US: China of backtracking on trade deal

[Jerry Gallo]

12 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

It is isn't it, and neither the left or the right has faced it head on and approach it responsibly.  I can't see a way to stop it short of Draconian measures that would crush individual rights and outlaw automation.   To me that seems like a worse blow to individualism and humanity than dealing with it.  I admit I don't know what to do.  Fewer people, a new homestead act or, everybody gets a productivity stipend for life based on robot production?  Not good.  Some smart people need to tackle this.

Now you seem to be the voice of the robots.  Labor costs are us earning a living, if we view that as an unnecessary burden and inhibitor, the solution is to wipe out all labor. Do you view the producer, whether that be a small businessman or an arm of a conglomerate managed by an algorithm, as the only entity that deserves consideration?  That seems to be a holdover from the divine right of kings with an injection on Ayn Rand thrown in. Unless they have capital to spend, there are no consumers either, and without consumers, production becomes illogical.  As you might guess, I come from freemen, Scottish yeomen and pioneers more attuned to Robert Burns than  Karl Marx or Ayn Rand.  I am looking for a way that produces men of dignity and independent mind.

 

There is no need to punish the wealthy or the poor.  The rich are not tho only worthy humans, and often not even the best examples of the morality that makes us most proud to be humans. I am guessing we are talking about taxation.  If you have the desire and the talent to accumulate billions of dollars, then good for you, you should be able to do it.  But you should pay a share of taxes.  A government doesn't need to  raise the tax rate to astronomical levels on the rich if it closes some of the loopholes they currently use to their advantage. 

There is a graduated tax in the US and I pay more than some people because I make more money than they do.  Not only do I subsist very comfortably, but I have excess to invest in my future and my families.  I do not demand that a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck pay quite as much if it threatens their survival.

However, If I can comfortably pay a nominal tax rate of 15% because of  my income level, is it punishment to expect a billionaire to pay 15% rather than zero because of the loopholes he currently uses?  Tax laws have been written for the rich by lobbyists and officials who want to be rich.  

Well, that is exactly the question isn't it?  

The military may indeed shrink.  Automation in the military and our desire to stop being the world's policeman may have that effect.  I don't view that as being bad or confound it with weakening our defenses.  If we have a larger military than we need,that is then decried as government waste.  

We don't need open borders.  I know there are some people that say we do, and there are some that say we should be a white supremacist nation.  We don't have to let either extreme guide a sensible policy.  Both the left and the right like to throw up the extreme ideas from the other side and pretend they are the rational ones by comparison.  These are difficult issues and require best effort from all views to solve; not smokescreens.

Globalization is what?  A world government; or  worldwide consumers and producers  linked by a web of supply chains?  We don't have to have a world government,  but pure capitalism has led us into some pretty complex global relationships.  Does nationalism come into conflict with capitalism?  Do we have to choose sides?

Regardless of our views on those issues, unemployment  may be in our future.  It won't be just chicken-pluckers and vegetable-pickers either.  It will be miners, truck drivers, farmers, electronics assemblers, engineers, accountants, teachers, construction workers, supervisors, attorneys, doctors, and  college professors who all feel the pressure.  In reality, I would guess that unemployment will shake our society and nation even sooner than global warming.

The collapse of our society is not my preferred solution to climate change.

 

 

My apologies, I should have put those two things in quotes. Of course labor costs are viewed differently by the laborer and the one paying the labor cost. I'm a lackey and one of the highest paid lackey's in my field. I feel I am worth every penny and statistics back that up, but someone may come along and determine 80% return for 80% pay is acceptable. I could become a victim of circumstance at any time. My point, poorly articulated, is that automation is sought by industry under the guise of "we need to do this to remain profitable or to keep cost to consumer down" while some may portray this as greed. It's that conundrum where I see the logic in all three, so I can't argue for or against any of the three.

I was referring to taxation and I have no issue with a progressive tax because I too feel that I can afford to pay more than most. And I can't defend those who make far more than I from a perspective of what they should be able to afford. I have long said for years that eliminating the loopholes, the unfair ones, the ones created to allow high earners to keep every penny of their income, is a must.

That said, here is my dilemma. Who decides what number is fair? Who studies the high earners to determine what "they" can do without. Who analyzes the sacrifices they made to start a business or toil in college to get their degrees, subsisting on Ramen noodles and four hours of sleep. Who looks at the debt (student loans and life funding) to determine how much actual free income they have. It's a dangerous precedent to allow the 99% to dictate fairness of the 1%. Your definition of "how much is enough" and mine, and theirs, will be different. Who is right? Who decides they can't save enough to pay for their kids college in full, expand their business, have expensive hobbies. Who decides the level of fairness when making the statement "some don't get those luxuries" so no one should. I know you individually aren't a militant about taxing the rich, probably as pragmatic as the average Joe, so this is a general concern. The problem is, taxation only soothes those who envy or have animus towards the rich. If the government doesn't apply the funds properly, then this is just a punitive measure to appease people's emotions.

I agree about government waste when the military is too big. That said, I come from a place of thinking our military can never be too big, it's just misplaced. I feel we should have a much greater presence in Africa, hopefully with most of our allies, to put a stop to the genocide and tyranny there. Not our job for sure, but someone needs to intervene. The issue is, if we aren't the world's police, no one will be and the world needs policing. In that respect, the world has failed us more than we have failed the world. Not saying we are always right, but passivism doesn't solve many issues. But for the purpose of my point, shrinking the military automatically increases unemployment. If we pay someone to not work, what difference does it make if we pay the same to military members to do what we need done (agreeing what needs done is also a huge debate).

Anyway, it seems we have the same fears. The question is, do we follow the left's plan to get there sooner or do we stall it? While the wealthy aren't solving many problems in America, they are one of the last frontiers keeping us from collapse. Their thanks for that is being hated and punished. Imagine if all wealthy people moved elsewhere and took their wealth with them. At times I think that's what I would do, should I ever become wealthy. It's why I bring up things like charity, the stock market, asking why leftists don't start businesses that run the way the right's businesses run. Capitalists and Conservatives do not belong on a pedestal, but neither do they deserve scorn. I have no issue with them saying look, I will give up more, for a while, but there is a limit, and it better show some results. Back when taxation was 50-70% at the highest levels of income, that money wasn't used appropriately. Now we're in a bigger hole, use it even less appropriately, and would take every penny of wealth and put it into failing policies that only exacerbate and speed up the decline. 

To me it's a race, Democrats having permanent control of a bankrupt nation or Republicans being in charge of a country where we're keeping our noses above water but a third of us feel angry 100% of the time. If you ever get bored, describe a future with a Democrat super-majority in both Chambers, the White House, and SCOTUS. Then do so same with Republicans. Which country goes to hell faster? 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

That said, here is my dilemma. Who decides what number is fair? Who studies the high earners to determine what "they" can do without. Who analyzes the sacrifices they made to start a business or toil in college to get their degrees, subsisting on Ramen noodles and four hours of sleep. Who looks at the debt (student loans and life funding) to determine how much actual free income they have. It's a dangerous precedent to allow the 99% to dictate fairness of the 1%. Your definition of "how much is enough" and mine, and theirs, will be different. Who is right?

Good question too.  The who will always be imperfect, but some cross section of us.  A lot less than 99% of us dictate fairness to the other portion of us always.  It is how we operate as a democracy. 

I don't want us to determine an upper level of income or what somebody can do without.  That is a curtailment of freedom I am not ready to give up.  I do rather like progressive tax rates, and historically, the rich have still prospered under some steep rates that even I think are a bit much. If you want to keep a million dollars you need to earn $1.3 .  If you want to keep a billion dollars, you need to make $1.5 billion or some such.  Spend it on anything you want, wine, women, yachts, or new companies; its all OK with me what you do with your money--Short of buying votes and stacking the system in your favor. 

Earn the money, pay the taxes, get any luxury you can afford and that is fine.  No guilt necessary. On the other hand, some people will have no luxuries, they don't earn enough to afford them.  That may not be unfair if the system is not unfair.  And that is our responsibility in a citizen government, to make sure the system is fair.  I would add some fillets in there. Public schools should be our pride and joy. Every student that qualifies for a college education should get one.  That is good for our society as a whole, not just upward mobility for individuals.  China and India are graduating roughly  a million engineers a year to fuel their national technology development.  If we have only half that number and 20% of them cannot  afford a college education, we get further behind.   All children should have good health care and diet regardless of their parent's income

To say that people were too heavily taxed and the government did not use the money wisely is combining two points.  If the government is not using money wisely, the solution is not eliminating taxes, it is electing a government that uses money wisely, then you might need less taxes to operate.

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

While the wealthy aren't solving many problems in America, they are one of the last frontiers keeping us from collapse. Their thanks for that is being hated and punished. Imagine if all wealthy people moved elsewhere and took their wealth with them. At times I think that's what I would do, should I ever become wealthy.

Here I am not so sure Jerry.  The people who have shaped our modern age, among them:  Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin to name a few started out as college students, a far cry from wealthy.  Brilliance, drive, and innovation count for a lot more than wealth where progress is concerned.  A good idea draws the money it needs to manifest whether that be from venture capitalists, billionaires or a lot of investors with $1000 each.  I thank those people for the convenience, comfort, and opportunity I have today more even than Warren Buffett.

Success  can be a reward for sacrifice, no other consideration is due.  A person eating ramen to start a business deserves no more consideration than a person working two menial jobs and eating ramen  to buy their kid clothes.  Both are sacrificing, planning for the future and delaying gratification for a greater good. People going without to be successful  are only a fraction of people going without.  Successful people who sacrificed to get there are some  fraction of highly successful individuals;  some of whom never sacrificed anything because they inherited wealth.

Do you think it would make a lot of difference where the wealthy live?  How do you take your money with you?  Play money: yachts, and babes, and penthouses, and Faberge eggs and Piccasos  can go with you.   Doesn't matter to the rest of us.  That money is not working or generating anything. Take it anywhere you want or throw it in a volcano, not much difference to the rest of us, unless you like art.

But what about the rest of the money, the serious money, the working money invested in all facets of the economy?  I suppose, if you are bitter, you take it out of your homeland and invest it somewhere else.  If you are pragmatic and expect to accumulate wealth for generations, you invest it for the best return.  If that is in the US then that is where your working capital stays.  The corollary to that is, if you live in New York or Houston or Chicago and display your play money there, but your returns are better in France, or India, or Singapore, or even Burkina Faso, then that is where your real money takes up residence.

Democrat or Republican, if we cannot assure a safe and profitable home for capital, it will go somewhere else.  Really beyond a certain level that only a few enjoy, tax rates are only about play money.  The working money is deep in the economy doing its job and not being taxed at any high percentage.

[Jerry Gallo]

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Good question too.  The who will always be imperfect, but some cross section of us.  A lot less than 99% of us dictate fairness to the other portion of us always.  It is how we operate as a democracy. 

I don't want us to determine an upper level of income or what somebody can do without.  That is a curtailment of freedom I am not ready to give up.  I do rather like progressive tax rates, and historically, the rich have still prospered under some steep rates that even I think are a bit much. If you want to keep a million dollars you need to earn $1.3 .  If you want to keep a billion dollars, you need to make $1.5 billion or some such.  Spend it on anything you want, wine, women, yachts, or new companies; its all OK with me what you do with your money--Short of buying votes and stacking the system in your favor. 

Earn the money, pay the taxes, get any luxury you can afford and that is fine.  No guilt necessary. On the other hand, some people will have no luxuries, they don't earn enough to afford them.  That may not be unfair if the system is not unfair.  And that is our responsibility in a citizen government, to make sure the system is fair.  I would add some fillets in there. Public schools should be our pride and joy. Every student that qualifies for a college education should get one.  That is good for our society as a whole, not just upward mobility for individuals.  China and India are graduating roughly  a million engineers a year to fuel their national technology development.  If we have only half that number and 20% of them cannot  afford a college education, we get further behind.   All children should have good health care and diet regardless of their parent's income

To say that people were too heavily taxed and the government did not use the money wisely is combining two points.  If the government is not using money wisely, the solution is not eliminating taxes, it is electing a government that uses money wisely, then you might need less taxes to operate.

<sigh> Typed up a reply for 20 minutes, hit one wrong button and poof, gone! <smh>

Public schools should be our pride and joy, but they've become indoctrination centers where half of all teachers are there solely for salary and benefits. Where they once had no fear to teach all theories and trust their skill as teachers, in corroboration with parental upbringing, to let the kids decide for themselves what is what, they now dictate what a kid should believe. They teach socialism on the first day of kindergarten by pooling supplies. I could go on for days about this, but I digress. And to be clear, the quarter of the truly great teachers are worth their weight in gold, so I am not denigrating the whole.

I'd support free secondary education if they are courses of study involving true need. As you said, engineering; also medical research, IT systems, cyber-security, etc are fine. Some of the arts, marketing, any degree that has a litany of people looking for jobs that will never exist as a true need, those students have to pay their own way.

On free food and healthcare for kids, if the left ever is willing to put their true focus on reforms that work rather than conditioning us for single payer, I'll participate in a way to cover all our bases. Until then, healthcare is a mess because of them. and not being taxed at any high percentage.

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Here I am not so sure Jerry.  The people who have shaped our modern age, among them:  Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin to name a few started out as college students, a far cry from wealthy.  Brilliance, drive, and innovation count for a lot more than wealth where progress is concerned.  A good idea draws the money it needs to manifest whether that be from venture capitalists, billionaires or a lot of investors with $1000 each.  I thank those people for the convenience, comfort, and opportunity I have today more even than Warren Buffett.

Success  can be a reward for sacrifice, no other consideration is due.  A person eating ramen to start a business deserves no more consideration than a person working two menial jobs and eating ramen  to buy their kid clothes.  Both are sacrificing, planning for the future and delaying gratification for a greater good. People going without to be successful  are only a fraction of people going without.  Successful people who sacrificed to get there are some  fraction of highly successful individuals;  some of whom never sacrificed anything because they inherited wealth.

Do you think it would make a lot of difference where the wealthy live?  How do you take your money with you?  Play money: yachts, and babes, and penthouses, and Faberge eggs and Piccasos  can go with you.   Doesn't matter to the rest of us.  That money is not working or generating anything. Take it anywhere you want or throw it in a volcano, not much difference to the rest of us, unless you like art.

But what about the rest of the money, the serious money, the working money invested in all facets of the economy?  I suppose, if you are bitter, you take it out of your homeland and invest it somewhere else.  If you are pragmatic and expect to accumulate wealth for generations, you invest it for the best return.  If that is in the US then that is where your working capital stays.  The corollary to that is, if you live in New York or Houston or Chicago and display your play money there, but your returns are better in France, or India, or Singapore, or even Burkina Faso, then that is where your real money takes up residence.

Democrat or Republican, if we cannot assure a safe and profitable home for capital, it will go somewhere else.  Really beyond a certain level that only a few enjoy, tax rates are only about play money.  The working money is deep in the economy doing its job and not being taxed at any high percentage.

I appreciate insight other than my own, so thanks for this.

The issues with the folks you mention is, they are often exempt from scorn not because of their contributions to our ease with their innovation, but because they carry liberal water. They extort the public at retail for their products, in Jobs' case selling phones at 50x the cost to make them in another country which employs far fewer people. Meanwhile, the Exxon and Home Depot CEO's get lambasted when they employ many more people on our soil and don't gauge nearly as much. 

As for the egg and art owners, what percentage of all owned wealth do they represent? Sure I can agree that it's senseless for those folks to have that dead money laying around when people are starving. But I think we also know that they likely represent 10% of the $60T of privately owned wealth. So, we collect it all, pay down the debt to $16T and in five years, they'll own new eggs and art, we'll still have poverty, the debt will be back to $22T. We have a discipline problem in Washington and in the regular world the rest of us live in. We also have an honesty problem. I support the R's not because they are disciplined or honest, just more so than the left. I've yet to see anyone disprove that. Tough love and insensitivity claims aside, sometimes the truth is negative and hurtful, doesn't make it any less the truth. When someone on the left relents and acknowledges their side's flaws and the other side's value, we'll see progress. Until then, we discuss with what is likely wasted keystrokes.

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

The issues with the folks you mention is, they are often exempt from scorn not because of their contributions to our ease with their innovation, but because they carry liberal water. They extort the public at retail for their products, in Jobs' case selling phones at 50x the cost to make them in another country which employs far fewer people. Meanwhile, the Exxon and Home Depot CEO's get lambasted when they employ many more people on our soil and don't gauge nearly as much. 

As for the egg and art owners, what percentage of all owned wealth do they represent? Sure I can agree that it's senseless for those folks to have that dead money laying around when people are starving. But I think we also know that they likely represent 10% of the $60T of privately owned wealth. So, we collect it all, pay down the debt to $16T and in five years, they'll own new eggs and art, we'll still have poverty, the debt will be back to $22T. We have a discipline problem in Washington and in the regular world the rest of us live in. We also have an honesty problem. I support the R's not because they are disciplined or honest, just more so than the left. I've yet to see anyone disprove that. Tough love and insensitivity claims aside, sometimes the truth is negative and hurtful, doesn't make it any less the truth. When someone on the left relents and acknowledges their side's flaws and the other side's value, we'll see progress. Until then, we discuss with what is likely wasted keystrokes.

Great reply.  Sorry you lost the 20 min.  That has happened to me too.

Maybe in this part I did not convey myself very well.  I didn't list those people as being admirable necessarily.  My point was just that I believe most change and innovation comes from those  who are hungry for success and want to establish a new paradigm, rather than those who have already made it to the top.   Of course, a few individuals capture both.  T.  Boone Pickens sees himself as an energy provider so he is starting wind farms in Oklahoma as well as other states after making billions in the oil industry.  Steve Jobs was a major d**k  but he was brilliant.  He was a marketer, but his genius was in product development and capturing the look / feel that people would desire and pay big bucks to get.  I guess no CEO gets a free ride.  I don't know about Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg politics, but certainly their corporate policies get a lambasting.  CEO's  do not have to be rich.  Setting corporate policy, like hiring and benefits  is a job function related to the corporation.  Sometimes it can show personal generosity, but it does have to bend to economic needs.  I know the Home Depot guy is conservative.  People that criticize his political views criticize those same views in less wealthy proponents too.  To sum up, my belief is that an individual acting in self-interest by getting rich may pull society along to better things, but an individual being rich gives society far fewer benefits.

Second point is, it is OK to be rich and have nice things.  Whether you buy a 16' aluminum drift boat because you like salmon and trout fishing or a 160' yacht because you enjoy genteel entertaining and rocking parties, its OK.   Those rewards are some of the things people work hard to get.  I don't think it is senseless to do those things.  Charity is a noble deed when done from the heart , not when it is forced.   So, lets say that at the high end, art and boats are 10%  of privately owned wealth. I was responding to your thought that unappreciated wealthy might leave the country.  If they do, they take that 10% with them.  The other 90% is working capital.  Whether it is my drift boat or Jeff Bezos' yacht  the 10% we can take out of the country with us is fun money for personal enjoyment, and not working capital.  So the 90% even of the most unappreciated stays behind and grows.  Good for them, good for the economy.  

A discipline and honesty problem, oh yes.   I favor one term representatives, new people all the time rather than established operators feathering their own nests.  I don't see either side as shining in the honesty department.  Mitch McConnell is just as busy  pulling his pile of personal wealth together as Nancy Pelosi. 

A lot of it for me comes down to what will be good for our children and grandchildren.  Overtaxing the rich and giving more benefits to the poor to get their votes is just as unhelpful to future generations as giving tax breaks to the wealthy and ignoring the poor  because you get a cut of the proceeds. Both are self serving to the people in office and may provide an immediate gratification  to those given the largess, but neither may be the right course for the next generation.

Maybe it all comes down to wasted keystrokes, but thanks anyway for the thought you put into your comments.

[F3SS]

On 5/8/2019 at 1:38 AM, DingoLingo said:

be interesting for the world economy this one.. if china does not back down.. all his cheering about how great the american economy is doing is going to go down the toilet.. rapidly.. 

 It appeared to be a painful start to the week for the stock market, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeting more than 470 points at the open Monday before rebounding and then tumbling again by as much as 350 points on Tuesday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/06/how-financial-advisors-can-calm-their-clients-worried-about-a-trade-war.html

working in mining a lot of the guys have share portfolio's (I'm not one of them) a few of the guys were talking about selling their international shares (US companies) and buying gold again.. or buying more of the blue chip companies here in australia.. investment companies here are watching the coming trade dispute between you guys and china closely.. the nervous are selling now.. some are watching.. but if it keeps going.. stock prices will fall because as more and more of the nervous people sell the more rapidly it will happen.. 

Certain stocks could suffer long term but overall all this panic eventually creates great buying opportunity. Just have to buy the right dip. Wish I was bold enough to do so. There's always a recovery.

[bec99]

7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Great reply.  Sorry you lost the 20 min.  That has happened to me too.

Maybe in this part I did not convey myself very well.  I didn't list those people as being admirable necessarily.  My point was just that I believe most change and innovation comes from those  who are hungry for success and want to establish a new paradigm, rather than those who have already made it to the top.   Of course, a few individuals capture both.  T.  Boone Pickens sees himself as an energy provider so he is starting wind farms in Oklahoma as well as other states after making billions in the oil industry.  Steve Jobs was a major d**k  but he was brilliant.  He was a marketer, but his genius was in product development and capturing the look / feel that people would desire and pay big bucks to get.  I guess no CEO gets a free ride.  I don't know about Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg politics, but certainly their corporate policies get a lambasting.  CEO's  do not have to be rich.  Setting corporate policy, like hiring and benefits  is a job function related to the corporation.  Sometimes it can show personal generosity, but it does have to bend to economic needs.  I know the Home Depot guy is conservative.  People that criticize his political views criticize those same views in less wealthy proponents too.  To sum up, my belief is that an individual acting in self-interest by getting rich may pull society along to better things, but an individual being rich gives society far fewer benefits.

Second point is, it is OK to be rich and have nice things.  Whether you buy a 16' aluminum drift boat because you like salmon and trout fishing or a 160' yacht because you enjoy genteel entertaining and rocking parties, its OK.   Those rewards are some of the things people work hard to get.  I don't think it is senseless to do those things.  Charity is a noble deed when done from the heart , not when it is forced.   So, lets say that at the high end, art and boats are 10%  of privately owned wealth. I was responding to your thought that unappreciated wealthy might leave the country.  If they do, they take that 10% with them.  The other 90% is working capital.  Whether it is my drift boat or Jeff Bezos' yacht  the 10% we can take out of the country with us is fun money for personal enjoyment, and not working capital.  So the 90% even of the most unappreciated stays behind and grows.  Good for them, good for the economy.  

A discipline and honesty problem, oh yes.   I favor one term representatives, new people all the time rather than established operators feathering their own nests.  I don't see either side as shining in the honesty department.  Mitch McConnell is just as busy  pulling his pile of personal wealth together as Nancy Pelosi. 

A lot of it for me comes down to what will be good for our children and grandchildren.  Overtaxing the rich and giving more benefits to the poor to get their votes is just as unhelpful to future generations as giving tax breaks to the wealthy and ignoring the poor  because you get a cut of the proceeds. Both are self serving to the people in office and may provide an immediate gratification  to those given the largess, but neither may be the right course for the next generation.

Maybe it all comes down to wasted keystrokes, but thanks anyway for the thought you put into your comments.

As a conservative Mom of three grown children, I liked this response,  my oldest an eye surgeon and needed little from us financially. She is far from rich as gives back a lot. (First borns seem to go that way. Second is a hairdresser and loves what she does. Third came along 10years later (shock) and a boy with energy and curiosity. Told him we would pay all college expenses if he got a “real” degree. I am happy to say just graduated as an industrial and mechanical engineer. Yup, we paid every penny and far from rich just good financial planning saved our butts. All of my children have done well and believe part may be due to parental rules and consequences to actions they chose. Honestly, my youngish children, especially 22 old son, is the most conservative of the family as most of his friends. To be clear, as a resident of crappy CT, me and extended family are Trump supporters.i am enjoying the conversation. Thanks!

 T

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, bec99 said:

As a conservative Mom of three grown children, I liked this response,  my oldest an eye surgeon and needed little from us financially. She is far from rich as gives back a lot. (First borns seem to go that way. Second is a hairdresser and loves what she does. Third came along 10years later (shock) and a boy with energy and curiosity. Told him we would pay all college expenses if he got a “real” degree. I am happy to say just graduated as an industrial and mechanical engineer. Yup, we paid every penny and far from rich just good financial planning saved our butts. All of my children have done well and believe part may be due to parental rules and consequences to actions they chose. Honestly, my youngish children, especially 22 old son, is the most conservative of the family as most of his friends. To be clear, as a resident of crappy CT, me and extended family are Trump supporters.i am enjoying the conversation. Thanks!

Great.  Hopefully Jerry will see your post.  We have been doing a kind of respectful point counterpoint sort of thing with Jerry providing the conservative voice and me the liberal.  Please feel free to join in too.  

[Jerry Gallo]

20 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Great reply.  Sorry you lost the 20 min.  That has happened to me too.

Maybe in this part I did not convey myself very well.  I didn't list those people as being admirable necessarily.  My point was just that I believe most change and innovation comes from those  who are hungry for success and want to establish a new paradigm, rather than those who have already made it to the top.   Of course, a few individuals capture both.  T.  Boone Pickens sees himself as an energy provider so he is starting wind farms in Oklahoma as well as other states after making billions in the oil industry.  Steve Jobs was a major d**k  but he was brilliant.  He was a marketer, but his genius was in product development and capturing the look / feel that people would desire and pay big bucks to get.  I guess no CEO gets a free ride.  I don't know about Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg politics, but certainly their corporate policies get a lambasting.  CEO's  do not have to be rich.  Setting corporate policy, like hiring and benefits  is a job function related to the corporation.  Sometimes it can show personal generosity, but it does have to bend to economic needs.  I know the Home Depot guy is conservative.  People that criticize his political views criticize those same views in less wealthy proponents too.  To sum up, my belief is that an individual acting in self-interest by getting rich may pull society along to better things, but an individual being rich gives society far fewer benefits.

Second point is, it is OK to be rich and have nice things.  Whether you buy a 16' aluminum drift boat because you like salmon and trout fishing or a 160' yacht because you enjoy genteel entertaining and rocking parties, its OK.   Those rewards are some of the things people work hard to get.  I don't think it is senseless to do those things.  Charity is a noble deed when done from the heart , not when it is forced.   So, lets say that at the high end, art and boats are 10%  of privately owned wealth. I was responding to your thought that unappreciated wealthy might leave the country.  If they do, they take that 10% with them.  The other 90% is working capital.  Whether it is my drift boat or Jeff Bezos' yacht  the 10% we can take out of the country with us is fun money for personal enjoyment, and not working capital.  So the 90% even of the most unappreciated stays behind and grows.  Good for them, good for the economy.  

A discipline and honesty problem, oh yes.   I favor one term representatives, new people all the time rather than established operators feathering their own nests.  I don't see either side as shining in the honesty department.  Mitch McConnell is just as busy  pulling his pile of personal wealth together as Nancy Pelosi. 

A lot of it for me comes down to what will be good for our children and grandchildren.  Overtaxing the rich and giving more benefits to the poor to get their votes is just as unhelpful to future generations as giving tax breaks to the wealthy and ignoring the poor  because you get a cut of the proceeds. Both are self serving to the people in office and may provide an immediate gratification  to those given the largess, but neither may be the right course for the next generation.

Maybe it all comes down to wasted keystrokes, but thanks anyway for the thought you put into your comments.

Ditto on the last part. And sorry I had to beat you up a bit in the abortion thread, requisite part of the deal in the trenches I suppose! LOL

My issues and yours probably appear farther apart because we are drilling down to a level where it would be hard for us not to be. As you know, our government will never settle anything at that level.

What I mean by carrying liberal water, is the Twitter and FB bans of Conservatives. The hypocrite actors and entertainers who claim to want rules they don't follow. This all in addition to buying influence that both sides do. When Beto or Biden give next to nothing to charity, nor do they write a couple extra zero's on their tax return to lend extra to government, I don't have a problem with that. But when they preach about caring about the poor, it becomes hollow activism. As in the other thread, some right wing opposition is borne from leftists pushing to far or pushing unfairly. To not comprehend or accept that is as much a problem as the problem itself. Tat, I've been looking for a single true liberal who will compromise and cede and I've yet to find one. It's a fact the right has ceded plenty. Why should I do so another time or another day while my interests aren't met? Why is what I do for our kids and grand kids not enough, why should I have to do what I do their way with my earned income or wealth. That's the mindset of some and I think it's mostly fair.

Just one example is Obamacare...not looking to open that can of worms in detail, but the wealthy are asked to pony up for a system that was made worse in as many ways as were made better. I'll pony up on any plan that is better as I see it, but I am not afforded that option by the left, ever. And many independents (fence sitters as I refer to them when addressing my independent son) sit idly by or side with them more often than not, which gives the impression of tacit approval. You may adamantly disagree, but I think the middle always leaning left or passively allowing the left to do what they do is the reason a lot isn't getting done. Now claiming my side bears no blame or burden, but take my side out of the equation and there aren't many problems being solved.   

 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Ditto on the last part. And sorry I had to beat you up a bit in the abortion thread, requisite part of the deal in the trenches I suppose! LOL

My issues and yours probably appear farther apart because we are drilling down to a level where it would be hard for us not to be. As you know, our government will never settle anything at that level.

What I mean by carrying liberal water, is the Twitter and FB bans of Conservatives. The hypocrite actors and entertainers who claim to want rules they don't follow. This all in addition to buying influence that both sides do. When Beto or Biden give next to nothing to charity, nor do they write a couple extra zero's on their tax return to lend extra to government, I don't have a problem with that. But when they preach about caring about the poor, it becomes hollow activism. As in the other thread, some right wing opposition is borne from leftists pushing to far or pushing unfairly. To not comprehend or accept that is as much a problem as the problem itself. Tat, I've been looking for a single true liberal who will compromise and cede and I've yet to find one. It's a fact the right has ceded plenty. Why should I do so another time or another day while my interests aren't met? Why is what I do for our kids and grand kids not enough, why should I have to do what I do their way with my earned income or wealth. That's the mindset of some and I think it's mostly fair.

Just one example is Obamacare...not looking to open that can of worms in detail, but the wealthy are asked to pony up for a system that was made worse in as many ways as were made better. I'll pony up on any plan that is better as I see it, but I am not afforded that option by the left, ever. And many independents (fence sitters as I refer to them when addressing my independent son) sit idly by or side with them more often than not, which gives the impression of tacit approval. You may adamantly disagree, but I think the middle always leaning left or passively allowing the left to do what they do is the reason a lot isn't getting done. Now claiming my side bears no blame or burden, but take my side out of the equation and there aren't many problems being solved. 

Good for you.  I was a little over the top in the other thread, but I would like to see a lot more care for children from both sides.  They are blameless for what  their parents have done or have not done but will suffer for it if no help is available.

What really fries me there and in other threads as well is my perception that there is no sense of responsibility  among many men.  

Jerry, there is not a lot of compromise going on, and I would say not by either side.  It has become a tug-of -war and the strongest side pulls the rope. Not many ever look up from the contest to ask "What the heck are we doing?"  I don't think either view will have the answers for the future on its own.   Both sides pull as hard as they can because the focus is on the competition, not what is good for our nation. 

Charity is good if it comes from the heart, not if it is enforced.  I find it hypocritical that some exhort others to give and give nothing themselves.  Charity is great to help your neighbors during a natural or personal disaster, or because you think it is right to do.  Charity is not a reliable way for a society to feed or clothe people who seem unable to do it.  For example, the company I work for buys a lot of fussy little odd shaped cleaning sticks for our wax pattern shop.  There is an outfit that trains and employs severely disabled people to make those supplies.  We buy from them for price, and partially because it is a good thing to do.  I've visited their shop and shown samples and what we want to buy.  They have a government subsidy, maybe from SS, I don'rt know. to help pay their overhead and wages for their workers.  Otherwise, we would be buying this stuff from overseas.  To me, that is a delightful and brilliant solution.  We give people meaningful work, they can contribute to their support and feel useful.  That is the kind of safety net I think we need, and it is more than charity. We also do some machining and carpentry work with the prison system. Incarcerated people learn a skill, and some are hired when they are released.  That also requires a lot of involvement from the state government and a commitment to redirect as well as punish.

I don't think you need to do anything differently for your kids or grand kids, but we need to do a better job of talking amongst ourselves about what kind of world they will inherit and what our part in that is.     You do the best you can to help prepare your kids and send them out into the world, and help them to the extent you think is needed.  That is all any  parent can do.  Some will succeed, and some will struggle to succeed, and some will fail.  That is individual responsibility for both parents and children.  I think that opens the most  possibilities.

As a society, we fail to have vision or compromise.  Opposition and friction mostly just  cements our views on both sides.  I think I am a liberal, but I resent being told I am for open borders and lawlessness, because I am not.  That is not a way to get good faith compromise.  I don't think all conservatives are white supremacist, wife beating, child abusing, throwbacks, and yet the *******, socialist,communist,  America-hating traitorous  tags do tend to rankle me as they get frequently and disdainfully thrown around.

As for the Twitter and FB ban on conservatives, maybe I don't know the whole story..   There certainly are conservatives on both platforms.  If William F Buckley were alive, he would have millions of followers across those sites. My perception is the people banned including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan were more into conspiracy and hate speech against religions; Islam, and Judaism, and various races and national origins.  That is not a conservative platform is it?  Is there more to it than that?

Thanks.

[Jerry Gallo]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Good for you.  I was a little over the top in the other thread, but I would like to see a lot more care for children from both sides.  They are blameless for what  their parents have done or have not done but will suffer for it if no help is available.

What really fries me there and in other threads as well is my perception that there is no sense of responsibility  among many men.  

Jerry, there is not a lot of compromise going on, and I would say not by either side.  It has become a tug-of -war and the strongest side pulls the rope. Not many ever look up from the contest to ask "What the heck are we doing?"  I don't think either view will have the answers for the future on its own.   Both sides pull as hard as they can because the focus is on the competition, not what is good for our nation. 

Charity is good if it comes from the heart, not if it is enforced.  I find it hypocritical that some exhort others to give and give nothing themselves.  Charity is great to help your neighbors during a natural or personal disaster, or because you think it is right to do.  Charity is not a reliable way for a society to feed or clothe people who seem unable to do it.  For example, the company I work for buys a lot of fussy little odd shaped cleaning sticks for our wax pattern shop.  There is an outfit that trains and employs severely disabled people to make those supplies.  We buy from them for price, and partially because it is a good thing to do.  I've visited their shop and shown samples and what we want to buy.  They have a government subsidy, maybe from SS, I don'rt know. to help pay their overhead and wages for their workers.  Otherwise, we would be buying this stuff from overseas.  To me, that is a delightful and brilliant solution.  We give people meaningful work, they can contribute to their support and feel useful.  That is the kind of safety net I think we need, and it is more than charity. We also do some machining and carpentry work with the prison system. Incarcerated people learn a skill, and some are hired when they are released.  That also requires a lot of involvement from the state government and a commitment to redirect as well as punish.

I don't think you need to do anything differently for your kids or grand kids, but we need to do a better job of talking amongst ourselves about what kind of world they will inherit and what our part in that is.     You do the best you can to help prepare your kids and send them out into the world, and help them to the extent you think is needed.  That is all any  parent can do.  Some will succeed, and some will struggle to succeed, and some will fail.  That is individual responsibility for both parents and children.  I think that opens the most  possibilities.

As a society, we fail to have vision or compromise.  Opposition and friction mostly just  cements our views on both sides.  I think I am a liberal, but I resent being told I am for open borders and lawlessness, because I am not.  That is not a way to get good faith compromise.  I don't think all conservatives are white supremacist, wife beating, child abusing, throwbacks, and yet the *******, socialist,communist,  America-hating traitorous  tags do tend to rankle me as they get frequently and disdainfully thrown around.

As for the Twitter and FB ban on conservatives, maybe I don't know the whole story..   There certainly are conservatives on both platforms.  If William F Buckley were alive, he would have millions of followers across those sites. My perception is the people banned including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan were more into conspiracy and hate speech against religions; Islam, and Judaism, and various races and national origins.  That is not a conservative platform is it?  Is there more to it than that?

Thanks.

Meh, sometimes a little over the top is needed. And sometimes I push until someone I respect calls me on it. We're good if you're good.

Don't get me started. I am pretty adamant in my disdain for abortion and the games the left plays to ensure it. But, dude gets the goods up front, he better be there for life. I have no issue with locking up deadbeat dads who don't pay their share. And if I could justify locking them up for not being present in their kids lives, I'd crusade for that even moreso. The only caveat is that there are a few genuine men who have no say on abortion or raising of their child and feminists don't care about that because it flies in the face of the movement. But, back on topic.

Compromise...take a look at this link. Look at the blue and the red. It's stark. http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/

I think we're on the same page re: charity. Rather than having prisoners bulk up and play cards, have them do some work our country needs done, but give them a reasonable return for doing it. For most crimes, let them have some life if they are paying society back through sweat labor.  And the handicapped young lady that takes my money for lunch every day is preferred over most of the "normal" workers who work the window. Maybe you and I can be on the "don't exploit it though" committee.

I try not to toss out ad hominem attacks or use the "all" tactic. The only insult I routinely make that I won't apologize for is that the left, to a person and in my opinion, is inconsistent somewhere in the definition of each of their beliefs. I got a fair amount of flack here early on, the typical idiot - moron - stupid type of thing. Then I started getting ignored more often than not. I assume it's because I travel their path to their inconsistency and then it gets uncomfortable. I'm not here to get others to think less of a single person here, nor am I here to win anything. I want to understand others and I want them to challenge themselves beyond their comfort zone. And I want others to do the same to me as you have here. I will fire back against some of the gutter punks if that's the game they start and wanna play, but I truly am not looking to instigate a fight. The left's biggest weakness is they are unable to allow themselves to be vulnerable with their truth, unable to admit that their conclusions are often emotional, but not intellectually sound. My side's weakness is we're a bunch of callous *ricks. LOL

You'll just have to trust me on the social media thing. The extremists like gay frog dude and NoI chief are obvious. I follow the left as much as the right to stay better informed. At least one person each week (Candace Owens today on FB, James Woods on Twitter multiple times the last few weeks the most recent) from the right gets a temporary ban. At the same time, I've seen blue checked leftists who've called for the rape and death of Dana Loesch, Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Sanders with no repercussions. And I don't play or accept the report game, if you own or moderate a site, it's your responsibility to police the thing fairly. When it's one-sided, that's usually by design. Bottom line is I follow a lot of the folks from the left that are usually the type who would get banned like those on the right do, it's not even close to neutral.  

Edited May 17, 2019 by Jerry Gallo