Obama Take your universal income and shove it in your butt.

[honeyiv]

You state your opinion of Libs very clearly but make no mention of their opposites. Extremists are extremists. Why the omission?

The left is the party now having a civil war with its extreme side. The smart politicians in your party realize that you can't win on a national level with loons like Bernie or Pocohantas or Ocasio-Cortez or Kamala Harris.

Trump could have easily run as a Democrat or independent as he is more moderate than Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc. He was even threatening to run as an independent for a while.

 

[GLFSTRM]

No, I'm not in favor of getting rid of either actually but like many things they have been abused and need better oversight. As for the redistribution of wealth, the fact that there are more and more people getting government subsistence is a sign of redistribution and can also attribute why the gap is widening. I'll give you one example that I have direct knowledge of.

I know a young lady that has children out of wedlock and receives free medical and stipends from the state. The total is somewhere around $30,000 annually not including the health care benefits. Now this young lady isn’t working and just so happens to be living with the baby daddy. In fact, they’ve been together throughout but realize by marrying, they would lose these state benefits and so why bother.

Now these folks have a listed income of $25,000 per year but through the redistribution of your tax dollars are in fact clearing $55,000.

Point being, the numbers can be misleading but for good or bad, our social programs are in fact a redistribution of wealth already.

Add to that, when the very rich continue in their success, expanding markets and industry and bringing others along with them, those incomes continue to rise based off their success, countered with those who are not incentivized to work or seek better jobs because of the expanding welfare state. Did the welfare state expand under Obama reduce?

 

[cdwright40]

The left is the party now having a civil war with its extreme side. The smart politicians in your party realize that you can't win on a national level with loons like Bernie or Pocohantas or Ocasio-Cortez or Kamala Harris.

Trump could have easily run as a Democrat or independent as he is more moderate than Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc.

Still campaigning huh? That is the problem. Please explain at what point we see some actual governing? Some leadership. All I hear is Trump talk about how many people were at his inauguration or how many votes he had etc etc etc. Is he ever going to stand tall for America? Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. We all know the answer. Only if some black people take a knee is he a patriot. Arnold said it best. In front of other world leaders he is supposed to stand up to a wet noodle.

 

[cdwright40]

Add to that, when the very rich continue in their success, expanding markets and industry and bringing others along with them, those incomes continue to rise based off their success, countered with those who are not incentivized to work or seek better jobs because of the expanding welfare state. Did the welfare state expand under Obama reduce?

What in the world are you talking about? Because the American people haven't had a raise in decades. That is what offers incentives to get off welfare. Not raising income for yourself and not offering any raises for your workers....and then expect them to not be on welfare. Who wants to bust there ass to make someone rich that isn't interested in you even providing the basic essentials for your family? You want to provide incentive to get off welfare? Raise the minimum wage. Pay woman equal to a man for the same job. There is a start. Maybe people wouldn't need welfare then.

 

[bobbie jo]

Still campaigning huh? That is the problem. Please explain at what point we see some actual governing? Some leadership. All I hear is Trump talk about how many people were at his inauguration or how many votes he had etc etc etc. Is he ever going to stand tall for America? Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. We all know the answer. Only if some black people take a knee is he a patriot. Arnold said it best. In front of other world leaders he is supposed to stand up to a wet noodle.

Obama quote caught on tape, I can do more my Russian friend as soon as I get elected.

 

[honeyiv]

Still campaigning huh? That is the problem. Please explain at what point we see some actual governing? Some leadership. All I hear is Trump talk about how many people were at his inauguration or how many votes he had etc etc etc. Is he ever going to stand tall for America? Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. We all know the answer. Only if some black people take a knee is he a patriot. Arnold said it best. In front of other world leaders he is supposed to stand up to a wet noodle.

I think people are pretty happy with the country and its record-low unemployment (especially among minorities), and their bank accounts and their retirement accounts. No wars now that Trump got us out of one. The country is doing pretty good right now and, of course, that's your worst nightmare.

 

[cdwright40]

I think people are pretty happy with the country and its record-low unemployment (especially among minorities), and their bank accounts and their retirement accounts. No wars now that Trump got us out of one. The country is doing pretty good right now and, of course, that's your worst nightmare.

So, you are going to completely ignore his administration is being investigated, indicted, jailed, and arrested huh? Well okay...but the rest of us aren't.

 

[honeyiv]

So, you are going to completely ignore his administration is being investigated, indicted, jailed, and arrested huh? Well okay...but the rest of us aren't.

Where are the convictions? I can say the same about Comey, Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, Hillary. But they weren't convicted either. It's a witch hunt that is a waste of time and will result nothing.

 

[cdwright40]

Where are the convictions? I can say the same about Comey, Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, Hillary. But they weren't convicted either. It's a witch hunt that is a waste of time and will result nothing.

It has already resulted in over 30....ah hell, see for yourself. No sense in me carrying on. Here is a link of the status. Compare to the other investigations in history that have lasted this long.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mueller-investigation-keeps-growing-fast/

 

[bobbie jo]

What in the world are you talking about? Because the American people haven't had a raise in decades. That is what offers incentives to get off welfare. Not raising income for yourself and not offering any raises for your workers....and then expect them to not be on welfare. Who wants to bust there ass to make someone rich that isn't interested in you even providing the basic essentials for your family? You want to provide incentive to get off welfare? Raise the minimum wage. Pay woman equal to a man for the same job. There is a start. Maybe people wouldn't need welfare then.

Never been on welfare my hole life. First paying Job was $1.50 hour . Worked hard put God and Family first never lived outside my means. Never held anything against anyone that was more successful then me .allways respected the people I worked for and never was forced to work for anyone if I did not want to. I always put my job before my personal time and worked my way up the ladder.Always held my self and my family accountable. 63 years old and got a wonderful family and business and like to say with me being successful I've been able to better the life's of many and help them be successful. That's not saying I'm better than anyone but I truly believe hard work and capitalism makes people a whole lot better than government and welfare. Not saying you should not help ones in need we should. Just saying it is wrong to become dependent on welfare like many have.Its wrong to have children out of wedlock and grown man not being responsible and this is a problem with all society and all races. Lot of problems are blamed on successful people when the ones that are complaining do nothing to hold themselves accountable.

 

[honeyiv]

It has already resulted in over 30....ah hell, see for yourself. No sense in me carrying on. Here is a link of the status. Compare to the other investigations in history that have lasted this long.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mueller-investigation-keeps-growing-fast/

CD, lol. Slow down.. Indictments are not convictions. C'mon man {my best Chris Carter voice}.
Stop reaching.

 

[cdwright40]

Mueller sure is catching a lot of witches and warlocks.

 

[honeyiv]

Mueller sure is catching a lot of witches and warlocks.

Yes. But I can indict a ham sandwich. Especially if the sandwich was a political enemy. We play the game. We don't let it play us.

 

[cdwright40]

CD, lol. Slow down.. Indictments are not convictions. C'mon man {my best Chris Carter voice}.
Stop reaching.

They lead to convictions when it is the FBI. 98% conviction rate since 1997 sir. Do you seriously believe these clowns won't be convicted? lol...let's keep it real. It's just a matter or time. 98% conviction rate? Maybe 2 get off if the count gets up to 100....lol. Okay. Fine.

 

[lou97]

No, I'm not in favor of getting rid of either actually but like many things they have been abused and need better oversight. As for the redistribution of wealth, the fact that there are more and more people getting government subsistence is a sign of redistribution and can also attribute why the gap is widening. I'll give you one example that I have direct knowledge of.

I know a young lady that has children out of wedlock and receives free medical and stipends from the state. The total is somewhere around $30,000 annually not including the health care benefits. Now this young lady isn’t working and just so happens to be living with the baby daddy. In fact, they’ve been together throughout but realize by marrying, they would lose these state benefits and so why bother.

Now these folks have a listed income of $25,000 per year but through the redistribution of your tax dollars are in fact clearing $55,000.

Point being, the numbers can be misleading but for good or bad, our social programs are in fact a redistribution of wealth already.

Of course they are. Social programs obviously have to be paid for along with every other government program. Is there abuse of those programs? Absolutely. Is the abuse widespread enough to impact the widening income gap? Absolutely not. We live in too large of a country to catch every single abuse of every program. Does that mean we get rid of them because we can't guarantee that 100% of the people that benefit won't abuse it? Do we just cut everyone off that depend on these benefits because a few abuse it? Or maybe you are in favor of no safety net at all? Is that what you mean? We should help nobody because it would be redistribution of wealth?

As far as Medicare and medicaid, I'm not sure of the abuse that you're talking about? There are very specific eligibility requirements for both and I don't know of any widespread problem of people receiving benefits that aren't eligible. You call for greater oversight but that also costs money. Would that be redistribution of wealth as well?

 

[cdwright40]

98% conviction rate. I'm thinking the 5 Mueller wants to provide immunity for will be singin like Pavoratti...lol

 

[honeyiv]

They lead to convictions when it is the FBI. 98% conviction rate since 1997 sir. Do you seriously believe these clowns won't be convicted? lol...let's keep it real. It's just a matter or time. 98% conviction rate? Maybe 2 get off if the count gets up to 100....lol. Okay. Fine.

Yeah cool with that.

 

[Cane919]

I’m not real sure why you keep asking me if I want to cut things. Have I said I want anything cut? As for oversight being redistribution, I’d say it’s more appropriately called good governance.

Of course they are. Social programs obviously have to be paid for along with every other government program. Is there abuse of those programs? Absolutely. Is the abuse widespread enough to impact the widening income gap? Absolutely not. We live in too large of a country to catch every single abuse of every program. Does that mean we get rid of them because we can't guarantee that 100% of the people that benefit won't abuse it? Do we just cut everyone off that depend on these benefits because a few abuse it? Or maybe you are in favor of no safety net at all? Is that what you mean? We should help nobody because it would be redistribution of wealth?

As far as Medicare and medicaid, I'm not sure of the abuse that you're talking about? There are very specific eligibility requirements for both and I don't know of any widespread problem of people receiving benefits that aren't eligible. You call for greater oversight but that also costs money. Would that be redistribution of wealth as well?

 

[lou97]

I’m not real sure why you keep asking me if I want to cut things. Have I said I want anything cut? As for oversight being redistribution, I’d say it’s more appropriately called good governance.

Well I'm trying to understand your position. I pointed out that its impossible to have a widening income gap and redistribution of wealth from rich to poor at the same time. In other words the outrage over this perceived issue is for a problem that doesn't exist. You seemed to disagree and cited social programs as an example of redistribution. So I'm assuming since you hate redistribution/socialism that you wanted the programs you mentioned eliminated. I guess not? Help me understand.

As far oversight of Medicare and medicaid, I'm not aware of any problem with significant levels of abuse. I'm sure there are small instances of abuse but is it really at a level that you want to spend even more money to provide additional oversight? Not sure what the issue is that would warrant this?

 

[honeyiv]

Well I'm trying to understand your position. I pointed out that its impossible to have a widening income gap and redistribution of wealth from rich to poor at the same time. In other words the outrage over this perceived issue is for a problem that doesn't exist. You seemed to disagree and cited social programs as an example of redistribution. So I'm assuming since you hate redistribution/socialism that you wanted the programs you mentioned eliminated.

Spot on. If it was up to me, I'd close all the homeless shelters and soup shelters. There should be MORE separation in wealth. Most of these people are mental or felons. They would just blow any more discretionary income anyway.

 

[Cane919]

That’s where you’re making your mistake. I’m not arguing for or against social programs, rather saying that you can have a widening of the income gap when you have programs that redistribute wealth.

As for oversight in government, I think we all recognize the waste across the board.

Well I'm trying to understand your position. I pointed out that its impossible to have a widening income gap and redistribution of wealth from rich to poor at the same time. In other words the outrage over this perceived issue is for a problem that doesn't exist. You seemed to disagree and cited social programs as an example of redistribution. So I'm assuming since you hate redistribution/socialism that you wanted the programs you mentioned eliminated. I guess not? Help me understand.

As far oversight of Medicare and medicaid, I'm not aware of any problem with significant levels of abuse. I'm sure there are small instances of abuse but is it really at a level that you want to spend even more money to provide additional oversight? Not sure what the issue is that would warrant this?

 

[honeyiv]

That’s where you’re making your mistake. I’m not arguing for or against social problems, rather saying that you can have a widening of the income gap when you have programs that redistribute wealth.

As for oversight in government, I think we all recognize the waste across the board.

Correct. It's when the wealthy earn more, faster than what government can give away, fast.

 

[lou97]

That’s where you’re making your mistake. I’m not arguing for or against social problems, rather saying that you can have a widening of the income gap when you have programs that redistribute wealth.

As for oversight in government, I think we all recognize the waste across the board.

So when you talk about redistribution of wealth/socialism you are talking about money used for social programs? Just want to make sure I understand.

 

[Cane919]

LOL....I think we all recognize that our social programs are in fact the redistribution of wealth but on a limited scale. So generally speaking when I discuss socialism I'm not really talking about those programs other then to use them as an example in a discussion.

So when you talk about redistribution of wealth/socialism you are talking about money used for social programs? Just want to make sure I understand.

 

[lou97]

LOL....I think we all recognize that our social programs are in fact the redistribution of wealth but on a limited scale. So generally speaking when I discuss socialism I'm not really talking about those programs other then to use them as an example in a discussion.

Got it. So you agree that there is no redistribution of wealth going on any significant scale in this country.

 

[Cane919]

Not at this time.

Got it. So you agree that there is no redistribution of wealth going on any significant scale in this country.

 

[lou97]

Not at this time.

Correct. There hasn't been for decades.

 

[Cane919]

ObamaCare was the last attempt but look no further then the socialist movement within the dems and you'll see it trying to raise it's ugly head again.

Correct. There hasn't been for decades.

 

[lou97]

ObamaCare was the last attempt but look no further then the socialist movement within the dems and you'll see it trying to raise it's ugly head again.

I mean you're saying its rearing its ugly head again but the fact remains the trend has been the exact opposite for decades. A few far left reps aren't going to change that.

The fact is we will never go back to the extraordinarily high rates of 1920s through the 70s and we shouldn't. Coincidentally the income gap really started widening when those top tax bracket rates were cut significantly by Reagan. Other than taxing the top earners at ridiculous rates, which won't happen, there really is no other way to "redistribute" wealth on a significant level. Our assistance programs for poor people doesn't really make up all that much of the budget unless you count Medicare and social security, which is overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and paid into by everyone.

 

[Cane919]

ObamaCare was the latest attempt to redistribute wealth amongst the people with the high taxes in the 70's being the most significant push in most of our life times.

As for the few far left reps not being a problem, I tend to disagree as their numbers seemingly grow by election with Bernie Sanders leading the way. In fact, the democratic platform is shifting further to the left also, so blowing it off is not something I'm willing to do or ignore. It takes but a stroke of a pen to redistribute (ObamaCare) and I for one will never take that chance.

I mean you're saying its rearing its ugly head again but the fact remains the trend has been the exact opposite for decades. A few far left reps aren't going to change that.

The fact is we will never go back to the extraordinarily high rates of 1920s through the 70s and we shouldn't. Coincidentally the income gap really started widening when those top tax bracket rates were cut significantly by Reagan. Other than taxing the top earners at ridiculous rates, which won't happen, there really is no other way to "redistribute" wealth on a significant level. Our assistance programs for poor people doesn't really make up all that much of the budget unless you count Medicare and social security, which is overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and paid into by everyone.

 

[lou97]

ObamaCare was the latest attempt to redistribute wealth amongst the people with the high taxes in the 70's being the most significant push in most of our life times.

As for the few far left reps not being a problem, I tend to disagree as their numbers seemingly grow by election with Bernie Sanders leading the way. In fact, the democratic platform is shifting further to the left also, so blowing it off is not something I'm willing to do or ignore. It takes but a stroke of a pen to redistribute (ObamaCare) and I for one will never take that chance.

Again you say redistribute and Obamacare in the same sentence but really Obamacare was mostly just the Medicaid expansion. Yeah there are some on a private policy but mostly it impacted Medicaid enrollment, which you already said you support. And by the way, lots of people that supported Bernie ended up voting for Trump. Bernie and Trump had similar messages pertaining to the middle/working class.

By the way, wanted to get your take on the tariffs and specifically the steal tariffs. So Trump put tariffs on foreign steel essentially shielding US steelmakers from competitors in the world market. This was obviously done to keep the steel workers onboard with him. Now the price of steel has hurt numerous end-user companies that rely on steel to manufacture products. Consistent with free market/capitalism idealogy?

 

[Cane919]

I haven’t said I was for or against any of the social programs but for clarity I will say I am not in favor of expanding any of them beyond what they were designed. As for Obamacare, it was forcing everyone into to a government subsidized program where everyone was forced to participate for various cost, with everyone receiving limited benefits. It was a failure on many levels, for various reasons, but indeed a form of socialized medicine.

As for Bernie, he’s a devout socialist, and while they could have had some similar positions on topic areas as we may, they were very different. Furthermore, you can bet everything you have that the biggest reason the Bernie supporters voted for Trump was not for his positions rather their disdain for the DNC and Hillary for what they perceived as injustices. Little did they know at the time that their fears would hold true as we’ve all seen now.

As for tarrifs, I think everyone knows (those that pay attention anyway) there are huge trade imbalances between us and our trading partners. Something had to give and so this President took his opportunity to try and balance them while our economy was strong. It’s a gamble for sure, and even may hurt up front, but I believe in the long run we win the day. I could be wrong on that though, but it’s the perfect time, with the perfect President in place, to give it a shot.

Again you say redistribute and Obamacare in the same sentence but really Obamacare was mostly just the Medicaid expansion. Yeah there are some on a private policy but mostly it impacted Medicaid enrollment, which you already said you support. And by the way, lots of people that supported Bernie ended up voting for Trump. Bernie and Trump had similar messages pertaining to the middle/working class.

By the way, wanted to get your take on the tariffs and specifically the steal tariffs. So Trump put tariffs on foreign steel essentially shielding US steelmakers from competitors in the world market. This was obviously done to keep the steel workers onboard with him. Now the price of steel has hurt numerous end-user companies that rely on steel to manufacture products. Consistent with free market/capitalism idealogy?

 

[hawaiian cane]

So is underfunding & jeopardizing the safety, well being of Americans @ Benghazi. Endangering lives of Americans by not having enough boots on the ground. Bad enough it was underfunded but to claim reinforcements were "just an hour away."
A few months ago congress with a republican majority , approved $450B for military upgrades. A good portion of that money needs to be used for cyber security, not necessarily ships , planes, guns , missiles, etc.
During Obama's 2 terms the GOP caucus kept saying "Obama has vastly underfunded the military." Passing the buck as always. Its congress that controls the $$$$.