• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tent Cities Full Of Homeless Booming Across America...

Crony Capitalism is how Free Market Capitalism is perverted when government becomes to large and powerful. Today in America only Liberal Democrats want a government that powerful.
The "pure capitalism" argument where ultimate free unregulated markets dominate? Dream on bud. Even the modern day father of capitalism, Adam Smith, realized that and held that government must have some form of regulation in the market and economy.

Crony Capitalism/Fascism and Socialism/Communism have a lot more in common with each other than the free market economy and limited power government our Founding Fathers wanted and that made America the greatest most prosperous nation in all human history.
Just stop right there... Many idea of the founding fathers where regulatory and some were even socialist in nature. Thomas Paine in Rights of Man Part I and Part II and Agrarian Justice, Thomas Jefferson in his letter to James Madison on Equality, Ben Franklins letter to Robert Morris. To uphold the founding fathers as some sort of unified mind on economic ideas/philosophy is moronic.

Yes, it is a "stupid" plan, even when Romney had it. That is one of the reasons why Romney is not President today, and how the proven worst president in US history got reelected.
:lamo Great logic bud.
 
The "pure capitalism" argument where ultimate free unregulated markets dominate? Dream on bud. Even the modern day father of capitalism, Adam Smith, realized that and held that government must have some form of regulation in the market and economy.

The funny thing about people that think this, Capitalists mostly, is that government is what makes the market profitable for them. For example in a true free market, as it was hundreds of years ago, there was no such thing as copy rights or patents. Anyone could copy anything you made and sell it, so there were no capitalists making $600 on a $10 jar of leeches just because they were the first ones to use leeches and patented the idea so no one else but them could sell it.
 
The funny thing about people that think this, Capitalists mostly, is that government is what makes the market profitable for them. For example in a true free market, as it was hundreds of years ago, there was no such thing as copy rights or patents. Anyone could copy anything you made and sell it, so there were no capitalists making $600 on a $10 jar of leeches just because they were the first ones to use leeches and patented the idea so no one else but them could sell it.

What is so horrible about government efforts to make markets more profitable for new and established businesses?
 
What is so horrible about government efforts to make markets more profitable for new and established businesses?

Nothing... unless they do in a way that hurts the citizens... and that is what happens more than often these days. Massive tax cuts/breaks for few jobs.. jobs that a few years later are moved to another town/city/state because they offered even more for a few jobs... and so on..
 
The "pure capitalism" argument where ultimate free unregulated markets dominate? Dream on bud. Even the modern day father of capitalism, Adam Smith, realized that and held that government must have some form of regulation in the market and economy.


Just stop right there... Many idea of the founding fathers where regulatory and some were even socialist in nature. Thomas Paine in Rights of Man Part I and Part II and Agrarian Justice, Thomas Jefferson in his letter to James Madison on Equality, Ben Franklins letter to Robert Morris. To uphold the founding fathers as some sort of unified mind on economic ideas/philosophy is moronic.


:lamo Great logic bud.

The closer we get to "Pure Capitalism" AKA "Free Market Economy" the better and more prosperous everyone is. That is a fact, history has proven it. Aside from basic law enforcement the Govt should play no part in a nations economy.

We have "Separation of Church and State" and America has benefited as a result, but America would benefit a lot more if we had "Separation of Economy and State."


No, you stop right there. Jefferson was talking about equality of opportunity not redistribution of wealth or the govt guaranteeing equality of outcome. The letter was regards to several instances of Crony Capitalism, the govt and rich land owners colluding at the expense of the poor. Their answer was always less govt power.

The Progressive Liberal ideas of our Founding Fathers are the Conservative Libertarian values of today. They had nothing in common people who today call themselves Progressive, Liberal, or Socialist. They were advocates for limited power government and a free market economy. They were all religious in varying degrees and believed charity should come from the church or private interest, not the state.

There is no greater insult to the Founding Fathers than to attempt to equate them to Karl Marx or Vlad Lennon.


Yes, it is great logic. Obama (AKA proven worst president in US history) did not win reelection because he got more Dem votes. Romney lost because less GOP voters turned out. If Reps had voted to the same degree they did for McCain, Romney would have won. One of the biggest reasons for this lack enthusiasm was Romneycare.

What delights me and should really scare you is that the current polls are tied or favoring Trump, and he has at least 3 times the enthusiasm advantage Obama ever had over Romney.
 
The closer we get to "Pure Capitalism" AKA "Free Market Economy" the better and more prosperous everyone is. That is a fact, history has proven it. Aside from basic law enforcement the Govt should play no part in a nations economy.
:lamo Please show how history has proven it....

We have "Separation of Church and State" and America has benefited as a result, but America would benefit a lot more if we had "Separation of Economy and State."
:doh

No, you stop right there. Jefferson was talking about equality of opportunity not redistribution of wealth or the govt guaranteeing equality of outcome. The letter was regards to several instances of Crony Capitalism, the govt and rich land owners colluding at the expense of the poor. Their answer was always less govt power.
Nope.

Interesting that you only focused on Jefferson.
Jefferson Letter to Madison: "the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
--A call for regulation of property right, a call of progressive taxation, encourage employment for those who are denied from the benefits of industry, calls for public lands with state controlled rent for the poor--

Franklin letter to Morris: "the remissness of our people in paying taxes is highly blameable... all property…seems to me to be the creature of public convention. All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition."
--Except for the bare necessities of life all other property belonged to the public. Also pay your taxes.

We really dont need to go into Paine....

The Progressive Liberal ideas of our Founding Fathers are the Conservative Libertarian values of today. They had nothing in common people who today call themselves Progressive, Liberal, or Socialist. They were advocates for limited power government and a free market economy
100% false. See above.

There is no greater insult to the Founding Fathers than to attempt to equate them to Karl Marx or Vlad Lennon.
I never equated them to Karl Marx of Vlad Lennin. Seems you are reading things that I did not type...


Yes, it is great logic. Obama (AKA proven worst president in US history)
Cool opinion.

did not win reelection because he got more Dem votes. Romney lost because less GOP voters turned out. If Reps had voted to the same degree they did for McCain, Romney would have won. One of the biggest reasons for this lack enthusiasm was Romneycare.
Romney got more votes than McCain did... So yea. Your logic doesnt add up


What delights me and should really scare you is that the current polls are tied or favoring Trump, and he has at least 3 times the enthusiasm advantage Obama ever had over Romney.
Meh. Im not really scared.
 
The closer we get to "Pure Capitalism" AKA "Free Market Economy" the better and more prosperous everyone is. That is a fact, history has proven it. Aside from basic law enforcement the Govt should play no part in a nations economy.

Actually, history has proven that pure capitalism cannot handle externalities or public goods and that while the first assumption of almost all economic models is that the consumer/producer is rational, that is not always the case. And there are many desirable services that a pure free market cannot provide (such as universal education).

Government is good for providing public goods, handling externalities, and providing services that are desirable but inefficient or unprofitable.


We have "Separation of Church and State" and America has benefited as a result, but America would benefit a lot more if we had "Separation of Economy and State."
So no health and safety concerns at all? No pollution restrictions? No recourse for those harmed by unregulated products?


They were all religious in varying degrees and believed charity should come from the church or private interest, not the state.
England had already proven by that time that with a growing and more urban population that religious and private charities were inadequate.
 
:lamo Please show how history has proven it....


:doh


Nope.

Interesting that you only focused on Jefferson.
Jefferson Letter to Madison: "the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
--A call for regulation of property right, a call of progressive taxation, encourage employment for those who are denied from the benefits of industry, calls for public lands with state controlled rent for the poor--

Franklin letter to Morris: "the remissness of our people in paying taxes is highly blameable... all property…seems to me to be the creature of public convention. All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition."
--Except for the bare necessities of life all other property belonged to the public. Also pay your taxes.

We really dont need to go into Paine....


100% false. See above.


I never equated them to Karl Marx of Vlad Lennin. Seems you are reading things that I did not type...



Cool opinion.


Romney got more votes than McCain did... So yea. Your logic doesnt add up



Meh. Im not really scared.


The part you left out, because they don’t exist, is the governing policies of the Founding Fathers that are Socialist in nature. Purposely misrepresenting personal correspondence is beyond meaningless.

The entire Revolutionary War was about getting rid of an oppressive government and high taxes.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect individual liberties by listing specific prohibitions on government power. Socialism has no ability to function without an all-powerful government controlling everything. This is why Leftists like Obama hate the documents, referring to them as: “Charter of Negative Liberties.”

Free Market Capitalism is not perfect, but it is by far the best economic system man has ever created. Even the losers under a free market economy generally do better than does the average person under socialism. One of its imperfections is that under an all-powerful government it can be perverted to Crony Capitalism/Fascism.

By the way, over 4 million registered GOP did not bother to vote in 2012. if they had Romney would have won.
 
The part you left out, because they don’t exist, is the governing policies of the Founding Fathers that are Socialist in nature. Purposely misrepresenting personal correspondence is beyond meaningless.
They dont exist? I literally just quoted them.

The entire Revolutionary War was about getting rid of an oppressive government and high taxes.
Someone clearly did not understand their basic history lesson. It was a revolt because they were not allowed representation in parliament and thus came the "no taxation without representation". Yes the government was also repressive, hence they were colonies.....

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect individual liberties
Yup. They sure do. Never said they didnt.

Socialism has no ability to function without an all-powerful government controlling everything.
"All powerful government controlling everything".. :doh Thats not socialism. Thats call totalitarianism.

This is why Leftists like Obama hate the documents, referring to them as: “Charter of Negative Liberties.”
Just fail. :failpail:

Free Market Capitalism is not perfect, but it is by far the best economic system man has ever created. Even the losers under a free market economy generally do better than does the average person under socialism.
:lamo So now we are gonna play the game of "my economic system is better than the one you favor" game? You're really moving the goalposts here.

One of its imperfections is that under an all-powerful government it can be perverted to Crony Capitalism/Fascism.
Which one is it "crony capitalism/fascism or socialism" ?
By the way, over 4 million registered GOP did not bother to vote in 2012. if they had Romney would have won.
Okay?
 
I'd have to agree with both of these points. Obamanomics / socialist economics at it's best.



SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth

The title of your graph is "Annual Growth in Real GDP has not exceeded 3% since 2005".

Obviously, you know that Obama didn't become prez until 2008, so you must be letting us know that you're upset because Obama hasn't been able to lift us past the 3% mark and out of this slump that was started by Dubya, and lasted 3/4 of his 2nd term?
 
The title of your graph is "Annual Growth in Real GDP has not exceeded 3% since 2005".

Obviously, you know that Obama didn't become prez until 2008, so you must be letting us know that you're upset because Obama hasn't been able to lift us past the 3% mark and out of this slump that was started by Dubya, and lasted 3/4 of his 2nd term?

I do believe that the quarter to quarter GDP growth is measured against the previous quarter. So I doesn't matter what the economic performance during the Bush administration. As an aside, the graph below shows that he had peak growth greater than Obama.

85

Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy? | US News

You don't think that the poor economic performance had anything to do with the poor economic policy choices Obama made? I rather think they are related.
 
I do believe that the quarter to quarter GDP growth is measured against the previous quarter. So I doesn't matter what the economic performance during the Bush administration. As an aside, the graph below shows that he had peak growth greater than Obama.

Given that there were 12 quarters in the last 3 years of W's term, I'm not sure how Bush's economic performance during that time not being any better than Obama's is not relevant. It's not as if it was Obama's fault that Bush's last 3 years were less than 3% growth.

You don't think that the poor economic performance had anything to do with the poor economic policy choices Obama made? I rather think they are related.

I think he was handed an economy shaped by the decisions of his predecessor.
 
Given that there were 12 quarters in the last 3 years of W's term, I'm not sure how Bush's economic performance during that time not being any better than Obama's is not relevant. It's not as if it was Obama's fault that Bush's last 3 years were less than 3% growth.



I think he was handed an economy shaped by the decisions of his predecessor.

If the measurement is quarter to quarter, I don't think Bush's previous measurements come into play.
The quarters under Obama are measured against themselves, as in % GDP growth from the previous quarter.
 
If the measurement is quarter to quarter, I don't think Bush's previous measurements come into play.
The quarters under Obama are measured against themselves, as in % GDP growth from the previous quarter.

I get it. My point is that the economy was in that same, sub-3%-growth pattern for 3 years before Obama was in office.
 
I get it. My point is that the economy was in that same, sub-3%-growth pattern for 3 years before Obama was in office.
Yes. But before that there were GDP gains greater. Not under Obama ever.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
Yes. But before that there were GDP gains greater. Not under Obama ever.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk

The housing crash was not his fault. It happened before he had yet been in office 6 months. That things returned to some sort of normalcy should be applauded.
 
The housing crash was not his fault. It happened before he had yet been in office 6 months. That things returned to some sort of normalcy should be applauded.

I'm not arguing about the housing crash, nor who's fault it is.

I'm strictly observing the quarter on quarter GDP growth. With that measurement it's immune to the housing crash.
It's measuring against itself on a quarter to quarter basis.
 
I'm not arguing about the housing crash, nor who's fault it is.

I'm strictly observing the quarter on quarter GDP growth. With that measurement it's immune to the housing crash.
It's measuring against itself on a quarter to quarter basis.

How so? it's not as if the housing crash didn't affect GDP. The housing crash would cause the growth of GDP to be less than it otherwise would have been without the housing crash, regardless of what you're measuring it against.
 
How so? it's not as if the housing crash didn't affect GDP. The housing crash would cause the growth of GDP to be less than it otherwise would have been without the housing crash, regardless of what you're measuring it against.

Yes, it would, and you'd see that GDP drop from one quarter to the next. The second quarter, GDP would be lower, due to the housing crash, and the quarter after that one it wouldn't it be compared to the lower GDP from the previous quarter?

A hypothetical example

QuarterGDPDifference
1100
250-50
350.50.5
4510.5
551.50.5
 
They dont exist? I literally just quoted them.


Someone clearly did not understand their basic history lesson. It was a revolt because they were not allowed representation in parliament and thus came the "no taxation without representation". Yes the government was also repressive, hence they were colonies.....


Yup. They sure do. Never said they didnt.


"All powerful government controlling everything".. :doh Thats not socialism. Thats call totalitarianism.


Just fail. :failpail:


:lamo So now we are gonna play the game of "my economic system is better than the one you favor" game? You're really moving the goalposts here.


Which one is it "crony capitalism/fascism or socialism" ?

Okay?


No, you did not show any actual policies or laws you quoted a vaguely worded personal correspondence.

“Oppressive government and high taxes” describes “Taxation without Representation.”

“All powerful government controlling everything” describes “Totalitarianism.” Socialism has no ability to function without it because; Socialism is so antithetical to human nature you have to force people to do it. This can only be done with a large all powerful centralized Government AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

When I get a response like “Total Fail” it means I have won and you conceding you have no argument. But you don’t want to admit it and you are figuratively giving me the finger.

Crony Capitalism is to Fascism what Socialism is to Communism. They are all bad and all require an all-powerful centralized government AKA a totalitarian dictatorship to function. They all have a lot more in common with each other than any have with Limited Power Government and Free Market Economy our Founding Fathers wanted and set up for America. The political/economic spectrum where Communism is all the way to the left and Fascism is all the way to the right is inaccurate. It would be better represented if Communism and Fascism were together at one end the small government principles of Our Founding Fathers were at the other.

If we “play the game” of which economic system is better than I win 11 times out of 10. Under Socialism Sweden is predicted to be a 3rd world country within 20 years, most of North Korea is starving, people are eating their pets in Venezuela.
 
The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And unless you're a crony capitalist with enough lawyers in Washington DC to make your own loopholes, then doing business in the US isn't feasible.

You wonder why all the jobs are fleeing overseas? The highest taxrate in the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom