Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-29-2018, 08:15 PM   #1
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
The scary woman from Queens

Careful you might expand your horizons
https://youtu.be/dUmIdCClbTE

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 07-29-2018, 08:30 PM   #2
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Careful you might expand your horizons
https://youtu.be/dUmIdCClbTE
she is a complete moron.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-29-2018, 08:56 PM   #3
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
she is a complete moron.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hello pot? That is a moronic statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-29-2018, 08:49 PM   #4
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Far too well spoken to be a moron
I assumed you would disagree with her and be afraid to even watch because she is 100% wrong about everything
How dare she say money influences our politicians
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline  
Old 07-29-2018, 08:56 PM   #5
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Far too well spoken to be a moron
I assumed you would disagree with her and be afraid to even watch because she is 100% wrong about everything
How dare she say money influences our politicians
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
being articulate is not intelligent. she said low unemployment is bad, because it means people are working two or more jobs. that’s one of the stupidest things you will ever hear. then there’s her belief that there’s such a thing as free college. beyond stupid. could care less how articulate she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-29-2018, 09:12 PM   #6
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
she said low unemployment is bad, because it means people are working two or more jobs. that’s one of the stupidest things you will ever hear.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It is also not what she said. What she said about low numbers due to people with two jobs isn't accurate, but she never said low unemployment is bad. You must have watched the crtv fake interview of her. It cant be"one of the stupidest things you will ever hear" if it never happened. Get your info straight or stop sharing fake news from your social media.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last edited by zimmy; 07-29-2018 at 09:19 PM..

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 05:30 AM   #7
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
It is also not what she said. What she said about low numbers due to people with two jobs isn't accurate, but she never said low unemployment is bad. You must have watched the crtv fake interview of her. It cant be"one of the stupidest things you will ever hear" if it never happened. Get your info straight or stop sharing fake news from your social media.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
she was obviously attempting to downplay the benefits of low unemployment, by stupidly suggesting that part of the reason why unemployment is low, is that it’s brought down by people who are forced to work two jobs. has she recanted that statement? not that i saw.

and again, an admitted, proud socialist. promising free college, free tuition, guaranteed income. no suggestions how to pay for it, by why obsess over silly little details. if she’s the future darling if the party, i will sleep well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:27 AM   #8
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
she was obviously attempting to downplay the benefits of low unemployment,


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That is your misinterpretation of what she was doing. And you have the stones to call her a moron?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:47 AM   #9
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
being articulate is not intelligent. she said low unemployment is bad, because it means people are working two or more jobs. that’s one of the stupidest things you will ever hear. then there’s her belief that there’s such a thing as free college. beyond stupid. could care less how articulate she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If you go to her congressional district in Queens you will find that many people have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live there and that low unemployment is not that great if the available jobs are not good.
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all.
Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist.
You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society.
Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for?

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:55 AM   #10
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
If you go to her congressional district in Queens you will find that many people have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live there and that low unemployment is not that great if the available jobs are not good.
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all.
Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist.
You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society.
Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for?
I'm not denying that some people have to work two jobs. What I'm saying, is that when I take a second job, or a tenth job, unemployment does not decrease. It only decreases when I go from having zero jobs, to having more than zero jobs, whether I have 1 or 10 doesn't matter.

May come as a shock to you., but conservatives also want everyone to have great healthcare and access to affordable education. But we don't think it's as simple as the feds saying "it's now free", because that doesn't make it devoid of cost.

You make something more affordable by making it more efficient (in the case of college, there are WAY too many professors making boatloads of money for working barely part time hours). You don't make anything more efficient, by putting the feds in charge of it.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 09:29 AM   #11
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I'm not denying that some people have to work two jobs. What I'm saying, is that when I take a second job, or a tenth job, unemployment does not decrease. It only decreases when I go from having zero jobs, to having more than zero jobs, whether I have 1 or 10 doesn't matter.
So she was wrong or misspoke, haven't we all?

May come as a shock to you., but conservatives also want everyone to have great healthcare and access to affordable education. But we don't think it's as simple as the feds saying "it's now free", because that doesn't make it devoid of cost.
Does that also make them Morons?

You make something more affordable by making it more efficient (in the case of college, there are WAY too many professors making boatloads of money for working barely part time hours). You don't make anything more efficient, by putting the feds in charge of it.
Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college? All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest.
You also did not rebut her views on Congress, I would say that you cannot agree with anything a "liberal" says but....

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 09:59 AM   #12
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
If you go to her congressional district in Queens you will find that many people have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live there and that low unemployment is not that great if the available jobs are not good.
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all.
Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist.
You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society.
Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for?
There is this peculiar notion that if private business entities charge so much that not everyone can afford their product it is because they are too greedy. But if public entities are "unaffordable" for all, it is because everybody isn't paying enough.
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 10:16 AM   #13
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
There is this peculiar notion that if private business entities charge so much that not everyone can afford their product it is because they are too greedy. But if public entities are "unaffordable" for all, it is because everybody isn't paying enough.
That's simple isn't it?
From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 07-29-2018, 09:17 PM   #14
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
During his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump repeated a claim he’d made several times before.

"Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment," Trump said. "The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent."

Comrade didn't say low unemployment was bad either, but he did question the numbers. Ocasio said the low numbers mislead people into thinking all is well. I am pretty sure that was a huge part of Trump's campaign, though she wasn't claiming 42% unemployment like Comrade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 05:26 AM   #15
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
During his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump repeated a claim he’d made several times before.

"Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment," Trump said. "The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent."

Comrade didn't say low unemployment was bad either, but he did question the numbers. Ocasio said the low numbers mislead people into thinking all is well. I am pretty sure that was a huge part of Trump's campaign, though she wasn't claiming 42% unemployment like Comrade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
trump is also an idiot in many ways, but he has a resume that includes building and running a company with thousands of employees. what has this girl done? nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 05:58 AM   #16
Rmarsh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,698
I've worked two jobs most of my 45 years in construction ....not complaining....I was told and believed that's how you get ahead and that's how I paid my mortgage off and raised two kids. I tell my kids the same......"if you want to get ahead....you will need to work a lot more than 40 hrs. a week!
Rmarsh is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 07:23 AM   #17
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
Conservatives are afraid of a women who has yet won election. and if so is 1 voice in Congress . But they are not worried or Afraid of the Current POTUS , and his actions and behavior and Policies


As much as Jim says the certain people are responsible for Trump . Trump is responsible for this kind of candidate

Trumps gives Business promising free money , wants 100% Depreciation " I don't have to please Wall Street, and so I appreciate depreciation. For me the relevant issue isn't what I report on the bottom line, it's what I get to keep" equals guaranteed income. yet no suggestions how to pay for it
wdmso is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 07:27 AM   #18
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

Conservatives are afraid of a women who has yet won election.
I don't think anyone expressed fear....just made fun of her politics and statements...I'm rooting for her
scottw is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 07:40 AM   #19
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I don't think anyone expressed fear....just made fun of her politics and statements...I'm rooting for her
I think the Democratic Party fears her more than the Republican Party does. The more popular she becomes the more fragmented the Democrats become.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 07:47 AM   #20
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
I think the Democratic Party fears her more than the Republican Party does. The more popular she becomes the more fragmented the Democrats become.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Exactly. I'm tempted to donate to her campaign. The more prominent and visible she is, the better the GOP will do in November.

SHE is the one headlining fundraisers? A 26 year old who hasn't done a thing with her life? Trump's election was 18 months ago, and this is the best the democrats have got to trot out? Unbelievable. Where is their bench?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 07:44 AM   #21
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Conservatives are afraid of a women who has yet won election. and if so is 1 voice in Congress . But they are not worried or Afraid of the Current POTUS , and his actions and behavior and Policies


As much as Jim says the certain people are responsible for Trump . Trump is responsible for this kind of candidate

Trumps gives Business promising free money , wants 100% Depreciation " I don't have to please Wall Street, and so I appreciate depreciation. For me the relevant issue isn't what I report on the bottom line, it's what I get to keep" equals guaranteed income. yet no suggestions how to pay for it
"Conservatives are afraid of a women who has yet won election"

You could not be more wrong. I love her, I hope she gets the nomination to run for POTUS, maybe with Maxine Waters as her running mate. I think she's a moron, that doesn't mean I'm afraid of her. It's Nancy Pelosi, and the democratic establishment, who are afraid, because they know she's a ditz who will have zero appeal outside of NYC or San Francisco. Pelosi has spoken against her, because she knows this woman is going to hurt the party.

"Trump is responsible for this kind of candidate"

Oh I agree! It's evidence of how severely he has broken their brains. The GOP response to Obama, was the Tea Party. And this woman, is the left's response to Trump? We will see which pays better political dividends, but we all already know what the answer will be.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:31 AM   #22
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"
Oh I agree! It's evidence of how severely he has broken their brains. The GOP response to Obama, was the Tea Party. And this woman, is the left's response to Trump?
Who has the broken brain? She won a primary for the Congressional district that includes Brooklyn and you are comparing it to a national response like the tea party. Oh man, Jim...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:49 AM   #23
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Who has the broken brain? She won a primary for the Congressional district that includes Brooklyn and you are comparing it to a national response like the tea party. Oh man, Jim...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She thinks that if I take a second job, unemployment goes down. She said the Jews invaded Palestine. he thinks that there is such a thing as "free" college. Forgive me, I don't think she should be writing federal law.

I did not compare one primary result to the national tea party creation. I compared the fact that the DNC is sending her to fundraisers all over the country, to the GOP tea party response. She is THE hottest rising star on the left right now, and it's a joke.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:43 AM   #24
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"

You could not be more wrong. I love her, I hope she gets the nomination to run for POTUS, maybe with Maxine Waters as her running mate. I think she's a moron, that doesn't mean I'm afraid of her.
You know there is a minimum age in the u.s. to run for president, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:49 AM   #25
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
You know there is a minimum age in the u.s. to run for president, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
there are laws about illegally crossing the border too....I'd let her run and accuse anyone who disagrees as racist, sexist ageists....
scottw is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 07:56 AM   #26
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
George F. Will: Ocasio-Cortez could learn a thing or two about socialism from Trump

By George F. Will | The Washington Post
·
Published: 1 day ago
Updated: 21 hours ago
Washington • For three months in 1917, Leon Trotsky lived in the Bronx, just south of the congressional district where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary. Because she calls herself a democratic socialist, the word “socialism” is thrilling progressives who hanker to storm the Bastille, if only America had one. And the word has conservatives darkly anticipating the domestic equivalent of the Bolsheviks storming St. Petersburg’s Winter Palace 101 years ago, if there is an equivalent building in the eastern Bronx and northern Queens. Never mind that only about 16,000 voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s version of “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!”

A more apt connection of current events to actual socialism was made by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, when Donald Trump decided to validate the conservative axiom that government often is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure. When the president decided to give farmers a $12 billion bandage for the wound he inflicted on them with his splendid little (so far) trade war, and when other injured interests joined the clamor for comparable compensations, Johnson said, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.”

Concerning Johnson’s observation, the Hoover Institution’s John H. Cochrane, who blogs as The Grumpy Economist, says actually, it’s worse than that: “It’s a darker system, which leads to crony capitalism.” Cochrane is just slightly wrong: Protectionism, and the promiscuous and capricious government interventions that inevitably accompany it, is, always and everywhere, crony capitalism. But he is spot on about the incompatibility of America’s new darker system and the rule of law:


“Everyone depends on the whim of the administration. Who gets tariff protection? On whim. But then you can apply for a waiver. Who gets those, on what basis? Now you can get subsidies. Who gets the subsidies? There is no law, no rule, no basis for any of this. If you think you deserve a waiver, on what basis do you sue to get one? Well, it sure can’t hurt not to be an outspoken critic of the administration when the tariffs, waivers and subsidies are being handed out on whim. This is a bipartisan danger. I was critical of the ACA (Obamacare) since so many businesses were asking for and getting waivers. I was critical of the Dodd-Frank Act since so much regulation and enforcement is discretionary. Keep your mouth shut and support the administration is good advice in both cases.”

Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? Protectionism — government coercion supplanting the voluntary transactions of markets in the allocation of wealth and opportunity — is socialism for the well connected. But, then, all socialism favors those adept at manipulating the state. As government expands its lawless power to reward and punish, the sphere of freedom contracts. People become wary and reticent lest they annoy those who wield the administrative state as a blunt instrument.

Tariffs are taxes, and presidents have the anti-constitutional power to unilaterally raise these taxes because Congress, in its last gasps as a legislature, gave away this power. What do the members retain? Their paychecks. Certainly not their dignity.

Noting that some Trump protectionism is rationalized as essential for “national security,” Cochrane, who clings to the quaint fiction that Congress still legislates, suggests a new law stipulating that such tariffs must be requested — and paid for — by the Defense Department: “Do we need steel mills so we can re-fight WWII? If so, put subsidized steel mills on the defense budget. If defense prefers to use the money for a new aircraft carrier rather than a steel mill, well, that’s their choice.” Actually, the Defense Department, unlike much of the rest of the government, has serious responsibilities and has not trafficked in “national security” nonsense about protectionism.

In 1932, three years into the terrifying Depression, the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, received fewer votes (884,885) in the presidential election than the (913,693) Eugene Debs won in 1920 when, thanks to the wartime hysteria Woodrow Wilson fomented, he was in jail. Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 06:32 PM   #27
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
George F. Will: Ocasio-Cortez could learn a thing or two about socialism from Trump

By George F. Will | The Washington Post
·
Published: 1 day ago
Updated: 21 hours ago
Washington • For three months in 1917, Leon Trotsky lived in the Bronx, just south of the congressional district where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary. Because she calls herself a democratic socialist, the word “socialism” is thrilling progressives who hanker to storm the Bastille, if only America had one. And the word has conservatives darkly anticipating the domestic equivalent of the Bolsheviks storming St. Petersburg’s Winter Palace 101 years ago, if there is an equivalent building in the eastern Bronx and northern Queens. Never mind that only about 16,000 voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s version of “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!”

A more apt connection of current events to actual socialism was made by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, when Donald Trump decided to validate the conservative axiom that government often is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure. When the president decided to give farmers a $12 billion bandage for the wound he inflicted on them with his splendid little (so far) trade war, and when other injured interests joined the clamor for comparable compensations, Johnson said, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.”

Concerning Johnson’s observation, the Hoover Institution’s John H. Cochrane, who blogs as The Grumpy Economist, says actually, it’s worse than that: “It’s a darker system, which leads to crony capitalism.” Cochrane is just slightly wrong: Protectionism, and the promiscuous and capricious government interventions that inevitably accompany it, is, always and everywhere, crony capitalism. But he is spot on about the incompatibility of America’s new darker system and the rule of law:


“Everyone depends on the whim of the administration. Who gets tariff protection? On whim. But then you can apply for a waiver. Who gets those, on what basis? Now you can get subsidies. Who gets the subsidies? There is no law, no rule, no basis for any of this. If you think you deserve a waiver, on what basis do you sue to get one? Well, it sure can’t hurt not to be an outspoken critic of the administration when the tariffs, waivers and subsidies are being handed out on whim. This is a bipartisan danger. I was critical of the ACA (Obamacare) since so many businesses were asking for and getting waivers. I was critical of the Dodd-Frank Act since so much regulation and enforcement is discretionary. Keep your mouth shut and support the administration is good advice in both cases.”

Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? Protectionism — government coercion supplanting the voluntary transactions of markets in the allocation of wealth and opportunity — is socialism for the well connected. But, then, all socialism favors those adept at manipulating the state. As government expands its lawless power to reward and punish, the sphere of freedom contracts. People become wary and reticent lest they annoy those who wield the administrative state as a blunt instrument.

Tariffs are taxes, and presidents have the anti-constitutional power to unilaterally raise these taxes because Congress, in its last gasps as a legislature, gave away this power. What do the members retain? Their paychecks. Certainly not their dignity.

Noting that some Trump protectionism is rationalized as essential for “national security,” Cochrane, who clings to the quaint fiction that Congress still legislates, suggests a new law stipulating that such tariffs must be requested — and paid for — by the Defense Department: “Do we need steel mills so we can re-fight WWII? If so, put subsidized steel mills on the defense budget. If defense prefers to use the money for a new aircraft carrier rather than a steel mill, well, that’s their choice.” Actually, the Defense Department, unlike much of the rest of the government, has serious responsibilities and has not trafficked in “national security” nonsense about protectionism.

In 1932, three years into the terrifying Depression, the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, received fewer votes (884,885) in the presidential election than the (913,693) Eugene Debs won in 1920 when, thanks to the wartime hysteria Woodrow Wilson fomented, he was in jail. Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything.
You have this curious way of defending your position with something that contradicts it. Here you post an article by George Will, which you apparently approve of, that we are supposed to somehow believe supports Ocasio Cortez (I assume it is in defense of her against Jim's attack of her credibility). But what Will writes utterly destroys what she stands for.

How are we supposed to "expand our horizon", as you suggest, by watching the Cortez video if you post an article that thoroughly vitiates what she politically believes?
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 07:27 PM   #28
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
You have this curious way of defending your position with something that contradicts it. Here you post an article by George Will, which you apparently approve of, that we are supposed to somehow believe supports Ocasio Cortez (I assume it is in defense of her against Jim's attack of her credibility). But what Will writes utterly destroys what she stands for.

How are we supposed to "expand our horizon", as you suggest, by watching the Cortez video if you post an article that thoroughly vitiates what she politically believes?
When did I say she was correct in her approach to healthcare and education what I do think is she will move public opinion
Just like the reporter who wrote the article Jim cited and said there but for the grace of God go I other people will say that’s a good idea how can we make that happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 08:08 PM   #29
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
When did I say she was correct in her approach to healthcare and education what I do think is she will move public opinion

Yes, the peaceful authoritarian way is to move public opinion. That is the purpose of propaganda. Or lies. Or giving goodies to get votes.

Yes, there is a large portion of modern folks who are very susceptible of having their opinion moved in the direction of some socialist form of fairy dust that will bestow the magic food, clothing, shelter, education, and lots of time to enjoy life, basically paid for and provided by "society."


Just like the reporter who wrote the article Jim cited and said there but for the grace of God go I other people will say that’s a good idea how can we make that happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Cortez seems to think she knows the way. But people have been trying unsuccessfully to make that happen, including Cortez's way, for eons. Capitalism is the closest way we have come to achieve it. Cortez's way is contradicted by the article you posted by George Will. Why did you post Will's Article?
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-30-2018, 09:03 PM   #30
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Cortez seems to think she knows the way. But people have been trying unsuccessfully to make that happen, including Cortez's way, for eons. Capitalism is the closest way we have come to achieve it. Cortez's way is contradicted by the article you posted by George Will. Why did you post Will's Article?
We successfully fund primary and secondary education publicly and our society benefits from that, is it impossible to do more? Now I also don’t believe that further education is what everyone needs
George Will is a interesting writer. I thought his article drawing parallels between Cortez and Trump was interesting and important.
Politics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com