2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
I'm not saying wealth should come from government. Far from it. I don't think the economy is wrecked either, since we are still adding jobs.

However I think you overestimate the role of the super wealthy in the economy. Let's not forget that small businesses account for 2/3rds of jobs generated this last year. Small businesses that are perfectly the right size to fail. I am not content with more wealth being doled out to the wealthy from our tax dollars, while the true job creators are left at a competitive disadvantage. How is that capitalism?

How is it that AIG can pay its executives 218 million dollars in bonuses from bail out money, while the formerly middle class (who are suffering from the damage AIG caused) had to move back in with their parents?

I don't propose that the U.S. Tax itself into prosperity, but we are already heavily taxed, the only problem is that we've spent the money that could have gone to benefit the poor and middle class, and redistributed it to the very most wealthy.

Economic safety blankets are beneficial to the economy because it allows people who might otherwise end up homeless pull themselves out of poverty. We scream socialism, but how much would we save if people were actually able to go to the hospital without going bankrupt? If college students could actually buy homes instead of paying down 5 figure student loans. if the bridges, roads, and highways were actually modernized to facilitate the amount of traffic that travels across it.

Government can't create jobs out of nowhere but it can enhance the economy by investing in the American workforce.
Obviously I will never make any inroads in this discussion regarding government's role in the economy with you because theoretically in this system they have no role in the economy other than overseeing the money supply system through the Federal Reserve. In a Capitalistic system the federal government is not to utilize tax dollars for economic investment. Those funds are supposed to be utilized for governmental services to the public. The last sentence is what gets abused by Congress but even so compounding it with addition abuse in the name of economic justification is never supposed to happen.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
He was just weird. Like creepy weird.
My nickname for him was unfrozen caveman lawyer.
Based on what he said he's your typical Blue Dog Democrat, kind of like a good portion of the GOP is today. The other 4 up there were competing to be the most far left socialist.

As for appearances, yeah Webb is odd. Throw in Chafee and lunatic Sanders and it's almost like they tried finding the weirdest 'opponents' to try and make Hillary stand out. Not hard to do with that crowd.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton

Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton

Las Vegas (CNN)Another Republican lawmaker says the House Select Committee on Benghazi is meant to go after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Rep. Richard Hanna, R-New York, said Wednesday on New York's' WIBX 950, "Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth."

"This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton," said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. "After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time."

Clinton is scheduled to testify before the panel on October 22.

At the first Democratic debate on Tuesday night, Clinton slammed Republicans, telling the audience that the committee is "basically an arm of the Republican National Committee."

"It is a partisan vehicle, as admitted by the House Republican majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, to drive down my poll numbers. Big surprise. And that's what they have attempted to do," Clinton said, adding later, "But I'll be there. I'll answer their questions."

Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign's press secretary, said Wednesday that Hanna's comment show that "House Republicans aren't even shy anymore about admitting that the Benghazi Committee is a partisan farce."

"Hillary Clinton will still attend next week's hearing," Fallon said, "but at this point, (Chairman) Trey Gowdy's inquiry has zero credibility left."

While McCarthy walked back his comments, Democrats quickly seized on his gaffe and it ultimately contributed to the derailing of McCarthy's brief speaker bid.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy had said. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought."

The comments also provided Clinton, her campaign aides and supporters with a tailor-made response to the political questions Clinton will face when she testifies.

It's not the first time Hanna has slammed what he perceives as Republican efforts to politicize certain issues. Hanna, who supports abortion rights, has also knocked conservative lawmakers' efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, calling votes to do so "political theater."

But at least one Republican lawmaker was quick to dismiss Hanna's comments.

"That's his opinion. I don't share that opinion," said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, on CNN's "New Day."

Johnson said he believes Clinton's use of a private email server to conduct official business as secretary of state raise "very serious national security implications" and said "the concern is what national security secrets might be in the hands of our enemies."
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Obviously I will never make any inroads in this discussion regarding government's role in the economy with you because theoretically in this system they have no role in the economy other than overseeing the money supply system through the Federal Reserve. In a Capitalistic system the federal government is not to utilize tax dollars for economic investment. Those funds are supposed to be utilized for governmental services to the public. The last sentence is what gets abused by Congress but even so compounding it with addition abuse in the name of economic justification is never supposed to happen.
You say this with one breath and justify bailouts with another. Which is it?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
You say this with one breath and justify bailouts with another. Which is it?
It's neither. Bailing out an institution is in the same vane as a loan. The funds are repaid as opposed to to spending money on projects and programs that will produce nothing. Even if you don't see it there is a difference.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
It's neither. Bailing out an institution is in the same vane as a loan. The funds are repaid as opposed to to spending money on projects and programs that will produce nothing. Even if you don't see it there is a difference.
It sure as hell isn't a capitalist system like you pretend to believe in. It gives a competitive advantage to large institutions over small business. Capitalism is supposed to be about free market competition, not special favors to big business.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
It sure as hell isn't a capitalist system like you pretend to believe in. It gives a competitive advantage to large institutions over small business. Capitalism is supposed to be about free market competition, not special favors to big business.
Tell that to congress. They are the group that keep mucking the system with their pork barrell projects and back scratching. My position is what is supposed to be not what the government has made it. And as I have said before past abuses do not justify reasons to create new abuses.
.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Tell that to congress. They are the group that keep mucking the system with their pork barrell projects and back scratching. My position is what is supposed to be not what the government has made it. And as I have said before past abuses do not justify reasons to create new abuses.
.
Well, in this election cycle we have nothing but Pork Barrel Back Scratchers to choose from, including among the Republicans. That's why a lot of lifelong conservatives refuse to vote for another pack of fake conservatives who want to unleash the full resources of the Federal Government on making their friends richer. I for one don't mind seeing the other side win a little to punish them for giving us this crop of horrible candidates.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
Well, in this election cycle we have nothing but Pork Barrel Back Scratchers to choose from, including among the Republicans. That's why a lot of lifelong conservatives refuse to vote for another pack of fake conservatives who want to unleash the full resources of the Federal Government on making their friends richer. I for one don't mind seeing the other side win a little to punish them for giving us this crop of horrible candidates.
That's fine but I do mind putting in people who have a declared position that they will redistribute the wealth arbitrarily. They have no right to someone else's wealth.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The pay back is a sleight of hand. 200 Billion dollars of the 400 recouped are government subsidies given to banks for the purpose of subsidizing small business loans. The other 200 and change we made back aren't the same as 'repayment', but profits from investments based on the bail outs.

I'm sure you realize that companies like Goldman Sachs who benefitted greatly from the bailouts are also huge investors into political campaigns. (Both Republican and Democrat) this didn't just help them accrue a lot of free money from the government (a little more than an entire year's welfare budget for the state of Texas) but also was a great help when all the people who leveraged funds to wreck the economy completely escaped prosecution.

I don't know how you can extol saved jobs in one sentence, and denounce socialism the next. Either we should use government funds to benefit the working man, or we should allow the free market to play out. It seems the US has chosen to use government funds when billionaires investments are at stake. (for instance the shareholders in AIG, and Goldman Sachs) but when regular people need help, well that's just big government.
Nice, I would love to hear him explain that away.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
It's neither. Bailing out an institution is in the same vane as a loan. The funds are repaid as opposed to to spending money on projects and programs that will produce nothing. Even if you don't see it there is a difference.
Isn't there other means to get loans?

You are talking out both sides of your mouth either you believe in a true free market economy or you believe government has a role in helping out.

It's no gurantee those "loans" would be paid back or the free market would be happy to step in.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
Isn't there other means to get loans?

You are talking out both sides of your mouth either you believe in a true free market economy or you believe government has a role in helping out.

It's no gurantee those "loans" would be paid back or the free market would be happy to step in.
You couldn't be more wrong about knowing what I believe in. Everything isn't black or white in the area of too big to fail. A lot of factors are considered in these endeavors not the least of which is the domino effect to the entire system. Some structures have to be preserved but it isn't necessarily a pleasant undertaking. After you have spent years in dealing with matters of this type then you can venture a guess in what I believe.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
Isn't there other means to get loans?

You are talking out both sides of your mouth either you believe in a true free market economy or you believe government has a role in helping out.

It's no gurantee those "loans" would be paid back or the free market would be happy to step in.
Of course there are other means of obtaining loans but there are matters of preserving independent standards apart from common interests. This is one area where the government can be the financier and not be in conflict.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You couldn't be more wrong about knowing what I believe in. Everything isn't black or white in the area of too big to fail. A lot of factors are considered in these endeavors not the least of which is the domino effect to the entire system. Some structures have to be preserved but it isn't necessarily a pleasant undertaking. After you have spent years in dealing with matters of this type then you can venture a guess in what I believe.
I never professed to know what you believe in and everything is not black and white when it comes to anything government related incliudind social services.

Yet you have an excuse for one type of government relief but the other is TEH SOCIALISM.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Of course there are other means of obtaining loans but there are matters of preserving independent standards apart from common interests. This is one area where the government can be the financier and not be in conflict.
If the free market is not willing to give them loans then the should fail right.?

I mean government stepping in and investing capital in a private business is a form of socialism right?

Anytime the government steps in it's a conflict according to most republicans but it's good to see you don't think that way, at least when it comes to big business.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
I never professed to know what you believe in and everything is not black and white when it comes to anything government related incliudind social services.

Yet you have an excuse for one type of government relief but the other is TEH SOCIALISM.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways.
Social services are a million miles apart from what was discussed as government intervention. One is a system of payout and the other is an action of preservation to protect a larger system. You can't possibly think they are even close to being the same.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
If the free market is not willing to give them loans then the should fail right.?

I mean government stepping in and investing capital in a private business is a form of socialism right?

Anytime the government steps in it's a conflict according to most republicans but it's good to see you don't think that way, at least when it comes to big business.
Not necessarily because it may not be in the best interest of the free market to allow a take over by a company who may impair competition. As far as what most republicans think about something is of no consequence to me. That's why I say you have no idea what I think. Having conservative ideas is not an exclusively republican position.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
That's fine but I do mind putting in people who have a declared position that they will redistribute the wealth arbitrarily. They have no right to someone else's wealth.
That includes the Republicans, who will redistribute our wealth to banks and defense contractors.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
That includes the Republicans, who will redistribute our wealth to banks and defense contractors.
They might redistribute your tax responsibility but it doesn't belong to you or me. It's a debt each of us owe and it isn't part of our wealth. What I am referring to are owned asserts of individuals and entities. This is totally different than tax payments owed. In fact this is common practice for government and part of their duty. I can agree or disagree about how they allocate it however and so can you.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
They might redistribute your tax responsibility but it doesn't belong to you or me. It's a debt each of us owe and it isn't part of our wealth. What I am referring to are owned asserts of individuals and entities. This is totally different than tax payments owed. In fact this is common practice for government and part of their duty. I can agree or disagree about how they allocate it however and so can you.
So if gov't were to enact social health care and guarantee free college funded exclusively by tax revenue, would this be acceptable to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom