Donald vs Hillary

[kimmy]

6 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Without sounding too much like BC 2004, It's rich hearing a Hillary supporting millennial from Canada talk about what Trump needs to do to keep his support, what the congress, senate and Supreme court think and will obviously do in the coming years, when she can't quite acknowledge the reasons why the US voted for Trump in the first place.

The reasons Trump won are fairly apparent:

 -large numbers of people dislike and distrust Hillary.

 -many people want the economy changed.

 -many people want social conservative policy put in place.

 -many people want action on immigration and undocumented workers and "the Wall".

I fully expect some action on the latter issue.  As for the first three, though. He won't be running against Hillary next time, so unless the Democrats can find somebody even less popular, Trump won't have that advantage working for him. So that leaves us talking about how much economic change he can actually create, and how much social conservative policy he can actually bring into effect. As we've been discussing in this thread. Do you have some objection to that, or are you just trying to sound smug?

 -k

[DogOnPorch]

Haven't any of you driven into Mexico?

[OftenWrong]

9 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

This would be the type rig I'm referring to. Modern wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS

 

Unmanned aircraft, great idea. I like the use of fencing too, cheaper and still quite effective. As in barbed wire, razor wire, electrical. More work for the "Rust Belt". I'm sure there will be new technological advancements coming out from those sectors.

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

If it's an actual physical wall.

 

That's Trump's plan.......using fencing where a wall wouldn't be possible.

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Unmanned aircraft, great idea

They're already used......including on the Canadian border.

[DogOnPorch]

There ALREADY is a wall, folks. Been there for decades.

Current US-Mexican border

However, it isn't complete...plus you have native tribal lands etc.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

They're already used......including on the Canadian border.

The JLENS is a bit more high tech than the current blimps.

Only 4 made...one got away.

[OftenWrong]

11 minutes ago, kimmy said:

So that leaves us talking about how much economic change he can actually create.

Given that much of the industry has moved south or overseas, there's a big hole waiting to be filled in terms of the kind of work that a more insular America needs. And this sort of change only makes sense in this day and age, to be less dependent on ones competitors. If a major war broke out, how mush easier it is for the industry to respond when there are so many more steel mils and car manufacturers available to be drawn upon in an emergency... exactly as was necessary in the world wars.

What Trump then needs to do is figure out a way to make these companies cost effective against an economy like China, places where the economy is not regulated, no environmental controls, pollution controls. The current system is unfairly balanced toward those countries who exploit their own people and environment. These changes are sorely needed and long overdue.

Edited November 13, 2016 by OftenWrong

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

There ALREADY is a wall, folks. Been there for decades.

Current US-Mexican border

However, it isn't complete...plus you have native tribal lands etc.

There is wall and fencing along ~25-30% of the Southern border......

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

There is wall and fencing along ~25-30% of the Southern border......

Yes...plus there's the Tohono Nation...sitting Mohawk-like on the border. A big weak spot in the mountains.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

What Trump then needs to do is figure out a way to make these companies cost effective against an economy like China, places where the economy is not regulated, no environmental controls, pollution controls. The current system is unfairly balanced toward those countries who exploit their own people and environment. These changes are sorely needed and long overdue.

 

Simple.......Trump could slap huge tariffs on such countries goods......

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

Yes...plus there's the Tohono Nation...sitting Mohawk-like on the border. A big weak spot in the mountains.

Build a wall, with checkpoints, on the outside of their nation if they don't wish to play ball.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed.

[kimmy]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Given that much of the industry has moved south or overseas, there's a big hole waiting to be filled in terms of the kind of work that a more insular America needs. And this sort of change only makes sense in this day and age, to be less dependent on ones competitors.

Laid-off factory workers aren't going to turn into programmers and electronics technicians and network analysts just with some crash courses at government retraining centers. And if/when factories return to America, they'll be staffed mostly by robots and technicians, not blue-collar workers.

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

If a major war broke out, how mush easier it is for the industry to respond when there are so many more steel mils and car manufacturers available to be drawn upon in an emergency... exactly as was necessary in the world wars.

The US does keep strategic industry alive by buying stuff they don't actually need. A few years back the Army suggested spending cuts could be helped by not ordering a shipment of tanks they didn't want or need... the tanks were purchased anyway, because the DND felt that keeping the manufacturer financially viable was important to national security. Aerospace companies and ship builders likewise remain viable commercial concerns.

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What Trump then needs to do is figure out a way to make these companies cost effective against an economy like China, places where the economy is not regulated, no environmental controls, pollution controls. The current system is unfairly balanced toward those countries who exploit their own people and environment. These changes are sorely needed and long overdue.

Obviously the answer is to give American corporations the same ability to exploit workers and destroy the environment that they have in China!

Failing that, perhaps a 35% tariff on Chinese products entering the US.  The idea that making everyday products a lot more expensive to buy will work out well has been proven to be tremendously successful, again and again.

 -k

[sharkman]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

I think we both agree that those Rust Belt workers expecting jobs are going to be left disappointed, which leaves me wondering what he's going to do to make up for it that disappointment.

While some are suggesting this was a resounding win by Trump, the truth is that it's anything but. His electoral college win actually hinges on just a few thousand votes in each of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania... less than 100,000 votes total between the 3 states.  It's very easy to picture those states flipping back to blue next election if Trump isn't running against the most unpopular woman in America, or just a small number of independents and Reagan Democrats say "I was willing to give him a chance, but this just hasn't worked out the way he promised", or evangelicals say "he promised us all these things and he just didn't deliver, I'm staying home."

He's going to need some YUGE wins to put on his resume, and I'm wondering where they'll come from.

 -k

I think the economy getting fired up would sway a lot of voters.  

Under Obama, the economy hasn't seen an annual growth rate of 3%, and since 2009 saw such a large drop to start off his administration, that is significant.  Wikipedia says that the "Great Recession" saw 8.8 million jobs lost, and the economy was still seeing occasional net  losses in 2010, 5 out of 12 months.  To that, add the number of jobs needed for new workers entering the economy each year, and the number of jobs needed for new and laid off workers during Obama's terms is probably over 12 million, something that Trump now faces.  Obama didn't come close to meeting the need here.

From what I've read, Trump wants to bring 200 billion back into the US.  It's income US corporations have made internationally, and it's being kept out because corporations face a 35% tax rate to bring it into the US.  Trump wants to give them a reduced rate to bring it into the US economy.  He also wants to lower the tax rate for domestic companies and do something with the high costs companies face to cover their employees under Obamacare.

If he can lower the tax burden(that Obama put on them) plus start up some projects like Keystone and some kind of wall, the economy will respond in a big way.  I'm sure he's got some other plans as well, but they've got to do something about the huge debt Obama has racked up.  They've been bleeding red for the entire 8 Obama years, and it's gotta stop.  A fired up economy will generate tax revenue like Obama's tax increases never could, and we will see what happens.

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Failing that, perhaps a 35% tariff on Chinese products entering the US.  The idea that making everyday products a lot more expensive to buy will work out well has been proven to be tremendously successful, again and again.
 

 

Certainly has been the strategy in Canada....how's that working out ?   Canada is back to worrying about what the U.S. will do after an election.  

Americans don't do that when Ottawa plays musical chairs.

Edited November 13, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, sharkman said:

I think the economy getting fired up would sway a lot of voters.  

Under Obama, the economy hasn't seen an annual growth rate of 3%, and since 2009 saw such a large drop to start off his administration, that is significant. 

 

Trump also wants to get money moving again.   The Fed has kept interest rates to low for too long.   It has been a "lost decade".

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Yeah but...........the pitchfork populists on both sides never explained to the out-of-work rust belt workers that of the ~7 million jobs lost over the last several decades, ~6 million of them were replaced by robots and other forms of automation....not Mexicans.....

I said some time ago that was one of the big mistakes Clinton was making. Instead of challenging Trump's nonsense about America's manufacturing being 'gone', that 'we don't make anything any more' they went along with it and jumped on the anti-trade wagon which he owned. In reality Manufacturing in the US is at an all time high, but it doesn't require anywhere near as many employees largely because of automation. As far as I know, Clinton never tried to make the case that it wasn't trade, but automation which had cost so many jobs.

[Argus]

53 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Without sounding too much like BC 2004, It's rich hearing a Hillary supporting millennial from Canada talk about what Trump needs to do to keep his support, what the congress, senate and Supreme court think and will obviously do in the coming years, when she can't quite acknowledge the reasons why the US voted for Trump in the first place.

Most? Because they were lied to, and because they're ignorant.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Most? Because they were lied to, and because they're ignorant.

 

And yet, "smart" Canadians picked the loser.   And now those "smart" Canadians worry about what will happen with Trump...how will he rock their world that is so impacted by what the "ignorant" Americans do....and how things ever got that way.

[kimmy]

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

I think the economy getting fired up would sway a lot of voters.  

 

I completely agree. I just don't think it's going to happen to any great extent.

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

From what I've read, Trump wants to bring 200 billion back into the US.  It's income US corporations have made internationally, and it's being kept out because corporations face a 35% tax rate to bring it into the US.  Trump wants to give them a reduced rate to bring it into the US economy.  He also wants to lower the tax rate for domestic companies and do something with the high costs companies face to cover their employees under Obamacare.

Giving big corporations a tax-amnesty to bring all their offshored money out of tax shelter countries and back to the US probably isn't going to do anything significant. It'll come back to the US and promptly given to shareholders who'll use their own tax-avoidance strategies to send it back out of the country.

Will Apple create jobs in the US if they have a lower tax rate? Why would they? They already have enough employees to design and build their products. They only need to hire more people if they can sell more iPhones. Lowering Apple's taxes doesn't create jobs, it just creates more dividends for shareholders.

The theory that these shareholders will go out and spend their extra dividend money to stimulate the economy is pretty skeptical... it's been tried before, it's known as "trickle-down economics", and it's not actually very successful.

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

If he can lower the tax burden(that Obama put on them) plus start up some projects like Keystone and some kind of wall, the economy will respond in a big way.  I'm sure he's got some other plans as well, but they've got to do something about the huge debt Obama has racked up.  They've been bleeding red for the entire 8 Obama years, and it's gotta stop.  A fired up economy will generate tax revenue like Obama's tax increases never could, and we will see what happens.

I'm amazed to be in this new world where conservatives who've denounced the idea of direct stimulus government spending for many years as wasteful and ineffective are now convinced that hiring people to build a wall is going to turn the economy around.

A democratic socialist senator named Bernie Sanders has announced that he's enthusiastic about working with Trump in rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure. Although, I suspect that Senator Sanders is more interested in repairing roads, bridges, water, sewers, Flint's water treatment plant, and so on, as opposed to border walls and pipelines.

 -k

[sharkman]

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

I completely agree. I just don't think it's going to happen to any great extent.

Giving big corporations a tax-amnesty to bring all their offshored money out of tax shelter countries and back to the US probably isn't going to do anything significant. It'll come back to the US and promptly given to shareholders who'll use their own tax-avoidance strategies to send it back out of the country.

Will Apple create jobs in the US if they have a lower tax rate? Why would they? They already have enough employees to design and build their products. They only need to hire more people if they can sell more iPhones. Lowering Apple's taxes doesn't create jobs, it just creates more dividends for shareholders.

The theory that these shareholders will go out and spend their extra dividend money to stimulate the economy is pretty skeptical... it's been tried before, it's known as "trickle-down economics", and it's not actually very successful.

I'm amazed to be in this new world where conservatives who've denounced the idea of direct stimulus government spending for many years as wasteful and ineffective are now convinced that hiring people to build a wall is going to turn the economy around.

A democratic socialist senator named Bernie Sanders has announced that he's enthusiastic about working with Trump in rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure. Although, I suspect that Senator Sanders is more interested in repairing roads, bridges, water, sewers, Flint's water treatment plant, and so on, as opposed to border walls and pipelines.

 -k

Yours is certainly the glass that is half full. 

You fail to see that the lower business tax rate will help the small and medium businesses, the heart of the economy.  The carpet layers, the painters, the reams of small businesses that would like to hire a person this year but can't.  The person who would like to start his own business but it's too expensive right now because of the tax situation. I'm not sure what kind of world you live in, but look around the town you live in.  Are there any Apple factories?  Why do you assume it all depends on Apple?  

i'm not suggest that building a wall and a pipeline is going to turn the economy around.  I'm supporting tax changes that will help small and medium sized businesses.  Stopping the flow of companies to Mexico.  Ending the witch hunt on coal.  And some infrastructure building can't hurt.  Trickle down economics worked just fine for Reagan, and it will work again.  Believe whatever makes you happy.  You'll no doubt be shocked when their economy takes off.

Whatever your opinion, hopefully you can see that after 8 years of the best that Obama could do, it's not actually going so well.  They are still having to borrow over a trillion a year to meet obligations.  Obviously something has to be done.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, sharkman said:

 Believe whatever makes you happy.  You'll no doubt be shocked when their economy takes off.

 

Either way, more Canadian energy (pun intended) has been expended on this forum discussing Trump and the U.S. economy than any impact of Justin Trudeau back home.   Amazing.....

[sharkman]

I've always found our politics boring.  Not sure why...

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, sharkman said:

You fail to see that the lower business tax rate will help the small and medium businesses, the heart of the economy.  The carpet layers, the painters, the reams of small businesses that would like to hire a person this year but can't.

That's nice. I like lowered taxes. Problem is, the US currently has a huge annual deficit, and Trump's plan to lower everyone's taxes will make it balloon. Seems to be a conservative ought to be concerned about that.