Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you invest in the markets? I cannot understand why anyone who is investing in the stock market would rather have a laissez faire SEC. Donaldson was a Republican interested in striking a balance. Cox, not so much.

I do invest, and I like it when my stocks go up.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have a party dominated by fundamentalists, but I'm not sure who the socialist Dems are.

When it comes to the passage of free trade agreements you can see where people loyalties lay. When Bush asked for Fast Track Authority very few Dems helped. For the central America free trade treaty, supposedly free trade Dems, like Ellen Tausher, are on the wrong side.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I honestly cannot tell what the hell you are talking about, and I say that as someone who has spent a lot of time litigating on the defense side. Small business owners who are worrying about trial lawyers ought to be worrying about other things.

There are two stalwart Republican groups in my area. Doctors and small business owners. And their common gripe is litigation and liability. Usually people are pretty good at looking out after their own intersts so I tend to believe them. The entire board of the Republican party in the Silicon Valley is either doctors or small business owners. Are they all delusional?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yeah, whatever. When this Congress passes something of that sort, you just let me know.

Yes like a free trade act.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That's wrong, but since you seem to be reading off the Chamber of Commerce's talking points, I'm hardly surprised.

I have never read their talking points. And you think that you understand what is in the interest of American Businesses than the Chamber of Commerce? And if Unions are so concerned about job growth why are they against every free trade act? Considering how many jobs are dependant on international trade. And if they are so concerned about unemployment why do they hold up the German and French models that make it so hard to fire people, and thus give those countries their chronic unemployment.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That's such horseshit. People like Social Security because they want a component of their retirement income to be safe from what happens in the market. I want a balanced portfolio, and so do other people. People like Social Security, which is why they're not signing on to dumping it. It fills a need the market can't.

Most people believe their money sits in a little account and is not touched by the government. They don't understand that is not the case, and don't understand, than if put into private accounts the returns would be much better. The Chilean system provides much better returns than our system. Oh, but wait, we can't use that one as a comparison, because even if it works really wwll, it was put in place by a brutal dictator so it must be ignored.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop No one should count on Social Security for all of it, but the only people who are indifferent to whether it's there are those who have much more many than most Americans. Bush is pushing a great program for the fatcats, but not for most people.

People would be able to count on Social Security if it was invested properly. And how does Bush's plan only benefit the fat cats? You are the one reading talking points now.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I think we're testing whether you're belief in free markets trumps whatever democratic principles you subscribe to. So far, the answer is yes. Meaning that people who want to vote to regulate markets should not be allowed to, in your book.

The whole Bill of Rights is anti-Democratic. It stops the majority from passing laws that infringe on people rights. Similarly, I don't believe that any policy, if supported by the majority, is necessarily right. If the majority is for policies that don't make economic sense, I don't have to like it. However, in the end, I believe my democratic principles are stronger than yours because I promote policies that create stable democracies, where you promote policies that may allow short term democracies, but in then end produce permanent dictatorhships.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That is such bullshit. I will concede that it's easier to balance the budget when Congress and the Executive Branch are controlled by different parties, since it tends to stem the flow of pork, but the fact is that Clinton and a Democratic Congress -- without a single GOP vote -- voted to take the crucial first step in 1993. Meanwhile, check out what GOP Congresses have done in recent years. It's a disgrace. Now that moderate Republicans from the Northeast are a vanishing breed, and the South has gone over to the GOP, the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, and the GOP is the party of spending, waste, and deficits. /It's your party -- get used to it. They're not changing their stripes, but you can still leave.

In 1993 budget was not a crucial first step. It raised taxes and raised spending. And it raised spending more than it raised taxes. Many Dems were against it because it did nothing about fiscal responsiblity. Every reasonable predicter said that the budget was not going to get us anywhere. When the Republicans took over everything changed. It was not a matter of if the budget was going to be balanced it was a matter of when. The Bond market, seeing that something was finally going to be done, dropped their long term interest rates. And Clinton did everything in his power to keep the budget unbalanced. Have you not forgotten that Clinton's whole gripe that shut the government down was that the Republicans were trimming the budget too much. "They were cutting medicare" actually reducing the growth, but that is not the point". Clinton wielded his veto, not for fiscal responsiblity, for against budget cuts. You may have agreed that "saving these programs" was more important than balancing the budget, but to say that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget is pure denial. He spent his whole relection campaign critisizing the Republicans for making the cuts that were necessary to balance the budget.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Increased supply would tend to reduce prices..

No, because -- like the rest of the GOP -- you see no need to consider policy, since you've got a nice ideology to turn to.[/QUOTE]

Yes that irrational ideology that says that it is a bad idea to have health care run by the same group that runs the DMV and the Post Office.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have workers who are not getting the pension plans they bargained for, and government regulators who are letting corporations abandon their obligations, and you think that has nothing to do with the operation of a free market? Apparently in your free market, only large corporations get to enjoy the benefits of entering into deals.

When you don't like my point you just change the subject. We were talking about which party policies favor free market principles that lead to growth. This is just something you don't like about Republicans but is not on point. In order to have growth you need to have a business climate that promotes the growth of new and small businesses. That is where all the new growth and job creation comes from. Almost all the organizations that represent entrepeneurs and small businesses favor the Republicans. The biggest problem in this state for small business was worker's compensation. Alomost every business that was leaving California cited workers comp as the main problem. It was the number one priority for every business group in California. When Schwarzenegger tried to reform workers comp. the biggest obstacles to reform were the Unions and Trial Lawyers.