Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by Razorfaust

In my mind trickle down economics is a balance of wealth exercised into the populace by a diverse means of investments or even acquiring items of luxury that so many folks frown upon as excessive rich folk behavior. Some simple examples Joe rich guy has some extra money he wants to put it to work so he buys a plot of land erects an office building or a hotel as an investment and as a result has employed builders,electricians, plumbers, computer specialists, managers, security people, maintenance people, Chefs line cooks sanitation folk even parking attendants. Another act could be that Joe rich guy buys a gulf stream private jet or a yacht which of course makes both private aviation and the maritime industry employed with all its support. Many folks would find "Joe the rich guy" a jerk for having all those things and the govt would love to tax this guy into the dirt so they can spend his money studying owl turd differences during the threat of global warming. I bet that sea capt and the jet mechanics as well all the people that take care of Joes fine stuff are happy hes got it.

Yes, and Joe Rich guy also invests, or through spending causes investment. That investment could be in computers or machines that make bringing those goods and services to the public more efficient and cheaper. That's why we don't need to work nine hours for a pair of pants any longer or can make a long distance call without even considering its cost. The reason why people used to work half to death was not because mean employers wanted them to. It was because we collectively did not have the resources needed to satisfy the needs of the average person. And those resources were not things that we tripped over in the dark. It was created through investment. Joe Rich guy benefits and do the rest of us.

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, his opponent addressed precisely that with the '47% moochers' remark and we know how it all ended.



Well, the government system is pretty much the same as it has been since the country was founded. The argument is then that the people who run it are doing a really bad job. But those are the people the american citizens have chosen and keep choosing in free elections.

Since 2010 a whole bunch of new people under the label 'tea party' were elected with the promise of being different than the 'typical politicians' and fixing things. Neither Rubio nor Cruz who are representative of that movement got the nod. Instead it's Trump and in another direction - his diagnosis of the problem isn't the government but rather the Chinese, the Mexicans, and the Muslims. So far plenty of people agree with him and if he becomes president we'll see the results.

I never said the people were getting it right or making the right decisions. In fact, I suggested that the gov't loves and benefits through our collective disagreement.

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, the government system is pretty much the same as it has been since the country was founded.

Government is government. That's the whole point of having a limited government, because history has proven the case that, as a necessary evil, government is only useful when kept in check, but unfettered will ruin the liberties of it's citizens.

Originally Posted by prodigy

I think the trump train can't be stopped. As much as I hate to say this next comment, I'm a realist and I believe it to be true. If hillary wins there will be another civil war. Who do you think will win? The gun fearing liberals or the doomsday prepping conservatives?

This is not the first time you are bringing violence. Why would there be a civil war? Why do you think losing in free and fair elections makes it acceptable to resort to killing your political opponents?

Originally Posted by FAL

Progressive Liberal DemocRATS, will have a future in Biofuels as feed stock, so will the Criminals on wall street and in D.C. That is all.

This is a bit excessive, don't you think?

Originally Posted by honedright

Government is government. That's the whole point of having a limited government, because history has proven the case that, as a necessary evil, government is only useful when kept in check, but unfettered will ruin the liberties of it's citizens.

But it is kept in check - every other year. I understand that you don't like what your fellow Americans have settled on, but there is nothing illegitimate about it.

Originally Posted by gugi

But it is kept in check - every other year. I understand that you don't like what your fellow Americans have settled on, but there is nothing illegitimate about it.

I didn't post that there is anything illegitimate about it. And it's true, I do disagree, but with what, only some, of my fellow Americans have settled on.

And therein lies another thing that makes America still great, we can have these political disagreements, and changes of power without disintegrating into civil war. Another thing that countries in the past, and even some today, could not do.

Originally Posted by gugi

But it is kept in check - every other year. I understand that you don't like what your fellow Americans have settled on, but there is nothing illegitimate about it.

I have to disagree with your statement that the government is "kept in check" through elections. Citizens have little to no control over legislation aside from lobbying their elected officials on general issues they may be for or against. Any recourse citizens have to "check" the government, can not correct the myriad of laws and regulations so vast that legislators from my understanding often are strong-armed into voting on them without even reading bills in entirety. I wholeheartedly agree with honedright that regardless of which party is in office, the larger government becomes, the more far reaching its expanse into so many areas of people's lives and often in doing so does encroach on individual liberty.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Citizens have little to no control over legislation

Because having such control has never been intended. They are entitled to free speech and if they convince enough people to their point of view they can elect a representative who has direct control. And of course that representative needs to be able to convince enough others to enact it.

It's a multilayered system, as I mentioned earlier the founding fathers thought the country should be ruled by elites. The citizens provide a check on those elites through the regularly held elections.

And this is exactly how it works.

Keep in mind the selection of Supreme Court Justices - another issue where votes matter.

Originally Posted by gugi

Because having such control has never been intended. They are entitled to free speech and if they convince enough people to their point of view they can elect a representative who has direct control. And of course that representative needs to be able to convince enough others to enact it.

It's a multilayered system, as I mentioned earlier the founding fathers thought the country should be ruled by elites. The citizens provide a check on those elites through the regularly held elections.

And this is exactly how it works.

Free speech is not an entitlement, and Americans (if that's who you meant) are not "entitled to free speech." Maybe just a form of speech on your part, but worth addressing. I know you prefer clearly defined terms.