• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
metwannabe said:
I can promise you, Jesus would not support the murder of unborn children.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
He also wouldn't support locking kids in cages. Conservative only care about unborn children, once they are born they are on their own. Cut funding to poor kids and cut taxes on rich people seems like a good idea? The biggest opponents of a woman's right to abortion in our government and society have no problem if their lover or sister or daughter have one. I don't think Jesus would support your right to bear arms and I know he wouldn't support Trump.
 
accu35 said:
"Respectable, Caring and likeable"?
Click to expand...
I will only give Obama some credit to that. Not a lot. Likeable is a stretch since a lot didn't like him, but still more liked him than Trump, and the right didn't hate Obama as much as the left hates trump. I think Trump has some care, but his ego blots it out and masks any that makes it though. Respectable I'll at least say Obama has more advantage to, since he was a lot calmer and less likely to say the dumb stuff Trump does.
 
Heelyes said:
He also wouldn't support locking kids in cages. Conservative only care about unborn children, once they are born they are on their own. Cut funding to poor kids and cut taxes on rich people seems like a good idea? The biggest opponents of a woman's right to abortion in our government and society have no problem if their lover or sister or daughter have one. I don't think Jesus would support your right to bear arms and I know he wouldn't support Trump.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I’m gonna say the majority of foster and adopted parents in the US are conservative so I think saying conservatives only care about the unborn is rather wrong.

I am also curious how you think Jesus would be against the right to bear arms?
 
Heelyes said:
He also wouldn't support locking kids in cages. Conservative only care about unborn children, once they are born they are on their own. Cut funding to poor kids and cut taxes on rich people seems like a good idea? The biggest opponents of a woman's right to abortion in our government and society have no problem if their lover or sister or daughter have one. I don't think Jesus would support your right to bear arms and I know he wouldn't support Trump.
Click to expand...
There are no kids in cages and these so called cages as you and msm like to refer to them were also utilized by the Obama administration, a fact that seems to get lost frequently. Cut funding to poor kids.... what on earth are you talking about? To think an individual only supports unborn children but then stops caring for them is ludicrous.

Weaponry was used all throughout the Bible, battles, wars, etc, it was then and always will be a necessary tool, even the disciples carried swords for protection. And as I'm sure you or someone one else will say, "Jesus told them to put the sword away and healed the Roman soldiers ear", He sure did because Jesus knew the time was at hand and willfully according to his Father's will, gave himself up to die for all of our sins.

But hey at least you've made your political stance very clear: you're a socialist, you think gov't should run our lives, increase our taxes, take my guns, support the killing of unborn children and you think I'm a bigot for supporting traditional marriage between a man and a woman as God intended it. This is America, you have a right to that opinion I just happen to respectfully disagree with every part of it.
 
metwannabe said:
There are no kids in cages and these so called cages as you and msm like to refer to them were also utilized by the Obama administration, a fact that seems to get lost frequently. Cut funding to poor kids.... what on earth are you talking about? To think an individual only supports unborn children but then stops caring for them is ludicrous.

Weaponry was used all throughout the Bible, battles, wars, etc, it was then and always will be a necessary tool, even the disciples carried swords for protection. And as I'm sure you or someone one else will say, "Jesus told them to put the sword away and healed the Roman soldiers ear", He sure did because Jesus knew the time was at hand and willfully according to his Father's will, gave himself up to die for all of our sins.

But hey at least you've made your political stance very clear: you're a socialist, you think gov't should run our lives, increase our taxes, take my guns, support the killing of unborn children and you think I'm a bigot for supporting traditional marriage between a man and a woman as God intended it. This is America, you have a right to that opinion I just happen to respectfully disagree with every part of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not a socialist or a Obama supporter. I enjoy a good debate and am not afraid speak up.
 
metwannabe said:
There are no kids in cages and these so called cages as you and msm like to refer to them were also utilized by the Obama administration, a fact that seems to get lost frequently. Cut funding to poor kids.... what on earth are you talking about? To think an individual only supports unborn children but then stops caring for them is ludicrous.

Weaponry was used all throughout the Bible, battles, wars, etc, it was then and always will be a necessary tool, even the disciples carried swords for protection. And as I'm sure you or someone one else will say, "Jesus told them to put the sword away and healed the Roman soldiers ear", He sure did because Jesus knew the time was at hand and willfully according to his Father's will, gave himself up to die for all of our sins.

But hey at least you've made your political stance very clear: you're a socialist, you think gov't should run our lives, increase our taxes, take my guns, support the killing of unborn children and you think I'm a bigot for supporting traditional marriage between a man and a woman as God intended it. This is America, you have a right to that opinion I just happen to respectfully disagree with every part of it.
Click to expand...
Didn't Trump want to cut SNAP funding? That is there to feed hungry kids.
 
Heelyes said:
Didn't Trump want to cut SNAP funding? That is there to feed hungry kids.
Click to expand...
Not really, just wanted to change some of the guidelines to include work requirements for food stamp/welfare recipients (SNAP recipients). Some states are already doing this, I think Georgia may be one of them. Trying to encourage, teach, train individuals to become self reliant isn't cutting funding.

edit: There could be a whole other lengthy discussion on welfare reform
 
metwannabe said:
Not really, just wanted to change some of the guidelines to include work requirements for food stamp/welfare recipients (SNAP recipients). Some states are already doing this, I think Georgia may be one of them. Trying to encourage, teach, train individuals to become self reliant isn't cutting funding.

edit: There could be a whole other lengthy discussion on welfare reform
Click to expand...
It's ironic that a majority of welfare is given to red States and a majority of taxes come from blue states.
 
Heelyes said:
It's ironic that a majority of welfare is given to red States and a majority of taxes come from blue states.
Click to expand...
California spends more than any other state on welfare and New York actually is in the top spot for most spent per capita. So not sure what you're referencing here?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
metwannabe said:
California spends more than any other state on welfare and New York actually is in the top spot for most spent per capita. So not sure what you're referencing here?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
California spends slightly more than they contribute but new York pays more than they received. The ten states that pay more than they received are all blue except South Dakota.
 
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the overall health of the economy and how that has progressed or regressed under each regime and how much each president was responsible for it. The economy operates cyclically. There is a business cycle. Policies put in place long ago gave rise to the financial crisis in 2008. It was not GWB's doing. The housing bust caused a catastrophic series of events to happen that could only be stopped by a global central bank effort, the likes of which the world had never previously seen. "Emergency monetary policy" was enacted, interest rates were taken to zero, and the market was flooded with liquidity. This saved the banking system and the economy from collapsing.

But notice, we have never been able to escape from "emergency monetary policy". Notice that interest rates have not been allowed to rise appreciably. Notice that more people are working more jobs to maintain a previous standard of living. Notice that saving is neither encouraged nor rewarded. Notice that businesses have engaged in buying back shares at the expense of investing in growth or investing in their employees. Notice that the GDP has not been able to achieve break-away velocity. Notice the proliferation of zombie companies. Notice the explosion of debt since Clinton and its parabolic rise over the last decade. Notice that there's not even a hint of trying to balance the budget or slow the growth of debt.

The entire sustaining factor for the economic resurgence since the crisis has been the massive, mind-boggling growth of debt, and it is unsustainable. It has had little to do with pro-economic policies. Sure, Bush, Obama, and Trump may espouse or have espoused some good ideas, and maybe they even undertook a few token initiatives. But all of them have injured the overall health of the system and have worked to ensure that it will eventually implode under its own weight of debt.

I'm all for trying to bring manufacturing back, but there are too many reasons why it's beneficial for companies to largely manufacture overseas. I'm all for looking at tax policy. But without cash/debt management, it's useless. It's nothing more than a band-aid.

The bottom line is the debt and our tax and spend mentality. Until ANYONE addresses this central issue, then the rest is largely irrelevant. It is like pushing a boulder uphill. Maybe you can slow its descent, but only a little. We're hurling headlong into another crisis. The Fed can print, the government can spend, and businesses can buy their shares back, using cheap money and make their balance sheets look good. But the cracks are widening, and nobody is doing or has done a single thing to fix it. Not Bush, not Obama, and not Trump. They get no credit in my book for very much of anything in the realm of real economic growth and health. Anything that we have seen in that arena was the result of a cyclical business cycle, fueled by cheap money and ongoing "emergency monetary policy", from which we will never be able to escape.
 
Rain Cold said:
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the overall health of the economy and how that has progressed or regressed under each regime and how much each president was responsible for it. The economy operates cyclically. There is a business cycle. Policies put in place long ago gave rise to the financial crisis in 2008. It was not GWB's doing. The housing bust caused a catastrophic series of events to happen that could only be stopped by a global central bank effort, the likes of which the world had never previously seen. "Emergency monetary policy" was enacted, interest rates were taken to zero, and the market was flooded with liquidity. This saved the banking system and the economy from collapsing.

But notice, we have never been able to escape from "emergency monetary policy". Notice that interest rates have not been allowed to rise appreciably. Notice that more people are working more jobs to maintain a previous standard of living. Notice that saving is neither encouraged nor rewarded. Notice that businesses have engaged in buying back shares at the expense of investing in growth or investing in their employees. Notice that the GDP has not been able to achieve break-away velocity. Notice the proliferation of zombie companies. Notice the explosion of debt since Clinton and its parabolic rise over the last decade. Notice that there's not even a hint of trying to balance the budget or slow the growth of debt.

The entire sustaining factor for the economic resurgence since the crisis has been the massive, mind-boggling growth of debt, and it is unsustainable. It has had little to do with pro-economic policies. Sure, Bush, Obama, and Trump may espouse or have espoused some good ideas, and maybe they even undertook a few token initiatives. But all of them have injured the overall health of the system and have worked to ensure that it will eventually implode under its own weight of debt.

I'm all for trying to bring manufacturing back, but there are too many reasons why it's beneficial for companies to largely manufacture overseas. I'm all for looking at tax policy. But without cash/debt management, it's useless. It's nothing more than a band-aid.

The bottom line is the debt and our tax and spend mentality. Until ANYONE addresses this central issue, then the rest is largely irrelevant. It is like pushing a boulder uphill. Maybe you can slow its descent, but only a little. We're hurling headlong into another crisis. The Fed can print, the government can spend, and businesses can buy their shares back, using cheap money and make their balance sheets look good. But the cracks are widening, and nobody is doing or has done a single thing to fix it. Not Bush, not Obama, and not Trump. They get no credit in my book for very much of anything in the realm of real economic growth and health. Anything that we have seen in that arena was the result of a cyclical business cycle, fueled by cheap money and ongoing "emergency monetary policy", from which we will never be able to escape.
Click to expand...
What do you do for a living? You seem to have a better understanding of the economy than most people in charge of it. I would probably vote for you if you ran for president.
 
Heelyes said:
What do you do for a living? You seem to have a better understanding of the economy than most people in charge of it. I would probably vote for you if you ran for president.
Click to expand...
Lol thanks. I'll probably stay as far away from politics as I can! I do various tech things in the financial services space: support, sales, project management, onboarding, etc.
 
Rain Cold said:
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the overall health of the economy and how that has progressed or regressed under each regime and how much each president was responsible for it. The economy operates cyclically. There is a business cycle. Policies put in place long ago gave rise to the financial crisis in 2008. It was not GWB's doing. The housing bust caused a catastrophic series of events to happen that could only be stopped by a global central bank effort, the likes of which the world had never previously seen. "Emergency monetary policy" was enacted, interest rates were taken to zero, and the market was flooded with liquidity. This saved the banking system and the economy from collapsing.

But notice, we have never been able to escape from "emergency monetary policy". Notice that interest rates have not been allowed to rise appreciably. Notice that more people are working more jobs to maintain a previous standard of living. Notice that saving is neither encouraged nor rewarded. Notice that businesses have engaged in buying back shares at the expense of investing in growth or investing in their employees. Notice that the GDP has not been able to achieve break-away velocity. Notice the proliferation of zombie companies. Notice the explosion of debt since Clinton and its parabolic rise over the last decade. Notice that there's not even a hint of trying to balance the budget or slow the growth of debt.

The entire sustaining factor for the economic resurgence since the crisis has been the massive, mind-boggling growth of debt, and it is unsustainable. It has had little to do with pro-economic policies. Sure, Bush, Obama, and Trump may espouse or have espoused some good ideas, and maybe they even undertook a few token initiatives. But all of them have injured the overall health of the system and have worked to ensure that it will eventually implode under its own weight of debt.

I'm all for trying to bring manufacturing back, but there are too many reasons why it's beneficial for companies to largely manufacture overseas. I'm all for looking at tax policy. But without cash/debt management, it's useless. It's nothing more than a band-aid.

The bottom line is the debt and our tax and spend mentality. Until ANYONE addresses this central issue, then the rest is largely irrelevant. It is like pushing a boulder uphill. Maybe you can slow its descent, but only a little. We're hurling headlong into another crisis. The Fed can print, the government can spend, and businesses can buy their shares back, using cheap money and make their balance sheets look good. But the cracks are widening, and nobody is doing or has done a single thing to fix it. Not Bush, not Obama, and not Trump. They get no credit in my book for very much of anything in the realm of real economic growth and health. Anything that we have seen in that arena was the result of a cyclical business cycle, fueled by cheap money and ongoing "emergency monetary policy", from which we will never be able to escape.
Click to expand...
Great post. That's what I've been taught in high school and college in terms of economic cycles. The fact we are unable to pull out of emergency mode 10 years from the last collapse is major. If we don't get some action in the next 5 years we will be in trouble again like in 2008 or worse. All this political attention is being thrown at climate change and social issues, and they all say spend spend spend! But they never think about the entire global economy as a whole and minimizing the inevitable fall every 15 to 25 years. They should be focusing on lightening the impact and not propelling us toward the ground faster. I'm not saying social issues shouldn't beaddressed, but when that's what their primary focus is on, then it'll sneak up and bite when they least expect it.
 
ForsythSnow said:
Great post. That's what I've been taught in high school and college in terms of economic cycles. The fact we are unable to pull out of emergency mode 10 years from the last collapse is major. If we don't get some action in the next 5 years we will be in trouble again like in 2008 or worse. All this political attention is being thrown at climate change and social issues, and they all say spend spend spend! But they never think about the entire global economy as a whole and minimizing the inevitable fall every 15 to 25 years. They should be focusing on lightening the impact and not propelling us toward the ground faster. I'm not saying social issues shouldn't beaddressed, but when that's what their primary focus is on, then it'll sneak up and bite when they least expect it.
Click to expand...

Which is why we have to cut taxes to promote commerce and growth, and reduce spending to increase the treasury. Both of which the Dems haven't been willing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top