What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
So why don't sensible Dems talk to Gov. Drayton about taking on the Clinton machine?
Click to expand...

Why? We need to bring Scott Walker to the White House. He'll protect me from ISIS, cause I'm afraid.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
So why don't sensible Dems talk to Gov. Drayton about taking on the Clinton machine?
Click to expand...

The rest of the nation is unlikely to elect into office someone who's even worse than W at giving speches, or who's been caught clueless on so many different issues. (The Wilfs' pending lawsuits during the Vikings public stadium financing debates and later when the guilty verdict came down is a perfect example.)
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Libertarian fantasyland opinion. From the writer's organization via wikipedia:

"The American Principles Project (APP) is a 501(c)(3) think tank founded in 2009 by Robert George and Jeff Bell.[2] APP promotes a combination of libertarian and social conservative policies.[3] It is chaired by Sean Fieler.[3]

While opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, APP largely focuses on promoting immigration reform, opposing the Common Core curriculum, and defending religious liberty.[4][5][6] They have also advocated for monetary reform by suggesting a return to the gold standard.[7][8]

Following the Republican Party's post-2012 election review, in which the GOP suggested de-emphasizing social issues, a conservative advocacy group affiliated with the American Principles Project published a report detailing the importance of social issues to the Republican Party. The report pointed out that Republicans ran almost exclusively on economic issues during the 2012 election to lackluster effect.[9] CNN has described the American Principles Project as "a unique Republican group that bridges the ideas of social conservatives and libertarians."[10]"

When I was in grad school there's two things we were taught. 1) There's no inside info in the market (this was pre-Enron) and 2) Alan Greenspan is God. If it was sunny out, its thanks to Greenspan raising rates. If it rains, it would have been worse had Greenspan not raised rates.

Well, time has shown Greenspan and his policies to be a fraud. From sitting around with his thumb up his @ ss during the loose credit era (where the problem was the standards for getting loans, not the rates) to endorsing the ridiculous Bush tax cuts that blew a hole in the deficit reduction that had been achieved, the guy was a joke.

I mention this because if you owned a small business, which my family did for a time, increasing rates kills you. It halts expansion and hurts job growth. Someone tucked away in a think tank away from the real world might not get this, but anybody dealing with reality knows it all too well.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
Libertarian fantasyland opinion. From the writer's organization via wikipedia:

"The American Principles Project (APP) is a 501(c)(3) think tank founded in 2009 by Robert George and Jeff Bell.[2] APP promotes a combination of libertarian and social conservative policies.[3] It is chaired by Sean Fieler.[3]

While opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, APP largely focuses on promoting immigration reform, opposing the Common Core curriculum, and defending religious liberty.[4][5][6] They have also advocated for monetary reform by suggesting a return to the gold standard.[7][8]

Following the Republican Party's post-2012 election review, in which the GOP suggested de-emphasizing social issues, a conservative advocacy group affiliated with the American Principles Project published a report detailing the importance of social issues to the Republican Party. The report pointed out that Republicans ran almost exclusively on economic issues during the 2012 election to lackluster effect.[9] CNN has described the American Principles Project as "a unique Republican group that bridges the ideas of social conservatives and libertarians."[10]"

When I was in grad school there's two things we were taught. 1) There's no inside info in the market (this was pre-Enron) and 2) Alan Greenspan is God. If it was sunny out, its thanks to Greenspan raising rates. If it rains, it would have been worse had Greenspan not raised rates.

Well, time has shown Greenspan and his policies to be a fraud. From sitting around with his thumb up his @ ss during the loose credit era (where the problem was the standards for getting loans, not the rates) to endorsing the ridiculous Bush tax cuts that blew a hole in the deficit reduction that had been achieved, the guy was a joke.

I mention this because if you owned a small business, which my family did for a time, increasing rates kills you. It halts expansion and hurts job growth. Someone tucked away in a think tank away from the real world might not get this, but anybody dealing with reality knows it all too well.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... libertarians are not against gay marriage.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Uhhh... libertarians are not against gay marriage.
Click to expand...


I believe Rand Paul is personally opposed, to name a prominent one.

"Asked whether he would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday he supports the idea of traditional marriage but thinks Washington shouldn't be involved in the issue"

http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/07/is-rand-paul-trying-to-have-it-both-ways

So he's okay with banning gay marriage, he just wants all the states to do it individually? Great. A real profile in courage there. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
I believe Rand Paul is personally opposed, to name a prominent one.

"Asked whether he would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday he supports the idea of traditional marriage but thinks Washington shouldn't be involved in the issue"

http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/07/is-rand-paul-trying-to-have-it-both-ways

So he's okay with banning gay marriage, he just wants all the states to do it individually? Great. A real profile in courage there. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You missed the point. The point is that Washington shouldn't be involved. It's called decreasing federal power. You're so fixated on having things a certain way and whining when you don't get it that you can't take responsibility for your own actions. This is why we have the fascist dictatorship we have today.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
You missed the point. The point is that Washington shouldn't be involved. It's called decreasing federal power. You're so fixated on having things a certain way and whining when you don't get it that you can't take responsibility for your own actions. This is why we have the fascist dictatorship we have today.
Click to expand...

Fascist dictatorships aside basic rights aren't up to states. That's why states can't bar blacks and whites from marrying for example. Now you might support Alabama banning interracial marriage for example if they chose to do so, but for the rest of us normal people that would be sorta Talibanesque.

Look on the bright side though. I'm sure the SCOTUS will side with you guys on this one, right? :eek: :D
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
Fascist dictatorships aside basic rights aren't up to states. That's why states can't bar blacks and whites from marrying for example. Now you might support Alabama banning interracial marriage for example if they chose to do so, but for the rest of us normal people that would be sorta Talibanesque.

Look on the bright side though. I'm sure the SCOTUS will side with you guys on this one, right? :eek: :D
Click to expand...

Congratulations on proving my point, federalist. BTW, based upon the hierarchy of political parties in our history, that would make you a republican. ;)
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Congratulations on proving my point, federalist. BTW, based upon the hierarchy of political parties in our history, that would make you a republican. ;)
Click to expand...

Not sure you have a point to prove Flaggy expect for the one I discussed earlier that got you so upset. :D I can live with being a Lincoln Republican. Its the modern day knuckledragging I can do without!
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
Not sure you have a point to prove Flaggy expect for the one I discussed earlier that got you so upset. :D I can live with being a Lincoln Republican. Its the modern day knuckledragging I can do without!
Click to expand...

Actually, you did prove a point. You didn't like how a particular state did business, so instead of going to a state that you preferred, you whined to the feds about it until you got your way.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Uhhh... libertarians are not against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Not that simple. There has always been a strong Christian wingnut subset to the Lib movement. The long-beards running the Ur-Lib July 4 party conventions that used to be televised on PBS used to be split right down the middle between the "anti-abortion, prayer in schools, ACLU bad, home school your kids to keep them from ever meeting black people" yahoos and the "minarchist, abolish the FDA, ACLU good, Ayn Rand is the love of my life" venture cap azz-hats. The former hated the gayz because JESUS WEPT!!!11!. The latter believed the govt should leave the gays alone because the govt should leave everybody alone.

There is no single Libertarian voice on gay marriage the way there is on say guns (yay!) or taxes (boo!).
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Actually, you did prove a point. You didn't like how a particular state did business, so instead of going to a state that you preferred, you whined to the feds about it until you got your way.
Click to expand...

Which is just good federalism. The hypocrisy gets introduced when the anti-federalists go running to Mommy when particular states legalize weed. "States Rights" ends where their whims begin.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Actually, you did prove a point. You didn't like how a particular state did business, so instead of going to a state that you preferred, you whined to the feds about it until you got your way.
Click to expand...

Just curious, but what rights do you consider to be at the whims of an individual state that are now currently Fed enforced? Interracial marriage, birth control, interracial schools? Might be good to spell it out for us.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
Just curious, but what rights do you consider to be at the whims of an individual state that are now currently Fed enforced? Interracial marriage, birth control, interracial schools? Might be good to spell it out for us.
Click to expand...

A consistent anti-federalist would say a state has full sovereignty except for the few specific federal powers explicitly delineated in the Constitution. So, a state can't coin money or raise an army or conduct treaties because those powers are exclusively reserved for the federal government. Since marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, a state has the power to do anything with marriage that its state constitution under the adjudication of state courts allows. The federal government has no standing unless a specific federal power is infringed.

So, for example, Texas could ban gay marriage, Mississippi could ban mixed race marriage, and West Virginia could ban marriage not between siblings, while California could ban same race marriage and Vermont could ban all marriage because it gets in the way of the worship of mushrooms and Champ.

Which is great until the Iowa same race, non-sibling, gay couple moves to California, West Virginia or Texas.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
A consistent anti-federalist would say a state has full sovereignty except for the few specific federal powers explicitly delineated in the Constitution. So, a state can't coin money or raise an army or conduct treaties because those powers are exclusively reserved for the federal government. Since marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, a state has the power to do anything with marriage that its state constitution under the adjudication of state courts allows. The federal government has no standing unless a specific federal power is infringed.

So, for example, Texas could ban gay marriage, Mississippi could ban mixed race marriage, and West Virginia could ban marriage not between siblings, while California could ban same race marriage and Vermont could ban all marriage because it gets in the way of the worship of mushrooms and Champ.

Which is great until the Iowa same race, non-sibling, gay couple moves to California, West Virginia or Texas.
Click to expand...

You could make the exact same arguments regarding "pistol permits" (which are illegal according to the Second Amendment as it is)...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top