Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

Hartman actually does not believe in unemployment benefits at least not long term. He believes that everyone needs to seek jobs and if they can't find any the government should be the employer of last resort give people work. However if you chose not seek work then you are on your own. Basically he supports are a constitutional right to a job, something FDR wanted. Only people can not work like disabled people would be able to receive government welfare.

I know this kind of out there for some but that is what I mean by outside the box.

That line is the most distinct difference between modern conservatives and modern progressives. Everything about progressivism calls for coercion (more taxes, social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare). This "constitutional right" to a job would be one big welfare program, Mr. Marx.

 

[chicago51]

What a great thought! OK we can give everyone in the country a job. Let's have half the population dig holes and the other half fill the holes in. We'll never run out of work! Brilliant!

Productivity be damned; we don't need to create wealth, just jobs.

Awesome outside the box thought...

not

Look I'm not saying it is completely realistic but we can do a great deal more than just digging holes.

1-Repair/Roads and Bridges: We have about 70,000 bridges that are supposedly not up to code. Ask the people in Minnesota how they felt about the infastructure in this country when the bridges collapsed.

2-Modernize our rail system: Build a national high speed rail system like we built a national interstate highway system in the 1950s. When we built the transcontinental railroad in the mid 1800s our rail system was the envy of the world but we have fallen behind. When did built the transcontinental railroad it help spark our industrial revolution. A high speed rail would boost the economy because some in St. Louis or Milwaukee could find work in Chicago if they don't have work in their city or vice versa.

3-Modernizing/making broadband internet more available in cheep: Start building fiberostics lines across the country that any ISP can use. The problem is internet prices our high because the wire is privately owned. Make the broadband lines public and you get a ton of competitors leading to cheap internet.

4-Modernizing our power system: We can put solar panels or windmils on top of houses for supplemental power system use. So basically the kick when their is an abundant amount of sun or wind available and we run on regular power when there is not enough energy being supplied.

Now think of the raw materials, adminstrative work, the delivery trucks, and manufactoring equipment that would be needed for these projects a ton. We could get a near full employment rate. Almost nobody sucking unemployment or food stamps from the government. Everyone will have money to consume goods and services and that demand will lead increased demand requiring the private sector to increase productivity leading to more jobs.

Again I am not saying this is realistic but I get the point he makes.

 

[chicago51]

That line is the most distinct difference between modern conservatives and modern progressives. Everything about progressivism calls for coercion (more taxes, social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare). This "constitutional right" to a job would be one big welfare program, Mr. Marx.

I'm looking for an honest answer here from any conservative.

I think you would all agree on the following:
You want to help people truly in need but only truly in need.

You don't want handouts.

So you are against handout programs. Ok fine I get that. The phrase get off your butt and get a job. Okay fair enough.

So I put the idea out there of not giving unearned handouts. We make people work for things and assign work if they look and can't find it. Thereby eliminating handouts. It seems like that is not very popular either.

So be real. I am just trying to fully understand the line of thought. Are you really saying everyone for themselves? Basically everyone is on there own. I got mine and that is what matters. Is that the line of thought you guys have? I am trying to figure out honestly how conservatives really think about things.

 

[chicago51]

That line is the most distinct difference between modern conservatives and modern progressives. Everything about progressivism calls for coercion (more taxes, social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare). This "constitutional right" to a job would be one big welfare program, Mr. Marx.

i double posted my mistake. See above post for my comments.

 

[GoIrish41]

Even if it was a welfare program, I would think it would be one that the Republicans can get behind. They would be "getting" someting back from the "takers" -- productivity where before their was none. No more parasites just waiting for their monthly free money fix. Plus you get better roads. Everyone benefits from new roads, not the least of which are the over-the-road drivers who will now have more work because they are delivering the growing number of goods and services needed because there are more people spending money.

 

[GoIrish41]

So be real. I am just trying to fully understand the line of thought. Are you really saying everyone for themselves? Basically everyone is on there own. I got mine and that is what matters. Is that the line of thought you guys have? I am trying to figer out honestly how conservatives really think about things.

This is an excellent question.

 

[DSully1995]

Posters on the right, wanting governemnt intervention doesnt not immediately make them akin to Stalin or Marx, you sound ridiculous, make your point and make them relevant.

Posters on the left, government is not the only way to help people. The best help comes form a strong economy, you also cant solve poverty with a gov. program, for a reasonable cost atleast.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What is the government?

The constitution use phrase like we the people, common defense, and general welfare. The framers envisioned a we society not I got mine so I am good society. While liberals are often petrayed as anti constitution. Yet the John Locke view of government that Thomas Jefferson subscribe too as well is that government is there not only protect but to serve society. Government is there to promote the common good of society as a whole. Being progressive or liberal is basically saying that you believe government is there to serve the needs of society.

I think I am 50/50 on that viewpoint, and this one:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm looking for an honest answer here from any conservative.

I think you would all agree on the following:
You want to help people truly in need but only truly in need.

You don't want handouts.

So you are against handout programs. Ok fine I get that. The phrase get off your butt and get a job. Okay fair enough.

So I put the idea out there of not giving unearned handouts. We make people work for things and assign work if they look and can't find it. Thereby eliminating handouts. It seems like that is not very popular either.

So be real. I am just trying to fully understand the line of thought. Are you really saying everyone for themselves? Basically everyone is on there own. I got mine and that is what matters. Is that the line of thought you guys have? I am trying to figer out honestly how conservatives really think about things.

Like most of your posts, you are assuming a ton.

Most (mentally "with it") conservatives have witnessed decades of government programs that have cost a ton of money and haven't had a return on investment whatsoever.

The "War of Poverty" was a trillion dollars that didn't have a measurable impact. No Child Left Behind was a gigantic failure. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security...say what you want about "could," are certainly are not fiscally sound programs because of how Congress handled them.

Basically, conservatives are annoyed at this mindset that if we just raise taxes that poverty can be beaten and education can be solved. Many of them want to be shown a program that works.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Look I'm not saying it is completely realistic but we can do a great deal more than just digging holes.

1-Repair/Roads and Bridges: We have about 70,000 bridges that are supposedly not up to code. Ask the people in Minnesota how they felt about the infastructure in this country when the bridges collapsed.

2-Modernize our rail system: Build a national high speed rail system like we built a national interstate highway system in the 1950s. When we built the transcontinental railroad in the mid 1800s our rail system was the envy of the world but we have fallen behind. When did built the transcontinental railroad it help spark our industrial revolution. A high speed rail would boost the economy because some in St. Louis or Milwaukee could find work in Chicago if they don't have work in their city or vice versa.

3-Modernizing/making broadband internet more available in cheep: Start building fiberostics lines across the country that any ISP can use. The problem is internet prices our high because the wire is privately owned. Make the broadband lines public and you get a ton of competitors leading to cheap internet.

4-Modernizing our power system: We can put solar panels or windmils on top of houses for supplemental power system use. So basically the kick when their is an abundant amount of sun or wind available and we run on regular power when there is not enough energy being supplied.

Now think of the raw materials, adminstrative work, the delivery trucks, and manufactoring equipment that would be needed for these projects a ton. We could get a near full employment rate. Almost nobody sucking unemployment or food stamps from the government. Everyone will have money to consume goods and services and that demand will lead increased demand requiring the private sector to increase productivity leading to more jobs.

Again I am not saying this is realistic but I get the point he makes.

Outside of your first point which I agree with, if the others were efficient, private markets would get into them.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I got to ask this question. Does the national debt even matter?

Of course not!!!! Why not just print quadrillions of dollars and make everyone in America wealthy!?!?

 

[DSully1995]

Of course not!!!! Why not just print quadrillions of dollars and make everyone in America wealthy!?!?

He has an honest question, your rhetoric is mocking and doesnt add to the discussion man, I wonder about this too, why has the Fed never sat down both parties and said you actually have to solve this? Why is once cuts are proposed economists say theyll be catastrophic, isnt government deficits just another way to add to the money supply?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Outside of your first point which I agree with, if the others were efficient, private markets would get into them.

I disagree with you about #2.

 

[Downinthebend]

I got to ask this question. Does the national debt even matter?

If it doesn't matter, why are we paying taxes? I, for one, would love to have no taxes.

I'm looking for an honest answer here from any conservative.

I think you would all agree on the following:
You want to help people truly in need but only truly in need.

You don't want handouts.

So you are against handout programs. Ok fine I get that. The phrase get off your butt and get a job. Okay fair enough.

So I put the idea out there of not giving unearned handouts. We make people work for things and assign work if they look and can't find it. Thereby eliminating handouts. It seems like that is not very popular either.

So be real. I am just trying to fully understand the line of thought. Are you really saying everyone for themselves? Basically everyone is on there own. I got mine and that is what matters. Is that the line of thought you guys have? I am trying to figer out honestly how conservatives really think about things.

I'll try to answer your question, but please note that I likely don't fall into your idea of a conservative.

Actually no, I am all for charity and I am all for helping those that aren't as fortunate as you at a given moment, or are in need of help. I'm just against using violence against those that don't want to help others. We as a society should protect and help and improve each other, but the way to get around it isn't pointing guns at people.

I'm love seatbelts, and I believe everyone should wear a seatbelt, but I don't think violence should be used against you if you don't want to. However, if you go in my car, you are wearing a seatbelt.

I don't like (insert random drug/smoking here), and I don't think people should do it, but I don't think violence should be used against the people that choose it. However, if you are someone I care about, or I have the possibility to help you "get over" it, I will do alot in my power to accomplish it.

I don't like gay marriage, in that I have a different belief of what marriage is, but I don't believe the government should be defining a religious issue, and I don't believe that violence is a legitmate option against those that I disagree with.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

He has an honest question, your rhetoric is mocking and doesnt add to the discussion man, I wonder about this too, why has the Fed never sat down both parties and said you actually have to solve this? Why is once cuts are proposed economists say theyll be catastrophic, isnt government deficits just another way to add to the money supply?

It was intended to be mocking; it was a stupid question.

 

[Downinthebend]

I was thinking about the fillibuster of Hagel (or how ever you spell his name).

I find it funny. He was fillibustered because he wasn't neo-con enough and something to do with Benghazi, instead of him being fillibustered because he is an interventionalist and something to do with drones.

On the other hand, Obama's remarks that the republicans are playing politics during "wartime" is absurd, unless one defines "wartime" in the same fashion that Obama defined "imminent" (in his white paper). Oh, shoot.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Outside of your first point which I agree with, if the others were efficient, private markets would get into them.

Sometimes the government needs to fund the research and development for things that aren't immediately profitable.

 

[Ndaccountant]

He has an honest question, your rhetoric is mocking and doesnt add to the discussion man, I wonder about this too, why has the Fed never sat down both parties and said you actually have to solve this? Why is once cuts are proposed economists say theyll be catastrophic, isnt government deficits just another way to add to the money supply?

It still has to be controlled. If you keep running them, the amount of debt and the interest you owe on that debt soon balloons. Eventually, your interest payments get so large, that more and more of your tax revenues go to just paying off interest. You have little left over for your actual government programs and nobody will loan you additional money since it becomes increasingly clear that you can't repay it. At that point interest rates skyrocket (see Greece) and everything goes to hell. You have four levers you can pull at that point: 1. Cut spending 2. Increase taxes 3. Inflation 4. Default. None of those are pretty and the first two don't really help that late in the game.

At this point, we have been spared due to the Fed keeping interest rates so low. Add to it that the fiscal situation in Eurorpe is bad and the economy has been unreliable and 2% yield starts to look good. Sooner or later, that won't be the case.

 

[chicago51]

Like most of your posts, you are assuming a ton.

Most (mentally "with it") conservatives have witnessed decades of government programs that have cost a ton of money and haven't had a return on investment whatsoever.

The "War of Poverty" was a trillion dollars that didn't have a measurable impact. No Child Left Behind was a gigantic failure. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security...say what you want about "could," are certainly are not fiscally sound programs because of how Congress handled them.

Basically, conservatives are annoyed at this mindset that if we just raise taxes that poverty can be beaten and education can be solved. Many of them want to be shown a program that works.

Buster I really do get the point you make here.

I think the trillion dollar question did certain programs simply sucede because the idea was wrong or because they were ran like crap?

Take the stimulus. Did it work as well as the economist you dislike so much say? Heck no. I think the big reason was local and state government using the stimulus to replace their own funding instead of adding to it. Also it was bit to politcal as it gave a ton to select unions.

The question though is was the stimulus just ran badly in some aspects or was the whole idea bad?

Are the ideas to help the worst off in society a lost cause or something we just have not figure out how do efficently?

We will get 0 unemployment or 0 poverty rate but I rather see us give it a shot in a way that gives people a chance but does have some the obligation factor involved as you mentioned in a different.

 

[potownhero]

He has an honest question, your rhetoric is mocking and doesnt add to the discussion man, I wonder about this too, why has the Fed never sat down both parties and said you actually have to solve this? Why is once cuts are proposed economists say theyll be catastrophic, isnt government deficits just another way to add to the money supply?

I appreaciate the question and don't know for sure what the answer is. I however will start and give my thought on it and would enjoy any conversation on this.

From what I've seen/read the Fed Chairman has told the House and Senate that the fiscal policy is not sustainable as is in the long term...of course, he then hedges and says that things are fixible in the long term. My guess is that since he has no ability to force Congress' hands, and he's under the obligation to maintain whatever financial stability he can, that he doesn't say something stronger because it might cause a big panic.

Taking a step back, like anyone in banking knows, with our rising debt, our coverage ratio is dropping (forget it if you include SS & Meds). Therefore our treasuries should be perceived with increased risk and demand a higher return. The problem is that the fed through it's schemes has essentialy manipulated the cost of money. This is dangerous, because even the Bernank has said that price fixing ends in failure...do you consider manipulating interest rates fixing the price of money?

It sucks, becuase in my opinion the middle class and savers are the ones getting screwed. The rich will get richer because they are connected - both D's and R's.

 

[potownhero]

Buster I really do get the point you make here.

I think the trillion dollar question did certain programs simply sucede because the idea was wrong or because they were ran like crap?

Take the stimulus. Did it work as well as the economist you dislike so much say? Heck no. I think the big reason was local and state government using the stimulus to replace their own funding instead of adding to it. Also it was bit to politcal as it gave a ton to select unions.

The question though is was the stimulus just ran badly in some aspects or was the whole idea bad?

Are the ideas to help the worst off in society a lost cause or something we just have not figure out how do efficently?

We will get 0 unemployment or 0 poverty rate but I rather see us give it a shot in a way that gives people a chance but does have some the obligation factor involved as you mentioned in a different.

When you speak about helping people, it all goes back to the civil society.

There use to be a time when people took care of one another by choosing to and feeling the obligation to. Why did people do that in the past? Was it a moral code thing?...a religious thing? Certainly wasn't a gov't bureaucrat with a gun to their head.

There's no doubt that the decay of society (single mom's, increase divorce rates) has contributed to the number of people that are relatively worse off. Why is society decaying? Do government programs make it more comfortable for people to divorce, be a single parent?

Why is it that people are fined for feeding the poor in some states now? Once the government gets its snout under the tent, it's coming in.

 

[GoIrish41]

Sometimes the government needs to fund the research and development for things that aren't immediately profitable.

Like the internet.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Elizabeth Warren is awesome. So glad she won. Fighting for the little guys over the big banks. I wish more were like her.

 

[chicago51]

Elizabeth Warren is awesome. So glad she won. Fighting for the little guys over the big banks. I wish more were like her.

Absolutely. I am watching the Ed Show and was about to post about her. You beat me to it.

Nice to see a freshman Senator doing something productive no I am not talking about Ted Cruz.

 

[Downinthebend]

Like the internet.

Indeed. Some government funding (for research) is essential and beneficial. Just I dislike when some say that something like it wouldn't have been invented without government intervention.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Elizabeth Warren is awesome. So glad she won. Fighting for the little guys over the big banks. I wish more were like her.

It's gotta be that Cherokee blood.

 

[Downinthebend]

Justin Amash (R rep from Michigan) engages in twitter "fights" against Obama's press sec, and Mcain.

Justin Amash trades Twitter jabs with Obama spokesman Jay Carney over spending cuts | MLive.com

Justin Amash blasts Sen. John McCain for 'racist joke' about Iranian president | MLive.com

He raises some good points, an obvious one being comparing an iranian man to a monkey, and if Obama thought sequestration was a bad idea, why did he sign it?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

It's gotta be that Cherokee blood.

Lol. Good one

 

[chicago51]

Justin Amash (R rep from Michigan) engages in twitter "fights" against Obama's press sec, and Mcain.

Justin Amash trades Twitter jabs with Obama spokesman Jay Carney over spending cuts | MLive.com

Justin Amash blasts Sen. John McCain for 'racist joke' about Iranian president | MLive.com

He raises some good points, an obvious one being comparing an iranian man to a monkey, and if Obama thought sequestration was a bad idea, why did he sign it?

Obama deserves some blaim for the sequester as he did sign it. However the Republicans seemed willing to default on the debt. Obama made a mistake even negotiating on the debt limit to begin with.

So Obama and the GOP are both on the hook. A majority of house and senate democrats voted agianst it.

I think Obama thinks the GOP will cave and he will get more taxes. GOP is trying frame as Obama's sequester so Obama will be blamed and he will cave on entitlements. Obama actually has flirted with entitlement changes but I think he wants to know he is getting the tax changes he wants before giving up his bargaining chip.

So the sides are playing the politics.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Cruz demanded financial disclosures from Hagel covering five years, three more than required, the News reported, and the Texan said that without that, the "only reasonable inference" is that "there was something in there that they did not want to make public."

I wonder where Cruz stood on Romney's taxes? The guy is a clown show.