because Hamilton was not there all of the time and wasn't an active voting member of the convention he did not have as much the influence on the writing of it that Madison did. Hamilton's opinions of our Constitution only became influential when he helped write The Federalist Papers.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
aside: just musing .... I have to wonder what written in stonists view of modern government would look like from the 1790 perspective of Pres Madison? no army ... no air force ... 4 cabinet positions ... no judicial review ... NO INCOME TAX!!!!. Kinda looks like 50 independent countries with about 35 of them 3rd world nations /// sweet

Because the men at the Constitutional Convention wrote Article V our government has changed when it has been necessary to do so.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314392 - 08/28/19 06:05 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799e

You are equating tariffs with income taxes.

Note that Trump is drastically increasing tariffs (and not for a stated purpose of raising revenues). This unreasonable increase of tariff/taxes appears to be hastening the economy into a recession.

Perhaps you could explain how cutting income taxes on the wealthy serves to raise government revenues?
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314397 - 08/28/19 06:42 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't think any of us are especially proud of Bubba Clinton's antics between the sheets. But he was impeached for his shenanigans. Do you, Senator, also endorse the impeachment of President Trump?

Since Pres. Trump has done nothing that justifies an attempt impeach him, I do not endorse it being done. The trumped up charges that have been made against him are worthless. (Pun intended.)

More common ground! We practically stand in solidarity comrade!

The charges were trumped up by Republicans, investigated by Republicans under a Republican administration. It was a little mini coup that failed. But he most certainly has been accused of rape, rape of a minor, He has been accused of molestation, of harassment, and of paying off mistresses and prostitutes who slept with him willingly.

Those charges and more have been flushed away for another day, some maybe "TRUMPed" up some not...Yer boy is no saint Senator so don't throw the first stone.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#314399 - 08/28/19 06:52 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
Does Pres. Trump act solely for his own benefit? No, he does not. If he did he would not have run for the presidency and thus subjecting himself to all of the abuse he has received. Although to some extent Trump, like everyone else, does act for his own benefit. Doing so is a part of human nature.
You completely ignored my rebuttal, so I am forced to conclude you have arbitrarily determined nothing Mr Trump does is in any respect controversial. So should I also conclude if Sec Clinton had done or said the same things Mr Trump has done or said she is also absolved? LOOK!!!! Had she done or said the same things Mr Trump has done or said I would excoriate her and bring the tar. Your partisan tolerance is disconcerting.

Quote:
When you do you your conclusions are wrong. They are because they are clouded by liberal bias.
Should my conclusions be wrong (and certainly they could be but I am pretty objective when I analyze stuff) please point it out but don't point out a conclusion which offends you when it is valid.

Quote:
Show me some praise Trump has received from a liberal.
Show me something for which he is deserving of praise!!!!! I keep asking and you continue to ignore my begging.

Quote:
When any of our elected officials do something that deserves praise I will give them the praise they are due.
Yes I see you praised Mr Trump for his actions during the campaign for currying Russian favor, requesting assistance, and when the FBI became suspicious of possible criminal activities Mr Trump obstructed their investigation .... and you praised him. Do you really believe Pres Madison had that in mind for our republic????

Quote:
Why are you injecting race into this discussion? I never mentioned Pres. Obama's race! If Trump had a mission to rescind what Obama did it was because he disagreed with what Obama did. NOT because of Obama's race!
I think you better read what Mr Trump has said. He is the one who uses racist memes for which you reject as being racist. I can only conclude Mr Trump only walks and talks like a racist but is the rara avis of not being what he is.

I have no problem with Mr Trump rescinding policies which does not comport with conservative ideals, but everything Pres Obama did was bad!!!! Really!!!! Maybe you didn't hear about Mr Trump leading Obama birtherism. Mr Trump lied about doing an investigation so the only thing left which was true and valid was his racism.

Quote:
The difference was the spike in unemployment rates during the Obama administration that started to decline in 2010.
OK ... and ...what?

Quote:
Pres. Obama deserves praise for the start of the decline in the unemployment rates in the last two years of his administration.
I guess you haven't seen the stats. It started in 2010 with big government economic packages aimed at turning a severely contracted economy around. The unemployment rates started declining in 2010 as a direct result of those economic policies enacted, and they continued to decline throughout the next 7 years of the Obama administration.

You can say you don't like the way it was done but you can't say it didn't work. Of course I can ask what policies would you have enacted to achieve the same of better results. At the time conservatives said do nothing. Maybe you had a different prescription.

Quote:
That Trump has continued what started during the Obama administration is a good thing.
Again, I guess you have not seen the stats.

Job Gains :: Mr Trump has not bested the jobs gains under Pres Obama

Unemployment Rate :: it has fallen 1% since Mr Trump took office. It has been falling since 2010.

Growth :: Looks about the same as Pres Obama's stats for last few years or nothing to write home about.

Middle Class income :: higher but it was already rising the last few years of Obama's term. Should be expected as more people are working.

Stock Market :: Under Pres Obama DJIA up 46% at same time as Mr Trump's 25%. A bit misleading as Mr Trump is reaping the benefits of Pres Obamas bootstrap of the market.

and so forth. For all the bluster from Mr Trump he has not done much of anything except not blow it up. Now that could be BIG, as he is the chaos in chief and he is in the start of a trade war which every rational economist says will not end well for America and maybe the world. So while Mr Trump hasn't blown it up yet .... give him some time, he is working on it

So again .... what has Mr trump done or said which deserves my praise???
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314401 - 08/28/19 10:04 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Because when taxes are cut the revenue to our government increases.
That is not now, nor has it ever been, true. That, my friend, is what is called "fraud". It is fraud of long and storied history. Have you ever heard of the "Laffer curve" (which I refer to as the "laughable curve")? We have been at the low end of that "curve" for nearly all of our national history, so it has never been functionally accurate. At best, a tax cut will return about 28% in revenues. Even the tax foundation, a rah- rah proponent of tax cuts, acknowledges that "[the TCJA] will reduce federal revenues by $1.47 trillion on a conventional basis and $448 billion on a dynamic basis over the 10-year budget window."

Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799c

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government cannot create wealth, it can only tax it. Again, laughably untrue.
Do you know how treasuries work? Where does a government treasury get the money that is in it? By taxing people. A government's treasury is not and does not create wealth. A government's treasury is a repository for the wealth that has been collected through taxes.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government doesn't have the revenue to fund Medicare so the idea of a tax funded healthcare system has already been proven to be a solution that does not work! How many times does that FACT have to be repeated before people understand it?
Whether you like it or not NW Ponderer it is a fact.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Repeating something that is demonstrably false does not make it "a fact", no matter how often you make the same claim. That only works in "conservaworld."
Here is the proof that our government does not have, nor will it ever have, the revenue to fund Medicare in its current state much less extend it to everyone. Where is the $79,000,000,000,000 to pay for Medicare as it currently is going to come from?
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The reason the cost of healthcare is too high is due to many factors. The primary factor is government interference in the private sector with a wage freeze shortly after WWII. Expecting our government to fix a problem it created is like expecting that no one will ever tell a lie again.
It would be nice if you did some research NW Ponderer.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Again, a repetitive fantasy based upon a falsehood. I'd ask where you get these bizarre ideas, but I don't really care.

No it is not a fantasy based on a falsehood. But then since you just state your opinion and expect it to be accepted as fact you wouldn't know that. (I was a little bit mistaken about the wage freeze. It happened during WWII not after it.)
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/c...0224-story.html
"The Revenue Act of 1942 triggered another rush to enroll employees in health plans. By slapping corporations with tax rates of 80 or even up to 90 percent on any profits in excess of prewar revenue, Congress all but guaranteed a frenzied search for loopholes. Employee benefits, according to the new law, could be deducted from profits. As an anonymous employer observed in a study published on trends in health insurance, "it was a case of paying the money for insurance for their employees or to Uncle Sam in taxes."

In 1943, two rulings helped accelerate the movement toward employer-sponsored health insurance. The first was a directive by the Internal Revenue Service that employees did not have to pay taxes on premiums paid by their employers. The second was a decision by the National War Labor Board reaffirming the exemption of fringe benefits from the wage freeze."
Our government did create the healthcare problem.
I appreciate your citations. I really do. Would that they actually supported your assertions. First, it is worth noting that the first source is dubious, at best (an opinion piece from the Cato institute). Second, it had zero to do with your assertion (that cutting taxes increases government revenues) or cutting taxes generally, and was almost entirely about cutting spending. It also ignores the horrendous costs to society the austerity programs "lauded" actually wrought. In addition it fails to note either the brevity of Harding's tenure (17 months) nor the egregious scandals, personal and presidential, that he created in that brief period. It is why he is still ranked as one of the worst Presidents in American history, until the current occupant took the crown.

Where do you get those ridiculous Medicare figures from? Certainly not reality. Try some reality-based sourcing: Medicare Budget Basics; CMS: Trustees Report & Trust Funds; CBO- Medicare 2019 Baseline; The Facts on Medicare Spending and Financing (Kaiser). The "Debt Clock.com" source is not even close to reliable, or even rational.

Does Medicare need adjustment? Absolutely. Would universal healthcare reduce actual costs? Again, absolutely. Would taxes go up? Yup. Is it sustainable? Of course it is. I don't intend to be derisive, my friend, but your assertions are so far from rational or coherent that they are hard to take seriously.

With regard to the employer-based health insurance system, however, I agree that it's essentially an accident/condition of history. That being the case, why try to maintain it? Do you recognize what how detrimental it is in international trade?

Top
#314403 - 08/28/19 10:59 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I don't intend to be derisive, my friend, but your assertions are so far from rational or coherent that they are hard to take seriously.

I recently stopped posting on a righty (Regressive) blog site because there really wasn't anything left to say but, "Yer insufferably stupid." Every attempt to discuss any topic was met with: a) derision; b) deflection; c) lies and canned propaganda; d) insults to my (dead) mother. I am currently in a reflective mood trying to figure out how to relate to the "other side". It's a puzzle...
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314405 - 08/28/19 11:11 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't think any of us are especially proud of Bubba Clinton's antics between the sheets. But he was impeached for his shenanigans. Do you, Senator, also endorse the impeachment of President Trump?

Since Pres. Trump has done nothing that justifies an attempt impeach him, I do not endorse it being done. The trumped up charges that have been made against him are worthless. (Pun intended.)
I had thought, at least at some time in your history, my friend, that you supported things like the "rule of law", "honoring one's oath", probity, and other conservative virtues. How, then, is it, that you cannot acknowledge the obvious when it comes to Trump? "Pres. Trump has done nothing that justifies an attempt impeach him" - Emoluments? (It's in the Constitution, yanno.) Corrupt practices? Violations of the Federal Election laws? Obstruction of Justice? Do any of these things ring your conservative bell?

Top
#314406 - 08/28/19 11:13 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: NW Ponderer]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
You forgot compulsive lying.
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314410 - 08/28/19 11:39 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: logtroll]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799e

You are equating tariffs with income taxes.

No, I am not. Tariffs and income taxes have been used as sources of government revenue. The example I posted shows that when governments cut taxes, whether they are tariffs or on income, their revenue goes up.

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Note that Trump is drastically increasing tariffs (and not for a stated purpose of raising revenues). This unreasonable increase of tariff/taxes appears to be hastening the economy into a recession.

While I strongly disagree with Pres. Trump raising tariffs I can see and understand why he is doing it. He is doing it as way of bargaining with other countries. When people or countries bargain they start out asking for the what is the most beneficial for them. Their counterpart's offer is what is best them. That is done not with the expectation of getting all of what they want but in an attempt to get the best deal that they can.
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Perhaps you could explain how cutting income taxes on the wealthy serves to raise government revenues?

Why do stores seek to keep their prices as low as possible? They do so to get as much business as possible. When taxes are low those who have the most money, the wealthy, will not actively look for ways to avoid paying taxes. People don't work their ass off so they can pay most of what they earn in taxes. Low prices = a lot of business. Low taxes = a lot of revenue.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314411 - 08/28/19 11:51 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799e

You are equating tariffs with income taxes.

No, I am not. Tariffs and income taxes have been used as sources of government revenue. The example I posted shows that when governments cut taxes, whether they are tariffs or on income, their revenue goes up.

Except you ignored my request for an example of cutting income taxes causing revenues to got up.

Let's make it easy - use the most recent income tax cut to show how it has increased revenues.
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314416 - 08/29/19 12:12 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: rporter314
If Sec Clinton had been elected and she had done what Mr Trump has done, wouldn't the list of impeachable offenses be long? I mean didn't she order Seth Rich to be assassinated? or run a child porn operation out of a Pizza joint? didn't Pres Clinton get some kind of emolument from the Russians for a speech which he donated to the Clinton Foundation? can you imagine Sec Clinton trying to get dirt on Mr trump from the Russians or making deals to lift sanctions?

Let me tell ya, if Sec Clinton had done the things Mr trump has done, I would have led the charge to impeach her.

It seems you don't have a problem with Sec. of State Clinton rigging the Democrat's primaries. If she had been elected rigging the primaries would have been grounds to impeach her.
https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...broken-the-law/
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314418 - 08/29/19 12:17 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: rporter314
You are simply restating your belief, since Pres Madison was "father" of Constitution it implies we should only believe what he believed, which fails to comprehend the whole document was a compromise between people who wanted a strong federal government and those who essentially did not want a central government. Should we conclude Pres Madison also believed some men were property and should be only accounted as 3/5's of white folk. Perhaps we should apply Madisonian beliefs on black folks?

Did you not read where I said that Madison had help from a lot of very intelligent men in writing our Constitution? Or did you ignore it? It appears that you ignored it. Again you are bringing race into this discussion thus showing who the real racists is. Unfortunately, without the 3/5 compromise our Constitution would never have been written. Because of Article V, which was created by the committee of the whole, the idea that a black man only counted as 3/5 of a person was removed from our Constitution.
Originally Posted By: trporter314
The Constitution allows laws to be written without hindrance of applying for Constitutional amendments. Pres Madison was the stickler but all other people involved in writing the Constitution immediately upon being elected to federal office began the expansion of the government. One has to know what the boundaries are, and there are boundaries, as is evidenced by the SC ruling on laws which they deemed as unConstititional.

Our Constitution created the legislative branch of our government for the express purpose of writing laws that do not require amending it. In Madison's plan for our Constitution he wanted our federal government to have the power to negate state laws. Fortunately he lost that argument.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
So again I ask, why arbitrarily select Pres Madison's view and not Hamilton's.

There are several reasons why that should be done.
1) Hamilton was only at the Constitutional Convention about half the time it was in session.
2) He was not an active participant in the convention. The aforementioned Pickneys were more active in the convention than Hamilton was.
3) The New York delegation to the convention originally consisted of three men; John Lansing Jr., Robert Yates, and Alexander Hamilton. Lansing and Yates left the convention early and never returned to it.

The rules of the convention required that a majority of the delegates from a state must agree on what is being discussed for the state to vote on it. Each state had one vote. Since Hamilton was the only delegate from New York at the convention he was not allowed to vote on what was being discussed. Because Hamilton was not there all of the time and wasn't an active voting member of the convention he did not have as much the influence on the writing of it that Madison did. Hamilton's opinions of our Constitution only became influential when he helped write The Federalist Papers.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
aside: just musing .... I have to wonder what written in stonists view of modern government would look like from the 1790 perspective of Pres Madison? no army ... no air force ... 4 cabinet positions ... no judicial review ... NO INCOME TAX!!!!. Kinda looks like 50 independent countries with about 35 of them 3rd world nations /// sweet

Because the men at the Constitutional Convention wrote Article V our government has changed when it has been necessary to do so.

You completely ignored this rporter314.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314432 - 08/29/19 01:13 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Yikes!!!!

Let me start by commenting on your source. Far right bias with mixed political factual reporting. Now that being said let's examine your claim "If she had been elected rigging the primaries would have been grounds to impeach her."

Originally Posted By: Investor Business Daily
It may have been illegal.
Wait a sec ... you claimed she committed a crime. From your own source the editorial says maybe and there is nothing about being elected. The writer is insinuating a crime because people like yourself would rather believe something dishonest rather than believe the facts.

Now there is something else mentioned which the FEC would investigate had an actual criminal violation taken place i.e. laundering money through the DNC. Again just an insinuation meant for people like you. Why are you so gullible???

Any real evidence you have of any real criminal activity please contact your local Trump loyal FBI office or the FEC. otherwise stop the propaganda.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314433 - 08/29/19 01:15 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Does Pres. Trump act solely for his own benefit? No, he does not. If he did he would not have run for the presidency and thus subjecting himself to all of the abuse he has received. Although to some extent Trump, like everyone else, does act for his own benefit. Doing so is a part of human nature.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
You completely ignored my rebuttal, so I am forced to conclude you have arbitrarily determined nothing Mr Trump does is in any respect controversial. So should I also conclude if Sec Clinton had done or said the same things Mr Trump has done or said she is also absolved? LOOK!!!! Had she done or said the same things Mr Trump has done or said I would excoriate her and bring the tar. Your partisan tolerance is disconcerting.

If I ignored your rebuttal it is because I didn't see it. Your conclusion that I don't think Pres. Trump has done anything controversial is wrong. There are plenty of things Sec. of State Clinton did that was controversial. The Clinton Foundation tops the list of the controversial things she has done. Despite that you probably voted for her. (I don't if you did but it is a safe guess that you did.) Since I wasn't on the CHBRR I don't know if excoriated her it.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When you do you your conclusions are wrong. They are because they are clouded by liberal bias.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Should my conclusions be wrong (and certainly they could be but I am pretty objective when I analyze stuff) please point it out but don't point out a conclusion which offends you when it is valid.

You are objective? Like I said you're liberal bias prevents you from being objective.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Show me some praise Trump has received from a liberal. Show me something for which he is deserving of praise!!!!! I keep asking and you continue to ignore my begging.

I did not say Trump has received praise from a liberal. What I said was that he should receive some from liberals. No one is always in the wrong but liberals can only see what Trump does wrong and ignore it when he does something right. Here is praise for Trump from a liberal. https://freebeacon.com/politics/teamsters-president-praises-trump-hes-off-good-start/

Quote:
When any of our elected officials do something that deserves praise I will give them the praise they are due.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Yes I see you praised Mr Trump for his actions during the campaign for currying Russian favor, requesting assistance, and when the FBI became suspicious of possible criminal activities Mr Trump obstructed their investigation .... and you praised him. Do you really believe Pres Madison had that in mind for our republic????

When did do that? The claim of Russian collusion was debunked by The Mueller Report. Only delusional partisans bring the lie of Russian collusion by Trump and his campaign. That you do shows that you are not as objective as you think you are.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why are you injecting race into this discussion? I never mentioned Pres. Obama's race! If Trump had a mission to rescind what Obama did it was because he disagreed with what Obama did. NOT because of Obama's race!
Originally Posted By: rporter314
I think you better read what Mr Trump has said. He is the one who uses racist memes for which you reject as being racist. I can only conclude Mr Trump only walks and talks like a racist but is the rara avis of not being what he is.

My comment was about how you rporter314 injected race into this discussion. You did it by referring to Pres. Obama as a "black president."
Originally Posted By: rporter314/
]I have no problem with Mr Trump rescinding policies which does not comport with conservative ideals, but everything Pres Obama did was bad!!!! Really!!!! Maybe you didn't hear about Mr Trump leading Obama birtherism. Mr Trump lied about doing an investigation so the only thing left which was true and valid was his racism.

Trump apologized for doing that. An objective person would have accepted his apology and forgotten about it. You didn't. Again you show that you are not as objective as you think you are.
Quote:
The difference was the spike in unemployment rates during the Obama administration that started to decline in 2010.
OK ... and ...what?

Quote:
Pres. Obama deserves praise for the start of the decline in the unemployment rates in the last two years of his administration.
I guess you haven't seen the stats. It started in 2010 with big government economic packages aimed at turning a severely contracted economy around. The unemployment rates started declining in 2010 as a direct result of those economic policies enacted, and they continued to decline throughout the next 7 years of the Obama administration.

You can say you don't like the way it was done but you can't say it didn't work. Of course I can ask what policies would you have enacted to achieve the same of better results. At the time conservatives said do nothing. Maybe you had a different prescription.

Quote:
That Trump has continued what started during the Obama administration is a good thing.
Again, I guess you have not seen the stats.

Job Gains :: Mr Trump has not bested the jobs gains under Pres Obama

Unemployment Rate :: it has fallen 1% since Mr Trump took office. It has been falling since 2010.

Growth :: Looks about the same as Pres Obama's stats for last few years or nothing to write home about.

Middle Class income :: higher but it was already rising the last few years of Obama's term. Should be expected as more people are working.

Stock Market :: Under Pres Obama DJIA up 46% at same time as Mr Trump's 25%. A bit misleading as Mr Trump is reaping the benefits of Pres Obamas bootstrap of the market.

and so forth. For all the bluster from Mr Trump he has not done much of anything except not blow it up. Now that could be BIG, as he is the chaos in chief and he is in the start of a trade war which every rational economist says will not end well for America and maybe the world. So while Mr Trump hasn't blown it up yet .... give him some time, he is working on it

So again .... what has Mr trump done or said which deserves my praise???

Please provide links to back up your claims.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314434 - 08/29/19 01:20 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Yikes!!!!

Let me start by commenting on your source. Far right bias with mixed political factual reporting. Now that being said let's examine your claim "If she had been elected rigging the primaries would have been grounds to impeach her."

Originally Posted By: Investor Business Daily
It may have been illegal.
Wait a sec ... you claimed she committed a crime. From your own source the editorial says maybe and there is nothing about being elected. The writer is insinuating a crime because people like yourself would rather believe something dishonest rather than believe the facts.

Now there is something else mentioned which the FEC would investigate had an actual criminal violation taken place i.e. laundering money through the DNC. Again just an insinuation meant for people like you. Why are you so gullible???

Any real evidence you have of any real criminal activity please contact your local Trump loyal FBI office or the FEC. otherwise stop the propaganda.

An objective person does not take one sentence out of a page long article in an attempt to prove their point. Doing so is known as cherry picking or taken a quote out of context.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314436 - 08/29/19 01:38 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: logtroll]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
[quote=Senator Hatrack]Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799e

You are equating tariffs with income taxes.

No, I am not. Tariffs and income taxes have been used as sources of government revenue. The example I posted shows that when governments cut taxes, whether they are tariffs or on income, their revenue goes up.

Except you ignored my request for an example of cutting income taxes causing revenues to got up.

Let's make it easy - use the most recent income tax cut to show how it has increased revenues.

Rather than cite just one example of how tax cuts have increased government revenues I suggest you read the book For Good and Evil The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization. It tells how tax cuts have increased government revenues since the ancient Sumerians.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314437 - 08/29/19 01:40 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

An objective person does not take one sentence out of a page long article in an attempt to prove their point. Doing so is known as cherry picking or taken a quote out of context.

An objective person answers simple, direct questions honestly and with integrity. You should experiment with that occasionally.
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314439 - 08/29/19 01:47 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Rather than cite just one example of how tax cuts have increased government revenues I suggest you read the book For Good and Evil The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization. It tells how tax cuts have increased government revenues since the ancient Sumerians.

So you are rebutted by the current tax cut. Interesting...
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314441 - 08/29/19 01:54 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: logtroll]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

An objective person does not take one sentence out of a page long article in an attempt to prove their point. Doing so is known as cherry picking or taken a quote out of context.

An objective person answers simple, direct questions honestly and with integrity. You should experiment with that occasionally.

An objective person does not completely ignore a person's long and detailed reply to another person's comment as you did logtroll.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314442 - 08/29/19 02:02 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
And you canít answer a simple question. Does your deflection and obfuscation work on anyone?
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314446 - 08/29/19 02:40 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314447 - 08/29/19 04:53 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
An objective person does not take one sentence out of a page long article in an attempt to prove their point. Doing so is known as cherry picking or taken a quote out of context.

The context was an insinuation hit job with only the single sentence which bore direct evidence to refute your specious claim. So in this case it was not cherry picking. It was in fact the essence of the entire piece.

Originally Posted By: Investor's Business Daily
The Hillary Clinton-led Democrats have been a party in denial, first asserting that winning the popular vote ó and not the Electoral College ó should give them the election last year, then claiming Donald Trump won only through the social-media machinations of mysterious Russian officials, and then believing Trump should be impeached solely because he is, well, Donald Trump.

This is a whole paragraph which will demonstrate what I say.

I have not heard of anyone making the claim winning the popular vote SHOULD give them anything. I have heard (and this has been going around for a number of years, before anyone ever heard of Mr Trump) people try to make the case we should abandon the electoral system as it no longer reflects the American electorate.

I have not heard of a single person who has claimed Russian meddling was THE major factor which led to Mr Trump's electoral victory. What a few people have said is, Russian meddling probably influenced a few voters but it is unknown what the extent was. Far more impactful was Dir Comey's announcement Sec Clinton was under investigation just 11 days before the election. Of course if you believe Mr Trump's lies then Dir Comey's announcement was a rather nefarious plot perpetrated by the DEEP STATE to get Sec Clinton elected. This is so delusional I can't wrap my head around it.

Absolutely no one has ever suggested Mr Trump should be impeached because he is Mr Trump. They have suggested he be impeached for what he has done. These are not policy disputes as was the case with Pres Obama, but personal actions taken by Mr Trump which would result in indictments if he were not the occupant of the WH.


This citation is an example of fallacious use of opinion as fact.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314449 - 08/29/19 07:01 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I suspect, my friend, that you are unaware that virtually everything in that year old editorial is factually inaccurate, and the conclusion is nonsensical. Federal revenues went up 1.2 percent, but that had virtually nothing to do with the tax cut, as it had barely gone into effect and hadn't affected tax revenues at all, yet. Trump tax cuts did little to boost economic growth in 2018, study says (CNBC). "The economists say that for the tax cuts to pay for themselves, as Trump has promised, GDP would have to rise by 6.7%."
Quote:
While the Congressional Budget Office had forecast a $94 billion break that still would have generated $243 billion in corporate revenues, the actual total was $205 billion, or 16% lower than projected.
Cold, hard facts trump fantastical editorial spin every time.

Top
#314450 - 08/29/19 01:09 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Rather than cite just one example of how tax cuts have increased government revenues I suggest you read the book For Good and Evil The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization. It tells how tax cuts have increased government revenues since the ancient Sumerians.

I suggest you look at these graphs and tell me why, in these times of extended historically low tax rates, that we are amassing debt at a record rate?



_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#314456 - 08/29/19 02:45 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
I am leaving. This is my last comment. The reason I have decided to leave is the hatred for Pres. Trump. While I am not a big fan of Trump I do not hate him. I don't hate anybody, especially someone I've never met. I don't need the negativity of the hatred for Trump that permeates the CHBRR in my life. Nor do I need or want to argue with a group of people who live in an impenetrable ideological cocoon. People who refuse to even consider that they might be wrong.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314457 - 08/29/19 03:01 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
One may disagree on the interpretation of the facts, but one can never dispute the facts.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314458 - 08/29/19 03:01 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I am leaving. This is my last comment. The reason I have decided to leave is the hatred for Pres. Trump. While I am not a big fan of Trump I do not hate him. I don't hate anybody, especially someone I've never met. I don't need the negativity of the hatred for Trump that permeates the CHBRR in my life. Nor do I need or want to argue with a group of people who live in an impenetrable ideological cocoon. People who refuse to even consider that they might be wrong.
Where does this come from, my friend? I have hardly mentioned that personage at all. I have seen incredibly few references to him in most of the posts. Can you provide examples? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Top
#314460 - 08/29/19 04:01 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
LOL Yeah we kind of avoid talking about him here other than a few offhand comments.

But this time, I'll say goodbye, Senator. You're so tied up in your ideology that you literally can't see what's going on around you. I don't care if it's the right or the left that fixes the existential problems that are plaguing our nation and the world. I was hoping to find out what the plans for the future were on the right.

There appear to be none. Only some odd fascination with old newspapers and the political propaganda of the 18th century. Your strange opinions about who we are and what we think are false on almost every front. Yet at the same time you seem to enforce everything I believe to be true about Republicans. And it isn't good Senator, It isn't good.

Trump will be gone soon, he's little more than a blip on my radar. But he's one to be shot down. He and you, Senator, are the enemies of America. You represent a shameful past you bloviate into glory.

We are the future. We see the past clearly, live in today...and plan for the future.

Goodbye Senator.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#314465 - 08/29/19 07:57 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I am leaving. This is my last comment. The reason I have decided to leave is the hatred for Pres. Trump. While I am not a big fan of Trump I do not hate him. I don't hate anybody, especially someone I've never met. I don't need the negativity of the hatred for Trump that permeates the CHBRR in my life. Nor do I need or want to argue with a group of people who live in an impenetrable ideological cocoon. People who refuse to even consider that they might be wrong.
Where does this come from, my friend? I have hardly mentioned that personage at all. I have seen incredibly few references to him in most of the posts. Can you provide examples? Seriously, I'd like to know.

It's me. I'm the guilty one. gobsmacked , Hmm

My bad. cry

(But, I'm not wrong about Trump. laugh )
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#314469 - 08/30/19 05:32 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 8781
Loc: North San Diego County
I don't hate Trump. I feel sorry for him, because there's obviously some combination of mental and organic brain disease at work there. That 10,000 documented lies thingie is pretty disturbing.

I hate some of the things he has done, like trusting Putin over our own intelligence services, revealing secrets to Putin, kissing up to Kim, starting a trade war, reversing EPA rules on methane, and exiting TPP and the Iran nuclear deal. He seems to have done those last three just because Obama signed on to them. It's as if he assumes Obama was bad, therefore everything Obama did must be undone with zero thought to the consequences.

We used to have some continuity with such treaties and agreements, so people around the world could trust we would have the same policy from one President to the next. Now Trump has destroyed that trust.

The ironic thing is that until Trump, Republicans would NEVER have trusted Putin or Kim, NEVER have delivered secrets to Putin, NEVER have obstructed free trade, etc.

Top
#314473 - 08/30/19 12:24 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: pondering_it_all]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
...That 10,000 documented lies thingie is pretty disturbing.

It's over 12,000+ . Trump lies as he breathes. He knows what he's doing. The guy is a total sociopath. Hmm

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I hate some of the things he has done, like trusting Putin over our own intelligence services, revealing secrets to Putin...

Russian asset or useful idiot? "Russian asset" suggests the ability to think and reason and weigh consequences - that's not Trump. Trump as a useful idiot is more like it. smile

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
...He seems to have done those last three just because Obama signed on to them.

The absolutely obvious jealousy that Trump has for Obama is hilarious. Even Melanie smiles when she sits next to BAMZ!!! during state funerals. laugh

All Donald J "Bed Bugs" Trump gets from Melanie is a scowl. gobsmacked


Trump has been a national embarrassment since day one. Things have never gotten better. Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#314475 - 08/30/19 08:46 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: pdx rick]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Russian asset or useful idiot? "Russian asset" suggests the ability to think and reason and weigh consequences - that's not Trump. Trump as a useful idiot is more like it. smile

Havard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe Tweets that Trump is both. I stand corrected. smile

(I still think that I'm right though, that Trump is too incompetent and not smart enough to be a Russian Asset. Hmm )
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#314547 - 09/01/19 03:28 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: pdx rick]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I hate some of the things he has done, like trusting Putin over our own intelligence services, revealing secrets to Putin...

Trump is useful idiot for the Russians? Is that why he has imposed more sanctions on Russia while he has been our President than Pres. Obama did during his entire administration? Then considering that the allegation of Trump's collusion with Russia was proven to be false by the Mueller Report the claim that he trusted Putin more than he did our own intelligence services is a lie!
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/...-obama-in-eight
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314553 - 09/01/19 04:56 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14327
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I am leaving. This is my last comment. The reason I have decided to leave is the hatred for Pres. Trump. While I am not a big fan of Trump I do not hate him. I don't hate anybody, especially someone I've never met. I don't need the negativity of the hatred for Trump that permeates the CHBRR in my life. Nor do I need or want to argue with a group of people who live in an impenetrable ideological cocoon. People who refuse to even consider that they might be wrong.


You confusing people who are pointing out your flawed logic with an ad hominem attack proves you don't even know what an argumentum ad hominem is.
Maybe you feel you have the right to spew uninformed opinions and easily debunked references without having them scrutinized, but on a political forum they're fair game.
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#314556 - 09/01/19 05:07 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
why he has imposed more sanctions on Russia while he has been our President than Pres. Obama did during his entire administration?

"Under sustained pressure from Congress, President Donald Trump has imposed long-overdue, legally mandated sanctions on Russia for its poisoning of an ex-spy in the United Kingdom. " from CNN

Now could you please list all the sanctions Mr Trump initiated? Your list would be very short as it has been Congress putting pressure on Mr Trump to impose sanctions. Just because he had to sign the EO's and laws does not mean he actually wanted to impose them. In fact look at the number of times Mr Trump has wanted to stop sanctions ... even before he became the current occupant of the WH.

Quote:
Then considering that the allegation of Trump's collusion with Russia was proven to be false by the Mueller Report the claim that he trusted Putin more than he did our own intelligence services is a lie!
Why would you use a source which always misrepresents the facts?

Regarding the question of the numerous Russian connections to the Trump campaign and its personnel Mueller said ďWe did not address Ďcollusion,í which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.Ē

In his own words Mr Trump said, "I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today" or he trusted Putin over his own intel agencies.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#314583 - 09/01/19 06:08 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump is useful idiot for the Russians?

Well...if you have to ask. Yes. smile

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Is that why he has imposed more sanctions on Russia while he has been our President than Pres. Obama did during his entire administration?

The whole reason why Putin wanted Trump is to lessen the tough economic sanctions that BAMZ!!! placed onto Russia.

Congress passed tough sanctions on Russia during Trump's term, but Trump begrudgingly signed those bills MONTHS after they were passed. What...the...hell...are...you...talking about, sir? mad
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#314613 - 09/01/19 08:15 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: pdx rick]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump is useful idiot for the Russians?

Well...if you have to ask. Yes. smile

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Is that why he has imposed more sanctions on Russia while he has been our President than Pres. Obama did during his entire administration?

The whole reason why Putin wanted Trump is to lessen the tough economic sanctions that BAMZ!!! placed onto Russia.

Congress passed tough sanctions on Russia during Trump's term, but Trump begrudgingly signed those bills MONTHS after they were passed. What...the...hell...are...you...talking about, sir? mad

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/03/05/dont-rehabilitate-obama-on-russia/
https://thehill.com/policy/international...cal-weapons-use
One very liberal source, The Brookings Institute, and a fairly balanced one, The Hill, says you are wrong. Pres. Trump has been tougher on Russia than Pres. Obama was. It might help pdx rick if you could get past your apparent automatic reaction of thinking Pres, Trump is always wrong.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314619 - 09/01/19 08:25 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Pres. Trump has been tougher on Russia than Pres. Obama was.

...after MONTHS of letting the Congressional passed legislation languish on his desk - Trump finally signed the bills. smile

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
It might help pdx rick if you could get past your apparent automatic reaction of thinking Pres, Trump is always wrong.

I'm still waiting for Trump to be right one time. coffee
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#314641 - 09/01/19 10:17 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: pdx rick]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
Trump imposes new sanctions on Russia over chemical weapons use.
That is the title of article from The Hill. It does not say Trump let Congressional legislation languish on his desk. If Trump did let any legislation languish on his desk after ten days, not months, it is vetoed.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314642 - 09/01/19 10:36 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump imposes new sanctions on Russia over chemical weapons use.
That is the title of article from The Hill. It does not say Trump let Congressional legislation languish on his desk. If Trump did let any legislation languish on his desk after ten days, not months, it is vetoed.


Oops! Another hole in that right-wing narrative. smile

Quote:
Under sustained pressure from Congress, President Donald Trump has imposed long-overdue, legally mandated sanctions on Russia for its poisoning of an ex-spy in the United Kingdom.

Russian agents were accused of using a banned nerve agent to carry out a failed March 2018 attack on British soil against former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia. The Kremlin has denied the allegations. The attack left the Skripals in a coma and killed another woman.

Trump signed the executive order on sanctions Thursday, more than six months after they were due and a day after a call with President Vladimir Putin.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#314659 - 09/01/19 11:51 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Online   sad
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17109
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump is useful idiot for the Russians?

Well...if you have to ask. Yes. smile

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Is that why he has imposed more sanctions on Russia while he has been our President than Pres. Obama did during his entire administration?

The whole reason why Putin wanted Trump is to lessen the tough economic sanctions that BAMZ!!! placed onto Russia.

Congress passed tough sanctions on Russia during Trump's term, but Trump begrudgingly signed those bills MONTHS after they were passed. What...the...hell...are...you...talking about, sir? mad

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/03/05/dont-rehabilitate-obama-on-russia/
https://thehill.com/policy/international...cal-weapons-use
One very liberal source, The Brookings Institute, and a fairly balanced one, The Hill, says you are wrong. Pres. Trump has been tougher on Russia than Pres. Obama was. It might help pdx rick if you could get past your apparent automatic reaction of thinking Pres, Trump is always wrong.
Hoo boy.... <moving lectern out of the way, and hobbling high horse.>

Let me begin by quoting your cited Hill story:
Quote:
President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday imposing a second round of long-awaited sanctions on Russia over the Kremlin's involvement in the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter living in Britain.
When did that attack occur? 4 March 2018 (a year and a half ago).
Quote:
Bipartisan lawmakers have criticized the Trump administrationís delay in taking what they say is legally mandated action to follow up on last year's sanctions....
The announcement comes after the House Foreign Affairs Committee's top Democrat and Republican sent a joint letter to Trump earlier this week threatening new congressional action to force action on the sanctions.
A little context seemed in order. As it turns out, it does say it languished on the President's desk.

Secondly, the Brookings article was a reprint of a story in The American Interest - a decidedly neoconservative publication, so dressing it up as "liberal" is hardly persuasive.

Top
#315028 - 09/07/19 06:08 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1603
Loc: MN
To return to the subject of this thread one of the reasons I am still contemplating my departure is that to reply to the long comments is a tedious process.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#315030 - 09/07/19 06:49 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15493
Loc: Florida
See, Senator...you don't need to. You grumbled about "cherry picking" a while back, quoting a single line and replying to it.

Most lengthy posts or "rants" as we call them can be synopsized into a single brief quote. Or maybe one line catches in your craw and inspires you to type out a rant of your own. But most replies need not be more than a line or two.

Rant when you feel like ranting, snark when you feel like snarking, debate when you feel like debating. We'd rather be your friends than be your enemies.

You choose how much time you spend arguing with people who will never agree with you and how much time you spend trying to find common ground with them. That's the beauty of politics....how it all turns out in the end. We're currently pursuing a goal of mutually assured destruction. Does it have to be this way?
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."ó Oscar Wilde

Top
#315031 - 09/07/19 06:50 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9466
Loc: One of the Mexicos
I've heard the complaint numerous times, "Do you always have to be right?" After considerable observation and thought, I realized that I don't tend to voice opinions unless I'm pretty sure about them. And I don't get a lot of blowback that needs responding to. I certainly think a lot of crap that is wrong.

One problem with blurting out too many flawed opinions is that other people feel a need to challenge them, which can result in a whole lotta lengthy bloviations back and forth.

I'm only suggesting, mind you, that a person should check their own shorts before trying to pull down someone else's panties, if you don't want a game of grabass...

A real interesting strategy to try now and then is to ask questions instead of habitually making weak claims. Don't you agree?
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... 9 10 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 30 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Snarky_Politics, Moot, Ikari, perotista, ttwtt78640
6282 Registered Users
A2