Please Dems, listen to him....

(08-06-2018 02:12 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  



Please Dems, listen to him....

Nah, nice try. When I saw the list of attendees, my response was 'hell no'. Nah, I'll just work for Beto, and Lupe, and Todd Litton and Mike Collier and all the Dems that can actually win a primary.

By the way, I like Markos. But I ain't listening to that mess.

Its a damn circular firing squad, if you ask me. Heck, our resident blowhard went over there to disrupt the proceedings so he could lecture a bunch of liberals about how racist they are. Trust me, this stuff is so fifth derivative that even I, with decades of experience at meetings like this, have trouble understanding it. And quite frankly, I've heard the blowhard's speech so many times I can probably give it as well as he does. I'm sure there's a time and a place for awareness training. But right now, I'm not interested in anything but electing Democrats. I'm busy right now.

(08-06-2018 02:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 02:12 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  



Please Dems, listen to him....

Nah, nice try. When I saw the list of attendees, my response was 'hell no'. Nah, I'll just work for Beto, and Lupe, and Todd Litton and Mike Collier and all the Dems that can actually win a primary.

By the way, I like Markos. But I ain't listening to that mess.

Its a damn circular firing squad, if you ask me. Heck, our resident blowhard went over there to disrupt the proceedings so he could lecture a bunch of liberals about how racist they are. Trust me, this stuff is so fifth derivative that even I, with decades of experience at meetings like this, have trouble understanding it. And quite frankly, I've heard the blowhard's speech so many times I can probably give it as well as he does. I'm sure there's a time and a place for awareness training. But right now, I'm not interested in anything but electing Democrats. I'm busy right now.

I hope you are as effective getting people in the general populous to vote Democrat as you are here.

Bwahahahaha

You should be on the GOP payroll.

Cynthia Nixon, in reference to socialism:

"So we might as well give them the real thing!"

(08-06-2018 02:12 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  



Please Dems, listen to him....

Why do they keep talking about health care? Obama fixed it right?

(08-06-2018 03:21 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Cynthia Nixon, in reference to socialism:

"So we might as well give them the real thing!"

And Ms Nixon is telling the truth, in that most of you guys don't seem to be able to tell the difference between fair taxation and sensible regulation and real socialism. That I had no problem with. If you think Obama or Hillary were socialists, then that opens the door to real socialists.


I was more perturbed by the actions of a particular Houstonian who went over there, disrupted the procedings and made a general jerk of himself.

(08-06-2018 04:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And Ms Nixon is telling the truth, in that most of you guys don't seem to be able to tell the difference between fair taxation and sensible regulation and real socialism. That I had no problem with. If you think Obama or Hillary were socialists, then that opens the door to real socialists.
I was more perturbed by the actions of a particular Houstonian who went over there, disrupted the procedings and made a general jerk of himself.

Here's what you don't seem to grasp. I don't want to open the door to Obama and Hillary. Whether they are "real socialists" or not, they are way too damn close for my comfort. You do have one point, in that one of my real worries about Trump is that he will piss people off the way GWB did, and pave the way for one of those people that you would consider a "real socialist."

As far as "fair taxation and sensible regulation," we would strongly disagree over the meanings of the words "fair" and "sensible" in that construction. I would say that fair taxation means, at a minimum, not taxing at higher rates than other developed countries, and we are a long way from there, even after closing the gap quite a bit on the corporate side (where it was probably a bigger problem). The only way to balance the budget (another requirement of mine) without confiscatory tax rates is to implement a consumption tax (which also helps level the international trade playing field). As far as regulations go, I would define "sensible" as having a reasonable relationship to some useful outcome, instead of just make-work hassle stuff, which comprises about 1/2 or so of our current regulations. And I would make the forum for deciding disputes with a particular regulation something other than an appearance before an ALJ who reports ultimately to the executive director of the agency. For both taxes and regulations, if they are barriers that are driving investment and jobs away (and at this point they both are), then I have to question seriously whether they are "fair" or "sensible" or "reasonable."

(08-06-2018 04:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And Ms Nixon is telling the truth, in that most of you guys don't seem to be able to tell the difference between fair taxation and sensible regulation and real socialism. That I had no problem with. If you think Obama or Hillary were socialists, then that opens the door to real socialists.

Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed. But now, Democrat Socialism will succeed?

History says otherwise. All of history.

(08-07-2018 08:26 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And Ms Nixon is telling the truth, in that most of you guys don't seem to be able to tell the difference between fair taxation and sensible regulation and real socialism. That I had no problem with. If you think Obama or Hillary were socialists, then that opens the door to real socialists.

Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed. But now, Democrat Socialism will succeed?

History says otherwise. All of history.

And, Hillary and Obama are to the right of just about every popularly elected government on planet Earth.

When you see those names, you see Obama and Hillary. When I see those names, I see a LOT more of Donald Trump than I do of Obama and Hillary.

From press freedom, to respect for minority/dissenting views, to scapegoating, to personality cults, to the truth, to xenophobia, to religious freedom, to corruption, etc....pretty much all of the names on your list plus Trump have the same general views on the validity of those concepts.

(08-06-2018 02:45 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 02:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 02:12 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  



Please Dems, listen to him....

Nah, nice try. When I saw the list of attendees, my response was 'hell no'. Nah, I'll just work for Beto, and Lupe, and Todd Litton and Mike Collier and all the Dems that can actually win a primary.

By the way, I like Markos. But I ain't listening to that mess.

Its a damn circular firing squad, if you ask me. Heck, our resident blowhard went over there to disrupt the proceedings so he could lecture a bunch of liberals about how racist they are. Trust me, this stuff is so fifth derivative that even I, with decades of experience at meetings like this, have trouble understanding it. And quite frankly, I've heard the blowhard's speech so many times I can probably give it as well as he does. I'm sure there's a time and a place for awareness training. But right now, I'm not interested in anything but electing Democrats. I'm busy right now.

I hope you are as effective getting people in the general populous to vote Democrat as you are here.

Bwahahahaha

You should be on the GOP payroll.

You're not reachable. America isn't a Republican or Democratic nation as much as it is a NON-VOTING nation. We don't need to convert Republicans to win, we simply need Democrats to show up and vote. There are way more Democratic leaning voters than there are Republicans.

(08-07-2018 10:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You're not reachable. America isn't a Republican or Democratic nation as much as it is a NON-VOTING nation. We don't need to convert Republicans to win, we simply need Democrats to show up and vote. There are way more Democratic leaning voters than there are Republicans.

As long as it's all about free handouts, I agree. It's like Obamacare, we kept hearing about how people liked most of it. Yeah, they liked the parts where they got something "free," but didn't like the parts where they had to pay. This isn't rocket science. You can rob from Peter to pay Paul, and in the process buy Paul's vote. But when Peter decides he's had enough and takes his money out, you end up as Venezuela.

That's why I favor a balanced budget. If "free" things have to be paid for, then you get reality into the picture. As long as there is a trillion-dollar deficit (or nearly so) then it really doesn't matter. But until things have to be paid for, the more "free" stuff the better. But sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money.

(08-07-2018 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You're not reachable. America isn't a Republican or Democratic nation as much as it is a NON-VOTING nation. We don't need to convert Republicans to win, we simply need Democrats to show up and vote. There are way more Democratic leaning voters than there are Republicans.

As long as it's all about free handouts, I agree. It's like Obamacare, we kept hearing about how people liked most of it. Yeah, they liked the parts where they got something "free," but didn't like the parts where they had to pay. This isn't rocket science. You can rob from Peter to pay Paul, and in the process buy Paul's vote. But when Peter decides he's had enough and takes his money out, you end up as Venezuela.

That's why I favor a balanced budget. If "free" things have to be paid for, then you get reality into the picture. As long as there is a trillion-dollar deficit (or nearly so) then it really doesn't matter. But until things have to be paid for, the more "free" stuff the better. But sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money.

How are the Republicans better on balancing the budget? They clearly haven't been in the last 20 years.

We do plenty of giveaways under the GOP.

But I, and I think most Americans don't wistfully want a return to the 1890s, where there was no social net. Want a more modern example. Mexico! Yes, Mexico. Lower effective tax collection rate, no effective social net, far fewer enforced regulations, etc. And Mexico has LOTS of very wealthy people. But its highly unstable, politically, precisely due to the fact that 60 percent of Mexicans have no reason to maintain the status quo.

I like Mexico. But I wouldn't want my country to repeat the mistakes that Mexico did. For me, I see Mexico as the real model that the GOP is after.

(08-07-2018 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  How are the Republicans better on balancing the budget? They clearly haven't been in the last 20 years.

They're not. They're simply democrat lite when the rubber meets the road. That's why I'm not a republican

Quote:We do plenty of giveaways under the GOP.
But I, and I think most Americans don't wistfully want a return to the 1890s, where there was no social net. Want a more modern example. Mexico! Yes, Mexico. Lower effective tax collection rate, no effective social net, far fewer enforced regulations, etc. And Mexico has LOTS of very wealthy people. But its highly unstable, politically, precisely due to the fact that 60 percent of Mexicans have no reason to maintain the status quo.
I like Mexico. But I wouldn't want my country to repeat the mistakes that Mexico did. For me, I see Mexico as the real model that the GOP is after.

Could you live with Switzerland?

I have no desire to become Mexico. But I think democrats are more likely to lead us there than republicans. The kind of class warfare that democrats push--everybody against the "rich"--is exactly how Mexico got into trouble. And democrats are definitely more likely to lead us to Venezuela, where I don't want to go either.

Europe provides a more comprehensive welfare safety net, and also affords more tax efficient returns for investors, than we do. Of course, European "socialism" is really more fascism than socialism, at least economically. But then again, the American left fell in love with fascism and loved Mussolini in the 1930s.

I say Bismarck universal private health care and a universal basic income, funded by consumption taxes. How does that lead to Mexico? Hint: It doesn't. People who work should live better than people who don't work, treat your friends better than you treat your enemies, and never fight a war that you don't intend to win. If anything, it leads us to Switzerland.