Has Trump accomplished solutions to decades-old problems?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 29
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Obama could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Democrat presidents could have done these things, but none did. 
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Does he deserve 5 more, or what?

#2
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
He does. Of course.
#3
skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,012
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
How exactly do you believe that Obama didn't recover the economy?

By the time Trump went into office the economy was already steadily recovering

Topic's author
#4
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@skittlez09
For the simple reason that Obama's "recovery" was effective only because it was induced by artificial application in three iterations of quantitative easement; essentially flooding the market with printed money to buy government bonds [and adding to the debt]. This had unintended consequences. First, the July 2011 loss of the US triple-A credit rating, costing us added billions of dollars in interest-added debt. Second, each infusion, while having the effect of a market rise, each infusion and boost was followed by a decline, simply because the market could not sustain the boost by natural sustained growth. In the end, had the market, then, been a sustained rise such as we have seen over the last three years [until the last 3-weeks which is not a market-driven loss, but by the effects of Covid-19] Trump would not have taken over at DJIA 18,800 pointss [approx]; he would have inherited a market of 5,000 to 6,000 points greater.  Those are the combined losses that occurred during the market in Obama's administration. All things considered, Obama's economy barely broke even.
By contrast, the market since Trump's inauguration [really, since his election] has grown on its own natural confidence by investors, not by Q.E.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Most economists credit Trump for improving the basic foundations of the economy by enacting policies that encourage domestic investment and lower unemployment.

While Obama may have targetted a handful of industries with targeted subsidies (like green energy and GM), Trump gave every industry a hand up with a combination of tax cuts and deregulation, which are the polar opposite of Obama's policies. There is no sane reason to credit Obama for the state of the economy today since Obama enacted polar opposite economic policies from the ones in effect today. (almost all of Obama's economic policies have been reverted or nullified by Trump)
Topic's author
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
In addition, we downplay the effect tat Trump is having by pushing new trade deals.  I believe the reason GDP has lagged for so long, regardless of DJiA performance - last 3 weeks excepted, but which has the obvious exterior cause - is because of the 40-year effect caused by the continuous negative export/import ratio from disastrous trade deals Trump has been harping about ever since his campaign. That he is correcting the negative trend will see that ratio reverse to a net positive export condition, and GDP will soar. The trade ratio right now is the only factor of GDP [consumer spending, business investment, government spending and net positive export] that is not pumping on all cylinders.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
The only real room for criticism on Trump was with his tariffs. His long term plan was to take the political capital he earned by building up the economy and invest that capital with tariffs in order to gain something far more valuable. A shifting of production markets out of China and back home domestically and the shifting of supply chains from China to more reliable countries along the Pacific Rim like Vietnam and South Korea.
With the recent virus outbreak, you can see why it's of vital national interest.

In fact, every president before him did absolutely zero to stop the shifting of markets and supply chains into China, some even encouraging it.

Presidents before Trump were locked into a ridiculous paradigm where the only two politically viable choices to get other countries to align with the USA, were either defensively through monetary appeasement or offensively through strength in arms and conflict.

Trump opted for neither and used the offensive strength of the Dollar, Tariffs, and Sanctions to get countries to cooperate.
Topic's author
#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Right on, bro.
#9
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Done something for an apartheid state that disenfranchises and steals the land and property from Palestinians? Okay. 

Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy made tax cuts. Also, Trump's tax cuts were inherently flawed as they favored the wealthy. Proper tax cuts would apply more towards commoners rather than the wealthy.

Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Black unemployment has declined under several other presidents.

Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
What has Trump done positively regarding Iran? He escalated tensions to nearly starting a war with them.

Obama could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
The economy recovered in 2008. Also, you're overestimating the amount of power the President has over the economy.

All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
Fair point.



Topic's author
#10
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@triangle.128k
Done something for an apartheid state that disenfranchises and steals the land and property from Palestinians?
I will have you recall that II Samuel and I Chronicles chronicle the story of David's purchase of King Araunah's threshing floor and surrounding land [Araunah was a Jebusite - look him up] for 50 shekels of silver. The land belonged then to David, and on that threshing floor his son, Solomon built the Temple. No one has ever purchased the land from David's descendants, but occupied it all the same, so let's not quibble over who owns the land.

Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history
Yes, Kennedy did, but it was not largest. And so you complain that Trump's tax cut favored the rich. Who pays more in tax volume, forget percentage. You want to complain about the rich? What's stopping you from joining them? The mirror is your answer. Change that.

Black unemployment has declined under several other presidents.

Not under Johnson. Don't read more into what I write than that. He signed the Civil Rights Act under duress of historic perspective, not because he supported it. I'll wager you were not alive then. I was, and was well aware of who favored civil rights, and approved it, and who merely usurped it as a political ploy.

What has Trump done positively regarding Iran?
Trump cancelled the deal. Too bad Oba'a was afraid to make it a treaty - far more difficult to erase a treaty, isn't it? Oba'a was not after a long-term deal; just to get through his presidency, and I'll guarantee he didn't care a farthing after that. But it was a pathetic deal that would hand nukes to Iran in ten years. That's a deal? For whom? What did WE get out of the deal. Its a figure south of one. Actually, given the cash given to Iran, it's south of zero.

The economy recovered in 2008. 
The economy crashed in 2008. Get your history straight. And, no, it did not recover in 2010, either, although Biden proudly claimed it the "Summer of Recovery." Well, it recovered so well, we lost our AAA credit rating in summer 2011, costing us billions in added interest debt. Don't forget Q.E., either. That was artificial firing of the economy. lLook at the results, Every boost the market had by Q.E. was followed by a spike down, because you don't stimulate an economy by artificial flooding with cash, every dollar of which raised the debt. Sure, you look at where the market was in 2017 when Trump was inaugurated, at 18,800. Fine, but lets recall that the market rose 1,000 points within days of Trump's election, so give that 1,000 to Trump. You're down to 17,800. Let's look at the market losses after each infusion of Q.E,; three of them. The total of losses against the gains amounted to almost 7,000 points. You're down to 10,000. Before the crash of 2008, and what Oba'a inherited was 8,000. So, what Oba'a managed to raise in 8 years was not 11,000 points, which it should have been without Q.E., if Oba'a financial advisors had a clue what they were doing, because Oba'a was dumb as a post on such matters, but the real Oba'a economy raised it 2,000 points. let's be generous. 3,000. 

They are all fair points.
Topic's author
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
And so you have answered the question you raised first about Trump's tariff policy. A short-term rough patch, a long-term gain in a growing export ratio, which has been lacking by presidents for 40+ years, and finally will turn around by Trump.
#12
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
I will have you recall that II Samuel and I Chronicles chronicle the story of David's purchase of King Araunah's threshing floor and surrounding land [Araunah was a Jebusite - look him up] for 50 shekels of silver. The land belonged then to David, and on that threshing floor his son, Solomon built the Temple. No one has ever purchased the land from David's descendants, but occupied it all the same, so let's not quibble over who owns the land.
You state in your profile that you're a Christian, am I correct? In that case, you contradict yourself. While the land belonged to the Jews back then, the Messiah has since come and the new Israel is that of Christendom. The claims by current "Jews" are illegitimate from a Christian standpoint, considering that they reject the Messiah and follow the Talmud. God's people are the Christians now, those who inherit the tradition of old Judaism while embracing the final truth of the Messiah.

Palestinian Christians identify more with Palestine because of their ethnicity, and because the Israelis hold no sympathy for them as they orchestrate their racist apartheid system.


Trump cancelled the deal. Too bad Oba'a was afraid to make it a treaty - far more difficult to erase a treaty, isn't it? Oba'a was not after a long-term deal; just to get through his presidency, and I'll guarantee he didn't care a farthing after that. But it was a pathetic deal that would hand nukes to Iran in ten years. That's a deal? For whom? What did WE get out of the deal. Its a figure south of one. Actually, given the cash given to Iran, it's south of zero.
I don't think you understand the technology behind nuclear if you believe that nuclear energy automatically opens up the potential for nuclear weapons.

And so you complain that Trump's tax cut favored the rich. Who pays more in tax volume, forget percentage. You want to complain about the rich? What's stopping you from joining them? The mirror is your answer. Change that.
No sh1t dude, the rich have more money and pay a higher volume of taxes.

Perhaps one can join the ultra-wealthy, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people are middle class or working class. To inherently privilege a few people with more than enough luuxury while disenfranchising the vast majority of Americans is immoral. Moreover, a lesser wealth gap inherently makes it easier for the poor to accumulate more wealth, a larger wealth gap makes it much more difficult. It certainly isn't hard to tax those holding on to insane amounts of wealth, from hundreds of millions to billions of dolllars, in order to make life for the 99% of Americans more prosperous. 

I'll wager you were not alive then. I was
Lol. Don't tell me I'm dealing with a boomer here. The most stubborn, decadent, immoral, spoiled, and selfish generation in American history.
Topic's author
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@triangle.128k
In that case, you contradict yourself.
As if Christians were supposed to be at odds with judaism. They are of closer relationship than the two are with Muslims, although all three claim Abrahamic origin. There is not the schism between the two as you suppose, and here's why: "The Law," as understood by Judaism, is more than just the 10 commandments of Exodus. Indeed, a full read of Exodus beyond the 20th chapter reveals more than strictly "the ten commandments." Ancient Jews considered the entirely of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, as "The Law." In later years, Judaism accepted not just the Pentateuch, but "The Prophets" - the later books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc, as "The Law." AS a whole it cmprised not just 10, but over 600 commandments. However, by the early first century, "The Law" was dwindled to acceptance of just Mosaic Law of the Pentatech again. So, when Jesus taught concepts outside of Mosaic Law, they rebelled against him. For example, while "The Law" taught that the act of adultery was a sin [Exodus 20: 14], Jesus taught that the very thought if the act, looking upon a woman in lust was as if committing it [Matthew 5: 28] Consider Matthew 5: 17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus is declaring that the Prophets are to be accepted, which the Pharisees and scribes had dismissed. And, "For I say into you, That unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5: 20] In Jesus Christ, not in the Law of Moses, or the Prophets added to it, is the fulfillment, by righteousness to the Law as decreed by Jesus Christ, which is greater than "The Law" of all the Old Testament, of the kingdom of heaven. It requires more than devotion to 600 commandments. It requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit, being poor in spirit, mourning, meekness, hunger and thirst after righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, persecuted for righteousness, love your enemies. More than that, even. I am not belittling the Jews, here. I'm only saying they do not yet accept the fulfillment of Jesus Christ. However, in many respects, they are more dedicated than a lot of Christians in following their law, and blessed are they for it.

I don't think you understand the technology behind nuclear if you believe that nuclear energy automatically opens up the potential for nuclear weapons.
As if Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons. I did not draw a distinction between energy and nukes;  you just did. Don't accuse me of your distinction. Perhaps the beginning of your charge in three words ought to suggest the relevance of what follows.

No sh1t dude, the rich have more money
More complaining. I repeat: instead of complaining, be rich. I repeat: what's stopping you? Stop complaining, get to work. Are you stuck in a loop working for money? Put it to work for you. Break the mirror.

Lol. Don't tell me I'm dealing with a boomer here. 
Lol? We didn't use that excuse, bud. Your generation seems adept at it, but not much else. We appear decadent, etc, because you don't seem to get the paradigm I just described above. We put our money to work, and you feel entitled to it. Make you own! Money is not made by entitlement, and those who believe it is are just socialists who don't get it that Marx left you nothing but. You complain that SS and Medicare are just socialist programs. Ever hear of FICA taxes. Do you have a clue what they are? It's on your paystub. It's your money paid on every paycheck to fund you SS and Medicare. You employer matches your payment; money you never see, but it's yours. By the time you have worked a full career, you've paid enough to fund over 90% of your SS and Medicare, Your money. Not anybody else's. The balance of of the ~10% is earned interest on your FiCA account. Not socialist. A capitalist investment plan. of curse, you're meant to invest more of your money so that by the time your retire, you have a nest egg to depend on so you don't have to be entitled. Get t? Nope. Not yet. You're not finished laughing and complaining, yet.
#14
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@fauxlaw
He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
?
One Google search shows just how little research you did before commenting this.
Link: "Roosevelt prioritized economic recovery from the Great Depression and victory in World War II above humanitarian crises overseas. There was very little public pressure from the American people or from the US Congress to take action to increase immigration or to rescue European Jews."

Guess people wanted their country to be fixed before going cross country and telling other people to fix their things. 

Given that the very first thing you said is completely unfair on what was going on I think it is fair for me to not spend my time researching on the other things you said since it doesn't seem like you have researched what you have said whatsoever. 

Topic's author
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There was very little public pressure from the American people...
What research did you do relative to Roosevelt, himself? He was the subject of my criticism, not the people or Congress. Stay on point. Roosevelt knew there were horrific crimes being committed by the Nazis in death camps. What did Roosevelt do about it? Not a bloody thing. In this regard, he was just doing the bidding of his Party, and it hasn't changed since. Kind of like what the Democrats thought about civil rights a generation later in the South, which the Democrats controlled, then. Why do you think they lost the South? Look at the voting record of 1964's Civil Rights Act. Were it not for Republicans, it would have never passed. Democrats are not the tolerant people they like to sell.
#16
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
FDR knew about the Nazi genocide camps in 1942, but decided to do nothing because it would ultimately be harmful, there were 2 options presented

1. bomb the railroads
or
2. bomb the barracks

Both options would ultimately be useless due to the fact that the Nazi would force the Jewish people to rebuild it and have harsher conditions, thus no solution was viable. They waited until they reached the camps to liberate them, because it was the safest and most effective way. If there was a way that FDR could have helped, he would have done so. 
#17
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
The Democrats have sponsored the KKK and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats supported slavery, the Republicans were the party against slavery. Now they want to make up for their shortcomings by being a communist state
Topic's author
#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Vader
Bombing should not have been the only option. 
#19
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
The 3rd was waiting around until they invaded Germany, which is the route they took

Probably was that they didn't know about. There were also very limited as well, their main priority was to win war and they didn't want to expend too much resources rescuing the people who were trapped

15 days later

#20
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
As if Christians were supposed to be at odds with judaism. They are of closer relationship than the two are with Muslims, although all three claim Abrahamic origin. There is not the schism between the two as you suppose, and here's why: "The Law," as understood by Judaism, is more than just the 10 commandments of Exodus. Indeed, a full read of Exodus beyond the 20th chapter reveals more than strictly "the ten commandments." Ancient Jews considered the entirely of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, as "The Law." In later years, Judaism accepted not just the Pentateuch, but "The Prophets" - the later books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc, as "The Law." AS a whole it cmprised not just 10, but over 600 commandments. However, by the early first century, "The Law" was dwindled to acceptance of just Mosaic Law of the Pentatech again. So, when Jesus taught concepts outside of Mosaic Law, they rebelled against him. For example, while "The Law" taught that the act of adultery was a sin [Exodus 20: 14], Jesus taught that the very thought if the act, looking upon a woman in lust was as if committing it [Matthew 5: 28] Consider Matthew 5: 17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus is declaring that the Prophets are to be accepted, which the Pharisees and scribes had dismissed. And, "For I say into you, That unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5: 20] In Jesus Christ, not in the Law of Moses, or the Prophets added to it, is the fulfillment, by righteousness to the Law as decreed by Jesus Christ, which is greater than "The Law" of all the Old Testament, of the kingdom of heaven. It requires more than devotion to 600 commandments. It requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit, being poor in spirit, mourning, meekness, hunger and thirst after righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, persecuted for righteousness, love your enemies. More than that, even. I am not belittling the Jews, here. I'm only saying they do not yet accept the fulfillment of Jesus Christ. However, in many respects, they are more dedicated than a lot of Christians in following their law, and blessed are they for it.

Wrong, there is a crystal clear schism between Judaism and Christianity provided that Jews do not accept the Messiah of Jesus Christ while the Christians do. The Talmud literally states that Christ is burning in hell in excrement while Mary was a whore (untrue statements of course, but these are beliefs in the Jewish Talmud). There is no way you can not describe such a discrepancy in beliefs as a schism not existing. God's people are thus, the Christians, not the current Jews of today. The Jews reject Christ and have some nasty things to say about them in their book of the Talmud.

I don't need a lecture. I'm aware of basic theology and history, The Law was a pedagogical instrument to eventually bring about the New Covenant. Parts of it are outdated towards Christians (but not all of it of course), such as wearing mixed fabrics and prohibiting pork consumption because such were cermonial laws of the Israelites. 

Because the Law was a pedagogical instrument to eventually reveal the New Covenant, the Jews are fallen behind and stubborn for not progressing to the New Covenant. As an analogy, imagine education. Christians have been educated in primary to secondary school and have thus went to college. Jews remain stuck in secondary school and refuse to acknowledge college. Instead, they insult and spit on it - contrary to God's will. They are not of the same faith what so ever. 

Now that that's out of the way, let's go back to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Israeli settlements, land theft, and apartheid in Palestine is based on Jewish Supremacy and Zionism. This is contrary to the Christians who have lived in Palestine that have been hurt by such Israeli policies. Therefore, it is absolutely stupid for a self-proclaimed Christian to side with Israeli Jews (who spit on their Lord and Saviour) rather than their bretherin in Christ. 

#21
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
More complaining. I repeat: instead of complaining, be rich. I repeat: what's stopping you? Stop complaining, get to work. Are you stuck in a loop working for money? Put it to work for you. Break the mirror.
Can everybody be rich? No. Am I working to become rich? Perhaps, that's irrelevant. I'm talking about a reforming a system to benefit the majority of Americans. Not everybody can be rich. It is immoral to have a majority of the population suffer while the minority enjoy continued increases in wealth. Additionally, as I stated earlier, a larger wealth gap inherently makes it more difficult for commoners to rise in mobility and become wealthy. 

You're not so much of a Christian now, are you? Are charity and assistance to the poor not part of Christianity? We have the ability to create en economy that can work for the majority of people and provide basic needs to many. Yet, we have an economy that enriches a minority of people. You willingly reject reform to benefit the majority of Americans under some stupid buzzword such as "Socialism." 


Lol? We didn't use that excuse, bud. Your generation seems adept at it, but not much else. We appear decadent, etc, because you don't seem to get the paradigm I just described above. We put our money to work, and you feel entitled to it. Make you own! Money is not made by entitlement, and those who believe it is are just socialists who don't get it that Marx left you nothing but. You complain that SS and Medicare are just socialist programs. Ever hear of FICA taxes. Do you have a clue what they are? It's on your paystub. It's your money paid on every paycheck to fund you SS and Medicare. You employer matches your payment; money you never see, but it's yours. By the time you have worked a full career, you've paid enough to fund over 90% of your SS and Medicare, Your money. Not anybody else's. The balance of of the ~10% is earned interest on your FiCA account. Not socialist. A capitalist investment plan. of curse, you're meant to invest more of your money so that by the time your retire, you have a nest egg to depend on so you don't have to be entitled. Get t? Nope. Not yet. You're not finished laughing and complaining, yet.
Hmm, typical boomer mentality. Baby boomers grew up in the American zenith. Back then, income inequality was significantly less than it was now. Opportunities and social mobility were plentiful. That's why high school flunkouts in the 50s to 70s could still attain a decent-paying job and support a family of 6 with a single income. That doesn't happen nowadays, the middle class is nowhere near as prosperous as it once was. Baby boomers are spoiled brats that grew up in great times, only to be careless and decadent consumerists and ruin things for future generations. They then complain about younger generations while not understanding reality.

Thanks for the lecture old man, it wasn't something I don't know. I'm not denying many Americans are irresponsible, but it's still pretty stupid when the spoiled generation of boomers grew up in better times and complain about younger generations for not being as successful because times aren't as great as they once were. 

Oh, and let's not forget that Boomers were behind the counterculture revolution of the 1960s...


Topic's author
#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@triangle.128k
Thanks for the lecture old man, it wasn't something I don't know. I'm not denying many Americans are irresponsible, but it's still pretty stupid when the spoiled generation of boomers grew up in better times and complain about younger generations for not being as successful because times aren't as great as they once were. 

You're welcome for the lecture, burt you styill don't get it. I paid for my college education, 2 PhDs. Well, actually, not to brag, but I had scholarships because I applied myself in high school. I wasn't after a "job." I knew what I wanted to do, planned how to do it, and executed. I have money today because of it. Complain all you want about the inequality of income. That's on each individual for their lack of ambition. period.
#23
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
You're welcome for the lecture, burt you styill don't get it. I paid for my college education, 2 PhDs. Well, actually, not to brag, but I had scholarships because I applied myself in high school. I wasn't after a "job." I knew what I wanted to do, planned how to do it, and executed. I have money today because of it. Complain all you want about the inequality of income. That's on each individual for their lack of ambition. period.
Ignoring all of my other points now and reiterating "uhhh just work harder lmao"? That's not an argument. 
Topic's author
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@triangle.128k
True, it's not an acceptable argument if yours is that you're entitled. But that's on you.
#25
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Am I entitled? No. I simply believe that the system should be designed to ensure the prosperity for the majority of Americans. You would, rather, neglect their needs and perpetuate a system that's ripe for abuse, cronyism, corruption, abd decadence. Government should be by the people, for the people, of the people. Not by the few, for the few, of the few. I don't believe in entrenching an already privileged class to become even more privileged when there's plenty of people beneath them in need. 


Topic's author
#26
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@triangle.128k
What guarantees beyond what you have are necessary to fulfill any desire to be prosperous? Like I said, with the system you have, you can be as prosperous as you want to merely provide what you need, but to also provide what you want. It's a simple formula by applying your own ambition to your own planning and execution to achieve it. Like I said; if that guy in the mirror tells you that you cannot do it without some added guarantee [I had no such in addition to what's already there], then you cannot do it, period. As Yoda said, "Do, or do not. There is no try." So, if it's not working for you, change that guy in the mirror. Am I getting personal responsibility through, here?

Topic's author
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@triangle.128k
You would, rather, neglect their needs and perpetuate a system that's ripe for abuse, cronyism, corruption, abd decadence. 

Wrong, my friend. I contribute 20% of my income to charitable work, plus I take an active role in it by volunteerism. Don't judge me by your perceived paradigms; I don't fit the mold.

What guarantees are you looking for from the government? You are guaranteed a right to exercise your wallet to do more than work for money and stuff it in your piehole. Put it to work for you. Yes, there's corruption galore, but are you compelled to join it? I'm not. Yes, there will always be needy so long as there are people who refuse tyo exercise their ambition. When it comes to the disabled, I draw the line. I do not expect of them the ability to act on their ambition as I can. There but for the grace of God. I help there by cash and volunteerism, too.
But I have no patience for a capable freeloader. None.
#28
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
A lecture about personal responsibility to dodge the topic at hand is not an argument. Never did I once imply or state that people should be freeloaders. However, what I did state was that there was a significant problem with income inequality. Did you directly address that? No, you simply ignored it and stated "ahh stop complaining" and proceeded to rant about personal responsibility. 

Did I ever state that people should be irresponsible and that the government should take care of them? No I did not, quit being an idiot. What I did state was that income inequality and lowering taxes in the rich is problematic. As I stated earlier, it's absolutely stupid to create a tax plan that benefits those with tremendous amounts of wealth while failing to decrease the burden on middle class Americans.
Topic's author
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@triangle.128k
In a free-market system, of course there will be income inequality for the reasons I've already given you: people do not apply an equal element of ambition, let alone equal elements of planning and execution. Hell, some people lack the understanding of their own paystubs, and further lack the confidence, or have an abundance of stupidity, to ask. If you want equality of income, which will never reach the level that can be achieve by the free market, then Bernie is your man. Go suck up to his campaign. Tell you what, after having been acquainted to union mentality as an automotive engineer, when I got out of that racket and into management, I taught my employees how to calculate their individual worth and contribution to the bottom line, then turned them on to justifying by hard numbers why they deserved an increase in pay. With their facts and figures presented to finance, I had no problem justifying their increase, because it would increase the bottom line. Who needed a union to negotiate for them? They could do their own negotiation and make it stick. That's what one can do in a free market, even just an ordinary worker earning an hourly wage. Can you do it?