Tiberius Posted December 11, 2016 Author Share Posted December 11, 2016 Looks like the anti-gov, small government Conservatives want to help Trump jump start the economy through Keynian economics. Imagine that! http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-free-market-republicans-stimulus-232387 Where did all those Libertarians run off to? They sure are thicker than fleas when a Democrat is President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Looks like the anti-gov, small government Conservatives want to help Trump jump start the economy through Keynian economics. Imagine that! http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-free-market-republicans-stimulus-232387 Where did all those Libertarians run off to? They sure are thicker than fleas when a Democrat is President Shovel-ready jobs? The Kenyan model. Didn't know gatordude was a Birther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Looks like the anti-gov, small government Conservatives want to help Trump jump start the economy through Keynian economics. Imagine that! http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-free-market-republicans-stimulus-232387 Where did all those Libertarians run off to? They sure are thicker than fleas when a Democrat is President Trump hasn't been sworn in, nothing specific is even on the table. Now is right time to take a close look at the bag of **** Obama is leaving for Trump to clean up or Hillary for that matter had she been elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Trump hasn't been sworn in, nothing specific is even on the table. Now is right time to take a close look at the bag of **** Obama is leaving for Trump to clean up or Hillary for that matter had she been elected. Plus the Fed is looking to increase rates for the first time in a decade How can anyone justify new spending when the deficit is already going to increase just servicing the debt that Obama ran up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 Trump hasn't been sworn in, nothing specific is even on the table. Now is right time to take a close look at the bag of **** Obama is leaving for Trump to clean up or Hillary for that matter had she been elected. Yes, a nice healthy economy in spite of Republic efforts to sabotage. Too bad Republicans wouldn't have allowed spending on our country during Obamas presidency. Things would be even better. Now Trump can spend away and say he made America great. Kind of how Reagan spent to the gills on the military to make it morning in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) Yes, a nice healthy economy in spite of Republic efforts to sabotage. Too bad Republicans wouldn't have allowed spending on our country during Obamas presidency. Things would be even better. Now Trump can spend away and say he made America great. Kind of how Reagan spent to the gills on the military to make it morning in America. The upcoming spending you mention is merely speculation at this point. Obama was the biggest spender in history. The nice healthy economy you mention is a hallucination. Edited December 12, 2016 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 The upcoming spending you mention is merely speculation at this point. Obama was the biggest spender in history. The nice healthy economy you mention is a hallucination. Yes, I am going on what Trump said he would do and Congress seems to be willing to do. Since he is a Republican we shall not criticize his words? Is that how you guys want it for your dear leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yes, I am going on what Trump said he would do and Congress seems to be willing to do. Since he is a Republican we shall not criticize his words? Is that how you guys want it for your dear leader? After 8 years of you not criticizing Obama yeah sure why not. But in actuality there has been more criticism of Trump from the right here in the month since the election than you folks on the left did the whole 8 years of the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 After 8 years of you not criticizing Obama yeah sure why not. But in actuality there has been more criticism of Trump from the right here in the month since the election than you folks on the left did the whole 8 years of the Obama administration. I think that reflects the fact Trump is unfit for office, so there should be serious criticism of him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yes, I am going on what Trump said he would do and Congress seems to be willing to do. Since he is a Republican we shall not criticize his words? Is that how you guys want it for your dear leader? No I just think you should save your bitching for when actual decisions and actions take place. Obama if you may recall had something like a 70% approval rate just after he was sworn in. That's a very high number which means the population to a great extent gave him a chance. It wasn't until he started !@#$ing up that he dropped in the high 30's. Luckily his impending departure has caused a celebration of sorts which has helped his approval rating rebound to about 50%. Trump deserves the same chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 This bickering with Tiberius is ruining threads. Blocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 I think that reflects the fact Trump is unfit for office, so there should be serious criticism of him What did I say that reflects Trump is unfit for office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 This bickering with Tiberius is ruining threads. Blocked. Yes, he just recently got off a lengthy suspension which I assume was handed down because his babble not only doesn't add anything to this board, but sucks other posters into responding to his crap. If he comes back and shows he hasn't learned anything, why is he still here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yes, he just recently got off a lengthy suspension which I assume was handed down because his babble not only doesn't add anything to this board, but sucks other posters into responding to his crap. If he comes back and shows he hasn't learned anything, why is he still here? I don't think he was banned, I think he was just absent. Maybe hospitalized or something, for mental health reasons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 What did I say that reflects Trump is unfit for office? Oh, you didn't mean to say that, it's just that its true No I just think you should save your bitching for when actual decisions and actions take place. Obama if you may recall had something like a 70% approval rate just after he was sworn in. That's a very high number which means the population to a great extent gave him a chance. It wasn't until he started !@#$ing up that he dropped in the high 30's. Luckily his impending departure has caused a celebration of sorts which has helped his approval rating rebound to about 50%. Trump deserves the same chance. LOL, ya, you guys gave Obama a chance! That's funny! I'll pick on him all I want so stop your whining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Oh, you didn't mean to say that, it's just that its true I'm just clarifying. Did you mean that because many on the right are criticizing Trump he's unfit for office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 I'm just clarifying. Did you mean that because many on the right are criticizing Trump he's unfit for office? I'm using that as evidence, not all the evidence, but a small body evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 As a libertarian, we hold equity above all else. This concept has been bastardized by the left as follows: This is blatant bastardization. Here is the actual libertarian view: IF the short dude did something legal to earn his 2 boxes, or the middle guy his one, Then, the government has no right to withhold them, using equality or fairness as an excuse. Also, the tall dude doesn't have to pay for any boxes, just because he is tall. The lie here is that boxes just materialize out of thin air. No. Somebody has to manufacture them, somebody has to transport them, and somebody has to store and sell them. This costs $. Somebody has to part with their $ for somebody to get boxes from the government, for free. Forcing the tall dude to pay for any box in this scenario? That is by definition inequitable. Also, the law is based on equity, not on morality. Above is a bastardization of that concept as well. Has the tall guy done anything to deserve having to pay for the boxes? Is he responsible for the shortness of the other 2. No? Then he is not liable to pay for boxes. It may be moral for him to bring boxes along to help out his friends, but he is not required to do it. Conversely, it may be immoral for him to pay for boxes, because that makes the short guys dependent on him, rather than finding a way to get boxes. Now consider: the Tall guy in this case is Carrier/US technologies corporate. The ballgame is the American marketplace. What are they doing? The Carrier workers pay for their boxes via their labor, but, they also have a need to see the ballgame(maintain an American standard of living). Carrier thinks it would be cheaper for them to move to a place where people don't need/care to see ballgame, or don't need boxes to see them. They are wrong. They are wrong because: Carrier doesn't want the ballgames to cease. They still want to go see them. The ballgame is going to be there whether the workers are or not right? Wrong. When you remove workers from the market, you hurt the market. Do it enough and there is no ballgame, because nobody can afford to go. Short term layoff gains are exactly that. If every company moves offshore, there is no ballgame. Besides, have the workers done anything to the tall guy that justifies his removing the way that the workers pay for their boxes? No. Removing the boxes is therefore, inequitable. Ultimately, the deal that was struck said: we will keep the middle guy's way to pay for his boxes, but, we can't keep the short guys way, because his way of paying for boxes costs us too much. That is a compromise. Libertarians are fine with compromise, provided it is equitable. Carrier has no liability to maintain the short guy's way of paying for boxes, largely because he needs two of them. Meanwhile the guy that only gets one box shouldn't be screwed by the guy that needs two. If one box is the market price for gaining access to the market, but, the short guy needs two? Then it's on the short guy, and nobody else, to provide the extra box. There are lots of way to find that extra box. The government is merely the easiest. Life is about equity. Not morality. When we pretend that false "morality" justifies inequity, we get into all sorts of problems. Charity is about grace, not about retribution or compulsion. Charity is morality. IF one wants to be moral, they should be charitable. Charity means giving of oneself. Charity does not mean not taking from others, then deciding whom to give the spoils, demanding their loyalty for the gifts, and calling oneself "morally superior" for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) I'm using that as evidence, not all the evidence, but a small body evidence I look at that is we are critical of leadership. Both sided of leadership. You on the other hand................ Oh and we're also very critical of each other. As a libertarian, we hold equity above all else. This concept has been bastardized by the left as follows: This is blatant bastardization. Here is the actual libertarian view: IF the short dude did something legal to earn his 2 boxes, or the middle guy his one, Then, the government has no right to withhold them, using equality or fairness as an excuse. Also, the tall dude doesn't have to pay for any boxes, just because he is tall. The lie here is that boxes just materialize out of thin air. No. Somebody has to manufacture them, somebody has to transport them, and somebody has to store and sell them. This costs $. Somebody has to part with their $ for somebody to get boxes from the government, for free. Forcing the tall dude to pay for any box in this scenario? That is by definition inequitable. Also, the law is based on equity, not on morality. Above is a bastardization of that concept as well. Has the tall guy done anything to deserve having to pay for the boxes? Is he responsible for the shortness of the other 2. No? Then he is not liable to pay for boxes. It may be moral for him to bring boxes along to help out his friends, but he is not required to do it. Conversely, it may be immoral for him to pay for boxes, because that makes the short guys dependent on him, rather than finding a way to get boxes. Now consider: the Tall guy in this case is Carrier/US technologies corporate. The ballgame is the American marketplace. What are they doing? The Carrier workers pay for their boxes via their labor, but, they also have a need to see the ballgame(maintain an American standard of living). Carrier thinks it would be cheaper for them to move to a place where people don't need/care to see ballgame, or don't need boxes to see them. They are wrong. They are wrong because: Carrier doesn't want the ballgames to cease. They still want to go see them. The ballgame is going to be there whether the workers are or not right? Wrong. When you remove workers from the market, you hurt the market. Do it enough and there is no ballgame, because nobody can afford to go. Short term layoff gains are exactly that. If every company moves offshore, there is no ballgame. Besides, have the workers done anything to the tall guy that justifies his removing the way that the workers pay for their boxes? No. Removing the boxes is therefore, inequitable. Ultimately, the deal that was struck said: we will keep the middle guy's way to pay for his boxes, but, we can't keep the short guys way, because his way of paying for boxes costs us too much. That is a compromise. Libertarians are fine with compromise, provided it is equitable. Carrier has no liability to maintain the short guy's way of paying for boxes, largely because he needs two of them. Meanwhile the guy that only gets one box shouldn't be screwed by the guy that needs two. If one box is the market price for gaining access to the market, but, the short guy needs two? Then it's on the short guy, and nobody else, to provide the extra box. There are lots of way to find that extra box. The government is merely the easiest. Life is about equity. Not morality. When we pretend that false "morality" justifies inequity, we get into all sorts of problems. Charity is about grace, not about retribution or compulsion. Charity is morality. IF one wants to be moral, they should be charitable. Charity means giving of oneself. Charity does not mean not taking from others, then deciding whom to give the spoils, demanding their loyalty for the gifts, and calling oneself "morally superior" for doing so. Jesus Chris dude just post Equal Opportunity Not Equal Outcomes and be done with it. Edited December 13, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Oh, you didn't mean to say that, it's just that its true LOL, ya, you guys gave Obama a chance! That's funny! I'll pick on him all I want so stop your whining Not saying I gave Obama a chance, maybe for a month or so but he telegraphed how he would !@#$ up early. For sure though I'm enjoying watching the left melt down. Edited December 13, 2016 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts