Re: What would it take?
 

I completely agree Schneed. I try never to be rude or make it personal. Just good old fashioned ball busting.
To speak to the original point of this thread there is absolutely nothing to make me feel good about him yet. Every day this guy says or signs or does something that just pushes me further away. I suppose I could just stay out of the thread period in the spirit of honoring its original question, but that would make for an awful one sided thread. I think with Trumps ego that he will go , and is going, out of his way to battle with his doubters instead of trying to appease them. He is actually the poster child for what you do not like about the direction of this thread. Lil ironic. Lol.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164519]I figured a thread about Trump was a good place to speak of such things. I keep it out of all other threads, as much as I wanted to pile on Metals trump post and mattys follow up to it in the boob thread.
The eternal hope in me is that one of these Trumpers is going to cave and admit he is terribly out of his league.
You have not exactly been silent in this thread.
What has me going this afternoon is how you can put a positive twist on his comments about Frederick Douglass. Chico thinks Spicer needs to be fired for basically echoing Trumps statement yet Trump is free from criticism?[/quote]

No spicer needs to go because he's not good at his job...it's pretty obvious.

I haven't really been arguing as an advocate for trump...

Re: What would it take?
 

Also sticking with the thread...

I voted for Hillary. First time I've voted D in a presidential election in my life. I'm particularly troubled that Steve Bannon is being permitted in the room for National Security Council discussions, and the Joint Chiefs are not. I don't understand that at all and it concerns me greatly. That concern is so great that it overshadows all other concerns by a mile.

That said, sticking with the theme of the thread, I'll hand it to Trump in the following regard:

- Thumbs up on his pick for Supreme Court

- I'm a free trade guy, but I get economic protectionism in an era of increasing automation. Automation is going to continue, and as long as it does we're going to have oodles and oodles of people out of work. My first inclination as a free trader is to say well those folks need to train themselves for other jobs. Not that simple, the automation is going to be too vast. We need something for those people to do. I'm at least ready to keep an open mind that his protectionist strategies might help create better paying jobs for the middle class.

- Putting Iran on notice. Thumbs up.

- Generally carrying himself with a no-nonsense, take no bullshit persona. Didn't like the way he treated Australia, but toughness counts on the international stage when it comes to your enemies. I already like the way that plays better than I did Obama's intellectual, thoughtful posture.

But again, Bannon in the room. It dwarfs everything else. I'm so worried about the advice Trump is getting from that guy. Not sure Flynn is much better. Removing the Joint Chiefs, independent level-headed people, for those two guys is unbelievably concerning. I just hope Mattis can keep everybody's head on straight.

Re: What would it take?
 

Sadly I think the divide in our country is growing or has grown beyond where the original topic is answerable with anything but either punch's reply or my equal and opposite reply that so far there is very little to make me think I am going to turn my support away from DT.

I know a guy, he and his wife are a good to great couple and they can talk about most things as far as I know. He likes trump she hates trump. A quote from him "if two people who know each are considerate of one another know each to be smart sane people - can't talk about trump, what hope is there for the country." Her response. "Probably none". Sadly that resonates through this thread.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

It's shit like this that bothers me with Trump.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-johnson-amendment-political-activity-churches.html[/url]


Allowing churches to be political but not taxing them? Fuck that. Fuck that to all hell and back. There is a reason why the founding fathers separated church and state and why that glorious documents mention nothing of God, Jehovah or Allah.

What would it take?
 

Bannon is in the room because Trump wants him there. So who is the bigger idiot? The idiot or the guy who takes advice from the idiot?
And thank God my wife is on the same page. I would hate to have to explain to my daughter that Daddy has to leave. Lol. Joking. Or maybe not? Well like I said thank God she is on my side.
The fact that Trump does not see what we see in Bannon is a bigger concern than Bannon himself. He either agrees with the guy or he is oblivious. Either way it is a dangerous observation about the dude.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1164524]I voted for Hillary. First time I've voted D in a presidential election in my life. I'm particularly troubled that Steve Bannon is being permitted in the room for National Security Council discussions, and the Joint Chiefs are not. I don't understand that at all and it concerns me greatly. That concern is so great that it overshadows all other concerns by a mile.[/quote]


I agree. This is a guy who admires Lenin and quite frankly is pattern his tactics after him.

[url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html]Steve Bannon, Trump’s Top Guy, Told Me He Was ‘a Leninist’ - The Daily Beast[/url]

When you hear comments like "the media should keep its mouth shut" is when you know the threat is real. People wanted to talk about how Obama was some secret agent muslim terrorist sent to tear down America, but here we actually have a guy on the national security trying to do just that.

[quote=Schneed10;1164524]I'm a free trade guy, but I get economic protectionism in an era of increasing automation. Automation is going to continue, and as long as it does we're going to have oodles and oodles of people out of work. My first inclination as a free trader is to say well those folks need to train themselves for other jobs. Not that simple, the automation is going to be too vast. We need something for those people to do. I'm at least ready to keep an open mind that his protectionist strategies might help create better paying jobs for the middle class.[/quote]

I agree with free trade in principle, but the problem with that is it's going to just further expedite the manufacturing jobs to outside the country. We agree totally with the automation thing, and it's a huge reason why a basic income has being discussed in Congress.

[YT]OX06f3DPXt4[/YT]

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164525]Sadly I think the divide in our country is growing or has grown beyond where the original topic is answerable with anything but either punch's reply or my equal and opposite reply that so far there is very little to make me think I am going to turn my support away from DT.

I know a guy, he and his wife are a good to great couple and they can talk about most things as far as I know. He likes trump she hates trump. A quote from him "if two people who know each are considerate of one another know each to be smart sane people - can't talk about trump, what hope is there for the country." Her response. "Probably none". Sadly that resonates through this thread.[/quote]

I can easily talk about Trump and I will point out the good things he does when he does them. However, must Trump supporters have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the shitty moves or justify them with bullshit excuses. Take for instance some of his cabinet choices.

[U][B]James Mattis[/B][/U]- Great choice
[B][U]Betsy DeVos[/U][/B]- Insane choice
[B][U]Nikki Haley[/U][/B]- great choice
[B][U]Ben Carson[/U][/B]- good choice but wrong area. Should be health service or surgeon general, not an area he has no experience.
[U][B]Tillerson[/B][/U]- awful choice with too many ties to Russia affairs

This is being unbiased. If you can't see why some of the cabinet choices are bad (or decisions) then there isn't much help. It's why people continue to treat politics like their favorite sports team. No matter how dumb the decisions the team makes, you will continue waving that flag supporting them week after week.

Re: What would it take?
 

Can't disagree. That's as objective as it gets. I couldn't pick a better SecDef myself than Mattis. Haley will be great at the UN. The others, DeVos in particular, make no sense.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1164524]Also sticking with the thread...

...

- I'm a free trade guy, but I get economic protectionism in an era of increasing automation. Automation is going to continue, and as long as it does we're going to have oodles and oodles of people out of work. My first inclination as a free trader is to say well those folks need to train themselves for other jobs. Not that simple, the automation is going to be too vast. We need something for those people to do. I'm at least ready to keep an open mind that his protectionist strategies might help create better paying jobs for the middle class.

...[/quote]

This is way off topic, and not a chance of reality, but with the level of automation coming in the 20 years, and the ease of accumulation of wealth in the top 1%, I really wonder what your thoughts are about the Netherlands living wage.

My normal mindset would be no, BUT, I do think automation is a game changer in economics, and if you have the living wage to all citizens, then you do away with minimum wage to employers, and once again let free market forces act, within the constraints of that. I really don't know any feasibility, but I'm curious about your thoughts Schneed.

Re: What would it take?
 

I guess my concern would be how do you set a living wage at a level that ensures a minimum safety net, yet doesn't completely remove all incentive to perform jobs that barely clear the minimum wage?

Let's say you give your guaranteed living wage of $400 per week (equivalent to $10 per hour at 40 hours). Do you create a moral hazard where bus drivers and EMTs and countless other folks in similar positions say you know what I'd rather sit at home because the couple extra bucks aren't worth it?

And my second concern would be, damn, it would take a very highly graduated tax bracket structure to pay for this. The Netherlands used to have its highest tax bracket set at 72% prior to 1990, but since moved it down to 52%. Not sure how they pay for everything in their system, but I do know that if your top tax bracket is too high you have a way of squelching innovation.

How can we get stats on the number of new products, new life-saving medical advancements and drugs, come from the Netherlands? Because that to me is the crux of the whole thing. Investing in a new idea takes immense guts and risk, both personal and financial, and there needs to be immense reward on the other side of it. Without that reward it's quite obvious that fewer people would take the risk on new ideas.

So I'm not sure, but I'd have concerns about anything that raises the top tax bracket too high. The immense financial reward available in the US is the carrot dangling in front of a lot of scientific and medical advancements.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1164512]We should have a rule. For every point you want to make, you have to pick a point where the other side is right, and acknowledge it.[/QUOTE]



Or you have to post in the boobs thread for every post here. Sounds fair to me.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1164537]Or you have to post in the boobs thread for every post here. Sounds fair to me.[/quote]

:biggthump

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1164536]I guess my concern would be how do you set a living wage at a level that ensures a minimum safety net, yet doesn't completely remove all incentive to perform jobs that barely clear the minimum wage?

Let's say you give your guaranteed living wage of $400 per week (equivalent to $10 per hour at 40 hours). Do you create a moral hazard where bus drivers and EMTs and countless other folks in similar positions say you know what I'd rather sit at home because the couple extra bucks aren't worth it?

And my second concern would be, damn, it would take a very highly graduated tax bracket structure to pay for this. The Netherlands used to have its highest tax bracket set at 72% prior to 1990, but since moved it down to 52%. Not sure how they pay for everything in their system, but I do know that if your top tax bracket is too high you have a way of squelching innovation.

How can we get stats on the number of new products, new life-saving medical advancements and drugs, come from the Netherlands? Because that to me is the crux of the whole thing. Investing in a new idea takes immense guts and risk, both personal and financial, and there needs to be immense reward on the other side of it. Without that reward it's quite obvious that fewer people would take the risk on new ideas.

So I'm not sure, but I'd have concerns about anything that raises the top tax bracket too high. The immense financial reward available in the US is the carrot dangling in front of a lot of scientific and medical advancements.[/quote]

I don't know, but maybe tax rates ought to be based on how many multiples of the living wage your gross individual income is. if living wage is 20,000 as an example, and you earn 20,000 apart from living wage, you have 1 multiple of living wage. 200,000 = 10 multiples, etc etc. So one scale would be something like:

100000+ you keep .1% or 2million as a minimum and up
10000-99999 you keep 1% or 2million as a minimum up to 20 million
1000-9999 you keep 10% or 2million as a minimum up to 20million
100-999 you keep 20% or 400k up to 3.98 million
50-99 you keep 30% or 300k up to 600,000
25-49 multiples you keep 70% so earn 500k, keep 350,000
10-24 multiples you keep 85% so earn 200k, keep 170,000
1-10 multiples you keep 95% so a minimum yearly life would be 39,000 (base 20000+19000).


In addition, you charge all company's regardless of size a 5% living wage tax.

Again, no idea whether any of these numbers work, which of course means I just wasted about 15-20 minutes making this crud up, because I must like to see myself type.

I do think something like this, along with getting rid of minimum wage, and alot of bureaucracy around thousands of different government welfare programs would have a tremendous effect on the economy. I think it would be positive. (oh and if you waste the 20,000 and look for more handouts we let Achmed handle it)

of course 20,000 is a number, I don't know what that really is, but it wouldn't take a cray supercomputer to figure it out.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1164537]Or you have to post in the boobs thread for every post here. Sounds fair to me.[/QUOTE]



Hopefully not a retro rule or me n Cred are going to spend the whole weekend posting boobs.
Actually maybe retro is a good idea? [emoji848]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164474]hears another example of the corrupt media: [url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/trump-to-mexico-take-care-of-bad-hombres-or-us-might.html]Trump to Mexico: Take care of 'bad hombres' or US might send troops[/url]

Take a look at the correction at the bottom: UPDATE: The AP updated its story with a spokesman for Mexico's president saying: "It is absolutely false that the president of the United States threatened to send troops to Mexico."

So you see whats going on? The AP put out a correction, but NBC chose to report the story as fact...before fact checking. interesting huh?

Fact checking in the ethics of journalism is a cornerstone. There is no argument there, it is a guiding principle.[/quote]

I agree. For a lot of media companies, when they retract a story they don't put it out there like the original. I ain't debating media ethics with you though, I am all too aware of how shady they are on both sides of the aisle.