Donald vs Hillary

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, sharkman said:

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

Why would you want it to be any different than that?

 

[sharkman]

I didn't say I wanted it to be that way, nor did I say that Canadian politics is actually boring.  It is only boring to me, for certain reasons.  

[Smallc]

I personally don't find it boring, but I'm glad that it's comparatively boring.

[dialamah]

I think this girl has some good points

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fk8DDFE8v3I

Edited November 13, 2016 by Charles Anthony
video link https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fk8DDFE8v3I

[Rue]

Thanks Dialamah.  Right on point.

[BC_chick]

Agreed. She nailed it. 

[bush_cheney2004]

They were warned about this...to pick Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton.   NO, it had to be a "vagina".

[Smallc]

Sanders wouldn't have won either.

[?Impact]

6 hours 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.

 

I am all for incentives that actually create long-term permanent jobs, but giving away my money (future tax dollars) to corporations does not accomplish that. 

 

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

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".

 

Yes, low interest rate have affected the economy. In some ways for the better, and in other ways for the worse. What however does the President have to do with it?

[bush_cheney2004]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, low interest rate have affected the economy. In some ways for the better, and in other ways for the worse. What however does the President have to do with it?

 

The President + Congress can influence fiscal policy and other conditions that will prompt the Fed to get off the dime (pun intended).   Interest rates are already so low that the Fed and other central banks are out of ammunition.

[Derek 2.0]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Clinton never tried to make the case that it wasn't trade, but automation which had cost so many jobs.

I don't think anyone, from either side, has done that........the difference, Trump and Sanders have listened to these disenfranchised voters and promised to address their problems......whether they can, long term, or not is the million dollar question. As it stands, Trump listening and echoing these concerns has won him the election.....getting reelected will be the hard part.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The President + Congress can influence fiscal policy and other conditions that will prompt the Fed to get off the dime (pun intended).   Interest rates are already so low that the Fed and other central banks are out of ammunition.

The only thing that will induce the Fed to increase rates is inflation.

[kimmy]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

I don't think anyone, from either side, has done that........the difference, Trump and Sanders have listened to these disenfranchised voters and promised to address their problems......whether they can, long term, or not is the million dollar question. As it stands, Trump listening and echoing these concerns has won him the election.....getting reelected will be the hard part.

 

Strangely enough, one guy who was ahead of the curve on this is Rick Santorum. His 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination was based on (aside from "family values") being a champion for manufacturing jobs. He of course didn't actually have any answer other than (of course) tax cuts, but he did recognize the issue. He talked about it at his 2014 speech to CPAC, which I recapped here, and showed he recognized how they were failing to connect with working-class voters.

Quote

 

"When I was out there campaigning, I was out there talking about the 70% of Americans who will not get a college degrees. 70% of Americans do not have college degrees, and that number is not changing. What are we going to do to talk to them? Our answer has alwas been 'well we'll cut taxes for high income people.' Now, I believe in that policy, but if you're sitting there unemployed, underemployed, looking for a job, looking for a way to move up in your job, and all we're talking about is cutting taxes for high income people, that doesn't exactly connect emotionally, doesn't exactly resonate with the people we're talking about. So what I did is I talked about cutting taxes, but for manufacturing, so that we could create good jobs for people who don't go to college..."

"[voters] couldn't vote for Barack Obama, because they knew that his policies were hurting them... but they couldn't vote for us either, because they didn't think we cared about them. So they stayed home. And now we're here, because we didn't connect with them."

"Times are uncertain in America, even today. You see the unemployment numbers, not getting any better... you hear predictions that the economy is going to start to falter again. People are anxious, nervous, and yes, fearful. People ask why we didn't win an election when so many people were doing poorly and the economy was so bad. Fear. Look at where Barack Obama got the votes. He got the votes of the people who are the most economically vulnerable. Fear. And we're out there saying we're gonna cut that and cut that and cut this... when you're sitting there holding on by your fingernails? And we have no message about how things are going to get better for you-- not for the employer who might hire you-- then we're in trouble."

"We trotted out small business person, after small business person after larger business person to say, to the very small percentage of business people who start their own businesses in America... we built that."

"I understand... people come out on this stage and they bang away at President Obama. I mean, I know. It's fun. I get that. It's easy-- and getting easier, I might add. But that isn't going to win people who are sitting at home who are hurting. They don't feel better. We feel better."

 

And from the same speech
 

Quote

 

“We are the party who has the policies that will work best for these folks,” Paul told the crowd. But he said that Republicans were “out there talking as if everybody who’s a voter is like us: sort of high-energy, “Type A” folks who want to reach for the brass ring… We also need folks who are going to work 9 to 5, and coach little league.”

"We trotted out small business person, after small business person…after larger business person,” said Santorum. But “we didn’t send one server at a restaurant to go out there on that stage, and talk about how grateful she was that her employer sacrificed a lot to create a job for her. And then, we didn’t have that employer walk out on that same stage, put his arm around that server, and say, ‘I thank god for the work that you’re doing.’”

 

 

The  idea that entrepreneurship was the answer to unemployment was a big thing at the RNC in 2012.  It was a big thing in Canada as well, as the Harper government promoted entrepreneurship heavily to unemployed people. I have several friends who took government of Canada-sponsored programs to teach them how to start their own small businesses... they have no revenue and no clients and virtually no idea what they are doing, but they do have business cards!  They now have "regular" jobs and their "small businesses" are just conversation pieces.  The one person I know who is actually making good money working for herself is selling amazing hand-made clothing on Etsy... it took a long time to take off but she's doing quite well now.

And "job retraining" isn't an appealing message either. We already have that, don't we? The message "better retraining!" or "more retraining!" or "smarter retraining!" doesn't seem to really inspire people. They know that a government crash-course in anything isn't going to make them an expert at it... it'll get them an entry-level job in some new field and they're starting from square 1, alongside people 30 years younger.  For people who've lost their careers, the idea that they're going to be starting all over must be heartbreaking.  They don't entry level jobs in new fields, they want things back the way they used to be... and Trump told them he could give them that, and they desperately want to believe him, even if they suspect it's not actually true.

 -k

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

The only thing that will induce the Fed to increase rates is inflation.

 

Not true...the Fed (FOMC) has expanded the list of metrics is uses to make such decisions, including full employment and wage growth.

[Derek 2.0]

21 minutes ago, kimmy said:

one guy who was ahead of the curve on this is Rick Santorum.

 

Of course....but then he was from one of the rust belt States.

 

22 minutes ago, kimmy said:

The  idea that entrepreneurship was the answer to unemployment was a big thing at the RNC in 2012.  It was a big thing in Canada as well, as the Harper government promoted entrepreneurship heavily to unemployed people.

 

It can be, if its filling a niche need or is competitive with existing businesses........the problem with government programs, In BC I would assume you're talking about Community Futures, is that they tend to have a very weak means test and are run by Government employees, devoid of any semblance of business sense......ie, someone receiving a grant in Kim City to open a typewriter dealership or video rental store......in most cases, if there was a need in said community for such an establishment, someone with money would have already done it.....even then, most businesses fail within their first year, and very few will make an actual profit for years yet.

 

31 minutes ago, kimmy said:

For people who've lost their careers, the idea that they're going to be starting all over must be heartbreaking.  They don't entry level jobs in new fields, they want things back the way they used to be... and Trump told them he could give them that, and they desperately want to believe him, even if they suspect it's not actually true

 

Its a zero sum game though......Trump could tear-up the US-Canada Auto Pact and offer incentives for various Auto related industries in Canada (and Mexico) to return to the United States......its zero sum because Canadians and Mexicans would loose their jobs....but then they don't vote in US elections........ 

[eyeball]

12 hours 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. 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.

So Trump just needs to do what lefties have been saying for years and years and years...

I guess you pound your head against a wall long enough it finally does have an effect. Go figure.

[DogOnPorch]

China...lol. Just stop buying their crap...poof...dragon gone.

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

So Trump just needs to do what lefties have been saying for years and years and years...

I guess you pound your head against a wall long enough it finally does have an effect. Go figure.

That's true! If Hillary Clinton had won, none of these issues would be on the table. What did her platform offer anyway?

[Argus]

14 hours ago, kimmy said:

job retraining" isn't an appealing message either. We already have that, don't we? The message "better retraining!" or "more retraining!" or "smarter retraining!" doesn't seem to really inspire people. They know that a government crash-course in anything isn't going to make them an expert at it...

It's not, but I think we should invest more than in 'crash courses' for people whose industries have been rocked by trade or automation advances. And I think geographical areas should be targeted for reduced business taxes, and maybe government loans for businesses which locate there.

That too is imperfect but just saying you're going to 'bring jobs back home' by getting rid of free trade is an exercise in hyperbole and nothing more.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Argus

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That's true! If Hillary Clinton had won, none of these issues would be on the table. What did her platform offer anyway?

 

A whole lotta Islam.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Its a zero sum game though......Trump could tear-up the US-Canada Auto Pact and offer incentives for various Auto related industries in Canada (and Mexico) to return to the United States......its zero sum because Canadians and Mexicans would loose their jobs....but then they don't vote in US elections........ 

No, but they vote here, which means politicians would here would have to respond by hiking import taxes on American imports so that lots of Americans who depend on exports to Canada would lose their jobs.

[Wilber]

13 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not true...the Fed (FOMC) has expanded the list of metrics is uses to make such decisions, including full employment and wage growth.

They have been printing money like bandits trying to crank up the economy. Higher interest rates are used to cool the economy.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Wilber

[?Impact]

11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That's true! If Hillary Clinton had won, none of these issues would be on the table. What did her platform offer anyway?

 

If you listened to the debates, attended one of her rallies, or gone to her website, then you would know. If you listened to the main stream media, then you would only hear the Donald Trump rantings. The media was against Hillary, and working for Trump.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

China...lol. Just stop buying their crap...poof...dragon gone.

That's simplistic. Almost everyone has a cell phone, but would they if the jobs to make them were 'brought back home' or would they cost $1500? And if they cost $1500 each how many people would decide not to own one? Almost every electronic product, from computers to TVs would cost at least twice as much to buy as they do now, thus hugely diminishing demand.

And that would mean that while all of America's competitors were regularly upgrading their computers and cell phones  and other electronic devices Americans couldn't afford to and would fall further and further behind the technological curve. Everything else would cost much more, too, like shoes and shirts and diapers and furniture.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Argus

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Argus said:

That's simplistic. Almost everyone has a cell phone, but would they if the jobs to make them were 'brought back home' or would they cost $1500? And if they cost $1500 each how many people would decide not to own one? Almost every electronic product, from computers to TVs would cost at least twice as much to buy as they do now, thus hugely diminishing demand.

And that would mean that while all of America's competitors were regularly upgrading their computers and cell phones Americans couldn't afford to and would fall further and further behind the technological curve. Everything else would cost much more, too, like shoes and shirts and diapers and furniture.

Slave labour does have its advantages.