Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
    That's fine for the Republicans but what's that got to do with us? Rush has always been a supporter of Republicans and before the Rinos died he was supporting them...It may be true but again that's Republicans what's that got to do with Objectivism? Republicans are believers in government controlling citizens and 31 December saw 85% of them desert anything close to Reaganism...or Conservativism or Constitutionalism....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 5 years ago
      I used to think that Republicans were a little slow; they were always being outclassed by the sly democrats. I had to finally admit that they're being constantly outclassed because they want the same thing as the dems, bigger government, just with the money distributed a bit differently. Neither wants small government, without subsidies, special interests, welfare, etc. It's probably going to take a new party to get to where we want to go, and that's not going to be this year.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
    I notice several Trumpers in the Gulch.
    There are many things that frighten me about Trump, but I'll illustrate just one of them
    Trump says he'll level the playing field with China. China has devalued its currency which artificially causes their prices to be lower and therefore more competitive. Trump wants them to stop this practice, but how will he make them do so? The only way he can is to place a tariff on their products. China then has many retaliatory options, none of them good. They can start a tariff war. As the prices rise it will slow down the purchase of both countries goods and caught in the middle will be the American consumer. Worst of all, if the battle gets hotter still, China can turn to selling the billions in American bonds that it holds. In the end, because of our great size and China's great size not only will our economies suffer, but world-wide economies will start sliding, which can lead to a hot war, and the villain would be us.This illustrates that either Trump cannot comprehend basic global economics, or he is just spouting rhetoric. Either way, I wouldn't trust him to be president. When he realizes his true position in the world, he well might turn to Fascism.

    As to Cruz: He's way too religious in his proclamations -- but, no one knows or understands the Constitution better than him. He has won cases at Supreme Court level and is the only senator to stick up for the promises he's made to constituents, even to his own peril. Of all of the bison herd of Republican contenders, he has the most integrity. No, he's not perfect. You'll not find Howard Roark or John Galt, or Hank Reardon running for office, but Cruz is as close as you're going to get with any chance of winning.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Herb,

      Appricate your comments. I to wish Cruz would dial back the religion in his proclamations, but at the same time like him more for it. Its part of who he is, its not the most expedient way to speak or behave and it causes him problems, but it shows he will state what he thinks and believes and do what he says. I find that very refreshing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
        I think he's got about 80% of it right.
        We are going to witness an interesting thing with the death of Scalia. If the senate allows Obama to get away with a leftist nominee, we'll quickly know what they are full of, bull, dog or chicken.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by one4Rush 5 years ago
    I would prefer a candidate who supports THE FAIR TAX, WHICH IS A FORM OF A NATIONAL SALES TAX.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      I am very familiar with the Fair Tax, so is Cruz. He is smarter than I was about it. He once said he would love to do it if we could guarentee it would be done while doing away with other taxes. his fear, and I think it well founded, was that if you put the fair tax in place it would only be a matter of time until it was an additional tax to all we have now, rather than a replacement.

      I think he is right unless you can change the culture first to a constitutional culture, then repeal the needed amendments and add a very explicit one removing all other taxes constitutionally, your going to just get an additional tax.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
        Cruz often uses the very effective illustration of the EU VAT as what can happen if you open the door to a Federal sales tax before abolishing the 16th Amendment that permits taxing income. It's also one of the lesser disagreements he has with Marco Rubio, who's proposed an American VAT.

        Given the choice between Rubio or Cruz, I would support Cruz, because he's a staunch supporter of "originalism," the belief that government must abide by the original arguments of the writers of the Constitution, or seek legal modification of those arguments through the amendment process. Rubio is the real "anti-Trump," in that he's a very smooth, persuasive speaker that hides his real intent in an attempt to appeal to the broadest audience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years ago
    Cruz is another religious zealot. Haven't we had enough of religion-driven government
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
      We've had the opposite of that, no guide, no morals, no ethics...just Alistar Crowley "Be what ever you will", there are no consequences.

      If it were so, I'd rather have a president in fear of those consequences, even if he only understood them in a pagan sense rather than someone like obobo with no moral guide, no mind, no conscience nor the slightest knowledge of our constitution and the rule of law.

      The problem with progressives and establishment types alike is they have no respect or mutuality for conscious human life.

      In spite of what were taught, there is much to admire about us. Those that have caused the world problems, those that blame mankind are in fact the problem and are nothing like the majority of men. (historically includes women also)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years ago
    I'd be happy with another Teddy Roosevelt.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      You do realize that he was the first president to really drive this big government progressive agenda?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years ago
        I did not know that (I was terrible in history), but every President since Roosevelt has allowed much, if not all, of that agenda to remain intact.

        What does that say about our Presidents, since?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          There are two exceptions since Teddy. Ronald Reagen who I give high marks on most things. He was a spender, so was his wife. Outside of big spending he was a move in the right direction.

          Calvin Coolidge cut government but more than 50% and dealt with the crash of 1920 in a very free market way, that's why we had the roaring 20ies rather than a depression. He was, IMO the best president of the last 100 years or so.

          With those two exceptions I agree. Wilson and Obama are really close between who was worse, but they are clearly the two presidents who have done the most damage to individualism and free trade.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
          it says ever since Wilson for sure they have been following the same drum beat and it isn't ours.
          As has the media, the education system. What does it say about the citizens? Most of them aren't.

          They are just little insignificant particles of a great entity.

          People in general deserve exactly what they ask for. The only cure for stupidity is they don't outlive old age.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dnr 5 years ago
    I will not vote for anyone who wears their religion on their sleeve, or in the case of Cruz, vote to elect Jesus to be the next president.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
    Ted Cruz is a decent speaker, but without the oratorical gifts of Reagan. I said that Reagan would make a great President back in 1964, after hearing him speak on behalf of Goldwater. Cruz doesn't convince me in the same way.

    I think every one of the GOP candidates except Trump has been tripped up by at least the appearance, if not the actual evidence, of hypocrisy, from contradictory statements made, not in the distant past, but in the course of the current campaign. The insistence by the media of a candidate making sworn concrete, immutable statements on every position is a trap that a real leader with any sense avoids.

    I've spent a lot of time reviewing statements of every potential candidate, and of all of them, as outrageous as it may sound to others in this forum, Trump exhibits more common sense than all the others. Taking just one issue, taxation, to which every other candidate has rigidly endorsed one or the other attractive-sounding position. I've heard proposals for a flat tax, fair tax (my favorite), no tax, or a simplified version of the current tax. When asked his position on taxes, Trump simply acknowledged that all of those proposals have the possibility of helping the economy, and that he would work to implement the best, most achievable changes as quickly as possible. While he makes inflammatory public statements to draw media attention and discover the public's deepest motivations, he's pragmatic, rather than rigidly ideological.

    Ideologues either fail, or lead people into catastrophic historical events. It takes real skill to induce people to stop waiting for government to take care of them, and get them excited about what they can accomplish if the government does its best to remove barriers. Perverse as it may sound to some here, Donald Trump seems to be the only political figure sending that message.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      I believe you are nuts.

      You may want to look a bit further back than the last month on trump. He is a long road of contradiction, theft by relationship to politicians through government programs, theft through bankrupcy. Yes his actions are legal, but still theft.

      Perhaps the worst thing he will do is the thing I dislike most about Obama, and he has made it clear he will do it. He has stated he will use executive order to get things done, he will just do good things. A tyrant who does good things is still a tyrant, and we cannot have another or it will be so cemented in our culture that we will never remove the tyrants power.

      No Trump has clearly told us he is a tyrant, but he will be a good tyrant. I want no more tyrants.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
        All of the GOP candidates have stated they will use executive action to undo as much of Obama's unconstitutional initiatives as possible immediately, so Trump isn't that different. The word he uses more than anyone else is "negotiate." He seems more aware than most of the candidates that the Chief Executive has to be more of a diplomat than an autocrat when dealing with Congress.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
    Cui bono.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Not sure I understand:

      cui bono
      ------
      - A principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain
      or
      - Usefulness or utility as a principle in estimating the value of an act or policy

      Which do you mean and why?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
        What does Rush have to gain from his comments?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          Well, if he influences people to vote Cruz, a 10% flat tax would be a big benefit to him, me and everyone else. Also the elimination of the EPA and the return of that role to the states would be really nice, do not know if Rush would benefit from that or not.

          Beyond that I do not know what rush would benefit, I do not really listen to him, I find him abrasive to listen to, even if I agree with him.

          Cruz is the first guy in my lifetime running for president that I think just might do something to correct the course a bit. I was to young to vote for Reagan, and not alive for Coolidge and I think Cruz may be like unto those two.

          Even if all he did as president is drive through a 10% flat fax for our income tax, and kick a bunch of the establishment GOPs out of power it would be a big step in the right direction. No one else running is offering as much, not even Rand Paul.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
            Gary Johnson offers more and he will be running. If Cruz is as good as you hope, then he will not be nominated. The party doesn't let any one run unless they can control them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years ago
              Damn, I wish I didn't agree with you, Freedom! The thought of 10% tax is pretty exciting!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
                If it wasn't an income tax I would agree. The productivity tax has to go.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years ago
                  While I agree it wont go all at once. I even think Cruz's 10% tax may be impossible to pass and it may end up being Mike Lee's 15% and 25% two level tax we end up with if Cruz gets elected. Both would be steps towards a better US. You seem to live in an all or nothing fantasy world. I thought Objectivists were about facing reality and having a stratagy taht can work.

                  An all or nothing approach will never work, and will never get us back. It may have in 1890 had someone opposed rail road subsidies and Sherman law. We are to far from the correct path to right it in one blow now, incremental political process is the only way it will happen.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
                    The all or nothing approach may be the only one that does work, XR. I do see your point of view, but that approach is the opposite of the one that successful negotiators employ. Whatever is asked for will likely be compromised. When New Zealand stepped back from the abyss of socialism 30 years ago the prime minister and his team had the wisdom to go for the throat of the enemy on many issues. They forced the enemy to accept capitalism and saved their economy, at least temporarily. That's another reason to go for elimination of the income tax: the results will be so overwhelmingly good. Half measures won't be a resounding success and will just give the enemy the excuse to reverse them as soon as they regain enough seats in congress.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years ago
              Our poeple will not elect Gary. Like Ron Paul he will have a following and if he runs he will be doing the country a disservice. The best thing he could do is back Cruz. He cant win, but he may split the small government people off of Cruz and make the Socialist or the criminal win. I hope he is smart enough to not run at all.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
                It won't matter, XR. The GOP masters will only select a candidate they can control, and they can' control an ethical man. If Cruz is selcted he will have been compromised and will do what he is told to do by his statist masters. That's why Gary Johnson runs as a Libertarian. That's why you and "your people" should have the integrity to vote for the principles of individual liberty and free markets that libertarians support and the GOP betrays.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                They aren't my people.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years ago
                  You do not live in the US, or on plannet earth. I may not agree with them, and may think they are dumb but I also have to live with them.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                    planet. But I am literate. You have to live with them? That means you have no choice? Sounds like they aren't your people either. I guess it's the way one looks at the relationship. Dumb means unable to speak. In pop-illiteracy slanguage it means turned stupid.

                    I often have to refer to a PC dictionary instead of a real one....but come away with a feeling of having waded in muck.

                    I am sorry about your plight...there are alternatives and most are not so honest as you. one point up.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
            "a 10% flat tax would be a big benefit to him, me and everyone else"
            Every presidential election since I became aware of politics has had someone on this promise. It sidesteps the tough questions of how to reduce gov't. I don't think it's realistic. OTOH, I'd rather here this than what I heard last night. I caught about 20% of the marathon Democratic debate. I heard them both say they would increase taxes by $100 billion a year, and that sounds like not enough to cover all of Sanders' spending promises. I'm disappointed that Clinton didn't say she opposed all net increases in tax.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years ago
              Have you looked at Cruz's plan? If not I would do so. He calls out specific agencies he would do away with. He has said that since the EPA was put in by executive order he can remove it by the same and turn that responsibility back to the states where it belongs.

              I am not sure I trust that he will do it, but who else has even said they would do it.

              he has said, and did say to those in Iowa, at meetings attempting to preserve them, that he would do away with all subsidies, including the corn/methanol subsidies. A person who will tell people this just before the big vote day is the kind of person I think we need.

              He thinks he can do the 10% tax, I think he will have to settle for something more like Mike Lee's plan, but either would be a huge improvement.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                I just searched it. It says it will be simple by showing you a very simple form. There's a line for "income". The hard thing about taxes if figuring out that line, figuring how how fast you can depreciate machines, how you account for the cost of using vehicles, etc. Making the other lines simpler is no big deal.

                Also I didn't see any specifics about how he would cut gov't. He says the payroll taxes system would be eliminated, but SS and Medicare would remain funded. How? If we suppose for the moment that we take care of SS and Medicare, the next biggest thing is military. And he has carried on about using the military more. So I don't see where the cuts could come from. Cutting the EPA is one item, but not enough to move the needle. Moreover, turning that over to the states makes it hard to fight non-local threats like global warming. If we don't do something about that, it will cost more than a few billion dollars. Maybe he has a plan to deal with that without a large federal agency, which I is something I would support.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by blackswan 5 years ago
                  There is NO global warming. If anything, we need to worry about global cooling. As quiet as it's kept, the SUN is the driver of climate, not a gas that's a fraction of 1% of the total. Further, getting rid of the EPA will release the economy from the tyranny of the eco gangs, and free up whole swaths of the economy, especially as it pertains to energy and natural resources.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                    This would be nice, but it's not true.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 5 years ago
                      agreed.

                      the question is really:
                      a) Is global climate change caused by man?
                      b) Is global climate change a problem for man?

                      In my view the first question is more likely answered no, and the second is answered as being something we need to adapt to rather than something that will end the earth.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
                        Decades ago, I participated in a Pentagon study called "Weather War." That study evaluated how we might influence the weather for a brief period to favor our military objectives. When the amount of chemicals and other material necessary to cause even a slight weather modification like "fog on demand" started reaching a trillion tons or more, we summarily pronounced the idea as a waste of time. Given that experience, and the fact that even deliberate enormous expenditure of effort had only minimal effect on near term environmental behavior, I have been amazed at how gullible the general public has been to unquestioningly swallow the fantasy that human influence on long term climate can be significant. Like Rachel Carson's persistent lies about DDT, human deception seems to have more disastrous effect than the natural environment.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                        " the second is answered as being something we need to adapt to rather than something that will end the earth"
                        I agree with this. We would need to adapt some even if, contrary to our current understanding, human activities had no impact on climate. The cycle of glaciation has been going on since long before industry and before humans.

                        There is nothing to the "end the earth" thing. I don't know if that's just people with an honest misunderstanding of the science or a straw man invented by people who want to ignore the science. The earth will be here long after anatomically modern humans are gone.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                        In my mind there's no question. The current scientific understanding, ignoring wishful thinking, is the answers are
                        a) A significant part of it is cause by human activities, probably more than half.
                        b) Yes
                        My question is how to calculate the best way to deal with it. If we went back to a preindustrial existence, it might only cut the problem in half. But I think the science is unclear on this point. My understanding is we're not sure if human activities are just causing the present period of deglaciation to go faster or if it's fundamentaly changing the current ice age (oscillation between glaciation and deglacation that we we've been in for a million years). We need this answer so we can calculate the costs of human activities on future generations.

                        Or we could just bury our heads in the sand and pretend like it's not real.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years ago
                  While the only one Cruz has said anything specific about was the EPA, he stated anything created by executive order. I think the Federal departments of education and urban development both fall under that category, others may as well.

                  He told people in Iowa that the corn subsidies and subsidies of any kind would be removed while campaigning there. If that truly includes all subsidies of any kind, those of international flavor and UN flavor as well as domestic, that is a huge chunk of the budget pie.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                    EPA Act of Congress
                    Depart of Health Education and Welfare Act of Congress then broken up into separate departments or agencies by ....Act of
                    Congress. The newest DOHS Executive
                    Order followed by Act of Congress

                    Link for the whole picture of all of them

                    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepres...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 5 years ago
                      Let me clarify something here, as I have likely combined two seperate statements into one.

                      Cruz specifical called out the EPA as a department he would remove. He separately stated that departments created by executive order are unconstitutional and would be removed by executive order as they were created. Two seperate statements that are not necisarily related.

                      Thanks for the info on the EPA.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                        ah yes... the grammatical punctuation to use in that case is a double dash on either end of the extra part. Called ambiguity marks. You'll find one in the Declaration of Independence first para where it ends 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. --
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                    " that is a huge chunk of the budget pie."
                    I wonder how much. Maybe more than I think. The joke is that all politicians want to balance the budget without raising taxes or touching Social Security and Medicare, the military, or any benefits related to miitary.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 5 years ago
                      I too wonder exactly how much. I doubt anyone knows as some of it would likely be deemed classified. Just the UN chunk alone has to huge, I would bet in the half trillion a year range. a 100 million to buy of country a, 50 million a year to buy off country B, 150 million a year or so to keep Greece from total collapse... Glen Beck put together the Greek number and walked through where he got it from but that had multiple channels just for that 150million number and he said there was likely more that he could not find a trail on.

                      It would not surprise me if our foreign subsidies were close to or possibly slightly over 1 trillion in total.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                Once again.. In detail. it's an income tax. There is no limit as to when and how much that 10 can become something else. Income taxes are by nature fascist as they provide a way to control people.

                The other dangerous but far more acceptable plan is end user consumption taxing only at that point Puts people in charge of government.

                Along with a few other goodies. the Cruz/Rand plan i saw was 16% on each and every business .and the danger point is getting both on the books at the same time.

                What they want is both on the books at the same time.

                So let's say Cruz get's his passed ....all goingi well.....and then some other Soros disciple gets in...where's the protection?

                There is none except income tax goes and the end user tax comes in....no overlap

                16% on business is not a business profit tax it's just more overhead to pass on to the consumer.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
              it's siill a left wing fascist tax and subject to a percentage change after they are safely elected. Income tax is for the left wing who believe in government controlling citizens and these days who are anti-constitution and anti civil rights and bill of rights. no matter how much you syrup they aint pancakes or waffles.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo