Unit2Sucks;842826814 said:

---

I agree that they want to reduce taxes but in practice it's simply not true that they want to reduce government size, influence or power. Once Republicans have the power to enact their program, they just tilt it more to defense at the expense of domestic programs.

---

Republicans only think government spending is bad when it's intended to help artists or poor people.

Despite by glib comments to the contrary, as we've seen from the recent dust-up between the freedom caucus and the rest of the republicans, it's not so simple to say what they're really for or against. I actually think they consistently individually do want the government to be smaller but they all want certain things to be stronger and when you add all that up you end up with an always increasing government. I take all of our republican peers on BI to be sincere in saying they want a smaller government and I believe that they are being honest about their reasons. I just don't think it works out that way in practice. Just as CB93 thinks that individuals are good but the government composed of individuals is bad (paraphrasing), I think that when you filter the agenda of individual republicans through our political meat grinder you end up with something quite different from what they individually proposed. We will see that this year with a greatly increased federal deficit.

I find it ironic that democrats end up reducing deficits more frequently (like I said above 14 of the last 17 deficit reductions) but that could have something to do with Republicans fighting so hard to prevent democrat-driven legislative agendas. I feel like the country works better when congress can't act and works worst when Republicans control everything. I guess that makes me a moderate.

sycasey;842826820 said:

---

Republicans only think government spending is bad when it's intended to help artists or poor people.

---

calbear93;842826819 said:

---

"We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over."

That was from one of my favorite presidents of my lifetime.

I told myself that I would not get sucked back into people trolling with incessant politics, but, since this is coming from you, NYC, I would like to engage because I suspect I would get a reasoned and sincere response and not some empty platitudes without personal actions to back up some easy recitations.

I think we all want to find the most efficient and humane solutions to address what most people want to address. No one of substance is truly is for poverty, no one of substance truly is for people dying for want of healthcare, no one of substance is truly for destroying the world despite our children. We all have love ones, we all have a moral center. It is not reserved for those living in the coast or those on the left. I know that a person is not a serious person when they make everything black and white because they are too lazy to see others as human beings (and not as color, religion or ethnicity) with the complexity that I am sure they adore in themselves. You don't seem to be one of those.

Also, I generally do find some offense to demagoguery of attacking "corporations", "big business" when most of us have food on the table because of big corporation, most of us are employed or are engaged by big business, most of the big businesses are owned by funds in which we contribute, etc. I have very little patience for intellectual laziness and hypocrisy of people who greedily suck on the tit while thinking they are somehow morally superior by condemning the evil milk and breast. I think we all know who those people are, but I don't think you are one of those. I think you do genuinely care for the underprivileged, and this rant is not a way to pat yourself on the back while doing exact same thing as the evil people they claim to rage against other than to say they "support" something else.

So, I think it all comes down to who is right in finding the most efficient way to address the issues before us. For me, it is not a question of who is decent and who is not. It is a question of who is right in getting to the same desired result. Is the right path more government? Is it private action? I don't know. However, I do have faith in people as individuals. I have less faith in the efficiency of government. While I do understand that bigger government is one way of forcing people to do what they should be doing without twisting their arms, it just seems like settling for the less efficient and less humane resolution because we don't have faith in each other. Maybe people just actually don't do anything directly because they are lazy and argue that their individual contribution won't matter and as such they rely on a mindless and heartless government to do what they claim they want to do but don't. I just have more faith in people and less faith in bureaucracy. But I want to get to the same place you want to get to. Now, you may think that I am just a heartless Republican, but I would guess that people who knew my background, how little value I place in material possession and how loose of grip I have on my wealth would argue otherwise. I honestly don't care too much what I own because I honestly believe it all belongs to my Lord, and I am just a steward of his money. I won't bury it in the ground but I will invest and earn more to use it for His purpose and not to enrich myself.

But I think the Democratic party, with their identity politics, sometimes lack of common sense over political correctness, condescension and hostility to Christians make it impossible for people like me to be a member. I can call out things that are wrong with the Republican party and I do. Most people would place God or country before their parties. Some don't, but that applies to both parties. I view everyone of every race, of every origin as creation of God who, if they are believers, will be my brothers and sisters in heaven. As such, I hate the way some people will divide us up (whether on the right or the left) by race or color. The Democrats will truly need to reassess themselves and stop thinking that the solution is dividing and hating. If the whole point is just to vent and show how much they are superior to others, then I guess they are being effective. If they are trying to convince, lead, and show a better way, they are failing miserably. And in his political climate and with this incompetent administration, that is quite an accomplishment.

---

Forgive me for my brevity. I'm posting via mobile while at lunch.

First, I agree that too much government and bureaucracy is inherently bad and inefficient. They themselves become an industry and insular culture that wants to insure their own survival. That's why we must be vigilant in monitoring their effectiveness. I'm all for paring down wasteful programs and agencies.

I do not believe that individuals are inherently good and will do what's best for the greater good. That's the exception, not the rule. People by their nature tend to want what's in their own best interests. Nothing wrong with that.

Corporations too are not inherently evil but rather exist solely for their own profit. In fact, it's their duty to act this way.

We need smart regulation, efficient bureaucracies, and a government that can adapt to current needs to help balance the needs of business and our populace. It's called having laws. The thing that separates us from chaos.

As a liberal, I vigorously will defend your religious liberty and the right to every citizen to practice their own religion as they see fit. Part of that implicit contract is that you'll respect my own spiritual choices, or lack thereof. So for every time you feels marginalized by the left, I'll tell you that I've felt like I've been demonized by religious fundamentalists. There has to be a live and let live middle ground. It can't be one sided though.

The Democratic Party makes me crazy at times and for many of the reasons you cite. What I do like about the moniker of "liberal" is the tacit understanding that ideas can evolve or change. "Conservatism" implies the opposite. Now tell me, what great thing in our history has ever occurred without change?

Sorry, I'd like to write more but I'm going back to work. Peace.

NYCGOBEARS;842826798 said:

---

When are people going to wake up and accept the truth about the GOP? They want to reduce government, regulations, and taxes because they're aligned and monetarily supported by corporations, wealthy elites and their interests, not because of some grandiose notion of a more free republic with less government control. Those people realized long ago that to enlist the support of the middle and lower class masses, they'd appeal to their conservative morality and create wedge issues to further their cause.

I'm hopeful that the recent Obama Care repeal disaster was a wake up call to many in the GOP base that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important to many Republicans than your life.

---

Where do you think the Democrats get their money if not from corporations and monetary elites?

calbear93;842826819 said:

---

So, I think it all comes down to who is right in finding the most efficient way to address the issues before us. For me, it is not a question of who is decent and who is not. It is a question of who is right in getting to the same desired result. Is the right path more government? Is it private action? I don't know. However, I do have faith in people as individuals. I have less faith in the efficiency of government. While I do understand that bigger government is one way of forcing people to do what they should be doing without twisting their arms, it just seems like settling for the less efficient and less humane resolution because we don't have faith in each other. Maybe people just actually don't do anything directly because they are lazy and argue that their individual contribution won't matter and as such they rely on a mindless and heartless government to do what they claim they want to do but don't. I just have more faith in people and less faith in bureaucracy.

---

I have to say that I find this philosophy contradictory. We live in a representative democracy, which means that ideally as individuals we should be able to elect representatives who will support our best interests. If we place faith in those people to represent us well, how is that inefficient or inhumane? If those people turn out to be bad at representing our interests, then presumably we can vote them out. If we're not holding them accountable, then that is a failure of individual citizens to do their civic duty, not a failure of government itself.

Now, I will admit to feeling some political apathy at certain times in my life and not always paying attention to what is happening at all levels of government. That's why I have resolved to do better. It seems to me that is the better response to government actions you don't like, rather than throwing up your hands and checking out.

And yes, I think that improved civic engagement (check out video from every Congressman or Senator's town hall meetings over the last two months, if you'd like evidence) is the biggest reason the Trump/Ryan healthcare bill failed.

NYCGOBEARS;842826826 said:

---

Forgive me for my brevity. I'm posting via mobile while at lunch.

First, I agree that too much government and bureaucracy is inherently bad and inefficient. They themselves become an industry and insular culture that wants to insure their own survival. That's why we must be vigilant in monitoring their effectiveness. I'm all for paring down wasteful programs and agencies.

I do not believe that individuals are inherently good and will do what's best for the greater good. That's the exception, not the rule. People by their nature tend to want what's in their own best interests. Nothing wrong with that.

Corporations too are not inherently evil but rather exist solely for their own profit. In fact, it's their duty to act this way.

We need smart regulation, efficient bureaucracies, and a government that can adapt to current needs to help balance the needs of business and our populace. It's called having laws. The thing that separates us from chaos.

As a liberal, I vigorously will defend your religious liberty and the right to every citizen to practice their own religion as they see fit. Part of that implicit contract is that you'll respect my own spiritual choices, or lack thereof. So for every time you feels marginalized by the left, I'll tell you that I've felt like I've been demonized by religious fundamentalists. There has to be a live and let live middle ground. It can't be one sided though.

The Democratic Party makes me crazy at times and for many of the reasons you cite. What I do like about the moniker of "liberal" is the tacit understanding that ideas can evolve or change. "Conservatism" implies the opposite. Now tell me, what great thing in our history has ever occurred without change?

Sorry, I'd like to write more but I'm going back to work. Peace.

---

Thanks for the reasoned response. I expected nothing less from you.

You and I are in complete agreement on religious freedom. Any Christian who will judge non-believers based on the Christian beliefs have not read Romans and have not really understood why their hearts changed. It wasn't from our own doing. I didn't wake up one morning after having lived a secular lifestyle and decided I was going to start placing my faith in God instead of everything else I used to worship. As Paul conveyed in Romans, we Christians have no cause to boast since even our faith was from God. As such, I agree that the respect has to go both ways.

And I think we are interpreting different things when we reference "conservative". I don't mean literally that I want to conserve everything as they are. I mean that I am supportive of the traditional platform of the conservative political philosophy. I am for personal responsibility instead of the government being my keeper. I am responsible for my child and their behavior and failures and not their school or the government. I am responsible for not gambling, not drinking, and not doing evil and instead of me blaming my background, the inefficient laws protecting me from myself, advertisement or big business. I am for conserving the resources so that we don't spend more than we have or that we don't cut revenue when we are running a deficit. I am for conserving our environment. I would not be for lowering taxes but I would not be for increasing spending when we have a deficit. I don't care that Bill Clinton was a Democrat. I liked the way he managed the economy, limiting entitlement, focusing on critical services and trying to unite all people and sources instead of relying on more and more entitlements. And I voted for him, and would again if I could.

And I am sure that if we sat down and discussed, we would find that we have more and more in common than our labels would indicate. And that is what I find so hateful with the divisive politics and even people here who want to see black and white because they have to see themselves as good and, therefore, someone else has to be bad.

GB54;842826835 said:

---

Where do you think the Democrats get their money if not from corporations and monetary elites?

---

Yes, of course they do. That's why our system is corrupt. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren understand this.

calbear93;842826841 said:

---

Thanks for the reasoned response. I expected nothing less from you.

You and I are in complete agreement on religious freedom. Any Christian who will judge non-believers based on the Christian beliefs have not read Romans and have not really understood why their hearts changed. It wasn't from our own doing. I didn't wake up one morning after having lived a secular lifestyle and decided I was going to start placing my faith in God instead of everything else I used to worship. As Paul conveyed in Romans, we Christians have no cause to boast since even our faith was from God. As such, I agree that the respect has to go both ways.

And I think we are interpreting different things when we reference "conservative". I don't mean literally that I want to conserve everything as they are. I mean that I am supportive of the traditional platform of the conservative political philosophy. I am for personal responsibility instead of the government being my keeper. I am responsible for my child and their behavior and failures and not their school or the government. I am responsible for not gambling, not drinking, and not doing evil and instead of me blaming my background, the inefficient laws protecting me from myself, advertisement or big business. I am for conserving the resources so that we don't spend more than we have or that we don't cut revenue when we are running a deficit. I am for conserving our environment. I would not be for lowering taxes but I would not be for increasing spending when we have a deficit. I don't care that Bill Clinton was a Democrat. I liked the way he managed the economy, limiting entitlement, focusing on critical services and trying to unite all people and sources instead of relying on more and more entitlements. And I voted for him, and would again if I could.

And I am sure that if we sat down and discussed, we would find that we have more and more in common than our labels would indicate. And that is what I find so hateful with the divisive politics and even people here who want to see black and white because they have to see themselves as good and, therefore, someone else has to be bad.

---

The greatest gift that god gave man was the freedom of choice. Many would benefit from realizing that as you do.

I'm sure that we have much more in common than not. Cheers.

sycasey;842826836 said:

---

I have to say that I find this philosophy contradictory. We live in a representative democracy, which means that ideally as individuals we should be able to elect representatives who will support our best interests. If we place faith in those people to represent us well, how is that inefficient or inhumane? If those people turn out to be bad at representing our interests, then presumably we can vote them out. If we're not holding them accountable, then that is a failure of individual citizens to do their civic duty, not a failure of government itself.

Now, I will admit to feeling some political apathy at certain times in my life and not always paying attention to what is happening at all levels of government. That's why I have resolved to do better. It seems to me that is the better response to government actions you don't like, rather than throwing up your hands and checking out.

And yes, I think that improved civic engagement (check out video from every Congressman or Senator's town hall meetings over the last two months, if you'd like evidence) is the biggest reason the Trump/Ryan healthcare bill failed.

---

My problem with government is due process protections on employment. There are so many lazy CYA public employees that are terrible at their job, but it is impossible to fire them.

NYCGOBEARS;842826843 said:

---

The greatest gift that god gave man was the [U]freedom of choice.[/U]

---

There you go again bringing up an inflammatory topic. You just couldn't help yourself could you?

oski003;842826844 said:

---

My problem with government is due process protections on employment. There are so many lazy CYA public employees that are terrible at their job, but it is impossible to fire them.

---

Sure, that's a problem, more a local and state government problem than a federal one. If we put more pressure (as citizens) on our local politicians to clean up that practice we might see improvements there.

I encourage you to reach out to your local reps, maybe even form a group of people who are concerned about this issue and exacting a bit of public pressure. There's nothing politicians hate more than angry citizens making scenes at their offices or events.

Unit2Sucks;842826845 said:

---

There you go again bringing up an inflammatory topic. You just couldn't help yourself could you?

---

Shall we talk about concupiscence or yetzer hara?

sycasey;842826810 said:

---

There is some evidence that support from Trump's Republican base may be starting to erode.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/24/poll-president-trump-base-erodes-approval-rating-sinks-new-low/22009296/

Health care reform has defeated better politicians than Donald Trump and Paul Ryan.

---

I would guess it's eroding as a result of trusting Republican politicians. He doesn't owe them anything, so it's shocking to see him kowtowing to them. His agenda- if there is one- will find support on tax reform, on trade and on infrastructure among democrats. Today, he gave a big boost to the democratic senator of West Virginia with his coal love. There are a lot of ways to count.

GB54;842826860 said:

---

I would guess it's eroding as a result of trusting Republican politicians. He doesn't owe them anything, so it's shocking to see him kowtowing to them. His agenda- if there is one- will find support on tax reform, on trade and on infrastructure among democrats. Today, he gave a big boost to the democratic senator of West Virginia with his coal love. There are a lot of ways to count.

---

Trump doesn't have a legislative agenda. He only cares about winning.

NYCGOBEARS;842826861 said:

---

Trump doesn't have a legislative agenda. He only cares about winning.

---

But he isn't winning- that's the point- he has to win some battles for his voters, so far it's been window dressing of executive orders and two screw ups - the immigration thing and health care. Coal at least pays back (politically) if nothing else, voters in Pa, Wva, Ohio and Kentucky

GB54;842826865 said:

---

But he isn't winning- that's the point- he has to win some battles for his voters, so far it's been window dressing of executive orders and two screw ups - the immigration thing and health care. Coal at least pays back (politically) if nothing else, voters in Pa, Wva, Ohio and Kentucky

---

Agreed. It's going to be fun watching Trump and Bannon blow up the GOP platform.

Are they going to blame him when they get the black lung and don't have any health insurance? I seem to recall a lot of country music being based on how awful a coal miner's life is and now everyone is clamoring to grow that industry? It's only a matter of time before Trump brings back chimbley sweeps.

GB54;842826865 said:

---

But he isn't winning- that's the point- he has to win some battles for his voters, so far it's been window dressing of executive orders and two screw ups - the immigration thing and health care. Coal at least pays back (politically) if nothing else, voters in Pa, Wva, Ohio and Kentucky

---

Unit2Sucks;842826869 said:

---

Are they going to blame him when they get the black lung and don't have any health insurance? I seem to recall a lot of country music being based on how awful a coal miner's life is and now everyone is clamoring to grow that industry? It's only a matter of time before Trump brings back chimbley sweeps.

---

You're probably too young to remember when West Virginia was a solid blue state, very much responsible for Jack Kennedy winning the Presidency. Point being it should have been a Democrat flanked by coal miners not a game show host- I wish one had run

Unit2Sucks;842826814 said:

---

I agree that they want to reduce taxes but in practice it's simply not true that they want to reduce government size, influence or power. Once Republicans have the power to enact their program, they just tilt it more to defense at the expense of domestic programs.

---

That's true, crony capitalism (government controlled by big business) is part of their agenda as well. It's not to say Democrats are perfect. The answer is finding the balance between corporate efficiency vs. corporate harshness on society. Democrats are in that fight and sometimes lean too strongly one way or the other. I try to find the balance with my own thinking (i.e. how do we raise middle class incomes without laying too heavy a burden on business?) However, for my adult life I have found the Republican Party leadership to be uninterested in that balance and to be devoted to one side of the ledger.

sycasey;842826853 said:

---

Sure, that's a problem, more a local and state government problem than a federal one. If we put more pressure (as citizens) on our local politicians to clean up that practice we might see improvements there.

I encourage you to reach out to your local reps, maybe even form a group of people who are concerned about this issue and exacting a bit of public pressure. There's nothing politicians hate more than angry citizens making scenes at their offices or events.

---

Here is the problem with local and state government employees. (massively oversimplified) The government plays two roles in the situation. They have the role of protecting (or not) employees and their right to bargain, have decent working conditions, etc. The government is also the employer who should be negotiating its relationships in a way that protects the government and tax payers and gives them the best deal as any private employer should do.

I would say most citizens, if they came at this new, would say, that yes, we should allow workers to collectively bargain and we should protect reasonable workers rights. Most citizens would also say that negotiators for the government should go in and drive a hard bargain and get a good value contract that serves the interests of its citizens.

Except those citizens aren't where the political money comes from. The political money comes from special interests on one side that want to squash unions and worker protections. Or it comes from unions who when faced with a choice between a politician who advocates fair bargaining for workers but tough deal making at the negotiation table or a politician who will advocate for sweetheart deals for union workers has no incentive to pick the former. So the sensible politician is on a political island.

OaktownBear;842826890 said:

---

Here is the problem with local and state government employees. (massively oversimplified) The government plays two roles in the situation. They have the role of protecting (or not) employees and their right to bargain, have decent working conditions, etc. The government is also the employer who should be negotiating its relationships in a way that protects the government and tax payers and gives them the best deal as any private employer should do.

I would say most citizens, if they came at this new, would say, that yes, we should allow workers to collectively bargain and we should protect reasonable workers rights. Most citizens would also say that negotiators for the government should go in and drive a hard bargain and get a good value contract that serves the interests of its citizens.

Except those citizens aren't where the political money comes from. The political money comes from special interests on one side that want to squash unions and worker protections. Or it comes from unions who when faced with a choice between a politician who advocates fair bargaining for workers but tough deal making at the negotiation table or a politician who will advocate for sweetheart deals for union workers has no incentive to pick the former. So the sensible politician is on a political island.

---

I think, on average, Dems are far too kind to municipal workers. I wish there was a reasonable alternative party to vote for that was a little tougher on them.

dajo9;842826942 said:

---

I think, on average, Dems are far too kind to municipal workers. I wish there was a reasonable alternative party to vote for that was a little tougher on them.

---

Agreed. Public Unions could use a dose of reality.

NYCGOBEARS;842826861 said:

---

Trump doesn't have a legislative agenda. He only cares about winning.

---

GB54;842826865 said:

---

But he isn't winning- that's the point- he has to win some battles for his voters, so far it's been window dressing of executive orders and two screw ups - the immigration thing and health care. Coal at least pays back (politically) if nothing else, voters in Pa, Wva, Ohio and Kentucky

---

Trump isn't winning in some high-profile ways, but he is winning bigly where it comes to enriching himself. Aside from all the concessions (e.g., sudden approval of trademarks in China) and increased foreign business at Trump properties (his DC hotel), he wins every time he goes to a Trump property. I think someone counted that he has visited Trump properties 13 times in his first 9 weeks in office. It's not just the free advertising, the taxpayers are directly enriching him by renting rooms for all the Administration and Secret Service personnel that accompanies him to Mar-A-Lago for example. Yesterday it was reported that taxpayers have already spent $16K renting golf carts for Secret Service use during Trump's visits to Mar-A-Lago. It's only been two months, imagine how much the taxpayers are going to pay his businesses if he lasts four years.

TTAI82 - there is one campaign promise* that Trump is going to deliver on.

Quote:

---

“It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

---

* I know he didn't say it during the campaign but it's closer to the truth than most of what he did say.

dajo9;842826942 said:

---

I think, on average, Dems are far too kind to municipal workers. I wish there was a reasonable alternative party to vote for that was a little tougher on them.

---

If Republicans tried to do so they might find an interested voting bloc in liberal city elections. But of course to do so they'd probably have to take on police unions, and that's the one kind of union they are conspicuously disinterested in opposing.

Here is the first Wall Street firm prediction for US Treasury Rates to hit zero that I am aware of. This forecaster says "US interest rates are headed to 0% in 10-year government yields by the end of 2018, early 2019"

That's even faster than I suggested.

When I made my prediction for negative rates I thought Obamacare would be repealed and massive tax cuts for the wealthy would be implemented. The latter may still happen. Those actions would both drive interest rates down, in my opinion (after a short term increase in rates due to misplaced euphoria).

https://mishtalk.com/2017/09/07/10-year-treasury-yields-headed-to-zero-percent-saxo-bank-cio/

Haven't seen this thread in a while. Didn't even remember it existed. And since I fundamentally do not believe in safe spaces or trigger warnings, I of course had to open it. Upon this reading I'm struck by how even well intentioned smart people can allow their biases to drive analysis and how analysis can seem thoughtful or even right, when in fact it is actually just reflecting an underlying set of beliefs/biases.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9;842826942 said:

---

I think, on average, Dems are far too kind to municipal workers. I wish there was a reasonable alternative party to vote for that was a little tougher on them.

---

If Republicans tried to do so they might find an interested voting bloc in liberal city elections. But of course to do so they'd probably have to take on police unions, and that's the one kind of union they are conspicuously disinterested in opposing.

---

Nobody likes taking on the police unions, and the Dems only placate them on pensions and benefits because ideologically law enforcement is not aligned with their agenda at all.

Same here. People clearly were able to predict the North Korea tension and the hurricanes, resulting in flight to quality, and the resulting decrease in long-term rates. In addition, there is less expectation that there will be enough will to make the necessary tax cuts in corporate rates and relief on repatriation of oversea profits that will spur US companies to bring some of those outrageous profits currently trapped outside the US. There is a reason why so many companies engage in tax strategies to have OUS companies generate profits, have transfer pricing to try to cross-charge some of the profits back to the US, and why countries like Ireland are fighting like heck to have the profits generated in their country without repatriation in the US. Can you imagine the amount of investment that repatriation of those profits at much lower rate than the statutory rate of 35% would do for investment and growth in this country and the resulting inflation (and the corresponding increase in interest rate and reduction in effective debt levels), salary increase based on higher demand for labor, etc. Instead, our tax policy results in companies like Apple, Microsoft, and all the cash darlings of the liberals using almost a majority of their profits only for investments outside the US and treat those profits as indefinitely reinvested outside the US. So who is to blame for those ridiculous corporate tax policies in the US? Trump? Republicans? Most of the increase in the stock market after Trump was elected was driven by the expectation that Trump and the Republican congress can undo some of the stupid corporate tax policies that are hurting our economy. While there is starting to be more doubt, it is still better than what the Street would do if they thought the Democrats with their tax and spend policy were in control.