Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by Hacker7

If you want your annual income taxed at about 40% Bernie is your man. If you are happy with the way things are going Killary is your woman. If you want something different Trump is your man. Like Monty Python use to say " now its time for something completely different".

Who was it PT Barnum who said "A sucker is born every minute"? If you believe Trump is for the little guy I've got a bridge to sell you.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Who was it PT Barnum who said "A sucker is born every minute"? If you believe Trump is for the little guy I've got a bridge to sell you.

So who is for the little guy .......... the Clinton dynasty 2 for one sale that gave us NAFTA , or Bernie, who as a typical socialist knows what is best for us and will do as this one we have now and force it down our throats ?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Will be interesting to see tonight's results in KY and OR

KY is the one to watch, if Sanders wins both, it will be bad for the Clinton brand, but unless the Super Delegates peel away not much really in the way of a real difference..

Well, keep in mind that orange is the new black. If there is any justice to be found in the Department of Justice (I know, I know, that's newspeak) then instead of serving 4-8 years in the White House, she'll be spending 15-20 in the big house.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

So who is for the little guy .......... the Clinton dynasty 2 for one sale that gave us NAFTA , or Bernie, who as a typical socialist knows what is best for us and will do as this one we have now and force it down our throats ?

Generally it's good to look at the policies candidates advocate. With Clinton you get the democratic policies with Trump you get the republican policies.
Some of them are the same no matter which side you choose, so it makes sense to compare the differences.
For example democrats would be pro-union, republicans would be anti-union; democrats would be for more social programs and probably some tax increases, republicans would be for less social programs and probably some tax decreases; democrats would be for more gun control, the republicans would be for less gun control.

Neither Clinton, nor Trump is a third party candidate. He needs the money and the resources of the republican party and the only way he gets them is by agreeing to the party policies. That's what is happening right now - he is making 'deals' with the various factions in order to get their backing, so at the end of the day he will be beholden pretty much to the same policies as any other candidate would've been. May be in a somewhat rearranged priorities, but that's all.

In any case the party establishment wasn't anti-Trump, it was anti-Cruz. With Trump you get a very different style, but the substance likely won't change much, while Cruz could've changed the power balance within the party completely.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

I tend to agree that most of the average people supporting Trump do feel this way. Unfortunately in order for the country to be hijacked by a "ruling class" it would have had to have been in possession of the general populous at some point. This has never been the case. It was never envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton stated that very clearly in the Federalist Paper 68 when he wrote

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass..."

Sounds like a blueprint for a ruling class to me

Why would the founders separate from the ruling class of England just to turn around and create a ruling class in America? Makes no sense.

In fact "All men are created equal" is not a declaration to create a ruling class, but one abolishing all classes.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Bernie is only worth 3/4 of a million ? So this is in error ? Made up ? Let me clarify, it wasn't in the NYT or the Wash post so it may be true ............

Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders Is a Millionaire

It looks like they are using his future pension money as part of their calculation. As it turns out, it's not really possible to know the net worth of senators because of the sleazy way they do reporting. That's why the spread is so large. Bernie's free market wealth is exactly $0. His parasitic wealth is whatever he can take from the pockets of others.

Keep in mind, there are three primary methods of acquiring wealth. One is by economic means, another is by political means and the third is by criminal means. When one creates something of value and of one's own free will, sells or trades that which was created, that is the economic means of acquiring wealth. The political method is to take what others have created, either through force or the threat of force under the guise of "law." The third method, the criminal means, may use political means, or it may be entirely extra-legal through methods such as theft, robbery, swindling or extortion, for example. In this particular presidential cycle we have clear examples of all three methods of acquiring wealth. Donald Trump used economic means, Bernie Sanders used political means and the Clintons use the criminal means to acquire their wealth. It bothers Democrats immensely, that the economic means consistently generates the greatest amount of wealth. That is, in a nutshell what we're looking at and the motivating force behind all of the activities that we see played out in the news. It is the struggle between wealth creators and the parasites who want to take their wealth by any means necessary. If you will notice, for them the end always justifies the means.

Because governments do not create wealth, but rather exist parasitically off of the labor of others, they must have the means to seize that wealth. This is the reason for taxation. This is the true reason that it is necessary to disarm the public, for they will have not means to protect their wealth. It is the reason for the push for all electronic banking, because no one will actually be able to possess and protect their wealth. It is the reason why they go after foreign accounts, because it puts their wealth out of reach of those who wish to seize it. It is the reason that the Governor of Virginia has made it legal for felons to vote. It is the reason that the War on Poverty, rather than helping the poor to get out of poverty instead guarantees that the poor stay poor and that the number of poor grows larger with each passing year. It is the reason that the Fed exists, to create money from thin air and backed by nothing whatsoever. The beauty of that scheme is that as prices rise, people blame companies for raising prices, when in fact what has happened is that the value of the currency has been devalued through the inflation of the money supply. The list goes on. Every time you see a "grass roots movement", or a new law, or a new tax, or a new regulation, or a new trade deal, simply follow the money and you will find out who is behind it.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Because governments do not create wealth, but rather exist parasitically off of the labor of others, they must have the means to seize that wealth.

This is funny! If the government is such a useless parasite why haven't you tried to create wealth in any of the plentiful countries with weak governments - say Somalia. Without the big government oppression so prevalent in USA no doubt you will be extremely successful

I mean isn't this one of the the big Trump ideas - force those bad companies that find greener pastures overseas for their jobs to stay on this side of the wall.

Originally Posted by gugi

This is funny! If the government is such a useless parasite why haven't you tried to create wealth in any of the plentiful countries with weak governments - say Somalia. Without the big government oppression so prevalent in USA no doubt you will be extremely successful

I mean isn't this one of the the big Trump ideas - force those bad companies that find greener pastures overseas for their jobs to stay on this side of the wall.

I realize that this response was intended to be witty, cutting sarcasm rather than sophomoric, and I do appreciate the attempt.

With regard to Trump, let me first state that i'm not a Trump supporter. Secondly, in the post to which you responded, one of the topics was the primary methods by which wealth is created. Wealth being defined as money or property that a person possesses in excess of what is spent or used up, during a given period of time. The theory of the creation of wealth is a topic of economics, not of business. In business the topic is profit. Profit is money that a company takes in over and above money that is paid out, usually during a fiscal year. Profit is not a benefit of doing business. It is a prerequisite of doing business. Any company that fails to make more than it spends will go out of business. Now that we have defined profit and wealth, let's examine Donald Trump. Clearly many of his businesses have been profitable and as a result he has created wealth for himself and his family. The fact that someone is able to operate a business and create wealth is an admirable quality, but it is not a qualification for the Presidency -- at least to my mind.

Next, the fact that any government is parasitic is rather self-evident. Governments produce nothing other than laws and regulations, with the possible exception of those items produced inside the prison system, such as license plates. They can not even take credit for that since the workers are doing the work involuntarily for no wages. Thus, they can not produce profit, nor generate wealth, except that which can be extracted through force or the threat of force from the segment of the economy that does. Thus, you have the "public" sector which is parasitic, perpetuating itself by extracting wealth and profit from the labor of the "private" sector.

Additionally, with regard to your question that ends with a period, "I mean isn't this one of the the big Trump ideas - force those bad companies that find greener pastures overseas for their jobs to stay on this side of the wall." This is clearly evidence of Atlas Shrugging. If a government creates a climate where business can not be profitably conducted, business will go elsewhere. Businesses, have been voting with their feet for a very long time now. Not only internationally, but at the state level as well. Companies are fleeing states such as California, New York, Maryland and others, to states where their business can be more profitable. Likewise, many businesses have pulled up stakes entirely and set up their corporate offices abroad. Trumps idea is ludicrous on its face. It is certainly obvious, that while he may understand business well enough, he knows nothing about economics. Also, his idea, "We're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it, is equally ridiculous." He proposed to make Mexico pay for the wall by putting a tariff on goods coming in from that country. Countries and businesses do not pay taxes. Only people pay taxes. If you create a corporate tax of 35%, which is about what it is right now, in order to make a profit, the company must raise the price of it's goods by at least 35% to cover those taxes. Who is paying the corporate tax? We are, when we buy the products. If you put a 50% tariff on goods coming in from Mexico, what will happen? The price of those goods will rise by 50%. Who is paying the tariff? We are when we buy the goods. So who is paying for the wall?

Lastly, the term Laissez-faire is an economic concept whereby businesses operate without interference from government. The closer one approaches that goal, the more businesses are successful, the more jobs are created, the more wealth is created and the more prosperous a country becomes. Likewise, the opposite is true. Currently, our government and those who support the concept of hatred of business, are killing the engine that allowed mankind to free himself from the filth, disease, starvation, violent and brutish existence that marked most of mankind's existence -- like that in current Somalia.

May be it's best to get the grammar out of the way first. I had to learn English from textbooks and trained teachers not from my parents, and I am quite certain that in informal speech it is acceptable to end rhetorical questions with a period, rather then question or exclamation mark. I didn't make the rules, I learned them and try to follow them to the best of my abilities, so that other people understand me. I am perfectly capable of using an alternative form of expression and let people 'fill in the gaps', 'just get what I mean', etc., however I am not trying to create a clique or a following. Some people, even here, prefer that form of expression, especially when they are then monetizing that 'network' of people who agree with them.

I will say that I have zero formal training in economics and business, though I am fairly familiar with academic training and would rather not grade the level of discussion. Instead I'd prefer to address the points on their merit.

It is a good practice to create definitions that are abstract enough to apply to wide array of phenomena and not narrow them to the point that any application becomes axiomatic.
In this light if managing a company generates wealth, governing a society does as well. Both are indirectly related to the production of physical goods and in certain narrow sense are unnecessary, but if they can improve the efficiency of production they are beneficial and therefore have value that can even be quantified numerically.

As far as the assertion that laissez-faire policies result directly in a country's prosperity, I don't see any evidence to support it. In fact the example of Somalia would appear to point to the exact opposite.
And I don't see much evidence of Atlas Shrugging either. What I see is that companies are quite happy to remain in the USA while moving only some functions abroad. If they didn't want to be subject to US laws and regulations they would move abroad completely, which as far as I know is not happening in any significant numbers, though I would very much like to know if that is the case.

The most expensive places to live in US are NYC and the bay area - and it is not because the finance, media, and IT sectors are fleeing for cheaper locales. The high prices reflect a demand that is outpacing the supply.
Of course, there are companies that move within US from 'high regulation/blue' states to 'low regulation/red' states. Typically that involves reduction in the worker's wages from higher union wages to lower non-union ones and increase in the company's profits and management's compensation.
The 'productivity' in US has increased a lot in the last 50 years, but these increases have benefited a lot the capital owners and the upper socioeconomic levels of the workforce and haven't benefitted much if at all the middle and lower levels.
That's why even though the economy has done really well under Obama a very big chunk of the americans haven't experienced it.
One can look at this and say that it is because the higher socioeconomic levels are the ones primarily responsible for these gains in productivity, or one can look at it and say that it is because the power balance between them has shifted and the more powerful are able to extract better conditions for themselves during the negotiations over the distribution of the generated wealth/profits. In any case those are the two main effects at work, and determining how much of each is in play is a matter of economic analysis well beyond the scope of this discussion.

Originally Posted by honedright

Why would the founders separate from the ruling class of England just to turn around and create a ruling class in America? Makes no sense.

In fact "All men are created equal" is not a declaration to create a ruling class, but one abolishing all classes.

You really think all men are created equal? When they wrote that they forgot to include all the exceptions that existed then and continue today in one form or another. It was just creative writing to fit the theme of the document.

They certainly did intend to create a ruling class. They had no intention of putting the fate of the Government in the hands of the common folk. It's one of the reasons Senators were to be appointed not elected.

It's very common when a group flees a country for a variety of reasons and establishes their own colony often times the first thing they do is put restrictions on others almost as bad as what they had to deal with in the "old country". You can start with the Pilgrims.