Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Looking for SOMETHING positive
- This topic has 150 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by — X —.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 10, 2016 at 12:34 pm #57500PA RamParticipant
Don’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
The main thing I think about is the rejection of globalization and terrible trade deals.
I HOPE that Trump is sincere about this and I HOPE that it’s not just another face and con put on more terrible deals. There seems to be a rejection, not just here–but across the world concerning these deals.
I would hope that we can get these things pointed in a better path. Obviously there will be trade. I’m not suggesting otherwise. And certainly there’s the chance that he may start a trade war with China. Yes–he could create a disaster. But HOPEFULLY, with some decent advice and maybe some luck, he finds some balance that works.
The democrats were set in what they were doing–despite Bernie’s attempts to turn Clinton. Did anyone truly ever believe her?
So that’s one area I hope something positive comes from.
The other is foreign policy–military adventurism. I would HOPE that we DO back away from being everywhere and basically setting off one fire after another in an attempt to exert our dominance over the globe. In some of these civil wars in the middle east we back our enemy against another enemy who is fighting a different enemy. It feels like a disaster.
I realize there a million different ways Trump can upset the balance and create World War III. Do I feel safe with him as the captain? Of course not. But I HOPE he plays this just right and allows us to back away from some of the mistakes we’ve been making. I’m not opposed to less of an American footprint all over the globe.
Still–do I believe the forces behind him REALLY want that? No–not really.
We will see.
Anyway—that’s pretty much what I got.
Comments? Thoughts?
Can you think of anything positive we can HOPE for in a Trump presidency?
- This topic was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by PA Ram.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
November 10, 2016 at 12:54 pm #57503nittany ramModeratorI got nuthin’.
And I think any sparse benefits will surely be overshadowed by all the disasters.
I mean, Hitler signed the ‘Reich Nature Protection Act’ that saved several endangered animal species from extinction including the Eurasian lynx.
Funny how that’s never the first thing that comes to mind when I think about his impact on the world though.November 10, 2016 at 1:08 pm #57507bnwBlockedDon’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
The main thing I think about is the rejection of globalization and terrible trade deals.
I HOPE that Trump is sincere about this and I HOPE that it’s not just another face and con put on more terrible deals. There seems to be a rejection, not just here–but across the world concerning these deals.
I would hope that we can get these things pointed in a better path. Obviously there will be trade. I’m not suggesting otherwise. And certainly there’s the chance that he may start a trade war with China. Yes–he could create a disaster. But HOPEFULLY, with some decent advice and maybe some luck, he finds some balance that works.
The democrats were set in what they were doing–despite Bernie’s attempts to turn Clinton. Did anyone truly ever believe her?
So that’s one area I hope something positive comes from.
The other is foreign policy–military adventurism. I would HOPE that we DO back away from being everywhere and basically setting off one fire after another in an attempt to exert our dominance over the globe. In some of these civil wars in the middle east we back our enemy against another enemy who is fighting a different enemy. It feels like a disaster.
I realize there a million different ways Trump can upset the balance and create World War III. Do I feel safe with him as the captain? Of course not. But I HOPE he plays this just right and allows us to back away from some of the mistakes we’ve been making. I’m not opposed to less of an American footprint all over the globe.
Still–do I believe the forces behind him REALLY want that? No–not really.
We will see.
Anyway—that’s pretty much what I got.
Comments? Thoughts?
Can you think of anything positive we can HOPE for in a Trump presidency?
Don’t forget the wall.
Willingness to work with Putin to eliminate ISIS.
Repeal and replace Obamacare.The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 10, 2016 at 1:45 pm #57518PA RamParticipantI got nuthin’.
And I think any sparse benefits will surely be overshadowed by all the disasters.
I mean, Hitler signed the ‘Reich Nature Protection Act’ that saved several endangered animal species from extinction including the Eurasian lynx.
Funny how that’s never the first thing that comes to mind when I think about his impact on the world though.Well thank you for that, Mr. Positivity!
I’ll put you at the top of my list of people to call when I decide leap from a tall building.
PA Ram: Maybe I won’t jump today. It’s a beautiful day, today. Sun’s shining.
Nittany Ram: Eh. They want rain later.
By the way–I had no idea Hitler was sympathetic to the lynx.
Maybe Trump likes spotted owls.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
November 10, 2016 at 1:49 pm #57519nittany ramModeratorI got nuthin’.
And I think any sparse benefits will surely be overshadowed by all the disasters.
I mean, Hitler signed the ‘Reich Nature Protection Act’ that saved several endangered animal species from extinction including the Eurasian lynx.
Funny how that’s never the first thing that comes to mind when I think about his impact on the world though.Well thank you for that, Mr. Positivity!
I’ll put you at the top of my list of people to call when I decide leap from a tall building.
PA Ram: Maybe I won’t jump today. It’s a beautiful day, today. Sun’s shining.
Nittany Ram: Eh. They want rain later.
By the way–I had no idea Hitler was sympathetic to the lynx.
Maybe Trump likes spotted owls.
Yeah, Hitler loved animals.
He became a vegetarian after watching his niece’s autopsy and being thoroughly grossed out.
November 10, 2016 at 1:51 pm #57520PA RamParticipantDon’t forget the wall.
Willingness to work with Putin to eliminate ISIS.
Repeal and replace Obamacare.Uh huh. Rainbows and lollipops, bnw. Rainbows and lollipops.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
November 10, 2016 at 3:19 pm #57527wvParticipantCourse as you know, Pa, its not just Trump — its Trump with a Repugnant Congress and a Repugnant Supreme Court. All three are now Repugnant.
So….something positive? …hmmmmm….
The only ray of hope…hope in the dark….is that all this will galvanize the Progressives. And we have to hope there are actually ‘enough’ real live progressives to make a difference.
Thats a lot of ‘hoping’ but thats all i got.Whats more likely is the DNC will blame everyone but themselves, and the DNC will ‘repackage’ the same ole sorry ass Democrat-Party, and we’ll get Eight years of the Donald and his ducks.
…eight years of Clinton…eight years of GW…eight years of Obama….now Trump….can the Biosphere survive much more of this human-insanity ? …and should we even root for humanity at this point? ooops, sorry…i forgot this was a silver-lining thread 🙂
w
vNovember 10, 2016 at 3:32 pm #57528NewMexicoRamParticipantDon’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
Sure.
Hillary lost.
November 10, 2016 at 3:52 pm #57530wvParticipantDon’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
Sure.
Hillary lost.
———
Ha. I knew someone would say that. Its true. No more Hillary. She can go make
speeches for a million dollars a pop now.w
vNovember 10, 2016 at 4:40 pm #57538bnwBlockedDon’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
Sure.
Hillary lost.
LOL
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 10, 2016 at 4:41 pm #57539bnwBlockedDon’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
Sure.
Hillary lost.
———
Ha. I knew someone would say that. Its true. No more Hillary. She can go make
speeches for a million dollars a pop now.w
vNo she won’t. Thats the benefit of federal prison.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 10, 2016 at 5:22 pm #57555NewMexicoRamParticipantDon’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
Sure.
Hillary lost.
———
Ha. I knew someone would say that. Its true. No more Hillary. She can go make
speeches for a million dollars a pop now.w
v__________________________________________________
No more government influence. Bet the speeches plummet.
November 10, 2016 at 7:49 pm #57592InvaderRamModeratorThe only ray of hope…hope in the dark….is that all this will galvanize the Progressives. And we have to hope there are actually ‘enough’ real live progressives to make a difference.
Thats a lot of ‘hoping’ but thats all i got.yeah… we hope.
November 10, 2016 at 8:10 pm #57595— X —ParticipantImmigration reform.
A rebuilding of the military.
Incentives to huge corporations to return jobs to the US (they’re getting rich elsewhere anyway).
Getting NATO to do its job.
Tearing up that stupid Iran Agreement.
Repealing that stupid health care plan.
Limit U.S. hegemony via not being the world’s police.
Term limits in Congress.
Ethics reform to limit lobbyism.
Wants to audit the Fed.
Pro-nuclear energy
An end to common core
End the incompetence and corruption at the VA and take care of Veterans… for starters.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 10, 2016 at 8:18 pm #57596znModeratorThe main thing I think about is the rejection of globalization and terrible trade deals.
Nope. Sorry. We’ve been through this, and Trump’s entire schtick on that is phony. He doesn’t analyze the trade issues accurately and he himself actively benefited from the trade agreements he says he opposes.
This one keeps coming up, and it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
November 10, 2016 at 8:36 pm #57598Billy_TParticipantImmigration reform.
A rebuilding of the military.
Incentives to huge corporations to return jobs to the US (they’re getting rich elsewhere anyway).
Getting NATO to do its job.
Tearing up that stupid Iran Agreement.
Repealing that stupid health care plan.
Limit U.S. hegemony via not being the world’s police.
Term limits in Congress.
Ethics reform to limit lobbyism.
Wants to audit the Fed.
Pro-nuclear energy
An end to common core
End the incompetence and corruption at the VA and take care of Veterans… for starters.
Looking at just a coupla of those:
Why on earth do you think we need to “rebuild the military”? Trump and the GOP lied recklessly when they said Obama gutted it. Never happened, and the Republican controlled Congress controls spending anyway. We currently spend more than one trillion on “defense,” and Obama initiated a nuclear update for another trillion. He was aggressive in his use of American military power, continued the Bush wars, extended and expanded the so-called GWOT. We have more military bases overseas now than we did under Bush.
It was immoral and irresponsible of Trump and the GOP to claim the military had been gutted, and his promise to radically increase spending on it is nothing more than corporate welfare. It’s beyond shameful.
The Iran agreement? Trump lied shamefully about that, too, claiming we “gave Iran 150 billion dollars” when it was their own money we had frozen. And even there, we haven’t released but a fraction of that total. It was actually a lopsided deal in OUR favor. We gave up absolutely nothing to Iran in exchange for the right to monitor their energy program, as if we should be able to do that. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot, for instance?
And why should we reward corporations who ship jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor? Why reward them with taxpayer dollars for being anti-American-worker? Beyond that, when we’ve done those “tax holidays” in the past, they’ve been abysmal failures, especially the last one in 2004:
Repatriation Tax Holiday Would Lose Revenue And Is a Proven Policy Failure
Excerpt:
A repatriation tax holiday would lose substantial federal revenue and swell budget deficits, so it couldn’t pay for highways, mass transit, or anything else. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) recently estimated that, while a second repatriation holiday (following the one enacted in 2004) would raise revenue for the first two years, it would cost $96 billion over ten years. Thus, rather than use the tax holiday to finance long-term infrastructure projects, the Treasury would have to borrow to pay for the tax holiday and then borrow again to pay for the infrastructure. (For more, see “Repatriation Holiday Costs Money So Can’t Offset Other Costs,” below.)
The 2004 tax holiday did not produce the promised economic benefits, and a second one likely wouldn’t either. Firms largely used the profits that they repatriated during the 2004 holiday not to invest or create U.S. jobs but for the very purposes that Congress sought to prohibit, such as repurchasing their own stock and paying bigger dividends to shareholders. Moreover, many firms laid off large numbers of U.S. workers even as they reaped multi-billion-dollar benefits from the tax holiday and passed them on to shareholders. The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found.[2] (For more, see “2004 Tax Holiday Failed to Generate Promised Economic Benefits,” below.)
A second tax holiday would increase incentives to shift income overseas. If the President and Congress enact a second tax holiday, corporate executives will likely conclude that more such tax holidays will come down the road, making these executives more inclined to shift income into tax havens (and hence less likely to invest in the United States). That’s why Congress, in enacting the 2004 tax holiday, explicitly warned that it should be a one-time-only event. (For more, see “Second Repatriation Holiday Would Be Even Costlier Mistake,” below.)Oh, and if you don’t like that site, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and Business Insider all say it was a failure, too.
November 10, 2016 at 8:53 pm #57599Billy_TParticipantOn those positive notes. I’m starting to come around to the idea that the Dems may well move from the center-right to the center-left, structurally. Already seeing some indications of that, especially with the strong words of Sanders, Warren and Ellison.
But this is a damn high price to pay — and it still may not come to fruition. People thought it would happen big time in reaction to Dubya, and it didn’t. The whole “netroots” thing was supposed to be this big revolt for the Dems and it never materialized. Worse, the leaders of that “revolt” were thoroughly coopted by the Borg anyway.
Regardless, and boiled down: I see the Trump presidency as bringing us all the bad shit Clinton would have inflicted on America times ten, while including the mainstreaming of bigotry we haven’t seen in decades. He’ll double down on all the worst aspects of Clinton’s neoliberalism and hawkishness, which his party pushes far more than hers, and we get the alt-right too. Neo-Nazis and Neo-Fascists, the KKK and the entire gamut of white nationalist pieces of shit are already coming out of the woodwork — again, like we haven’t seen in decades. They see a Trump presidency as open season for their views, as “their time to shine.”
I think the fears of tens of millions of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities are based on emergent realities, and not figments of their imaginations, or the result of Democratic Party propaganda. It’s real. It’s actually happening as we speak. And it’s going to get worse.
Trump could do a lot for the American people if he gives a speech repudiating all of that, and names names. Forcefully, without excuses, without trying to blame everyone but the white nationalist movements he helped stoke.
If he truly wants to be a good president, he’ll start there.
November 10, 2016 at 9:20 pm #57602— X —ParticipantLooking at just a coupla of those:
Why on earth do you think we need to “rebuild the military”? Trump and the GOP lied recklessly when they said Obama gutted it. Never happened, and the Republican controlled Congress controls spending anyway. We currently spend more than one trillion on “defense,” and Obama initiated a nuclear update for another trillion. He was aggressive in his use of American military power, continued the Bush wars, extended and expanded the so-called GWOT. We have more military bases overseas now than we did under Bush.
It was immoral and irresponsible of Trump and the GOP to claim the military had been gutted, and his promise to radically increase spending on it is nothing more than corporate welfare. It’s beyond shameful.
I’m not talking about the claims of Trump, Jeb, Cruz, et al., I’m talking about the real need to build the military up to larger scale. It has diminished, particularly the Navy. Spending is down; the force is smaller than when Obama took office and its equipment is aging. Some of that is due to sequestration. Why do I think we need to? Because we need to establish the credibility of deterrent threats by instilling a sincere belief in adversaries that the promise of counteraction will be carried out if they fail to comply with the threat. Up until now, adversaries have doubted the willingness of the US to carry out a threat due to our widely known political correctness and reticence to wholly commit.
And why should we reward corporations who ship jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor? Why reward them with taxpayer dollars for being anti-American-worker? Beyond that, when we’ve done those “tax holidays” in the past, they’ve been abysmal failures, especially the last one in 2004:
What’s the alternative? To shame them from afar? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try and lure them back? And how do you know what the specifics of his plan are before its been released? But I’m sure Corporate leaders would love a 30-percentage point reduction in the repatriation tax in accordance with his initial policy release. Combined with a business tax rate of 15%, down 20 percentage points, why wouldn’t it draw them back or allow them to either (a) increase wages or (b) create more jobs? And again, what’s the alternative? Let them leave and shame them from afar? Or be pragmatic and try something new?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 10, 2016 at 9:23 pm #57603— X —ParticipantOh, and if you don’t like that site […]
Also, don’t do that. Just because I said I won’t read the NYT, doesn’t mean I’m being willfully ignorant or that I’m not open to reading legitimate publications. Let’s stay above the fray, yeah?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 10, 2016 at 9:32 pm #57604Billy_TParticipantX,
We spend more on defense now than the rest of the world combined. We dwarf all other nations. It’s not at all close. There is absolutely zero need to increase spending or the size of any part of our military. In fact, we could easily slash it by 75% and still outspend every other country, except for the combined total for Europe.
And how much more of a deterrent do you want than our total domination in military matters? We’re the world’s undisputed hegemon. The Cold War is long gone. We don’t have several hegemons. It’s just us. And doesn’t the desire to increase our military power contradict the desire to stop being the world’s policeman, not to mention “making other nations pay their fair share”?
We have all the deterrent we need times a thousand. And we actually have more active ships now than we did under Dubya.
November 10, 2016 at 9:38 pm #57606Billy_TParticipantX,
As for this part:
What’s the alternative? To shame them from afar? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try and lure them back? And how do you know what the specifics of his plan are before its been released? But I’m sure Corporate leaders would love a 30-percentage point reduction in the repatriation tax in accordance with his initial policy release. Combined with a business tax rate of 15%, down 20 percentage points, why wouldn’t it draw them back or allow them to either (a) increase wages or (b) create more jobs? And again, what’s the alternative? Let them leave and shame them from afar? Or be pragmatic and try something new?
More than half of all American corporations already pay zero federal taxes. Zero. That’s with the 35% that Trump wants to slash to 15%. Those corporations, even with zero taxation here, still ship jobs overseas. Why? Cuz it’s a far better deal for them to pay pennies on the dollar for labor than even a 100% tax-free deal. Hell, we could pay them to set up shop here and they’d still send jobs overseas. The difference in labor costs is that big.
They’re not shipping jobs overseas because our taxes are too high. They’re shipping them overseas because even our paltry minimum wage, which no one can actually live on, is many times more than they can pay to Malaysians, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. etc. And on top of those rotten wages, they can screw and exploit them even more on (the absence of) benefits and worker safety requirements.
We know this for a fact: American businesses, if they can get away with it, will literally enslave workers. I’m not using hyperbole here. We see that today in places like Thailand, China and Burma, a great deal of the African Continent, and all over the so-called third-world. Capitalism incentivizes that, and it’s based on the concept of slavery to being with. Take away the civilizing force of democratic checks and balances, and you get slavery. That’s where capitalism naturally goes when left unchecked.
November 10, 2016 at 9:42 pm #57607— X —ParticipantWe have all the deterrent we need times a thousand. And we actually have more active ships now than we did under Dubya.
I don’t think that’s accurate, but I’ll follow a link you give me with empirical data. It’s been my understanding that it was the lowest since 1916, and that came from Obama’s own appointed Secretary of the Navy. There have been numerous reports that the military has been degraded, but if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bigger worry *was* the impact that future sequestration cuts would have had on not just ship numbers, but the military as a whole, if Killary Robbem was elected.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 10, 2016 at 9:45 pm #57608Billy_TParticipantWe have all the deterrent we need times a thousand. And we actually have more active ships now than we did under Dubya.
I don’t think that’s accurate, but I’ll follow a link you give me with empirical data. It’s been my understanding that it was the lowest since 1916, and that came from Obama’s own appointed Secretary of the Navy. There have been numerous reports that the military has been degraded, but if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bigger worry *was* the impact that future sequestration cuts would have had on not just ship numbers, but the military as a whole, if Killary Robbem was elected.
This came up in the Romney campaign, too, and several fact-checkers debunked it then. Trying to find the one that talks about the disingenuous comparison. The number of ships is immaterial. Their individual capacity, speed, tech, etc. etc. has grown ginormously. We just don’t need as many.
Mitt Romney says U.S. Navy is smallest since 1917, Air Force is smallest since 1947
- This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.
November 10, 2016 at 9:48 pm #57610— X —ParticipantMore than half of all American corporations already pay zero federal taxes. Zero. That’s with the 35% that Trump wants to slash to 15%. Those corporations, even with zero taxation here, still ship jobs overseas. Why? Cuz it’s a far better deal for them to pay pennies on the dollar for labor than even a 100% tax-free deal. Hell, we could pay them to set up shop here and they’d still send jobs overseas. The difference in labor costs is that big.
Let me ask you to focus on my question posed to you. What’s the alternative? How do you incentivize Corporations to do business in the U.S.? Are you saying there’s no reason to even bother trying? And you don’t have to sell me on the evil of Corporations. I’m aware of the dangers of Corporatocracy, and I’m not even comfortable talking about courting them. But I see no other way to boost jobs in a substantial way other than to increase manufacturing.
Let’s do it this way. If you were POTUS, how would you handle this situation?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 10, 2016 at 9:53 pm #57611— X —ParticipantAnd hey, Billy, do you have an issue with everything I listed? Is there nothing positive you can find in Trump’s stated goals? I can’t even imagine someone being against everything he plans to do. Unless of course you’re just one hunnid percent anti-conservative and/or one hunnid percent anti-Trump.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 10, 2016 at 9:54 pm #57612Billy_TParticipantAn example of the massive difference in pay, here versus overseas:
Apple is sitting on more than 200 billion in cash reserves. If it wanted to, it could easily create millions of jobs here. Instead, it ships well over 90% of its manufacturing overseas to places like Foxconn in China. It can pay workers 70 cents an hour, for twelve-hour shifts, and the workers live in dorms there, always on call. They commit suicide because the working conditions are so bad.
Apple usually makes 40 billion or more in profits each year because they pay shit wages overseas, and their wages here aren’t all that wonderful either. The difference between the surplus revenue those workers generate and their own pay is obscene. In my book, it’s beyond immoral. It should be a criminal offense.
Nothing Trump has suggested would have the slightest impact on that. Nothing he has suggested would fix the obscene immorality of globalized capitalism, or increase wages for Americans or anyone overseas, or “bring jobs back.”
It’s just warmed over voodoo economics.
November 10, 2016 at 10:00 pm #57613Billy_TParticipantMore than half of all American corporations already pay zero federal taxes. Zero. That’s with the 35% that Trump wants to slash to 15%. Those corporations, even with zero taxation here, still ship jobs overseas. Why? Cuz it’s a far better deal for them to pay pennies on the dollar for labor than even a 100% tax-free deal. Hell, we could pay them to set up shop here and they’d still send jobs overseas. The difference in labor costs is that big.
Let me ask you to focus on my question posed to you. What’s the alternative? How do you incentivize Corporations to do business in the U.S.? Are you saying there’s no reason to even bother trying? And you don’t have to sell me on the evil of Corporations. I’m aware of the dangers of Corporatocracy, and I’m not even comfortable talking about courting them. But I see no other way to boost jobs in a substantial way other than to increase manufacturing.
Let’s do it this way. If you were POTUS, how would you handle this situation?
To me the solution is obvious. But neither party is willing to do it, because they’re both beholden to corporate interests.
Direct public funding for jobs. Direct creation of permanent public works. Direct hiring of every single unemployed person in America who wants a job, and at a guaranteed minimum wage.
Since we can’t trust the private sector to employ everyone, the obvious and logical thing to do is make that happen via the public sector. Private sector wants to ship jobs overseas? Okay, then fuck them. We’ll build that stuff ourselves, do it better, pay better wages, and make sure the income is allocated in as egalitarian a fashion as possible.
In the private sector, the typical corporation pays its top execs several hundred times what it pays its rank and file. We could set up public sector jobs and make that what it generally is in that sector. Roughly 4 to 1 instead, top to bottom. That way, we can also keep prices down and increase “value” overall for customers. Instead of paying execs tens of millions, we sink that money into the rank and file and product quality instead. The more you “spread the wealth,” the better the economy performs overall.
To me, that’s the logical solution under capitalism. As mentioned, I’d prefer to repeal and replace it altogether, though.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.
November 10, 2016 at 10:03 pm #57615— X —ParticipantNothing Trump has suggested would have the slightest impact on that. Nothing he has suggested would fix the obscene immorality of globalized capitalism, or increase wages for Americans or anyone overseas, or “bring jobs back.”
It’s just warmed over voodoo economics.
But again, we don’t know the whole plan yet. Dude is shrewd. I’m beginning to think that he could actually use the media AND social media to get Corporations to return. How? By getting them pissed off at said Corporations when he announces his incentives and then promptly announces how they were rejected. That would subsequently result in a hashtag revolution #banApple, #banFord, #banCarrier, etc. If that even puts a dent in their profit margins, or results in their image being that of an evil corporation who exploits foreigners and hates ‘Murica, then it could bring them back to the table in a hurry while putting them on the defensive. What if that was part of the plan? Because using the media to his advantage, and using social media to start a revolution is what got him there in the first place. Well, that and Killary’s vapidity.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 10, 2016 at 10:07 pm #57617Billy_TParticipantOh, and if you don’t like that site […]
Also, don’t do that. Just because I said I won’t read the NYT, doesn’t mean I’m being willfully ignorant or that I’m not open to reading legitimate publications. Let’s stay above the fray, yeah?
Man, I’ve spent waaay too much time on the board today and recently, so I’ll close with this:
If Trump would actually do it, I’d love to see the Fed fully audited. Let all the sunshine in.
Would love to see us give up being the world’s cop.
Would love to see us enact major lobbying reform and stop the revolving door.
And I’m all for radically improving the health care system for everyone, including veterans. To me, the best way to accomplish that is to let everyone buy into the Medicare system, regardless of age, strip it of all its privatization, which is growing, and add thousands of free clinics around the country. Take the profit motive out of health care — from the insurance side to the delivery side.
If Trump really goes for the above, yeah. I’d support that.
Good talking with ya, X.
November 10, 2016 at 10:12 pm #57618Billy_TParticipantOh, hell, I have to add this correction. I meant living wage, not minimum wage. Guaranteed work, at a guaranteed living wage, at least.
X, will respond to your other stuff manana.
Again, good talking with ya and take care.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.