(07-24-2018 04:25 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  1. I'll take your word for it but your posting suggests otherwise.
2. See 1.
3. Yes it is. When you have no sustainable ideas you have to promise fee stuff and pit people of different economic backgrounds against each other. Dems are masters at it.
4. We as a nation have traded at a disadvantage for years under both parties. At some point we have to do something about that.
5. Not even close.

Promise free stuff (like a 12 billion dollar handout to farmers?)????

The idea that the democratic platform is about promising free stuff is a republican talking point. It's designed to pit conservatives against working class americans who have used temporary government benefits to take care of their families during tough economic times. It's designed to try to claim others are out there taking from you. When we start from there we can't have a reasonable discussion of the issues.

I promise I'm more aligned with Paul Ryan on an issue like Social Security than I am with Barack Obama, but because I believe a certain safety net benefits protect the American economy the argument is "you believe in handing out free stuff." It's not about free stuff. I think something like unemployment is great because it protects families when something unexpected happens (especially new, younger families who may not have the savings to withstand it yet). I think free lunch for children who can't afford it is great, because I don't think we should punish people who are helpless in the matter. These things cost money, but giving these kids an opportunity to be healthy and succeed is good for the long term viability of the country.

People's views are far more nuanced / complex than you want to make them and that includes the democratic party as a whole. They aren't running on a policy of "free stuff". They are running on personal liberty, strong middle class, access to affordable health care and a social safety net for when there are real issues... We can debate each policy and the merits of them. I quibble with plenty of Democrats on ideas for achieving these goals, but to reduce these goals to "giving away free stuff" is the kind of rhetoric that makes it impossible to have reasonable discussion of these issues.

Personal liberty includes getting in peoples faces in restaurants, hitting people in the head with bike locks and stifling free speech on campuses, that kind of personal liberty? Strong middle class, you mean the bitter deplorables clinging to their guns, Bible and antipathy to people that don't look like them, that kind of strong middle class? Access to affordable health care, you mean like the ridiculously named "Affordable Care Act" they rammed through in the dark of Christmas eve? That same "Affordable Care Act" that has nearly quintupled my monthly premiums and just pasted me with a $13,000 deductible, that affordable health care? So affordable I can't afford to use it. Neat. And that Social safety "Net" that millions of able-bodied people and generation after generation use instead as a hammock? The same social safety net that acts as a magnet to the border jumpers and has 40 million people now on food stamps? That social safety net?

Admittedly, that'd be a pretty impressive list of things they are running on, if they were actually running on any of it.

(07-24-2018 03:07 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 02:56 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Bad trade policies lead to predictable, economic issues that hurt farmers (among many others)... So we have the government spend more money to combat our predictably bad policies.

How many more times will the government have to provide direct aid to combat these predictably bad trade policies?

It will likely stop the moment we stop implementing predictably bad trade policies, and when other countries stop cheating. We've got a guy in office right now willing to do something about both of them. Refreshing.

These issues are literally the direct result of what they guy in office is doing.

Literally?

No basically or let me be clear?

These are the things I ponder

(07-24-2018 03:37 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  5. Trump isn't liberal or conservative...he is authoritarian.

Lmmfao... just... damn.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

STOP IT DUNK! You're making too much sense for a Libturd to grasp it.

you'd much rather let the farmer's starve? i think he should help them out. whether you agree with his version of making america great or not, he undeniably has the ego to make it happen. it'll be the capstone of his legacy and he'll go to the grave one way or the other knowing it's true

(07-24-2018 06:31 PM)Noobalance Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:37 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  5. Trump isn't liberal or conservative...he is authoritarian.

Lmmfao... just... damn.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Unhinged. Great comedic value.

(07-24-2018 03:54 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I don't like tariffs

I don't like subsidies

I don't like emergency aid.

Normally, I'd completely agree with you.

However.

In this case, we're talking about decades of policies that have lead to huge trade deficits and allowed (what could be argued) unfair trade practices by other countries. Trump has decided to do something about it. While I personally don't agree with "trade wars", he's decided to take the bull by the horns and try and do something about it. Considering this, it's unfair for farmers and certain other segments to carry the full brunt of the trade war.

If Trump is going to rip the proverbial bandage off in one pull, it's fair and right to at least give them something for the pain.

So would this be considered Republican regulation (of the soybean business) or would it instead be considered Republican welfare?

(07-24-2018 04:25 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  1. I'll take your word for it but your posting suggests otherwise.
2. See 1.
3. Yes it is. When you have no sustainable ideas you have to promise fee stuff and pit people of different economic backgrounds against each other. Dems are masters at it.
4. We as a nation have traded at a disadvantage for years under both parties. At some point we have to do something about that.
5. Not even close.

Promise free stuff (like a 12 billion dollar handout to farmers?)????

The idea that the democratic platform is about promising free stuff is a republican talking point. It's designed to pit conservatives against working class americans who have used temporary government benefits to take care of their families during tough economic times. It's designed to try to claim others are out there taking from you. When we start from there we can't have a reasonable discussion of the issues.

I promise I'm more aligned with Paul Ryan on an issue like Social Security than I am with Barack Obama, but because I believe a certain safety net benefits protect the American economy the argument is "you believe in handing out free stuff." It's not about free stuff. I think something like unemployment is great because it protects families when something unexpected happens (especially new, younger families who may not have the savings to withstand it yet). I think free lunch for children who can't afford it is great, because I don't think we should punish people who are helpless in the matter. These things cost money, but giving these kids an opportunity to be healthy and succeed is good for the long term viability of the country.

People's views are far more nuanced / complex than you want to make them and that includes the democratic party as a whole. They aren't running on a policy of "free stuff". They are running on personal liberty, strong middle class, access to affordable health care and a social safety net for when there are real issues... We can debate each policy and the merits of them. I quibble with plenty of Democrats on ideas for achieving these goals, but to reduce these goals to "giving away free stuff" is the kind of rhetoric that makes it impossible to have reasonable discussion of these issues.

Got news for you a lot of conservatives are working class and if the welfare system was used strictly as temporary I don't think many of us would have an issue with it however when you see what I've seen in my lifetime where folks make welfare a way of life your view on it changes somewhat. Welfare is funded by taxes, I pay taxes so how do you figure it is not taking from me. Add folks coming to this country illegally and hooking up to the umbilical cord and it's worse.

The party that continues to chip away at the 2nd amendment, continues to label people as racist when their views don't align what is politically correct at the time, the party that constantly tries to take more of what folks earn to distribute to others, the party that is moving more and more to being openly socialist, that is the party you see as running on personal liberty? Want personal liberty? Limit government.

Strong middle class? That's what they say but every program they implement takes from the middle class. Obamacare was set up to fail and the architect of it even stated it. Want to make healthcare affordable? Limit governments role.

(07-25-2018 07:37 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Got news for you a lot of conservatives are working class and if the welfare system was used strictly as temporary I don't think many of us would have an issue with it however when you see what I've seen in my lifetime where folks make welfare a way of life your view on it changes somewhat. Welfare is funded by taxes, I pay taxes so how do you figure it is not taking from me. Add folks coming to this country illegally and hooking up to the umbilical cord and it's worse.
The party that continues to chip away at the 2nd amendment, continues to label people as racist when their views don't align what is politically correct at the time, the party that constantly tries to take more of what folks earn to distribute to others, the party that is moving more and more to being openly socialist, that is the party you see as running on personal liberty? Want personal liberty? Limit government.
Strong middle class? That's what they say but every program they implement takes from the middle class. Obamacare was set up to fail and the architect of it even stated it. Want to make healthcare affordable? Limit governments role.

Democrats screw the working classes (primary middle and upwardly mobile) to redistribute to their non-working voting class. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you cam keep 'em voting democrat."

I support social welfare based on providing a basic safety net (Bismarck universal private health care, plus a subsistence-level guaranteed basic income following either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model), funded by lower and flatter and broader taxes, including a consumption tax. Everybody benefits, everybody pays, and people who work live better than people who don't work.

(07-24-2018 10:26 PM)Lush Wrote:  you'd much rather let the farmer's starve? i think he should help them out. whether you agree with his version of making america great or not, he undeniably has the ego to make it happen. it'll be the capstone of his legacy and he'll go to the grave one way or the other knowing it's true

XACLY!

I'm at a loss on any uproar.....

ol' boy is fightin' for the common......

it's his Carnegie momento.....how nobody has recognized that is beyond me......

he's lived his life of luxury and extravagance...............now it's time to give it back in all that was learned along the way.......

#MYMAN

(07-25-2018 06:57 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  So would this be considered Republican regulation (of the soybean business) or would it instead be considered Republican welfare?

Its considered winning. Get used to it.

(07-24-2018 03:37 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  5. Trump isn't liberal or conservative...he is authoritarian.

He was elected President of the United States. What do you want, a cream puff?

(07-24-2018 05:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:25 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  1. I'll take your word for it but your posting suggests otherwise.
2. See 1.
3. Yes it is. When you have no sustainable ideas you have to promise fee stuff and pit people of different economic backgrounds against each other. Dems are masters at it.
4. We as a nation have traded at a disadvantage for years under both parties. At some point we have to do something about that.
5. Not even close.

Promise free stuff (like a 12 billion dollar handout to farmers?)????

The idea that the democratic platform is about promising free stuff is a republican talking point. It's designed to pit conservatives against working class americans who have used temporary government benefits to take care of their families during tough economic times. It's designed to try to claim others are out there taking from you. When we start from there we can't have a reasonable discussion of the issues.

I promise I'm more aligned with Paul Ryan on an issue like Social Security than I am with Barack Obama, but because I believe a certain safety net benefits protect the American economy the argument is "you believe in handing out free stuff." It's not about free stuff. I think something like unemployment is great because it protects families when something unexpected happens (especially new, younger families who may not have the savings to withstand it yet). I think free lunch for children who can't afford it is great, because I don't think we should punish people who are helpless in the matter. These things cost money, but giving these kids an opportunity to be healthy and succeed is good for the long term viability of the country.

People's views are far more nuanced / complex than you want to make them and that includes the democratic party as a whole. They aren't running on a policy of "free stuff". They are running on personal liberty, strong middle class, access to affordable health care and a social safety net for when there are real issues... We can debate each policy and the merits of them. I quibble with plenty of Democrats on ideas for achieving these goals, but to reduce these goals to "giving away free stuff" is the kind of rhetoric that makes it impossible to have reasonable discussion of these issues.

Personal liberty includes getting in peoples faces in restaurants, hitting people in the head with bike locks and stifling free speech on campuses, that kind of personal liberty? Strong middle class, you mean the bitter deplorables clinging to their guns, Bible and antipathy to people that don't look like them, that kind of strong middle class? Access to affordable health care, you mean like the ridiculously named "Affordable Care Act" they rammed through in the dark of Christmas eve? That’s t same "Affordable Care Act" that has nearly quintupled my monthly premiums and just pasted me with a $13,000 deductible, that affordable health care? So affordable I can't afford to use it. Neat. And that Social safety "Net" that millions of able-bodied people and generation after generation use instead as a hammock? The same social safety net that acts as a magnet to the border jumpers and has 40 million people now on food stamps? That social safety net?


Admittedly, that'd be a pretty impressive list of things they are running on, if they were actually running on any of it.

That’s Trump Care homeboy.......

Republicans have been doing EVERYTHING in the world to dismantle health care and to raise premiums.......

Well guess what? It’s worked. You can’t call it Obamacare anymore. Remember the orange haired liar in chief saying they repealed Obamacare? Do you want me to find the quotes? I will. The Rethuglicans have all 3 branches and have been whacking away at it for 6 years. Don’t ***** when they have succeeded and YOU voted for them.

Trump didn’t give you a better health care plan that was cheaper and that you would love???

You’re kidding me right? You guys have all 3 branches and he said you would love the changes?

Why don’t you love it JMU? Trump didn’t lie to you did he?