"What we want to see in the United States is honest, beautiful, free, but honest press. We want to see fair press. I think it is a very important thing. We don't want fake news. And by the way, not everybody is fake news. But we don't want fake news. Bad thing, very bad for our country."
"I think it was Russia but I think it was probably other people and or countries. I see nothing wrong with that statement," Trump said. "Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."
There is so much wrong with what you stated in this post.
Okay, these are the two passages you bolded for emphasis. So let's look at how wrong these comments are.
Working class people are those people scraping by on 7.25/hour because we can't possibly imagine raising the minimum wage. Working class people are those who rely on Medicaid to help cover their healthcare needs because their employers don't pay enough, nor give them enough hours to qualify for benefits.
So what exactly is wrong here? This is 100% accurate for the working poor here in the United States. There are millions of people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck, pay day loan-to- pay day loan, and can't afford what we consider the basic necessities of life. $7.25 an hour is about $14.5K a year. Try living anywhere for $14.5K a year, let alone a major American city. Now try doing that without healthcare coverage, since the premiums for even an average plan are about $15K a year.
These coal miners in Appalachia who have been watching the steady decline of coal for decades refuse to listen to their own bootstraps argument. Rather than moving forward and accepting that times are changing, rather than finding new careers for themselves, they just whine and complain that the world left them behind.
Again, what is inaccurate here? It's the exact same argument Canadians use with the Atlantic fishery and the people in the maritime provinces who refuse to retrain. Shouldn't these Appalachians pick themselves up by the bootstraps and move on? Shouldn't they adopt to the changing economics and adapt to the market? This appears to be your mantra, so why is what witty said wrong?
Quote:
Here's a brief economics lesson.
Can't wait!!! I always enjoy when school is in at Rocko's Garage and Night School for the Grossly Ill-informed.
Quote:
You can thank Hillary's husband for NAFTA and other global trade agreements for why there are no more "working class" jobs anymore.
Roh-roh. Someone skipped Economic History Class at Rocko's.
The facts destroy so many tired conservative tropes when you actually bother to look for them.
Quote:
There is only two things that can happen when a mandatory minimum wage is instituted:
Only two things? I would think that the market economy would present many more options than just two? I thought an open market was the source of choice and new ideas? Why only two options? To hard to argue the complexity of the system?
Quote:
1. That cost is passed on to the consumers making goods and services more expensive. Robbing Peter to pay Paul essentially, and the consumers will only tolerate that so much before not participating.
There is some truth to this. Cost of labor is factored into the cost of goods and services, so by raising labor costs you are certain to see inflation take place in the cost of those goods and services. What is missing is that there are other factors that influence price as well, and those factors can be used to counter inflationary effects of labor costs. Resources used in manufacturing can be sourced elsewhere. Contracts can be renegotiated for better pricing and margins on components. Different suppliers can be sought out. Internal processes can be streamlined leading to greater efficiencies and lower overhead. Marketing costs can be reduced. Overpriced executives and middle management who do nothing but soak up profits can be eliminated. Labor costs are just one factor in prices. But you would know that if you had attended Econ 101 at Rocko's Garage and Night School for the Grossly Ill-informed.
Quote:
2. The employer is forced to make cuts, guess where the axe usually falls? Those lower level jobs that you just effectively priced out of the market. It's a nice idea and something pretty easy to campaign on but clearly doesn't solve the problem that it claims to, it makes things worse EVERY time.
As just pointed out, this is not always true. It has become a standard practice with American businesses, because they are very near-sighted and don't think long-term. Investing long term is not really in the American business lexicon any more. Too bad, because that is what made American great - long-term planning and investing in their workforce by big business. We can thank Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan for the destruction of these principles. Trickle down economics made businesses focus on the short term, and as a result, the little guy was doomed to a life of indentured servitude.
Quote:
Where does the money from medicaid come from? Taxes, who pays most of the taxes? Those businesses that are employing people and can't afford to pay them a low wage because of these taxes and other regulations imposed on them, then sometimes forced to lay them off because of more costly government oversight and regulation.
Well, you're half right. The vast majority of medicaid funding comes from individuals. It is payed through their payroll taxes. So every person that contributes through payroll taxes is funding medicare and medicaid. Do you know who isn't paying for medicare and medicaid? The uber rich who live off of their investments. They don't contribute through a payroll tax. In fact, they don't contribute at all.
Regulations have zero to do with the funding of medicaid. NOTHING. Regulations are put in place to protect consumers, to protect the marketplace, and to protect the environment. Regulations do not impact any funding to medicaid because regulations do not impact the taxes collected through payroll deductions.
Quote:
You can't just use the producers in society as an atm to fund all these social programs, if you want to have a low unemployment rate and a thriving economy.
Why not? The rich do it to the poor all the time. When the stock value is weak and dividends look like they aren't going to pay out, what do these big businesses, those "producers" as you like to call them, do to make sure they hit their short-term measures? They lay-off the workers who produce the products these "producers" produce. Let that roll around in your head, and when the echo stops tell me whose getting the short end of the stick? Who is getting used as an ATM?
Quote:
There's a reason why all socialist states always end up bankrupt given enough time, eventually you run out of other peoples money.
Socialist states go bankrupt? Really? Share more on this. How do these socialist states go bankrupt? And more importantly, which socialist states more so than others, especially their pure market driven economies? I think this is 100% bull#### as most European countries are "socialist" and experience great stability in their economies, and a great number of African countries are open market economies, and they experience great instability and failure.
The only "socialist" state in recent memory that went bankrupt was Iceland, and that was a direct result of deregulation and allowing the banking industry to make poor decisions.
The countries that are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy have done so as a result of two major factors. The first has been over-aggressive expansion of infrastructure projects, usually driven by foreign aid or trade agreements (read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, its a facsinating look into how economics really works for developing countries). The second has been deregulation of the banking sector, allowing them to leverage risky products and putting the entire economy at risk. When the American economy ate itself, and the people (yes, those little guys that pay those damn payroll taxes) bailed out the banks, that was all a result of deregulation. That one big domino almost destroyed the entire global economy. So, please tell me how the market is better?
Quote:
The Democrats use to be the party of the working class, but abandoned that long ago.
Let's be serious here. BOTH parties abandoned the working class. They chase the money, and that money is available from the major donors.
Quote:
Now they are the party of the people looking for "freebies", wealthy coastal dwellers and yuppies that want to have both their lavish lifestyle and "moral currency" at the same time.
Freebies? What is a freebie? Because last time I checked, those "freebies" are coming out of my paycheck. I consider those "freebies" as investments, and I know a lot of other Americans who view them the same way. We are investing in our future retirement. We are investing in the betterment of our future generations through quality education. We are investing in the strength of our nation by insuring that the weakest are afforded the same protections as the strongest. The problem is that our "investment managers" are taking our money and managing it poorly. Our "investment managers" are making poor decisions and charging us exorbitant fees for managing our money. That is where the problem is. Not the invest, but the #######s managing those investments.
Quote:
Obama killed the coal industry and subsequently subsidized the "clean" energy movement. I guess we will see what Trump will do.......
What a tired talking point. Economics killed the coal industry. Natural gas is cheaper to produce, is cheaper to burn, and is cheaper operationally for power plants. Obama had dick to do with that.
Quote:
If you are going to play the virtue signalling identitarian politics game from the left side, just remember that you are teaching the other side of the aisle the same game, hence the rise of people like Trump and the Alt right.... Just sayin.
Identity politics? Seriously? After Trump ran his campaign on singling out specific identities and blaming them for all the problems white people face? Get serious. The rise a Trump was a result of ignorance and deep seeded racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminaughty
Yeah, I heard Obama and Hillary both address it and CNN never said anything different. It must be true
Huh?
The facts don't lie. The information in question came directly from the Trump White House. How can you deny the information on salaries and wage gap that came directly from the White House?
Just a quick observation, I think it's great that you should sit up in your ivory tower in "socialist" Canada, trying to tell Americans what the reality of their situation is. You get to sit on your government provided healthcare, with your social safety net to catch you in difficult times, and a healthy economy because of the very "socialist" constraints the government puts in place to save the many from the few. I keep wondering what is preventing such a staunch idealist and believer in the market economy from moving his arse down here and taking advantage of the system you so greatly admire? What is holding you back? There's a good low paying job waiting for a guy like you (health insurance not included)!
The Following 29 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
DOE Rick Perry at coal plant:"Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow."
9:24 AM · Jul 6, 2017
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
expanding on New Era's post above, let me throw this out there...
Excepting those who will never vote "liberal" due to their religion, love of weapons or refusal to not interfere with women's health issues...
How much money does one save by backing a Republican as opposed to a Democratic agenda? Say for a family at the median. Is it hundreds? Thousands?
The median family would actually be better off voting for the Democrats. Only the wealthy benefit from Republican economic policies. Using wedge issues like abortion and guns to convince low/middle income Americans to vote against their own financial interests is the greatest con the GOP ever pulled off.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
So much wrong with YOUR post. The reason unrestrained capitalist states ALWAYS fail, and are forced to change, is because eventually the masses grow weary of the fruits of their labor being increasingly co-opted by their overlords and demand some kind of real participation in the economy beyond just being mindless drones.
Socialist states do NOT always fail. Communist states generally always fail. Progressive socially responsible states that balance their capitalism with tolerance, fairness, and compassion and understand that society moves forward best as a whole, not as a Darwinian exercise, thrive and consistently produce the highest levels of satisfaction for their citizens.
I am more than sick and tired of being told that the left needs to stop being so entitled and robbing the poor producers and that it's really best if we continue to just tolerate and accept the excesses of the monied right. Could the US not just be centrist, like most of the rest of the developed world?
And which unrestrained capitalist States are those? Do you have any examples?
Communism has been an absolute disaster everywhere it has ever been attempted, that's what history shows. Socialism doesn't fare much better.
This idea of a progressive socially responsible State is a nice ideal on paper, too bad it isn't grounded in reality and is not how human beings are wired. You can't give a collective group of people that much power and expect them no to abuse it. Individualism is a much better ideal then collectivism, history has shown that.
And which unrestrained capitalist States are those? Do you have any examples?
Communism has been an absolute disaster everywhere it has ever been attempted, that's what history shows. Socialism doesn't fare much better.
This idea of a progressive socially responsible State is a nice ideal on paper, too bad it isn't grounded in reality and is not how human beings are wired. You can't give a collective group of people that much power and expect them no to abuse it. Individualism is a much better ideal then collectivism, history has shown that.
I assume, you would consider America to fit this description, so my question is.... why isn't working and the Republicans are the biggest whiners about it.
The median family would actually be better off voting for the Democrats. Only the wealthy benefit from Republican economic policies. Using wedge issues like abortion and guns to convince low/middle income Americans to vote against their own financial interests is the greatest con the GOP ever pulled off.
Is this just recent or has it always been the case? Like in the Reagan years...
and if the median family benefits more why dont the Democrats run a more general upper/middle class policy instead of concentrating too much on combating poverty. The people voting on wedge issues alone can't be that many.
They let Trump pretend to take it.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
So are you suggesting that the US is at the goldilocks tax and regulation rate?
I'd argue they are the best example of under regulation and under taxation at the expense of the average person in favour of concentrating wealth. And that in this tax environment which doesn't support public health and education. The long term issues this will create will reduce Labour participation and the average educational attainment of the workforce which in turn will harm the economy more than increasing taxes would at this point. You are absolutely right that there are trade offs to be made for increasing taxation and regulation. In the position the US is in those are good trade offs.
Natural Gas prices killed the coal industry not Obama. No one would ever build a coal plant now compared to gas regardless of economic/environmental regulations.
It's getting more taxed and regulated every year it seems. Trump gets elected and wants to reduce spending and deregulate the economy (the right thing btw) and all hell breaks out.
Of course you would argue that, you seem to be one of those in favor of big government types that squashes the individual. What you fail to understand is that these regulations and taxes actually make it harder for small business to compete with these mega corporations that are in bed with the government.
I don't think it's the best use of government to have them handling public health, education and wealth redistribution, they are clearly not very good at what they currently manage.
Yeah the innovations in natural gas definitely did contribute, but so did Obama's regulations. If you want a better system for energy, let the innovation come from the free market and keep government intervention to a minimum. I think everyone is for cleaner energy, it just has to make fiscal sense.
Members of groups that sustained cooperative strategies for provisioning, child-rearing, sanctioning non-cooperators, defending against hostile neighbors, and truthfully sharing information had significant advantages over members of non-cooperative groups.
In the course of our subsequent history we created novel social and physical environments exhibiting similar, or even greater, benefits of cooperation, among them the division of labor coordinated by market exchange and respect of rights of property, systems of production characterized by increasing returns to scale (irrigated agriculture, modern industry, information systems with network externalities), and warfare. The impressive scope of these modern forms of cooperation was facilitated by the emergence in the last seven millennia of governments capable of enforcing property rights and providing incentives for the self-interested to contribute to common projects.
In the pages that follow we will advance three reasons why these altruistic social preferences supporting cooperation outcompeted unmitigated and amoral self-interest . . .
Yes, Bill Clinton signed off in the end, but it was originally signed by Bush and had bipartisan support.
Hey I'm no Bush fan, all of them have been pretty awful in public service. Plenty of blame to go around for NAFTA. Ross Perot was the one who got it right.
Trump and the cultists love to blame free trade deals, but curiously never blame the biggest culprit by a significant margin, technology and automation. When even China is losing manufacturing jobs to automation, blaming trade deals seems very misguided. I mean I'd be fascinating to see Trump remove Murica from all trade deals since it'd likely lead to a depression greater than 1929, but yeah we'd sort of take a huge hit too.
How do you compete with China? It's not a level playing field. They don't have the same environmental and labor laws so they can do things much cheaper. Automation also creates jobs as well, it's not just completely one sided.
