It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Answer
The reason for the gridlock was simple: no one wanted to take any political risks with elections coming up.
It actually blew up in the faces of the Democrats, obviously.
Politics now works this way:
Step 1) Campaign.
Step 2) Get elected.
Step 3) Do just enough to pander to your core voters while also satisfying the big-money donors that really got you into office.
Step 4) Stop doing anything that could upset any segment of voters.
Step 5) Start campaigning again.
Step 6) Do absolutely nothing until you get reelected.
Rinse. Repeat.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Answer
The reason for the gridlock was simple: no one wanted to take any political risks with elections coming up.
It actually blew up in the faces of the Democrats, obviously.
Politics now works this way:
Step 1) Campaign.
Step 2) Get elected.
Step 3) Do just enough to pander to your core voters while also satisfying the big-money donors that really got you into office.
Step 4) Stop doing anything that could upset any segment of voters.
Step 5) Start campaigning again.
Step 6) Do absolutely nothing until you get reelected.
Rinse. Repeat.
When did politics ever work different? That's how politics has always worked. The only thing that has changed is how much and what people do during step 3.
originally posted by: netbound
Enforced desegregation of Southern schools
Introduced legislation to reform healthcare and welfare
Established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Signed into law the Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act
Ended US involvement in Vietnam in 1973 through the Paris Peace Accords
Opened diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China in 1972
Initiated détente with the Soviet Union, leading to SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
I believe those were considerable accomplishments of the Nixon Administration, deserving of the recognition and credit due. Now, I ask myself, “Which of those issues credited to Richard Nixon would today’s Republican Party endorse? Also, would Richard Nixon be conservative enough to satisfy today’s Republican agenda?” And the answers that come to my mind are, “None and No”.
Norway's modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You're arguing for a perpetual-taxation state. Welfare generally doesn't get taxed because it doesn't equal out to be over the minimum taxable income level (or what bit that does go above that threshhold doesn't replace the amount received). But that's just part of it--there is a ridiculous level of taxation at every stage of the trickle-up economic theory that you described.
While I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, either, there's a simple counter to your argument based just on your example of wealthy people investing/saving their money: Investing, just like purchasing products or services, provides a company with more income in order to do the same things that you mention personal welfare dollars do. Also, on the saving side of things, money in savings accounts at banks are what allow banks to provide those with less income to get approved on loan applications or get credit lines or cards. Without that hoarded-away money, they couldn't do those things. Plus, the financial institutions make money on both the saved money AND the loaned money, so it also gives them profits that they otherwise wouldn't have, just by the money sitting in their banks.
ETA: Also, keep in mind that your example--Norway--has slightly more than half of the population of New York City proper. If the U.S.'s population were tiny, but made nearly the same GDP amount per capita (actually, Norway's is a tad higher), it'd be very simple to keep a welfare system like Norway's in check and running efficiently. The problem with the U.S. government is that nothing it does is efficient--the cost wouldn't justify the system. Oh, and then there's that
Norway's modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Aazadan
I absolutely disagree with your comment about the size of the population not meaning much--anything as large as the United States that tries to implement centralized, one-size-fits-all systems tends to run inefficiently, have a crappy ROI in that system or program, and generate ridiculous levels of fraud, waste, and abuse.
As for the comment about "rich" businessmen (not all trickle-down economies start at massive corporations) being able to invest overseas--honestly, that's driven by two main factors: The cost of doing business in America (which includes ridiculous corporate taxation) being so high for large companies, and that they have the right to do what they will with their own money.
That latter factor is the big one that I think you and I may not see eye-to-eye on. Prior to about 1913, our nation ran perfectly well without an income tax, and it could do so again in a less bloated, less intrussive model of government. The problem is that the beast that passes laws to take our money is on a feeding frenzy, constantly needing more and more and more. But the thing is that, in a truly free system, the monetary compensation that we earn for our time and skills and knowledge should be ours and ours alone--every last dime of it. If the gov'ts want to place taxes on goods and services, that a different discussion altogether, but we should not be taxed specifically because we make a living in America.
THAT is the crux of my reasoning behind not liking the welfare system--it redistributes my wealth into areas that I have no say, and it does so badly and inefficiently. But I think we'll agree to disagree with each other on this one. At least no one called anyone names
originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous
“We actually reached a milestone here that I think is noteworthy for the Senate. We just passed our fifteenth roll call vote on an amendment, on this bill, which is more roll call votes on amendments than the entire United States Senate in all of 2014.”
This is a direct quote from the new Senate Majority Leader in America. In less than a month they have been more productive than Senator Reid in all of 2014! This seems so obvious that Reid was keeping the Senate gridlocked and refusing to vote for many things. It's great to see Congress trying to make changes instead of being stuck fighting over petty things.
I know this is considered a conservative website, but the quote is still true and this still did happen.
Link
Does everyone see this as a good thing or something that is useless and doesn't change anything?
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I absolutely disagree with your comment about the size of the population not meaning much--anything as large as the United States that tries to implement centralized, one-size-fits-all systems tends to run inefficiently, have a crappy ROI in that system or program, and generate ridiculous levels of fraud, waste, and abuse.
That latter factor is the big one that I think you and I may not see eye-to-eye on. Prior to about 1913, our nation ran perfectly well without an income tax, and it could do so again in a less bloated, less intrussive model of government. The problem is that the beast that passes laws to take our money is on a feeding frenzy, constantly needing more and more and more.
At least no one called anyone names
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Example: At one time, the representative for North Carolina could represent the vast majority of the people because the vast majority of the people shared the same religion, beliefs, goals and had the same basic job. Today...no one can represent all the people of North Carolina fairly because there is no vast majority. Too many people would be "left behind" and not represented.
originally posted by: carewemust
MAY 24, 2016
Does Harry Reid have any influence these days? Says he'll fight Hillary Clinton's V.P. nominee if he/she doesn't fit certain parameters.
Story: www.foxnews.com...
originally posted by: xuenchen
Obama's new "quantity" standard will be how many vetoes he signs.
...
His veto statements will fill libraries.
To date, according to GovTrack, just shy of 3,000 bills have passed both houses of Congress during Obama’s terms, and he has rejected only 0.1 percent, compared with the average veto rate of 1.9 percent for all other presidents since 1973 (not including Obama).
When facing “friendly” Congresses (president’s party controls both Senate and House): Obama’s veto rate: 0.1 percent All other presidents (1973-2008): 0.7 percent When facing split-control Congresses: Obama’s veto rate: 0 percent All other presidents (1973-2008): 3 percent When facing opposition-controlled Congresses: Obama’s current veto rate: 0 percent Obama’s veto rate if he vetoes Keystone: 1.4 percent All other presidents (1973-2008): 3 percent
George H. W. Bush[3][4] 29 15 44 1 2% 2%
Bill Clinton 36 1 37 2 5% 6%
George W. Bush 11 1 12 4 33% 36%
Barack Obama 8 1 9 0 0% 0%