2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[cuervo72]

Dutch - I'm not looking for equality. I'm advocating for those with the absolute most to not break the whole system by sucking as much out of it as they possibly can and never giving any of it back.

I mean yeah ok - Mother Jones. But man, would I like to see the chart for this:

The Walmart Heirs Are Worth More Than Everyone in Your City Combined | Mother Jones

In 1983, the Walton family's net worth was $2.15 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 61,992 average American families, about the population* of...Peoria, Arizona


In 1989, the Walton family's net worth was $9.42 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 200,434 average American families, about the population of...
Albuquerque, New Mexico


In 1992, the Walton family's net worth was $23.8 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 536,631 average American families, about the population of...
San Antonio, Texas


In 1998, the Walton family's net worth was $48 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 796,089 average American families, about the population of...
The State of New Mexico


In 2001, the Walton family's net worth was $92.8 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 1,077,761 average American families, about the population of...
Chicago, Illinois


In 2010, the Walton family's net worth was $89.5 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 1,157,827 average American families, about the population of...
The State of Arkansas


In 2013, the Walton family's net worth was $144.7 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 1,782,020 average American families, about the population of...
The State of Louisiana

At what point is it ok to but a brake on this sort of trend?

[JPhillips]

And too much wealth concentrated in too few hands hurts the economy. Almost all of that 144 billion is sitting largely unproductive. We want money moving through the system, not sitting in unproductive investments. Over time the concentration of wealth has a negative effect on the whole economy.

[Solecismic]

Money is just paper, except when it's my money.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And too much wealth concentrated in too few hands hurts the economy. Almost all of that 144 billion is sitting largely unproductive. We want money moving through the system, not sitting in unproductive investments. Over time the concentration of wealth has a negative effect on the whole economy.

Define unproductive, if that money is in stock, that means the company it is invested in is using it for their operations.

That said, one of my issues with the state of the economy is the importance of Wall St. Many companies strip R&D to increase profitability and short term profits at the expense of future profits.

[cuervo72]

When the Waltons have all the money in the US, I wonder how many copies of FOF they'll buy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Define unproductive, if that money is in stock, that means the company it is invested in is using it for their operations.

At offering, yes, but after the company gets the initial cash influx, the stock profits go to the owners and the financial sector. I don't have any problem with investing in companies, but stock trading generally isn't about investing in companies, it's just daily fantasy for the financial sector.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

At what point is it ok to but a brake on this sort of trend?

Never, not through governmental interference at least.

If the marketplace chooses to do so, fine & dandy.

[cuervo72]

So we need to rely on people individually all deciding to put a stop to something, rather than collectively putting a stop to something. We've already established that a good chunk of people aren't smart enough to not work against their own interests, so good luck with this. Eventually if this trend continues fewer people would have money to buy things from Wal*Mart so I guess they wouldn't have as much coming in (well, they'd still need necessities - I notice that they are having grocery-only stores popping up) but what would they care, they'd have all the cash already anyway.

(The Waltons are basically set up to be insanely rich in perpetuity. I really dislike the idea familial dynasties - royal, political*, financial - which is why I really don't care if the bulk of their wealth is passed along.)

* If another Kennedy never got elected to office, it would be too soon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

* If another Kennedy never got elected to office, it would be too soon.

As long as they're aligned with the Ds and/or liberalism I agree wholeheartedly

As for the Waltons, they've provided goods/services in return for payment and typically at a better/much better value than virtually anyone else. That they've done it on a larger scale & been more successful at it should not be punished. Less whining, less jealousy, more aspiration to be as successful as they've been is what this country needs, what it should stand for, damned near the ideal afaic. That they, and other successes, aren't role models instead of being villified out of jealousy is a disgraceful example of why we're swirling the bowl.

I'd take them -- or countless other people smart enough & capable enough to create success -- over the sum total of all their detractors and the nation would be exponentially better off. The latter represent a great deal of what's wrong with American today afaic.

They're an enormous pain in the ass to do business with (dealt with them from a business standpoint for a client, slotting fees, marketing, etc) but then again who isn't?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

When the Waltons have all the money in the US, I wonder how many copies of FOF they'll buy.

Or if the government makes all the decisions in the US, how do I lobby the government to convince our benevolent leader that FOF is a necessity on everyone's computer?

[cuervo72]

Is there any room for admiring what Sam and Bud did (and that Rob continued, even), but being jealous of the branches of the family tree? Josh Kroenke - current president of the Nuggets and Avalanche (at 35). He's not sucessful for having aspirations or accomplishing anything on his own, he just fell out of a rich vagina. What did John Walton do before he died? Dropped out of college and worked as an army medic. I think there are a lot of those who never got insanely rich (of course he was also an "amateur pilot", like a couple dozen other dead rich guys).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Never, not through governmental interference at least.

If the marketplace chooses to do so, fine & dandy.

I agree, but Wal-mart is infringing pretty heavily on the problem of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as...in my words...as being "waaaaay to fucking good at your job". And traditionally we break up monopolies.

[NobodyHere]

Donald Trump isn't lying again is he?

Last Week Tonight: At No Point Was Donald Trump Invited to Appear

[wustin]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Donald Trump isn't lying again is he?

Last Week Tonight: At No Point Was Donald Trump Invited to Appear

How do you know Oliver and HBO aren't lying? Unless there's some sort of evidence from either side, who cares?

[Solecismic]

Enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act might be nice. If you leverage your dominance of one market in order to gain a foothold in another market, that can hurt consumers.

However, that's very hard to judge. Microsoft was allowed a lot of latitude as to what's part of an operating system, and that mostly helped the software industry. And Apple is somewhat of a competitor.

There's no question Wal-Mart helps keep prices down for many goods. If we came down hard on aggressive retailers, that might have benefits for competing retail, but it might have unintended consequences for the poorest among us.

It used to be that the most noble thing you could say was that you wanted your children to have more than you did.

If we start judging who is deserving of how much, that seems dangerous. If Sam Walton feels the best use of his money is giving it to his relatives - isn't that his right?

There are 7 billion people in the world, and the world GDP is about $70 trillion per year (that's hard to measure because the cost of stuff is hard to equate). That's about $10k per person per year. We have a standard of living that most around the world would judge as obscene. Even leaving $200k to a child - ostensibly for college costs - could be seen as many as crazy-undeserved in terms of providing for some kid who hasn't earned anything. That's more than the median world worker will earn in a lifetime.

I think we have to be more careful in our assessments of who deserves what. At a certain point, if that becomes entrenched in policy, your wealth will eventually go on trial. Population is increasing at a scary rate, and many around the world (India and China in particular) feel the United States should pay to develop more undeveloped countries.

Many in India even today say that we need a global tribunal to redistribute world wealth - that our standard of living, in particular, is now on the table in terms of negotiations.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There's no question Wal-Mart helps keep prices down for many goods. If we came down hard on aggressive retailers, that might have benefits for competing retail, but it might have unintended consequences for the poorest among us.

Indeed. And there is legislative history pertaining to the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which seems to indicate that it was intended to benefit consumers, not competitors. So if a large company is more beneficial for consumers than breaking it up, according to the legislative intent, it may be better to keep that company intact.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So the argument is that we should spend more on traditional welfare than corporate welfare. I understand that point of view.

Corporate welfare is keeping our automakers, airplane, oil, and farming businesses afloat. Pretty scary really, but hardly lining the pockets of the 1% of the 1%. Well, probably it does, but that's a drop in the bucket for what it's purpose is. Without those subsidies, those businesses would be decimated. A major contribution of those subsidies is to keep a lot of people employed. One could argue that the labor unions turned the balance of power upside down and has made it incredibly hard for these businesses to stay afloat in the global economy...so now they need assistance. But the government doesn't make that money, the poor aren't making that money. It's coming from the middle and upper classes (or from floated checks).

The benefit of pulling back corporate welfare and giving it to social welfare is that when people start losing their jobs we'll be able to support them with traditional welfare. Well...until the money stops flowing in because the corporations can't fund their own subsidies much less the traditional subsidies. (read: Detroit, MI).

Soo... income redistribution is a bad thing, unless it benefits our corporations? Also an interesting indictment of the free market system you've advanced here .

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I agree, but Wal-mart is infringing pretty heavily on the problem of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as...in my words...as being "waaaaay to fucking good at your job". And traditionally we break up monopolies.

Target would beg to differ. As would Kroger and other grocery chains.

That's actually what I see as much/more of in Walmart these days as anything: grocery shoppers. While Aldi kicks their butts on a few items and Kroger is somewhat competitive on others, the best bangs for the mainstream grocery dollar here is at Walmart.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Josh Kroenke - current president of the Nuggets and Avalanche (at 35). He's not sucessful for having aspirations or accomplishing anything on his own, he just fell out of a rich vagina. What did John Walton do before he died?

And his family earned the right to give him that opportunity.

There is no greater motivation for me that what I might be able to pass down to my child. And if I earn it, by God I deserve to pass it along and there's not one single solitary human being on the planet who deserves to benefit from it than my child. And not one single solitary human being who deserves to make that call for my own assets more than I do.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I agree, but Wal-mart is infringing pretty heavily on the problem of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as...in my words...as being "waaaaay to fucking good at your job". And traditionally we break up monopolies.

Is there really a tradition in America of breaking up extremely successful companies? I can only think of a few.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And his family earned the right to give him that opportunity.

There is no greater motivation for me that what I might be able to pass down to my child. And if I earn it, by God I deserve to pass it along and there's not one single solitary human being on the planet who deserves to benefit from it than my child. And not one single solitary human being who deserves to make that call for my own assets more than I do.

Why? Shouldn't he have to go out and earn his own keep the way your advocating for the poor?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Why? Shouldn't he have to go out and earn his own keep the way your advocating for the poor?

I find it rather humorous that multiple people in this discussion keep bringing up this strawman that kids who inherit something didn't "earn their own keep." That's just silly. Think about it. A huge chunk (if not the flat-out majority) of active members of this board...

1. ...Are in their mid 30s to late 40s.
2. ...Have worked for 15-30 years.
3. ...Have at least one living parent.

I'm too lazy to look up the averages overall, but it seems very safe to assume that the huge majority of people who inherit money have been in the work force for at least 20 years, probably more like 25-30, before they receive it. Heck, my parents were OLD--47 and 41 when I was born, and even I didn't become an "orphan" until a couple of weeks before my 44th birthday. And in this case of the huge majority of the people on this forum, it's not a lifestyle-changing amount of money. We're talking about making retirement a little more comfortable for your kids, making it easier for your grandkids to come out of college without student debt, making it safer for your kid to quit his or her job at age 50 to start a small business they've always dreamed about but could never take the risk to do because of kids, college funds, mortgages, etc.

And yes, I agree with Jon: all of the items that I just mentioned are *huge* motivations for me to be more productive for longer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Why? Shouldn't he have to go out and earn his own keep the way your advocating for the poor?

Who says he isn't/won't? If he chooses not to, that's his call (since I'd be dead and buried) but no one has more right to enjoy whatever benefit my contribution can be than he does.

It's not as though we're talking about a lot here, God know I'm not in a major income bracket anymore & there isn't going to be much (if anything) left ... but whatever there is should belong to him & him alone unless I choose otherwise.

The erosion of property rights is an abominable trend in this country, and those who are part of it are ... I'll just leave it at "unspeakably vile" as far as I'm concerned.

[Solecismic]

One of the worst things you can do as a man is bring someone into this world, then run off and live your life as if the child were never born.

Studies show clearly that children growing up in two-parent households are more likely to have (paraphrasing) great lives themselves.

Why, then, are we so anxious to judge people as too invested in their children?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Studies show clearly that children growing up in two-parent households are more likely to have (paraphrasing) great lives themselves.

And then we wonder why the country is so utterly fucked.

At the same time, the share of children born outside of marriage now stands at 41%, up from just 5% in 1960.
Less than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family | Pew Research Center

[JPhillips]

10 billion at 5% interest over 200 years ends up with over 172 trillion.

The estate tax exists because truly nation ending accumulations of wealth can happen in a few generations.

[Solecismic]

In 200 years, $172 trillion won't be what it is today.

The estate tax exists because the government is too large.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The estate tax exists because the government is too large.

The estate tax has existed in the US in one form or another since right after the country was founded.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No word yet on whether Bob the Builder will sue for infringement

My Way News - Bush hits campaign reset, retools slogan: 'Jeb Can Fix It'

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cartman

The estate tax has existed in the US in one form or another since right after the country was founded.

Until 1916 (and until WWII it wasn't applied to anyone but the absolute richest of the rich), it was only temporarily in place for wartime funding in a handful of years.

The first post-debate poll is out, and it's from New Hampshire.

Not much has changed, except Rubio is now in the game. He seems to have taken his support across the board - a little from everyone. Maybe more from Fiorina than the others.

Chris Christie got a bump as well. Could be the beginning of something, probably not.

I remain surprised, looking at positive/negatives, that Rand Paul hasn't concluded this just isn't his thing. For someone so unpopular to poll under 5% is unusual. And New Hampshire is a place where libertarian-leaning should get a foothold.

[albionmoonlight]

Broadly, I am a huge supporter of capitalism. It is unspeakably better than the alternatives, which have led to much much more suffering.

Which is why I support reasonable restrictions on capitalism.

That the non-Trump candidate generating the most enthusiasm this cycle is a socialist should be freaking people the hell out. The lack of regulation we've had since the 90s (cutting across party control of both the White House and Congress), leading to Depression-era wealth inequality is a bad thing. It is a bad thing because it is slowing economic growth. It is a Very Bad thing because it is pushing people to explore radical alternatives.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In 200 years, $172 trillion won't be what it is today.

The estate tax exists because the government is too large.

Sure, but even conservative investments well outpace inflation historically. Just look at Trump's wealth and realize he could have gotten the same gains or more from an index fund. The point that wealth can become destabilizing to a nation is still true. And, despite what you said, that's the theoretical foundation of an estate tax.

I'm so old I remember when conservatives favored a stable government. Now they're all, grr grr burn it down!

[Solecismic]

I agree with albionmoonlight. Without some regulation, the top capitalists will leverage their market position in ways that deter free trade.

You need referees that flag holding and pass interference. You do not need arbitrary new rules, like passes can't travel more than 50 yards or defenders have to wear their shoes on the wrong foot.

For me, it keeps coming back to employment. We narrow the gap through full participation in the economy.

Right now, we're at a record low (since women joined the labor force in numbers) in terms of the percentage of people working full time. That puts an enormous strain on the safety net, however we define it.

I'd say something like "nothing else matters" other than those job numbers, but that would be overly dramatic. I do think so many other problems would cease to be problems if we could just get Americans working again. Bring back manufacturing. They're not perfect, but our factories are far cleaner than the ones we currently use in Asia.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I remain surprised, looking at positive/negatives, that Rand Paul hasn't concluded this just isn't his thing. For someone so unpopular to poll under 5% is unusual. And New Hampshire is a place where libertarian-leaning should get a foothold.

I'm surprised he's still in it too. At the debates it seems he has no enthusiasm at all.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sure, but even conservative investments well outpace inflation historically. Just look at Trump's wealth and realize he could have gotten the same gains or more from an index fund. The point that wealth can become destabilizing to a nation is still true. And, despite what you said, that's the theoretical foundation of an estate tax.

I'm so old I remember when conservatives favored a stable government. Now they're all, grr grr burn it down!

That's not quite accurate. Conservatives see the government more as a safety net than a source of moral direction. When it comes down to it, conservatives have just as much invested in the infrastructure of government.

The sourcing of Trump's personal wealth is difficult. By his account, he has done very well, and everyone else is terrible. He clearly had a bad run in the late '80s. He also clearly had a great recovery in the '90s.

Neither would be possible using an index fund. I find this attack on Trump rather ineffective. There are far better ways to say he's not qualified to be president.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

That the non-Trump candidate generating the most enthusiasm this cycle is a socialist should be freaking people the hell out. The lack of regulation we've had since the 90s (cutting across party control of both the White House and Congress), leading to Depression-era wealth inequality is a bad thing. It is a bad thing because it is slowing economic growth. It is a Very Bad thing because it is pushing people to explore radical alternatives.

Well there is that. It is widely acknowledged that FDR pushed for so many New Deal policies because he partially afraid that the American people would get so frustrated with capitalist democracy that they might pursue a socialist revolution or a fascist uprising may result. I think Republicans should be somewhat scared of the fact that a self-described socialist is polling so well against their top poll getters - imagine if Sanders was young and charismatic?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Republicans should be somewhat scared of the fact that a self-described socialist is polling so well against their top poll getters - imagine if Sanders was young and charismatic?

Not really all that surprising, I think most conservatives are well aware of the depths we've sunk to.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's not quite accurate. Conservatives see the government more as a safety net than a source of moral direction. When it comes down to it, conservatives have just as much invested in the infrastructure of government.

The sourcing of Trump's personal wealth is difficult. By his account, he has done very well, and everyone else is terrible. He clearly had a bad run in the late '80s. He also clearly had a great recovery in the '90s.

Neither would be possible using an index fund. I find this attack on Trump rather ineffective. There are far better ways to say he's not qualified to be president.

I'm talking about conservatism as defined by folks like Hayek or Burke, not what American conservatism has become.

As for Trump, it's no attack. I was just pointing out how quickly wealth can grow with no effort whatsoever and little productivity added to society..

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Conservatives see the government more as a safety net than a source of moral direction.

I'd probably be more inclined to believe that if conservatives weren't so invested in dismantling the social safety net government has erected over the last 70 years.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Broadly, I am a huge supporter of capitalism. It is unspeakably better than the alternatives, which have led to much much more suffering.

Which is why I support reasonable restrictions on capitalism.

That the non-Trump candidate generating the most enthusiasm this cycle is a socialist should be freaking people the hell out. The lack of regulation we've had since the 90s (cutting across party control of both the White House and Congress), leading to Depression-era wealth inequality is a bad thing. It is a bad thing because it is slowing economic growth. It is a Very Bad thing because it is pushing people to explore radical alternatives.

Yes. I find it funny that some make out like I'm advocating for Communism (or that by not allowing a few adult children to not get all of their bazillion dollar inheritance I am trying to deprive five-year-olds any sort of parental support).

Anything sufficiently unchecked can go off the rails. I like capitalism too, and I'd like to see it not go off the rails. Because then who knows what the hell might happen.

Also, I'm not exactly lobbying for folks to sit around on their asses getting handouts (just as I don't like rich kids sitting on their asses because daddy and mommy have money). I have at least one relative that I would hold in much higher regard if they would have completed school, worked someplace other than DD before going on "disability." TRY. BE PRODUCTIVE. But when you work at least one full time job and still can't get out of poverty? Maybe we should take a look at that.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At offering, yes, but after the company gets the initial cash influx, the stock profits go to the owners and the financial sector. I don't have any problem with investing in companies, but stock trading generally isn't about investing in companies, it's just daily fantasy for the financial sector.

Depends upon the company, but I agree once it gets going. That said, if some one comes up with a great idea, why should we discourage them from making money?

I think part of the problem is when CEOs began to be compensated by stock options. Suddenly, rather than making long term decisions, the time horizon shrank. You want to cash in those options while you can and maximize them.

Additionally, it's normally not the local business owner that makes large endowments or builds a library. In the case of the Waltons, they were the force behind the Crystal Bridge Museum of Art. The Waltons had a family member onsite to sign off on decisions. It was a pain in the rear during construction, but they were paying for it.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well there is that. It is widely acknowledged that FDR pushed for so many New Deal policies because he partially afraid that the American people would get so frustrated with capitalist democracy that they might pursue a socialist revolution or a fascist uprising may result. I think Republicans should be somewhat scared of the fact that a self-described socialist is polling so well against their top poll getters - imagine if Sanders was young and charismatic?

I think a large part of this is due to the message that youth have been hearing for years. Business is bad, it pollutes the environment, etc. The rich make too much money, he drives a BMW because he exploited others, the whites are where they are because they owned slaves, etc.

Growing up with this constantly in the ears of the youth, how can you have any hope? Where is the faith that things will be better? What about American exceptionalism? Where is the can do attitude that we had in generations past?

[JPhillips]

Well given the optimistic tone of the GOP candidates, that's bound to turn around soon!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think a large part of this is due to the message that youth have been hearing for years. Business is bad, it pollutes the environment, etc. The rich make too much money, he drives a BMW because he exploited others, the whites are where they are because they owned slaves, etc.

Growing up with this constantly in the ears of the youth, how can you have any hope? Where is the faith that things will be better? What about American exceptionalism? Where is the can do attitude that we had in generations past?

Exactly what is 'American Exceptionalism'?

[flere-imsaho]

Obama in New York: Forget Putin. GOP candidates ‘can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators’ - The Washington Post

He's got a point.

[flere-imsaho]

Chris Christie blasts candidates' debate gripes: 'Stop complaining' - POLITICO

Oh dear:

A day after roughly a dozen Republican presidential campaigns came together in a show of force Sunday night to protest the debate process, their fragile consensus collapsed on Monday, with a number of candidates refusing to sign on to a group letter intended to compel TV networks to bow to their demands.

But yeah, sure, they'll be able to govern.

[EagleFan]

The debate should be about the candidates, not the person askng the questions who feels so empty that they want it to be about their agenda.

[flere-imsaho]

It's still about the candidates. We've just learned how they all react when things don't go according to script.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Chris Christie blasts candidates' debate gripes: 'Stop complaining' - POLITICO

Oh dear:



But yeah, sure, they'll be able to govern.

sigh.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's still about the candidates. We've just learned how they all react when things don't go according to script.

We also learned how much CNBC moderators are willing to demean themselves in order to make the GOP candidates look bad. It wouldn't of mattered how the candidates reacted, they were going to look bad no matter what. Intentional or not, it was a genius strategy by the moderators.

The moderators after being booed by the audience and getting called out started asking sensible questions during the latter half of the debate. Of course nobody wants to talk about how the candidates answered those questions because it would actually look like something productive happened.