You didn't notice where Rubio mocked him for his statement that TRUMP doesn't want the poor dying in the street?

Of course TRUMP is a useless oligarch with a Jewess daughter. The point, however, is that he'll legitimate economic nationalism. At which point the white working class can smash up its alliance of necessity with economic conservatives, and we can put the collective neck of the internationalist capitalist class on the chopping block.

Trump and Hillary Clinton look to cruise through super tuesday, perhaps with Cruz and Sanders winning only their home states and Sanders winning Massachusetts narrowly. Cruz may have a chance in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The proportional allotment of delegates will cushion the blow for the underdogs for the upcoming battles.

Originally Posted by Einzige

You didn't notice where Rubio mocked him for his statement that TRUMP doesn't want the poor dying in the street?

Of course TRUMP is a useless oligarch with a Jewess daughter. The point, however, is that he'll legitimate economic nationalism. At which point the white working class can smash up its alliance of necessity with economic conservatives, and we can put the collective neck of the internationalist capitalist class on the chopping block.

Sure, as long as the alliance within the Republican Party is broken up, and Trump gets no further than the nomination to accomplish that.

I didn't quite understand Rubio's plan either; it seemed like he was offering refundable credits for those who don't get insurance from their employer. But how was he going to pay for that? No answer given.

I noticed too that Trump first agreed with Rubio's plan. But he didn't mention that again; he repeated himself about 10 times saying he would get rid of lines around the states and that would create competition. Rubio, accused of repeating himself before New Hampshire, called him on it.

I don't know what that little mark is below my words. I guess it came from Einzige's post. It has marked me I guess

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...The verb for failing is lose, not loose, as a usually-poetic or obsolescent verb synonymous with "release", as in

"He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible, swift sword!" (Battle Hymn of the Republic)

Getting homonyms wrong is extremely uncouth. Spell-check will not catch it, but readers will think you under-educated.


Our 'Marxist' President has shown himself the most pathetic failure... at bringing about the ruin of the capitalist class:




No, it's not inflation.



The blue line begins at the economic peak of 2007, which corresponds with the end of the recovery from the dot.com/Enrob recession that took place in 2000. It may be a remarkable coincidence, but the green line largely shows the stewardship of George W. Bush (after a year of the downturn) and the blue line economic stewardship of Barack Obama after almost a year and a half into the worst economic meltdown since the one leading into the Great Depression (the bad times of the 1930s are shown with a gray line).

How can anyone look at the Obama recovery, one without a speculative boom, and not recognize competent stewardship of the American economy?




Some of us have some remarkable talents. I think that you will recognize that Playwrite and I disagree on whether Clinton or Sanders is the better choice for President, and that I disagree with Eric on the usefulness and reliability of astrology. Surely you have seen the sparks fly between Kinser or Einzige with me.

I confess to not being much of an original thinker. About anything that anyone now says has been said by someone else. If I inadvertently say something that Aristotle, Confucius, or Hillel said a millennium or two ago or what Rousseau or Hegel said a century or two ago... that happens.

But you aren't very original, either.



The typical physician or attorney can't do what you do, either.

But that said, people are poor for many reasons, some their own fault (like being lazy, improvident, wasteful, disagreeable, dishonest, or disobedient) or because they start with serious disadvantages that they never have a chance to escape or transcend. Maybe they had horrible parents, they got stuck in bad school systems, or they made such bad choices as having an out-of-wedlock child or dropping out of school. Maybe they made some poor career choices. Maybe they are disabled.

There's a huge difference between living in Laos or Luxembourg or even between living in the 8th Congressional District of California (Silicon Valley) and the 21st Congressional District of California (one of the poorest in the US, containing much of the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley of California).



No, the politicians that you support will make poverty easier to slip into and more punishing to those who endure it as a supposed incentive for working even harder under harsher conditions for much less so that the people who back those political hacks can grab more income for themselves and call that great for America. Sure, money will trickle down -- for hiring more domestic servants.



You have stolen the plot line of Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand). as your idea of how the world really works. The rich cannot cash out unless someone can buy out. Besides, what would happen if all the super-rich families were to disappear because of some disease that selectively kills them off? The acquisitive urge is much more commonplace than you think. Niches would emerge for people who do on a small scale what vertically-integrated businesses used to do (except for buying lobbyists, paying off politicians, and big advertising campaigns, all of which have an economy of scale that punishes small business). Contrary to the myth that Ayn Rand propounds, the ability to run a business is far more common than the ability to create art, music, or literature of high quality. What small business does not do is to foster the growth of a narcissistic, rapacious, exploitative class of bureaucrats. Where I live are many Old Order Amish; many of them operate small businesses. Their businesses have little need for armies of white-collar workers because small businesses need no bureaucracy.



The government spends, and the money that it spends goes into the general economy for further recycling as other activity. The freebies are highways that don't have exorbitant tolls upon them (for that, be glad that you live in Minnesota, which has no toll roads), K-12 (and soon by necessity K-14) education, public health that prevents epidemics, support for educational television such as Sesame Street, law enforcement, and national defense.



The giant American cities with the lowest crime rates are San Jose, California and New York City. Both are high-tax places.

I prefer a low crime rate, a result of a vibrant economy and well-run schools... wouldn't you?

Gee, I stole her plot line without ever reading one of her books. The freebies like freeways aren't considered to be freebies by taxpayers. Do you know how silly and disconnected a Democratic voter (public servant/government employee/substitute school teacher) who is informing/educating others about their relationship with freebie's like public school and freeways comes across to a private sector taxpayer who knows he pays for them and those so-called freebies as well? Government (public sector workers and their political party) could use a lesson in appreciation and understanding of who funds who? This may come across as a complete surprise to you and other posters, you (government) don't fund me or my business. Taxpayer participation in taxation that supports (funds) you (public school) is largely voluntary at this point. Where does San Jose and New York city rank as far as civilian crime tolerance? Where do they rank as far as their amount of wealth, amount of business and amount of taxpayers? I live in a community with a low crime rate, a wealthier tax base, well-run schools and a sizable population that has a pretty low tolerance for crime. I preferred to live here and still prefer to live here.

An example of the extreme selfishness of the boomers was in 2011 with the removal of gaddafi. The boomer government never consulted and refused to requested permission from the American people prior to initiating military operations to remove him from power. The boomers even lied about the purpose of the operation saying they would just launch punitive airstrikes, not seeking regime change. Yet the boomers imposed the aim of regime change without congressional or popular approval.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Trump and Hillary Clinton look to cruise through super tuesday, perhaps with Cruz and Sanders winning only their home states and Sanders winning Massachusetts narrowly. Cruz may have a chance in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The proportional allotment of delegates will cushion the blow for the underdogs for the upcoming battles.

I'm not so sure about Hillary, Eric. Reuters is showing Bernie leading Hillary all this month. See http://www.salon.com/2016/02/24/bern...rly_all_month/ . Bernie seems likely to carry at least 5 states http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...urprise-219761. Besides Vermont, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado and Oklahoma. Even in Texas the gap is narrowing considerably, particularly in Hispanic areas where Clinton's stance in favour of the 2007 compromise which would have allowed guest workers has hurt her. And there is growing concern about Hillary Clinton's ability to beat Donald Trump. Polls consistently showing Sanders beating Trump while Hillary stays in a statistical tie with Trump are taking their tooll. Seehttps://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/ and http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...e_general.html . The more unstoppable Trump looks the worse Hillary looks, especially when it comes to electability.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

An example of the extreme selfishness of the boomers was in 2011 with the removal of gaddafi. The boomer government never consulted and refused to requested permission from the American people prior to initiating military operations to remove him from power. The boomers even lied about the purpose of the operation saying they would just launch punitive airstrikes, not seeking regime change. Yet the boomers imposed the aim of regime change without congressional or popular approval.

Congress pretty much abdicated it's responsibility on war powers to the President following WWII. It started with the Cold War but after Vietnam, Congresspeople pretty much decided that they wanted no responsibility or accountability for wars, so Congress basically passed the buck on war to the President regardless of what the Constitution says. Congresspeople are pretty much willing to give Presidents a free hand on war as long as it's simply a matter of deploying all volunteer troops. That's why it's become "sending in THE troops not sending in OUR troops. Where Congress draws the line is at a draft and/or higher taxes to pay for a war.
It's not just hypocrisy on the part of Boomers. Boomers (Hillary is a prime example) literally cannot conceive of any other way to run defence and foreign policy than neo-conservativism or liberal interventionism to protect an international system that protects international business above all other values. Call it the Boomer Idealist penchant for cultic thinking and non-reasoning. This kind of idealist thinking got this country into a civil war and into a double world war that could have turned out a lot worse than it did (the wrong war across the wrong ocean against the wrong enemy).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sure, as long as the alliance within the Republican Party is broken up, and Trump gets no further than the nomination to accomplish that.

I didn't quite understand Rubio's plan either; it seemed like he was offering refundable credits for those who don't get insurance from their employer. But how was he going to pay for that? No answer given.

I noticed too that Trump first agreed with Rubio's plan. But he didn't mention that again; he repeated himself about 10 times saying he would get rid of lines around the states and that would create competition. Rubio, accused of repeating himself before New Hampshire, called him on it.

I don't know what that little mark is below my words. I guess it came from Einzige's post. It has marked me I guess

Trump has raised a key issue in health care--the creation of monopolies in medical markets both in insurance coverage and in hospital ownership by a combination of state laws that control entry into health insurance and strategic mergers. While this issue may be lost on many of us, it is a big issue with small to medium size business owners who now are obligated to offer coverage to employees and have to deal with these monopolies all the time. Frankly, having to deal with health care monopolies for full time employees is one of the prime motivators for accelerating part timing of employees and automation of work whenever possible.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The "Daisy Ad" for 2016 may be one in Spanish.

Show some Gestapo-like group breaking up an intact and normal family so that it can enforce immigration laws, compelling children to renounce their US citizenship so that they can be deported, and nullifying a loving marriage, and you have your equivalent of the 'daisy ad'.

It could be in English because the children speak unexceptionable English. Why not? The children are born here!

Another variant? Show people how inconvenient it is to have to carry an internal passport as was mandatory in the Soviet Union or in Apartheid-era South Africa so that people can be identified at any moment for citizenship status.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Trump at the debate could not define his health care plan, except to say it would be private and would not be obamacare. He DID say that he would lower taxes beyond Bush and Reagan levels. Just saying he won't abolish or cut social security and medicare isn't saying much. Saying the solution is to build a great economy is typical trickle-down, free marketeer talk.

The Right often wants us to accept its promises at face valuable yet hold it unaccountable when the results go bad. A big part of the desire of the Right is to promote greater concentration of wealth while allowing big cuts in pay. Allegedly such will create more potential capital. Of course. All profit is potential capital, and the creation of capital is worth some sacrifices.

But the capital is only potential. Will it lead to new investment?

We are beyond the stage of economic development in which we need to produce more sheer stuff to make people happy. Poor people by American standards often live in squalid clutter, even if the clutter is cast-off stuff of the middle class or what the now-poor people had while they had middle-class incomes. So getting to ditch some obsolete electronics (like console televisions and VHS tape players) and software (cassette and 8-track tapes, VHS and Betamax video tapes, and very limited video-game cartridges and players) for more modern stuff that uses less room wouldn't be a loss. But making a change requires some income which vanishes if pay gets cut drastically.

We don't need more furniture, appliances, cars, clothes, televisions, or stereos except to meet population growth. (That said, population growth isn't such a great idea). We have long been in the situation in which doing things better is more important than having more stuff.

More profit through monopolization of the economy and wage cuts (the Republicans want a national Right-to-Work law that eviscerates labor unions, the only entities that can stand up to bureaucratic elites expert at exploiting people on behalf of their plutocratic pay-masters) simply means that the elites get to live in more opulent splendor -- like an aristocracy as flourished before World War I in Europe or like oil sheikhs today. All that the American elites lack is aristocratic titles... but don't worry about that. Able to alter the Constitution if they get pure power, we will start seeing titles like Prince, Baron, Count, Marquess, and Lord... maybe also an American equivalent of the German or Austrian "von"... attached to their names.

The problem isn't in the aristocratic pretensions; the problem is that those pretensions depend upon real deprivation of the masses to make those pretensions possible.

Of course the economic elites offer the claim that the high profits 'freed' from ruinous taxation will allow more money to be lent to small business. Sure. But the lending will be through monopolistic entities that lend only at terms characteristic of small loans collected as the Mafia lends to people who borrow for their gambling. But if workers are destitute, can they be reliable customers of small businesses that serve niches that the elites find unworthy of them? Such earnings as small-scale entrepreneurs, often artisans, get will be devoured in usurious interest. Small-scale enterprise will not be a route out of poverty, but instead only a means of transforming the style of oppression.

Most of the added income will go into ostentatious lifestyles. It is arguable that more of the potential capital will go up noses (cocaine) or up crotches (concubines). No thanks!

His free-market calls depend upon a return to the norms of early capitalism, the capitalism of the sweat shop that Karl Marx knew well. That capitalism does not need a consumer economy, but it exploits people to the fullest while ensuring that the long hours of soul-crushing work require no investment in the worker. That degrading order makes Marxism relevant.

The sweat-shop and the slum, and not the alienated intellectual, make Marxism relevant. Let us not imitate the Gilded Age, an era of weak government and irresponsible capitalism, at its worst.

Originally Posted by Einzige

You didn't notice where Rubio mocked him for his statement that TRUMP doesn't want the poor dying in the street?

Of course TRUMP is a useless oligarch with a Jewess daughter. The point, however, is that he'll legitimate economic nationalism. At which point the white working class can smash up its alliance of necessity with economic conservatives, and we can put the collective neck of the internationalist capitalist class on the chopping block.

I think have you figured out.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Strasserism (German: Strasserismus or Straßerismus) was the strand of Nazism that called for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of National Socialism, hostile to Jews not from a racial, ethnic, or religious perspective, but from an anti-capitalist basis, to achieve a national rebirth. It derives its name from Gregor and Otto Strasser, the two Nazi brothers initially associated with this position.

Opposed on strategic views to Adolf Hitler, Otto Strasser was expelled from the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in 1930 and went into exile in Czechoslovakia, while Gregor Strasser was killed in Germany on June 30, 1934 during the so-called Night of the Long Knives. Strasserism remains an active position within strands of neo-Nazism.

Strasserism is Nazism with the rejection of the sucking-up to plutocratic elites. It is still racist.

The least of the problems that I see with Donald Trump is a Jewish daughter (and son-in-law). Judaism is not the problem. As I have said elsewhere, there was nothing wrong with the German people before 1933 that Judaism would not have solved. I can say that of no other people. There would be no significant change in the once-rich German culture.

The Ashkenazim were closer to being Germans than to being any other people, at least before the survivors became assimilated into Israel or (largely) the English-speaking world. They could assimilate more easily in German life than even in American life.

It is arguable that much of American culture, especially non-Shakespearean theater, is really Ashkenazic. The Yiddish theater of giant Jewish communities (especially New York) "Americanized" by replacing Yiddish with English. Considering how well Jews do things, they probably figure heavily in Shakespearean theater now. But this is not a Jewish conspiracy; it's just that the Jews do unusually well at cultivating such talent as they have, transforming it into competence.

But that is more competence than conspiracy. I have met enough Jews to recognize that they are just as virtuous as the rest of us. They are not greedier or more materialistic than gentiles. They can feel guilt about many things, but not about economic success through sheer merit. Let us remember that of the non-blacks in the Civil Rights movement, Jews were represented far out of their proportion to America as a whole.

Are there obnoxious Jews who share the worst tendencies of gentile plutocrats? Sure. Sheldon Adelson first comes to mind.

...I am about half German and Swiss (German-speaking peoples) and about half English and Welsh with a smattering of other ethnic origins. Because of a German-sounding surname (it is really Dutch, changed from "Brouwer" around the time of the American Revolution), my respect for intellectual activity, and my liberal ideas, neo-Nazi and Klan bigots often figure that I am Jewish. At the least they do not confuse me with themselves. To such I have said "Better a Jew than you!" and meant it.

Don't blame the Jews. Judaism is not the problem; plutocracy is.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Gee, I stole her plot line without ever reading one of her books. The freebies like freeways aren't considered to be freebies by taxpayers. Do you know how silly and disconnected a Democratic voter (public servant/government employee/substitute school teacher) who is informing/educating others about their relationship with freebie's like public school and freeways comes across to a private sector taxpayer who knows he pays for them and those so-called freebies as well? Government (public sector workers and their political party) could use a lesson in appreciation and understanding of who funds who?

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of how our monetary system actually works that is is at the heart of your mistaken viewpoint on so many issues.

Your federal taxes do NOT pay for ANY federal spending.

Federal taxation serves two purposes. First, it provides a common currency for commerce. In a modern society, this is even a more important function of the central government than common defense. As a businessman, you should get on your knees every morning and thank the Lord you live in a country with the most secure currency in the world. Second, federal taxation provides a means to reduce wealth in the private sector so as to reduce private spending and thereby mitigate inflation. Right now, credible economists are praying for some inflation, and there is not much on the long-term horizon to suggest that is going to change. Right now, there should be both less federal taxing and more federal spending, but the real problem is the vast majority of people are as monetarily ignorant as you.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

This may come across as a complete surprise to you and other posters, you (government) don't fund me or my business.

This is idiotic. First, how do you know your business income didn't originate from government funding? Do you really believe there are dollars (or bank accounts) that say this dollar is from government spending and this one is not? Second, what state/locality do you live in where there is no government spending? I and a ton of economists, sociologists and myriad of other disciplines would like to study this most unique place in the entire country . I find it amazing how blindingly stupid ideological blinders can make one seem.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Taxpayer participation in taxation that supports (funds) you (public school) is largely voluntary at this point.

Unlike federal taxing and spending, state and local government do have to behave financially as a business, household or individual - they do have to balance their budgets and manage their debt successfully. This is where conservative values make some sense - not in an overarching manner but in a balanced manner with liberal thought. Let's sit down and figure out how much money needs to go to schools to hire/keep good teachers so Zillow or Redfin will show your house is worth something more than a pile of shxt. The most successful communities is where there are healthy balances between private and public spending and partnership.

Oh, concerning you sense of the 'voluntary' nature of paying your taxes - let us know the address of the prison you'll be staying in.
You're so funny!

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Where does San Jose and New York city rank as far as civilian crime tolerance?

I think this is one of those batshxt crazy terms that only Classic-Xer uses - please define.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Where do they rank as far as their amount of wealth, amount of business and amount of taxpayers? I live in a community with a low crime rate, a wealthier tax base, well-run schools and a sizable population that has a pretty low tolerance for crime. I preferred to live here and still prefer to live here.

Well, you may prefer to live in some cultural backwater, but you are actually living on some other planet if you think your level of wealth, business or tax paying is in the league of the San Jose metro area which includes Cupertino where Apple Corp reside which has more wealth than most countries. For your own education, google major corporations of Silicon Valley and then check their finances.

As for NYC, financially, it is the country.

Like I said amazing how ideological blinders =

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Trump has raised a key issue in health care--the creation of monopolies in medical markets both in insurance coverage and in hospital ownership by a combination of state laws that control entry into health insurance and strategic mergers. While this issue may be lost on many of us, it is a big issue with small to medium size business owners who now are obligated to offer coverage to employees and have to deal with these monopolies all the time. Frankly, having to deal with health care monopolies for full time employees is one of the prime motivators for accelerating part timing of employees and automation of work whenever possible.

Check out which state most credit card bank corporations are incorporated. Most would guess NY, but that's not it. Hint, it is where the state laws/regulations are most relaxed for those credit card bank corporations. The 10-yr T is under 2%! Have you notice any credit card rates in that range?

What do you think would happen if health insurers could go national? Do you think Classic Xer in Butthole, America is going to get good insurance/rates from a national conglomerate located in a state on the other side of the country?

Amazing how sweet the Sirens songs of the financial elites.

Senator Graham was on a roll after the GOP debate. Some remarks at the Washington Press Club -

- his "party has gone bat**** crazy."

- "If you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you,"

- Graham also went after Sen. Marco Rubio, calling him "the boy wonder," adding: "I'm not saying he would change his positions, but he would change his positions. The Secret Service's main job if he's president is to keep him hydrated."

- "I will say that our Canadian is better than your Kenyan," he joked. "I know exactly when Ted is going to drop out of the race. March 12 — that's Canadian week in Myrtle Beach, when all of our Canadian friends get 10 percent off."

Oh, and there was this -

- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer also joined the fun at the event. "Have you seen Bernie Sanders' rallies? I haven't seen that many white voters since the Oscars," she joked.

Originally Posted by Einzige

You didn't notice where Rubio mocked him for his statement that TRUMP doesn't want the poor dying in the street?

Of course TRUMP is a useless oligarch with a Jewess daughter. The point, however, is that he'll legitimate economic nationalism. At which point the white working class can smash up its alliance of necessity with economic conservatives, and we can put the collective neck of the internationalist capitalist class on the chopping block.

Economic Nationalism? Bwahaahaahaa! Trump loves him some Soviet Bloc women. He's the type who, if say, we went back to a 70% marginal tax rate, would pull a Gerard Depardieu, take his money (or what's left of it), his bat, and his ball, and run off to Russia or China. Then he could really love him some of those babushkas!

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Congress pretty much abdicated it's responsibility on war powers to the President following WWII. It started with the Cold War but after Vietnam, Congresspeople pretty much decided that they wanted no responsibility or accountability for wars, so Congress basically passed the buck on war to the President regardless of what the Constitution says. Congresspeople are pretty much willing to give Presidents a free hand on war as long as it's simply a matter of deploying all volunteer troops. That's why it's become "sending in THE troops not sending in OUR troops. Where Congress draws the line is at a draft and/or higher taxes to pay for a war.
It's not just hypocrisy on the part of Boomers. Boomers (Hillary is a prime example) literally cannot conceive of any other way to run defence and foreign policy than neo-conservativism or liberal interventionism to protect an international system that protects international business above all other values. Call it the Boomer Idealist penchant for cultic thinking and non-reasoning. This kind of idealist thinking got this country into a civil war and into a double world war that could have turned out a lot worse than it did (the wrong war across the wrong ocean against the wrong enemy).

You have revealed your true color (or make that, colour). You, the "Coloradan."

Originally Posted by Einzige

I'm a "lefty voting for TRUMP". Or, rather, a national socialist - in the pre-Great War sense, who takes his socialism seriously.

TRUMP isn't some radical free-marketeer, as you're going to learn when he's in office.

No, Trump is the American Mussolini. Are you planning on a tour as a Brown Shirt?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Gee, I stole her plot line without ever reading one of her books. The freebies like freeways aren't considered to be freebies by taxpayers. Do you know how silly and disconnected a Democratic voter (public servant/government employee/substitute school teacher) who is informing/educating others about their relationship with freebie's like public school and freeways comes across to a private sector taxpayer who knows he pays for them and those so-called freebies as well? Government (public sector workers and their political party) could use a lesson in appreciation and understanding of who funds who? This may come across as a complete surprise to you and other posters, you (government) don't fund me or my business.

Actually, we the people, through our governments, do fund your business. Are you that dense that you fail to understand the basic value of public goods and services? Do you educate your workers from early childhood? Do you operate your service vehicles on private roads? Is that a totally private internet you use? How about utilities: are you using individually contracted electricity, water and sewer? Do you call private security if you have a break-in; your private fire service if you have a fire?

At a more holistic level, do you establish and enforce the standards for your providers, inspect your own food and keep the air clean all by your little lonesome? All those entities you hate as meddlers: EPA, OSHA, EEOC and all the taxing entities, make life possible. That you fail to see that, because they tend to irritate you, is a blind-spot in the conservative eye the size of skyscraper. Move to Beijing for a week and experience the lack of effective services ... especially the EPA.

Even more to the point:

• Spending in the public sector circulates though the economy no differently than private spending. It's money.
• Public spending on things like roads and fiber networks generate profits that are passed to business people, but paid-for by taxpayers. You should be happy.
• Buying those things with cheap borrowed money is exactly the same as you borrowing to buy a new truck/tool/computer for your business because it improves efficiency. It also generates more return than it costs.

Economics doesn't fail because money takes route A instead of route B.

Originally Posted by C-X ...

Taxpayer participation in taxation that supports (funds) you (public school) is largely voluntary at this point. Where does San Jose and New York city rank as far as civilian crime tolerance? Where do they rank as far as their amount of wealth, amount of business and amount of taxpayers? I live in a community with a low crime rate, a wealthier tax base, well-run schools and a sizable population that has a pretty low tolerance for crime. I preferred to live here and still prefer to live here.

Feel free to live wherever. Whining about San Jose or NYC is pretty funny, but whatever. The crime in any city is not evenly distributed. If you can afford to live UMC in the 'burbs, you can have similar results in the city, because you can live in a safe area by choice. If you live poor in either place, you're at risk. I live in the 'burbs myself, so I'm not advocating for urban living per se. I will say that I'll move to a more urban setting as I age, because the services are close and simply better.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Trump has raised a key issue in health care--the creation of monopolies in medical markets both in insurance coverage and in hospital ownership by a combination of state laws that control entry into health insurance and strategic mergers. While this issue may be lost on many of us, it is a big issue with small to medium size business owners who now are obligated to offer coverage to employees and have to deal with these monopolies all the time. Frankly, having to deal with health care monopolies for full time employees is one of the prime motivators for accelerating part timing of employees and automation of work whenever possible.

We decided to deregulate the entire economy. Welcome to the brave new world of Leverage, Intimidation and Graft.

Call it the LIG economy.

Originally Posted by Einzige

The point, however, is that he'll legitimate economic nationalism. At which point the white working class can smash up its alliance of necessity with economic conservatives, and we can put the collective neck of the internationalist capitalist class on the chopping block.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

FWIW, Chris Christie has endorsed Trump.

http://us.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politic...ump/index.html

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, we the people, through our governments, do fund your business. Are you that dense that you fail to understand the basic value of public goods and services? Do you educate your workers from early childhood? Do you operate your service vehicles on private roads? Is that a totally private internet you use? How about utilities: are you using individually contracted electricity, water and sewer? Do you call private security if you have a break-in; your private fire service if you have a fire?

At a more holistic level, do you establish and enforce the standards for your providers, inspect your own food and keep the air clean all by your little lonesome? All those entities you hate as meddlers: EPA, OSHA, EEOC and all the taxing entities, make life possible. That you fail to see that, because they tend to irritate you, is a blind-spot in the conservative eye the size of skyscraper. Move to Beijing for a week and experience the lack of effective services ... especially the EPA.

The political entity that Mao Zedong founded may have morphed into the purest example of capitalism in the advanced industrial world. Abysmal wages, brutal management, lax regulation on the environment. Crimes against the general prosperity are punishable by death, but that is even more echt-capitalist than the norm in countries that either have no death penalty or execute few people (Japan and the USA).

Is it any wonder that American capitalists love to do business in China?

Even more to the point:

• Spending in the public sector circulates though the economy no differently than private spending. It's money.
• Public spending on things like roads and fiber networks generate profits that are passed to business people, but paid-for by taxpayers. You should be happy.
• Buying those things with cheap borrowed money is exactly the same as you borrowing to buy a new truck/tool/computer for your business because it improves efficiency. It also generates more return than it costs.

Economics doesn't fail because money takes route A instead of route B.

You confuse him with factual reality! How cruel!

Feel free to live wherever. Whining about San Jose or NYC is pretty funny, but whatever. The crime in any city is not evenly distributed. If you can afford to live UMC in the 'burbs, you can have similar results in the city, because you can live in a safe area by choice. If you live poor in either place, you're at risk. I live in the 'burbs myself, so I'm not advocating for urban living per se. I will say that I'll move to a more urban setting as I age, because the services are close and simply better.

I brought up the low crime rates in San Jose and New York City. Both are fiendishly-expensive places in which to live. For really-cheap living, try the rural South... except that you will find out why it is such a cheap place to live. Cost of living and desirability (including economic opportunity) go together. Who wants to live where the public services, including schools, are so dreadful, and where wages are so low?

New polling map, one showing Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. I will have some comments to make after I post a map involving Bernie Sanders.


Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich




Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

I can show only four of my polling maps in one post, so here are those involving Sanders. Polls involving Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin involve two states that will be tightly contested and one state likely on the fringe of contention. I have fresh material for 67 electoral votes in states that will be watched closely throughout the Presidential election.

Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Marco Rubio


Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of how our monetary system actually works that is is at the heart of your mistaken viewpoint on so many issues.

Your federal taxes do NOT pay for ANY federal spending.

Federal taxation serves two purposes. First, it provides a common currency for commerce. In a modern society, this is even a more important function of the central government than common defense. As a businessman, you should get on your knees every morning and thank the Lord you live in a country with the most secure currency in the world. Second, federal taxation provides a means to reduce wealth in the private sector so as to reduce private spending and thereby mitigate inflation. Right now, credible economists are praying for some inflation, and there is not much on the long-term horizon to suggest that is going to change. Right now, there should be both less federal taxing and more federal spending, but the real problem is the vast majority of people are as monetarily ignorant as you.

It's amazing how much a difference there is between real life conversations/debate/argument and the internet. Talking and arguing is so much easier than writing for me. Where does one start first? How does one separate known truth from fantasies and lies? How does one point out significant flaws, inaccuracies, false understandings, false statements and ridiculous comments? How does one engage a personality with an ego that they're familiar with, know how to engage, dismantle and reduce to a sniffling baby on the internet within a writing environment? The US Constitution provided a law requiring a common currency for commerce. Federal taxation has/had nothing to do with that. The sole purpose of federal taxation is to acquire private funds that are needed to financially support the federal government. Today, our economic value is no longer based on our amount of gold that we have accumulated as a nation. Today, our economic value is based on our over all financial production (GNP) as a nation. If what you say about federal taxation is true, the Democrats have some major explaining to do as to why they've been lying to their taxpayers for decades, using lies to teach and using lies for gathering support for government funding. A big bad issue for Democrats and their party to truthfully acknowledge, address and financially over come. Oh well, shit happens to idiots who place trust, individual value and belief in a name. I'll address the rest of this post later.