Saw a "gun sense" booth today

[Fletch]

And you think the government should teach it to them?

I have never said any such thing.

Is this because you think they did such a bang up job with public education and health care?

I have never said any such thing.

Did your parents not like you?

Irrelevant.

The public educational system IS failing.

I have no disagreement with this.

And in spite of that, now you want the government, (Republicans) to try and educate them about the merits of capitalism.

Government and Republicans are not the same thing.

I guess too much failure on the part of government isn't enough for you.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

When I was young, I can assure you it most certainly wasn't the government that taught me, "how the world works".

Not sure how this is relevant, given that nobody here is advocating the government do this.

That's what most people call living life. Most can accomplish it without holding hands with the government.

Still don't see anyone in this thread advocating holding hands with the government.

 

[youngda9]

The government is holding back no one from demonstrating the benefits of capitalism to themselves.

Capitalism works just as well today as it did a century ago. You need to start practicing it. Or is the government holding you back from doing that as well?

Apparently you've been asleep under a tree for the last decade and missed all of the increased governmental regulations inposed on small businesses. It can be called nothing less than "holding you back" from "demonstrating the benefits of capitalism".

Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations

Regulations by the numbers
Today, there are 3,305 federal regulations in the pipeline, with nearly 1/3 impacting small business directly. (Source: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Unified Agenda 2013)

In the first two months of 2014, 72 new proposed regulations affected small businesses, with 12 of them costing $100 million in compliance costs (Source: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)

There are more than 175,500 total pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, an increase of more than 21 percent over the last decade. (Source: Congressional Research Service)

In 2013 alone, more than 80,330 pages were added to the federal register. (Source: Congressional Research Service)

Estimated cost $112 billion of compliance with federal regulations in 2013, resulting in over 67 million hours of paperwork (Competitive Enterprise Institute)

 

[Fletch]

You're kidding me, right? What the hell difference does it make WHY they do it? They shouldn't have to for ANY reason. The Republicans are not going to gain votes by trying to tell young voters what they should already know.

And they should already know this because the failed education system somehow got that one bit right?

If your old enough to know who to vote for, you damn well should be old enough to understand, "how the world works".

At this point I'm pretty sure you're not old enough to know who to vote for.

 

[youngda9]

At this point I'm pretty sure you're not old enough to know who to vote for.

 

[jamil]

Geneology. Trooper. I suspect a connection somewhere.

 

[billt]

Republicans do not champion capitalism. They are socialists, every bit as much as the Democrats.

And yet, according to you, they need to be teaching their young voters about capitalism. When, again according to you, they are socialists. It's a good thing you don't run an airline. You would have the baggage handlers training the pilots.

 

[Fletch]

And yet, according to you, they need to be teaching their young voters about capitalism. When, again according to you, they are socialists.

I give Republicans credit for paying lip-service to capitalism. This demonstrates that they've at least heard about it in positive terms. It makes them the best party to explore it, if they were willing to learn a bit about it. Historically they have displayed no such willingness, but everyone has room for improvement.

 

[jbombelli]

What we have in this country is NOT capitalism. It is Mercantilism with a good dose of what is often called Crony Capitalism.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

 

[billt]

I give Republicans credit for paying lip-service to capitalism. This demonstrates that they've at least heard about it in positive terms. It makes them the best party to explore it, if they were willing to learn a bit about it. Historically they have displayed no such willingness, but everyone has room for improvement.

Paying "lip service" to something, doesn't make them, or anyone else for that matter, qualified to "teach" it. And more in line with that, the whole idea is preposterous. Everyone has heard about capitalism. Perhaps not in "positive terms" from these communist professors. But they know what it is, enough to make an informed decision about it. At least in regards to voting for the party that represents it or not. I was taught in 6th grade civics class that the United States of America was a capitalist nation that was founded on Judeo Christian principals. Even today anyone leaving high school with a diploma should know that. They should also know that Republicans support capitalism, while the Democrats are in fact socialists.

We can argue until the cows come home about how good or bad one or the other is in executing those political stands, but again it doesn't matter. The parties are what and who they are. Young voters don't want capitalism not because they don't understand it, and need it explained to them. They don't want it because they want and prefer socialism. The socialist professors and universities they've been educated at have pounded it into them for 4 years. Most of them graduate flaming communists, who hate the "establishment Republicans" because that is what they've been taught. Proof of that is the way Mitt Romney was demonized for being successful in the last election. The only thing they want is socialism, period. About all they want in regards to Republicans, is to watch Jon Stewart mock them every night.

You can't sell something educated socialists, illegal immigrants, liberals, and most every minority doesn't want. They want to vote themselves freebies and money. Try to sell an uneducated minority the right to work hard for something, while the other guy tells them he thinks it should be given to them because they deserve it. Which one do you think they will vote for? No "explanation" of capitalism is going to cure that, regardless who it comes from.

It's been very truthfully said, when half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. Sadly, that is where socialism and the Democratic Party in this country has taken us. And as much as I wish it were otherwise, I don't see us coming back from any of this. You can't sell capitalism simply because there is no one buying it any more. It's easier to vote socialist, sit on your ass, and let the government give you what you've been taught you've been "owed".

 

[Fletch]

What we have in this country is NOT capitalism. It is Mercantilism with a good dose of what is often called Crony Capitalism.

Right. Which explains why our economic miracle has stagnated to #12 on the EFI.

 

[Fletch]

They should also know that Republicans support capitalism, while the Democrats are in fact socialists.

The first half of this statement is demonstrably false. Republicans are socialists. They are not the same flavor of socialist as Democrats, but they are socialist. What a young person leaving school sees is that one party, the Republicans, wants to give money to big business. The other party, the Democrats, wants to give it to "the people". There is no longer any discussion about the relative merits of capitalism and socialism in America. The discussion is about who gets to be first in line at the socialist trough: the poor, or the bankers? The unemployed, or the oil companies?

What I'm saying is that Republicans need to A: repent of their socialist ways and embrace capitalism, and B: show people how it can work to the benefit of everyone involved. The problem is, every time they try to say "yay capitalism!", they're handing out more billions to some corporation that's "too big to fail". It's not hard to be living on ramen noodles, see that, and call bull****. That's why Republicans don't attract young voters.

 

[billt]

What we have in this country is NOT capitalism. It is Mercantilism with a good dose of what is often called Crony Capitalism.

Most all successful small business owners in this country would disagree with you. I've found that most all people who complain about capitalism in one form or another, are not successful financially. That is not meant as a slam at you, it's just what I've observed over the last 42 years of my working life. Wealthy, successful people who have applied themselves, seldom complain. They look for ways to make improvements to their own lives.

 

[jbombelli]

Most all successful small business owners in this country would disagree with you. I've found that most all people who complain about capitalism in one form or another, are not successful financially. That is not meant as a slam at you, it's just what I've observed over the last 42 years of my working life. Wealthy, successful people who have applied themselves, seldom complain. They look for ways to make improvements to their own lives.

If you disagree you need to study up on what Mercantilism and Crony Capitalism are, and compare them to what we actually have.

And I own a small business. I've been running it since 1995.

 

[JetGirl]

Republicans are socialists. They are not the same flavor of socialist as Democrats, but they are socialist.

Yep. Moving the same direction. Just one faster than the other.

 

[ole hombre]

J Johnson, that is a point well made. Some folks approach the so-called "gun issue" with a totally closed mindset, which does not allow any sensible arguments or presentations to be discussed.
(I own and utilize 7 firearms (as of today and I'm married to Quaker. You think we haven't discussed guns?
LOL
I just turned 70 and have long known--and stopped being concerned about it--that it would be impossible for "the government" to take away my guns or those of my friends and neighbors.
How those firearms are controlled, handled, or used however is a matter that should always be open to discussion by realistic and thinking people.
Another point, there is not a fixed thing that can be labeled a "conservative" or a "liberal" IMO. People are complex and variable to an infinite degree.
Isn't life a hoot!
ole hombre
"Do you carry Kahr insurance?"

 

[billt]

The first half of this statement is demonstrably false. Republicans are socialists. They are not the same flavor of socialist as Democrats, but they are socialist. What a young person leaving school sees is that one party, the Republicans, wants to give money to big business. The other party, the Democrats, wants to give it to "the people". There is no longer any discussion about the relative merits of capitalism and socialism in America. The discussion is about who gets to be first in line at the socialist trough: the poor, or the bankers? The unemployed, or the oil companies?

What I'm saying is that Republicans need to A: repent of their socialist ways and embrace capitalism, and B: show people how it can work to the benefit of everyone involved. The problem is, every time they try to say "yay capitalism!", they're handing out more billions to some corporation that's "too big to fail". It's not hard to be living on ramen noodles, see that, and call bull****. That's why Republicans don't attract young voters.

Loaning money to a company is not socialism. I'm sorry but it isn't. GM has paid back the loan portion of the bailout with interest, ahead of schedule. People who get Democratic socialist programs like Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. pay back nothing. That is true socialism. You can't compare the two. Would it have been better to let GM go broke, lay off workers, who would have wound up on unemployment, then Welfare? If someone thinks that would have been a better solution, they don't understand business, pure and simple. These bailouts weren't what anyone wanted. They were the best anyone could do. Many economists have said the 2008 crash would have collapsed the economy without them. You'll probably argue that because you don't want to believe it, but there really is no way of knowing either way.

With hindsight always being 20/20, the bailouts worked as intended. And as far as whoever is living on ramen noodles, they should be looking for a better job, or another job, not crying and whining about bailouts. All of this is just more excuses and government blame. If they channeled half of that energy into their private lives, as they do pi$$ing and moaning about the government, they would be far better off. Perhaps these people aren't "true socialists" after all. They very well may be simply a bunch of political whiners.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say, if I had 4 to 6 digits worth of student loans. And after 4 years under Obama I still couldn't find a job I was qualified for, I sure as hell wouldn't have reelected the guy. I don't care if Mickey Mouse was running on the Republican ticket. Yet that is exactly what many of these young voters did. Then they applauded when he won. Perhaps they're masochists. Or they don't have an ounce of common sense. Or maybe they're just plain stupid. Either way if they think whining about Republicans and bailouts, and at the same time voting for Obama is going to help them in their present situation, they were sadly mistaken. But it really doesn't matter because most of them will line up to vote for Hillary in 2016. I wonder where they'll be living, and how much they'll owe by then? It really won't matter because it will again most likely be Bush's fault.

 

[SERparacord]

Loaning money to a company is not socialism. I'm sorry but it isn't. GM has paid back the loan portion of the bailout with interest, ahead of schedule. People who get Democratic socialist programs like Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. pay back nothing. That is true socialism. You can't compare the two. Would it have been better to let GM go broke, lay off workers, who would have wound up on unemployment, then Welfare? If someone thinks that would have been a better solution, they don't understand business, pure and simple. These bailouts weren't what anyone wanted. They were the best anyone could do. Many economists have said the 2008 crash would have collapsed the economy without them. You'll probably argue that because you don't want to believe it, but there really is no way of knowing either way.

With hindsight always being 20/20, the bailouts worked as intended. And as far as whoever is living on ramen noodles, they should be looking for a better job, or another job, not crying and whining about bailouts. All of this is just more excuses and government blame. If they channeled half of that energy into their private lives, as they do pi$$ing and moaning about the government, they would be far better off. Perhaps these people aren't "true socialists" after all. They very well may be simply a bunch of political whiners.

The U.S. government lost $11.2 billion on its bailout of General Motors Co (GM.N), more than the $10.3 billion the Treasury Department estimated when it sold its remaining GM shares in December, according to a government report released on Wednesday.
The $11.2 billion loss includes a write-off in March of the government's remaining $826 million investment in "old" GM, the quarterly report by a Treasury watchdog

 

[JetGirl]

Giving MY (stolen) tax dollars to a company is no different than giving it to a social program. Bailouts are absolutely corporate welfare.

 

[SERparacord]

Giving MY (stolen) tax dollars to a company is no different than giving it to a social program. Bailouts are absolutely corporate welfare.

They paid you back, in useless stock.

 

[Fletch]

Loaning money to a company is not socialism.

It depends on who's doing the lending. If it is a privately held bank without FDIC insurance, or private investors using money they've saved, it is not socialism. If it is government doing the lending, it absolutely is socialism. If you don't think so, you need turn off Hannity and crack an economics textbook.

I'm sorry but it isn't. GM has paid back the loan portion of the bailout with interest, ahead of schedule. People who get Democratic socialist programs like Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. pay back nothing. That is true socialism.

And now we go into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

You can't compare the two.

Sure I can. And far more learned men than I have done so as well, among them F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Gene Callahan, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and a few more whose names escape me at the moment.

Would it have been better to let GM go broke, lay off workers, who would have wound up on unemployment, then Welfare? If someone thinks that would have been a better solution, they don't understand business, pure and simple. These bailouts weren't what anyone wanted. They were the best anyone could do. Many economists have said the 2008 crash would have collapsed the economy without them.

Hearken back to my statement that capitalism is just as much about destruction as it is about building. What was happening as GM and the banks collapsed was capitalism/the market revealing malinvestment, saying "there is too much money tied up in these loser companies", and attempting to correct the situation. What happened was that anti-capitalists on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, chief among them Bush and Obama, stepped in to stop capitalism from working. The aforementioned writers explain all of this in far greater detail.

You'll probably argue that because you don't want to believe it, but there really is no way of knowing either way.

You are really bad at predictions.

With hindsight always being 20/20, the bailouts worked as intended. And as far as whoever is living on ramen noodles, they should be looking for a better job, or another job, not crying and whining about bailouts. All of this is just more excuses and government blame. If they channeled half of that energy into their private lives, as they do pi$$ing and moaning about the government, they would be far better off. Perhaps these people aren't "true socialists" after all. They very well may be simply a bunch of political whiners.

I think it's really funny that you think the poor just need to "get a job", but GM deserves a bailout. Maybe GM shouldn't make ****ty overpriced products that are demonstrably inferior to the competition.