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.
What the candidates of both parties aren't talking about.....
page: 2share:
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: greencmp
In general, I agree. There is a balance between the two, however.
Totally unrestrained, business will take 'liberties' . Too restrained and we all suffer.
We can see where things need fixing. Where's the candidates on it??
Are they all cowards?
As long as we can agree that it all needs to shrink and that taxes go dramatically down or be eliminated at the federal, state and local level.
Next will be neighborhood taxes, building taxes, floor taxes and room taxes.
a reply to: nwtrucker
They aren't discussing it because;
1) There is no fix without plunging the country into a Depression, and
2) Voters don't want to hear any of that anymore. With the crappiest job market in US history and a record low labor participation rate, i.e. 92 Million out of work, (including myself) the only thing voters are interested in is promises of free stuff! Free College, free housing, free food, free health care, free phones, free cars, the works! People don't care anymore about jobs, because....who wants to go back to work to earn peanuts while making rich people richer?
They aren't discussing it because;
1) There is no fix without plunging the country into a Depression, and
2) Voters don't want to hear any of that anymore. With the crappiest job market in US history and a record low labor participation rate, i.e. 92 Million out of work, (including myself) the only thing voters are interested in is promises of free stuff! Free College, free housing, free food, free health care, free phones, free cars, the works! People don't care anymore about jobs, because....who wants to go back to work to earn peanuts while making rich people richer?
a reply to: TonyS
I'd agree with the plunging the U.S. into a depression, if, and that's a big 'if' ,they only cut the deficit spending.
An Import tariff with, say, a 6 month notice of 10% and increasing by 10 more per cent every six months to around 30% on all manufactured goods would boom things overnight and , perhaps avoid that depression...
I'd agree with the plunging the U.S. into a depression, if, and that's a big 'if' ,they only cut the deficit spending.
An Import tariff with, say, a 6 month notice of 10% and increasing by 10 more per cent every six months to around 30% on all manufactured goods would boom things overnight and , perhaps avoid that depression...
The information and stances are out there and have been stated. It's a shame we have to look for them instead of hear them on mainstream media.
Rand Paul
source
source[edit by]edit on 22-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)
Rand Paul
Most small businesses fail, & government often picks wrong. (Jan 2014)
Cut corporate tax in half to create millions of jobs. (Feb 2013)
Kelo decision was dangerous landmark in US law. (Sep 2012)
Punishing the rich means the poor lose their jobs. (Aug 2012)
Obama's "You didn't build that" insults American workers. (Aug 2012)
Expand lending caps for credit unions to small business. (Mar 2012)
Rated 14% by UFCW, indicating a pro-management voting record. (May 2012)
Click here for 24 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
The sequester is the law of the land: can't compromise on it. (Oct 2013)
We cannot continue to borrow $50,000 per second. (Mar 2013)
Sequester doesn't cut spending; it just slows rate of growth. (Mar 2013)
FactCheck: US borrowing $30,000 per second, not $50,000. (Feb 2013)
Borrowing $50,000 per second is not sustainable. (Feb 2013)
America needs Adam Smith, not Robin Hood. (Feb 2013)
Penny Plan: Each $1 by one penny & balance budget by 2019. (Feb 2013)
Keep the sequester, and increase it to $4T. (Feb 2013)
Not every military dollar is necessary,nor every entitlement. (Aug 2012)
Roll back federal spending to 2008 levels. (Jan 2012)
We are borrowing $40,000 per second. (Jan 2012)
Government not serious about controlling spending. (Feb 2011)
Larger government is not a solution for economy. (Feb 2011)
Bank bailout represented everything wrong with Washington. (Feb 2011)
Debt crisis is approaching a point of no return. (Feb 2011)
Bank bailout was bad policy & helped no banks in KY. (Oct 2010)
No federal bailouts of private industry. (Jul 2010)
Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)
Sponsored bill increasing debt limit to $16.7 trillion. (Jul 2011)
Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge. (Jan 2012)
Disapprove of increasing the debt limit. (Jan 2012)
Sponsored auditing the Fed & its actions on mortgage loans. (Feb 2013)
Endorsed Liberty Candidate: End the Federal Reserve. (Sep 2010)
source
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)93% has joined the chorus of Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress opposed to granting President Barack Obama’s request for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) which would fast-track the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Pacific Rim trade deal. “I’ve told leadership I’m a ‘no’ vote” on trade promotion authority,” Paul said in New Hampshire, according to WMUR. “I’m hesitant to give blanket authority on stuff we haven’t seen. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be a time I could be for it, if I’d seen the trade agreement, and it’s fine.” “I still might vote for the trade agreement, but I hate giving up power. We give up so much power from Congress to the presidency, and with them being so secretive on the treaty, it just concerns me what’s in the treaty,” Paul added.
source[edit by]edit on 22-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Greathouse
Yes, there has been a number of speeches and press conferences on the subject earlier, by other potential candidates, as well.
Since the individual announcements for candidacy, none, including Paul, have made this a dominant issue.
One would think that making public the members and details of the TPP would kick anyone's numbers up by double digits.
If anyone has need of it it's Paul, poll-wise.....
Yes, there has been a number of speeches and press conferences on the subject earlier, by other potential candidates, as well.
Since the individual announcements for candidacy, none, including Paul, have made this a dominant issue.
One would think that making public the members and details of the TPP would kick anyone's numbers up by double digits.
If anyone has need of it it's Paul, poll-wise.....
a reply to: nwtrucker
I agree no one has made it the dominant issue. The second source from Breitbart is dated May 12 though. As for the polls, I can't think of the last time non-incumbents leading this early in the polls actually won the election. At this point in time normally the serious contenders have been ranked in the high middle.
I agree no one has made it the dominant issue. The second source from Breitbart is dated May 12 though. As for the polls, I can't think of the last time non-incumbents leading this early in the polls actually won the election. At this point in time normally the serious contenders have been ranked in the high middle.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
I'm nor sure if this is a media issue in that they aren't giving much exposure to the biggest issue we face or avoidance by the all candidates, but where's the economic fix? Jobs? Deficit spending issues?
Returning industry to a nation who was the best at it in it's day?
I don't think either of them intend to. I'm just not sure whether or not they are both on the same side or they both know the US has pasted the point of no return. When you have govts looting its own citizens through property confiscation and other wealth strapping measures they can come with, you know the collapase cannot be far away.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TonyS
I'd agree with the plunging the U.S. into a depression, if, and that's a big 'if' ,they only cut the deficit spending.
An Import tariff with, say, a 6 month notice of 10% and increasing by 10 more per cent every six months to around 30% on all manufactured goods would boom things overnight and , perhaps avoid that depression...
And plunge the world into a trade war?
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: greencmp
In general, I agree. There is a balance between the two, however.
Totally unrestrained, business will take 'liberties' . Too restrained and we all suffer.
We can see where things need fixing. Where's the candidates on it??
Are they all cowards?
They're waiting in the third parties. You can't get through a primary for a congress seat these days without being an extremist, and it's the primary that matters thanks to gerrymandering. The president can't do anything, and the debate rules prevent all non democrat/republican candidates from even being in the debate.
The fix is in building a new party up, the existing ones are too entrenched and set in their ways to be changed from within.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: greencmp
In general, I agree. There is a balance between the two, however.
Totally unrestrained, business will take 'liberties' . Too restrained and we all suffer.
We can see where things need fixing. Where's the candidates on it??
Are they all cowards?
They're waiting in the third parties. You can't get through a primary for a congress seat these days without being an extremist, and it's the primary that matters thanks to gerrymandering. The president can't do anything, and the debate rules prevent all non democrat/republican candidates from even being in the debate.
The fix is in building a new party up, the existing ones are too entrenched and set in their ways to be changed from within.
We don't normally agree, but I agree completely with this post.
The worse part is that for all the posturing, both major parties work together to keep independent parties from getting a seat at the table. And individual voters & small donors don't help, because many of them treat the major political parties like cults. So they'd rather vote for a member of their party than for a 3rd party candidate, even if they agree with the 3rd party candidate or disagree with their own party's candidate.
a reply to: TonyS
A fuller description would include exemption for both Canada and Mexico. (That wouldn't change the trade war point however.)
It's my believe that any 'fix' of the U.S. economy will be traumatic for many no matter which way it goes. Toes will be stepped on, perhaps stomped on- and protest almost a given.
In this case, the WTO seems to have as it's goal the fettering of the U.S. economy, at least for the average person, that is.
The rest of the world, depending on the country, would obviously decry this move and yes, a trade war would likely result.
My premise is based on what's best for the U.S., not the world in general. I am NOT prepared to have this nation suffer collapse, economically, in favor of other nations' profit.
As a huge net importer of manufactured goods, the returns from those tariffs could be used to compensate those U.S. companies to suffer from the inevitable backlash. Perhaps re-tooling to take advantage of the boom in expanding internal growth or a subsidy to maintaining export levels.
Also, exemptions could be made as necessary.
I restrict this tariff to manufactured goods.
It also would cause quite an inflationary period in the U.S. as basic costs would jump. This should be off-set be the huge jump in labor demand and higher wages. (It would also handle the illegal' issue as we'd need every one of them....
Painful? Yes. Workable? Maybe. I'm no expert....
A fuller description would include exemption for both Canada and Mexico. (That wouldn't change the trade war point however.)
It's my believe that any 'fix' of the U.S. economy will be traumatic for many no matter which way it goes. Toes will be stepped on, perhaps stomped on- and protest almost a given.
In this case, the WTO seems to have as it's goal the fettering of the U.S. economy, at least for the average person, that is.
The rest of the world, depending on the country, would obviously decry this move and yes, a trade war would likely result.
My premise is based on what's best for the U.S., not the world in general. I am NOT prepared to have this nation suffer collapse, economically, in favor of other nations' profit.
As a huge net importer of manufactured goods, the returns from those tariffs could be used to compensate those U.S. companies to suffer from the inevitable backlash. Perhaps re-tooling to take advantage of the boom in expanding internal growth or a subsidy to maintaining export levels.
Also, exemptions could be made as necessary.
I restrict this tariff to manufactured goods.
It also would cause quite an inflationary period in the U.S. as basic costs would jump. This should be off-set be the huge jump in labor demand and higher wages. (It would also handle the illegal' issue as we'd need every one of them....
Painful? Yes. Workable? Maybe. I'm no expert....
a reply to: Aazadan
The 'third party candidates' have worked their way around those restrictions, in both parties, by labeling themselves and maintaining membership within the two existing parties.
'Tea party', 'Libertarians', Greens, even communists are well established inside the two. There is an advantage to that in that the main parties have to 'deal with' and modify their positions, to some degree, to avoid an outright split into a third party.
Likely, it isn't enough of a change however.
Do you really think that sufficient change will result, third party traction or internal policy shift, before the next Presidential elections?
Me neither.
Without that change, I'm betting there won't be another opportunity to 'fix' this mess. Four years down the road? Perhaps eight?
Sorry, I do not believe we can survive in any resemblance of the founding fathers vision of this nation that long.
I sincerely believe were in a now or never point.
The 'third party candidates' have worked their way around those restrictions, in both parties, by labeling themselves and maintaining membership within the two existing parties.
'Tea party', 'Libertarians', Greens, even communists are well established inside the two. There is an advantage to that in that the main parties have to 'deal with' and modify their positions, to some degree, to avoid an outright split into a third party.
Likely, it isn't enough of a change however.
Do you really think that sufficient change will result, third party traction or internal policy shift, before the next Presidential elections?
Me neither.
Without that change, I'm betting there won't be another opportunity to 'fix' this mess. Four years down the road? Perhaps eight?
Sorry, I do not believe we can survive in any resemblance of the founding fathers vision of this nation that long.
I sincerely believe were in a now or never point.
edit on 23-5-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: nwtrucker
I really think the "fix" is take the boot off of everybody's neck and allow people to keep their money and conduct business unencumbered by interventionism. No federal program will help everybody in the way that that will.
taking the "boot off of everybody's neck" is what caused the 2008 recession....."unencumbered by intervention"....yeah right, that was a good policy (rolls eyes)
a reply to: nwtrucker
No, you can't shoot right for the presidency. You need to build up, first getting people in the House and then the Senate. Probably even starting lower by electing state level representatives to build a base.
As far as now or never goes, people have felt that things are now or never ever since I first started following politics and that was 15 years ago. Maybe we really are on the brink right now but chances we're not in much different a position as we were in 2004 or 2008.
No, you can't shoot right for the presidency. You need to build up, first getting people in the House and then the Senate. Probably even starting lower by electing state level representatives to build a base.
As far as now or never goes, people have felt that things are now or never ever since I first started following politics and that was 15 years ago. Maybe we really are on the brink right now but chances we're not in much different a position as we were in 2004 or 2008.
a reply to: Aazadan
You could be correct, however, neither one of us has seen a third party evolution during our lifetimes.
We'd have to go back to the Republican-Whig transition for historical precedent and while I have a loose understanding of the mechanics of it, I haven't any idea as to the time frame to it.
I'd guess that your post suggests no major change is likely to occur in this cycle. I'd agree with that.
Having some candidate, at some point while having a far larger audience due to the election coverage, question the economics issues, be it the WTO, or it's apparent next level, the TPP.
That candidate would benefit hugely from opening that can of worms and will win grass-roots support....while losing top tier backing at the same time. (that's assuming the major media wouldn't avoid covering like it was the plague...
Bottom line exposing the subject by a candidate may be the fastest route to a third party option......more motivation for people to support it. Just my thoughts on the matter.
You could be correct, however, neither one of us has seen a third party evolution during our lifetimes.
We'd have to go back to the Republican-Whig transition for historical precedent and while I have a loose understanding of the mechanics of it, I haven't any idea as to the time frame to it.
I'd guess that your post suggests no major change is likely to occur in this cycle. I'd agree with that.
Having some candidate, at some point while having a far larger audience due to the election coverage, question the economics issues, be it the WTO, or it's apparent next level, the TPP.
That candidate would benefit hugely from opening that can of worms and will win grass-roots support....while losing top tier backing at the same time. (that's assuming the major media wouldn't avoid covering like it was the plague...
Bottom line exposing the subject by a candidate may be the fastest route to a third party option......more motivation for people to support it. Just my thoughts on the matter.
a reply to: Aazadan
P.S. One only has to look back to the last Presidential election and see how fast one candidate trumped another, came out of nowhere and won the Presidency.
Granted, a President, by himself, would have a very difficult time instituting meaningful change...wait a minute, there's this current President again, he's set a pretty strong precedent for change no matter the system.....
P.S. One only has to look back to the last Presidential election and see how fast one candidate trumped another, came out of nowhere and won the Presidency.
Granted, a President, by himself, would have a very difficult time instituting meaningful change...wait a minute, there's this current President again, he's set a pretty strong precedent for change no matter the system.....
a reply to: Aazadan
An interesting article posted on Fox.
I think a Presidential election brings a different dynamic into play that mid-term elections.
Allowing the lack of traction by Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, any sliming by the left media could be countered by the Tea Party.
Also, a few more gains in the house is possible if the trend continues in the state primaries.
Who really knows?
www.foxnews.com...
An interesting article posted on Fox.
I think a Presidential election brings a different dynamic into play that mid-term elections.
Allowing the lack of traction by Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, any sliming by the left media could be countered by the Tea Party.
Also, a few more gains in the house is possible if the trend continues in the state primaries.
Who really knows?
www.foxnews.com...
Put import export tariffs back in place, the factories will come back.
this is exactly right.
However, since the ones with the factories are the ones paying the politicians.......
a reply to: nwtrucker
I think we're getting close, the tea party keeps gaining more power and it's going to fracture Republicans sooner or later. The left doesn't really have something comparable.
I don't know about fast, Obama was the sole victory of Democrats in 2004 and a lot of people were looking to him to be the next coming of JFK. Young, minority, articulate, great speaker, good ideas, government experience, academic background. There was a lot for people to like about Obama. In 2008 Obama took that momentum and challenged Hillary and her coronation, it was a very tough battle with the two being neck and neck. The campaign got so dirty that it got to the point where the party stopped holding primaries and settled everything in a back room deal. Obama got the presidency but in exchange he ended up making massive concessions to health care, and Hillary got Secretary of State. Two unmitigated disasters.
The general campaign itself was really more about Obama vs Paul than Obama vs McCain. Ron Paul had and continues to have a very large amount of support among millennials, and the campaign came down to if Obama could convince them to vote for him rather than vote 3rd party (as the young are more likely to do).
If the Patriot Act isn't renewed I think Rand Paul has all but secured himself the primary and possibly the general. If it is, I think he'll end up not getting the support he needs (he's really banking on this vote as a major success). If Rand doesn't go far I think Walker will, because Walker knows how to win an election. That said, I think Walker is too conservative to win the general but it really comes down to who the Democrat choice is. I could see myself voting for either Sanders or Paul and depending on the campaign Walker but of the mentioned options he's a very distant third choice. But I vote for president not based on stances on issues, but rather ability to come up with unique plans and some ability to lead.
I see the president as a leader, they're not there to do what I say but rather to come up with something I couldn't think of and chart a path. It's congress (particularly the house) where I vote to represent my viewpoint and have a yes man. I want a president to be innovative and full of new ideas we can try because some of them might work.
I think we're getting close, the tea party keeps gaining more power and it's going to fracture Republicans sooner or later. The left doesn't really have something comparable.
P.S. One only has to look back to the last Presidential election and see how fast one candidate trumped another, came out of nowhere and won the Presidency.
I don't know about fast, Obama was the sole victory of Democrats in 2004 and a lot of people were looking to him to be the next coming of JFK. Young, minority, articulate, great speaker, good ideas, government experience, academic background. There was a lot for people to like about Obama. In 2008 Obama took that momentum and challenged Hillary and her coronation, it was a very tough battle with the two being neck and neck. The campaign got so dirty that it got to the point where the party stopped holding primaries and settled everything in a back room deal. Obama got the presidency but in exchange he ended up making massive concessions to health care, and Hillary got Secretary of State. Two unmitigated disasters.
The general campaign itself was really more about Obama vs Paul than Obama vs McCain. Ron Paul had and continues to have a very large amount of support among millennials, and the campaign came down to if Obama could convince them to vote for him rather than vote 3rd party (as the young are more likely to do).
If the Patriot Act isn't renewed I think Rand Paul has all but secured himself the primary and possibly the general. If it is, I think he'll end up not getting the support he needs (he's really banking on this vote as a major success). If Rand doesn't go far I think Walker will, because Walker knows how to win an election. That said, I think Walker is too conservative to win the general but it really comes down to who the Democrat choice is. I could see myself voting for either Sanders or Paul and depending on the campaign Walker but of the mentioned options he's a very distant third choice. But I vote for president not based on stances on issues, but rather ability to come up with unique plans and some ability to lead.
I see the president as a leader, they're not there to do what I say but rather to come up with something I couldn't think of and chart a path. It's congress (particularly the house) where I vote to represent my viewpoint and have a yes man. I want a president to be innovative and full of new ideas we can try because some of them might work.