Deals? Trump confirms that he'll cut deals with Pelosi and Schumer. Is this Good or Bad?
If the Republicans control the House and Senate, then what sort of deal needs to be made with Pelosi and Schumer? Listen to Trump on MSNBC (Jan 26, 2016)
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
LMAO
National Socialism meets International Socialism and they agree to divide up Poland.
Come to think of it I'd rather have Cruz at least he's from friendly countries (Canada and Texas!)
JFK was a devout Catholic, but I don't remember being forced to attending Catholic services when he was President.
What am I missing?
But- just I get nervous when someone wants to be in government because they tend to enforce their beliefs on others through laws. Separation of church and state in this country is a lot of talk, but little action. Look at prohibition and anti drug laws and the current anti drunk driving laws that have morphed into "dont drink at all" laws. Not to mention all this stuff about "saving marriage" by forbidding gay marriage and polygamy.
Since we dont have separation of church and state, I dont want people who believe strongly in one religion in positions of power. I want people in government who are not so entrenched in their beliefs that they spill over into politics.
Cruz, Rubio, Huckabee, and Carson are in that category for me. Rand Paul, Trump seem like they can separate religion from politics. Who knows about Christie or Fiorina.
The fact the drugs are illegal is what spawns violence and endangers you far more than a pot smoking individual zoning out in their living room
The causes of our sick American society go much deeper than the "War on Drugs". It started with Progressivism, and Feminism and the Great Society.
The druggies, as in China, lead an unproductive and meaningless life, and endanger the lives of others. But they were leading that same type of life before taking drugs, and that is probably the reason they are addicts.
The war on drugs is like prohibition. It cant work to reduce drug use, and its immoral to limit personal freedom.
As an example of how far its gone, a friend of mine had a hernia operation, and got a prescription for oxycodone (spelling?) for the substantial pain right after the operation. I drove him to my house to recover so I could watch over him, and went out to get his prescription filled. First of all, the hospital that wrote the prescription didnt carry it because of the complexity and liability of the anti-drug laws (I really doubt that there is any violence as a result of this pain killer- when I had to use it for my ankle replacement, I just slept)
Then I called around and only one pharmacy even carried it at all for the same reason of liability. So I went over there with the prescription in hand, but they would NOT take cash, or my debit card. They needed my friend's debit card and he had to be there. He was not really in a position to get up, let alone go to the pharmacy.
The net result was that I couldnt even get the damn drug and he had to withstand the pain.
I say that my rights have been violated by these stupid anti drug laws.
If you think that makes you safer, just wait until you need something like this drug and experience how hard it is to get it.
Even the Chinese government realized the damage that opium did to their social order.
Yes, you have a right to "choose" the things you consume. But why are you being obtuse, term? I have said your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your "choices" not only endanger myself and my family but the social order itself. I will not pick at the details with you; you should be able to ascertain the why of it yourself, and if you cannot, perhaps you have indulged in a little too much drugging.
I suggest you vote for Rand Paul.
Incidentally, I dont do drugs, but it would be none of your business or the people you elect for that matter.
Nor did I ask if you did drugs. I IMPLIED that the nonsense in your comments made one believe you COULD be on drugs.
Where you live is none of my concern, you're right, as long as you do nothing illegal. Hopefully, it's not Colorado Sprngs.
Hopefully we dont get Hillary or Sanders in November. I think that means Trump gets nominated and wins the election. He wont be anywhere as bad as either Hillary or Sanders.
The new post is: "Angie."---All your kisses still taste sweet.
All I am familiar with is the current "war on drugs" which is totally unsuccessful and has spawned major elimination of personal liberty. I would get rid of the DEA in a second. It violates so many rights by breaking into peoples houses, taking their assets and the like.
The Chinese government opposed any form of opium trade as it reduced their populace to an unproductive and meaningless existence.
It was a war.
Druggies endanger myself and my family.
Think deeply, think deeply.
And by the way, don't tell ME what is scary and what isn't. I know far more about human nature than you will ever even get close to.
I gotta go now. I may answer tomorrow.
I have already explained prohibition, and laws against drugs and drunk driving were not a joint church/state endeavor, but a consequence of progressivism and feminism.
The minority who feel moved to convert you won't cut your head off for a refusal.
That Westboro Baptist bunch? They do not act like Christian IMO..
I think those that don't get it quantumly take mysticism way to far.
I hope to solve that problem someday.
Good luck with that! But how, pray tell?
Using these methods will quickly route out the bull crap but still will leave many interesting questions we can appreciate.
This is a work in progress and only a consequence of my main objectives.
And sometimes we get it right if we are receptive.
No guy in the sky here, just a consequence of creation...look up Quantum event.
I don't like the mystical speak of the bicameral brain: it no longer needs to be that way.
I am quantumly trying to understand the teachings, not the religious mysticism's. Even though our biblical ancestors weren't consciously aware, they were not dumb. There is value there and we can begin to speak of it in a quantum physical conscious way. Ted and others know this but are taught to express it mystically.
I agree, there should be some way of getting gays and straights to behave and do the job at hand...(such as it is and that is a different issue). We need not mystify it, it's self evident that one part of this mix has difficulty controlling the temptations of their brain...only the mind and disciplined behavior can do that. We WERE better off before when everyone kept that to themselves. We all, both sides of that issue have trouble with control, some more than others. So, that's what a set of mutually agreed upon rules of behavior is for, it is valuable.
I agree that when it's stated mystically, religiously, it's a turn off and prone to confound that value.
I'd rather stand with a principled man, no matter how he gets there than be lead by a man whom has no self control mechanism. - (that's what the Mind does) The brain alone can not control it self, cannot lead or moderate itself. We see that consequence in the behaviors of the past.
Sadly...there are still many in this world today that never ascended into the mind and most of them happen to occupy government.
It's one big mess.
Laughing...you should read my latest post: The cycles of Existence.
As to the mysticism, I agree totally. Its a turnoff when the mormons talk about books coming down from some mountain or far away planet... Give me a break !
Burning at the stake cause you are a witch? Exorcising the devil out of you in some sort of priestly exorcism?
I have nothing against people believing whatever they want, but I dont want nut cases in government where they can exercise power over me.
Yea, there are a lot of misconceptions with "Religion". They really confound the value of the common sense teachings.
Even if he did, admitting he wants to steal everyone's money wouldn't make him honest (just as foolish as Mondale) when he is dishonest about pretty much everything else.
Someone that's full of themselves and doesn't even involve us in the process, doesn't empower us to be the best we can and storms out in a hissy fit cause we hold their feet to the fire, is not the man or women for the job.
I like you am tired of these bicameral idiots...I want a man that is morally conscious with a connection to a healthy mind and to have that, they must have a functional brain.
Recently it was relayed that a democrat and republican establishment type are worried we will become another Venezuela.
barney/frank allows your bank, upon failure to use your deposits and stocks to pay off their short comings and there is nothin you can do about it. THAT SUCKS...just can't imagine the brain that thought that one up. Pure Evil...ya and that is mystical, however appropriate.
I suspect there will be atm and internet restrictions on removing funds too
as well as making gold and silver illegal AGAIN like they did in the 30's, just prior to a big dollar devaluation
In the Senate, unless you have 60 votes you still need to make deals. We don't like making deals with the Democrats because they always get more of what they want than we do.
Trump: I'll won't "Lincoln" you con-gressmen if you give me absolute power.
Con-gress: Yes, master .
The reasonable response is to stop wasting your votes on evil (GOP/Dem) and vote on principle for a third party (e.g., libertarian.)
The trick is what kind of deals get done. There is a perception that the current Republican congressional majority is miserable at getting deals done favorably. They are too afraid of being blamed for "shutting down the government".
Most of us, of course, think that's mostly a pretty cool idea.
The reality is that the federal government does NOT shutdown UNLESS it loses its ability to borrower.
"The so-called government shutdown which started last week [2013] affects just 17 percent of the entire federal government, according to a recent spending calculation.
The numbers are based on information requested from the Senate Budget Committee, as well as data from the Obama administration and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. A Senate Republican source verified the calculation to FoxNews.com, after it was first reported by The Washington Examiner.
The calculation that 83 percent of the government is still running shows how some parts of the government -- unless the country loses its ability to borrow -- simply cannot be shut down, even if Congress is unable to agree on a spending bill as happened last week.
The bulk of the federal budget goes toward what is known as "mandatory" programs -- entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. These payments cannot be interrupted in the case of a partial government shutdown. "
See:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/...
The trend to avoiding shutdowns started with Bush I after his "no new taxes" pledge got him in deep trouble. The media had a heyday with it and bludgeoned him (justifiably) into a one-term presidency. When Clinton took office, he had a fairly pliant Congress, but Clinton didn't go overboard with the social spending either (at first). Then after a couple of years of profligate spending, the Republicans took back Congress - including the House for the first time in decades - and Gingrich enforced the contract with America. With Clinton reeling due to his sexual scandals, he had no position to try to force Congress into budget fights so he basically just signed it off.
Enter GW Bush and the Iraq War. He negotiated for massive increases in defense spending, but faced with even a small amount of Democratic demands for more welfare spending, he caved and gave in to Medicare part D and others. Obama merely has taken advantage of that and persuaded the media to buy into his rhetoric.
If the founders had listened to the torries who made this same argument there would be no America and the world would still have 19th century technology and monarchy would still be the government of most countries.
You continue with the same brainwashed argument that the GOP has been using to screw you for decades. W A K E U P !
You arent going to live to see an Objectivist president and congress either. If socialism really takes over while you are alive, it will be bad news for you too.
Making deals is politics and that is something that needs to stop. Do what's right, it's not about them and their stray thoughtlessness or wishes...it's about the people and the country.
Sadly, there are precious few that are willing to do that or even know how.
If I could only upvote this more than +1. You wrapped up Trump's personality, maturity, and philosophy in five words. Well done.
Tell us how, Mr. Trump. You won't be negotiating a land grab affecting a few thousand people. You'll be negotiating with wolves holding knives that will affect the very lives of millions. To say, I can do this, that, or the other, without saying how is empty rhetoric. Just saying you can do it doesn't make you a doer so much as a narcissist.
Either way, I'm convinced we're finished...
Your Hitler/Stalin analogy is apt. I keep hearing people beating their breasts over how Trump's pettiness over media treatment will stack up against Putin. I have to imagine Putin is sitting back and smirking at the thought of what a Trump presidency means for international politics.
If the Republicans take the White House and maintain the House and Senate, they should stand tall and tell the Progressives that it's time for them to drink their own medicine. Now I don't believe for a second that's going to happen, partially because I don't think there are that many principled Republicans but also because they care more about what the Media has to say than their own constituents.
Ironic seeing this because the next book in my Kindle is Trump's "The Art of the Deal". If President he'll have no choice but to interface with Pelosi and her ilk. Make no mistake, every interface will be a negotiation.
Personally, I refuse to vote for either Evil or a Dynasty-seeker. I can't tell you at this juncture who I will vote for yet... but I can, with absolute certainty, tell you who I am NOT going to vote for.
And if it's a contest between the pedantically putrefying pant-suited pestilence and the crèche mate of the welterweight not so great reprobate head of state, I think I'll vote to abdicate!
But never mind if people will believe balanced budget with a surplus they will believe anything. So having served as lightning rod he provided a spring board for just about any sock puppet in town.
O'bombed did the same thing but served to further distance the rule of law from reality and gain acceptance for a more totalitarian mindset as acceptable. So who one the approved list of candidates. RINOS always good for Bush style leg up for the left, the usual bit part players..one female to counter balance Hillary and this time no need for bimbos...yet. so far that's been a side show but a remainder named Cosby.
At some point what's her face Lucy something or another will be or not be activated and they have all sorts of choices to replaces the wild cards of Trump and Clinton. They can even go to their right wing and revive Carly. She'd make a fine left wing candidate. What they really need is the name Clinton buried in history and eight years of cleaning up after this disaster. All without starting a revolution or more properly a counter revolution.
The only real wild card IS the military. Now that Obama has officially shit canned the Constiitution are they or are they not going to up hold their oath of office?
That's where the most important deal must be made ...or....maybe they'll revive Petreus. After all what has he done that Clinton didn't do in spades and twice on Sunday. Not to mentioni a host of others.
It's all in they write the script...it's National Street Theatre 2016 presenting the Presidential Charade.. Pass the popcorn?
My point with GB is he surrounding himself with poor advisers and he followed along. Still his fault. My fear with Trump is he will surround himself by people who say yes and we will get trumped on. Of course I may be wrong and on present course I may get to find out if I am. I gladly eat my words and be happy about it if I'm wrong.
Personally Cruz is my 1st choice. Seems to me he will defend the Constitution as if his life depended on it. I have listened to him, read his book and like his background. I wish he had business experience but he does have the next best thing, which from what I can tell, he is self-made. He came from very poor roots and he had to pay for and earn his way. With his father coming from Cuba, I think he understand oppression. He does have a track record in his short time in the senate of standing up against the establishment and the progressives. No one is perfect, and I worship no one in politics but I believe he is our best hope at reversing the course we are on.
Either the seller corporation or the buyer corporation has to pony up the 16% each step of the way. They recoup the cost by increasing their price. Add all those together it's a value subtracted tax as there is no increase in value only in cost the item or service still has same value...only the cost goes up. Each step of the way.
Think of the wooden chair you sit in at yiour wooden table looking at your wooden kitchen cabinets. How many corporations are involved from tree to what supports your butt? who pays. The end consumer. Businesses only collect taxes and at some point turn them in but someone has to pay those taxes. Who cannot pass on the cost of collecting all those sixteen percents? Or was it to be divided up between all those corporations? That's the guy that's sitting in the chair going but but but but....
It's a VAT no matter if it did replace Income Tax-- and that takes an amendment, or an act of congress lowering the tax rate -- it's still a Pelosi favorite. What chance you rate doing away with income tax while their collecting both.
No document just their rhetoric put to the test and taking that they say thinking it through. and it doesn't have ground truth. Cruz and Rand gave you three choices. Two involved higher taxation and one involved voting against them.
It's a perversion of the end user consumption tax with no safeguards in sight.
Currently, corporations pay tax on their profits from 15% to 35%. Or like my company, I pay tax on the entire amount of profit at whatever tax bracket that I fall in based on my individual return at a rate from 10% to 40%. Then we have all the other taxes. For my company, I have a profit goal so that I have money left over to stay in business. The money to stay in business is after the tax is paid so in an essence I already pass the tax on profit back to the consumer. I suspect everyone else does too. If not they go out of business. Seems to me a lower flat tax would benefit everyone.
What am I not seeing? Is there a better solution? Of course I would like to starve government if at all possible. I'm listening.
So for the moment the question should be what does it replace? And if it replaces income tax then where's the part about the amendment to repeal. If it does not do that they will have two taxes the original went from 7% to 77% in eleven years. Do you trust the government that much?
It won't effect me I won't be contributing nor buying anything in the USA..I''ll just be taking...except for income tax can't get around that one. Amazon went international.
As far as the only one that passes those taxes on to the consumer, I think everyone does it but some don't look at it like I do. Example, (round numbers for example only) If I need $50,000 a year on average to invest in my business to keep up with debt payments and future purchases and my tax on that profit is $5000 then I need a profit of at least $55,000. If I am not there I raise my prices to get there. Of course it is more complicated than this example but at some point it gets passed on.
Fair Tax was the original program which required as it's first step repeal of income tax.As I recall it replaced all payroll taxes. somewhere around 30% one time end user sales tax at the point of sale divided between federal and local governments.
It wouldn't apply now anyway but the idea was the consumer controlled taxes and budgets by what the consumer chose to spend. Income tax is the opposite fascist in nature and it's purpose is control of citizens.
The main point is without repeal of one you end up with two and the chances of the percent mentioned not rising are somewhere betwen nil and nought. a chance.
So figure your income tax bill plus a 16% corporate or business tax bill not limited to corporations plus the add on from the new one from every corporation involved in the production of any good or service. You see that limit?
I didn't see either of those two requirements.
Ergo sum it's a Hillary enhanced Pelosi VAT endorsed by two former Libertarians???????
Before even that point, you work to increase your strengths (and therefore power over adversaries).
Negotiating is a battleground to get what you want without having to give up anything important. Trump knows this. He gives away ice in winter
bout it. Also he has praised eminent domain. I
would vote for him only if he got the Republican
nomination--and then without much hope of things
getting better, even if he won. I intend to vote for
Cruz in the primary.
And you can still leave those two lines blank. That way you fought evil and didn't succumb to it which is the best I can offer. Building up the 46% anti establishment group is my real prime concern. Same applies at all levels. Raid the other side vote in the weakest idiot they have and return to home base.
Time will tell...
Somebody always gets screwed or someone always gets more than deserved... in a compromise.
Solve the problem and not the symptom.
Allopathic governing = progessivism.
The founding principals and our constitutional rule of law should never be compromised. If there needs to be a change or a clarification then a convention of the states is needed.
There are always a few ideologically aligned representatives that may be against something for their own district's purposes, and at most you have to cut a small deal here or there to get someone from the other side of the aisle to vote accordingly.
An example would be Trump isn't a big fan of 'free' trade deals because we are usually on the losing side out of 'American Guilt' when we agree to them. I would imagine Pelosi & her union buddies might be pretty happy to go along with scrapping a bad trade deal - which gets Trump what he wants - an economic boost to the US while unions can tell their members they brought more jobs home. The Repubs won't necessarily like that because they have a lot of large business donors - but that stuff doesn't benefit the American worker/consumer usually.
Another example - he's very much in favor of taking 'options' away from client countries like South Korea... we spend billions on their defense and station 30,000 troops in the DMZ... why do that for free? and why have a trade deal where we are losing $500B a year in negative trade? If they want us to buy Hyundai's and we're giving a free national defense to them... why the hell should Boeing have to compete with Airbus for for an Air Korea deal? It wouldn't be ethical for Boeing to just gouge them, but there should be an 'American Preference' requirement in there, much like we have a Veteran's Preference in most public service hiring practices (as an example) - not a guaranteed job, but a 10% bonus on evaluation or something like that.
As as rule of thumb, I side more ideologically and fiscally with Republicans, but not all Republican ideas (like free trade) have been a great thing for the country... sure we get cheap shit from China to sell in Walmart, but people pretty much have enough of that junk as evidenced by Walmart now closing stores... if you never had the stuff on the shelf to crave, or only 'friendly trade' alternatives where there for a few bucks more, you wouldn't even miss it and at the same time your income wouldn't be stagnant and going up.
That other guaranteed preference has been around since WWII. It's a re-employment preference not an employment preference.
Which reminds me between Trump and Pelosi who would renege first? Fifty Fifty and caveat emptor.
:Lastly we get cheap goods from Walmart because they are not in bed with leftist unions and Socialists. They provide plenty of excellent products and the least price possible and their only competition are the Dollar Stores. The goods come from China because the provide the least expensive items and a good many of us median income former midddle class retirees can't afford the high dollar Hillary and Michelle Markets. Not only that Walmart provides entry level jobs as does McDonalds etc. and more importantly jobs for seniors whose retirement funds got raped by the last two administrations and let's not forget Clinton. But the Bush/'Obama disaster of 2008 was purely the work of the government and the Government Party.
Bankruptcy or as they called it Great Recession one was an intentional move to creatre inflation, devalue the dollar and there by repudiate the dead beats debt at the expense of the citizens especially the Senior Citizens. The tragic travesty of Obamacare raped them again and were it not for Walmart and it's policy of hiring Seniors for 20 hours a week WHO would take care of them. Did you see COLA for the government caused slash in retirement fund buying power. I don't think so. It's Zero.
All you Walmart haters can eat stuff and bark at the moon if there are any heroes in this gawd awful economic mess they are at the top of the heap. Not the scum politicians nor their leftist enablers who no doubt will vote for them again. May you always have to use BankAmerica when you retire.
If you are a retiree you get zip doo dah returning to the old job but you get to use the points to get government jobs. other than VA which doesn't seem to hire veterans. Start with soldiers and sailors relief act as amended and follow thorugh to the replacement law and it's follow up for people returning to civilian jobs.
Across the board.
Gotta read the rules unless there is a new law that gives 10 points to REMFs
Municipalities employ differently as well, in general, the federal standard is the minimum, most states and municipalities choose to enhance upon that.
The zero five and ten point system is a hiring preference and guarantee of return to former civilian job and preference over applicant for government jobs.
Two different things. Ten points doesn't appear as a specific item in the 2003 law but is t he highest awarded in the 1994 upgrade law which has only three levels. Non vet = 0 fiive points for serving honorably and 10 points for certain levels of injury normally requires combat participation.
google will get you on the right track as both are important. But acing out the five and zero point applicants as the only ten pointer in the group put me ahead of the pack.
In an ideal world, we buy their consumer junk, and they buy our heavy industry products, highly skilled professional services, aircraft, etc.. low product into the high-efficiency US economy, higher-value product out. They don't do that though, they to sell us stuff on a free trade agreement, and then buy French Airbuses that enjoy a sovereign-subsidized employee and industrial base, so Airbus doesn't really have to bake-in the full cost of production and taxation into their jets they sell compared to Boeing or General Dynamics, Northrup, etc.
While China isn't a great example, they should simply be dealt with by penalty tariffs for currency manipulation and trade imbalance, while in the case of Japan, South Korea, etc.. where we (taxpayers) are heavily subsidizing their defense (from China and North Korea), those trade agreements should have required targets that would for example, force tariffs on competitive products from other countries... Is that fair? Hell no, I don't like fair in business. Fair is for losers. Fair is their defending their own country against their enemies on their own dime. If they need help, they need to help us out too.
So in your small business example, you (as a small business) are not really competitive in the market for manufacturing your product overseas and hauling it in by the container shipment or bringing in produce by the hundreds of railcars from Mexico to sell at a high price at retail. You probably couldn't afford the volume commitments, the storage, or the retail space in a market that would move it. Are you paying less to put food on your table? not really, you are just paying a 'too big to fail' retailer that is a very nasty competitor to your small business for your local customers...
I just saw on the news last night, a small neighborhood grocery store in a town with 900 people in it was crushed in 8 months after Walmart opened a Neighborhood Grocery Market there (and I'll admit, I like the Walmart Neighborhood sized grocery stores, because I have no use for their substandard sporting goods, cheap electronics, etc. in the full size units)... I really prefer Amazon... as do most people and why Walmart is finally getting killed.. but 18 months after opening the Neighborhood Market, and 12 months after killing the only other grocery store for 30 miles... Walmart decided that 900 people in the town was simply not enough to sustain a Walmart... Shocker... Now the round trip is 60 miles for the townsfolk to pick up a head of lettuce or an onion or a gallon of milk. I'm thinking AmazonPantry to the rescue... but doesn't help them with a bottle of milk or a dozen eggs. They may have to go back to the way we used to do it... raise some chickens and have a cow or goat or something in the backyard..