The Pub Discussion Board

The two things I normally don't talk about is religion and politics.

BUT 20 TRILLION IN DEBT?????????????????

Think about how much money that is! Think about if we can ever pay that amount off! Think about what has happened to every great empire through history. That has reach a debt point that they could not longer pay it off!

Something had to change or the change would be forced on us. So I don't know if Trump being President is good or bad, but it is a change.

Every government should put their own national interest above any other nations.  The problem is, we haven't really been doing that over the last eight years and to a lesser extent for far longer then that.  Too much idealism or fear has crept into some administrations to abjectly look at the issues/problems and come to the best solution... not there is always a best solution.  National policy should also try to help our friends, leave alone the neutral nations and punish those that seek to do our nation harm.

Part of our problem with money is our tax structure, in my opinion.  Too many people contribute almost nothing towards our government's upkeep.  Some don't contribute because of low income, but others have gone to use cash only payments to skirt tax law.  I think a national sales tax, something like the "Fair Tax", would be a better system.  Unfortunately it would have to be 18% to 25% depending on what economist you talk to.  But those on cash for work couldn't skirt paying their taxes when they have to pay the tax at the store check out.

The whole redistribution of wealth some politicians espouse is total crap in my opinion.  Let us keep as much money as we can, and then let the individual decide how charitable they want to be.  Besides, private charities are way better at helping the people that really need it then the government.

Since I started this, I guess it's only right that I make my opinions clear.

I was not a big Trump supporter during the election. I was really hoping Rubio, Cruz or even Rick Perry would win the nomination and kick Hillary's butt.

Trump's list of possible Supreme Court picks helped. His pick of Mike Pence, a true conservative, as his running mate, helped a little more. And once he won, his cabinet picks really helped.

(Honestly, I was seriously wondering for a while if Trump wasn't a plant by the Clintons to one, make the Republican party look like idiots and two, to take out serious Republican candidates, making it easier for Hillary to win. Only once he'd won and started making cabinet choices did this idea really start to fade away.)

So, since he got elected back in November, I have really started to like Trump and what he's trying to do. No, I'm not a fan of all of his positions (he once said he liked Obamacare) but, so far I like who he's picking for his cabinet. I am a big believer in the idea that you can tell a lot about a president, and can tell how well he'll do in office, by the people he picks to work for him. Most of Trump's picks are smart, qualified people who should do a good job for him.

Trump has now been in office for, this will be his forth full day, his second full day if you discount the weekend, and he is moving things along. He's already working on getting Obamacare repealed, he's working on getting the Keystone XL pipeline going again. Something that should have been done under Obama but was stopped for purely political reasons.

Trump is also pushing back against the media, something more Republican candidates are going have to do. We can not let the media bash conservatives, either by reporting the bad things Republicans do but ignoring the good things, or by reporting the Liberal side but not telling the conservative side of an issue. Making war against "people who buy ink by the barrel" is probably a bad idea but it's a fight that has got to be fought at some point, otherwise, our media will be completely on the other side. I'm fairly well convinced that the media reporting, or misreporting, of politics is part of the reason that most of the apathetic voters in this country, the ones who don't pay attention to the news except for the few days Right before an election, all tend to vote for Democrat. It's because the media is making the Dems look like the "Good" side.

Trump needs to be careful not to let his very large ego get in the way. I'm not sure the crowd size at the Inauguration was the best choice of fights to pick since there's really no way to prove who's right.

Anyway, I am tickled pink that Obama is GONE! GONE! GONE! and so far I'm very happy with what Trump is setting into motion. I hope it continues. I hope Congress gets to work and starts helping him out.

Well I think both parties are fucked up.

Democratic want to give everything to low or no income. Who pay for it? The worker that gets up everyday and goes to work. Paid his/her taxes so some asshole democratic can give it away. You don't think the high income democratic with their tax loopholes pays?

Republicans want to feed us shit and tell us its taste like ice cream. With their trickle-down economics, that's the biggest bullshit that I ever heard. trickle-down really mean is work for me at a low wage and maybe someday I will figure out how to take your retirements too.

Like I said both parties are fucked up! The reason I lean to the Republican is I have the right to quit that job and find another one if I feel like it. Where with the Democratic they take it from me no matter where I work and I have no right to say no!

I guess this is part of my I normally don't talk about is religion and politics. Maybe I am fuckup in my thinking but I don't think so.

Yes you are right on the trickle down economic, effect. We all heard the term ??? or maybe not. But the Republicans use to love saying that every time they wanted to give a tax break or leave in a loop hole in the tax code. "Hey if Mr. Joe the billionaire get a tax break it will trickle down and help you." What I am saying is both parties are corrupt and I am a Republican and I did vote for Trump.

Well I have always been an independent I changed to a Republican so I could vote in the primary. All that any of us have is just our vote and the primary is where it counts the most. I am just hoping that Trump will do? what did he say "Drain the swamp".  I think people are just tired of the same old same old politicians. I hope Trump can get the fair tax going not sure he even he can do that but there is some hope. I also hope he can do something about the drug companies that are changing 1000 % markup on drugs that people need to stay alive. Trump has a lot to do but if he can just do a little bit of it then he will have done more then jerk face did in all of his 8 years.

Trickle down effect is not sound. No one can say what percent does trickle down and where any of it trickles down at or too. Some people put extra money over seas, some just adds it to their retirement account. Using greed as a way of supporting trickle down has never worked.

As far as the stock market yes it is a way of investing in businesses. But the stock market is much more then just that. The stock market help to set prices that we all have to pay. You can buy paper of the paper mill before the tree is even cut down. There by inflating the price, or buy oil before its pumped out of the ground. I have no love for the stock market and I think we all got fucked in 08. Who went to jail over the illegal crap that went down, who had to bail out the banks and stock market. And what is the banks and stock market doing to say thanks. Lets increase profits even more say the CEO.

I could go on and on but the point comes down to what most people want is just a fair chance not a hand out. Let the people keep the money that they work for and let them decide how to invest, save, or blow it. With the Democratic and the Republicans it is all about power and control. Shit the other night some move star was saying on TV how stupid we are for voting in Trump. Yes a lot of our stars wants that power and control "vote and do what I say"

Ok I see I am now rambling lol so I will finish my part in this thread by saying, With all the problems we have the USA is still the best nation in the world.

Um... I think you're a bit confused.

The price of paper, oil, gold, etc...  is NOT the stock market.

It is the COMMODITIES market, and an entirely different ballgame.  The stock market purchases only one thing: ownership of a company.  You give money, and you get a percentage ownership in that company (usually a very small percentage per stock...)  Anything else you're talking about purchasing (oil, paper, gold, etc.) is NOT the stock market.

Not that I'm going to defend the stock market to you.  I think "public corporations" are an evil construct for non-economic reasons: it takes the company's focus off its customers, because it ethically obligates them to put their stockholders as first priority.

And... I'm not sure where you thought "greed" comes into it when discussing the notion of helping businesses helps employees.  But from your argument, it sounds like you're mixing "helping 'rich people'" with "helping COMPANIES".  Companies do not have "retirement accounts", for instance.

Look, a simple example:

Acme Blivet Co. pays, currently, 30% in taxes, say.  They currently have ten employees.  There is room in the market for them to grow, but at the current tax level, they cannot afford that growth.

Now, reduce their taxes from 30% to 20%.  Suddenly, they are making an extra 10% profit.  Note, they don't have to change a DAMN THING about their business; they are automatically making 10% more than they were, because the government isn't stealing it from them anymore.

Acme Blivet Co., being your typical American small-to-medium business, does not have an "overseas" to send their money (and, oh yeah, the big boys do that because if they don't, they get their ass reamed with MORE taxes, so this, too, is an issue that is solved by not victimizing our businesses...), and they're not going to "sit on it", because that doesn't get them anything.  They are going to spend it in some fashion. 

Acme considers giving their employees a raise.  They've been good employees and have kept the company in the black for many years, and they want to keep them.  Ultimately, they reject this notion because they want to grow the company, to make more profit, which adds stability for their employees, giving them more job security.  So, Acme Blivet Co. performs a company expansion.  They build more manufacturing capacity, and have to hire another 5 employees to work in that facility. (Who's going to do the work, if they don't hire more employees?  The 10 they've already got are working to capacity already.)

Now 5 more people are working, and they suddenly have paychecks that they didn't have before.  They are now spending money that they didn't have before, which gives that money to other companies, who are suddenly getting bigger profits because they have more customers, and that helps THOSE businesses, which gives them the opportunity to grow, which will help even more employees, etc. until a stability point is reached where employees become more expensive (because they're not as readily available) and then businesses stop growing.

There is nothing at all controversial about what I just said; it's basic economics: companies will grow to maximize their potential.  Give them more money, and they will use it to make their business larger.  This applies to all but "mom and pop" businesses, which are not trying to grow, but merely to remain in business.  This even applies to major corporations, BUT, because they do have other places they can send their money, they will put it where they *lose the least amount of it*... which is why they send it overseas, so that they don't end up paying out the ass on taxation.

The argument that goes on between Democrats and Republicans in this realm is whether to give the tax breaks to the businesses, or to the consumers.  Theoretically, they can result in the same thing, because the consumers will then give money to businesses, resulting in higher profits, and the same growth, but in practicality, if you give the tax break to the consumer, the result is more unpredictable.  This is where insecurity or simply saving for the future comes more into play, as people who may be worried about their jobs will hold onto their money in case they need it later.  Remember: an economy is made up of MOVING MONEY.  Money that sits still is not part of the economy, and might as well not exist.  Companies are far less likely to hold onto money, because they know that their security resides in using their money to make profit.

Eric Storm

PS:  At this point in time, I would have to take issue with your statement that "what most people want is just a fair chance not a hand out."  We have entered a real entitlement culture now, and a great many people expect handouts from their government.  They expect the government to take care of any and all problems they have.  This isn't what a government is for, and it is also Constitutionally prohibited, at least at the federal level, but they expect it anyway.

Freon22:

Actually, what generally would happen there (using your pen as an example, even though it's not a "commodity"...) is that people would see, "Oh, the price of plastic is up 20%.  That means pens are going to be more expensive to make.  I'd better raise my prices now to be ready for it."  Not necessarily a wrong thing: if the costs of your supplies goes up, the cost of your product also goes up.  I admit there is some profit-taking that goes on there, but so be it, that's capitalism.

But in any case, that has little to no bearing on whether helping businesses first or consumers first is a better economic plan, as EVERYONE can play in the stock market, and the futures market.

Barbarian3165:

I grant that the actual politicians very seldom bother with helping anyone but themselves.  I was speaking more to the ideology of the parties themselves.  And yes, the "trickle-down theory" is often tied to "Supply Side Economics".  What I find amusing is that both sides are wanting the people with money to give it to the people without it... it's just that some want the government to dictate how that happens, and the others want the market to do it.

I am a Libertarian on most things.  I disagree slightly on trade: I think it is necessary for the government to intervene when OTHER governments are gaming the system (can you say China?) to harm us directly. 

I also disagree on the notion that "global trade" is essential for a strong economy.  I honestly think that the philosophy of "buy everything from as nearby as you can" is a more sound policy.  It guarantees that the area you live in has a thriving economy.  If everyone did that, then everyone would have a thriving economy.  It doesn't say "don't buy it from Country X", but it does say, "Don't buy it from Country X IF you can buy it from here."  People talk about how, "If you buy something from overseas, it is less expensive and you have more money, which ultimately helps America because you have more money to spend on other things."  What this ignores is that it basically requires me to keep buying stuff from overseas instead of here, and there is no help to the US economy at all. 

I disagree with the Libertarians on immigration, They prefer open borders, which I am absolutely against.  There are already more people (citizens and otherwise) living here than we can comfortably support.

For most of the rest, yes, I'd prefer that the federal government stuck to doing what the Constitution told them they could do.  I think if the Founders had known what hell they'd cause when they wrote the Commerce Clause, the Constitution would have been twice as long, so that they could define EXACTLY what they meant by that.

I like the idea of a Fair Tax as long as it contains the initial monthly exemption I mentioned earlier.  I also think that people on government assistance should be exempted to the level of their government payment.  This is because it seems silly for the government to pay tax to itself.  To demonstrate (figures used are merely for demonstration purposes, and not reflective of what actual numbers might be):

Fair Tax amount:  20%
Universal Exemption for 1 person: $100 (This is to cover the tax on food and other necessities)
Person A's government payment: $400
Person B's government payment: $1500
Person A's "government payment" exemption: $80 (20% of 400)
Person B's "government payment" exemption: $300 (20% of 1500)
Person A's actual exemption: $100 (the universal exemption was higher)
Person B's actual exemption: $300 (there is no point in the government taking back what it, itself, gave the person.)

This is the kind of system that makes sense to me.  Whether we could make it work or not, given our current political climate, is questionable.

Of course, there's one other problem our workers face, and I'm not at all sure how anyone can resolve it:  automation.  I'm going to be straightforward here, and it's going to sound really harsh and maybe even cruel:  Some people are not smart enough to go to college.  I'm sorry if that offends someone, but it's true.

Why is this a problem?  Because all of the jobs capable of being done by people without college degrees are either being outsourced to other nations, where THOSE unskilled workers get paid a tenth of what our unskilled workers do... or they're being done away with entirely by robotics and other automation.  Those jobs are just gone, and no changes in the tax system or regulation will bring them back.  (Unless someone decides to pass laws prohibiting the use of automation... I don't see that happening...)

This is one of those problems that I don't see a solution for.  Most people will say, "Those people just need better training and education."  Well... training to do WHAT?  And, as I said, they aren't necessarily smart enough for further education.  It takes a certain level of intelligence to get an MBA, or to be a computer programmer, or to become even a CNA.  Not everyone HAS the capability.  What do you do with them?  This is just me guessing, but I'd say to successfully complete most college degree programs, you need an IQ of at least 120.  This is a problem because, by definition, the average IQ of the populace is 100, and the empirical average range runs from 90-110.  (I know that "IQ" is a flawed testing system.  In this case, I'm using it for illustrative purposes as the only well-known method of quantifying intellectual potential.)  So how do you solve that?  In order for people to get better jobs, they need further education.  But... they won't understand the further education you want to give them well enough to do the job they're being educated for.

BEFORE someone gets in a tizzy:  I'm NOT AT ALL saying that everyone who works at an unskilled job is an idiot, or has a low IQ.  Some people just haven't had the opportunities to excel, and others have made that choice for one reason or another.  What I'm saying is that, for the ones who do fall below that minimum, there isn't a good solution to the problem.

Eric Storm

The problem, Jefferson, is that the service industry jobs you're talking about don't equal the number of people who need them.

While I'm in agreement with you about the minimum wage not needing to be $15/hr., the fact is that a machine will ALWAYS be cheaper than a human.  You buy it once, you maintain it maybe as often as weekly, and it works without bitching, without taking coffee breaks or days off to go to the doctor, and without asking for a raise.  It also eases the burden on managers, because there are less people to manage.  It's just easier on everyone involved.  Except, of course, for the poor schmuck who just lost their job to a machine.  And some of the jobs you mentioned are, in fact, slowly being automated.  Cook: the fast-food places are already looking to install robo-cooks.  Carpenter: can you say "modular housing"?  I'm not talking about mobile homes: there are factory-built normal houses, where, though it is not (as far as I know) automated yet, it certainly could be.  Road worker:  Ever seen an asphalt-laying machine?  It wouldn't take much to finish automating that process.  And if you built it right, you could even do away with the flagmen who direct traffic.

I am in complete agreement that it is downright foolish to force a single educational path on every student.  I read somewhere that in Japan, students are directed onto their path (academic or vocational) at an early point in their schooling.  I seem to recall the decision was based on testing.  That wouldn't work here, but allowing them to CHOOSE their path would.  Maybe around the time they enter middle school / junior high, have them sit down with parents, a counselor, and perhaps some aptitude testing, and choose which type of path they want.  They don't need to pick a specific job, just a direction.  Usually, by the 7th grade, you've got a good sense of whether the student is an academic or a vocational type...

But I still maintain that, as time progresses, those service/unskilled jobs are going to be less and less in demand, and that's a problem for those who cannot get a college education.  Yes, some of those jobs will always be there, but I don't think the numbers will balance.

Eric Storm