TAATS

[runrussellrun]

Oldie but goodie

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opin ... 30727&_r=0

"Humane capitalism."

awesome

[HooDat]

I posted this elsewhere but it probably belongs here:

I highly recommend reading the following article (knowing full well that many of you will be immediately turned off by the author and the source) - but I think you will be surprised by the message if you can read past the republican point of reference. The bottom line is Tucker is calling for restraining Wall Street, a more fair tax code, and a focus on creating fair work for the blue collar class.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker- ... nfuriating

Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It’s based on laws that the Congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive.

so where are we now....?

[old salt]

I posted this elsewhere but it probably belongs here:

I highly recommend reading the following article (knowing full well that many of you will be immediately turned off by the author and the source) - but I think you will be surprised by the message if you can read past the republican point of reference. The bottom line is Tucker is calling for restraining Wall Street, a more fair tax code, and a focus on creating fair work for the blue collar class.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker- ... nfuriating

Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It’s based on laws that the Congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive.

so where are we now....?

There's a great story in the Book of Woodward where Gary Cohn schools Trump on the virtues of globalism & chides Trump for his Norman Rockwell view of the US economy.

Cohn urges Trump to remember his favorite street corners in Manhattan & the business establishments which inhabit the corner store fronts. It used to be US retail companies, now it's a Starbucks, a nail salon & 2 investment bank branches.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I posted this elsewhere but it probably belongs here:

I highly recommend reading the following article (knowing full well that many of you will be immediately turned off by the author and the source) - but I think you will be surprised by the message if you can read past the republican point of reference. The bottom line is Tucker is calling for restraining Wall Street, a more fair tax code, and a focus on creating fair work for the blue collar class.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker- ... nfuriating

Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It’s based on laws that the Congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive.

so where are we now....?

There's a great story in the Book of Woodward where Gary Cohn schools Trump on the virtues of globalism & chides Trump for his Norman Rockwell view of the US economy.

Cohn urges Trump to remember his favorite street corners in Manhattan & the business establishments which inhabit the corner store fronts. It used to be US retail companies, now it's a Starbucks, a nail salon & 2 investment bank branches.

Trump's old spot....may be back here when Mueller is done with him

[a fan]

I posted this elsewhere but it probably belongs here:

I highly recommend reading the following article (knowing full well that many of you will be immediately turned off by the author and the source) - but I think you will be surprised by the message if you can read past the republican point of reference. The bottom line is Tucker is calling for restraining Wall Street, a more fair tax code, and a focus on creating fair work for the blue collar class.]

How? He's still playing the game of "the reason you're not making six figures is that the government is in the way, and your taxes are too high/unnfair".

See how far FoxNation has to go? Decades. Decades more of this stuff before they wake up and realize that the free market says the value of the rural American that he's championing is $3. I'd rip this guy apart in a debate. How do you get these people good jobs without involving the government----the socialism that Tucker decries in his last paragraph?

We have TRIED Tucker's way for 40 years now. Destroy unions. Destroy trade barriers. Lower taxes on the 1%. Cut taxes. Cut taxes again. Cut taxes again so deeply that half the nation doesn't pay a dime in income taxes. Trickle down. Don't have enough money? Quit complaining and get another job. All of these Republican (and yes, corporate Dem) economic theories have failed the middle class and below miserably.

I'm all ears. How do you help rural Americans without Federal money and socialism? Ocascio Cortez has answers. Tucker has platitudes. And please don't come back and say "how do we pay for it", because you know what my answer is:

Increase spending by $3 Trillion and then cut taxes. Because you see, the tax cuts will "pay for themselves". You just have to be "patient" for the math to magically work out.

[HooDat]

afan - I am thinking you did not read the article. He did not call for reduced taxes for the wealthy. He talked about the GOP getting their act together and acting like people who want to govern and actually offer government solutions to help the poor who's jobs are (and have been ) gutted by outsourcing and downsizing etc... He talks about how the GOP stood aside when it was inner-cities and blacks getting the shaft (although not quite that directly) but perhaps they will pay attention now that it is rural white people in the same boat.

One of his solutions is old fashioned and corny one and it is the support of marriage - he bases his argument on the fact that marriage is one of the highest and best indicator of future success and becoming an exclusive province of the wealthy. Study after study proves there are huge correlations between two-parent families and future success (from home buying to child rearing), yet marriage rates are declining for all but the already wealthy. Take it a step further and there are studies upon studies that show that across cultures and countries women marry up in earning capacity while men marry "up" in looks (the more egalitarian the country the stronger the correlation - Sweden is the prime example). He credits the decline in marriage to the decline of traditional manufacturing jobs in the less urban areas, leading to lower male employment, leading to less marriage.

I interpret him as laying the groundwork for a fight between Main Street vs Wall Street and he is calling on the GOP to actually come up with ideas rather than sticking with the same old same old - calling out Romney in particular for being quite happy with a status quo that made him fabulously wealthy.

[a fan]

afan - I am thinking you did not read the article. He did not call for reduced taxes for the wealthy. He talked about the GOP getting their act together and acting like people who want to govern and actually offer government solutions to help the poor who's jobs are (and have been ) gutted by outsourcing and downsizing etc... He talks about how the GOP stood aside when it was inner-cities and blacks getting the shaft (although not quite that directly) but perhaps they will pay attention now that it is rural white people in the same boat.

I did read it. Twice, in fact. I probably wasn't clear with my thoughts----sorry. What I meant by "we tried Tucker's way for years" was that Tucker has changed his tune. He and FoxNation called for nearly every single economic policy----the ones I listed----and GOT said policies. Now, one by one, right wing writers----who don't have the humility to admit what they are doing----are issuing mea culpa essays saying, essentially "whoops, sorry. Turns out the libs were right, and we were wrong".

One of his solutions is old fashioned and corny one and it is the support of marriage - he bases his argument on the fact that marriage is one of the highest and best indicator of future success and becoming an exclusive province of the wealthy........ He credits the decline in marriage to the decline of traditional manufacturing jobs in the less urban areas, leading to lower male employment, leading to less marriage.

You understand this makes no sense right? Tucker thinks that marriage has declined because men have less money. So to fix this, he thinks we ought to focus on marriage, and that's how we'll get American males to earn more. Wait, what? He's being silly.

But to ask the obvious question: how does Tucker think we can support more marriage? This is a silly piece. He has no solutions to this "problem" he's conjured up.

I interpret him as laying the groundwork for a fight between Main Street vs Wall Street and he is calling on the GOP to actually come up with ideas rather than sticking with the same old same old

Right. And my point is: what he is advocating has already been pitched---this entire time----by the left. Tucker and his crew laughed at these ideas, and chose, instead, to dismantle middle America in pursuit of trickle down economics. Hell, they JUST PASSED another trickle down tax cut just 12 months ago. You think Tucker cheered that cut? You bet he did. And now he's not.

That's why I'm laughing at his piece.

See for yourself. Are you able to see how stupid this bill was yet, youthathletics? Listen to these idiots trying to sell this craptacular bill.

Hey, how's the awesome 5% GDP growth many at this Forum were expecting going? How's that massive wage growth going?

[youthathletics]

One of his solutions is old fashioned and corny one and it is the support of marriage - he bases his argument on the fact that marriage is one of the highest and best indicator of future success and becoming an exclusive province of the wealthy........ He credits the decline in marriage to the decline of traditional manufacturing jobs in the less urban areas, leading to lower male employment, leading to less marriage.

You understand this makes no sense right? Tucker thinks that marriage has declined because men have less money. So to fix this, he thinks we ought to focus on marriage, and that's how we'll get American males to earn more. Wait, what? He's being silly.

But to ask the obvious question: how does Tucker think we can support more marriage? This is a silly piece. He has no solutions to this "problem" he's conjured up.

I interpret him as laying the groundwork for a fight between Main Street vs Wall Street and he is calling on the GOP to actually come up with ideas rather than sticking with the same old same old

Right. And my point is: what he is advocating has already been pitched---this entire time----by the left. Tucker and his crew laughed at these ideas, and chose, instead, to dismantle middle America in pursuit of trickle down economics. Hell, they JUST PASSED another trickle down tax cut just 12 months ago. You think Tucker cheered that cut? You bet he did. And now he's not.

That's why I'm laughing at his piece.

See for yourself. Are you able to see how stupid this bill was yet, youthathletics?

Afan - thanks for thinking of me....you made my day

You need to stop harboring ill-will towards everything and anything that does not fit inside your mental/historical roledex as it applies to politics or particular people. I think you dig your heels in too deep at times and missed Tuckers message. To me it was not intended as a road map to sunshine and rainbows but merely an acknowledgement to failed processes....which is why I believe you are shooting the messenger. Tucker may very well be changing his tune, acknowledging your accuracy to what needs to take place...that little scare he had with his family may indeed have hit him where it hurts OR he could merely be pandering.

I believe in your heart of hearts you know what Tucker said was "mostly" true about the importance of a healthy marriage, child rearing, and the social-economic aspect of the family unit..if for no other reason just look at the "legacy" checkbox for major universities applications.

If your goal is to get us to say you are right, you may want to consider another approach.

BTW - we have a 1 year bet approaching on 16-Jan. winner receives a signed lacrosse ball from loser. I'll PM you the old LaxPower Screenshot I took next week.

[a fan]

Well sure, it'd be nice to have more stable families. You missed my question: how does Tucker propose we fix that? I'm harboring ill will towards people like Tucker who are unwilling to acknowledge policy failures, and admit that, for example, socialism works, and works well.

Why doesn't Tucker believe this? Why do you think? Because he's a rich white kid who is the heir to the Swanson frozen food fortune. So why don't we try Tucker economics and simply start on home plate?

So again: tell me how we help these flyover people without Federal assistance. Tucker can't tell you that. Notice he wrote the essay you cited with not one single concrete solution? Now why do you suppose that is?

And no, I'm not trying to get you to say I'm right about the tax bill. I knew I was right the day it was in it's final form! One of the rare instances where I KNOW I'm right. Sustained annual (as in 4 quarters in a row) 5%+ GDP was a laughable goal, and anyone who could add knew that. The GOP passed the bill anyway.

And you've got me confused with another poster....we can't search Laxpower anymore, but NO ONE apologizes for making mistakes, or for being wrong more than I do, my friend!

Heck, I can think of a few wagers off the top of my head that have not worked out.....unemployment rate is still lower than when Obama left. Two years to go. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And unlike frankly most of the posters here, I'm honest enough to admit when I'm wrong! Others simply stop posting, and refuse to admit error.

[HooDat]

Well sure, it'd be nice to have more stable families. You missed my question: how does Tucker propose we fix that? I'm harboring ill will towards people like Tucker who are unwilling to acknowledge policy failures, and admit that, for example, socialism works, and works well. Isn't he doing just that in this piece, admitting to past policy failures??? And while he mostly is shining a bright light on truths that the GOP has not been willing to face, I do believe he is at least pointing toward economic POLICIES that support blue collar jobs that he hopes will stabilize traditional families.

Why doesn't Tucker believe this? Why do you think? Because he's a rich white kid who is the heir to the Swanson frozen food fortune. So why don't we try Tucker economics and simply start on home plate?

So again: tell me how we help these flyover people without Federal assistance. Tucker can't tell you that. Notice he wrote the essay you cited with not one single concrete solution? Now why do you suppose that is? You are right, he does not offer solutions, but as they say, the first step is to acknowledge there is a problem. Neither party has even acknowledged the real problem since Humphrey. Tucker is making the argument that because the GOP has hitched its wagon to the flyover states, this has become their problem, and the solutions should lead to outcomes that conservatives should support - stronger families

And no, I'm not trying to get you to say I'm right about the tax bill. I knew I was right the day it was in it's final form! One of the rare instances where I KNOW I'm right. Sustained annual (as in 4 quarters in a row) 5%+ GDP was a laughable goal, and anyone who could add knew that. The GOP passed the bill anyway. my read of the Tucker piece is that he is against the tax bill - perhaps that is now versus then, but if you are going to preach "admit when you were wrong" then give Tucker a break

And you've got me confused with another poster....we can't search Laxpower anymore, but NO ONE apologizes for making mistakes, or for being wrong more than I do, my friend!

Heck, I can think of a few wagers off the top of my head that have not worked out.....unemployment rate is still lower than when Obama left. Two years to go. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And unlike frankly most of the posters here, I'm honest enough to admit when I'm wrong! Others simply stop posting, and refuse to admit error.

afan - you remain very hung up on the semantics of the word "socialism". Tucker goes out of his way to take a pot shot at the Libertarian slant of "let the markets rein and what will be will be". But when 99% of the people in the US talk about socialism being bad - they are talking about the political models that end with dictatorial control over resources where an egalitarian elite run everything to suit their interests over the average persons' - best case France, worst case Venezuela. Neither model is a very good fit for the American psyche... EVERYONE (even Tucker) understands that the US has heavy strains of socialism in it, as far as wealth redistribution and government programs. Not only do they not care, they like it and would not have it any other way. Only an idiot or a hypocrite would argue otherwise. Plenty of disingenuous politicians try to pretend otherwise, but they really know it ain't so.

[youthathletics]

Chuck vs Chuck. https://twitter.com/realcandaceo/status ... 72640?s=21
More of the same. https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status ... 00384?s=21

Classic politicians.

[a fan]

EVERYONE (even Tucker) understands that the US has heavy strains of socialism in it, as far as wealth redistribution and government programs. Not only do they not care, they like it and would not have it any other way. Only an idiot or a hypocrite would argue otherwise. Plenty of disingenuous politicians try to pretend otherwise, but they really know it ain't so.

If you believe this is true, then there's no difference between R's and D voters, no difference between FoxNation and Maddow. And no difference between Tucker and Ocascio.

If you were right, we wouldn't have even a little difficulty governing our nation. We'd agree on 99% of issues, outside of petty social nonsense issues.

In summary, you don't believe that. The right, or rather, FoxNation, is selling that government solutions to any problem is bad, and we need to get government out of the way.

Surely you understand this? I agree 100% that these people don't understand that, for example, UVa and any other State University is the card carrying example of socialism---and that socialism works just fine in many cases.

I promise you that I could walk into a room full of 20 adults, ask them if they are against socialism---and I'd get half to raise their hand and say they don't want it. And then I could ask those against socialism to raise their hand if they attended a State University......again, half would raise their hands.

Now I'd ask them to tell me how their alma mater isn't the OED definition of socialism. They'd be lost. And everyone who didn't raise their hand would be laughing at them.

This isn't semantics, YA. This disconnect is why our government is broken....30% of our citizens have no idea that every element of their lives is impacted by American Socialism. Socialism that was around before their dads were born. How do you govern these people when issues make their way to a ballot, and they vote no on a measure because they think government is bad, and spending is bad, right before they head to UVa to catch a lax game, ignorant of what they just did at the ballot box?

Words matter. Our country came off the rails when Reagan came along to tell us government is defining problem of our nation. We're still trying to stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.

Meanwhile, folks like Ocasio Cortez are on to the BS, and are realizing that the 1%ers are banking on this idiocy and misunderstanding of socialism, and use it to manipulate the 99%ers in the Republican voting block to systematically dismantle anything that helps the middle class and lower. So unions are bad. The government ruins everything. Lets get rid of regulations and rules that keep the 1% from owning it all.

It's not semantics, my friend. It's the whole shooting match. Tucker ain't ready to face this music, sorry. And, shocker, Tucker's not part of the 99%, now is he?

[youthathletics]

For the record afan, I am not hoodat.

[a fan]

Oh I know! Just keeping the discussion consistent. You and I may be ready to say socialism is good, and that it's a matter of finding where the line is...but that's why you and I are near the center.

You have an entire nation of FoxViewers who vehemently disagree. Why do you think they demonize Ocascio? Or Bernie? Or government?

They don't agree with you. Socialism---"more government"----however you wish to state it? They're 100% against it. So what do we do to help these people?

Frankly, I have no idea.

[youthathletics]

Chew on this....what if the shutdown lasts a long time, nothing serious goes wrong, and everyone learns we can have a much leaner government. This exercise in political stalemate could prove to be a positive for spending cuts in the future. Oh wait, that’s the Jameson talking, that’ll never happen.

[a fan]

That's what everyone says during a shutdown that's not really a shutdown. They play this cute game where they don't shut down things that hurt average Americans.

I can pick one agency, and only one that would shut everyone up about how bad government is: shut down Medicare.

Do that, and we'll see how tough the anti-government FoxWatchers will be.

It would take two, maybe three days of "guess what? That life saving surgery for grandma has been canceled, welcome to the free market" before Republican voters
would get the picture.

And then all the dead grandmas we get from the backlog of medical care?

That might get fake conservatives to change their tune about cutting government.

Maybe.


As for me, I can't release any new spirits. Why? Because I need Federal approval of my spirits labels if I want to sell my wares. If this continues, I could easily lose out on a planned launch date of new spirits, costing millions in sales in 2019.

Who cares, though, right? "It's not me that's suffering consequences" so BFD. The new motto for 2019.

Give me the keys to the Federal government. I'll shut down everything----SS, wages for Congressmen. Medicare. Funding for schools. TSA. Border control (remember that?) Food Stamps. Military personnel. All of it. I'd show America that when Obama said "you didn't build that", it was the most important thing a POTUS has said in the last 50 years....but no one would listen.

And BTW, that label approval? That would hit your Jameson, too. If this lasts a month, it could EASILY snuff out a planned 2019 release from a shop as large as Jameson (Pernod Ricard).

[Typical Lax Dad]

That's what everyone says during a shutdown that's not really a shutdown. They play this cute game where they don't shut down things that hurt average Americans.

I can pick one agency, and only one that would shut everyone up about how bad government is: shut down Medicare.

Do that, and we'll see how tough the anti-government FoxWatchers will be.

It would take two, maybe three days of "guess what? That life saving surgery for grandma has been canceled, welcome to the free market" before Republican voters
would get the picture.

And then all the dead grandmas we get from the backlog of medical care?

That might get fake conservatives to change their tune about cutting government.

Maybe.


As for me, I can't release any new spirits. Why? Because I need Federal approval of my spirits labels if I want to sell my wares. If this continues, I could easily lose out on a planned launch date of new spirits, costing millions in sales in 2019.

Who cares, though, right? "It's not me that's suffering consequences" so BFD. The new motto for 2019.

Give me the keys to the Federal government. I'll shut down everything----SS, wages for Congressmen. Medicare. Funding for schools. TSA. Border control (remember that?) Food Stamps. Military personnel. All of it. I'd show America that when Obama said "you didn't build that", it was the most important thing a POTUS has said in the last 50 years....but no one would listen.

And BTW, that label approval? That would hit your Jameson, too. If this lasts a month, it could EASILY snuff out a planned 2019 release from a shop as large as Jameson (Pernod Ricard).

https://www.nih.gov/
https://www.cdc.gov/
https://www.today.com/health/meningitis ... es-t135920

These things are a waste of money. As for the money for the wall, Trump wants 5 billion? Didn’t he cut a $12 billion check to farmers?

[youthathletics]

I saw the picture of the dunnage barrel house....we need to get the feds back up and running ASAP to get those labels approved.

Both sides want to solve the border, they need to just vote for the minuscule amount vs budget for the wall and call it a day. Both sides are already on record asking for border security and cleanup. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washin ... of-federa/

[a fan]

Agreed----and I don't want to sound like I'm taking all this out on you, YA. Frustrated.

The R's did this on purpose. They passed three bills totaling $2 Trillion in new spending. They can't add another $5 Billion for their stupid wall?

They wanted a fight.....and their voters bought it. They're all over the Dems for the shutdown, instead of asking Trump and the R's "why the hell didn't you pass this in 2017?"

Annoyed.

For me, if getting the wall will shut Republicans up, and make them actual tackle a real problem? Fine. Build the stupid wall. I don't want to hear about its ineffectiveness, or how much it will REALLY cost the taxpayer.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/29/tr ... -says/amp/

The report is false.