Orrin Hatch destroys Dan

[TroutBum]

Sometimes you are.

This makes me sad.

 

[Stoked]

This makes me sad.

Then stop being a bully.

 

[TroutBum]

Then stop being a bully.

Cram it up your cram hole, Stroked. TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM!

 

[Stoked]

Cram it up your cram hole, Stroked. TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM!

Theres the Trout I like. So stop mopping around and let your balls drop.

 

[PearlWatson]

In the speech including the grain confiscation quote he says he'll give them a price he considers fair. The co-op idea is another measure that requires actions by the people instead of by the government.

If you are going to continue to generalize from one quote to the other I need the source for the first quote.
I thought we were talking about "using government to break down the imbalances created by wealth," so why would you include co-op's as "another measure." Wouldn't a co-op be a measure in agreement with Benson not opposed to?

Other things I like: Interest rate policy goes a long way to distribute wealth evenly while respecting property rights and low taxation. Wall Street goes to great lengths getting special policies and protections in place designed to reverse this democratic effect.

Most deductions and subsidies in fact favor the rich at the expense of the poor. Some 75% of all mortgage interest write-offs go to citizens of the richest 3 cities. The charitable giving deduction needs to go as well. Outdated farm bills can go. I think the Cargill family will do just fine without subsidies considering they do over $100 billion annually in revenue. Government can either own the buildings they occupy or could sell them into social security as a way to start solving the ponzi issue with the program. Same goes for utilities and toll roads. There's no reason to privatize this stuff when we have pools of money to buy it all, and could manage it all under a government program designed to operate as a private enterprise would by incentivizing contracted management companies.

That statement scares me.
Interest rate policy? You mean jacking with the interest rate at all or what?

I've also gone on about how excessive welfare enriches the guys at the top and squeezes the people in the middle. Profit margins go up when you pay people to consume while not producing. Welfare has the opposite efffect of helping families when it results in more people needing it.

Redistribution is a term with ugly connotations attached to it. I look at things more in terms of distribution and how things can be achieved without government tax and spend policies.

"Tax and spend policies" do sound a lot safer than redistribution, but then I remember the grain confiscation measure and pools of money comment.

I think you're out in left field here.

In what way?

 

[franklin]

If you are going to continue to generalize from one quote to the other I need the source for the first quote.
I thought we were talking about "using government to break down the imbalances created by wealth," so why would you include co-op's as "another measure." Wouldn't a co-op be a measure in agreement with Benson not opposed to?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I prefer "first best" solutions and figured the extras I listed might appeal to you more than some communistic sounding rhetoric. I don't see much of a reason to "soak the rich" with taxes when we haven't taken away all of their subsidies. Seems like everyone can agree to that, yet there's this "getting mine" problem that tends to stand in the way.

Thanks for keeping me honest by requesting the quote. Here: https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=03&disc=16

That statement scares me.

I don't see why. If it's a function of government then why should private industry lay any claim? Do you want to sell the White House to George Soros (insert favorite boogeyman there) and force us to rent this historical structure from him?

I get the reasoning behind not wanting anyone to lay claim on the government but this is a good compromise IMO. We're already enrich ing the elite through policy here and I see no reason to change that to shoring up the biggest bankrupting threat of the day. Free market advocates should be against the current policy by definition and out of princip

Interest rate policy? You mean jacking with the interest rate at all or what?

It's complex, but yes basically. "Jacking" infers unfair manipulation, etc. I'm an advocate of structure & predictability, as all the major economic camps are. Fairness & confidence by extension are centrally important. There are ways to partially solve the Greenspan Bubble issue by minimizing "jacking" from the equation.

In what way?

Accounting for your history of not being very familiar with LDS culture, I'd say you have completely misread the polygamy issue. It's anecdotal, sure, but I would guess most LDS members would defend polygamy as a necessity of circumstance rather than shun it like you've portrayed.

 

[northeast]

There is this thing called CSpan where you can see our congressman opening their mouths and saying things.
Based on first hand observation, Orin Hatch is terrible.
Seniority in Congress is bad, because it leads to terrible people having too much power and staying in office too long.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I prefer "first best" solutions and figured the extras I listed might appeal to you more than some communistic sounding rhetoric. I don't see much of a reason to "soak the rich" with taxes when we haven't taken away all of their subsidies. Seems like everyone can agree to that, yet there's this "getting mine" problem that tends to stand in the way.

Thanks for keeping me honest by requesting the quote. Here: https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=03&disc=16

I don't see why. If it's a function of government then why should private industry lay any claim? Do you want to sell the White House to George Soros (insert favorite boogeyman there) and force us to rent this historical structure from him?

I get the reasoning behind not wanting anyone to lay claim on the government but this is a good compromise IMO. We're already enrich ing the elite through policy here and I see no reason to change that to shoring up the biggest bankrupting threat of the day. Free market advocates should be against the current policy by definition and out of princip

It's complex, but yes basically. "Jacking" infers unfair manipulation, etc. I'm an advocate of structure & predictability, as all the major economic camps are. Fairness & confidence by extension are centrally important. There are ways to partially solve the Greenspan Bubble issue by minimizing "jacking" from the equation.

Accounting for your history of not being very familiar with LDS culture, I'd say you have completely misread the polygamy issue. It's anecdotal, sure, but I would guess most LDS members would defend polygamy as a necessity of circumstance rather than shun it like you've portrayed.

Thanks for the source. I was able to see more of where you are coming from with it. He was anti-speculation. He was telling Mormons with excess grain to give it to the poor in exchange for work instead of selling it to the "gentiles" who would turn around and screw the poor and ignorant Mormons migrating in who didn't know its worth.

The rest of your explanations are persuasive.

I may have misread modern Mormon views on polygamy. My point was that their leadership changes stances based on circumstances and their members follow suit...it is perfectly reasonable to prefer Benson over Brigham based on current circumstances. Although I still think both leaders were addressing economics from different angles and wouldn't necessarily be on opposing sides in a debate.

 

[PearlWatson]

Seniority in Congress is bad, because it leads to terrible people having too much power and staying in office too long.

I agree.

 

[babe]

There is this thing called CSpan where you can see our congressman opening their mouths and saying things.
Based on first hand observation, Orin Hatch is terrible.
Seniority in Congress is bad, because it leads to terrible people having too much power and staying in office too long.

good or bad are relative terms, subject to the view you hold. If you are one who believes in representative government or human rights, Hatch is bad. If you believe the US Constitution is divinely inspired, or a blessing to mankind whether coming as a result of divine providence or an extraodinary human struggle for human rights/human liberty. . . . Hatch has always pooped on you and your pathetic delusions.

If, on the other hand, Hatch had believed that the liberties, human rights, or original intents of our founders were relevant to current events, and more important than the special interests of the higher movers and shakers, I'd vote him when he's 92 or 98 over the wannabe progressive shill selling us out to progressive new world order UN governance that simply is not democracy in any real way, nor representative government responsive to the will of the people.

Hatch has always been that shill, and that's why I say Mormons who think he is a conservative are seriously deceived. But there are quite a few worse senators, too. maybe about 85 of them.

Seniority in Congress is only bad when bad people have it. . . . Ron Paul is my example of someone who has done better.

 

[PearlWatson]

Seniority in Congress is only bad when bad people have it. . . . Ron Paul is my example of someone who has done better.

It seems the longer they are in there the more they are willing to let their inner tyrant out.
The freshmen are excited to get things going but the old farts are immovable.

 

[northeast]

Seniority in Congress is only bad when bad people have it. . . . .

Let me put it another way.
Seniority is antidemocratic.
We can try to vote in representatives who promise to work for change we want, but the power will reside with seniority blocking the voter agenda.