The Week That Donald Trump Became Our Next President

I am fully aware that BOTH TEAMS – Republicans AND Democrats – are often deceitful. Both are far from perfect. So it’s a matter of voting for the most good – or the least harm. On balance, if conservatives were given complete, unrestricted power in the nation (which of course will never happen, there is always a counterbalance), some things might happen that I disagreed with. For instance, I’m not anti-gay-marriage nor am I anti-abortion. But the nation would survive, because it would have a solid national defense, it would support its law enforcement, it would have a reasonable tax and regulation structure that would not drive business offshore (the list goes on and on, but you get the idea).

On the other hand, liberals, if left in absolute charge, would completely (though no doubt unintentionally) destroy the nation by taxing to the point where companies and high earners would flee, few would be incentivized to excel due to the demonization of high earners, our nation’s enemies would be dealt with so naively that they would continue to take advantage, and our national defense would continue to be gutted to divert the funds to liberal initiatives that as a nation we cannot afford.

Part of the reason I support Trump is that he is outside of the Establishment on EITHER side and therefore would clearly have no problem calling out Republicans when they’re in the wrong instead of marching smartly along in Party lockstep. We need that right now, because in many respects, BOTH parties have lost their way, and outside independent thinking is needed to shake things up.

The very LAST thing we need is a longtime, dyed in the wool, Establishment Democrat in the Oval Office. She combines the worst attributes from both sides and adds many of her own.

Trump 2016!

Nope, sorry. The real estate crash of 2008 was caused by Democrats forcing mortgage lenders to lend to those who could not demonstrate the ability to repay, to try to create a “fairer” result for minorities. While it is unfortunate that some racial minorities are financially disadvantaged, one has to address the cause and not the symptom. The crash was foreseeable. Democrats caused it, and Republicans were too cowardly to fix it for fear of being called racist. So yes, Republicans inherited the ticking real estate time bomb from the Democrats, and they did fail to fix it out of a lack of bravery, but they certainly did not cause it.

The 50s and 60s survived unions due to the post-WWII economic boom. Otherwise unions place too great a drag on companies. That’s why the airlines went bankrupt: because pensions and other benefits were unsustainable in the real world economy and the unions wouldn’t budge. Ticking time bombs again. Those seem to be symptomatic of liberalism.

That was the start of the crash. I’m talking about the CAUSE of the crash, which began decades earlier.

Actually it was during the Jimmy Carter administration that the rules were changed to force mortgage lenders to lend to risky borrowers to try to even the homeowner demographic. It was a lofty goal and even a good one, but as with most Democrat initiatives it was approached in the wrong way. If minorities are, disproportionately, risky borrowers, you have to fix the root cause so they are no longer as risky. Trying to fix the symptom – which was lender reluctance to write mortgage loans to those who could not demonstrate the ability to repay – just makes a mess. And it took awhile for the mess to get deep enough to be a real problem (and for lenders to try to mitigate their risk by inappropriately securitizing and selling off the loans as “investments”). And of course no Republican administration had the courage to reverse course for fear of being branded racist. So the problem remained during Reagan and both Bushes, and expanded significantly under Clinton, then finally detonated and cause the 2008 financial implosion.

Oh, I didn’t have quite enough space in my last post to address some of your specifics.

You mention 8 jobs bills for vets without mentioning the degree to which such bills get larded up with pork or structured in such a way as to make them grossly inefficient or otherwise impracticable. This is a well known political trick: create a bill with a nice name that is so unworkable that anyone in their right mind would oppose it, then shout “just LOOK what my opponent blocked!”

Next topic: yes, we want jobs – but we primarily want private-sector, non-government-funded jobs. THAT is what drives a successful economy. Putting on thousands or hundreds of thousands of tax-supported workers before cutting in other areas either increases taxes or the deficit, both of which are awful for the economy (you’re just taking your choice of now or later). We need infrastructure improvements but we need to cut in other areas to pay for them. We also need them done in a cost efficient manner, which the federal government overall has forgotten how to do. And we need taxes to come DOWN to stimulate the economy and reduce offshoring.

Trump saying he would donate $6 million – the press intentionally jumped the gun and assessed his actions too early, when only $1 million had been contributed so far. That was intentionally deceitful – and by design.

Transgenders – first, I have no issue with actual transgenders but I DO have an issue with laws that would let pedophiles, rapists, or even curious adolescents into opposite gender bathrooms by merely CLAIMING to be transgender or saying they “indentify as” the opposite gender. I am in no way equating transgenders with these other individuals, merely saying any law that protects the former must not empower the latter to misbehave. Until such laws can be crafted the longtime practice of people using the restroom for which they are biologically equipped should stand.

As to the hypocracy of some individual legislators – as long as legislators are human beings there will be a small minority of deviants, criminals and mentally ill among them just as there are in the rest of the population. That doesn’t speak to the majority on either side and it’s infantile to bring it up – at about the same level as the “I know you are but what am I” childish rejoinder. At least debate reasonably on the merits if you have a point of view to express.

Trump 2016!

As I said before, you can’t determine what is in a bill by its title. The bill often does the opposite of what its title suggests or else gets toxic amendments applied to it that no right minded person would vote for and is defeated because of the amendments.

The Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare, was such a bill. It tripled my premium and quintupled my deductible, and had similar effects on everyone I know. There was nothing “affordable” about it, which is why it was opposed by Republicans. The veterans bills opposed by Republicans had the same kinds of issues but were presented by Democrats as “all or nothing.” Republicans who voted against larded-up bills until they could get a clean bill through did the right thing.

Compromise seems it has pick up the description of a “dirty” word…

But that is what we have to do.

People have different tastes and wants in life.. we will never make every one happy, but we have to realize what is best for our country.

When someone can brag about getting 98% of what they wanted is not compromise. That is taking advantage of a situation your in. We can do better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4VJFVgrlyI

Refresh my memory where cutting taxes, ( normally for the rich ) has ever helped the working class? You should never say one party grows the government while the other shrinks it. That is just not true. since 1968 the government has grown each year. The last Republican president grew the government by adding 3 different branches. DHS, PA, and the TSA. The TSA has been a fiasco from the beginning and it keeps getting bigger and with new equipment added all the time.
The compromise would be to realize both partied grow the government. And for cutting taxes. When Reagan went into office the tax rate for the rich was 70%, when he left office it was 28%.. (Class warfare), middle class had to pick up the difference. We have to do this fairly. First I think it is fair to ask for half of that tax back and definitely not give them more cuts. During this past recession the working class was hurting, they lost homes, cars, savings and retirement. The rich even though they said they were going to go bankrupt, they still received their million dollar bonuses, I guess for doing such a bang up job and then to rub the taxpayers face in it, when they got bailed out they went on a trip to a sauna..
But that was not what I was talking about… you and I.. we want the same things.. we want a decent paying job, we want healthcare, we want education for our kids.
To answer the first part of this message… we need to get money out of politics. Our elected officials are serving the dollar rather than the people. That needs to stop.
can you agree with that?

” True conservatives (not necessarily current Republican leaders) believe we need to match tax cuts with spending cuts.”
Was Eisenhower a true conservative?
The problem with the idea of cutting taxes.. you cut for the rich and then call them job creators, which if ever that was the case, the corporations have made billions of dollars in profits we should have jobs running on overflow. And for the spending cuts, it is always the programs that help the poor or minorities. Or you want to cut EPA or the FDA or anything to do with science.. and for being supportive of our military you want to cut spending for the care of vets and pay checks, for for hardware and the machines of war.. give them the money machine so they can print what they need.

“As to the benefit of overall tax cuts, whether people invest the money they earn or spend it, the result drives up the economy.”
That is true… but only for the non-millionaires. You give a dollar to the middle class and he will go to your business and spend it there. Plus he pays a tax on what he buys, you pay a tax on the money earned.. plus he had to pay a tax on getting that dollar. Payroll tax, SS tax, Medicare tax

You give that same dollar to the rich and two things will happen. One it will be shipped to an off shore bank and never pay a cent in taxes. The rich do not contribute to the economy, if anything they slow it down. I am not talking about jobs they offer. But Companies like GE, don’t pay one red cent in taxes… so how many workers have to chip in to pay their taxes? A 1000… 10,000.. 100,000. And whatever amount is taken away from them is also taking away from the local Pizza place.

As for the dreaded tax hike. You take SS tax. There was a time when I worked that sometime around October they would quit taking SS tax from my check, because I had reached the limit. Then when they raised the limit and I had to pay all year long. I was upset.. Now that I am retired and now drawing on that tax.. I am happy it was there! Some of the other countries. In fact I was talking to a woman from Sweden. I will send you a copy of her message to me.. I got her permission to do so. But most European countries have high taxes.. but that includes everything. Where US has a low taxes, but they tax everything… Healthcare is our biggest cost. I will send you the message in another post.
Another thing.. our education.. it is an investment in OUR future… we should force ALL kids to at least 4 years of college… yeah I know “force” is not the right word. But it is so very important to have our children educated and NOT FOR PROFIT… greed settles in where there is a buck to be made.

” Democrats appear to believe you extort the earnings of those who produce and hand the spoils to those who do not”
Not true especially the use of the word “extort”. I do not want to get into names… so at one time the tax rate for the rich was 70%… middle class was booming, CEO’s were making money. Corporations were paying their due taxes.. America was strong and prosperous. BUT, someone decided they wanted more of the pie… more than their already large piece. So the tax rate was cut to 28%… you know who picked the tab up don’t you? The middle class. If you want to talk class warfare, that is a good place to start. Many other things happened during this cycle. but the worker was put on a greased slope, downhill. So would it be extortion for the rich to give back HALF of what they TOOK from the middle class?

” But look why that’s bad. It de-incentivizes success and rewards lack of initiative.”
And what do you think about the workers of America when they lost 42% of their money? You think they were de-incentivized? You think their work initiative remained the same? Now I will give this to whomever.. it was not all taken out of the paychecks.. they are more sneaking than that. See America use to save money. So the interest rate was cut. Maybe taxes on money saved went up. Deductions were cut.. so this 42% was spread over a broad spectrum.. but the middle class paid it all.
The rich.. if they make 10 million a year, ( a low class rich ) and you suddenly took 42% away from them… they would still have $5,200,000 to live on… bless their hearts.. now that is not running the company money, that is in their pocket money. Now a minimum wage earner at %15 an hour, 40 hours a week (HA!), no vacation, for 52 weeks he makes $31,200 a year… you take that same 42% that YOU DID TAKE AWAY, that leaves him with $18,096… which gives him $348 a week. that is to buy food, rent, healthcare and a car to get to work… now you say.. he needs to better himself… get an education….. HOW?
If you are poor… you are damned to stay poor…. but it didn’t use to be like that!!!!

” But look why that’s bad. It de-incentivizes success and rewards lack
of initiative. That’s a horrible thing to do to any society. If that
had been our culture leading up to the 1930s we most assuredly would
have lost World War 2.”
Sweatshops were in play when Hoover was president and two other Republicans before him, so for 12 years they were satisfied with the sweat shops. FDR was not satisfied. He made labor laws, SS for the elderly, unions were encouraged.. He lifted the spirits of the worker and that is how we won the war. It was the worker that fought that war, both at home in the now producing military vehicles in the auto industry.

Money out of politics… first we have to see who is against Citizens United.. vote for them… whether he is running for dog catcher or office.. find out their beliefs.
watch “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” … again
Are they doing this for the love of people and want to help out or are they looking to fill their pocket book?
Excuse me.. but a business man is always looking at the bottom line… he doesn’t care how it got there.. what happened to get it there as long as it is positive. A lawyer is manipulative, will cut corners… dog catcher sounds good to me..smile

Go back and read the poster again…. or do some search on what is and what isn’t allowed in the nuclear field for Iran…

The deal we got is better than left undone, we have surveillance cameras and inspectors.. I think that is pretty good coming from a dictator. If and when we can work together, maybe more can be done. This is a first step, it didn’t accomplish every thing, but a beginning. And on their side, they probably gave up more than they wanted, but communications… which is most important in any situation, was established.