You still got nothing, huh. In case you forgot the question you've been dodging it so long now, you said libertarians are dramatically different from the founding fathers. I stated to be clear I'm referring to "small government" libertarians. I know anarchists call themselves libertarian, but I'm not talking about them. You apparently still can't think of any specific examples. Apparently that's because I don't know history, LOL.
People Who Don't Vote Are The Problem
- Thread starter sealybobo
- Start date
You still got nothing, huh. In case you forgot the question you've been dodging it so long now, you said libertarians are dramatically different from the founding fathers. I stated to be clear I'm referring to "small government" libertarians. I know anarchists call themselves libertarian, but I'm not talking about them. You apparently still can't think of any specific examples. Apparently that's because I don't know history, LOL.
Someone's going to vote to stop them? Who is that? You mean the Libertarian Party? I'm not a member of the party, but if there's a party that would do that them they are the ones.
Remember when W was going to stop them then he proposed massive spending increases, the no child gets ahead program, a massive new prescription drug welfare program for Medicare and he signed the "Transportation" bill Xmas tree, offered illegals amnesty, signed the so called campaign reform bill, never vetoed a spending bill and offered endless government growth in every measure in every budget ... before ... even negotiating with the Democrats? Do you remember? I do.
That was before Obama ran as the Un-W candidate and continued his policies.
As I say, Republicans and Democrats, a distinction without a difference.
Judicial review
Gold Member
- Banned
- #583
Another non answer dodge. Answer the question.They are all liars, so it doesn't matter what any of them say they are going to do. You would be a fool to listen to any of them. A smart person looks at who is funding them, and then can figure out exactly what they are going to do.
Since both political parties are receiving funding from the same sources, and intelligent person can figure out that it doesn't make a dimes worth of difference in the end WHO you vote for.
Judicial review
Gold Member
Judicial review
Gold Member
asterism
Congress != Progress
I disagree, but only because I don't think this is a situation the government can manage. Wage controls got us where we are using healthcare as a form of income, price controls limited innovation. The problem you cite is real, but it's one a relatively free market can solve for itself - just like the case of your boss. According to you, he's missing the forest for the trees and you can capitalize on that. You can innovate. I understand the dynamic of risk and why that might not be something you personally can take on, but someone else certainly can.
All that goes away when the government decides to craft legislation. They never get it right and it's always open to corruption that is so much harder to mitigate compared to corporate corruption. The role of government needs to be OVERSIGHT, not REGULATION. Let the imperfect market do the regulation, have the government be the impartial referee.
I hear lots of talk about regulating lobbyists and taking money out of politics. Why can't we have a government that practices proper oversight so that lobbyists wither on the vine and money for direct political gain is ineffective?
(because there's lots of money and power acquired on both sides of aisle through that corruption that's why)
asterism
Congress != Progress
Milwaukee Tools used to be the standard by which all tools were judged. Makita beat them because they were better quality and half the cost. Instead of innovating, Milwaukee sold their brand (none of their technology, just the brand) to a Chinese unit. The Chinese Milwaukee (knowing that Makita beat them) decided to be the better version of Ryobi. I wondered, why Milwaukee didn't just co-opt Makita's successful strategy?
I found out that they didn't want to take the risk. THAT is the problem in our country and why we can't compete with China currently. There's not enough of an incentive to take a risk and in fact there is a disincentive to take a risk.
Here's a dirty secret I learned when I was audited by the IRS a few years ago: capital investments can only reduce future income at a rate of $3000 per year. So if I invest $250,000 a new idea and it fails, I get a tax deduction for the next 83 years. I'll be dead before then, so why try again? Obviously the anticipated return keeps me going (most successful people fail sometimes too) but that lack of ability to write off future investment losses certainly does factor into the financial equation. I still remember the year I lost money but still owed income taxes because some of the expenses (as in money that went out to buy stuff for the business) were considered "investments" by the IRS and since I've maxed out my capital investment cap it was simply money lost because the business didn't work out.
While I agree that we should not tailor our tax code to specifically accommodate mom&pop operations, there needs to be something that accounts for the fact that my mom&pop operation spent real money buying real stuff that is now worthless hoping to leverage that stuff for a profit. I get that I took a shot and it didn't work out, but saying I can't expense worthless materials is stupid. It was not an investment, it was an expense, and it certainly was expensive.
The tax code favors large corporations because they don't have owners going out and buying materials, they create subsidiaries that make the investments. So the company expenses all the costs of starting and funding the subsidiary, the subsidiary makes the investments, it doesn't work out, and the company gets the tax write off immediately because it's an expense. If I do the same thing but I don't create a subsidiary, I don't get to write off many of the expenses. So I looked into creating a subsidiary that would be able to be structured to make it possible for me to write off most of the costs and it was too expensive. The bureaucracy cost more than the project.
That's not a way to foster innovation, no way no how.
asterism
Congress != Progress
I don't doubt your story one bit. I've seen it plenty. I'm not sure your're schooled on the details of the operation because there are usually LOTS of things going on behind the scenes. The part about the foundation piques my interest because I know it's very hard to get any sort of measurable income out of a foundation for the people that start/control one. Don't believe me? Start one yourself and see what it takes to get certified as a tax-exempt entity and then pay yourself for your time. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that it can't be done honestly without some political connections and those connections have to be major (way more than being buddy-buddy with a Congressman).
If you have 19 years left, that's more than enough time for you to start your own business, secure your financial future, build a leadership team, and take your company non-profit (if you choose). If you think you're out of time, you're looking at it wrong or you know that it's something you can't do (like take the risk).
You have brought up some very valid points, and you don't have to start your own business to have credibility. But if you have all the answers for the business you work for and think you can do it better but don't, well then that means you aren't being honest with yourself.
It's okay, not everyone has the stomach to take the risk you don't want to take. But don't diminish the proper role that clueless owners play in doing something you aren't willing to do. The world is better off if they (and you) succeed, but the world is much worse off if nobody tries.
asterism
Congress != Progress
One of my employees asked me about using social media for our wholesale line of business. She was sure that the "buzz" she could create would expand our bottom line. She had studied social media and analyzed all sorts of trends. She said social media was the wave of the future. Despite my explanation that our market was very niche and that social media was only good for brand awareness and jumpstarting consumer action, she was insistent. We needed a social medial presence (or more accurately we needed to expand our social media presence beyond just a facebook page and a twitter handle) to "fuel our growth."
So I put the decision in her hands. I would either give her a $2500 raise and a $2500 budget for the social media or I'd just give her a $5000 raise. She took the raise.
The next year when she complained about our lack of having a social media presence I gave her a $1000 budget and told her to give it a shot. When the money ran out, she figured out how expensive it was to do what she wanted to do. She asked for a $20,000 budget. Instead of giving her the budget, I gave her another $1000 to hire a consultant to do a report about what she would get for that $20,000. The consultant produced a report fully justifying a $50,000 "social media blitz." I told her we'd do it and if it worked she'd get to keep 50% of the profits from that campaign and her salary (she makes $50K) but if it didn't work we'd cut her pay in half for a year. She didn't want to take the risk.
She still doesn't understand why I don't want to take the risk (because according to her I'm rich), but at least she gets the context. She's not as sure about her ideas when it's her livelihood on the line though. She gets that my livelihood is on the line, but she's still pushing for the grand social media plan. She tunes out when I try to explain that I didn't get where I am by speculating on someone else's ideas that I don't think will work.
Note that she balked when she had to take a risk, but she's so convinced that I should take that risk.
So I put the decision in her hands. I would either give her a $2500 raise and a $2500 budget for the social media or I'd just give her a $5000 raise. She took the raise.
The next year when she complained about our lack of having a social media presence I gave her a $1000 budget and told her to give it a shot. When the money ran out, she figured out how expensive it was to do what she wanted to do. She asked for a $20,000 budget. Instead of giving her the budget, I gave her another $1000 to hire a consultant to do a report about what she would get for that $20,000. The consultant produced a report fully justifying a $50,000 "social media blitz." I told her we'd do it and if it worked she'd get to keep 50% of the profits from that campaign and her salary (she makes $50K) but if it didn't work we'd cut her pay in half for a year. She didn't want to take the risk.
She still doesn't understand why I don't want to take the risk (because according to her I'm rich), but at least she gets the context. She's not as sure about her ideas when it's her livelihood on the line though. She gets that my livelihood is on the line, but she's still pushing for the grand social media plan. She tunes out when I try to explain that I didn't get where I am by speculating on someone else's ideas that I don't think will work.
Note that she balked when she had to take a risk, but she's so convinced that I should take that risk.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 54,893
- 15,063
- 2,180
You need to get over bush and obama and realize if the gop wins they will have to scale back government restoring individual rights.they will be forced.
When have they ever cared about individual rights?
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 54,893
- 15,063
- 2,180
Well, I'd vote 3rd party just because of the possibility it holds.
The more 3rd parties become credible, the more people would vote for them. So your vote wouldn't be a wasted vote, it'd be useful down the line, rather than decide the govt of today.
It might generate more ideas. Look abroad at how 3rd parties have an impact. UKIP in the UK is making the conservatives change their policies to try and stop UKIP taking their votes. In Germany 3rd parties often get into coalition govt and so wield huge power, and many of their policies become law.
The ONLY way to stop the stranglehold of the main two parties is to A) go out and vote 3rd parties and B) go out and tell everyone to vote 3rd parties no matter which party it is.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 54,893
- 15,063
- 2,180
Also history teaches us that the two main parties in the monopoly will do everything they can to make sure the status quo doesn't change.
No matter how bad the two parties are, they'll make sure the status quo stays first, then all the other stuff comes later.
Is this what the people want? Or is this what the two parties have told the people they want?
Why do people feel there's no alternative?
How to put it better.
All the energy that goes into a board like this complaining about the two main parties, yet it never gets used to attack both at the same time with any effect.
Imagine what could happen if this energy were transformed away from keeping the status quo and used to attack it instead.
Last edited:
People who don't vote aren't the problem; they're the solution. It's the people who vote that are the problem. While you sat this one out, your neighbor elected a know-nothing Michele Bachmann type to be the senator from Iowa.
It's a strange situation in American politics. Republican politicians have moved further and further to the right over the last couple generations. Democrats have moved further to the right as well, leaving no real elected progressive movement out there besides Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
About a third of the U.S. electorate voted last week. It was mainly the third that is the oldest and whitest and most apt to voting Republican even though on ALL the down ballot items from background checks and more restrictions on guns, increasing the minimum wage, and legalizing pot and same-sex marriage, they veer to just left-of-center. It's the people who vote that are the problem. They grew up in households where ma and pa always voted (R) and so they've grown up voting (R) as well, even though when they get polled or when they voted on down ballot stuff, they agree with progressives on almost everything.
What we know about the other two-thirds is that they include young people, a diversity of minorities, and the disenfranchised. From one item to the next, they are progressives. They find that too many Republicans are extreme in their views but that too many Democrats appear to be no different than the Republicans that are left over.
That chunk of the electorate gave President Obama two resounding wins. Doesn't matter what you think of him, they're the silent majority that Nixon spoke of except now they're center-left and not center-right. They're people who don't follow politics on the daily like we do here. They have a feeling about their President and that's that. They just liked President Reagan. He was a reassuring presence. Same goes now with Obama.
And just like Reagan, they didn't show up to vote for his party in the midterms. Why? Because their guy isn't on the ballot. And it's a mistake that both of these Presidents made by not going out there and rallying support from the people who put them over the top.
In this cycle, Democratic candidates were running away from their records in order to try to appear more conservative in the tough red states they were in while Republicans were trying not to appear extreme or out of touch. They obviously got the memo this time around to STFU about rape and abortion. What that meant for the two-thirds who sat out was that they didn't have anyone like Obama running. In fact, they began to resent many Democratic candidates who were either quick to attack their guy or pretend like their guy doesn't even exist. That resentment along with not having their guy on the ballot made it an easy choice to stay home this year.
Voting should be a national holiday every 2 years. When more people vote, America gets really progressive really fast.
It's a strange situation in American politics. Republican politicians have moved further and further to the right over the last couple generations. Democrats have moved further to the right as well, leaving no real elected progressive movement out there besides Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
About a third of the U.S. electorate voted last week. It was mainly the third that is the oldest and whitest and most apt to voting Republican even though on ALL the down ballot items from background checks and more restrictions on guns, increasing the minimum wage, and legalizing pot and same-sex marriage, they veer to just left-of-center. It's the people who vote that are the problem. They grew up in households where ma and pa always voted (R) and so they've grown up voting (R) as well, even though when they get polled or when they voted on down ballot stuff, they agree with progressives on almost everything.
What we know about the other two-thirds is that they include young people, a diversity of minorities, and the disenfranchised. From one item to the next, they are progressives. They find that too many Republicans are extreme in their views but that too many Democrats appear to be no different than the Republicans that are left over.
That chunk of the electorate gave President Obama two resounding wins. Doesn't matter what you think of him, they're the silent majority that Nixon spoke of except now they're center-left and not center-right. They're people who don't follow politics on the daily like we do here. They have a feeling about their President and that's that. They just liked President Reagan. He was a reassuring presence. Same goes now with Obama.
And just like Reagan, they didn't show up to vote for his party in the midterms. Why? Because their guy isn't on the ballot. And it's a mistake that both of these Presidents made by not going out there and rallying support from the people who put them over the top.
In this cycle, Democratic candidates were running away from their records in order to try to appear more conservative in the tough red states they were in while Republicans were trying not to appear extreme or out of touch. They obviously got the memo this time around to STFU about rape and abortion. What that meant for the two-thirds who sat out was that they didn't have anyone like Obama running. In fact, they began to resent many Democratic candidates who were either quick to attack their guy or pretend like their guy doesn't even exist. That resentment along with not having their guy on the ballot made it an easy choice to stay home this year.
Voting should be a national holiday every 2 years. When more people vote, America gets really progressive really fast.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
I'm not going to spend the time reading your entire steamy turd of a post but the right has moved left and the left has moved way left. Gay marriage, legalized pot, government healthcare, higher taxes, more spending, more regulations, etc. etc. are the evidence.
I don't know if you are lying, insane or just really ******* stupid.
LOL, how many times have I asked you to back up your claim that small government libertarians are completely different than the founding fathers to crickets? And you're chastising someone else for that? Wow.
Yet you can't think of how exactly, you can only make a blanket claim. The founding fathers were classic liberals, almost exactly like the modern small government libertarians. We want small, strictly limited government. That is why you're not able to come up with anything. Your only argument is well, they just aren't. How? They aren't? How? They aren't... and then you lecture me I don't know history because I can't back up your claim which is wrong. That doesn't show that I am the one who doesn't know history.
So in the words of ... you ... "Another non answer dodge. Answer the question."
If as you say they are very diffferent and if as you say you know history, that's a tap in putt. Why do you keep putting the ball in the woods?
You need to get over bush and obama and realize if the gop wins they will have to scale back government restoring individual rights.they will be forced.
Why would I believe that when since Reagan when you aren't running W, you are running Romney, McCain, Dole and HW?
- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,218
- 72,249
- 3,605
That is not an non answer dodge. What are you, obtuse? I just answered. IF YOU KNOW THEY ARE LYING, WHAT DOES IT MATTER.Another non answer dodge. Answer the question.They are all liars, so it doesn't matter what any of them say they are going to do. You would be a fool to listen to any of them. A smart person looks at who is funding them, and then can figure out exactly what they are going to do.
Since both political parties are receiving funding from the same sources, and intelligent person can figure out that it doesn't make a dimes worth of difference in the end WHO you vote for.
If one man offers you a new car for $10, and the other man offers you a house for $20 dollars, which are you going to choose? It's merely academic and doesn't get us anywhere. What are you hoping to prove with your futile effort? We know both don't have either to offer. The same is true of your scenario. It DOESN'T exist. It is a paradigm that is constructed in YOUR OWN HEAD.
What sort of effing question is that? And then you accuse me of a GD dodge? You ask me a ridiculous hypothetical question of a choice between two things that can't possibly exist, and then ask me to choose? It makes absolutely no sense.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 83,257
- 75,943
- 3,605
Yup. My newly adopted response to whiners - and, I have to say - all those who were/are so up in arms (rightfully so) about Ferguson:
"Did you vote in the 2014 midterms? No? Then STFU"
Similar threads
New Topics
-
U.S. at Fault in Strike on School in Iran, Preliminary Inquiry Says- Started by berg80
- Replies: 18
-
-
Video: Israel is just a tool of the USA and is not its master - The New Atlas 3.11.26- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 2
-
