THE OFFICIAL POLITICS THREAD

[Kerfuffle]

Reaganomics started the rapid death of the US economy.

The 80s were a good time economy wise. Reagan inherited quite a mess from Carter and the economy got a whole lot better under Reagan.

It doesn't have to be lower taxes on the corporations, it needs to be harsh financial penalties on American corporations who do their manufacturing abroad--maybe goods made abroad by American companies are subjected to a 100% import tax, payable by the manufacturer, but domestically produced goods are subjected to no tax whatsoever.

American labor is so much more expensive and companies will continue to offshore it for the cost advantages. You also don't have to worry about the ridiculous unions and their grotesque demands overseas.

If Nike is making stuff in China and has to pay handsomely to bring it into America, obviously passing that expense to the consumer, the consumer won't buy the things made in China anymore, Nike will learn and bring the jobs back stateside. More Americans to work, more Americans making decent wages, more purchasing power for the 99%'ers.

The part you're not considering is how much that pair of shoes will cost you if it's made in America. Instead of $100 you're going to pay $200-$300 now because of the higher cost of goods. So it wouldn't make the economy better, instead it would lead to lack of spending and another recession.

Honestly, putting the 1% before the 99% is the most un-American thing anyone can do.

This whole 1%/99% became a big rallying cry for the left under Obama but I've never believed that I am entitled to someone else's money because they have more than me. Likewise I don't believe the 1% is keeping me down either. Some people are better at things and make more money - I understand that and we all have our talents. But it is unfair and unjust to play the whole Robin Hood thing.

[cardsfan04]

Reaganomics started the rapid death of the US economy.

The 80s were a good time economy wise. Reagan inherited quite a mess from Carter and the economy got a whole lot better under Reagan.

It doesn't have to be lower taxes on the corporations, it needs to be harsh financial penalties on American corporations who do their manufacturing abroad--maybe goods made abroad by American companies are subjected to a 100% import tax, payable by the manufacturer, but domestically produced goods are subjected to no tax whatsoever.

American labor is so much more expensive and companies will continue to offshore it for the cost advantages. You also don't have to worry about the ridiculous unions and their grotesque demands overseas.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly. Is this a defense of shipping jobs overseas? Reason I ask is because if it is (and that's how I'm reading it), it plays on a hypocrisy of the right. The right loves to simultaneously blame people for a lack of success on their own laziness while defending practices that lead to a diminishing job pool for people to find success.

If Nike is making stuff in China and has to pay handsomely to bring it into America, obviously passing that expense to the consumer, the consumer won't buy the things made in China anymore, Nike will learn and bring the jobs back stateside. More Americans to work, more Americans making decent wages, more purchasing power for the 99%'ers.

The part you're not considering is how much that pair of shoes will cost you if it's made in America. Instead of $100 you're going to pay $200-$300 now because of the higher cost of goods. So it wouldn't make the economy better, instead it would lead to lack of spending and another recession.

I understand that the concept of equilibrium price doesn't perfectly translate from an economics book to reality. But, if they could charge $200-300 for a pair of shoes, they would already be doing it. They're not keeping costs low for consumers out of a sense of generosity. Prices are set based on demand, not overhead. Increasing disposable income for people to buy high-priced shoes is a form of increasing demand which would naturally increase costs, but not nearly to that extent.

Honestly, putting the 1% before the 99% is the most un-American thing anyone can do.

This whole 1%/99% became a big rallying cry for the left under Obama but I've never believed that I am entitled to someone else's money because they have more than me. Likewise I don't believe the 1% is keeping me down either. Some people are better at things and make more money - I understand that and we all have our talents. But it is unfair and unjust to play the whole Robin Hood thing.

On a very general level I completely agree with you here. Anybody who is content on relying on somebody else or the government for their own success is a damned fool. And, I'm not saying that person doesn't exist. It does. But, I think you're mischaracterizing a lot of the 99% message. It's not about robin hood stuff and taking from the rich to give to the poor. That's a recipe for disaster. Wealth redistribution is a band-aid fix that would lower total wealth and disincentivize progress. I hate using the 99% as an example because the whole occupy wall street movement was disjointed and was better at saying they were unhappy than offering viable solutions to fix their unhappiness.

The valid portion of the message that I think the right loves to overlook is that the middle-class is shrinking rapidly. That is a legitimate issue that needs addressing. There are issues that cascade from that (minimum wage, tuition costs, healthcare costs, etc.). But the root issue is the shrinking middle class. One of the biggest causes of this is big businesses simultaneously receiving corporate welfare and shipping jobs overseas without repercussion. The solution to that isn't to lower already minuscule tax rates for corporations. That's not going to bring jobs back. They only care about their bottom line, and their bottom line is still benefited by cheaper labor overseas without regard to their tax rate. That doesn't mean we should be taxing the hell out of wealthy corporations. That won't work either. The solution to this problem is to raise tariffs so it is less profitable for corporations to use foreign-based labor to create their products. That will incentivize them to bring their jobs back to the US. I get that it's not quite as black and white as that, but I don't think it's fair to criticize people who are struggling to get ahead without addressing some of the issues that are out of the control of people that are making an honest effort to get ahead.

[Kerfuffle]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly. Is this a defense of shipping jobs overseas?

Not defending it at all but rather explaining why it happens and why it makes sense to offshore labor if you have a business. We would all like to keep the jobs in the USA but the labor costs, especially if dealing with unions, is so much higher here.

I understand that the concept of equilibrium price doesn't perfectly translate from an economics book to reality. But, if they could charge $200-300 for a pair of shoes, they would already be doing it. They're not keeping costs low for consumers out of a sense of generosity. Prices are set based on demand, not overhead. Increasing disposable income for people to buy high-priced shoes is a form of increasing demand which would naturally increase costs, but not nearly to that extent.

If a pair of shoes costs $100 to make in the USA and $20 to make in China then clearly if you make those shoes in the USA you have to charge a higher price to the end consumer. Cost of goods are cheaper offshore which means better margins for a business and also a lower price point for consumers.

The solution to this problem is to raise tariffs so it is less profitable for corporations to use foreign-based labor to create their products.

If only it were that simple. If you raise tariffs to benefit the US you can expect China and the others overseas to do the same in response.

....but I don't think it's fair to criticize people who are struggling to get ahead without addressing some of the issues that are out of the control of people that are making an honest effort to get ahead.

But here's where the left mess up - their solution to everything is "give me more money". We are seeing it now with the whole $15 minimum wage fight. And how are businesses responding? Simple - eliminate jobs. Wendy's just announced they are starting a trial of 6000 self-serve kiosks to take people's orders thereby eliminating the counter rep. McDonald's is also planning to start testing this concept. The real solution is through hard work and an education but we have too many people in this country that want to be highly paid for low skilled jobs and that's ridiculous.

A perfect example of wanting something but doing nothing is Bernie Sanders. He didn't collect a paycheck (W-2) til he was 40 years old - 40!! What did he do before that? Collected unemployment off the backs of the taxpayers while complaining that the rich were to blame for his economic blame. That's why I don't understand his appeal at all and I can only deduce that the thousands who support him are low information voters who just want free stuff as well and not have to work.

[cardsfan04]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly. Is this a defense of shipping jobs overseas?

Not defending it at all but rather explaining why it happens and why it makes sense to offshore labor if you have a business. We would all like to keep the jobs in the USA but the labor costs, especially if dealing with unions, is so much higher here.

Everybody knows why it happens. Gotta change the dynamics to make it less profitable for a company to do that.

I understand that the concept of equilibrium price doesn't perfectly translate from an economics book to reality. But, if they could charge $200-300 for a pair of shoes, they would already be doing it. They're not keeping costs low for consumers out of a sense of generosity. Prices are set based on demand, not overhead. Increasing disposable income for people to buy high-priced shoes is a form of increasing demand which would naturally increase costs, but not nearly to that extent.

If a pair of shoes costs $100 to make in the USA and $20 to make in China then clearly if you make those shoes in the USA you have to charge a higher price to the end consumer. Cost of goods are cheaper offshore which means better margins for a business and also a lower price point for consumers.

But, they're not setting their prices based on their overhead. They set their prices based on demand. Yeah, the pricing needs to cover their overhead. But, if they could charge $200-300, they would be doing so already. It would be dumb to drive a business' prices up to a really high level, and that's a factor. But, they would still be setting their prices based on demand, not overhead.

The solution to this problem is to raise tariffs so it is less profitable for corporations to use foreign-based labor to create their products.

If only it were that simple. If you raise tariffs to benefit the US you can expect China and the others overseas to do the same in response.

You're right. It's not that simple. My point is that there are ways to disincentive corporations from outsourcing jobs.

....but I don't think it's fair to criticize people who are struggling to get ahead without addressing some of the issues that are out of the control of people that are making an honest effort to get ahead.

But here's where the left mess up - their solution to everything is "give me more money". We are seeing it now with the whole $15 minimum wage fight. And how are businesses responding? Simple - eliminate jobs. Wendy's just announced they are starting a trial of 6000 self-serve kiosks to take people's orders thereby eliminating the counter rep. McDonald's is also planning to start testing this concept. The real solution is through hard work and an education but we have too many people in this country that want to be highly paid for low skilled jobs and that's ridiculous.

$15 minimum wage is stupid. It's one of many things that I think Bernie is pushing too far on. I'm not even hugely in favor of $12 minimum wage that Hillary pushes when she isn't pretending to also support $15 minimum wage. That's a pretty big hike too (although I do support raising it some, it hasn't kept up with inflation). I think the Wendy's kiosk is a convenient and not totally applicable example though. When management of a company is responsible to their stock holders (which I don't begrudge, just how it works), and they have an opportunity to eliminate operating costs, they're going to do so regardless of minimum wage. This isn't happening in response to Bernie Sanders. The timing is coincidental.

The issue with minimum wage isn't that low-skilled workers want better pay, and it's not that companies are savvy at automating some of their work. It's not even that McDonald's and Wendy's can't afford it. They can. It's not even that it would cause inflation. Minor inflation is a good thing. It's that many small businesses that don't make billions in profit each year wouldn't be able to survive with it.

[StL Dan]

YUP

"The issue with minimum wage isn't that low-skilled workers want better pay, and it's not that companies are savvy at automating some of their work. It's not even that McDonald's and Wendy's can't afford it. They can. It's not even that it would cause inflation. Minor inflation is a good thing. It's that many small businesses that don't make billions in profit each year wouldn't be able to survive with it."

[Kerfuffle]

YUP

"The issue with minimum wage isn't that low-skilled workers want better pay, and it's not that companies are savvy at automating some of their work. It's not even that McDonald's and Wendy's can't afford it. They can. It's not even that it would cause inflation. Minor inflation is a good thing. It's that many small businesses that don't make billions in profit each year wouldn't be able to survive with it."

With all due respect, that's a talking point of the $15 minimum wage crowd and the Occupy Wallstreet left wingers. They look at the bottom line for McDonalds as a whole and say there's plenty of money left so the workers should get more. What it doesn't take into account is that 81% of McDonald's are owned by franchisees and that number is targeted to grow to 90% by the end of 2018. So the franchisees are not making billions. And $15 an hour would raise prices for everyone as the franchisees would simply pass that cost onto the consumers while at the same time moving to the automated kiosk ordering model which is now being scheduled for test markets.

[cardsfan04]

YUP

"The issue with minimum wage isn't that low-skilled workers want better pay, and it's not that companies are savvy at automating some of their work. It's not even that McDonald's and Wendy's can't afford it. They can. It's not even that it would cause inflation. Minor inflation is a good thing. It's that many small businesses that don't make billions in profit each year wouldn't be able to survive with it."

With all due respect, that's a talking point of the $15 minimum wage crowd and the Occupy Wallstreet left wingers. They look at the bottom line for McDonalds as a whole and say there's plenty of money left so the workers should get more. What it doesn't take into account is that 81% of McDonald's are owned by franchisees and that number is targeted to grow to 90% by the end of 2018. So the franchisees are not making billions. And $15 an hour would raise prices for everyone as the franchisees would simply pass that cost onto the consumers while at the same time moving to the automated kiosk ordering model which is now being scheduled for test markets.

To be clear, the "talking point" was part of an anti-$15 minimum wage opinion.

I think you're overestimating their ability to just raise prices on the fly though. If they could charge $7 for something they're charging $5 for, they would already be doing it. Same principle with the kiosks. If they have an effective way to eliminate costs, they aren't going to scrap that idea when minimum wage stays where it is.

[Kerfuffle]

I think you're overestimating their ability to just raise prices on the fly though. If they could charge $7 for something they're charging $5 for, they would already be doing it. Same principle with the kiosks. If they have an effective way to eliminate costs, they aren't going to scrap that idea when minimum wage stays where it is.

If they can get $20 a burger easily then they would do that as well but what I'm trying to say is that when you increase the cost to make that burger through higher labor then you must increase the price to the end consumer to maintain your margins. Many customers who buy fast food are very price conscience so a town with a mandatory $15 minimum wage will be less competitive than one close by without the same requirement.

[cardsfan04]

Couple random thoughts:

-The Melania thing was pretty funny, but also dumb. Very inconsequential and kinda annoying that it was in the news for 48 hours. Trump campaign should have just owned it from the get go though and moved on. Nobody would have cared about it had they done that.

-I was surprisingly impressed by Donald Trump, Jr. I didn't agree with him on a number of issues, but I thought his speech was far more impressive than anything I've heard his dad say.

-Cruz should have just stayed home. I don't blame him for not endorsing Trump, especially given the criticisms of his wife and father, but it was tacky to show up and not endorse. I'm curious if last night will backfire on him.

-I gave Hillary benefit of the doubt on the email thing. I thought it was just blown up for political purposes. It was, but there was some substance behind it as well which I didn't think there would be until the FBI director spoke. It's a shame the GOP couldn't come up with somebody more electable.

[glen a richter]

I think I've mentioned on here that I now plan on voting for Johnson/Weld. Among the many ways Trumps pissed me off, picking Mike Pence takes the cake... hateful jackass stuck in the 1950s. Hillary would only get my vote if I liked her vp pick and it looks like either Vilsack or Kaine, big yawn on both fronts. America really screwed up here, and if Hillary actually loses New York it sure as hell isn't my fault, so Johnson/Weld it is.

[cardsfan04]

I scored a ticket to the debate last night which was pretty cool. I'm a student at WashU and was able to get one through a ticket lottery, but didn't know if I would get a ticket until 5-6PM last night.

Anyway, really cool experience. My view was partially obstructed and couldn't see Clinton most of the time, but whatever. I think he's sunk at this point. Prior to the video, I didn't think he would win, and the video certainly doesn't help him. If it wasn't the nail in the coffin, last night was his one chance to get back on track. But, he can't intelligently discuss policy. All he can do is say things that would get cheers from an anti-Hillary crowd. I'm not even really commenting on the substance of those comments, but to have a chance, he was going to have to grow his base beyond that crowd. I think the video makes that very hard, and he didn't really do anything last night to get there either.

[glen a richter]

All Hillary had to say on the first question was "look, a lot of mud has been slung and we could go on all day about Mr. Trump's opinion of women or my emails, but I trust the public is intelligent enough to formulate their own opinions on those sort of wedge issues. As far as setting a positive example for children viewers, I haven't and neither has Donald. Your point is very valid, however, and I'm committed to being more of a positive example if Donald is."

She really could have screwed up Trump with an answer like that and she blew it. Oh well, I'm still voting for Johnson and Hillary is still winning New York with or without my vote.

[Kerfuffle]

This is by far the strangest Presidential election this country has ever had. On one hand we have Trump who doesn't have the temperament to be President and everyday of his Presidency you will wake up and hope he didn't get offended by something and start a war. And the media will find something offensive he says everyday and run with it. On the other hand we have Clinton who is the most corrupt politician the world has ever seen. Everyday of her Presidency will be one that caters to the grievance industry while saying whatever is politically correct to the public while she enriches her family and friends through corruption. And the majority of the media won't report on any of this. So those are your candidates. So which of the 2 lesser evils do you pick? God help us all.

[glen a richter]

Kerfuffle hit it nearly on the head.

1. Trump is nuts, and any foreign leader (or domestic leader) who insults him will be subject to bombings. My main issue with this is that we're not the only country with nukes anymore. In WW2 it was fine because no one could retaliate. Today, we nuke one country, and half a dozen of their allies are returning the favor. I also think he's in it for himself, he'll change the tax code to give himself even more tax breaks and he honestly couldn't care less about fortifying the middle class.
2. Hillary is totally crooked, Trump is spot on about that. I have had the pleasure of voting against Hillary multiple times, both as a carpetbagging senator and in the primary against Bernie Sanders. She will kowtow to Wall Street like no others, and she's just as much a hawk as anyone out there. She voted for the Iraq War and that's unpardonable in my book. We took our eyes off the ball and it took way longer than it should have taken to get Bin Laden. I also directly blame the Iraq War for the uprising of ISIS. Saddam Hussein was no saint, but the Baath's kept that region stable the same way the mob kept neighborhoods safe back in the day. So anyone who voted for that war will never get my vote.

The part I take issue with is this continuous insistence that we have to pick the lesser of two evils. Right now, Larry McMullin is running neck and neck in Utah with Trump. Utahans aren't accepting that they have to pick the lesser of two evils. Gary Johnson is polling double digits in a number of states and actually has a fighting chance in places like New Mexico and Alaska. The military servicemen and women, by and large, are actually favoring Johnson over Trump. None have accepted that they only have a choice of two. Ultimately Trump or Clinton will win, but only because people still refuse to acknowledge the viability of third party candidates. The cure? Fix the stupid debate rules. You want to talk about something being rigged, forget the election. You can't possibly rig a national election where 14000 or whatever counties have totally different set ups for how elections are run. But the debates? Absolutely rigged to keep information away from voters. My take is that if a candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, they should be allowed a podium at all debates. Johnson should have been allowed to debate and if he had, he'd be polling in the mid to upper 30's right now. On the surface, not enough to win, but maybe so if Trump and Clinton are both in the 30's too. And realistically, Johnson is right about something. Most Americans are socially liberal and fiscally conservative except for some fringe groups on either extreme. He's got my vote.

[cardsfan04]

Agree with both of you. Trump's a lunatic. Hillary is the epitome of what I hate in politicians. I think my negative view of her is slightly less than yours, but there's so much valid criticism of her that it's sad that she's one of the options.

This is going to sound really contradictory, but I actually think she may do a good job though. I hate the path that she took to get to where she is. I hate her ties to Wall Street (and that she won't release her speeches). I hate that she supports things when they're popular to support (Re: DOMA, criminal justice issues, both 90s vs today). I hate that she didn't see that it was a bad idea to use a personal email server. All that said, and I don't know how to articulate why, but I think that she might actually do a good job though.

I would have loved for Johnson to have been in the debates. Being on all the ballots is a good standard, much better than how you're polling, at least for the first debate. I voted for him in 2012, and I might end up doing it again this time. I can't make up my mind on that, because I really really don't want Trump to be president. I don't agree with Johnson on everything (foreign policy and taxes to name 2), but he tries to talk about things that aren't politically helpful to discuss. War on drugs, over-incarceration, things of that nature. I would love if he had the chance to inject those things into the national conversation.

[Kerfuffle]

Here's where Gary Johnson blew it - he really proved what an idiot he was in this video. And his running mate also stated that he's not running to be VP but rather just to stop Trump. So together their candidacy was never taken seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY

[glen a richter]

What we're really witnessing here is the biggest screw up by both parties voters. Nominating Trump was as much a huge mistake as nominating Hillary. If the Republicans had picked someone even remotely moderate, at least theoretically, compared to Trump (Here's lookin' at you, Kasich!) he would have thumped the heck out of Hillary by about 5-10 points on the basis of A) she's another Obama and B) she's Hillary for crying out loud, one of the single most reviled politicians in America. It would have been a slam dunk for the GOP. As it is, Obama's numbers are soaring simply because he's not Hillary or Trump. That should be a clear signal that the division in this country is just getting started. No matter which of these two morons wins, we're going to become more and more divided.

Nominating Hillary was a huge mistake because her presence and unpopularity on the ticket made what should have been a slam dunk for the Dems against a guy like Trump into an actual competitive race. Regardless of what the poll numbers say, any handful of other Democrats with the nomination--Biden, Bernie (not a Dem, I know), Kaine, heck maybe even Milquetoast O'Malley would be leading by twice as much right now.

We're looking at probably the two most unpopular major party candidates in election history, so unpopular that a third party candidate (Johnson) is probably going to get about 10% (and not a single electoral vote) and another third party candidate (McMullin) will probably get about .1% and win Utah. So unpopular it boggles the mind how either one got nominated. People aren't voting for someone they like, they're voting against someone they hate more than the other one. It's crazy. Don't we deserve better? I hope McMullin wins Utah and some faithless electors flip the Trump/Pence ticket because why not? Let's get weirder. I swear, if the Surpreme Court wasn't in play--and you can bet that's influencing a lot of people to steer away from 3rd party candidates, we could just as easily have 4 people getting electoral votes and no one hitting magic 270.

[Frusciante]

Yikes. What the hell will happen now? In Sweden we're in shock...at work today there was such a weird feeling. Everyone walked around in some kind of bubble, not sure what to think. What are your thoughts?

[Kerfuffle]

Yikes. What the hell will happen now? In Sweden we're in shock...at work today there was such a weird feeling. Everyone walked around in some kind of bubble, not sure what to think. What are your thoughts?

The sun will come up tomorrow - that's what will happen and we'll be fine. I'm very happy about the outcome - this was an election about the lesser of 2 evils and who you didn't like more. Trump, while offensive in his comments, is not going to start launching nuclear weapons or set up concentration camps as the propagandists like to scare people with. Hillary is corrupt and people have had enough of her corruption. This election was also a total repudiation of Obama and his policies - people are fed up. I think it's funny though that people in Sweden would even care about the US election.

[cardsfan04]

Yikes. What the hell will happen now? In Sweden we're in shock...at work today there was such a weird feeling. Everyone walked around in some kind of bubble, not sure what to think. What are your thoughts?

I did not see this coming and am still processing it, but agree with the gist of what Kerfuffle said. I'm very unhappy with the result and have a lot of fears of what this could mean. But, ultimately, I think everything will be fine. And, while I can't stress enough how much I disliked his campaign, he's our president now (well, in January) and we've gotta find a way to work together. A few random thoughts:

1. So many (and I'm one of them) were so wrong about Trump's support. I thought it would be a landslide win for Hillary. I had doubts about Utah and Arizona going blue, but I thought she'd clean up the swing states and get ~330 electoral votes. Good reminder, I guess, that it's easy to buy into something that fits the narrative that you support.

2. Along the lines of Trump's support, I think many (again, including me to some extent) missed the mark on why he had the support. I was anti-Trump because the world view he presented frightens and appalls me. I can't get past the anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, misogynistic, etc. things that he has said and done. It was just an absolute deal killer to me. He got 47% of the vote though. I refuse to believe that 47% of the country condones the things that he has said and done. That wasn't an epiphany that night or anything. I knew many people supported him in spite of these things that they also condemn. But, I think Democrats and "#neverTrump" crowds dismissed his supporters more than they should have. That, to me, is the biggest failure of Clinton's campaign. And, it would have been a failure even if she had won the election.

3. Many of the things that made me dismiss any possibility of voting for him are not realistic concerns. We're not banning muslims. We're not building a wall. I have concerns over how he will handle global conflicts, but I don't think he's going to nuke anybody.

4. I mentioned it earlier, but like it or not, he's going to be president. It is what it is, and we will all be better if we just accept that and work with him for the greater good. I used to vote mostly Republican until I disliked the direction that I saw the party going about 5 years ago. I saw lots of obstructionism and divisiveness toward Obama and was really turned off to the party as a result. Well, the roles are reversed now and I don't like the president. Not that I think he should get blind support, but it would by hypocritical to support attempts to obstruct him in a similar way. He's going to be the president. While I haven't forgotten the reasons I didn't support him, he gets a blank slate from me, and I hope from the country as a whole. I like the idea of Obamacare despite its flaws, but it's clearly going to be repealed before the midterm elections. Instead of fighting him on that, I hope Democrats try to play a role in making whatever replaces it fix the flaws of Obamacare.

5. His biggest job going forward is to unite the country. He made a good start to that in his acceptance speech. In fact, I thought both of their speeches were excellent. But, he has to find a way to unite the entire country, not just the base of supporters that he has played to for the past 15 months.