HRC

[57Brave]

I'm sure when the Libertarian Party has a majority in either body of Congress it will vote to end earmark spending.

https://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

 

[sturg33]

If memory serves and experiencing owning a home and puting a son through college and working daily with grad students of course I understood the difference. But I too understood the nuance of the argument . My understanding what Sen Sanders meant and trying to explain it to you does hardly qualify that I " ... don't even understand why ..."

I believe your response to my mocking of his ignorance was "why is he wrong?" After a few of us had to explain it to you you changed tune on your argument

Please remind me the history of why there was a Fed in the first place and what events since have deemed it un necessary

The Fed was created to give us a "stable" monetary system and a means to fend off economic crisis. Since then we've had massive economic catastrophes... but the rich have certainly gotten richer

Oh, and there's this:

That's over 96% currency devaluation in just over 100 years.. I believe the Romans made it to 99% before they collapsed.

And those interest rates I keep talking about? Good for stocks and ****ty for everyone else. And this "economic boom" we're supposedly in is completely propped up by the interest rate environment. But it's no longer working. Countries are getting desperate by going to negative rates. The US will too... it's the last trick the Fed has to keep the bubble alive.

 

[57Brave]

So you think every 10 years we need to double the size of the government? Can they not act like any other entity and run on a budget?

The other issue we have here, due to the artificially low interest rates - which your girl supports - it encourages the gov to keep borrowing... and if/when those interest rates ever do go up - the interest on the debt is going to become an obstacle that we won't be able to overcome.

Did you not read the first sentence ?

The government has to keep borrowing because there are pot holes that need fixing

Yes it will be an obstacle until our money coming in is equal to the money going out.
Notice I said "our"

 

[sturg33]

Did you not read the first sentence ?

The government has to keep borrowing because there are pot holes that need fixing

Yes it will be an obstacle until our money coming in is equal to the money going out.
Notice I said "our"

If the government went back to the 2005 budget, the income tax could be 0% and we'd have money left over.

But we gotta fund those wars Hilary loves. Gotta get that medicare Part D out there. Gotta increase the social security pyramid scheme.

Gotta keep stealing from our kids.

 

[57Brave]

No I didn't. I still see no reason why educating our people should come at a higher interest rate than owning property.
Because I don't agree with the policy does not mean I don't understand

That is twice today you've been scolded for being intolerant of those that disagree with you

 

[sturg33]

No I didn't. I still see no reason why educating our people should come at a higher interest rate than owning property.
Because I don't agree with the policy does not mean I don't understand

That is twice today you've been scolded for being intolerant of those that disagree with you

I'm quite sure you don't understand... or else you'd agree to the policy

Again... it's fun to have the pie in the sky free for everyone mentality...

But math is a fact that has to be reckoned with

 

[57Brave]

If the government went back to the 2005 budget, the income tax could be 0% and we'd have money left over.

But we gotta fund those wars Hilary loves. Gotta get that medicare Part D out there. Gotta increase the social security pyramid scheme.

Gotta keep stealing from our kids.

Yeah, that 2005 budget --- good times
The defense budget is a whole other animal. Medicare Part D keeps people alive and Social Security provides for people that could never afford Columbia Shorts , polo shirts or retirement plans.
Hard to have a retirement plan on $8.00 an hour

 

[jpx7]

How about the constitutionality of that kind of spending? Check out his earmarks and tell me where you stand on that.

Ron Paul, paraphrase: "I think the whole system of appropriations as practiced is unconstitutional and I will not vote for spending which is unconstitutional"
[inserts unconstitutional spending into approps bill]
[votes against bill]
Ron Paul, paraphrased: Kneel before teh awful glory of my ideological purity, bitchez.

What a con.

Earmarks are not unconstitutional at all.

I'm not sure what is challenging to understand here. You either appropriate the funds, or the executive branch does. Cutting the number of earmarks does NOT cut spending. Earmarks are just a way to control how the money is spent. Which I would much rather have a fiscally responsible local congressman doing rather than the bloated beaurocratic nightmare of the executive branch.

To each his own. But at least don't be obtuse to what it is.

I have to say—and I'd be remiss if I didn't step in, since I've just spent a few thousand characters maligning the Democratic establishment's use of the "ideological purity" cudgel—that I don't entirely disagree with Paul/sturg in this specific case (even if I do disagree with their over-arching premise).

You vote against a spending bill on principle; it passes anyway; there are going to be monies appropriated. As an elected representative, he'd be doing a disservice to his constituency by not directing to them some of that money if it's already going to be spent somewhere, someway, anyway. In this case, I think Paul is holding/voicing ideals, but not insisting on ideological purity, instead acceding to the practicalities of representative government.

I also think it's a good example for what I'm arguing about the current left. I don't think most are actually advocating rigid adherence to ideological purity, consequences and compromise be damned. Instead, they want a party and a set of candidates who don't set giving up or giving in as a precondition of their policy proposal, who don't inscribe resignation to what they can't achieve into their very platform.

 

[sturg33]

I have to say—and I'd be remiss if I didn't step in, since I've just spent a few thousand characters maligning the Democratic establishment's use of the "ideological purity" cudgel—that I don't entirely disagree with Paul/sturg in this specific case (even if I do disagree with their over-arching premise).

You vote against a spending bill on principle; it passes anyway; there are going to be monies appropriated. As an elected representative, he'd be doing a disservice to his constituency by not directing to them some of that money if it's already going to be spent somewhere, someway, anyway. In this case, I think Paul is holding/voicing ideals, but not insisting on ideological purity, instead acceding to the practicalities of representative government.

I also think it's a good example for what I'm arguing about the current left. I don't think most are actually advocating rigid adherence to ideological purity, consequences and compromise be damned. Instead, they want a party and a set of candidates who don't set giving up or giving in as a precondition of their policy proposal, who don't inscribe resignation to what they can't achieve into their very platform.

Your objectivity in the Sanders endorsement has been well respected - from my front.

That's my issue with Sanders. Some of his supporters have more integrity than he does

 

[57Brave]

I'm quite sure you don't understand... or else you'd agree to the policy

Again... it's fun to have the pie in the sky free for everyone mentality...

But math is a fact that has to be reckoned with

Having benefited from low interest rates for taking out a mortgage and seeing interest rates to educate to the BA level, I do understand. Practically understand.
I appreciate the goal of debt free college. Just because this system is unjust does not mean we can not work to make it more just. I will vote for people that will advance what I see as a better way. To my thinking why should a student work 12 years to graduate with a PHD and immediately faced with $75-100 K debt ? That boggles my senses
Oh please --- I am sure you made it working 4 jobs and snow and uphill -- good for you. I mean it. My son graduated with only credit card debt for beer and spring flings. I get your point there. But I too understand not everyone has that level of motivation and focus
Your blind spot is not everyone has your advantages. In any respect

Never answered my question, is counting votes considered math ?

 

[Julio3000]

Earmarks are not unconstitutional at all.

I'm not sure what is challenging to understand here. You either appropriate the funds, or the executive branch does. Cutting the number of earmarks does NOT cut spending. Earmarks are just a way to control how the money is spent. Which I would much rather have a fiscally responsible local congressman doing rather than the bloated beaurocratic nightmare of the executive branch.

To each his own. But at least don't be obtuse to what it is.

Earmarks are not unconstitutional at all.

But the particular projects may be, yes? I'm using Ron Paul's own standard of constitutional spending here. Again, do you think that his requested earmarks, which are publicly available, are covered by the general welfare clause?

Cutting the number of earmarks does NOT cut spending.

If you think that legislators bringing pork into their districts rather than having the money going through the ordinary allocation process—with more oversight and expertise—well, then, the constutional warrior wins again.

 

[sturg33]

I don't know what you want Julio... he's doing his job.

He's determined that him getting funds for his district is a better use of the money than the executive branch using it for whatever they see fit.

If that appalls you, then I look forward to you not voting for Hilary this year

 

[Julio3000]

I don't know what you want Julio... he's doing his job.

He's determined that him getting funds for his district is a better use of the money than the executive branch using it for whatever they see fit.

If that appalls you, then I look forward to you not voting for Hilary this year

Good to know that the strict constitutionalism only applies until it's your ox being gored.

 

[sturg33]

Good to know that the strict constitutionalism only applies until it's your ox being gored.

Please show me where he voted for unconstitutional spending.

Thanks!

 

[Julio3000]

Please show me where he voted for unconstitutional spending.

Thanks!

Christ. That's the whole dodge. It's positively Clintonian.

 

[jpx7]

Your objectivity in the Sanders endorsement has been well respected - from my front.

That's my issue with Sanders. Some of his supporters have more integrity than he does

Sanders' eventual endorsement has been long expected; what's strange has been the response from party elites and the establishment/Clinton die-hards in the media. For months, Sanders supporters were derided as naïfs subscribing to a wide-eyed, adolescent hero-worship with no long-term ideological backbone. Now that Sanders has fallen into party rank, those former Sanders supporters who haven't immediately followed suit—who have suggested, even, that they might pursue other voting or party options—are being mocked as petulant "sore losers" who subscribe to a wide-eyed, adolescent insistence on "ideological purity," and who can't accept the way the world works.

Which is it? Or is it maybe that the party establishment doesn't like having to brook any dissent within what it considers its ranks? Perhaps there is also a little reactionary discomfort at not holding the moral high-ground on their "side" of the debate? (Because there are only supposed to be two ultimate sides, right?)

---

As for Sanders' "integrity", I don't know. Platform was a much bigger issue than personality, for me.

I think, at the end of the day—whether it's driven by ideals, practicality, concern with legacy, or all of the above—Sanders hopes to do exactly what the author of the NYT article 50 posted advocates: I think he'd like to inspire reform in the Democratic Party from within, and push it back left, even if he isn't the eventual elected beneficiary. To do that, one has to play ball with the party; to play ball with the party, one has to fall in line.

I think where a lot of his former supporters diverge is to what extent party reform is even possible. And, indeed, I think the party establishment have given them a lot of good, practical reasons to suspect that it isn't very viable, especially in light of the pretty bellicose response to the left-leaning "insurgency" this primary season (and I'm not talking structural conspiracies here; just the rank-and-file left-demeaning rhetoric of both official and effective surrogates).

 

[sturg33]

Christ. That's the whole dodge. It's positively Clintonian.

LOL... you made the point about him not being constitutional... do you have any proof of that?

You're being obtuse here - which is rare for you.

Deciding how approved money is spent is constitutional duty of the congress. It's a way to keep separation from the executive branch to avoid giving the president a blank check.

Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his constituents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his constituents should get their share.

Lastly... I laugh that this is an "issue" that you now have "gored the ox of RP"... earmark spending makes up something like 1% of federal spending... divide that by 335 districts and see how much federal spending Ron Paul is responsible for...

I'll do the math for you... 0%... because he votes against the spending.

 

[sturg33]

Which is it? Or is it maybe that the party establishment doesn't like having to brook any dissent within what it considers its ranks? Perhaps there is also a little reactionary discomfort at not holding the moral high-ground on their "side" of the debate? (Because there are only supposed to be two ultimate sides, right?)

.

It's this.

The establishment does not make room for dissent... They have to continue to portray the situation as this or that...

 

[sturg33]

LOL... you made the point about him not being constitutional... do you have any proof of that?

You're being obtuse here - which is rare for you.

Deciding how approved money is spent is constitutional duty of the congress. It's a way to keep separation from the executive branch to avoid giving the president a blank check.

Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his constituents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his constituents should get their share.

Lastly... I laugh that this is an "issue" that you now have "gored the ox of RP"... earmark spending makes up something like 1% of federal spending... divide that by 335 districts and see how much federal spending Ron Paul is responsible for...

I'll do the math for you... 0%... because he votes against the spending.

To add... Ron Paul makes a great point... He is against Social Security but isn't against you getting your check. After all - you were forced into the system, so you should get as much back of your money as he can.

It's no different here.

 

[sturg33]

More of his own words...