From Lincoln to Trump

[Daddie O]

Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

[Robert]

Watched it, to narrow in scope to be useful and not really correct. Plus doesn't mention anything of the changes in the Democratic party basically becoming socialists now either. The last line basically says Republicans need to decide on what their party should be. I think with Trump that was already decided.

[Daddie O]

In what way was it not correct?  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

[Serk]

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

[Serk]

In what way was it not correct?  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqq5q11uK0M

[Daddie O]

Serk, that video is mistitled.  It isn't that Hillary can't explain the difference, it is that she wouldn't.  The reason is, she is running for office.  She wants the support of as many people as possible, and does not want to disenfranchise any potential voters. 

How about your thoughts on the video I posted?

[Robert]

In what way was it not correct?  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

Pretty much to me they are it would be easier to list the differences than how they are the same. The video talks as if the war was about slavery but in reality the war was about the north taking the profit and resources from the south. This is a good description of only one point in the video that is wrong. Lincoln was in fact very much a railroad man and a very well paid lawyer. Many of the problems the south saw more than one hundred fifty years ago are being reiterated today. The "oppressive" federal government. High taxes(tariffs before the war). A growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens. Sound familiar? They were complaints from 1816 on in the south.


http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm
"It is curious how indifferent historians have been to the South's complaint about the tariff, often dismissing it as a scapegoat for the section's own economic shortcomings or as a disguised form of slavery conflict," writes historian Clyde N. Wilson (in his section of "Slavery, Secession, and Southern History"). "But the plain truth is that [John C.] Calhoun was entirely correct in his opposition to the tariff. Debates about the actual macro- and micro-economic effects of antebellum protection are beside the point. The South, providing the bulk of the Union's exports, sold in an unprotected world market, while all American consumers bought in a highly protected one. And this was to the benefit of one class, no matter how plausibly disguised as a public boon.

The video brings it all to race and color which its not all about either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations
The "Tariff of Abomination" was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. Enacted during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, it was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy

The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by taxing them. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South. The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832. The tariff marked the high point of U.S. tariffs. It was approached, but was not exceeded.

[dinosnake]

In what way was it not correct?  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

And in what way is that not true for Republicans, as well?  One believes in "collective" socialism, where the government helps individuals through governmental benefits including financial "handouts"; and the other is "corporate" socialism, there the government helps business through governmental benefits including financial "handouts".

Maybe if modern "conservatives" would admit that truth, they'd see that they have just as much "socialism" in their belief system as the "liberals" they attempt to denigrate with that word.  They simply believe that giving money and social advantages to business is somehow "fairer" than giving it to an individual because the business is perceived to have the ability to distribute the benefits to many, rather than a single individual.  Somehow, an individual asking or needing a benefit is "greedy" or "slacker", but a business asking or needing a benefit is "economically beneficial".

[dinosnake]

In what way was it not correct?  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

Pretty much to me they are it would be easier to list the differences than how they are the same. The video talks as if the war was about slavery but in reality the war was about the north taking the profit and resources from the south. This is a good description of only one point in the video that is wrong. Lincoln was in fact very much a railroad man and a very well paid lawyer. Many of the problems the south saw more than one hundred fifty years ago are being reiterated today. The "oppressive" federal government. High taxes(tariffs before the war). A growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens. Sound familiar? They were complaints from 1816 on in the south.

Yes, but in today's world the South is just playing Victim.  And doing a damn good job of it at that.  Unlike pre-War times, the inter- and intra-state trading laws are equal, we have almost 100 years of infighting and court decisions that eliminated that very topic of discussion.  Everyone plays on the same playing field, but somehow the South is STILL whining about things "not being fair". 

"Why can't we have [our] religions in all schools?", they whine, while the rest of the country has exactly the same laws to follow.  "Why are our taxes so high", they complain, because somehow the IRS only has a higher tax bracket on the southern states (not); the northern states give more to the government tax system than the southern states yet you don't hear THEM complain as loudly, or as often.

[Oss]

by my definition both are wrong

What does not lift all up is devisive

There was a great star trek episode where 2 peoples were at war

Cant you see, one said, I am black on the right side and he is black on the left side

One of the best scripted lines in any tv show

Of greater concern to me is the criminal outrageous actions of the Democratic candidate this time around and her POTUS protecting her evil ass

[Robert]

In what way was it not correct?  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

Pretty much to me they are it would be easier to list the differences than how they are the same. The video talks as if the war was about slavery but in reality the war was about the north taking the profit and resources from the south. This is a good description of only one point in the video that is wrong. Lincoln was in fact very much a railroad man and a very well paid lawyer. Many of the problems the south saw more than one hundred fifty years ago are being reiterated today. The "oppressive" federal government. High taxes(tariffs before the war). A growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens. Sound familiar? They were complaints from 1816 on in the south.

Yes, but in today's world the South is just playing Victim.  And doing a damn good job of it at that.  Unlike pre-War times, the inter- and intra-state trading laws are equal, we have almost 100 years of infighting and court decisions that eliminated that very topic of discussion.  Everyone plays on the same playing field, but somehow the South is STILL whining about things "not being fair". 

"Why can't we have [our] religions in all schools?", they whine, while the rest of the country has exactly the same laws to follow.  "Why are our taxes so high", they complain, because somehow the IRS only has a higher tax bracket on the southern states (not); the northern states give more to the government tax system than the southern states yet you don't hear THEM complain as loudly, or as often.

I was not addressing this issue in my post, but you say that each state is not supposed to have any say in what they want in their state? Why should Texas a gun state run by the same rules as say New York as far as guns? I think it would be unfair and they should cry out as unfair. Just as you seem to be tired of hearing about them. I wouldn't be so sure about the taxes either if I were you. In NY there is federal,state,local taxes. in some states there is no state or local tax but that is not part of the Federal government.

[3fan4life]

  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

You're right, given the current direction of the Democratic party, Democrats and Communists are now synonyms.

[Daddie O]

Robert,

It's interesting that the current Republican nominee for president has been all for the very same tariffs you describe, yet you are all for them.

"The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by taxing them."  Aren't you also concerned about reducing the importation from  insert country here  to affect their ability to buy goods from us?

This is all off topic though.  You are illustrating the original video I posted though.  You are a white male, from the South, are Republican, and are anti-federal, pro-states rights.  Let me take a wild guess, are you also against a path to citizenship for undocumented workers that are here now?  Are you all for "building a wall" on our southern border?  This is an example of how the "Party of Lincoln" which was pro-federal government, pro-civil rights, has turned into the "Party of Trump" which is anti-fed, anti-civil rights.  This is why it is misleading to say "Well the Republican Party was the one that freed the slaves."  It was the Party of Lincoln that did so, not the Party of Trump that is anti-gay marriage, anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican and wants to build a wall.

The southern Democrats of old have joined the Republican Party, and the northern Republicans of old have joined the Democratic Party.

[Daddie O]

  Democrats and Socialists are not synonyms btw.

You're right, given the current direction of the Democratic party, Democrats and Communists are now synonyms.

[solo1]

Words, Words, words. SOS (Same old Stuff)   We try to out 'history' each other.  It doesn't help today.

Bottom lines:

Hilary is a proven liar, cannot be trusted to tell the truth.  She disregards security safeguards. She desires power above all.

Trump is a person that cannot keep from talking before engaging his brain. He bites the hand that's trying to feed him. He is a big question mark.  He is not a team player (might be good or bad)

Neither candidate is deserving to be installed to the office of the Presidency.

What are the choices?  Not much.  What does discussion do...................Nothing.

 History will not change our present situation.

We have a two party system that doesn't answer to us. The political situation is FUBAR.

Other than that ,every thing is just swell!

[Moonshot_1]

Maybe if modern "conservatives" would admit that truth, they'd see that they have just as much "socialism" in their belief system as the "liberals" they attempt to denigrate with that word.  They simply believe that giving money and social advantages to business is somehow "fairer" than giving it to an individual because the business is perceived to have the ability to distribute the benefits to many, rather than a single individual.  Somehow, an individual asking or needing a benefit is "greedy" or "slacker", but a business asking or needing a benefit is "economically beneficial".
[/quote]

Well this depends a lot on one's perspective doesn't it?

I'll try to keep it fairly simple.

We are a society. As such, we are, by definition, going to have policies that are going to be Socialist in nature.

This is ok....to a point. And many of the policies in the last few decades have exceeded this point and at time obliterated it.

In the context of individual benefits vs. Corporate or business benefits, from my perspective the driving point should be productiveness.

I'd have no issues with individual benefits which were tied to some kind of measure of productiveness.

With the corporate or business benefits (as you describe them) the "benefits" are, in some measure, keeping the business productive. Making product, providing services, hiring employees etc.

There are National Security issues with some of the Corporate "benefits". Some essential businesses such as manufacturing, mining, transportation, must be kept solvent so we, in time of great crisis like a war, have these abilities at hand.

The problem is that the individual benefit part of this has gotten ridiculous.

People immigrate to this country for the promise of benefits.
We've got a whole social class of citizens who have their girls have babies as soon as they can so as to get on the government benefit payroll. This is a generational thing. It's how grandma did it, great grandma did it and Mom did it. Gonna get pregnant to make some money. Yeah!

They don't see this as wrong in any way. It is a rite of passage for them. Their perspective is that this is how it is supposed to work.

Things have gotten way out of whack.

Folks hit hard times. We as a benevolent and kind society should have programs for such folks to fall back on. But the programs must require some kind of productivity or an enforceable promise of it.

And this brings me back to perspective.

I see people get trapped in these government programs. Little incentive to get out of the programs, lots of incentive to stay and work the system.
It's not that I find these folks to be greedy or slackers. It's that I find this system destroying dreams and opportunity. It's that I find these folks not remotely achieving their potential because Our System won't let them.

And that is why I don't like the current individual "benefits" part of the equation.  

Now to be fair here, this benefit thing is being discussed in the context of able-bodied citizens and people. But even if not able-bodied, we should have benefit programs that encourage all folks in reaching their fullest potential.

Socialism isn't that.

Simple as can make it.

[dinosnake]

A thoughtful reply 

And this brings me back to perspective.

I see people get trapped in these government programs. Little incentive to get out of the programs, lots of incentive to stay and work the system.
It's not that I find these folks to be greedy or slackers. It's that I find this system destroying dreams and opportunity. It's that I find these folks not remotely achieving their potential because Our System won't let them.

And, my point in a nutshell.  Conservatives discuss people, individuals, "getting trapped in these governmental programs" but never seem willing to compare, to discuss, when business, industry, gets caught up in the same 'trap'. 

For example: we give billions in farm subsidies, including giving subsidies to large agri-business who do not need the governmental handouts.  Quite a bit of the farming industry would collapse without the government handouts mostly due to noncompetitive overproduction, for example corn, wheat, milk and probably a variety of livestock (meats).  Rather than move on to other agricultural business, it is easier for many farmers to continue doing what they are doing and allow the government to continue to guarantee to buy up their overproduction,  rather than face the possible instability of the open market

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=farm+overproduction&t=ffsb&ia=web

This is where the U.S. government comes up with the millions of pounds of "free" cheese that it gives the poor - it isn't a "handout", the government bought the massive overproduction of cheese in order to guarantee a profit, and market, for whatever the dairy farmers were willing to make.  With millions of pounds of cheese to get rid of, they give it away to the poor to shuffle it off their hands...and the poor get blamed for having their hands out and taking what is given.

Let's not talk about true corporate welfare, like Wal-Mart's ability to earn millions in profits but pay so low that their workers actually qualify for social benefits; or GE who takes in billions in military contract work but gets to file business income returns in Ireland, paying just about nothing in U.S. taxes on those billions in yearly profit.

Nope, nope, no "socialism" here.

[G-Man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VvNoAdtFdk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaJD7iBM_Qg

 

[f6john]

A thoughtful reply 

And this brings me back to perspective.

I see people get trapped in these government programs. Little incentive to get out of the programs, lots of incentive to stay and work the system.
It's not that I find these folks to be greedy or slackers. It's that I find this system destroying dreams and opportunity. It's that I find these folks not remotely achieving their potential because Our System won't let them.

And, my point in a nutshell.  Conservatives discuss people, individuals, "getting trapped in these governmental programs" but never seem willing to compare, to discuss, when business, industry, gets caught up in the same 'trap'. 

For example: we give billions in farm subsidies, including giving subsidies to large agri-business who do not need the governmental handouts.  Quite a bit of the farming industry would collapse without the government handouts mostly due to noncompetitive overproduction, for example corn, wheat, milk and probably a variety of livestock (meats).  Rather than move on to other agricultural business, it is easier for many farmers to continue doing what they are doing and allow the government to continue to guarantee to buy up their overproduction,  rather than face the possible instability of the open market

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=farm+overproduction&t=ffsb&ia=web

This is where the U.S. government comes up with the millions of pounds of "free" cheese that it gives the poor - it isn't a "handout", the government bought the massive overproduction of cheese in order to guarantee a profit, and market, for whatever the dairy farmers were willing to make.  With millions of pounds of cheese to get rid of, they give it away to the poor to shuffle it off their hands...and the poor get blamed for having their hands out and taking what is given.

Let's not talk about true corporate welfare, like Wal-Mart's ability to earn millions in profits but pay so low that their workers actually qualify for social benefits; or GE who takes in billions in military contract work but gets to file business income returns in Ireland, paying just about nothing in U.S. taxes on those billions in yearly profit.

Nope, nope, no "socialism" here.

    You will get little argument from me on your points. Do you have any belief that a Clinton administration would do anything to address these issues you mention? Would Trump? Who are the groups that Clinton or Trump are willing to "attack" "before" election day? Will a senator or congressman from a dairy state vote for dropping the price supports, notice I didn't say democrat or republican. We will all have to consider which candidate will do the most good and the least harm to the country and vote with our heart and our brain.

[baldo]

Maybe if modern "conservatives" would admit that truth, they'd see that they have just as much "socialism" in their belief system as the "liberals" they attempt to denigrate with that word.  They simply believe that giving money and social advantages to business is somehow "fairer" than giving it to an individual because the business is perceived to have the ability to distribute the benefits to many, rather than a single individual.  Somehow, an individual asking or needing a benefit is "greedy" or "slacker", but a business asking or needing a benefit is "economically beneficial".

Well this depends a lot on one's perspective doesn't it?

I'll try to keep it fairly simple.

We are a society. As such, we are, by definition, going to have policies that are going to be Socialist in nature.

This is ok....to a point. And many of the policies in the last few decades have exceeded this point and at time obliterated it.

In the context of individual benefits vs. Corporate or business benefits, from my perspective the driving point should be productiveness.

I'd have no issues with individual benefits which were tied to some kind of measure of productiveness.

With the corporate or business benefits (as you describe them) the "benefits" are, in some measure, keeping the business productive. Making product, providing services, hiring employees etc.

There are National Security issues with some of the Corporate "benefits". Some essential businesses such as manufacturing, mining, transportation, must be kept solvent so we, in time of great crisis like a war, have these abilities at hand.

The problem is that the individual benefit part of this has gotten ridiculous.

People immigrate to this country for the promise of benefits.
We've got a whole social class of citizens who have their girls have babies as soon as they can so as to get on the government benefit payroll. This is a generational thing. It's how grandma did it, great grandma did it and Mom did it. Gonna get pregnant to make some money. Yeah!

They don't see this as wrong in any way. It is a rite of passage for them. Their perspective is that this is how it is supposed to work.

Things have gotten way out of whack.

Folks hit hard times. We as a benevolent and kind society should have programs for such folks to fall back on. But the programs must require some kind of productivity or an enforceable promise of it.

And this brings me back to perspective.

I see people get trapped in these government programs. Little incentive to get out of the programs, lots of incentive to stay and work the system.
It's not that I find these folks to be greedy or slackers. It's that I find this system destroying dreams and opportunity. It's that I find these folks not remotely achieving their potential because Our System won't let them.

And that is why I don't like the current individual "benefits" part of the equation.  

Now to be fair here, this benefit thing is being discussed in the context of able-bodied citizens and people. But even if not able-bodied, we should have benefit programs that encourage all folks in reaching their fullest potential.

Socialism isn't that.

Simple as can make it.


[/quote]

That's well said, Mike.

I agree that there is a huge problem with the welfare gravy train. I'd love to see some sort of 'means testing' for lack of a better term. Cap the number of dependents, and be serious about it. Have some sort of work requirement, and make it stick. There's a lot that can be done to lessen the slackers' stranglehold on these programs, but the administration, whether it be State or Federal, needs to be serious and aggressive. All of us would be better off for it.

On the other hand. corporate welfare is a much bigger problem. If a company received a tax break, let's say, to move to a new locale. make it contingent that they not leave 2 years later. Stop some of these subsidies. Does Exxon and Mobil really need a break? And don't start with the overwhelming tax burden on corps. It doesn't matter what tax is levied, they'll find a way around it.

There is so much more that needs to be done, but blaming just the individual doesn't cut it....

[Robert]

Robert,

It's interesting that the current Republican nominee for president has been all for the very same tariffs you describe, yet you are all for them.

"The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by taxing them."  Aren't you also concerned about reducing the importation from  insert country here  to affect their ability to buy goods from us?

This is all off topic though.  You are illustrating the original video I posted though.  You are a white male, from the South, are Republican, and are anti-federal, pro-states rights.  Let me take a wild guess, are you also against a path to citizenship for undocumented workers that are here now?  Are you all for "building a wall" on our southern border?  This is an example of how the "Party of Lincoln" which was pro-federal government, pro-civil rights, has turned into the "Party of Trump" which is anti-fed, anti-civil rights.  This is why it is misleading to say "Well the Republican Party was the one that freed the slaves."  It was the Party of Lincoln that did so, not the Party of Trump that is anti-gay marriage, anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican and wants to build a wall.

The southern Democrats of old have joined the Republican Party, and the northern Republicans of old have joined the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately your wrong on most of your post here also. First the Tariffs we talked about south/north were inside the same country same people so its a bit different than one country to another. But in current US I am confident that tariffs could be worked out that benefit the US citizen without adversely  affecting our lifestyles. We currently have a government that gives away our bargaining chips I think
Trump will make countries pay for the right to do business with the US.

Next I live in the south but I was born a New Yorker and worked in Manhattan and California for a good part of my life. I don't think you understand the economics of undocumented workers and at very least they are ILLEGAL. Let that sink in ILLEGAL. 

We as a nation that prides ourselves on the rule of law would sweep under the carpet the fact that people came here illegally and make them citizens. I know many who have gone through the process at much cost and heart ache to themselves to become US citizens. What would you say to these people who spent thousands of dollars, much time and effort and followed the laws then find illegals granted citizenship.  If we allow these people to stay and become citizens without a problem it says we don't have laws that stand uniformly and if you come in illegally then don't worry we will condone this. It turns my stomach when we have non US citizens vote and demonstration in the streets. Kind of like the special treatment of Hillary about the emails.

 The economics of immigration is another topic that you need to look into to understand the problem with just letting everyone in. If we would enforce our immigration policies strongly and uniformly then we would not be dealing with this issue. Why because undocumented workers wouldn't have jobs they wouldn't be here and be deported one at a time as they came in. This would signal others to do things the correct way. I would be open to a revision of the immigration laws to maybe make it faster and easier. This uniform enforcement of fair laws would negate the building of a wall.

We have a failed government that is corrupt and immoral and thinks the peoples will is nonsense and will not enforce the will of the people or even give the people of this country their say in events that affect their lives. I say that if the government would get back to being government and listen to people we would see how truly benevolent this country is.


 Obama with the alignment he had when he came in got some things changed but still had problems. Do you really believe that Donald could do magic and wave a wand and get this country looking like Gotham city? Come on, really?
Sometimes you have to be tough to be easy.

Everyone says capitalism failed, NO NOT EVEN CLOSE its the government that failed to enforce laws make the people confident and keep the control and purse strings tight over business.

[Gavin_Sons]

I think the bigger quote/issue is "From Lincoln to Hillary"  honest Abe to lying Hillary 

[Serk]

Besides, according to Northeastern Illinois University Lincoln was a Democrat anyway...

[MP]

A thoughtful reply 

And this brings me back to perspective.

I see people get trapped in these government programs. Little incentive to get out of the programs, lots of incentive to stay and work the system.
It's not that I find these folks to be greedy or slackers. It's that I find this system destroying dreams and opportunity. It's that I find these folks not remotely achieving their potential because Our System won't let them.

And, my point in a nutshell.  Conservatives discuss people, individuals, "getting trapped in these governmental programs" but never seem willing to compare, to discuss, when business, industry, gets caught up in the same 'trap'. 

For example: we give billions in farm subsidies, including giving subsidies to large agri-business who do not need the governmental handouts.  Quite a bit of the farming industry would collapse without the government handouts mostly due to noncompetitive overproduction, for example corn, wheat, milk and probably a variety of livestock (meats).  Rather than move on to other agricultural business, it is easier for many farmers to continue doing what they are doing and allow the government to continue to guarantee to buy up their overproduction,  rather than face the possible instability of the open market

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=farm+overproduction&t=ffsb&ia=web

This is where the U.S. government comes up with the millions of pounds of "free" cheese that it gives the poor - it isn't a "handout", the government bought the massive overproduction of cheese in order to guarantee a profit, and market, for whatever the dairy farmers were willing to make.  With millions of pounds of cheese to get rid of, they give it away to the poor to shuffle it off their hands...and the poor get blamed for having their hands out and taking what is given.

Let's not talk about true corporate welfare, like Wal-Mart's ability to earn millions in profits but pay so low that their workers actually qualify for social benefits; or GE who takes in billions in military contract work but gets to file business income returns in Ireland, paying just about nothing in U.S. taxes on those billions in yearly profit.

Nope, nope, no "socialism" here.

I guess I am one of the evil farmers on here.We grow mainly wheat, here in SW ND.  You say "move on to other agricultural businesses".  Pray tell, PLEASE suggest to me what other farm product will make me more money? Oh, and over the last several years, I have gotten less than 1/2 of 1% of gross from the government.

I am waiting, with baited breath, for your advice.

[The emperor has no clothes]

A thoughtful reply 

And this brings me back to perspective.

I see people get trapped in these government programs. Little incentive to get out of the programs, lots of incentive to stay and work the system.
It's not that I find these folks to be greedy or slackers. It's that I find this system destroying dreams and opportunity. It's that I find these folks not remotely achieving their potential because Our System won't let them.

And, my point in a nutshell.  Conservatives discuss people, individuals, "getting trapped in these governmental programs" but never seem willing to compare, to discuss, when business, industry, gets caught up in the same 'trap'. 

For example: we give billions in farm subsidies, including giving subsidies to large agri-business who do not need the governmental handouts.  Quite a bit of the farming industry would collapse without the government handouts mostly due to noncompetitive overproduction, for example corn, wheat, milk and probably a variety of livestock (meats).  Rather than move on to other agricultural business, it is easier for many farmers to continue doing what they are doing and allow the government to continue to guarantee to buy up their overproduction,  rather than face the possible instability of the open market

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=farm+overproduction&t=ffsb&ia=web

This is where the U.S. government comes up with the millions of pounds of "free" cheese that it gives the poor - it isn't a "handout", the government bought the massive overproduction of cheese in order to guarantee a profit, and market, for whatever the dairy farmers were willing to make.  With millions of pounds of cheese to get rid of, they give it away to the poor to shuffle it off their hands...and the poor get blamed for having their hands out and taking what is given.

Let's not talk about true corporate welfare, like Wal-Mart's ability to earn millions in profits but pay so low that their workers actually qualify for social benefits; or GE who takes in billions in military contract work but gets to file business income returns in Ireland, paying just about nothing in U.S. taxes on those billions in yearly profit.

Nope, nope, no "socialism" here.

I guess I am one of the evil farmers on here.We grow mainly wheat, here in SW ND.  You say "move on to other agricultural businesses".  Pray tell, PLEASE suggest to me what other farm product will make me more money? Oh, and over the last several years, I have gotten less than 1/2 of 1% of gross from the government.

I am waiting, with baited breath, for your advice.

I'm curious how much half of 1% of gross equals in net ?

[Jersey mike]

by my definition both are wrong

What does not lift all up is devisive

There was a great star trek episode where 2 peoples were at war

Cant you see, one said, I am black on the right side and he is black on the left side

One of the best scripted lines in any tv show

Of greater concern to me is the criminal outrageous actions of the Democratic candidate this time around and her POTUS protecting her evil ass

Oss, I remember that episode. The actor who played "The Riddler" on the Batman TV show was the man who played that character on the Star Trek episode.

[MP]

A thoughtful reply 

And this brings me back to perspective.

I see people get trapped in these government programs. Little incentive to get out of the programs, lots of incentive to stay and work the system.
It's not that I find these folks to be greedy or slackers. It's that I find this system destroying dreams and opportunity. It's that I find these folks not remotely achieving their potential because Our System won't let them.

And, my point in a nutshell.  Conservatives discuss people, individuals, "getting trapped in these governmental programs" but never seem willing to compare, to discuss, when business, industry, gets caught up in the same 'trap'. 

For example: we give billions in farm subsidies, including giving subsidies to large agri-business who do not need the governmental handouts.  Quite a bit of the farming industry would collapse without the government handouts mostly due to noncompetitive overproduction, for example corn, wheat, milk and probably a variety of livestock (meats).  Rather than move on to other agricultural business, it is easier for many farmers to continue doing what they are doing and allow the government to continue to guarantee to buy up their overproduction,  rather than face the possible instability of the open market

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=farm+overproduction&t=ffsb&ia=web

This is where the U.S. government comes up with the millions of pounds of "free" cheese that it gives the poor - it isn't a "handout", the government bought the massive overproduction of cheese in order to guarantee a profit, and market, for whatever the dairy farmers were willing to make.  With millions of pounds of cheese to get rid of, they give it away to the poor to shuffle it off their hands...and the poor get blamed for having their hands out and taking what is given.

Let's not talk about true corporate welfare, like Wal-Mart's ability to earn millions in profits but pay so low that their workers actually qualify for social benefits; or GE who takes in billions in military contract work but gets to file business income returns in Ireland, paying just about nothing in U.S. taxes on those billions in yearly profit.

Nope, nope, no "socialism" here.

I guess I am one of the evil farmers on here.We grow mainly wheat, here in SW ND.  You say "move on to other agricultural businesses".  Pray tell, PLEASE suggest to me what other farm product will make me more money? Oh, and over the last several years, I have gotten less than 1/2 of 1% of gross from the government.

I am waiting, with baited breath, for your advice.

I'm curious how much half of 1% of gross equals in net ?

A hell of a lot less than you probably think.

Oh, and please suggest things other than wheat I can grow that will do a lot better.  It was said I should do something else.  Please, enlighten me with the collective's wisdom on giving advice, about something they know not a whit about.

[The emperor has no clothes]

MP, I honestly have no idea. I know nothing of farming . I just asked that because in my world there is a huge difference between gross and net. I did not make any suggestions on what to grow nor would I.

[Oss]

MP

I lived for years in Rockland County

You know what grows there year after year

Yep
Rocks, big ones small ones
I would love to get paid not to grow em   

They just keep coming up and gettin caught in the tiller's tines

Best regards to my girlfriend

Oss

[Daddie O]

Robert,

I will address a few things about your post.  The tariff you mentioned earlier was an increased tax on goods entering the USA, the same sort of thing Trump is suggesting now, so it is not different.  Second, I also was born in NY, and I have lived most of my life in California (though I've lived in FL and NV as well).  I am familiar with the economics of undocumented workers.  Let me address something in particular, your stressing that people are illegal.  There is no such thing as an illegal person, only an illegal action.  When someone rides their Valkyrie over the speed limit, they aren't called an illegal motorcyclist.  If someone shoplifts they aren't called an illegal shopper.  Even if someone commits murder they aren't called an illegal life taker.  

Calling a human being illegal is something invented by a right-wing think tank to make you think negatively about another person.  An undocumented immigrant has not committed a crime (unless they were deported and came back again).  Immigration is a civil matter, and a civil (not criminal) judge has wide discretion when it comes to deciding if the immigrant is allowed to stay.  A judge may decide that the person is deserving of amnesty because of religious or social persecution for example.  Or the judge may see that the person overstayed their visa because they fell in love, had a child, got married, were enrolled in school, had a career, and were being productive members of society.

Contrary to your belief, immigrants are not coming here for benefits.  Our benefits suck in case you haven't noticed.  No one is living high on the hog on our social safety net.  Government housing, food stamps, and free clinics suck.  Immigrants come here to make a better life for themselves, to live the American Dream and pass on greater opportunity to their children.  Some are sending money back to support a family that they miss dearly.  Some are saving up to move back to their country and open a business.  Your characterization of immigrants as lazy people looking to suck on the government teet is both inaccurate and offensive just like Trump's statement that they are criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.

Also, it is literally impossible for an undocumented immigrant to steal a job. What is happening is an employer is intentionally hiring someone they can underpay so they can make more profit.  We don't have an immigration problem.  We have a moral  issue regarding business owners taking advantage of people and pushing the blame onto those being taken advantage of.  Net immigration from Mexico is down.  There are less undocumented immigrants now than there were in 2007.

Also, be proud that your contributions via taxes go towards feeding the hungry, instead of being resentful.  Could you imagine this?:

[Robert]

As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

 The domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.
Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports. 

So your example of tariffs and slaves are not a good analogy and a really poor example of what Trump proposes since we are not imposing this on our own fellow country men in inequality. This is also the source of bitterness towards Lincoln because he being a lawyer represented the the railroad and was the president. In essence the north were creating a new breed of slaves by taxing and not paying fair prices for resources and work. The north was a privileged society that is what we have more and more of in government today. The North is the government and the south is people tired of the system of unfair representation, over taxation, corruption, and unfairness we see today. The very reason the second amendment was put into the Constitution the very reason the civil war was fought. 

Next semantics,
  illegal alien or criminal or undocumented worker being in this country and crossing the boarder without papers and without proper government authorization is an illegal act. Obtaining a job without a social security number is illegal on two counts. First no social security number next not paying taxes. So lets say that they pay taxes but in who's name, and what benefits do these workers claim? If its not Illegal then why did everyone who came over from other countries go to Ellis island and go through processing? At the least you are violating a countries sovereign boarder without permission and without the proper identification and without obeying the rules of that country. The words you use for it are semantics. Then lets call someone who robs a bank a undocumented depositor taking out money. A pirate takes what he wants does not adhere to the laws of a country, causes financial loses for a host country so how is this any different by definition. Why would you agree to violate one law and then adhere to another disrespecting the very country you are going into by an illegal act.

If these undocumented workers as you call them are not living better here then why are they here? Why did they not just stay and make a living for themselves in their own country? Why do they take US currency that may be non taxed (another illegal act) and send it to their families in other countries? A benefit not only comes in the form of a hand out but in the form of the  benefits of living in that country. That means they come here as subversives to make a better living for themselves or families but do not adhere to the laws of that country that gave them a better living. I call that not only illegal but rebellious. This does not address the if they take US jobs or what would the economy look like if they weren't here.

In being illegal or undocumented they fly under the wire of all monitoring of social norms or controls. Unfortunately we are living in a country that we still have documentation that monitors who we are where we live and if we are obeying the rule of law. Being undocumented means they skirt these controls that we live by regardless of how good or bad they are. These laws and rules were agreed upon by us the US citizens and the government to keep the very control and processes in place to a good and orderly society. So maybe undocumented worker is worse than a criminal since they are creating a whole sub culture in not allowing the government to look into their lives and see if they are on the up and up. Al Capone did this so did many other criminals and we as US citizens are faced more and more with these draconian laws that peer into our personal lives while these people skirt these controls and laws. That is the very definition of criminal activity.

In not closing the boarders how do you know who is coming into this country? How can we protect ourselves if we dont have control and decide for ourselves who is allowed in? Why should we trust people coming in illegally to police themselves and say its ok we are not criminals.

Why do they not respect our right to protect ourselves and preserve our way of living by following the proper way to enter the US? If they say their need is greater than respecting these laws then how much further will their own need drive them in going against the laws of this country and possibly hurting US citizens in the process? Isnt this type of justification used today to justify every criminal act? My need was greater than the law, now if Im caught can I get away with it?


Lets talk about Jesus,
 I would be very careful in quoting what Jesus said also and find offensive your pic, It only says you have no understanding of the lessons Jesus taught the meaning of compassion or the understanding of lines that need to be drawn in order to be able to help and yet maintain what you have. It says you dont appreciate what it takes to make a society work. That is why most of this will fall on deaf ears. He said give to Ceaser what is due Ceaser, as far as taxes. Love is not without cost but its not without responsibility either. Its in the Bible you dont work you dont eat.  I am not going to give you a sermon on compassion but you will not find Jesus ever saying illegal acts should be rewarded. When Jesus was on this earth He did not break one law. He did not turn a blind eye to doing wrong either. He also did not take away from anyone anything they owned either under compulsion or command He gave people a choice and respected their position and views and allowed them by their own will to give it to those who were in need. He taught not only giving but also working, both ends of a successful life. He also spoke about the end times something your wisdom will not allow you to understand either.

Hand outs and social programs are for helping the immediate needs of those who are down on their luck. Not the prolonged care, free handout, free lunch no work burdensome system we have that was established to  enslave.This system of welfare state, enslaving system we have now done for the purpose of getting as many people as possible looking for the government to be all to them. Another form of accepted slavery in a society that has more and more government approved allowed things people can do only with the permission of the government.

[MP]

MP

I lived for years in Rockland County

You know what grows there year after year

Yep
Rocks, big ones small ones
I would love to get paid not to grow em   

They just keep coming up and gettin caught in the tiller's tines

Best regards to my girlfriend

Oss

"I would love to get paid not to grow em"   

I hear this a lot.  Truth is, it has been around twenty  (20) ! years since that has been true!  It has been a LONG TIME since farmers were paid "not to grow".

[Robert]

Exo 34:21  "You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but on the seventh day you must stop working, even during the seasons of plowing and harvest.

Pro 13:4  Lazy people want much but get little, but those who work hard will prosper.

Ti 5:8  But those who won't care for their relatives, especially those in their own household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than unbelievers.

2Th 3:7  For you know that you ought to imitate us. We were not idle when we were with you.
2Th 3:8  We never accepted food from anyone without paying for it. We worked hard day and night so we would not be a burden to any of you.
2Th 3:9  We certainly had the right to ask you to feed us, but we wanted to give you an example to follow.
2Th 3:10  Even while we were with you, we gave you this command: "Those unwilling to work will not get to eat."

Just in case you want to say we are all brothers let me clear that up also

Mar 3:33  Jesus replied, "Who is My mother? Who are My brothers?"
Mar 3:34  Then He looked at those around Him and said, "Look, these are My mother and brothers.
Mar 3:35  Anyone who does God's will is My brother and sister and mother."