Jussie Smollett Charged with False Report

This is where old posts that do not fit into any of the new forum categories are dumped.
User avatar
COR-TEN
Posts: 11287
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Re: Jussie Smollett Charged with False Report

Post by COR-TEN » Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:33 pm

Still Lit wrote:
Kodiak wrote:
Donnie Brasco wrote:It's almost like Chicago has been run by a certain faction for 20+ years....


#1 in public corruption. A study tallied 1531 convictions since 1976 - that's almost 40 per year! We're talking about a town that re-elected Jesse Jackson Jr despite him being in prison....

On a related note, NY and IL were not far behind. But a little bird told me socialism doesn't lead to more corruption.....


Are you saying that Chicago is a "socialist" city? Or that IL is a socialist state?

I have to assume that an economist of your stature knows the difference between social insurance programs (Medicare, social security, pensions) and a socialist economic system (public ownership of the means of production, e.g., a Venezuelan regime controlling the oil industry).

Come on, man! At least be sincere when you insult people. :D

EDIT: I have to assume also that you know that corruption in Chicago and Illinois politics is a grand and storied American Tradition dating back to the 19th century.
Hell, not only in Chi Town. NYC has some cred as far as corruption goes. Boss Tweed and Tammany hall come to mind (and I'll let our resident partisan members to remind us that it was the democratic party).

Saw a play with Ed Norton there. Burn This, it was called, at the old tammany hall theater, where politicians yelled at each other in the 1800's. But corruption exists in every form of government. Removing responsibility from government just moves the corruption from point A to point B.



Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:20 am

Still Lit wrote:I have to assume that an economist of your stature knows the difference between social insurance programs (Medicare, social security, pensions) and a socialist economic system



I'm only saying that the most liberal cities in America are also the most corrupt....

And the line between social insurance programs and socialism is very, very thin. It's all still socialism, and with that comes higher taxes, lower employment and lower wages. Fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:34 am

Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:I have to assume that an economist of your stature knows the difference between social insurance programs (Medicare, social security, pensions) and a socialist economic system



I'm only saying that the most liberal cities in America are also the most corrupt....

And the line between social insurance programs and socialism is very, very thin. It's all still socialism, and with that comes higher taxes, lower employment and lower wages. Fact.


But it’s an important line that matters and one that ought to be acknowledged unless one is merely more interested in winning a debate than having an earnest discussion.

You know that social insurance programs are far afield from state or public ownership of production. Unless you just wish to call liberal policy socialism.

And your implication was not that liberal policy corrupts, but that socialism does.

Again, i’m not taking a position. I’m practicing semantic and logical hygiene.

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:32 pm

Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:I have to assume that an economist of your stature knows the difference between social insurance programs (Medicare, social security, pensions) and a socialist economic system



I'm only saying that the most liberal cities in America are also the most corrupt....

And the line between social insurance programs and socialism is very, very thin. It's all still socialism, and with that comes higher taxes, lower employment and lower wages. Fact.


The fact of the matter is, nearly all cities lean left. Some more than others, but it's pretty much true across the board, even in the south. So the fact that Chicago and perhaps NYC are more "corrupt" speaks more to me about the size and history of those cities than the political party associated with them. As Lit pointed out, Chicago had issues with corruption modern day politics took hold. Al Capone owned the city and openly flaunted it for the whole world to see. It's nothing new and it goes beyond blue or red politics.

And for the record, states like North Carolina and Florida are pretty fucking corrupt in their own right.

My wife and I give nearly 40% of what we make to the government. It pays for roads, public schools, healthcare, and helps the less fortunate. We are good with that. There's no way we would ever see that money anyway, so we just consider our salaries to be 60% of our gross income and financially plan accordingly. I realize we are blessed to be able to look at it like that and not everyone is as lucky. But that just furthers my belief and acceptance in paying my share.

A few years back, I heard someone call into a radio show and complain that his mother, who was elderly, shouldn't have to pay school taxes because she had no children attending school. That her children, including the caller, presumably attended public school, was totally lost on him. As was the concept of finding value in an educated society. And he completely ignored the social programs from which his mother benefited that were being funded by other tax payers. Though this doesn't directly relate to medicare for all, the concepts are the same. And I believe this guy's point of view is representative of the opinions of a considerable number of voters.

I'll engage in a bit of hyperbole to further my point... do you want to defund roadways? Public hospitals? State-run elder care? Public transportation? Public schools (Betsy DeVos would probably have a thing or two to say in response here...)? Where does the socialism begin and where does the cutting end? Do you advocate turning the entire country into the Wild West?

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:41 pm

My wife and I give nearly 40% of what we make to the government.


And there are a lot of people in this country that would still say you are not paying your “fair share”...
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

User avatar
COR-TEN
Posts: 11287
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Post by COR-TEN » Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:56 pm

Amazon paid zero taxes. A trillion dollar company. What tax liability did shareholders have? In total?

Dumpster has had refunds and plenty of tax cuts/ loopholes to take advantage of just like other wealthy people. The most recent cut he signed gave himself like $30 M. Corporations bought back stock, instead of injecting that capital into the economy.

Off shore corporate tax shelters hide how much money? Trickle down doesn't work. The last forty years of shit has proven this.

I can get on board with reducing taxes for the individual. But whatever measly tax cut was given to individual tax payers will expire, while corporate cuts are permanent. Why is that?

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:06 pm

Corporations bought back stock, instead of injecting that capital into the economy.


And they also gave out bonuses, raised wages, increased paid time off, among other things.

They didn’t just buy back shares.
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

User avatar
COR-TEN
Posts: 11287
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Post by COR-TEN » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:15 pm

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/invest ... index.html

Yeah, it's CNN, so fake news.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/econom ... ts-n886621

Over the past year, S&P 500 companies have given their shareholders a record $1 trillion in the form of buybacks and dividends, led by Apple, Cisco Systems, and other technology giants.

Stock repurchases hit nearly $190 billion in the first quarter for the S&P 500, according to preliminary results from S&P Dow Jones Indices. The last time that record was set was just before the Great Recession, when companies bought up almost $172 billion of buybacks.

Compounding the issue is a recent study by the Office of SEC Commissioner Robert Jackson that found that a stock buyback announcement often leads to a short-term stock price pop, which corporate insiders use to cash out their shares.


More lies, I suppose?

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:28 pm

I didn’t suggest stock buybacks don’t happen. I said that is not all companies have done or do.

You focus on one thing as if companies have not done anything else.

And lots of regular folks have exposure to these stocks via IRAs, 401ks, 403Bs, pensions etc. and benefit from such actions.
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:16 pm

One thing many liberals don't seem to understand is that there are a lot of conservatives who oppose paying higher taxes on the grounds that a lot of the tax money is spent in dumb ways, on dumb shit, and gets poor outcomes on the investment. It's not that they are greedy assholes who don't care about others. If the taxes were not in their eyes wasted, they would not mind paying them because, hell, you cold feel good about it then.

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:30 pm

Still Lit wrote:One thing many liberals don't seem to understand is that there are a lot of conservatives who oppose paying higher taxes on the grounds that a lot of the tax money is spent in dumb ways, on dumb shit, and gets poor outcomes on the investment. It's not that they are greedy assholes who don't care about others. If the taxes were not in their eyes wasted, they would not mind paying them because, hell, you cold feel good about it then.


Ding ding.

I understand why we are taxed. I just HATE seeing my tax dollars wasted. And I see plenty of that living in CA. Like supplying needles to drug addicts on my dime and then taking more of my money to clean said needles up. And when that’s not working doubling down on stupid by proposing tax payer funded “shooting galleries” so these people will stop shooting up on the streets.

Or the extremely expensive “bullet train” debacle.

I suppose as long as the gubmint leaves enough of my earnings in pocket to keep the pool heated and a new Bimmer in the garage every few years I can’t complain too much.
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

Donnie Brasco
Posts: 5644
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:53 am

Post by Donnie Brasco » Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:00 pm

Still Lit wrote:One thing many liberals don't seem to understand is that there are a lot of conservatives who oppose paying higher taxes on the grounds that a lot of the tax money is spent in dumb ways, on dumb shit, and gets poor outcomes on the investment. It's not that they are greedy assholes who don't care about others. If the taxes were not in their eyes wasted, they would not mind paying them because, hell, you cold feel good about it then.


Thank you

There's so much mismanagement and waste of dollars that it makes me not want to keep giving. It's like the heroin addict who claims they need $500 so they won't get evicted, but you know deep down it's going to another hit

I'd gladly pay 40%+ or more of my income if it meant the roads were paved and there was no more homelessness- those are the right things to do for the betterment of my community I live in.

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:45 pm

Still Lit wrote:One thing many liberals don't seem to understand is that there are a lot of conservatives who oppose paying higher taxes on the grounds that a lot of the tax money is spent in dumb ways, on dumb shit, and gets poor outcomes on the investment. It's not that they are greedy assholes who don't care about others. If the taxes were not in their eyes wasted, they would not mind paying them because, hell, you cold feel good about it then.


This is a good, valid point. It's one of the reasons I can have amicable disagreements with conservatives on fiscal policy.

It is also worth noting that a great many conservatives do not feel that it is their responsibility to pay for social services for their fellow citizens. In their case, it is a lack of empathy and I do interpret it as greed. See: Grover Norquist, the Koch Brothers, et al. In other words, the most powerful people in the Republican party.

On the Amazon thing... I'm torn on corporate taxes. On one hand, they're making a lot of dough that is arguably taxable. On the other, the government is taking their share in the form of income taxation when Amazon pays its employees.

But as far as raising wages or treating its employees humanely, Amazon is a fraud. They raised wages last year, yes, but to pay for it they cut bonuses, overtime, and holiday pay, among other things. Employee compensation was largely unaffected one way or the other. Walmart did the same thing, or some variation thereof.

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:22 pm

It is also worth noting that a great many conservatives do not feel that it is their responsibility to pay for social services for their fellow citizens. In their case, it is a lack of empathy and I do interpret it as greed.


Huge difference in paying for social services for those truly in need vs paying for social services for those who have chosen it’s much more convenient for them to rely on the hard work of others.

Do you still consider it “greed” when people do not wish to fund a person that is doing little to nothing to better their own situation?

Someone else’s lack of regard for their own well being should not become another’s financial responsibility or emergency.
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:50 am

955876 wrote:
It is also worth noting that a great many conservatives do not feel that it is their responsibility to pay for social services for their fellow citizens. In their case, it is a lack of empathy and I do interpret it as greed.


Huge difference in paying for social services for those truly in need vs paying for social services for those who have chosen it’s much more convenient for them to rely on the hard work of others.

Do you still consider it “greed” when people do not wish to fund a person that is doing little to nothing to better their own situation?

Someone else’s lack of regard for their own well being should not become another’s financial responsibility or emergency.


Those are valid points. I think where we disagree is how to solve those problems. And I think we know by now that we have to agree to disagree. ;)

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:02 am

955876 wrote:Huge difference in paying for social services for those truly in need vs paying for social services for those who have chosen it’s much more convenient for them to rely on the hard work of others.


I think that's a bit of a fallacy, unless I misunderstand what you're saying. IMO, the far bigger issue is "free shit" simply because people would rather spend their money on something else.

"Free college" isn't an issue with student loans readily available - if college is a good investment for you, then this is simply a non-issue. Entire other thread, but I was arguing this somewhere else a few years ago and the research showed that, on average, college was still a better ROI even after student loans vs. countries that have free college. We aren't talking a huge gap - and we're talking, on average - but the math doesn't indicate the loans/tuition are somehow oppresive.

"Free healthcare" is the really dubious one. Let's ignore the pre-existing conditions - real problem that was awful. But the issue is there's no utility derived from buying insurance (until/unless you need it). So in many cases it's not that people can't afford insurance, they just don't feel a tangible benefit and would instead rather spend that money on a more expensive car, house, tv, travel, etc...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:08 am

Laying the Wood wrote:The fact of the matter is, nearly all cities lean left.


You mean big metropolitans. The above statement is, otherwise, obviously absurd.

Bigger govt almost always and everywhere leads to more corruption....not to mention more waste. The Founders understood this, which is why our govt was built around state rights.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:15 am

Still Lit wrote:But it’s an important line that matters and one that ought to be acknowledged unless one is merely more interested in winning a debate than having an earnest discussion.


That's a distinction without a difference. I hear this pseudo-intellectualism a lot, and it is completely ignorant of how things really work. The govt doesn't need to actually make decisions in the Board Room to control a company or industry - they can do that quite well indirectly via taxation and regulation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

SteelPro
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Post by SteelPro » Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:16 am

Kodiak wrote:
955876 wrote:Huge difference in paying for social services for those truly in need vs paying for social services for those who have chosen it’s much more convenient for them to rely on the hard work of others.


I think that's a bit of a fallacy, unless I misunderstand what you're saying. IMO, the far bigger issue is "free shit" simply because people would rather spend their money on something else.

"Free college" isn't an issue with student loans readily available - if college is a good investment for you, then this is simply a non-issue. Entire other thread, but I was arguing this somewhere else a few years ago and the research showed that, on average, college was still a better ROI even after student loans vs. countries that have free college. We aren't talking a huge gap - and we're talking, on average - but the math doesn't indicate the loans/tuition are somehow oppresive.

"Free healthcare" is the really dubious one. Let's ignore the pre-existing conditions - real problem that was awful. But the issue is there's no utility derived from buying insurance (until/unless you need it). So in many cases it's not that people can't afford insurance, they just don't feel a tangible benefit and would instead rather spend that money on a more expensive car, house, tv, travel, etc...

And thus you are making the argument that these freebies are actually good for the economy. Expansionary policy and Keynesian theory 101.

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:33 pm

Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:But it’s an important line that matters and one that ought to be acknowledged unless one is merely more interested in winning a debate than having an earnest discussion.


That's a distinction without a difference. I hear this pseudo-intellectualism a lot, and it is completely ignorant of how things really work. The govt doesn't need to actually make decisions in the Board Room to control a company or industry - they can do that quite well indirectly via taxation and regulation.


Ownership of the means of production is not the same thing as social insurance programs funded by tax dollars. Those things are completely different.

So, you are just interested in scoring points and are not interested in acknowledging a real distinction in kinds and apparently don't care what words mean.

The idea that regulation is the same thing as running a company and controlling the means of production are all the same is risible.

You have an MA in econ. I know that you know what a socialism as a government run economic model means. Stop it.

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:08 pm

Kodiak wrote:
Laying the Wood wrote:The fact of the matter is, nearly all cities lean left.


You mean big metropolitans. The above statement is, otherwise, obviously absurd.

Bigger govt almost always and everywhere leads to more corruption....not to mention more waste. The Founders understood this, which is why our govt was built around state rights.


How big do you want me to specify? Pittsburgh is not New York or Chicago by any stretch, but it votes blue. And sure, you want me to call them "major metropolitan areas", fine.

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:10 pm

Still Lit wrote:
Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:But it’s an important line that matters and one that ought to be acknowledged unless one is merely more interested in winning a debate than having an earnest discussion.


That's a distinction without a difference. I hear this pseudo-intellectualism a lot, and it is completely ignorant of how things really work. The govt doesn't need to actually make decisions in the Board Room to control a company or industry - they can do that quite well indirectly via taxation and regulation.


Ownership of the means of production is not the same thing as social insurance programs funded by tax dollars. Those things are completely different.

So, you are just interested in scoring points and are not interested in acknowledging a real distinction in kinds and apparently don't care what words mean.

The idea that regulation is the same thing as running a company and controlling the means of production are all the same is risible.

You have an MA in econ. I know that you know what a socialism as a government run economic model means. Stop it.


That's a lot to cede to someone with whom you are arguing on the internet.

User avatar
COR-TEN
Posts: 11287
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Post by COR-TEN » Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:34 pm

Still Lit wrote:Ownership of the means of production is not the same thing as social insurance programs funded by tax dollars. Those things are completely different.

So, you are just interested in scoring points and are not interested in acknowledging a real distinction in kinds and apparently don't care what words mean.

The idea that regulation is the same thing as running a company and controlling the means of production are all the same is risible.

You have an MA in econ. I know that you know what a socialism as a government run economic model means. Stop it.
This is typical though. Ideology trumps facts, definitions are tweaked to fit the narrative, and false equivalencies run rampant. Add hyperbole (invasion), red herrings (Kaepernick), logical fallacies (trickle down works), and double standards (security clearances for jared, unsecured phones). This is why I call it "willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest." I can't blame people for being stupid (intellectually weak), but there are far too many with half a brain that are still propagating lies and mischaracterizations.

And to think liberalism allows for more corruption is preposterous and absurd. Corruption has existed since government was invented, no matter how big, no matter what type. The question is : who is more corrupt?

In the last 50+ years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28.

In their 25 yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one (1) conviction and one prison sentence. that's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership.

In the 28 yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials, 89 criminal convictions, and 34 prison sentences handed down.

Obama - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.

Bush, George W. - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.

Clinton - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.

Bush, George H. W. - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.

Reagan - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.

Carter - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.

Ford - 4yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence.

Nixon - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.

Johnson - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.


And it should be noted that density in liberal urban environments is greater. Corruption will be more rampant since you know, there are more people there. Further, lets not forget how much waste the private sector generates. Waste that future generations will have to cope with both in the environment and social inequality/ disenfranchisement.

No law that would have been constitutional before the Tenth Amendment was ratified becomes unconstitutional simply because the Tenth Amendment exists. The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that basically says that any power that is not given to the federal government is given to the people or the states.
Most people don't really know what states' rights even means or how it is applied.

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:25 pm

Kodiak wrote:
955876 wrote:Huge difference in paying for social services for those truly in need vs paying for social services for those who have chosen it’s much more convenient for them to rely on the hard work of others.


I think that's a bit of a fallacy, unless I misunderstand what you're saying


I’m saying there is a difference between someone that finds themselves in an adverse situation and needs some social assistance and those that have chosen to make a life leeching off social assistance.
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

User avatar
jebrick
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:59 pm

Post by jebrick » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:45 pm

Much like the farmers getting paid for selling their crops for the food stamp program plus getting paid to fallow their fields. Welfare comes in many forms.
"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

- Mark Twain

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:36 pm

LMFAO @ Cor-Ten if you actually believe an indictment or in Obama’s case lack of any indictments is all the proof one needs to determine corruption within an administration.
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:30 am

logical fallacies (trickle down works), and double standards (security clearances for jared, unsecured phones). This is why I call it "willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest." I can't blame people for being stupid (intellectually weak), but there are far too many with half a brain that are still propagating lies and mischaracterizations.


So I’m assuming you can show that redistribution and “trickle up” works so much better.

Jared & Ivanka aren’t Secretary of State now are they? Quite different level of access and info being dealt with.

Are you referring to the lies & mischaracterizations the liberal media has been spewing for two years now? All of them promising vindication when the Mueller report drops. He was their knight in shining armor until he handed them a result inconsistent with their narrative.

If only Adam Schiff and fat boy Nader had given him the ample “evidence” they claim to have....
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

SteelPro
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Post by SteelPro » Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:17 am

955876 wrote:
logical fallacies (trickle down works), and double standards (security clearances for jared, unsecured phones). This is why I call it "willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest." I can't blame people for being stupid (intellectually weak), but there are far too many with half a brain that are still propagating lies and mischaracterizations.


So I’m assuming you can show that redistribution and “trickle up” works so much better.

Jared & Ivanka aren’t Secretary of State now are they? Quite different level of access and info being dealt with.

Are you referring to the lies & mischaracterizations the liberal media has been spewing for two years now? All of them promising vindication when the Mueller report drops. He was their knight in shining armor until he handed them a result inconsistent with their narrative.

If only Adam Schiff and fat boy Nader had given him the ample “evidence” they claim to have....

I heard an interesting interview with an economist recently (sorry, can’t find the source) who stated that both republican trickle down and liberal Keynesian policies were both highly inefficient, at least in the way they have been practiced over the last half a century. His point was the economy is so global now that much of the benefit leaks out to the rest of the world. More purchasing power at the bottom means a lot more buying of cheap foreign goods. Giving more dollars to the rich means a lot of their additional investments end up being foreign. He said as long as we have huge trade deficit the problems with these policies will persist. He actually said Trump is right to address trade, though his tactic of doing it with protectionism policies such as tariffs are wrong.

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:57 pm

He actually said Trump is right to address trade, though his tactic of doing it with protectionism policies such as tariffs are wrong.


Not a fan of the tariffs either.

However, how do you bring or force your trade partners to the bargaining table when they most likely will be having to give something up they do no wish to give up?

What other leverage can you employ?
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

SteelPro
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Post by SteelPro » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:16 pm

955876 wrote:
He actually said Trump is right to address trade, though his tactic of doing it with protectionism policies such as tariffs are wrong.


Not a fan of the tariffs either.

However, how do you bring or force your trade partners to the bargaining table when they most likely will be having to give something up they do no wish to give up?

What other leverage can you employ?


It is not so much an issue of needing leverage as it is we’ve conceded too much manufacturing of goods to the rest of the world. We need better policies to encourage investors/wealthy to boost production at home in a way that can actually move the needle to fix trade imbalances. At least that is argument from this particular economist. Putting more money in the hands of wealthy is a solid plan if the strings attached to it will ensure the money is invested for domestic manufacturing. I do belief tariffs and threats of tariffs are the only real solution to address Chinese IP theft. Otherwise I think tariffs are dumb.

Locked Previous topicNext topic