Seth

Everything you post is pure Democrat doubletalk that defies economic reality. You fragment a post just like he used to do and answer every line with what amounts to the same "reasoning" one gets from an anti-capitalism, pro-big government, nanny state con job that endorses keeping the jackboot of intrusive government firmly on the necks of the productive and the entrepreneurial, large and small.

Despite your denial, I'm still also wondering if you're that falsely "reasonable"John Correspondent fellow in a new ID.

straightUp Loc: California

The unemployment rate has been falling at a consistent rate for the last ten years so there really isn't any basis for crediting the 2017 tax cuts. The same can be said for the upward rate of change for wages.

Feel free to introduce any evidence or rationale that might make a stronger argument.

I tend not to put too much emphasis on the unemployment rate because it only counts the number of people claiming unemployment benefits. It is not an accurate reflection of joblessness because many people lose their jobs and don't qualify for benefits, such as independent contractors. The unemployment rate doesn't account for those who have exhausted their claims and still haven't found a job either. I was saying the same thing when Obama kept touting the unemployment rate. It seems to be what presidents do.

And regarding the p******c, 5% of the our population over 70 is 17 million. 1% of the rest of the population is 29.4 million. So... 'we just gonna tell 'em to f-off?

straightUp Loc: California

I think a lot of people share your opinion but unless a clear majority of Americans feel that way, it's not going to happen that way. That's because the rules of our government is shaped by the will of the people.

It might surprise you that I share a similar view in that I prefer to see more power delegated to the states. In fact, I consider myself an anti-federalist.

As for the local churches... they never handled welfare in the first place. Churches deal with charity which is not the same thing.

Let me try to explain the difference...

With charity, activity is limited to getting wh**ever money you can and then distributing in any way you can. If it's enough to take care of the needy, great! If not... well, there isn't much that can be done.

With welfare the needs are actually assessed and the amount needed is established, THEN the government sets up a tax policy that will collect the amount needed.

So while charity is a wonderful thing, it's effectiveness is left to chance. Welfare is a much stronger guarantee that Americans won't starve.

straightUp Loc: California

Which founders? Hamilton may have wanted a federally managed central bank but Jefferson sure as hell didn't. I think people forget how much our founders disagreed with each other.

But what they did agree upon was that the entire purpose of the Constitution is form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

And then they had the foresight to give us a flexible constitution designed to adapt to the changing needs so we can continue to meet the objectives.

straightUp Loc: California

It's nice that we agree on something for a change

Seth

They did, however, agree on limited government, which the Tenth Amendment makes clear, leaving all but a few governance responsibilities to the states.

The Democratic Party seems to want to usurp every bit of authority they can for the federal government.

straightUp Loc: California

So... you disagree.


So... progressive values.


LOL - you can wonder all you want about whether or not I post another another name. It's your imagination after all, right?

I'm not sure what you think I'm denying though... You're suggesting that my arguments amount to the same "reasoning" one gets from an anti-capitalism, pro-big government, nanny state con job.

Well, I wouldn't say that's ALL my arguments amount to but yeah, there are some common points because everything has its pros and cons.

I'm a free thinker, Seth... (or, at least I try to be.) So, I don't have to back off any arguments someone else may have made because it's "off-limits". And to be blunt... some anti-capitalist arguments do make sense. Trust me, a lot of people would have considered that comment you made about the Federal Reserve as being "anti-capitalist" (whether you agree with that assessment or not).

As for big government (I assume you mean more social programs) yes, for some things, NOT for everything! Some services are life-critical, which means one way or another we need the service. Now, I think it makes logical sense to assume a business will NOT invest in such a service if it isn't profitable. (That's not the argument of an anti-capitalist, that's the argument of a capitalist that knows how to invest.)

In those cases, I don't see why we can't socialize the services by giving it to the republic (public sector) in order to insure our general welfare as stated in the Constitution. For everything else, I like capitalism. Capitalism can still give me all those things I add to my life to make it even better. You know what I mean, the things you WANT to be working for.

So... if you're trying to put me in a box, you're wasting your time. Try to focus on the argument.

straightUp Loc: California

OK, here's the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, think about what it's saying...

The powers not delegated to the United States (aka, federal government), nor prohibited by it to the States...

So, the amendment itself really isn't clear on what those powers are, we would have to look through the entire constitution to find that answer which incidentally, isn't that hard to do. But here's the part I think you might be overlooking...

"...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So what if the power to provide health care isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all? That means it's not reserved to the federal government (by the Constitution), nor is it reserved (by it) to any of the fifty states, so it defaults to.... (drum roll) ... The people.

What do you think that means Seth? I'm curious because the Constitutionalists always fail to notice the last four words in the Bill of Rights.

It means, We The People, through our representatives can make new laws. We can do that because our representatives are in Congress and Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to make new laws on our behalf. The ONLY restrictions on what laws Congress can make are listed in the 1st Amendment, let's see... No laws respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof... No laws that prohibit or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press... No laws that prohibit the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and no laws that prohibit anyone from petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.

No laws about healthcare in the 1st Amendment. So, it looks like I am free to tell my representative that I join the millions of Americans in asking for a law to provide socialist healthcare and he is free to write up a bill and present it to the floor and Congress is free to v**e on it and the President is free to sign it in to law.

Or we can change the whole dynamic by doing the same thing but for a constitutional amendment that with a 2/3 v**e will MAKE healthcare a power reserved to the federal government by the Constitution.

Seriously, people need to stop looking at the Constitution like it's a warning label. The Constitution is a dynamic system grossly underestimated by the people who ironically call themselves Constitutionalists.


It's a glass house Seth, and you're throwing stones.

bilordinary Loc: SW Washington

Your best and most honest post so far.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL... Hours of research went into that dot!

Seth

No, you merely have to look through Article 1. That's where the powers of the federal government are listed. In fact, Section 8 provides a good summary.

Yet the Democratic Party seems hell bent on micromanaging the country by enacting federal laws that override the right of states to decide that which the Constitution provides for them to decide.

It was these attempts at usurpation that prompted the governor of South Dakota, during the Obama Administration and totally within those Tenth Amendment rights, to tell Obama that, essentially, "we don't care how you want to tamper with Americans' Second Amendment rights, you're not doing it in our state."

None of the rhetoric from the left fools a thinking individual for a second.

One of the Democrat senators, on the confirmation today of Amy Coney Barrett, actually said that her confirmation was ushering in a new era of "conservative activism," which is "liberal" speak for adherence to the Constitution, but using that turn of phrase he was being very misleading.

To the Democratic Party, the only good judge or justice is an activist who puts the Constitution second, his/her political agendas or 🎵feelings🎶first. They favor activist judges who legislate from the bench when the Democrats can't get an agenda passed in Congress.

A prime example is what a "liberal" judge pulled on the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, supported by Democrat politicians out there who apparently "misinterpreted" the First Amendment, as was later pointed out in no uncertain terms by the U.S Supreme Court.

But... Your side of the political equation is trying, basically, to undo every single tradition that's served America well throughout our history, while making it seem through mainstream media propaganda as if we conservatives who want to preserve those traditions are the Johnny come lately radicals attempting to disrupt the system. Total deflection.

And Joe Biden, who said the other night that instead of packing the Court, he might try to do a rotation where the justices are periodically rotated out to federal courts and federal judges are rotated in.

Contrary to the propaganda efforts and the youth indoctrination in our education system courtesy of the left and their Democrat partners, America works just fine as it is and doesn't need any radical "upgrades" or "fundamental t***sformations" such as those your good friends on the far left are "offering," just as we don't need your identity politics to divide the country under the pretense of "social justice."

In short, your "reasoning" that supports all the above might work with one of the undereducated, critical thinking challenged i***ts they're graduating from the left-run indoctrination education system these days, but it doesn't or wouldn't pass muster with most Americans. Part of any l*****t propaganda strategy is convincing a population that "the vast majority of you want this change" or "everyone knows this for a fact," when in both cases the opposite is true.

I'm sure you'd make a fortune in certain places as a highly sk**led snake oil salesman, as adept as you are at making the unreasonable seem as though it may be reasonable, but that doesn't work with critical thinkers or with those of us who are quite familiar with the concept of cause and effect.

But keep trying, like PT Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute." 😁

straightUp Loc: California

Oh, now it's Article I Section 8... Yesterday, it was the 10th Amendment. What happened Seth? Did I make you look? LOL

BTW, when I said you have to look through the entire constitution, Article I Section 8 is included and no, it's not a summary of all the powers of the federal government. For instance, the power of the House to impeach the president is not presented in Section 8 because it's presented in Article II. Obviously, you don't really know the Constitution like you think you do.


What like the right for a State to decide if cannabis is legal? It is in California but the Republicans in Washington DC insist on federal prohibition. And what about a******n? I don't see anything about that in the Constitution either and yet Republicans are hell bent on making that a federal crime. What about same sex marriage Seth? Is that in the Constitution? No? then why was Bush and the Republicans pushing for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage?

Don't even start with that BS about the Democrats overriding the right of states to legislate what isn't reserved for the federal government when the Republicans are just as bad, if not worse. (fkg pot calling the kettle black)


LOL - Ooh, big scary South Dakota. Hissing at Obama because they think he's going to take away their right to bear arms. Did the governor think the Second Amendment rights are written in Article II like half the r****ds in the NRA? Ha, ha, ha!

Ughrrr, I'm smart.


Maybe that's because the left has no reason to fool anyone, much less the thinking individuals that can actually grasp the concepts the left is concerned with.


Ugh... so boorish. How old are you?

Conservative activism is the flip-side of the same argument conservatives have made for years when they complain about liberals legislating from the bench. Adherence to the Constitution is the reason why Amy Barrett is going to be a big disappointment to conservative activists that think they push all their rules through the bench.


More baseless drivel. So boring *yawn*


Not everyone on the left was in agreement Seth. I for one, could see that there was no constitutional provision that says a business owner can't refuse service. You had a handful of of people in the L**T community that got their panties in a knot and Republicans tried to make that a "l*****t" thing.


No, it's not a deflection. What you don't seem to understand is that "my side" of the political equation has been doing this for well over a century, at least as far back as the Civil War when the liberals, who were running the Republican Party at the time, abolished the tradition of s***ery. Then under Teddy Roosevelt the progressive movement was indoctrinated and in the 60's when the Democratic Party took up the liberal cause the focus was on civil rights.

At this point, the U.S. has been straddling both conservative AND liberal traditions for a very long time and yes, there are advocates on the right today that want to o*******w liberal traditions that have served this country for most of its history.


So?


The only reason why it works at all is because liberals have been changing the laws to deal with the changing times for the last 150 years and we will continue to do so for the next 150 years. The difference is that liberals deal with the changing times that conservatives are too busy romanticizing the past to even notice.


Social justice is not a pretense. It's a real issue that you folks don't want to hear about so you try to pass it off as "identity politics" because you've heard us accusing you of identity politics and it always make you feel smarter if you use our words.


Most Americans are liberals who don't share your need to lash out at education because they aren't threatened by it like you apparently are.


Spoken like a "true expert" on liberal politics...


Actually, my arguments are rational and well supported and critical thinkers tend to agree with or at least recognize what I am saying. You're just not a critical thinker Seth. I can tell by your inability to grasp the concepts I present and you tendency to parrot.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

You b***h about how bad Trump is for the economy, but the facts that you choose to denigrate or ignore show that unemployment levels for almost every demographic fell to historic lows AND the numbers of people in all demographics were at historically high levels for economic participation. That means more people in every demographic group were holding jobs. Where I live, almost every company has signs out that they are hiring. The company I work for (and we are union) has been running short handed because we can't get enough people. This is very common in the area I live in.

Seth

No, I'm actually well aware of those parts of the Constitution, and have referred to them in the course of older threads.

Your "arguments" are essentially little more than wordy endorsements of every single left wing issue that comes down the proverbial pike.

I have no doubt that you would be a star in a debate society, but then I believe I referred to a debate in which I was involved during my early teens during which a couple of participants proved that North Dakota doesn't exist -- of course, no one in our group, for that matter no one in the entire NY chapter of our youth group had ever been to, or anywhere within 1000 miles of, North Dakota.

My point is that anyone can present any kind of reasoning that justifies pretty much anything. If you want me to delve into my vast trove of technical terminology, I will do so now: you have a good line of bulls**t.

A genuine critical thinker such as myself and one who appreciates the undeniable evidence of cause and effect is much less prone to ignoring past results of any given efforts. If A causes C to happen every time A is employed and C is a negative outcome, only a fool is going to believe that repeating A is going to cause B to occur.

The entire template on which you base every one of your political arguments is one which hàs proven throughout the last century and indeed into the start of this one to cause misery for all but a few elitist proponents of said template who are detached from the realities of the masses and isolated from "effect" via vast wealth and its influence buying power.

The same "concept" is always applied, via propaganda, that ine******y is a product of the incumbent "system" and that the new folks will make the ine******y go away. In America's case, the new folks are represented by the same people who have propagated and perpetuated said ine******y to begin with and are now projecting it onto those who have opposed their doctrine since it was brought into the equation. This strategy requires dividing the population into hostile factions, which had been largely successful to date: and then Donald Trump came along, a president who doesn't play by the rules established by the career political class and, unlike his predecessors, isn't intimidated by the extremist tactics employed by the new folks. So according to your ilk he has to go, by any means necessary.

It's as simple as that.

Having expounded enough already, I'll just add this: I have not led an even remotely sheltered life, I have always been one of those people who takes risks, prefers to see things for myself and when I've been curious about a place or a region, rather than being content to read what others say about it I've gone there and seen or experienced things for myself.

I'm not easy to fool because I am a stark realist and as I said, a critical thinker and a great believer in applying past performances to current events -- cause and effect tells one more about the advisability of repeating an action, and everything you endorse has proven too many times to result in the same "effect." You can cite this, that and the other thing, but you can't change the bottom line, and this "progressive" tactic of attempting to introduce old failures as positive new concepts is one that is best saved for gullible young people rendered stupid by a failing and politically indoctrinative "education" system.

straightUp Loc: California

Not necessarily... It may help if you understood how the unemployment rate is actually calculated. The basic calculation is to divide the number of persons unemployed by the number of persons in the labor force then dividing the answer by 100. The number of persons in the labor force is of course a rough estimate based in Census data but real problem is knowing the number of persons who are actually unemployed. The only reliable source for this information are the reports from the unemployment offices of the various states. So consequently, that's all that gets factored in. There are a lot of people who have exhausted their benefits and still don't have work or who never qualified for benefits, such as independent contractors. None of these unemployed people count.

I've mentioned this earlier on this thread, maybe you didn't read it. I mentioned that Obama also touted falling unemployment figures throughout his second term and I said the same thing then.

Which brings me to a second point... Unemployment numbers (for what they're worth) have been decreasing consistently since 2012. So, there's really no argument to say the most recent numbers have anything to do with Trump.

I'm not sure why so many Trump fans think the economy stops and starts with every president. The economy is a massive machine that takes a lot to get rolling and once it does the momentum can take it right through the power t***sfers at the White House such as when it crashed right through the 2009 t***sfer from Bush to Obama and again when it sailed through the 2017 t***sfer from Obama to Trump. In general, it takes about two years for new policies to have any real effect on the economy.

I think you Trump fans are just desperate to give Trump some credit. It's a shame that this p******c hit when it did because we only had one year, really to see the effects of Trump's policies and that was 2019, which was a decent year although the growth rate did start slowing down.


Wonderful! I'm glad things are going so well for people in your area. It's been like that in my area since 2014.

BTW, I'm not "b***hing that Trump is so bad for the economy"... I'm just challenging the claims that Trump is responsible for all the good news and I'm not saying that because it's Trump; I didn't give Obama credit for the economy in his first two years either.