Donald Trump

[imatfaal]

I can't for the life of me see what the objection is to Trump, anyway - he's no battier, less realistic, or uglier in his proposals, than any other Republican Candidate.

 

This is the Party of Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Cheney (now there's ugly, if that was your problem), the inimitable W himself; this is the Party of the Tea, you know, the folks who brought stuffed monkeys dressed as negro witch doctors with bones in their noses to public rallies against the secret Muslim from Kenya;

 

- seriously, why the sudden fantods over a guy like Trump? He's not going to raise taxes on rich people very much, surely, so what's the problem?

 

 

Quite a few of the older Republicans I talk to on a daily basis would agree almost completely with the above - the only candidates for the nomination they would positively support are already out of the running (or never even made it to the start line) and the two Senators both seem equally unappealing (although for completely opposite reasons). They dislike Trump - but not as much as they fear the ideologues of the christian right nor as much as they hate the obstructionist GOP neocon elite who have brought the party to this position; and they have no positive feelings and plenty of negative towards the appointed candidates of these two wings of the neo-republican party.

 

Before the primary season began I taunted them saying they would end up voting for Clinton as she best represented the Centre-Right viewpoint of their heroes (Reagan etc. And don't ask me why - I have never understood his beatification) - now I have stopped this mockery because they are starting to think that this may well come to pass and it is cruel to mock the afflicted.

I think Florida is likely to go with Trump. Uncertain about Ohio and whether Kasich will actually take it. In the end, though, I can't see Rubio pulling this one off and don't think he's gonna win FL.

 

Have we seen any recent / decent polls for Fla. Latest one the Nate Silver (who I rely on utterly) is fairly smaller and old? Trump given a fair margin - 8-9% on Nates projected results.

[Delbert]

I don't understand controversy surrounding politicians in general. Can't understand it because in a democracy a politician has to get elected, in other words, it's the people's choice.

 

If this chap in America gets elected, then that's what the people want, and there's certainly no reason for anyone to complain or criticise in any way whatsoever.

[iNow]

Have we seen any recent / decent polls for Fla. Latest one the Nate Silver (who I rely on utterly) is fairly smaller and old? Trump given a fair margin - 8-9% on Nates projected results.

Clearly, Rubio will put all eggs into this one basket over the next 2 weeks since he cannot win if he fails in Florida and that will alter numbers a bit, but as of today Trump is pegged with 69% likelihood of winning FL.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/florida-republican/

 

[mp][/mp]

I don't understand controversy surrounding politicians in general. Can't understand it because in a democracy a politician has to get elected, in other words, it's the people's choice.

Except when only a tiny sliver of the population actually votes.

 

Except when all information voters receive tends to actually misinform them and is heavily biased because two or three massive corporations control the majority of the airwaves.

 

Except when the people that do get elected to office only listen to the wealthy and the powerful and ignore anyone who cannot contribute or who annoy help them get reelected.

 

In the abstract, your point is valid. That's what textbook democracy is, but we're not a textbook democracy. In reality, your point misses some very important and rather obvious facts about the way the process and system actually functions today.

Edited March 4, 2016 by iNow

[MigL]

I think only your third point about the influence of wealth on politics is accurate, iNow.

If you're not willing to live up to your obligations you have no right to complain about the outcome.

And I personally don't see the point of the 'big push' everytime there's an election coming, to get disenfranchised/ disinterested/ young people out to vote.

If they have no interest in voting, they have even less interest in educating themselves as to the issues.

And a vote based on popularity, polls, looks, personal wealth, etc., can actually 'waste' two votes.

( that being said they have every right to that vote, I just not willing to be an enabler )

[iNow]

Part of that push to get younger / less engaged voters to show up, IMO, is a desire to counter-balance the most marginal and rabid voters who tend to turn out en masse and in large numbers. Often, young voters have never voted before and need the extra encouragement. Often, people who are truly representative of the american middle and who really are moderate aren't passionate enough to stand up and vote, but they're choice not to show up is part of the reason they're so disappointed with who gets elected. I see encouraging them to get out, using social pressure and behavioral nudges, as not only acceptable, but as another critical component of the very civic obligations you cite.

[Phi for All]

( that being said they have every right to that vote, I just not willing to be an enabler )

 

And there's a big difference between conservatives in these elections, and the liberals. The conservatives think helping young people who've had little experience is "enabling". Liberals call it an investment in People.

 

Trump's investments aren't in People.

[waitforufo]

Part of that push to get younger / less engaged voters to show up, IMO, is a desire to counter-balance the most marginal and rabid voters who tend to turn out en masse and in large numbers. Often, young voters have never voted before and need the extra encouragement. Often, people who are truly representative of the american middle and who really are moderate aren't passionate enough to stand up and vote, but they're choice not to show up is part of the reason they're so disappointed with who gets elected. I see encouraging them to get out, using social pressure and behavioral nudges, as not only acceptable, but as another critical component of the very civic obligations you cite.

You have frequently posted about how we would all be better off in uninformed voters should not vote. Young people tend to be the least informed voters. Also they have little personal wisdom, due to their youth, to guide their reasoning. Young people are often quite correctly preoccupied with their personal lives doing such things as finding and building a carrier, finding a mate, and building their own families. These preoccupations make them less engaged voters. Finally, young people are generally striving to be independent making most uninterested in government and therefor less likely to become informed. It seems to me, based on your past comments, that you would encourage most young people not to vote.

 

My guess is most young people see social pressure and behavioral nudging simply as nagging, harping, and manipulating. I see it as not likely to get out the youth vote. When they feel personally informed and ready to vote, then they will vote.

 

You also seem to be blind to the fact the there are "rabid voters" of all political persuasions who, in the main, cancel each other out. The problem is that no political party can currently sway the majority, making the majority also split 50/50. In such cases the rabid voter coin toss may just make a difference. Instead of focusing on the rabid voter focus on the majority and the rabid voter will again be irrelevant.

 

About half the people will always be disappointed in every election. Even in a landslide election 40% will be disappointed.

 

Many in the american middle quite correctly see the government as irrelevant in their lives. They understand that they have to rely on themselves while being kind to there neighbors and those they interact with in their lives. They understand that they are and must always be the ones that pay and that government will always want them to pay more regardless of what political party is in power. They don't mind paying for schools. sewers, roads, trash collection, public safety, criminal justice, and national defense, but they wonder about paying for the person across the street who is not working while they trudge off to work. They wonder "what am I a sucker?" Then they remind themselves of the value of self worth. Politics is just a circus with mostly warn out acts they have all seen before. This year however is presenting them with side shows call Sanders and Trump that might attract a few more ultimately disappointed spectators.

[iNow]

You have frequently posted about how we would all be better off in uninformed voters should not vote.

I, of course, support voters being more informed rather than less, but suspect you're conflating me with someone else if you think I said these individuals shouldn't vote.

 

I suppose it's possible that in an in-artful or less patient moment I was more curt and judgmental, but as a general rule this is against my driving principles when it comes to our voting rights.

 

It seems to me, based on your past comments, that you would encourage most young people not to vote.

Then you've misunderstood my actual intent / core message.

 

You also seem to be blind to the fact the there are "rabid voters" of all political persuasions

Why are you saying this? I very intentionally avoided suggesting this was a problem solely on one side of the partisan divide.

 

Instead of focusing on the rabid voter focus on the majority and the rabid voter will again be irrelevant.

Agreed, and that's pretty much exactly what I was saying in the post to which you're here now responding in a way that suggests there's disagreement. Edited March 4, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

(Reagan etc. And don't ask me why - I have never understood his beatification)

Imagine this, in the era before people really understood how TV and scripts and the like actually worked:

 

 

 

Young people tend to be the least informed voters.

Not really. Less wise, to quick to jump on fads, but they tend to be better connected to information.

 

 

Many in the american middle quite correctly see the government as irrelevant in their lives.

That's not "correct". It's juvenile.

 

 

They understand that they are and must always be the ones that pay and that government will always want them to pay more regardless of what political party is in power. They don't mind paying for schools. sewers, roads, trash collection, public safety, criminal justice, and national defense,

Parks? Landscape management? Clean air and water? Medical care?

 

In point of observation, the Republican base minds very much having to pay for anything that doesn't benefit them directly and personally and visibly, and they mind very much establishing civil liberties for anyone but themselves, and they regard all of government as either of direct and tangible and immediate benefit to them or a worthless and parasitic bureaucracy.

 

This applies not only to services and conveniences, such as health care, but to actual defense against real dangers - such as wealth accumulation and aristocracy, or the creation of a reserve army of the sick and unemployed and ghetto-bound such as Marx was counting on.

 

The only way to persuade them to impose an adequate income or estate tax, for example, is to focus on the fact that the children of the rich don't deserve inherited wealth and the tax will never ever be imposed on anyone except the undeserving heirs of undeserving and snooty and distant elites - preferably foreigners. If they can be persuaded instead (by the owners of their TV stations, say) that they or people like them are likely to be taxed, or that the wealth was fairly acquired ("earned") in some way by non-snooty regular folks, they will vote themselves a jack-booted landed gentry and their children a future as the servant class in a Jane Austen novel. Because "class warfare" is bad, they have learned from their leaders.

 

Illustration, appropriate for a science forum: over the years I have spent some time in two contrasting roles: as a gatherer of bait leeches for fishing; as a research assistant in various biological and ecological investigations, including getting wet and dirty and cold in various boreal bogs and bug-filled bailiwicks of my region. In both roles I occasionally met regular folks in "conservative" areas while doing so - in the field, in the bar where I took my time off, at the gas station, casual. And the amount of hostility my researcher role encountered from these regular folks is kind of striking. Memorable. Apparently, the suggestion that their tax dollar was being spent to support a parasite such as myself engaged in such unprofitable activity as I was engaged in was seriously irritating. But that isn't the point. The fact that it wasn't even true some of the time (private funding, pro bono mud-sampling, etc, happened) is not the point, either.

 

The point is the lack of curiosity, interest, sense of fellow citizenship, sense of responsibility for the landscape, anything like that. I can't even remember how many times researcher me was disparaged, mocked, on the receiving end of some comment about governmental waste of money or derogatory reference to the nearest university. I can count on one hand the number of times anyone asked me what I was seeing, what was going on, what was being discovered or checked out, without my bringing it up and sort of guiding the conversation.

 

On the other hand, pillaging the landscape to service the recreational whims of rich tourists whose opinion of the locals was illustrated by the amount of garbage and shit (literal) they left everywhere was universally treated with respect, and the onerous working conditions appreciated.

 

Salt of the earth. Go figure.

Edited March 4, 2016 by overtone

[Phi for All]

In point of observation, the Republican base minds very much having to pay for anything that doesn't benefit them directly and personally and visibly, and they mind very much establishing civil liberties for anyone but themselves, and they regard all of government as either of direct and tangible and immediate benefit to them or a worthless and parasitic bureaucracy.

 

This applies not only to services and conveniences, such as health care, but to actual defense against real dangers - such as wealth accumulation and aristocracy, or the creation of a reserve army of the sick and unemployed and ghetto-bound such as Marx was counting on.

 

Smart business people would understand the reasoning behind "My pool cost me $50,000, but we can build one for the rest of the whole community for about 10 times that with tax dollars". The fact that many of the wealthy want to cut those types of programs leads one to believe it's instead done out of spite, or even jealousy. The community pool is bigger than their private pool! Why should the non-job-creators get to frolic in a swimming pool like they were rich or something?

 

Trump says he pays as little tax as he can because he doesn't like what's done with the money. I think he sees this as his chance to throw away what the People need, in favor of spending the money on things that will benefit him and his. Maybe then he'll feel better about paying his taxes.

[waitforufo]

Imagine this, in the era before people really understood how TV and scripts and the like actually worked:

 

 

 

Not really. Less wise, to quick to jump on fads, but they tend to be better connected to information.

 

 

That's not "correct". It's juvenile.

 

 

Parks? Landscape management? Clean air and water? Medical care?

 

In point of observation, the Republican base minds very much having to pay for anything that doesn't benefit them directly and personally and visibly, and they mind very much establishing civil liberties for anyone but themselves, and they regard all of government as either of direct and tangible and immediate benefit to them or a worthless and parasitic bureaucracy.

 

This applies not only to services and conveniences, such as health care, but to actual defense against real dangers - such as wealth accumulation and aristocracy, or the creation of a reserve army of the sick and unemployed and ghetto-bound such as Marx was counting on.

 

The only way to persuade them to impose an adequate income or estate tax, for example, is to focus on the fact that the children of the rich don't deserve inherited wealth and the tax will never ever be imposed on anyone except the undeserving heirs of undeserving and snooty and distant elites - preferably foreigners. If they can be persuaded instead (by the owners of their TV stations, say) that they or people like them are likely to be taxed, or that the wealth was fairly acquired ("earned") in some way by non-snooty regular folks, they will vote themselves a jack-booted landed gentry and their children a future as the servant class in a Jane Austen novel. Because "class warfare" is bad, they have learned from their leaders.

 

Illustration, appropriate for a science forum: over the years I have spent some time in two contrasting roles: as a gatherer of bait leeches for fishing; as a research assistant in various biological and ecological investigations, including getting wet and dirty and cold in various boreal bogs and bug-filled bailiwicks of my region. In both roles I occasionally met regular folks in "conservative" areas while doing so - in the field, in the bar where I took my time off, at the gas station, casual. And the amount of hostility my researcher role encountered from these regular folks is kind of striking. Memorable. Apparently, the suggestion that their tax dollar was being spent to support a parasite such as myself engaged in such unprofitable activity as I was engaged in was seriously irritating. But that isn't the point. The fact that it wasn't even true some of the time (private funding, pro bono mud-sampling, etc, happened) is not the point, either.

 

The point is the lack of curiosity, interest, sense of fellow citizenship, sense of responsibility for the landscape, anything like that. I can't even remember how many times researcher me was disparaged, mocked, on the receiving end of some comment about governmental waste of money or derogatory reference to the nearest university. I can count on one hand the number of times anyone asked me what I was seeing, what was going on, what was being discovered or checked out, without my bringing it up and sort of guiding the conversation.

 

On the other hand, pillaging the landscape to service the recreational whims of rich tourists whose opinion of the locals was illustrated by the amount of garbage and shit (literal) they left everywhere was universally treated with respect, and the onerous working conditions appreciated.

 

Salt of the earth. Go figure.

Wow, quite the diatribe.

 

Why is it that people very interested in a subject, politics in this case, think everyone else is as well? Next time you are in a public social setting like a bar, why not try to strike up a conversation with a stranger about politics. Most will be polite as their eyes glass over in boredom almost instantly. Why do you think voter turnout in the US generally runs between 40 to 60%?

 

I am interested in this little bit however.

 

The only way to persuade them to impose an adequate income or estate tax, for example, is to focus on the fact that the children of the rich don't deserve inherited wealth and the tax will never ever be imposed on anyone except the undeserving heirs of undeserving and snooty and distant elites - preferably foreigners. If they can be persuaded instead (by the owners of their TV stations, say) that they or people like them are likely to be taxed, or that the wealth was fairly acquired ("earned") in some way by non-snooty regular folks, they will vote themselves a jack-booted landed gentry and their children a future as the servant class in a Jane Austen novel. Because "class warfare" is bad, they have learned from their leaders.

Could you please give me some meaningful definition of what makes a person rich when you say "children of the rich don't deserve inherited wealth". I'm thinking something like a dollar value of there net worth, their income, or perhaps some combination of both. It would be great if you worked age into that as well. I'm sure you don't want to point that venom at people who are simply successful middle class retirees or nearly retired persons. Nor do I think you want to point that venom at the children of such people who's lives were impacted by their parents saving for retirement.

[MigL]

Definitely young people should be encouraged to inform themselves of the issues of the day or of an election.

Then if they're passionate ( or enraged ) by one or more issues they'll be likely to go and cast a vote accordingly.

 

But to simply encourage them ( without having done the required research into the issues ) to go out and cast their vote is probably reckless.

Most municipal elections are decided in just this way.

No one cares enough about the issues that affect them even more than state/province wide elections presidential/federal elections, yet they go vote anyway. Usually just basing their vote on name recognition.

And you have municipal politicians serving for a quarter century, having never done squat for the dummies that keep re-electing them.

As for D. Trump...

I am hoping his support can be attributed to conservative minded people who are opposed to the direction the Republican party has taken as of late, and simply wish to register an 'anti-establishment' vote.

These are the conservatives that could very easily be swayed to vote Democrat.

And Clinton and Sanders should be targeting those people ( though I think Clinton would have more success ).

Trump could turn out to be a gift for the Democrats, and the beginning of the end for Republicans as we now know them.

[overtone]

Why is it that people very interested in a subject, politics in this case, think everyone else is as well?

The subject of that little story was not politics.

 

I'm not, actually, very interested in politics, and I don't expect anyone I meet out in the world to be fascinated by any political topic in particular.

Could you please give me some meaningful definition of what makes a person rich when you say "children of the rich don't deserve inherited wealth".

It's completely irrelevant. There is no such definition, and it doesn't matter.

 

Nobody "deserves" inherited wealth from relatives they did not support, financially or economically in some way, thereby acquiring a contractual interest of some kind. That's not the point.

 

 

I'm sure you don't want to point that venom at people who are simply successful middle class retirees or nearly retired persons.

Venom? The only venom involved is the observation that when trying to get one of these people to not abet the ruination of their country and everything they claim to value, one must provide them with reasons they can fit into their preconceptions. That's a bit venomous, granted, but what can you do?

I am hoping his support can be attributed to conservative minded people who are opposed to the direction the Republican party has taken as of late, and simply wish to register an 'anti-establishment' vote.

Don't be silly. This is the Republican base, for decades now. Palin was nominated for VP in 2008, W&Cheney won the Presidency in 2000, Rush Limbaugh has been on the air since the early 1990s, Reagan gained the Presidency in 1980. Somebody who talked like Limbaugh and had enough money or connections to run for President was always a possibility.

 

 

These are the conservatives that could very easily be swayed to vote Democrat.

Not for Clinton. These people ->believe<- the crazy you've been hearing bits of, the stuff you've been startled by in polls.

 

And they aren't "conservatives". They are paranoid, rage-motivated, racially bigoted, misogynistic, fundamentalist, systematically misled and manipulated yahoos. The media operations of the Republican Party's corporate backing have been working them over for more than thirty years now - they've been immersed, without access to the outside world of information. The only thing they know for sure that's accurate is that they've been betrayed by power, by their government and the elites who influence it, by somebody.

And Clinton and Sanders should be targeting those people ( though I think Clinton would have more success

My bet is Sanders would have far more success, because that's what the polls say, and because he is white and male and honest and forthright and anti-establishment, like Trump he makes accurate observations about corruption and other stuff they can see for themselves,

 

and because he hasn't been murdering people to cover up his cocaine smuggling operations and systematic betrayals of the public trust, that kind of stuff. Or didn't you know that about the Clintons?

Edited March 4, 2016 by overtone

[waitforufo]

The subject of that little story was not politics.

 

I'm not, actually, very interested in politics, and I don't expect anyone I meet out in the world to be fascinated by any political topic in particular.

It's completely irrelevant. There is no such definition, and it doesn't matter.

 

Nobody "deserves" inherited wealth from relatives they did not support, financially or economically in some way, thereby acquiring a contractual interest of some kind. That's not the point.

 

 

Venom? The only venom involved is the observation that when trying to get one of these people to not abet the ruination of their country and everything they claim to value, one must provide them with reasons they can fit into their preconceptions. That's a bit venomous, granted, but what can you do?

 

You are on a roll today.

 

BTW, thank you for reminding me why I liked Ronald Reagan so much.

 

I wasn't referring to your little story. I was referring to your response to my comment about government being irrelevant to many in the american middle. That is politics, and what I said it is correct and it is not juvenile. That's why voter turn out is so low.

 

Why is it liberals like yourself always rail against the rich and their children, but will never define just who is rich? I wasn't asking for some detailed response. You could have simply said anyone who makes more than me. You could have said anyone with a job and a bank account. You could have said one million dollars. You could have said anyone who makes over $100k. You could have said a lot of things. Instead you said it is completely irrelevant. Well if you can't define who the rich are, then there must be no rich people.

 

You say "Nobody "deserves" inherited wealth from relatives they did not support, financially or economically in some way, thereby acquiring a contractual interest of some kind. " But don't children pay a price when their parents save for retirement. There parents could have spent more on them. Better education, better clothes, better food, better neighborhoods, and better schools all cost money. But their parents also worry about not being a burden on there children in old age. Isn't it fair that their parents then compensate their children upon death? Why do you begrudge these children their remittance? Don't you know that most every parent wishes they would have done more for their children? Especially those in middle america.

 

You say of the people who played by the rules and followed the advice of there government by saving for retirement "The only venom involved is the observation that when trying to get one of these people to not abet the ruination of their country and everything they claim to value, one must provide them with reasons they can fit into their preconceptions." What I see in those people are what we should hope from all the people. Good citizens who worked hard, paid there taxes, obeyed the law, and sacrificed for there children. People who insured that they and their children would not be burdens to others. Without people like them the nation would truly be ruined. Are you really surprised that you have to provide reasons to people when you want to take from them by force the product of there labors?

 

For someone who claims "I'm not, actually, very interested in politics" you sure spend a lot of time on the politics section of Science Forums.

Edited March 4, 2016 by waitforufo

[iNow]

I agree with so much of what you say, waitforufo, but you lose me immediately the moment you conflate taxes with "taking by force" while ignoring the shared infrastructure that enabled that success and when you suggest any of this is about begrudging people who have worked hard and done well.

 

I find such framing of the issue both naive and unnecessarily divisive.

 

Further, I've responded to this argument in direct response to you on several occasions, this year and 4 years ago and repeatedly in between, but alas it hasn't seemed to penetrate or improve your stance.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89809-what-is-americas-biggest-problem/?p=901590

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71723-fiscal-cliff-political-stupidity/?p=720760

 

There are so many elements of validity in your position. I wish you'd stop blinding readers to them by supporting your stance in such an abrasive and trollish manner.

Edited March 4, 2016 by iNow

[waitforufo]

I agree with so much of what you say, waitforufo, but you lose me immediately the moment you conflate taxes with "taking by force" while ignoring the shared infrastructure that enabled that success and when you suggest any of this is about begrudging people who have worked hard and done well.

 

I find such framing of the issue both naive and unnecessarily divisive.

 

Further, I've responded to this argument in direct response to you on several occasions, this year and 4 years ago and repeatedly in between, but alas it hasn't seemed to penetrate or improve your stance.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89809-what-is-americas-biggest-problem/?p=901590

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71723-fiscal-cliff-political-stupidity/?p=720760

 

There are so many elements of validity in your position. I wish you'd stop blinding readers to them by supporting your stance in such an abrasive and trollish manner.

iNow I come and go from this form as my interest waxes and wains. Never once have I heard you scold a liberal in such a way. Many of your comments are intentionally abrasive and trollish. I'm sure you do it for the same reason I do. There is none so blind as those who refuse to see. To get them to see, there are times you have to shake them up a bit. Sure there is a risk of simply making them more entrenched, but both of us are willing to take that risk aren't we?

 

With regard to taking by force. That is what the government does. Pretending otherwise is dismissing the seriousness of the matter. Do liberals ever think "what give me the right to take something from another person earned from the sweat of that other person's brow. Not all are born to wealth, nor does it simply fall in their lap. Also there is nothing morally wrong with accumulating wealth for yourself and your decedents.

 

I more than pay for my share of the infrastructure, and I'm happy that others enjoy what I helped pay for through my labor. Particularly those who have been less fortunate the myself.

 

Perhaps you can answer my question about who is rich and who is not. Why s it that liberals are simply unwilling to answer this question? What is it about that question that so hard to answer. My guess is because they would set the bar very low, and by doing so would loose many supporters. My answer would be something north of 10 million in net worth and I wouldn't give any consideration to income. That net worth would include the present value of pensions and all assets. See, that wasn't so hard. Now, I would expect you to set that bar lower. My guess is you will simply condemn my response and provide none of your own.

[Willie71]

iNow I come and go from this form as my interest waxes and wains. Never once have I heard you scold a liberal in such a way. Many of your comments are intentionally abrasive and trollish. I'm sure you do it for the same reason I do. There is none so blind as those who refuse to see. To get them to see, there are times you have to shake them up a bit. Sure there is a risk of simply making them more entrenched, but both of us are willing to take that risk aren't we?

 

With regard to taking by force. That is what the government does. Pretending otherwise is dismissing the seriousness of the matter. Do liberals ever think "what give me the right to take something from another person earned from the sweat of that other person's brow. Not all are born to wealth, nor does it simply fall in their lap. Also there is nothing morally wrong with accumulating wealth for yourself and your decedents.

 

I more than pay for my share of the infrastructure, and I'm happy that others enjoy what I helped pay for through my labor. Particularly those who have been less fortunate the myself.

 

Perhaps you can answer my question about who is rich and who is not. Why s it that liberals are simply unwilling to answer this question? What is it about that question that so hard to answer. My guess is because they would set the bar very low, and by doing so would loose many supporters. My answer would be something north of 10 million in net worth and I wouldn't give any consideration to income. That net worth would include the present value of pensions and all assets. See, that wasn't so hard. Now, I would expect you to set that bar lower. My guess is you will simply condemn my response and provide none of your own.

 

Well, you claim it is a fair share, but that is the debatable point. Most people feel that investing so many trillions of dollars in killing people around the world is a waste of money, yet conservatives never complain about "how will you pay for that?" When it's health care, education, or early childhood programs for children not born into wealthy families, they deserve what they get, and don't take your riches from you. Take half of the military budget, and the USA will have the best medical and education systems in the world.

 

Oh, I forgot, Isis killed no one in the USA so far, but they are coming, without an Air Force or navy. Shaking in boots frightening.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Willie71

[waitforufo]

Well, you claim it is a fair share, but that is the debatable point. Most people feel that investing so many trillions of dollars in killing people around the world is a waste of money, yet conservatives never complain about "how will you pay for that?"

 

Oh, I forgot, Isis killed no one in the USA so far, but they are coming, without an Air Force or navy. Shaking in boots frightening.

Nice diversion Willie. Their are lots of bad actors around the world that haven't killed Americans. But they have killed plenty good people and enslaved many others. Some of those people are our friends and allies. Those bad actors intend to continue. Do you care about those people? Are you hoping the alligator will eat you last? What kind of people would we be if we simply stood idly by. I think the people of Syria know.

 

When it's health care, education, or early childhood programs for children not born into wealthy families, they deserve what they get, and don't take your riches from you. Take half of the military budget, and the USA will have the best medical and education systems in the world.

"Not born to wealthy families" Since you scorn the wealth, can you tell me what the threshold of wealthy is? Again just something simple. A dollar figure of net worth will do.

 

I ask the above because I think you believe I was born to a wealth family. I was not. My parents parents raised 8 children in a modest home. I shared a room with 4 brothers. My parents had a mortgage, car payments and struggled to put food on the table and clothes on their children's backs. That is why I had a paper route at 12. Started making a paycheck at a car wash, where I had to get a work permit for being under 16 at 14. During that time I also worked at a horse racing track mucking stalls for a dollar a stall. Worked at a grocery store cleaning the butchers shop and produce prep area at 16. Believe me when I say meat is cleaner the produce. I know. I went to government public schools. I worked my way through state college. In part I did that by postponing starting college until I was 20 so I could save save money to pay for it. Sure I could have taken out loans but was adverse to the idea of taking on debt to pay for something I doubted I would be capable of finishing. I graduated from high school with at 2.8 mostly because I'm dyslectic, took only the minimum state requirements, and shop classes. The shop classes were the best education I had in my life. Without them I likely couldn't have gotten the construction job I have held. I worked my way through college because my parents still had mouths at home to feed and backs to clothe. Those would be my sibling whom I love. They are great people. I'm sure you would like them. When I graduated college my wife was 8 months pregnant. After paying rent on my first home in LA, over 1000 miles from from my home in Washington State, I was broke. I had to take an advance on my salary to by food and prepare for the coming of my first child. I still remember how happy I was when I could buy my wife a used car. A 1970 dodge dart sport. That was 1985. I remember a lot of good times in that car. I got my masters degree while working full time as an engineer while adding children to my family. In my career, I then moved to LA, Atlanta Georga, Cleveland Ohio, and then back to home. I put my three kids though college. It was a wonderful ride. I look back on almost all of it with fondness. Sure it was a lot of work, but It was really great fun. Even recovering from my mistakes of which there were plenty. I have no complaints. I was successful in my career beyond my wildest dreams. Sticking your neck out pays. Now I'm nearing the end of my career and I'm looking forward to retirement. With every job I have ever held, I have given 10% of my gross income to charity. Yes, even mucking horse stalls at 14. Blame my parents for being my role model on charity. I have also always paid my taxes. Kind of hard not to when you have been a salary earner you entire life. I have voted for most school levies. The only ones I recall voting against were mostly for what I considered to be extravagant sports facilities.

 

Now people tell me I don't deserve my Social Security because I took advice from my parents, society, and government and saved money. I hear my kids don't deserve any money I might leave behind because they did not earn it. What a laugh. I could have spent more of that money on my kids, but life has trade offs. I hope my kids understand. I'm glad my kids won't have to worry about me.

 

I always paid my way, so I figure others can too. In your eyes, that makes me a bad person. I think it is strange that you feel that way. Maybe you can explain to me how that simply isn't envy.

 

I'm not shaking in my boots. Are you? I know how to get by because I've done it. I'm still doing it. Do you know how?

[iNow]

My guess is you will simply condemn my response and provide none of your own.

I've been abrasive and often curt, no doubt, but I've also approached you in these discussions with respect and with an appreciation for your viewpoint. I've focused heavily on where we agree and highlighted as often as possible where there is significant overlap in our positions. I ask that you give me more credit and be less dismissive than you were when posting statements like the above.

 

Perhaps you can answer my question about who is rich and who is not. Why s it that liberals are simply unwilling to answer this question?

First, let me highlight that your introduction of the term liberal here does nothing other than to reinforce ingroup outgroup division. It adds nothing but distraction to the exchange.

 

Second, let me share that rich and not rich exists along a spectrum and is hardly a binary state with a firm well established boundary in the way you imply.

 

Finally, you are correct. My number is much lower than 10 million. An individual income over $150k or family income over $220k is where I see the break between "ability to do more" and "doing more introduces more harm than good on net." That is annual income, however. If I were to split it by total wealth like you're asking, my number would likely be closer to $1M.

 

None of that matters, though, nor is it even thread relevant.

 

Here are tax plan impacts of current GOP candidates. The people you support will take steps that very clearly put us deeper into debt, worse off financially, and make it harder to support our military and veterans, and a metric assload of other important things like fire departments, police officers, teachers, and more. None of us want that, yet that's the group behind whom you're putting your support.

 

No matter one's ideology, it doesn't make any rational sense.

 

 

 

 

I know how to get by because I've done it. I'm still doing it. Do you know how?

Yes.

 

 

Another view of what I shared above; this time, with Clinton!

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/tax-plan-showdown-hillary-clinton-vs-republicans

Edited March 5, 2016 by iNow

[Willie71]

Nice diversion Willie. Their are lots of bad actors around the world that haven't killed Americans. But they have killed plenty good people and enslaved many others. Some of those people are our friends and allies. Those bad actors intend to continue. Do you care about those people? Are you hoping the alligator will eat you last? What kind of people would we be if we simply stood idly by. I think the people of Syria know.

 

 

 

 

 

"Not born to wealthy families" Since you scorn the wealth, can you tell me what the threshold of wealthy is? Again just something simple. A dollar figure of net worth will do.

 

I ask the above because I think you believe I was born to a wealth family. I was not. My parents parents raised 8 children in a modest home. I shared a room with 4 brothers. My parents had a mortgage, car payments and struggled to put food on the table and clothes on their children's backs. That is why I had a paper route at 12. Started making a paycheck at a car wash, where I had to get a work permit for being under 16 at 14. During that time I also worked at a horse racing track mucking stalls for a dollar a stall. Worked at a grocery store cleaning the butchers shop and produce prep area at 16. Believe me when I say meat is cleaner the produce. I know. I went to government public schools. I worked my way through state college. In part I did that by postponing starting college until I was 20 so I could save save money to pay for it. Sure I could have taken out loans but was adverse to the idea of taking on debt to pay for something I doubted I would be capable of finishing. I graduated from high school with at 2.8 mostly because I'm dyslectic, took only the minimum state requirements, and shop classes. The shop classes were the best education I had in my life. Without them I likely couldn't have gotten the construction job I have held. I worked my way through college because my parents still had mouths at home to feed and backs to clothe. Those would be my sibling whom I love. They are great people. I'm sure you would like them. When I graduated college my wife was 8 months pregnant. After paying rent on my first home in LA, over 1000 miles from from my home in Washington State, I was broke. I had to take an advance on my salary to by food and prepare for the coming of my first child. I still remember how happy I was when I could buy my wife a used car. A 1970 dodge dart sport. That was 1985. I remember a lot of good times in that car. I got my masters degree while working full time as an engineer while adding children to my family. In my career, I then moved to LA, Atlanta Georga, Cleveland Ohio, and then back to home. I put my three kids though college. It was a wonderful ride. I look back on almost all of it with fondness. Sure it was a lot of work, but It was really great fun. Even recovering from my mistakes of which there were plenty. I have no complaints. I was successful in my career beyond my wildest dreams. Sticking your neck out pays. Now I'm nearing the end of my career and I'm looking forward to retirement. With every job I have ever held, I have given 10% of my gross income to charity. Yes, even mucking horse stalls at 14. Blame my parents for being my role model on charity. I have also always paid my taxes. Kind of hard not to when you have been a salary earner you entire life. I have voted for most school levies. The only ones I recall voting against were mostly for what I considered to be extravagant sports facilities.

 

Now people tell me I don't deserve my Social Security because I took advice from my parents, society, and government and saved money. I hear my kids don't deserve any money I might leave behind because they did not earn it. What a laugh. I could have spent more of that money on my kids, but life has trade offs. I hope my kids understand. I'm glad my kids won't have to worry about me.

 

I always paid my way, so I figure others can too. In your eyes, that makes me a bad person. I think it is strange that you feel that way. Maybe you can explain to me how that simply isn't envy.

 

I'm not shaking in my boots. Are you? I know how to get by because I've done it. I'm still doing it. Do you know how?

Wealth is relative. In some areas 100k is the upper end of earners. In other areas, millions can be made. Cost of housing and basic resources varies greatly. People talk about the $40.00/week wage is Cuba. No housing, clothing, or medical costs. It's basically an allowance.

 

Wealth is when income no longer comes from services or goods, and comes from abstractions. A very small percentage of people earn enough to invest and earn money in abstractions. When people make money selling bad mortgages knowing people can't pay for them, and they don't lose their investment on a bad lab, that is the predatory wealth people are upset about. GM executives paying multi million dollar bonuses with the bailouts is another example. The bankers who tanked the economy, and got bailed out by the tax payers. Predatory extreme wealth taken on the oppression of others is the bad wealth. Building up a business to several million dollars in value is achieved through hard work, planning, and a bit of luck. No one is concerned with this. The guys making a couple million per year running a business are hard workers. They benefitted from the infrastructure that supports their business, and much of the I come goes back into the economy. When you start hiding assets, cheating taxes, or squeezing your employees then you start moving into the predatory category.

[rangerx]

 

the Centre-Right viewpoint of their heroes (Reagan etc. And don't ask me why - I have never understood his beatification)

 

Republicans love to claim theirs is the "Party of Reagan"

 

Wasn't he the dude who without the consent of congress sold guns to Iran to secretly fund a war in Central America? Or called Osama bin Laden a hero? Or Nelson Mandela a terrorist?

 

Didn't he appoint SCOTUS nominees in an election year? DHUD grant rigging? EPA scandal? Operation Ill Wind? Savings and Load Crisis?

 

Conservatives seem to put a lot of revisionist history and hypocrisy in the drinking water these days.

[MigL]

And while some, like iNow and waitforufo, commendably strive to find common grounds for discussion, others are happy slinging mud at their neighbours.

[Phi for All]

And while some, like iNow and waitforufo, commendably strive to find common grounds for discussion, others are happy slinging mud at their neighbours.

 

It's probably the Trump factor. He wants to bully the whole schoolyard now, and it helps him when everybody picks up a handful.

[dimreepr]

And while some, like iNow and waitforufo, commendably strive to find common grounds for discussion

 

 

It seems to me that it’s an asymmetric endeavour, one side strives to find common ground whilst the other is, overly, determined to stand his.

Edited March 5, 2016 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

 

 

It seems to me that it’s an asymmetric endeavour, one side strives to find common ground whilst the other is, overly, determined to stand his.

 

I'm never sure if the misunderstandings are purposeful, or just so deeply entrenched that you can't uncover the reasons for the misunderstandings. Most of waitforufo's arguments are really outdated misconceptions, but he's convinced when you say it that way that you're just spinning things. He never bothers to stick around and listen to the fact that Reagan made up the Black Welfare Queen, in an attempt to discredit welfare spending. This is a FACT, but he'll never hear it, never even consider that his detractors might have even one ounce of evidence that Reagan was a racist pig who left a whole generation of Americans at the mercy of powerful banks and mega-corporations interested only in taking away a little bit more money from People who could ill afford it.

 

This is who Trump appeals to also. And I think waitforufo is secretly glad he'll be "forced" to vote for Trump if he gets the party's nomination. His hands will be tied, after all. Completely blameless, you see.