Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

When you speak of those with "no character", I assume you are speaking of Hillary Clinton... Any political party who nominated anyone as incompetent and corrupt as her has no room to point fingers.

Whose sheeple are the left-wing college and university students who riot to prevent people from speaking with whom they do not agree? Strangely, I do not notice conservative students doing that.

---

The Dufus is incompetent and corrupt and he is the president. He turns my stomach too, and I didn't vote for him. Seems neither party can point fingers but we the people have a right too criticize all we want right? Those lefty students are kids, young adults but those racists neo-Nazis are ADULTS and they should have learned better, but the Dufus has made hate speech and actions okay in America.

Quote:

---

Those lefty students are kids, young adults but those racists neo-Nazis are ADULTS and they should have learned better, but the Dufus has made hate speech and actions okay in America.

---

Typical political answer. When leftists engage in violent protest, it's all just due to their youth. But now when Trump supporters are mentioned, they are racists and neo-nazis who should have learned better.

I just wait for the day when Clinton supporters (I assume that would be you) would just be honest enough to admit that she is everything they accuse Trump of being. For me it was simple. Could I vote for the person who did nothing to protect our consulate in Benghazi, pretty much slept while they were attacked and murdered, and then lied about it afterwards? Answer: Nope.

Your right, typical political response. I couldn't vote for a lying cheating Dufus who started his campaign with racially tinged insults. I guess your stomach is stronger than mine. Are you having fun throwing rocks and getting them thrown back at you? That's pretty much what we regulars do so I hope you don't take it personally... NEWBIE.

:)

I love these exchanges. Truth is, we both have to have strong stomachs. I'll say it again. HC is about the same, at heart, as DT. The only thing you have said that has offended me to is call me a NEWBIE. What?? I've been around the plumbing area of this site for about 10 years, but I guess I am new to the Current Events area.

You've been getting out a lot more, that's good.

It's been a ride!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Suppose Donald Jr. had met with the Russkies and received some very helpful information on Ms. Clinton. That would not be a crime. If they had given him money, that's a crime, but not information. We might not like that, but it is not illegal.

---

The crime occurs when "something of value" is transacted. Don't wander in areas where you are not capable.

Quote:

---

but at least acknowledge that we would not have had a really moral person in office if HC had been elected. The truth is, they are birds of the same feather in more ways than most people care to admit.

---

To equate Clinton and Trump on a moral plane is breathtaking. Have you learned a single thing about Trump since he entered the world stage? He is the most morally repellent human being in American history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Meanwhile, we have passed 21 trillion in debt and are heading to 22 trillion. No one seems to notice or care. It's the great national cancer.

---

How you can say this without mentioning Trump's tax cut for the rich and for corporations with its gigantic increase in the debt without a single economic reason to do it is beyond understanding.

well one could say the economic upturn is a direct result of the new tax rates and please don't give us the nonsense I heard yesterday that the reason for the GDP growth is because farmers are getting soybeans to the market before tariffs come into play.

Quote:

---

The crime occurs when "something of value" is transacted. Don't wander in areas where you are not capable.

---

Actually, I was giving the information put out by Alan Dershowitz. Looks like you are the incapable one.

Quote:

---

To equate Clinton and Trump on a moral plane is breathtaking. Have you learned a single thing about Trump since he entered the world stage? He is the most morally repellent human being in American history.

---

Good grief. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Quote:

---

How you can say this without mentioning Trump's tax cut for the rich and for corporations with its gigantic increase in the debt without a single economic reason to do it is beyond understanding.

---

Finally you say something sensible. It's full of misinformation, and you manage to say it without mentioning Obama's 10 trillion contribution to it, but at least you do have a valid point.

Why would the surge in exports NOT be a factor at least in the short term? Also maybe you should also take a deeper look into how corporations are investing that windfall permanent tax cut, (You will have to extrapolate to out years) and run the wage gains model and even with those so called bonuses, while you factor in creeping price and interest in enough markets and you may be surprised at where the real economic growth and yes the stagnation really is. Haven't even factored in the debt as that lie that the tax cuts will pay for themselves is an old supply side mantra that never works for very long and is great for a few to skim the cream off the top.

We've been through this before with other repub administrations and it always ends up with a mess the dems have to come in and clean up. You guys have not even thanked Obama for cleaning up Bushes mess, but what can you expect if repubs that have elected dufuses that have thrived on multiple bankruptcies in their business dealings, would make economic messes for the country they run.

A lot can happen in the next 100 days though, so temper your enthusiasm until you get down toward Thanksgiving and see how your New Year looks, and if the guy you righties have slobbered all over has taken care of YOUR pocket. Time to move that 401K Tom into a more lucrative market.

Just sayin'

Democrats buy votes with increased welfare payments. Republicans buy votes by cutting taxes. The rather predictable result is 21 trillion in federal debt.

Chew on this thought for a few minutes. If we really believe that any individual American has a legal claim to part of the wealth of other Americans, as we must believe to have a welfare state, then why not simply issue every poor candidate for welfare a voucher that would entitle them to some of the wealth of another American. So, for instance, a poor person would have a voucher for part of Taliniman's monthly income. They would show up at your door on the first of the month and demand payment. If you refused, then the next month they would show up with a policeman who would enforce the voucher at the threat of arrest. Now that, of course, is what is already being done, except that the feds clean it up by taking money from you in taxes and then giving it to others. The current system makes the politician able to brag of how charitable he/she is and relieves the poor person of the imposition of having to go to your house. I like my plan better because it makes what is going on very plain to everyone involved. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Democrats buy votes with increased welfare payments. Republicans buy votes by cutting taxes. The rather predictable result is 21 trillion in federal debt.

---

Do the math. Assistance to the poorest, most woman and children, elderly and some yes, men for two years which is the average stay on welfare, is a lot less than tax breaks that target the wealthiest by far. That does include the working poor and I have used the Walmart example many times here. A job that can't pay the rent is a substandard job, given the employer enjoys local and state tax breaks, uses cheap overseas labor, to sell at cheap prices here, and puts BILLIONS in their pocket every year. To be fair(?) to Walmarts they are raising wages given that many states have raised the minimum wage.

Another example is in my home state of Indiana where Pence was the governor, The Dufus made a big deal out of preventing a company from closing and moving to Mexico, and his solution was a huge state tax break to save jobs which we know only delayed the shutterings long enough for the Dufus and cameras to leave. Naw we can't let those people get public money now can we?

Quote:

---

Chew on this thought for a few minutes. If we really believe that any individual American has a legal claim to part of the wealth of other Americans, as we must believe to have a welfare state, then why not simply issue every poor candidate for welfare a voucher that would entitle them to some of the wealth of another American. So, for instance, a poor person would have a voucher for part of Taliniman's monthly income. They would show up at your door on the first of the month and demand payment. If you refused, then the next month they would show up with a policeman who would enforce the voucher at the threat of arrest. Now that, of course, is what is already being done, except that the feds clean it up by taking money from you in taxes and then giving it to others. The current system makes the politician able to brag of how charitable he/she is and relieves the poor person of the imposition of having to go to your house. I like my plan better because it makes what is going on very plain to everyone involved. What do you think?

---

When the cost of bread goes up, so should welfare payments and SSI, and such. That's the flaw in your plan because you see helping poor people get basics is a bad thing but giving those who have much should be given MORE. I like my plan better, cut corporate welfare out period, and raise taxes on the richest for a while to fund a national upgrade of bridges, schools, roads, energy and tech grids which is long overdue. Less than a 1% increase of tax revenues can achieve this and make MORE consumers, of more people so they live good enough to buy stuff like house refrigerators and FOOD.

The best part is you raise money, make investment opportunities for the long run, and don't add to the debt and deficit because that kind of investment booms the economy and pays for itself with dividends. Yeah I like my plan better it's moree positive, precise, and benefits EVERYBODY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Actually, I was giving the information put out by Alan Dershowitz.

..... without mentioning Obama's 10 trillion contribution to it, .

---

Alan Dershowitz - that explains it. Find a lawyer who understands the law. Next you'll be quoting Jeanine Pirro. Or Judge Napolitano, he of the conspiracy theories. Change the channel and got off FOX-TV, Trump's State News Channel.

Obama's increase of the debt had a valid reason behind it - namely, to avoid financial collapse. Trump's increase had NO valid reason - it was simply to pay the rich and, more insidiously, to prepare for the reduced funding of Medicare and Medicaid.

Watch as the Republicans who are chiefly responsible for the debt complain that it is too high and government spending must be reduced. Are you so blind not to see this strategy? The Republicans will tell you that cutting taxes results in higher tax revenues. An economic theory that has been discredited time and again, has NEVER increased tax revenues, and continues to be the big Republican economic lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Chew on this thought for a few minutes. If we really believe that any individual American has a legal claim to part of the wealth of other Americans, as we must believe to have a welfare state, then why not simply issue every poor candidate for welfare a voucher that would entitle them to some of the wealth of another American. So, for instance, a poor person would have a voucher for part of Taliniman's monthly income. They would show up at your door on the first of the month and demand payment. If you refused, then the next month they would show up with a policeman who would enforce the voucher at the threat of arrest. Now that, of course, is what is already being done, except that the feds clean it up by taking money from you in taxes and then giving it to others. The current system makes the politician able to brag of how charitable he/she is and relieves the poor person of the imposition of having to go to your house. I like my plan better because it makes what is going on very plain to everyone involved. What do you think?

---

You are COMPLETELY clueless when it comes to understanding the role taxes play in any civilized society. That's understandable. Many people are in the same boat as you are. A little education would go a long way. Try it.

taxes isn't the problem . overspending is the issue.

Good grief Athos. Chill out. You get too bent out shape.

As seems to be usual on this thread, you did not address my statement. It is entirely accurate. The government takes money from some Americans to give to others. You might think it's justified, and you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't think any American has any valid legal claim to the possessions of another American just simply because they want it.

As for Alan Dershowitz, he spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He is very far removed from being a conservative advocate. Sorry if I take his opinion over yours. He is an attorney. As you said, a little education goes a long way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

Quote:

---

Obama's increase of the debt had a valid reason behind it.

---

Perhaps at first. That would be the TARP program, which eventually spent around half a trillion to stabilize, they said, the financial sector. They also were able to reclaim a large portion of that money. That leaves a mere 9.5 trillion for ???

collusion is not a crime except in rare cases of anti trust . The Trump associates have been taken down with process crimes or from past violations involving their own business dealings. Mueller also slapped

Manafort and Gates with carrying out a conspiracy against the United States. But even that is related to their own businesses trying to hide income from their work for Ukraine .On that thin thread Mueller will try to make a claim that this whole 'collusion' thing is really a conspiracy against the US.

Fusion GPS was hired by Evita's campaign and the DNC ;who then hired Chris Steele ,a former British spy ,to dig into Trump's personal and business dealings. He solicited information from Russian government officials. That work might similarly be viewed as an unsavory effort to engage with foreign interests to win an election. One could say they conspired through a 3rd party to collude with Russian officials to damage the Trump campaign.

IF Jr. sought “dirt” on Evita from the Russians, then according to tal he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. Why wouldn't the Evita campaign be held to the same standard ?

Nah all of that is nonsense Mueller's whole investigation centers on an alleged obstruction of justice. That is why he is looking at tweets and trying to divine Trump's state of mind when he took action against Mueller's buddy Comey.

Taliniman, here's my response.

Quote:

---

When the cost of bread goes up, so should welfare payments and SSI, and such. That's the flaw in your plan because you see helping poor people get basics is a bad thing

---

I think helping poor people is a great thing, and I do so regularly. I just don't think I should be able to force you to do so. And when you talk about helping poor people with someone else's money, it does nothing so show your own sense of charity.

Quote:

---

but giving those who have much should be given MORE.

---

.

You're not giving them anything. When did allowing a person to keep their own money become giving them something? And in case you wonder, I was a school teacher/principal for most of my adult life, so I have no connection to the rich.

Quote:

---

I like my plan better, cut corporate welfare out period, and raise taxes on the richest for a while to fund a national upgrade of bridges, schools, roads, energy and tech grids which is long overdue.

---

Of course you like your plan. It doesn't cost you anything. Before you raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for what you want, you should understand that we borrow hundreds of billions a year, so how do you intend to first cover that shortfall?

Quote:

---

Less than a 1% increase of tax revenues can achieve this and make MORE consumers, of more people so they live good enough to buy stuff like house refrigerators and FOOD.

---

Why do I have the funny feeling that you have not done the math on that? But if we are going to do that, then I will go back to my suggestion. Are you prepared to have a poor person show up at your door with a federal voucher for some of your money?

Careful, Tomder. Facts and truth are not always appreciated in this thread. (<:

You'll appreciate this.

Attachment 49023

And what that proves is both spend too much money it is amazing how much restraint Clinton could have shown

don't kid yourself . Bubba was the beneficiary of a one time dot com stock boom ….. well that and the fact that he actually had the good sense to go along with the Newt Congress reforms of government spending ;

fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization

.