Game Thread 2020 Debate Part 3 - Sept 12 (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
riverman said:
situation, problem, process, solution.....it takes at least 7 years to achieve substantial change in govt as constructed...so far Congress has not worked for the country in my view..they are too busy with divorce court fueled by partisan insults.....the candidates haven't built a team yet but at this point are projecting goals....I think you're sensationalizing the msg from the debate a bit. We are a country divided....people are frustrated with criminal justice, education, health care, trade wars and the apparent corruption at the top. That's where you start..they addressed this....Trump will tell you it's all great...he's a salesman....personally I hope it's not Joe or Bernie against Trump...the job needs younger energy.
Click to expand...
agree 100% about congress not working because of the kill the other side partisan approach. I want to see a candidate try and mediate and conciliate for bi partisan compromise and just working together. I like Klobachar reaching out to those like me that are independent/libertarian lean, moderates to support her because she will represent them. Joe does too, somewhat. He is low on energy and I don't blame him, that many years in politics would pickle one.
I am frustrated too, but I have been for the last 30 plus years since our Gov made it so hard on business in general here, they moved off shore, which supported the globalist goal.
I just want a lean and mean government, that is managed properly with fiscal checks and balances.
 
Lanny said:
Well put.
The Nordic countries are examples of successful socialism, in fact, most of Europe has successful socialism. South Korea and Japan have highly successful socialized medicine as well as excellent public transportation.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want a government like Japan that basically owns/subsidizes business (HUGE-Mitsubusi Heavy Ind-Toyota etc.) versus a more capitalistic approach with free/mix enterprise.
South Korea does as well.
Do you want Government owning airlines, mills, auto makers here?
 
Hoopguru said:
I wouldn't want a government like Japan that basically owns/subsidizes business (HUGE-Mitsubusi Heavy Ind-Toyota etc.) versus a more capitalistic approach with free/mix enterprise.
South Korea does as well.
Do you want Government owning airlines, mills, auto makers here?
Click to expand...
Yep, the government owned GM. That's how they saved their butts. Without that we'd have massive unemployment.
The government also owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as FHA.
Should the government own everything? Of course not, nor should they own most everything. Some things they need to own. I think they should own and operate most health care.
Do you recall the stink the far Right made about Medicare and Medicaid? Turned out to be the best thing since sliced bread.
 
Lanny said:
Well put.
The Nordic countries are examples of successful socialism, in fact, most of Europe has successful socialism. South Korea and Japan have highly successful socialized medicine as well as excellent public transportation.
Click to expand...

No they're not, at least if you're really talking about socialism as it is correctly defined:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

To quote Forbes:

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dic-countries-are-not-socialist/#1c812f9574ad
 
Lanny said:
South Korea and Japan have highly successful socialized medicine as well as excellent public transportation.
Click to expand...
Oh! I loved that daily ride on the train from Tokyo to Kawasaki when I was there during the days I had a development team working in Kawasaki.
So damned efficient, they could really stuff the standing room only. They had "pushers" on the platform to get the last man or woman in before the doors shut on the cars.

One day, this poor little lady was actually stuffed face first into my left armpit. I struggled to get a hole for her to breath through while we were clamped in position until we got to a stop where some got off instead of on.
 
Last edited:
e_blazer said:
No they're not, at least if you're really talking about socialism as it is correctly defined:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

To quote Forbes:

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dic-countries-are-not-socialist/#1c812f9574ad
Click to expand...
No, I was not talking about socialism as it is strictly defined. Few people know what that really is.
No, I was talking about socialism the way the far Right has defined it and is the usual meaning by the average Joe today.
Let me be clear, I'm not in favor of strict socialism.
 
e_blazer said:
No they're not, at least if you're really talking about socialism as it is correctly defined:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

To quote Forbes:

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dic-countries-are-not-socialist/#1c812f9574ad
Click to expand...
Another point: The so called socialism that Nordic countries have today has not spoiled their economies and in fact, has enriched the lives of the populous so much that they rank among the happiest places on Earth to live.
 
Lanny said:
Yep, the government owned GM. That's how they saved their butts. Without that we'd have massive unemployment.
The government also owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as FHA.
Should the government own everything? Of course not, nor should they own most everything. Some things they need to own. I think they should own and operate most health care.
Do you recall the stink the far Right made about Medicare and Medicaid? Turned out to be the best thing since sliced bread.
Click to expand...
I'm with ya on some gov assistance with medical, and Medicare/Medicaid. I prefer Klobachar, Pete & Joe's idea that give me the option to keep my private insurance.
I'm a old devout Chevy guy (loved my 50 Chevy Coup w/ the Franz oil filter and three one barrels attached to the 216) but I did'nt favor their bailout. They were bailed out then built plants in China and elsewhere.
Just didn't seem fairn to Ford and other business that managed their fiscal affairs appropriately. GM could have restructured and bounced by without tax payers dollars.
 
Hoopguru said:
I'm with ya on some gov assistance with medical, and Medicare/Medicaid. I prefer Klobachar, Pete & Joe's idea that give me the option to keep my private insurance.
I'm a old devout Chevy guy (loved my 50 Chevy Coup w/ the Franz oil filter and three one barrels attached to the 216) but I did'nt favor their bailout. They were bailed out then built plants in China and elsewhere.
Just didn't seem fairn to Ford and other business that managed their fiscal affairs appropriately. GM could have restructured and bounced by without tax payers dollars.
Click to expand...

Well said. Except for Medicare, that was the beginning of the downfall in our once great healthcare system.
 
Hoopguru said:
I'm with ya on some gov assistance with medical, and Medicare/Medicaid. I prefer Klobachar, Pete & Joe's idea that give me the option to keep my private insurance.
I'm a old devout Chevy guy (loved my 50 Chevy Coup w/ the Franz oil filter and three one barrels attached to the 216) but I did'nt favor their bailout. They were bailed out then built plants in China and elsewhere.
Just didn't seem fairn to Ford and other business that managed their fiscal affairs appropriately. GM could have restructured and bounced by without tax payers dollars.
Click to expand...
I don't like plants moving overseas either but business is business and these guys are out to make a buck, that's what they do all day every day. No, it's up to government to make it more attractive for them to stay put. Didn't Trump promise that businesses would no longer move production overseas? Yet, what has happened.
That being said, some things are best produced overseas. Those things are what require manual labor and things that require less intellectual input. Oh, and farming because we have the fertile soil and the water as well as generations of experience. If they want to make cars overseas that were engineered here in the United States then I say "knock yourselves out". We need to be more intellectually oriented.
 
Lanny said:
things that require less intellectual input.
Click to expand...
>>>umm, what then to do with those individuals that do not, can not, or don't want to meet your intellectual standard?

Lanny said:
If they want to make cars overseas that were engineered here in the United States then I say "knock yourselves out"
Click to expand...
I actually, finnally as one of the last hold outs, switched from being a Chevy guy to a Toyota guy. On closer inspections they took the designs from here and made them about 3 times better.
After Obama bailed out GM, I said fuck it, no more. Toyota's are preferred. Got rid of my last Chevy PU in May. Replaced it with a 2000 Tacoma, for and improvement of 11/mpg. I call it, the MarAzul support truck.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
>>>umm, what then to do with those individuals that do not, can not, or don't want to meet your intellectual standard?


I actually, finnally as one of the last hold outs, switched from being a Chevy guy to a Toyota guy. On closer inspections they took the designs from here and made them about 3 times better.
After Obama bailed out GM, I said fuck it, no more. Toyota's are preferred. Got rid of my last Chevy PU in May. Replaced it with a 2000 Tacoma, for and improvement of 11/mpg. I call it, the MarAzul support truck.
Click to expand...

I found a four banger Tacoma. 2.8 liter as apposed to the 4.8 liter V8 in my prior 2004 chevy truck. Both with a 5 spd stick, the Tacoma runs about 11/mpg less than the Chevy. I need to shift into 4th gear on the same hills on the coast highway that I did in the chevy. The power is not much difference, just the rpms, where the Toyota has nearly twice the RPM range of the Chevy V8. But not nearly as much difference at highway speed, about 350 rpms more for the 2.8 liter vs the V8. But 11/mpg difference!

An 56% improvement in fuel consumption with an engine 58% the size.
 
Last edited:
Hoopguru said:
I'm with ya on some gov assistance with medical, and Medicare/Medicaid. I prefer Klobachar, Pete & Joe's idea that give me the option to keep my private insurance.
I'm a old devout Chevy guy (loved my 50 Chevy Coup w/ the Franz oil filter and three one barrels attached to the 216) but I did'nt favor their bailout. They were bailed out then built plants in China and elsewhere.
Just didn't seem fairn to Ford and other business that managed their fiscal affairs appropriately. GM could have restructured and bounced by without tax payers dollars.
Click to expand...

I just read that Trump's farm bailout has already cost taxpayers twice as much as Obama's auto bailout.

The difference, of course, is that Obama didn't cause the auto industry problems; Trump's tariffs directly caused the farm problems.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I just read that Trump's farm bailout has already cost taxpayers twice as much as Obama's auto bailout.

The difference, of course, is that Obama didn't cause the auto industry problems; Trump's tariffs directly caused the farm problems.

barfo
Click to expand...
GM's downfall was mis management as much as it was related to economic crisis. How is it that they were the only auto maker bailed out? Ford liked down filed and managed their business appropriately. GM didn't.
Farmers situation is more related to the tariff situation not so much bad management across the the board. Plus your example reflect's one company versus a whole industry/market.
 
barfo said:
I just read that Trump's farm bailout has already cost taxpayers twice as much as Obama's auto bailout.

The difference, of course, is that Obama didn't cause the auto industry problems; Trump's tariffs directly caused the farm problems.

barfo
Click to expand...
The auto industry paid that money back.
Do you think farmers will pay their bailout back?
 
Hoopguru said:
GM's downfall was mis management as much as it was related to economic crisis. How is it that they were the only auto maker bailed out?
Click to expand...
They weren't the only one. Chrysler was also bailed out.

Farmers situation is more related to the tariff situation not so much bad management across the the board. Plus your example reflect's one company versus a whole industry/market.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect - the entire auto industry, worldwide, was in crisis at the time.

Also, I think you missed the larger point of my 'example'.

barfo
 
Lanny said:
The auto industry paid that money back.
Do you think farmers will pay their bailout back?
Click to expand...

The answer is of course no.

barfo
 
Lanny said:
The auto industry paid that money back.
Do you think farmers will pay their bailout back?
Click to expand...

:wink:
Really not the same thing at all is it?
err, maybe you do not know?
Ah! Carry on.
 
barfo said:
I just read that Trump's farm bailout has already cost taxpayers twice as much as Obama's auto bailout.

The difference, of course, is that Obama didn't cause the auto industry problems; Trump's tariffs directly caused the farm problems.

barfo
Click to expand...

Oh man!
This is...
Carry on!
 
barfo said:
The answer is of course no.

barfo
Click to expand...
I rather assist independent farmers, as we do independent people in need, rather than a large Corporation that really didn't need the help, as they could have restructured, bankruptcy or simply managed their business with more fiscal responsibility. Im all for business big or small to be successful and prosperous, especially here in the good Old USA.
 
Hoopguru said:
I rather assist independent farmers, as we do independent people in need, rather than a large Corporation that really didn't need the help, as they could have restructured, bankruptcy or simply managed their business with more fiscal responsibility. Im all for business big or small to be successful and prosperous, especially here in the good Old USA.
Click to expand...
Assisting independent farmers wouldn't be killing off their market for political posturing. ….and farmers have Co-ops....often work together bring in the harvest....not every small farmer can afford to buy large combines....many share one amongst several farms...they answer to the weather normally, not a trade war. Trump doesn't actually give a shit about them.
 
You could right?
I’m all for the farmer!
I wonder who they will support next election. Not Trump if it’s a moderate but if it’s Bernie or EW not so sure.
Joe or Klobachar could win, imo.
 
Hoopguru said:
I rather assist independent farmers, as we do independent people in need, rather than a large Corporation that really didn't need the help, as they could have restructured, bankruptcy or simply managed their business with more fiscal responsibility. Im all for business big or small to be successful and prosperous, especially here in the good Old USA.
Click to expand...

Problem with that thinking HG is that a lot of small businesses rely on large corporations for business as they often manufacture or provide a service for the large corporation. In Portland it was often said that when Freightliner sneezes several small businesses catch cold. In other words, when Freightliner had slowdowns and massive layoffs many small businesses would be hurting big time and possibly went out of business. I did a lot of business with Freightliner as well as several smaller local businesses that relied on business from Freightliner and we were a petroleum and chemical distributor and it affected us. Ignoring large business often has significant residual effects on many more smaller ones. Precision Cast Parts was similar in the effect it had on the economy locally. If one large corporation fails so do many smaller ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top