Why I Could Never Be GOP or Libertarian

[forkup]

You sound like Thom Hartmann

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

And you will see here Search Results that this all started in the 1970's. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Jack Walsh of GE. They broke the social contract with Americans and the only responsibility of a corporation is to maximize the profits of it's shareholders. I'm ok with that. That's what corporations do. But that's why they shouldn't be in charge. The government should. Corporations need to be regulated. Don't like the tax system in America, don't sell your shit here in America. Republicans think the corporations call all the shots. They do, but they shouldn't. But unfortunately, they do. And half of America approves of it. They don't think it will hurt them. They are wrong. And if it won't hurt them, how about their kids? Will their kids be "valued" by a corporation or will they pay an underpaid temp worker. I don't like the way America is headed either. But that doesn't mean I want Trump to be president. That man is a con man.

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

Nothing bankers did during the run up to 2008 was or is illegal. How many people lost everything there? Again, you feel that preferable? Why is that superior, to saying there are certain things you can't do. Not allowing people mortgages you know in advance they can't pay back for instance? Btw the current bad ecoomic times you blame Obama for started there.

That whole thing was a cluster by both parties. Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and the fed funded it with free cash. W came in and said wow, that's not going to end well. Then in typical useless Republican fashion continued and even expanded the policy.

That had nothing to do with free markets, that was a pure government manufactured crisis. And again, free markets ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS with being pro company. Free markets are about pro CHOICE. Consumers can fire any company they want. Employees can fire any hirer they want. Companies have to compete

Competition for stuff that is a basic human right, namely health makes no sense. Everything needs to be done to try to keep the cost as low as is humanly possible. Free market has zero intrest in keeping costs down.

 

[IndependantAce]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

In April 2012, after receiving criticism from Georgetown University faculty members on his budget plan, Ryan rejected Rand's philosophy as an atheistic one, saying it "reduces human interactions down to mere contracts".[42] He also called the reports of his adherence to Rand's views an "urban legend" and stated that he was deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.[43] Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, maintains that Ryan is not a Rand disciple, and that some of his proposals do not follow Rand's philosophy of limited government; Brook refers to Ryan as a "fiscal moderate".[

 

[sealybobo]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

In April 2012, after receiving criticism from Georgetown University faculty members on his budget plan, Ryan rejected Rand's philosophy as an atheistic one, saying it "reduces human interactions down to mere contracts".[42] He also called the reports of his adherence to Rand's views an "urban legend" and stated that he was deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.[43] Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, maintains that Ryan is not a Rand disciple, and that some of his proposals do not follow Rand's philosophy of limited government; Brook refers to Ryan as a "fiscal moderate".[

Well we know Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-ryan-revealed-his-love-for-ayn-rand.html

 

[forkup]

Look I live in a Western European country. My taxes are compared to yours insanely high. But I get it back. This is a thing the GOP has been very succesfull at. They have convinced it's base that private companies per definition are more effecient and because of that cheaper. That is simply wrong. A private company has different motivation to do stuff then a goverment. Some stuff a private company is better at but some things goverments are better at.

Free markets isn't about companies, it's about free markets. You were wrong from the start. Capitalism is economic freedom, your service provider doesn't service you, you fire them

Ah lets compare free market healthcare as provided in the U.S.. To goverment provided healthcare in my country (Belgium). I've had this discussion before on this forum. My healthcare is cheaper per capita, more efficient, we have a higher average life expectancy. List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belgium. Fun country to visit. I spent the weekend before Christmas last year at the Hilton in the Centrum of Antwerp. It was a great celebration. I also spent a lot of a year in the 90s in Brussels.

As for medical care, it's really hard to compare our countries, and you're not counting the total cost of medical care, only the transactional out of pocket portion

Nope that's the whole thing actually. I'll give you a breakdown as how we achieve that if you want.

The US is driving medical advancements. Belgium is driving nothing. You're in a socialist country with price controls. Comparing the US medical industry to Belgium is ridiculous. And our costs have skyrocketed under the idiot Obama

Not true
LONGEST-EVER PRESERVATION OF LUNGS OUTSIDE THE BODY
Transplant specialists at University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium were able to preserve donor lungs outside of a human body for a full 11 hours, the longest time in medical history. The feat was possible thanks to OCS LUNG, a perfusion-based machine that supplies the quarantined lungs with a continual, refreshing supply of oxygen.

"The machine enabled us to keep the lungs outside the body for more than 11 hours with no negative effects," Dr. Dirk Van Raemdonck, who helped perform the operation told KU LEUVEN, adding that it was “the longest period ever reported — a world first.”

The machine is now commercially available in Europe and Australia, clinical trials in the U.S. are expected to start soon.
Quick google search. I readily agree that more inovation come from the us, but Belgium and all other developed countries are capable of inovating. Remember the US is to my knowledge the only developed country that has for profit healthcare.

 

[forkup]

You sound like Thom Hartmann

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

And you will see here Search Results that this all started in the 1970's. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Jack Walsh of GE. They broke the social contract with Americans and the only responsibility of a corporation is to maximize the profits of it's shareholders. I'm ok with that. That's what corporations do. But that's why they shouldn't be in charge. The government should. Corporations need to be regulated. Don't like the tax system in America, don't sell your shit here in America. Republicans think the corporations call all the shots. They do, but they shouldn't. But unfortunately, they do. And half of America approves of it. They don't think it will hurt them. They are wrong. And if it won't hurt them, how about their kids? Will their kids be "valued" by a corporation or will they pay an underpaid temp worker. I don't like the way America is headed either. But that doesn't mean I want Trump to be president. That man is a con man.

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

Nothing bankers did during the run up to 2008 was or is illegal. How many people lost everything there? Again, you feel that preferable? Why is that superior, to saying there are certain things you can't do. Not allowing people mortgages you know in advance they can't pay back for instance? Btw the current bad ecoomic times you blame Obama for started there.

That whole thing was a cluster by both parties. Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and the fed funded it with free cash. W came in and said wow, that's not going to end well. Then in typical useless Republican fashion continued and even expanded the policy.

That had nothing to do with free markets, that was a pure government manufactured crisis. And again, free markets ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS with being pro company. Free markets are about pro CHOICE. Consumers can fire any company they want. Employees can fire any hirer they want. Companies have to compete

I agree, both sides of the aisle are assholes lol. We probably agree on the reason for it. In the US getting elected costs so much money and the political and judicial system have taken away all restrictions to get that money. You guys have basicly made bribery legal, you call it lobbying and super pacs but that's all it is.

 

[kaz]

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

Nothing bankers did during the run up to 2008 was or is illegal. How many people lost everything there? Again, you feel that preferable? Why is that superior, to saying there are certain things you can't do. Not allowing people mortgages you know in advance they can't pay back for instance? Btw the current bad ecoomic times you blame Obama for started there.

That whole thing was a cluster by both parties. Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and the fed funded it with free cash. W came in and said wow, that's not going to end well. Then in typical useless Republican fashion continued and even expanded the policy.

That had nothing to do with free markets, that was a pure government manufactured crisis. And again, free markets ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS with being pro company. Free markets are about pro CHOICE. Consumers can fire any company they want. Employees can fire any hirer they want. Companies have to compete

Competition for stuff that is a basic human right, namely health makes no sense. Everything needs to be done to try to keep the cost as low as is humanly possible. Free market has zero intrest in keeping costs down.

And government does, yeah.

You again equated the interest of companies with free markets. You're just wrong. Free markets include ... customers ... who clearly wan to drive costs down. The problem now is there are not free markets in health in the US and there is no way to do that. It's government controlled markets. Exactly my point

 

[kaz]

Free markets isn't about companies, it's about free markets. You were wrong from the start. Capitalism is economic freedom, your service provider doesn't service you, you fire them

Ah lets compare free market healthcare as provided in the U.S.. To goverment provided healthcare in my country (Belgium). I've had this discussion before on this forum. My healthcare is cheaper per capita, more efficient, we have a higher average life expectancy. List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belgium. Fun country to visit. I spent the weekend before Christmas last year at the Hilton in the Centrum of Antwerp. It was a great celebration. I also spent a lot of a year in the 90s in Brussels.

As for medical care, it's really hard to compare our countries, and you're not counting the total cost of medical care, only the transactional out of pocket portion

Nope that's the whole thing actually. I'll give you a breakdown as how we achieve that if you want.

The US is driving medical advancements. Belgium is driving nothing. You're in a socialist country with price controls. Comparing the US medical industry to Belgium is ridiculous. And our costs have skyrocketed under the idiot Obama

Not true
LONGEST-EVER PRESERVATION OF LUNGS OUTSIDE THE BODY
Transplant specialists at University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium were able to preserve donor lungs outside of a human body for a full 11 hours, the longest time in medical history. The feat was possible thanks to OCS LUNG, a perfusion-based machine that supplies the quarantined lungs with a continual, refreshing supply of oxygen.

"The machine enabled us to keep the lungs outside the body for more than 11 hours with no negative effects," Dr. Dirk Van Raemdonck, who helped perform the operation told KU LEUVEN, adding that it was “the longest period ever reported — a world first.”

The machine is now commercially available in Europe and Australia, clinical trials in the U.S. are expected to start soon.
Quick google search. I readily agree that more inovation come from the us, but Belgium and all other developed countries are capable of inovating. Remember the US is to my knowledge the only developed country that has for profit healthcare.

OK, I meant comparatively nothing, not literally nothing. I thought that was obvious

 

[kaz]

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

Nothing bankers did during the run up to 2008 was or is illegal. How many people lost everything there? Again, you feel that preferable? Why is that superior, to saying there are certain things you can't do. Not allowing people mortgages you know in advance they can't pay back for instance? Btw the current bad ecoomic times you blame Obama for started there.

That whole thing was a cluster by both parties. Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and the fed funded it with free cash. W came in and said wow, that's not going to end well. Then in typical useless Republican fashion continued and even expanded the policy.

That had nothing to do with free markets, that was a pure government manufactured crisis. And again, free markets ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS with being pro company. Free markets are about pro CHOICE. Consumers can fire any company they want. Employees can fire any hirer they want. Companies have to compete

I agree, both sides of the aisle are assholes lol. We probably agree on the reason for it. In the US getting elected costs so much money and the political and judicial system have taken away all restrictions to get that money. You guys have basicly made bribery legal, you call it lobbying and super pacs but that's all it is.

Yes, I do agree. Both parties sell out

 

[sealybobo]

Free markets isn't about companies, it's about free markets. You were wrong from the start. Capitalism is economic freedom, your service provider doesn't service you, you fire them

Ah lets compare free market healthcare as provided in the U.S.. To goverment provided healthcare in my country (Belgium). I've had this discussion before on this forum. My healthcare is cheaper per capita, more efficient, we have a higher average life expectancy. List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belgium. Fun country to visit. I spent the weekend before Christmas last year at the Hilton in the Centrum of Antwerp. It was a great celebration. I also spent a lot of a year in the 90s in Brussels.

As for medical care, it's really hard to compare our countries, and you're not counting the total cost of medical care, only the transactional out of pocket portion

Nope that's the whole thing actually. I'll give you a breakdown as how we achieve that if you want.

The US is driving medical advancements. Belgium is driving nothing. You're in a socialist country with price controls. Comparing the US medical industry to Belgium is ridiculous. And our costs have skyrocketed under the idiot Obama

Not true
LONGEST-EVER PRESERVATION OF LUNGS OUTSIDE THE BODY
Transplant specialists at University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium were able to preserve donor lungs outside of a human body for a full 11 hours, the longest time in medical history. The feat was possible thanks to OCS LUNG, a perfusion-based machine that supplies the quarantined lungs with a continual, refreshing supply of oxygen.

"The machine enabled us to keep the lungs outside the body for more than 11 hours with no negative effects," Dr. Dirk Van Raemdonck, who helped perform the operation told KU LEUVEN, adding that it was “the longest period ever reported — a world first.”

The machine is now commercially available in Europe and Australia, clinical trials in the U.S. are expected to start soon.
Quick google search. I readily agree that more inovation come from the us, but Belgium and all other developed countries are capable of inovating. Remember the US is to my knowledge the only developed country that has for profit healthcare.

We steal talent from those other countries because we pay the most. There's nothing wrong with capitalism. It's unregulated or improperly regulated capitalism that sucks.

Capitalism is just another ism

 

[kaz]

Ah lets compare free market healthcare as provided in the U.S.. To goverment provided healthcare in my country (Belgium). I've had this discussion before on this forum. My healthcare is cheaper per capita, more efficient, we have a higher average life expectancy. List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belgium. Fun country to visit. I spent the weekend before Christmas last year at the Hilton in the Centrum of Antwerp. It was a great celebration. I also spent a lot of a year in the 90s in Brussels.

As for medical care, it's really hard to compare our countries, and you're not counting the total cost of medical care, only the transactional out of pocket portion

Nope that's the whole thing actually. I'll give you a breakdown as how we achieve that if you want.

The US is driving medical advancements. Belgium is driving nothing. You're in a socialist country with price controls. Comparing the US medical industry to Belgium is ridiculous. And our costs have skyrocketed under the idiot Obama

Not true
LONGEST-EVER PRESERVATION OF LUNGS OUTSIDE THE BODY
Transplant specialists at University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium were able to preserve donor lungs outside of a human body for a full 11 hours, the longest time in medical history. The feat was possible thanks to OCS LUNG, a perfusion-based machine that supplies the quarantined lungs with a continual, refreshing supply of oxygen.

"The machine enabled us to keep the lungs outside the body for more than 11 hours with no negative effects," Dr. Dirk Van Raemdonck, who helped perform the operation told KU LEUVEN, adding that it was “the longest period ever reported — a world first.”

The machine is now commercially available in Europe and Australia, clinical trials in the U.S. are expected to start soon.
Quick google search. I readily agree that more inovation come from the us, but Belgium and all other developed countries are capable of inovating. Remember the US is to my knowledge the only developed country that has for profit healthcare.

We steal talent from those other countries because we pay the most. There's nothing wrong with capitalism. It's unregulated or improperly regulated capitalism that sucks.

Capitalism is just another ism

Capitalism is just economic freedom. That you think making your own choices is an ism is because of your sheepism

 

[Arizona Willie]

What are you then?

Anyways, here is why I could never vote GOP or Libertarian.

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

========
What you wrote is all true ... but the problem is that REPUBLICANS don't give a crap about the middle class.

Their only concern is their own personal wealth.

Profit overrides people and country.

Small dollar Republicans ( people with a net worth under 1 million ) are not the same, necessarily, as the wealthy Republicans and the Corporations they own. They want to be big dollar Republicans but most of them still have some concience. Maybe not much but some.

But the 1%'ers have no concern for country or other people --- only their own extreme wealth even though they already have more money than they can spend in their lifetime.

There should be a maximum wealth beyond which people are not allowed to accumulate any more.

Maybe 5 billion dollars. Anything above that is taxed at 100%. That's enough money for them to live like kings just off of the interest.

You sound like Thom Hartmann

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

And you will see here Search Results that this all started in the 1970's. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Jack Walsh of GE. They broke the social contract with Americans and the only responsibility of a corporation is to maximize the profits of it's shareholders. I'm ok with that. That's what corporations do. But that's why they shouldn't be in charge. The government should. Corporations need to be regulated. Don't like the tax system in America, don't sell your shit here in America. Republicans think the corporations call all the shots. They do, but they shouldn't. But unfortunately, they do. And half of America approves of it. They don't think it will hurt them. They are wrong. And if it won't hurt them, how about their kids? Will their kids be "valued" by a corporation or will they pay an underpaid temp worker. I don't like the way America is headed either. But that doesn't mean I want Trump to be president. That man is a con man.

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

========
Completely free markets result in horrific corporate abuses. Like hamburger than isn't really meat and drugs that have been watered down or insufficiently tested just rushed to market to grab a profit before some other company can.

We had the best economy when we had pretty good regulations and there were usery laws to prevent things like Payday Loans with 400% interest. There's another example of what happens when an industry isn't regulated. Poor people financially raped because they can't get loans from banks.

 

[kaz]

========
What you wrote is all true ... but the problem is that REPUBLICANS don't give a crap about the middle class.

Their only concern is their own personal wealth.

Profit overrides people and country.

Small dollar Republicans ( people with a net worth under 1 million ) are not the same, necessarily, as the wealthy Republicans and the Corporations they own. They want to be big dollar Republicans but most of them still have some concience. Maybe not much but some.

But the 1%'ers have no concern for country or other people --- only their own extreme wealth even though they already have more money than they can spend in their lifetime.

There should be a maximum wealth beyond which people are not allowed to accumulate any more.

Maybe 5 billion dollars. Anything above that is taxed at 100%. That's enough money for them to live like kings just off of the interest.

You sound like Thom Hartmann

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

And you will see here Search Results that this all started in the 1970's. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Jack Walsh of GE. They broke the social contract with Americans and the only responsibility of a corporation is to maximize the profits of it's shareholders. I'm ok with that. That's what corporations do. But that's why they shouldn't be in charge. The government should. Corporations need to be regulated. Don't like the tax system in America, don't sell your shit here in America. Republicans think the corporations call all the shots. They do, but they shouldn't. But unfortunately, they do. And half of America approves of it. They don't think it will hurt them. They are wrong. And if it won't hurt them, how about their kids? Will their kids be "valued" by a corporation or will they pay an underpaid temp worker. I don't like the way America is headed either. But that doesn't mean I want Trump to be president. That man is a con man.

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

========
Completely free markets result in horrific corporate abuses. Like hamburger than isn't really meat and drugs that have been watered down or insufficiently tested just rushed to market to grab a profit before some other company can.

We had the best economy when we had pretty good regulations and there were usery laws to prevent things like Payday Loans with 400% interest. There's another example of what happens when an industry isn't regulated. Poor people financially raped because they can't get loans from banks.

Bull crap, corporations can't do that to you when you are free to walk away. What you are describing is what happens when government removes and restricts their competitors, and that isn't free markets, that is socialism

 

[Arizona Willie]

========
What you wrote is all true ... but the problem is that REPUBLICANS don't give a crap about the middle class.

Their only concern is their own personal wealth.

Profit overrides people and country.

Small dollar Republicans ( people with a net worth under 1 million ) are not the same, necessarily, as the wealthy Republicans and the Corporations they own. They want to be big dollar Republicans but most of them still have some concience. Maybe not much but some.

But the 1%'ers have no concern for country or other people --- only their own extreme wealth even though they already have more money than they can spend in their lifetime.

There should be a maximum wealth beyond which people are not allowed to accumulate any more.

Maybe 5 billion dollars. Anything above that is taxed at 100%. That's enough money for them to live like kings just off of the interest.

You sound like Thom Hartmann

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

And you will see here Search Results that this all started in the 1970's. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Jack Walsh of GE. They broke the social contract with Americans and the only responsibility of a corporation is to maximize the profits of it's shareholders. I'm ok with that. That's what corporations do. But that's why they shouldn't be in charge. The government should. Corporations need to be regulated. Don't like the tax system in America, don't sell your shit here in America. Republicans think the corporations call all the shots. They do, but they shouldn't. But unfortunately, they do. And half of America approves of it. They don't think it will hurt them. They are wrong. And if it won't hurt them, how about their kids? Will their kids be "valued" by a corporation or will they pay an underpaid temp worker. I don't like the way America is headed either. But that doesn't mean I want Trump to be president. That man is a con man.

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

Nothing bankers did during the run up to 2008 was or is illegal. How many people lost everything there? Again, you feel that preferable? Why is that superior, to saying there are certain things you can't do. Not allowing people mortgages you know in advance they can't pay back for instance? Btw the current bad ecoomic times you blame Obama for started there.

========
It may not have been illegal but that is because since Reagan ( America's greatest traitor ) we have stripped most regulations from Wall Street and the Big Banks.

Of course you won't want to talk about the things Wall Stree did being IMMORAL.

 

[Arizona Willie]

You sound like Thom Hartmann

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

And you will see here Search Results that this all started in the 1970's. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Jack Walsh of GE. They broke the social contract with Americans and the only responsibility of a corporation is to maximize the profits of it's shareholders. I'm ok with that. That's what corporations do. But that's why they shouldn't be in charge. The government should. Corporations need to be regulated. Don't like the tax system in America, don't sell your shit here in America. Republicans think the corporations call all the shots. They do, but they shouldn't. But unfortunately, they do. And half of America approves of it. They don't think it will hurt them. They are wrong. And if it won't hurt them, how about their kids? Will their kids be "valued" by a corporation or will they pay an underpaid temp worker. I don't like the way America is headed either. But that doesn't mean I want Trump to be president. That man is a con man.

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

========
Completely free markets result in horrific corporate abuses. Like hamburger than isn't really meat and drugs that have been watered down or insufficiently tested just rushed to market to grab a profit before some other company can.

We had the best economy when we had pretty good regulations and there were usery laws to prevent things like Payday Loans with 400% interest. There's another example of what happens when an industry isn't regulated. Poor people financially raped because they can't get loans from banks.

Bull crap, corporations can't do that to you when you are free to walk away. What you are describing is what happens when government removes and restricts their competitors, and that isn't free markets, that is socialism

========
When the car is broke down and the rent is due and the baby has to go to the doctor and you have no insurance because you work for an asshole, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE TO WALK AWAY.

When it's the only place in town with jobs, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE TO WALK AWAY.

 

[JoeNormal]

I've come to the conclusion that the average American is either too stupid or too preoccupied with stupid shit to look further into the future than about a year. The really sad thing is that the major proponents of 'free markets' are the people who will be the easiest to replace via automation and AI.

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

========
Completely free markets result in horrific corporate abuses. Like hamburger than isn't really meat and drugs that have been watered down or insufficiently tested just rushed to market to grab a profit before some other company can.

We had the best economy when we had pretty good regulations and there were usery laws to prevent things like Payday Loans with 400% interest. There's another example of what happens when an industry isn't regulated. Poor people financially raped because they can't get loans from banks.

Bull crap, corporations can't do that to you when you are free to walk away. What you are describing is what happens when government removes and restricts their competitors, and that isn't free markets, that is socialism

========
When the car is broke down and the rent is due and the baby has to go to the doctor and you have no insurance because you work for an asshole, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE TO WALK AWAY.

When it's the only place in town with jobs, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE TO WALK AWAY.

Most libertarians have no kids so they can't relate.

 

[forkup]

Free markets in itself isn't bad. Free markets without any oversight is the problem. The banking crisis being a perfect example. Once you say the goverment has no right to regulate how profit is to be made, pretty soon. Profit will be made on everything even when it is against the common good.

It depends what you mean by "oversight." Giving a way to redress things like fraud, sure. Government providing "oversight" being a euphemism for controlling markets, no. That's just a version of socialism. Government only has a role in ensuring free markets by providing civil and criminal courts. Government never itself makes markets freer

Nothing bankers did during the run up to 2008 was or is illegal. How many people lost everything there? Again, you feel that preferable? Why is that superior, to saying there are certain things you can't do. Not allowing people mortgages you know in advance they can't pay back for instance? Btw the current bad ecoomic times you blame Obama for started there.

That whole thing was a cluster by both parties. Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and the fed funded it with free cash. W came in and said wow, that's not going to end well. Then in typical useless Republican fashion continued and even expanded the policy.

That had nothing to do with free markets, that was a pure government manufactured crisis. And again, free markets ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS with being pro company. Free markets are about pro CHOICE. Consumers can fire any company they want. Employees can fire any hirer they want. Companies have to compete

Competition for stuff that is a basic human right, namely health makes no sense. Everything needs to be done to try to keep the cost as low as is humanly possible. Free market has zero intrest in keeping costs down.

And government does, yeah.

You again equated the interest of companies with free markets. You're just wrong. Free markets include ... customers ... who clearly wan to drive costs down. The problem now is there are not free markets in health in the US and there is no way to do that. It's government controlled markets. Exactly my point

Wow. If you are not on medicaid or medicare you have to get your insurance on the free market, or am I missing something? Obamacare didn't change that, it just put restrictions on what those insurers could do. And before that way more people where uninsured. My goverment does have incentive to keep medical costs down, namely, the less they spend on healthcare the more they can spend on other things. I'll explain the difference. Here first of, we have mandantory medical insurance. Our insurars don't need to spend money on a large infrastructure my town population about 35000 is serviced by my local health insurance place with a staff of about 15 ppl ,since everybody is covered. We for instance have no need for a farmacy to call the insurar since, again everybody is covered. Scripts are filled immediatly. To become a doctor you don't need hundreds thousands of dollars. College costs about 10000 anually with dorms and living costs included. Driving the costs of healthcare down, since doctors don't need to pay back huge student loans they can ask affordable prices to its patients. Our doctors also don't have to take a huge malpractice isurance, cause when he fucks up. Peoples don't sue for millions just for the actual damages incurred. And lastly our insurance companies are not a for money propesition, meaning that they don't need to give profits to shareholders further driving price down.

 

[Tresha91203]

Employees were getting rich at a very fast rate. Today, only the government is getting rich. I know you hate prosperous workers. You just must really, really hate them.

If you agree the only responsibility a corporation has is to its shareholders then vote republican

A corporation can vote?

Did I say that or is that how you change the subject.

If you don't care if America has a big middle class vote GOP. You may feel you are safe and will remain middle class even under Milton Friedman capitalism but chances are your kids and their kids will take a step back.

My parents are well to do and I'm doing great. My bro makes $400k a year. Im not worried about me or my family. I'm worried about Americas middle class. The next generation is fucked. Half of me laughs because they don't vote because they think it doesn't matter. Meanwhile they're letting you decide they don't deserve what you got.

Liberals believe in big government, not in big middle class (the opposite).

This person hates white people, middle class and prosperous America. He rather would import millions of muslims to take away it all.

You are so a sheep. And for the record I think it's corporations/businesses that want immigrants. I'm certainly not begging to bring Arabs in. And I'm not begging for more Mexican workers. I believe we need the bodies. Why do they bring in Arabs and Mexicans? Because no one from any good countries want to come. We take what we can get. Economically it's all about growth. So don't be fooled thinking Muslims and Mexicans come because we want them. Who employs them? Who's shit do they buy? Who do they rent from? They want them here.

There's a cap on the number we allow in from "good countries." MIL had to wait years for citizenship, despite having lived in the US for years and being employed for years by WWU. She immigrated from Canada.

 

[bripat9643]

D

Yikes sealybobo even I would have kept Cruz in the mix as the strongest Constitutionalist. Neither Trump nor Clinton will put the Constitution first without the insistence of peers, and they both show unwillingness to listen and comply with checks and balances.

What concerns me is who is going to either abuse or correct flaws in the justice system too easily abused to push politics. Clinton will put politics and party before the Constitution. Trump would push Conservatives but Justice Roberts was bought and sold out so that's no guarantee. With either candidate it looks like we can't trust either side to keep partisan bias out of courts laws and federal govt. Clinton and the cronies in that camp would push for partisan one sided beliefs at the expense of Constitutional equality and inclusion. And Trump would not listen to checks and balances but do his own thing regardless of other ppl or groups right or wrong. Neither is centered enough to represent the full diversity and voices of America, so they'd both need diverse teams of leaders to keep them and govt. In line. They are both too selfish and ego driven to inspire equal teamwork, which is going to have to come from the people agreeing to work together anyway. It's not going to come from them because they are both way too divisive and scary to ppl, and don't inspire faith in uniting and working together. Only bullying down the other side. My vote is for teamwork, consensus, inclusion and collaboration and there are no candidates who can pull this off alone. It looks like it would take all of them working together to represent the govt I believe the ppl of America deserve.

Do you want to know why you should stop voting for Republicans and libertarians? Go to marketplace.org and listen to the series The Price of Profits. Why careers are gone and jobs are next. It like a 4 part series. Sole responsibility of a corporation is to max profits for shareholders. This wasn't the way things were were like for people in the 50s-70s but slowly the social contract with workers has been broken.

You can thank Milton Freedman Ayn Rand Jack Walsh and this is the GOP way so fuck them. They represent the investor class. They've changed America for the worse.

I agree with compromise. A company should be a balance. Look out for workers and then max profits. But labor is a cost that cuts into profits

The reason middle class wages are flat is all the illegal aliens from third world countries that Dims are deliberately importing.

That's one reason and before you were pro illegals

When have I ever been pro-illegal?

"You" meaning the jobs Americans won't do crowd I was arguing with back in 2000-2008.

Open borders Democrat traitors, in other words.

 

[dblack]

Belgium. Fun country to visit. I spent the weekend before Christmas last year at the Hilton in the Centrum of Antwerp. It was a great celebration. I also spent a lot of a year in the 90s in Brussels.

As for medical care, it's really hard to compare our countries, and you're not counting the total cost of medical care, only the transactional out of pocket portion

Nope that's the whole thing actually. I'll give you a breakdown as how we achieve that if you want.

The US is driving medical advancements. Belgium is driving nothing. You're in a socialist country with price controls. Comparing the US medical industry to Belgium is ridiculous. And our costs have skyrocketed under the idiot Obama

Not true
LONGEST-EVER PRESERVATION OF LUNGS OUTSIDE THE BODY
Transplant specialists at University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium were able to preserve donor lungs outside of a human body for a full 11 hours, the longest time in medical history. The feat was possible thanks to OCS LUNG, a perfusion-based machine that supplies the quarantined lungs with a continual, refreshing supply of oxygen.

"The machine enabled us to keep the lungs outside the body for more than 11 hours with no negative effects," Dr. Dirk Van Raemdonck, who helped perform the operation told KU LEUVEN, adding that it was “the longest period ever reported — a world first.”

The machine is now commercially available in Europe and Australia, clinical trials in the U.S. are expected to start soon.
Quick google search. I readily agree that more inovation come from the us, but Belgium and all other developed countries are capable of inovating. Remember the US is to my knowledge the only developed country that has for profit healthcare.

We steal talent from those other countries because we pay the most. There's nothing wrong with capitalism. It's unregulated or improperly regulated capitalism that sucks.

Capitalism is just another ism

Capitalism is just economic freedom. That you think making your own choices is an ism is because of your sheepism

The free market is just economic freedom. If we consider capitalism to include all the state sponsored legal constructs that prop up modern corporations, I think critics have valid complaints.

 

[Votto]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

And this is why I could never be a liberal, I have a functioning brain and I have morals.