POTUS Donald Trump

[gunnarthor]

 

Has there ever been one that wasn't?  I guess I'll have to vote again this November and hopefully flip two US Senate seats so we can continue to see tax cuts.

I like money too. But the problem, in my eyes, was that the tax cuts are really hurting my kids generations. We are increasing debt and removing people from health care. I didn't like that. I like money. Give me more. But I want my politicians worrying about other things as well, including other ways to save money like improving health care. My paycheck increased a small amount, I think I'll make about $600 bucks more this year or so. That's nice for me but it's not really a life changing amount and making it harder for my wife to get health care in the future if she leaves her job or my daughter to get birth control isn't worth the trade off.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Has there ever been one that wasn't?  I guess I'll have to vote again this November and hopefully flip two US Senate seats so we can continue to see tax cuts.

 

Wouldn't you prefer that the bulk of tax cuts were for Americans like us and not for corporations?  Corporate profits are at all time highs, whereas spending power for the middle class is much lower.  

 

I'm game for corporate tax cuts when the loopholes are closed.  I'm also game for aggressive tax cuts on small businesses and creating incentives to raise wages and hire workers.

 

What I'm not game for is blanket tax cuts taht go overwhelmingly to corporation bottom lines.  They're doing just fine for themselves.  People 25-40 who are trying to buy cars, houses, have children, go on vacations, and do the sort of things a healthy economy allows for are getting KILLED by policies over the last thirty years.

 

Why did every baby boomer get to have a single income household with little debt when they entered the workforce, steady wage increases, and a comfortable cost of living and my generation is getting reamed by student loans (Dem's fault), income inequality (Republicans), horrible value for health coverage (Republicans), and no wage increases? (Blame em all)

 

The selfishness and blind allegiance to party is killing the majority of Americans.  I'd ask you to ask more of your party than corporate welfare.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Wouldn't you prefer that the bulk of tax cuts were for Americans like us and not for corporations?  Corporate profits are at all time highs, whereas spending power for the middle class is much lower.  

 

As for the question my answer is as clear of a no as I can give you.  As for the point you use to suggest they don't deserve a tax cut, that is great news for them and has nothing to do with their obligation to fund government.  We need to cut government and when we do we should first give back to those we take the most from.  This is not a welfare program or a handout this is a decreased in tax rates.  If and when your side gets power again I know who will be targeted first the job creators and risk takers that make this economy work.  You might disagree with that but thankfully our side is in power now.

[TheLeviathan]

 

As for the question my answer is as clear of a no as I can give you.  As for the point you use to suggest they don't deserve a tax cut, that is great news for them and has nothing to do with their obligation to fund government.  We need to cut government and when we do we should first give back to those we take the most from.  This is not a welfare program or a handout this is a decreased in tax rates.  If and when your side gets power again I know who will be targeted first the job creators and risk takers that make this economy work.  You might disagree with that but thankfully our side is in power now.

 

Your ideas are hurting the economy and hurting people.  And they aren't even resulting in smaller government.

 

I don't know how anyone can be ok with that.  I used to be a small government libertarian, but as views like yours have continued to go down unreasonable paths you have forced me to vote blue.  

 

This tax cut is nothing more than windfalls for shareholders and they haven't trickled that money down for decades.  

[mikecgrimes]

Are we having a trickle down economics debate or are we discussing who should see the bulk of any tax cut legislation.  Corporations making money helps me.  As for trickle down I guess when we decide $600 or $1000 doesn't matter (especially if the wrong political party is getting credit) then how can trickle down ever get work?  When it works it doesn't count but if there isn't evidence of it working in specific examples that fact is never ignored.  But hey what do I know I'm stupid and a fool, that's what you think.  Good thing I don't care that you people think that way.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Are we having a trickle down economics debate or are we discussing who should see the bulk of any tax cut legislation.  Corporations making money helps me.  As for trickle down I guess when we decide $600 or $1000 doesn't matter (especially if the wrong political party is getting credit) then how can trickle down ever get work?  When it works it doesn't count but if there isn't evidence of it working in specific examples that fact is never ignored.  But hey what do I know I'm stupid and a fool, that's what you think.  Good thing I don't care that you people think that way.

 

I'm saying money in the economy has been flowing out of the middle class for decades.  Even Republicans agree how bad this is for the economy, they just don't do anything but compound the problem with their tax legislation.  

 

Corporations getting billions and me getting $500 bucks is not as good as corporations getting millions and me getting $5,000.

 

And guess who else that would be better for?  Everyone.  Including corporations and jobs.  Funneling money to shareholders only helps shareholders.

[jimmer]

Ah, the battle cry of Republicans: Smaller government and states rights, as long as the states make decisions the Republicans like.  If not, then infringe away.

 

And next the Republicans will go after Social Security.  Cause the middle class and the poor need to pay for the debt that just got bigger by giving tax cuts to the rich and Ryan is fooling people into believing it's Social Security's fault.  Doesn't matter that that the people have been paying into the trust their whole lives. The government stole the money from the trust, can't pay it back and so let's take it away.  

 

 

 

 

[mikecgrimes]

The assumption that Donald Trump and Republicans are going to be incapable of reducing the debt because they started with a tax cut is interesting.  This is like the people that knee jerk react to the Twins signing a bullpen arm that they didn't get a starter.  We'll see what happens but we aren't done.  I know I know a program you like will be cut and that's not OK with you.  Maybe if we call Republicans stupid over and over that will help.

[D. Hocking]

While I understand one should not call anyone stupid, is it OK if I can this memorandum stupid, and perhaps imply that Devin Nunes might not be overly-smart.

 

I wonder how much irreparable damage has been done by this little stunt.

[gunnarthor]

 

The assumption that Donald Trump and Republicans are going to be incapable of reducing the debt because they started with a tax cut is interesting.  This is like the people that knee jerk react to the Twins signing a bullpen arm that they didn't get a starter.  We'll see what happens but we aren't done.  I know I know a program you like will be cut and that's not OK with you.  Maybe if we call Republicans stupid over and over that will help.

I look at it another way. The Pohlads have enough money to expand payroll greatly but until they do, we have enough history that shows us we're remain a low payroll team. The Pohlads don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

Likewise, the GOP - despite their claims - have been very bad about lowering debt when they have the power. They just haven't done it. The early tax cuts and attempts to get rid of the ACA both show that they are willing to raise the debt for political purposes. Until they start doing the opposite, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[jimmer]

I made an emotional and rude post that I regret. Its not the kind of poster I want to be. In fact, it was hypocritical of me to make that post because its exactly the kond of post I would and have reported. It does no good and it causes problems amongst fellow posters.

 

I deleted it because a poster who called me on it is someone who has always stayed above the petty name calling.even when we disagree, and we have, its always been civil.

 

In any event, I apologize for how I worded that post.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The assumption that Donald Trump and Republicans are going to be incapable of reducing the debt because they started with a tax cut is interesting.  This is like the people that knee jerk react to the Twins signing a bullpen arm that they didn't get a starter.  We'll see what happens but we aren't done.  I know I know a program you like will be cut and that's not OK with you.  Maybe if we call Republicans stupid over and over that will help.

 

When was the last time a Republican administration balanced the budget or reduced the spending of government?  It has nothing to do with Donald Trump or even his policies, it has everything to do with the fact that they don't actually do it when they're in power.  

 

Feeding more money to the bloated military is not conservative.  Feeding more money to shareholders while the middle class lacks spending power is not conservative.  I'm not sure what to call it exactly, but it isn't conservative.

 

You should consider what your principles are and if the party you're voting actually does care about them.  Or if they've just convinced you, against all evidence to the contrary, that they do.

[Mr. Brooks]

Mike, is there a theoretical percentage of wealth that could shift to the richest fraction of a percent before you'd agree that it's not healthy for our economy?

 

I think all but the most extreme of the left agree that people who take risks to supply jobs deserve to make a profit when they are successful. But, I'd also hope that all but the most extreme of the right agree that at some point enough is enough.

Not to punish success, but to ensure a sustainable economy, and a robust middle class.

[Mike Sixel]

I know I'm very stupid, but let me look at my pay stub again. More money is bad right?

More federal debt, less help for the poor...etc. but then, for some, it is all about money for themselves, and nothing else matters. No idea if that is you or not.

[Mike Sixel]

The assumption that Donald Trump and Republicans are going to be incapable of reducing the debt because they started with a tax cut is interesting. This is like the people that knee jerk react to the Twins signing a bullpen arm that they didn't get a starter. We'll see what happens but we aren't done. I know I know a program you like will be cut and that's not OK with you. Maybe if we call Republicans stupid over and over that will help.

So, they are going to go against almost forty years of history, and suddenly care about the deficit when in charge? Good luck.

[TheLeviathan]

Also, if you believe states can be the labrotory of democracy, we have seen the ultimate Republican dream before: Kansas.

 

Any amount of research into that debacle will show the folly of going too far.

[PseudoSABR]

Why would corporations ever invest in American labor when they can go invest the money elsewhere and get a better return? (Heck as stock holder you might have a claim against the company.)  Walmart may have raised its starting pay, but it did so as it closed how many ever Sam's Clubs.  I doubt they raised wages because of the tax cuts, but they probably had enough data to realize that enough people prefer shopping at Target etc. because the employees are more helpful because they are getting paid better or have less duties.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Why would corporations ever invest in American labor when they can go invest the money elsewhere and get a better return? (Heck as stock holder you might have a claim against the company.)  Walmart may have raised its starting pay, but it did so as it closed how many ever Sam's Clubs.  I doubt they raised wages because of the tax cuts, but they probably had enough data to realize that enough people prefer shopping at Target etc. because the employees are more helpful because they are getting paid better or have less duties.  

 

Right, for a few million dollars they can put stooges in Washington to give them huge kickbacks.  Way less risk, way better bang for your buck.

 

I have many quibbles with Bernie, but on the campaign finance reform he is very much correct.

[Badsmerf]

Mike, why are you such a big proponent in lowering taxes and smaller government? Do you see the benefits a single payer health system would provide, especially lowering costs?

 

Like Levi, I leaned more libertarian up until a few years ago. Thing is, we need government to do things in our country, they need money for that. Improving the lives of the poor and lower middle class helps everyone, including the wealthy/corporations.

 

I don't buy the montra of lowering taxes. Corporations are setting records for profits, they could pay employees more of they wanted, but they don't. They only wages rising are executive wages, because they control everything. Plus, upward mobility is a joke in our country right now. Middle class people generally aren't able to break into that elite class, it's almost like the good old boys club in many cases.

[nicksaviking]

Are we having a trickle down economics debate or are we discussing who should see the bulk of any tax cut legislation. Corporations making money helps me. As for trickle down I guess when we decide $600 or $1000 doesn't matter (especially if the wrong political party is getting credit) then how can trickle down ever get work? When it works it doesn't count but if there isn't evidence of it working in specific examples that fact is never ignored. But hey what do I know I'm stupid and a fool, that's what you think. Good thing I don't care that you people think that way.

You have trickle down wrong, as does the Conservative party as a whole, though they know better but don't care. The wealthy ALWAYS end up the the money, it's not a pyramid with the wealthy at the peak making it rain for the peons, it's an inverted pyramid, the money flows through everyone else before getting to them. In order for it to trickle down it has to go to the consumers, that is, the middle class. They spend, it then makes its way to the wealthy. What you're asking for is trickle up which is completely illogical. "Trickle down" was simply a clever idiom by Reagan's crew to cut out the middle step in getting money to the wealthy because they didn't trust the middle class to spend, they feared they may save.

 

Also this "jobs creators" stuff is just plain inaccurate. Corporations aren't creating jobs because they suddenly find themselves with money. You'd have to be a terrible buisenssman to create a job that's not needed just for the hell of it. Jobs are created because of Capitalism's main tenet: supply and demand. Jobs get created because they are needed and they will profit the businessman. But you don't get demand by feeding the wealthy, there are too few of them and they have no spending power. You give twenty millionaires one million dollars, they still only buy twenty cars. You give 1000 Average Joes $20,000 they'll buy 1000 cars.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Like Levi, I leaned more libertarian up until a few years ago.

I didn't only lean Libertarian, I was a registered Libertarian way back in 1998 because no one else cared about spending and personal liberty (specifically gay rights, which was a personal hot button for me).

 

I'll third your "going blue" statement because the Republican Party has lost its ****ing mind. I went from mostly red in 2000 to kinda red in 2004 to kinda blue in 2008 and entirely blue in 2012.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Feeding more money to shareholders while the middle class lacks spending power is not conservative.  I'm not sure what to call it exactly, but it isn't conservative.

Short-sighted is what you call it.

 

Bad things happen when the average person gets the shaft for a generation or two. First, they blame immigrants or those underneath them. Second, comes a gathering of strength. Third, **** just starts burning.

 

But hey, it's not like we have a template of history to follow here.

 

Instead of typing more, I'll just quote Steinbeck:

One man, one family driven from the land; this rusty car creaking along the highway to the west. I lost my land, a single tractor took my land. I am alone and I am bewildered. And in the night one family camps in a ditch and another family pulls in and the tents come out. The two men squat on their hams and the women and children listen. Here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two squatting men apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other. Here is the anlage of the thing you fear. This is the zygote. For here "I lost my land" is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate—"We lost our land." The danger is here, for two men are not as lonely and perplexed as one. And from this first "we" there grows a still more dangerous thing: "I have a little food" plus "I have none." If from this problem the sum is "We have a little food," the thing is on its way, the movement has direction. Only a little multiplication now, and this land, this tractor are ours. The two men squatting in a ditch, the little fire, the side-meat stewing in a single pot, the silent, stone-eyed women; behind, the children listening with their souls to words their minds do not understand. The night draws down. The baby has a cold. Here, take this blanket. It's wool. It was my mother's blanket—take it for the baby. This is the thing to bomb. This is the beginning—from "I" to "we."

 

If you who own the things people must have could understand this, you might preserve yourself. If you could separate causes from results, if you could know that Paine, Marx, Jefferson, Lenin, were results, not causes, you might survive. But that you cannot know. For the quality of owning freezes you forever into "I," and cuts you off forever from the "we."

[TheLeviathan]

Great quote. I believe in capitalism, I'm a free market guy,but only when the aim is for all to succeed.

 

You dont have a free market when you neuter 90% of the market's ability to participate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Great quote. I believe in capitalism, I'm a free market guy,but only when the aim is for all to succeed.

You dont have a free market when you neuter 90% of the market's ability to participate.

The free market had a good run. Now it's time to start talking about what comes next because in 50 years, most of our jobs will be obsolete. In 20 years, a large percentage of blue collar jobs will be gone.

 

So what do we do next?

[TheLeviathan]

 

The free market had a good run. Now it's time to start talking about what comes next because in 50 years, most of our jobs will be obsolete. In 20 years, a large percentage of blue collar jobs will be gone.

 

So what do we do next?

 

Necessity is the mother of invention.....and that's pretty much all I've got.  

[Badsmerf]

The free market had a good run. Now it's time to start talking about what comes next because in 50 years, most of our jobs will be obsolete. In 20 years, a large percentage of blue collar jobs will be gone.

 

So what do we do next?

We have to spend money to train and educate people. I'd say Germany is a good example of how you can succeed at that. Their system isn't perfect, but education is available to those that are capable.

 

The next generation of jobs will need to be more skilled.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The free market had a good run. Now it's time to start talking about what comes next because in 50 years, most of our jobs will be obsolete. In 20 years, a large percentage of blue collar jobs will be gone.

 

So what do we do next?

Without the interests that beset our world the solution is simple: socialize/nationalize specific public dependent industries (health/energy/etc.), let capitalism keep making widgets, as jobs decrease, institute a basic income with service/work obligation to the populace. There hasn't been free market for the better part of a century.   Yes the perpetual machine is always preferable to the machine that needs fuel, but we are well past the age of ignorance that capitalism bears ever reproducing fruits.   The greed-machine works well for consumer goods, and may work well in conjunction with social and health technologies--but maybe not at cost we can live with.  The best of humanity was never motivated by greed; not the lab technician, not the scientist, not the doctor, not Einstein.  Let us dispell the notion that capitalism is some always, ever noble duty; it is greed, and I believe that's a cardinal sin.

[ashbury]

Without the interests that beset our world the solution is simple: socialize/nationalize specific public dependent industries (health/energy/etc.), let capitalism keep making widgets, as jobs decrease, institute a basic income with service/work obligation to the populace. There hasn't been free market for the better part of a century.   Yes the perpetual machine is always preferable to the machine that needs fuel, but we are well past the age of ignorance that capitalism bears ever reproducing fruits.   The greed-machine works well for consumer goods, and may work well in conjunction with social and health technologies--but maybe not at cost we can live with.  The best of humanity was never motivated by greed; not the lab technician, not the scientist, not the doctor, not Einstein.  Let us dispell the notion that capitalism is some always, ever noble duty; it is greed, and I believe that's a cardinal sin.

I reach much the same conclusions, but arrived at in a slightly different formulation: free-enterprise works great when there is informed consent among all parties, but experience has shown that in certain areas such as health care that is not how it plays out. Market forces (call it greed if you want) will still exist, whether we choose to let them dictate transactions or not, so we must approach initiatives like "socialized medicine universal healthcare" with eyes wide open as to where the hidden costs will pop up. And the economy is far more prone to concentration due to global communications and transport than in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" days, not to mention automation making it unnecessary for every able-bodied person to work merely to avoid mass starvation. Classic free-enterprise is a special case of a broader economic theory we must create - a theory as understandable as free-enterprise or people will not embrace it.

[TheLeviathan]

Right, the human factors behind the free market are still there and will continue to be there.  It's naive to think greed isn't a significant role in economic actions of many.  Likewise, free market worshippers are naive to think it's the only thing that drives human behavior.

 

I think I've had to say this too many times lately, but human beings are complicated.  We rarely make things fit nicely no matter how hard we try.  I tend to think a true free market (which can't exist, frankly) is a sustainable economic model, whereas I think socialism is almost certain disaster.  But since a true market can't exist, we have to accept a hybrid.

 

The problem is the future hybrid that is on the horizon will look and feel so different, while the human components stay much the same, that it makes bracing for it very difficult.  It's the industrial revolution on steroids.

[nicksaviking]

 

We have to spend money to train and educate people. I'd say Germany is a good example of how you can succeed at that. Their system isn't perfect, but education is available to those that are capable.

The next generation of jobs will need to be more skilled.

 

The next generation just has to be willing to learn more skills. I'm guessing even in today's poor educational climate, plenty of people who's jobs are becoming extinct have opportunities to learn new skills but refuse to do it.

 

I'd have to imagine there are even going to be plenty of new jobs created by today's innovation which will be obsolete, and just like our rapidly changing technology, they are going to become obsolete at quicker and quicker rates.

 

People just have to understand that there is just going to be fewer and fewer jobs where you learn one trade and call it a career as has long been a workingman's tradition. That obviously isn't going to sit well with folks who resist change kicking and screaming.

 

And yes, the government should be funding the education to keep the population up to speed.