• Welcome to the Heroscapers 2.0 site! We've still got some dust to clear and adjustments to make, including launching a new front page, but we hope you enjoy the improvements to the site. Please post your feedback and any issues you encounter in this thread.

Decision 2016

Nukatha

Most Effort : Least Points
Site Supporter
Us Americans have an election coming up in November, and I was looking for a place to hold a civilized discussion on the matter.

Personally, I've always voted Republican in past elections, as they were in general the party of smaller government. I can say that throughout the whole Republican primary season, I told myself that I would vote for the Republican, as long as it wasn't Donald Trump. I see Trump and Hillary as two sides of the biggest problem in American politics: Cronyism.
Hillary gets boatloads of money from God knows who, and Trump loves supplying politicians with funds if it means his business ventures come out ahead.

As it stands, I'm planning on voting for Gary Johnson.

So, if anyone wants to have a nice name-calling free discussion on our options this time around, let's have at it!
 
... nice name-calling free discussion...

I love both careful hyphen use and nice free discussions, you numpty. :p

(I won't be eligible to vote this November, but I might in 2020. Look for Vermont to swing ever-so-slightly leftwards then, for all the difference it will make on the national stage.)
 
A fish fact I bet you all didn't know is that I happen to like every fish I have eaten thus far. Curious, yet not so well known fact, if you ask me. :p

~JS
 
I've planned on doing a careful analysis of the third party candidates myself. I'm not happy with either of the main nominees, and I think it would send an important message if a third party candidate(s) gets a good percentage of the votes. What I really want to see is the implementing of multiple votes - as in, I don't just vote for Trump, or Hillary. I vote saying "I'd be okay with any of the following individuals for president: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, etc. I think that would be a good way to eliminate the extreme power of the two-party system without abolishing or replacing them with other parties as has happened in history.
 
In the original constitution before the 12 amendment had the person with the top vote be president and the person with the 2nd highest vote be vice-president. I think we should repeal the 12th amendment or make a new amendment that goes back to this - as ridiculous as it sounds it would be good for America if for Hilary and Trump one was president and one was vice-president as their infighting would force congress to make a more decisive roll on bills on its own without presidential involvement (the original intent of the executive-legislative balance). On those lines, I have decided to pay attention to the senatorial and house of representative races, and which ever party I think will have the majority of representatives in congress, I will vote for the opposite as president. The whole purpose of this is to prevent filibusters and attempt to encourage more cooperation in congress when creating bills, knowing that you would need 2/3 or more of congress to pass something to override a presidential veto. However, I may have a tough time deciding a president if I think the congressional seats will be close.
 
I think there is a very real possibility this time around of enough people voting for the Libertarian that Johnson could receive a handful (somewhere between 1 and 20) electoral votes. If Clinton and Trump split the rest of the vote almost evenly, it is entirely possible that no one candidate wins outright, which would send the top 3 presidential candidates to the House of Representatives, and the top 2 VPs to the Senate.

Now that would be fun.
 
It is unfortunate that the deck is very much stacked against change. Gerrymandering, lax campaign funding rules, a two party national debate system, and First past the post voting, all encourage the status quo.

I'm afraid it will just be another "The King is dead, all hail the King (or Queen)" situation.
 
There are reasonable criticisms to be made of Clinton, and I've made some of them. At the time we voted in Maryland, she and Sanders were both choices a reasonable person might make. He, a populist firebrand from Vermont, without much practical experience, particularly in foreign policy. A lifetime of devotion to civil service. In Europe, he would be a moderate; by American standards, he is on the left.

Clinton, on the other hand, has a lifetime of experience. There has never been, in my lifetime and perhaps the lifetime of anyone now breathing, someone who had a better breadth of experience than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States. She has relevant experience from the legislative and executive branches and from service at the state level as well. There was not a person in either party's primary season who could match her experience, nor - as Obama said at the convention - has there been an actual President who was more qualified than she. Certainly not himself, having served only as a Senator, nor any of his predecessors, who had served (FTMP) as governors in the recent few decades.

Her policy positions seem to be somewhat to the right of Sanders, but not much. She has been somewhat more hawkish than he, and I expect that to continue. The many, many criticisms of her have been mostly baseless witch hunts: Benghazi, TravelGate, and so on. You could, for each, find something done during the W. administration that was similar or far more dramatic, that did not lead to similar outrage then. You didn't like TravelGate? Where was your outrage when the US Attorneys were let go? You don't like deleted emails (which the FBI found was blameless), where were you when tens of thousands of emails were mysteriously deleted during an active investigation under W.? You don't like that an American diplomat died in a hostile country during the Obama administration? Where were you when American diplomats died other times?

I'm not saying she was blameless for each of those things - though I do believe she was, w/r/t Benghazi - an investigation costing the United States millions and millions of dollars, with no reasonable likelihood of discovering anything new and useful, and which did not discover anything new and useful - nor am I saying she was not. I am just observing that the *number* of scandals surrounding her is irrelevant to me, because most of those "scandals" have zero weight. It's math: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 1. I'll give you 1 for the recent email thing, but only one. It's barely a blip.

Anyway. She skews slightly to the right of Sanders, and in another country would also be considered a moderate. She is not as charismatic as Sanders, nor does she make solutions to our problems sound simple. But perhaps that's because solutions to complex problems are not simple, and that distinction might be why she has tended to come out slightly more truthful than he is when Politifact compares them side-by-side.
Spoiler Alert!

Not that Sanders is still in it, but he's a useful benchmark for a discussion of Clinton, because he recently competed against her and it's fresh in people's minds.

As you can see from the above chart, Donald Trump has been scored as a person responsible for many falsehoods. Similar charts comparing him to other Republican candidates, earlier in the primary season, showed him as a purveyor of more falsehoods than Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, to name just two. He does not tell the truth. His manner of persuading the American people to vote for him involves belittling people with nicknames - Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, etc. - and re-tweeting things that appeal to him, without regard for their provenance or their truth.

His policy positions appear to range from impractical and unfeasible (building a wall across the border with Mexico) to outright un-American (banning Muslims from entering the United States). He pulls and reuses campaign material from known hate groups, and endorses violence at his rallies. He does not appear to be able to let go of criticism, allowing even minor distractions - a crying baby at a campaign event, a 10-minute speech from a civilian at the Democratic National Convention - to push him to responses that do not appear to be thoughtful, respectful, compassionate, or polite. As Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake recently said, in response to Trump referring to her as a "joke," "if he can't take criticism from 'a joke,' what's he gonna do when somebody real comes for him?"

If the "real somebody" is reasonably adept at manipulating a person like Trump, then Trump may very well play into his hands.

It is also publicly verifiable that Trump's campaign has already left behind a trail of unpaid vendors and service providers, and in his business affairs he has decades of history of fraud, bankruptcy, and abandonment of his debts and his associates. As Michael Bloomberg (billionaire, and former mayor of New York) said, in his endorsement - remember, as an Independent - of Clinton: "Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us."

Quoting the Houston Chronicle, which has a decades-long, almost unbroken string of endorsements for Republican candidates for President, which has *already* endorsed Clinton: "These are unsettling times, even if they're not the dark, dystopian end times that Trump lays out. They require a steady hand. That's not Donald Trump."

For myself, I absolutely reject the false narrative that these are two sides of the same coin. You may not like Clinton as a candidate, but the fact is she is qualified for the office, just as Obama - a former Senator - and Bush - a former Governor - were qualified. She is, in fact, more qualified than both. All three said or did things during the campaign season or earlier in their lives that might cause a reasonable person to hesitate before pushing the button bearing his or her name on election day.

She might not be your preferred choice, but she can be trusted to be an experienced person trying to do a good job as President of the United States. You can say she favors moneyed interests, and there may be some truth to that, but she has fought for civil rights, access to health care, and other middle-class issues over the years, and there's no reason to think she will stop doing so. She is a qualified candidate. I can extoll her virtues at great length, and acknowledge that she has some drawbacks.

There's no reason to think that Trump is even aware of how little relevant experience he has. Consider that he recently assembled a team of economic advisors to help him put together an economic policy, and only three of the thirteen members have actual experience in economics. He does not have relevant experience in government administration, and he does not appear to be interested in addressing the fact that he has no relevant experience. That is dangerous, and it is coupled with his temperament, which I discussed above.

His decision not to release his own tax returns stands in intriguing contrast to his unprecedented demand that President Obama release his birth certificate, though there was no credible reason why Obama should, and in fact he already had (IIRC, Trump was demanding the "long form," when Obama had already release the short form, though the Governor or Secretary of State or whatever of Hawaii had already vouched for it, and there had never been credible evidence that Obama had been born anywhere else). A tax return would be particularly important for a self-proclaimed businessman with ties to foreign banks and foreign powers and private businesses, but the American people are denied the opportunity to see it, notwithstanding Trump's own unsupportable demand to see the current President's birth certificate.

I can have this discussion as either "vote for Clinton because she will be a fine President, she is qualified for the job, and the criticisms of her are either completely or almost completely unfounded," or as "vote for Clinton because she is at least competent, and her opponent is a danger to the nation, and she is not. A drowning man may prefer a motorboat, but he would certainly be content with a life preserver." Either way, I'm arriving at the same clear choice.

My :2cents:, without name-calling.
 
Last edited:
This is the first election that I get to vote in. I was a big Obama fan in 2008, since he was from my home state, and liked him in 2012 too. I'm a lot less of a Clinton fan, especially in the current political climate, but that's okay since my vote will not really matter for electoral college purposes. Fivethirtyeight has Illinois at a 98.4% chance to go to Clinton, behind only California and New York.

I'm not really a third party fan though either this year. Gary Johnson is at least a reasonable libertarian but their party ideals are way far from mine. Jill Stein is the opposite, where I like the party ideals, but the implementation and current platform is pretty poor (opposition to nuclear energy when it's the most cost-effective way to preserve energy for the future).

And Trump is Trump, as D_S laid out above.

So, I mean, I guess I don't have to vote but that seems like a waste. At least there is a few more months, and my vote is for principle rather than outcome anyway. I just don't really feel engaged since IMO this election is being fought over irrelevant issues.
 
Sorry DS, I see a lot that I don't like with Hillary.

I think that the Clintons have shown remarkably bad taste for people who are very politically ambitious. After Hillary became Secretary of State, Bill Clinton's speaking fees increased dramatically. Also, Bill received fees from groups with matters before the state department. It wasn't illegal, but it just shows incredibly poor judgment.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705

The Clinton Foundation has received contributions from a variety of sources. From the Washington Post (not exactly a right leaning publication), "And many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreigners who are legally barred from giving to U.S. political candidates. A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million." and "The role of interests located in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Argentina may spur questions about the independence of a potential commander in chief who has solicited money from foreign donors with a stake in the actions of the U.S. government." The percentage of funds that go to charity has been estimated at between 6% and 94% in various sources. I have no idea which is more correct. I'm sure this isn't illegal, but again it shows very questionable judgment.

When I have emails in my job, I have to use work issued equipment (and I don't do government work). I can lose my job if I don't. With government secrets at stake, Clinton used poor judgment (at best).

As for all of the other "scandals" that she finds herself in, I don't know if this is just smoke and mirrors of if she is untrustworthy. But she does seem willing to tell any lie if it benefits her in any way. Remember the "sniper fire" in Bosnia that turned out to be a small girl giving her a kiss? Unfortunately for her, she's not nearly as good a liar as Bill.

Finally, my taxes usually go up under a Democratic party president. I'm guessing that Hillary will not be an exception to this.

So, a vote for the Republican candidate would seem easy if only Donald Trump wasn't a walking disaster area. Lets see now:
  • A ban on Muslims entering the country
  • A fight with the parents of a soldier who died fighting for our country
  • Having seemingly no knowledge of current event
  • Threatening to abandon NATO allies
  • His statement that Russia won't go into Ukraine
  • Asking Russia to spy on Hillary Clinton
  • Calling for the torture of ISIS members, carpet bombing of civilians and the killing of ISIS members families
  • Did he really ask repeatedly why we couldn't use nuclear weapons?
  • Jail for women who have had an abortion
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure that I've missed a few other boneheaded statements.

Despite what the left tries to say about Trump's business acumen, he runs a successful company. I'll grant him that. But he doesn't seem to know the facts, seems to say a lot of very stupid things, and is seemingly so thin-skinned that he can't let anything go. I just can't vote for Trump.

Who's that libertarian candidate again???
 
I am aware of the speaking fees and the Clinton foundation. It's one of the demerits on her slate, and one of the reasons I thought Sanders was appealing.

As for taxes, I read recently that traditionally "blue" states tend to have (1) higher taxes and (2) higher standards of living. Or something like that. I don't need lower taxes, I need the taxes I pay to *do* something. I want the police to come when I call; I want my children and my neighbors' children to be taught by competent teachers. I want the Office of the Attorney General to have an effective Consumer Protection Division; I want public health services to combat infection. All those things contribute to my standard of living, and if my taxes are higher than those in Tennessee, I'm ok with that. I don't want to live in Tennessee.

(edit: Or, for instance, Missouri. Local municipalities, unable to raise enough money through taxes, apparently fill their coffers by imprisoning poor automobile drivers and holding them & their licenses ransom. Let's not pretend that taxes are the only way that money goes from people & businesses to the government, or that the government does nothing with it. For instance, your federal government has spent untold millions wasting time on attempting to repeal the ACA and investigating Benghazi in the House. And investigating Planned Parenthood. You think all that is free? And North Carolina has invested money & time into gathering its legislature to protect the state's bathrooms from undocumented & imaginary horrors. None of that is free! Don't tell yourself the lie that Republicans are more responsible with your money than Democrats. Both are capable of wastefulness; give me someone who has administrative experience & a good head for management.)

Regardless of those speaking fees and the Clinton foundation, I believe that her career as a public servant indicates an intent to continue as a servant of the public.

And I didn't say that Trump does not have "business acumen." He does run a successful business. However, you can't do with the American government what he does with a business: bankruptcy, betrayal, racism, fraud. That's his legacy as a businessman, though if you're counting dollars you may still call it "successful." You can't, for instance, willy-nilly abandon your treaty partners, or insist minorities conform to your prejudices, as the Chief Executive of the company that is the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
I am aware of the speaking fees and the Clinton foundation. It's one of the demerits on her slate, and one of the reasons I thought Sanders was appealing.
I was responding to your comment: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 1
My math brings me higher than 1. ;)


As for taxes, I read recently that traditionally "blue" states tend to have (1) higher taxes and (2) higher standards of living. Or something like that. I don't need lower taxes, I need the taxes I pay to *do* something. I want the police to come when I call; I want my children and my neighbors' children to be taught by competent teachers. I want the Office of the Attorney General to have an effective Consumer Protection Division; I want public health services to combat infection. All those things contribute to my standard of living, and if my taxes are higher than those in Tennessee, I'm ok with that. I don't want to live in Tennessee.
I don't need lower taxes, I just don't want them to go higher. I've never been worried that the police would come, and really haven't thought of the Attorney General or public health services.
In my experience, Democrats seem to make my taxes go higher.


Regardless of those speaking fees and the Clinton foundation, I believe that her career as a public servant indicates an intent to continue as a servant of the public.
I don't know what Hillary is thinking. I believe she shows poor judgment. I do agree that her judgment lapses are trivial compared with Trump's.


And I didn't say that Trump does not have "business acumen." He does run a successful business. However, you can't do with the American government what he does with a business: bankruptcy, betrayal, racism, fraud. That's his legacy as a businessman, though if you're counting dollars you may still call it "successful." You can't, for instance, willy-nilly abandon your treaty partners, or insist minorities conform to your prejudices, as the Chief Executive of the company that is the United States of America.
Trump's business acumen is what he is running on. He has no other record. He has used bankruptcy. I'm not sure about betrayal, racism and fraud.

Trump's big problem is that he says so many stupid things and really doesn't seem to know the basics of current events. Even with my dislike of Clinton, I can't vote for Trump.
 
As far as taxes go, it goes hand in hand with in equality.

Imagine you lived in a Anytown USA that has a population of 100 people. Now if one guy makes 34% of all the money, and the then 4 other guys make another 27%. This leaves 55 people to share 38%. Finally there are 40 people sharing less than 1%.

Lets ignore the terrible situations those last 40% are living in, We can call them lazy or useless or something. Instead lets focus on 55 who are doing okay. Now they are all working away, jobs and wealth distribution that is based on a more even distribuiton. Since those top 5 guys now only pay 30% instead of 70% taxes there is less money to pay for 2 Police officers, 4 street cleaners, and 2 teachers. The mayor being good friends with those 5 top guys doesn't raise taxes but instead cuts out the "waste".

Now you have only 2 street cleaners and 1 teacher, Lets also reduce the pay for those street cleaners or only make them part time. The streets are still clean, so what does it matter? The Mayor tells the old street cleaners, since the Rich guys have more money they will invest in them so they can open their own business's now that they have lots of free time. Now for some reason one of the rich guys decides to loan some money. Not sure why he would do this, I guess interest on the loan so he can make more money? Any way for my story he loans out some of the money, Now i doubt it is the 40% savings he got as a tax break, but I don't make the rules.

Anyhow the former street cleaner opens a business washing pets. Not a terrible idea, since everyone has a dirty dog. Now she does not make as much as she did as a street cleaner, but at least she has a dog. The problem is since everyone has been making less money (except those top 5 guys) they have less money to spend on extras like washing their dogs. At this point since so much money is tied up with those top 5 guys, there really aren't many customers for anything anymore.

Unfortunately there is no way to get that 50% of the money back into the economy since those 5 guys simply can't spend it fast enough (not that they seem to want to spend much of it anyway, and just end up giving most of it to their kids). If there was only a way for the government to create more Consumers for people who wash dogs. Oh, right there are those 40 people doing nothing since there are no jobs. Perhaps if the government started to make more jobs so there could be more consumers.

Or we could all gang up on those 5 guys and take their stuff and spread it around.
 
Mostly Writing This So I Can Get Notified To Lurk

My vote is not going to any of the candidates mentioned here but the reasons why are largely personal and I would likely be voting pragmatically for Clinton otherwise. (I was a Sanders fan)

I certainly don't fault anyone for wishing to vote third party, but I have yet to see a poll anywhere that makes me think Johnson or Stein has a prayer of winning electoral votes.

I have more opinions but I'm going to figure out how many of them are worth unpacking.

~Dysole, who really hated how early in the process it felt like her decision was basically decided for her
 
I think a big thing for everyone disillusioned with the names at the top of the tickets is to make sure to get involved and vote for the candidates you want in the positions other than president. I'm with those who are hoping for a different system to emerge that means it's possible (or easier) to vote to get people whose values you share into office---one way to get closer to this is in future and is often possible now is down the ticket, where candidates often have even more direct power to affect your life in any case.

I don't know if tomorrow is a big day nationwide for state elections, or if it's just VT, but if it is then please do some research (quickly!) and get out there. Also, things are getting fruity here (I love that one of the candidates is commenting to accept blame for some aspects of what he said and double down on others; it only reinforces my belief that local politics is so much more accessible and an important step to the national stage).
 
Unfortunately there is no way to get that 50% of the money back into the economy since those 5 guys simply can't spend it fast enough (not that they seem to want to spend much of it anyway, and just end up giving most of it to their kids). If there was only a way for the government to create more Consumers for people who wash dogs. Oh, right there are those 40 people doing nothing since there are no jobs. Perhaps if the government started to make more jobs so there could be more consumers.
Will the top 5 guys "spend" this extra money? Probably not, but they will invest the money in new businesses that need employees who then become consumers. They aren't going to bury it in the ground. I'm not saying that the government can't spend the money to make new jobs, but the government doesn't seem to be particularly efficient in job creation. I would rather invest my money with people that have a profit incentive or the money can easily be wasted.


Or we could all gang up on those 5 guys and take their stuff and spread it around.
Which has been done in Marxist forms of governments. The end result seems to be that some corrupt government officials end up with more and most of the people are no better off than before.
 
Will the top 5 guys "spend" this extra money? Probably not, but they will invest the money in new businesses that need employees who then become consumers.
Ah, yes. As the first President Bush called it, voodoo economics. Why would they invest money in new businesses, when they could protect their wealth better by collecting and storing valuable pieces of art, or investing in businesses and governments far away, likely in other countries? Money does not know borders; there is no reason to think that a member of the .1% will invest in anything other than the accretion of his or her own wealth.

I did not read Wriggz' post to be advocating taking resources from the 5. I thought that line was tongue-in-cheek.

Regardless, I'm not advocating for higher taxes. I'm just pointing out that (1) some government services are *good* things, and need to be financed, and (2) irresponsible use of government money does not know party, and in fact appears to be the norm for the current, conservative U.S. House of Representatives.
 
Will the top 5 guys "spend" this extra money? Probably not, but they will invest the money in new businesses that need employees who then become consumers.
Ah, yes. As the first President Bush called it, voodoo economics. Why would they invest money in new businesses, when they could protect their wealth better by collecting and storing valuable pieces of art, or investing in businesses and governments far away, likely in other countries? Money does not know borders; there is no reason to think that a member of the .1% will invest in anything other than the accretion of his or her own wealth.

I did not read Wriggz' post to be advocating taking resources from the 5. I thought that line was tongue-in-cheek.

Regardless, I'm not advocating for higher taxes. I'm just pointing out that (1) some government services are *good* things, and need to be financed, and (2) irresponsible use of government money does not know party, and in fact appears to be the norm for the current, conservative U.S. House of Representatives.
What you (or President Bush) call "Voodoo Economics", I call capitalism. Capitalism isn't perfect and as Winston Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Investing in art is typically for ego purposes, not for a reliable gain.

As you point out, money can leave the US. Lawyers have proven adept at skirting laws that try to limit companies and investments from leaving the US. I would prefer a lower (and simpler) corporate rate to limit this, even if it requires higher personal tax rates. It is in our best interests to limit jobs leaving the US and to keep investment here.

I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist. I want there to be a social safety net to help people when they fall, but I don't want people to live their lives in this safety net. I want a government that encourages jobs so that people can be gainfully employed.
 
I knew I should have provided a link to that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/a...collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html?_r=0

There must be taxes. The manner in which those taxes are structured will have a social impact. Reducing taxes in some ways encourages the growth of the middle class; in other ways it encourages the growth of the top 5, 1, or .1 percent. It's all "wealth redistribution," it's just a question of which direction. Me, I like the kind of tax system that favors a healthy middle class. I think that's good for the country.
 
I love how @Dad_Scaper puts it... It is what you are willing to pay for.

As a Canadian I know my taxes are higher than most (all?) of the US. However, I'm willing to pay them rather than moving since I feel I get a reasonable deal. I get Police protection, products I eat and use are tested for safety, I have Medical coverage, my election system is protected from government intervention, My mother-in-law can collect disability, my son will have a good school and my wife gets a year of maternity leave at 50% her normal pay.

What if I was unhappy? I only have two options: Move (expensive and maybe not feasible) or Vote for Change (limited options, no guarantees). I get why people hate all the government options, it is like cable companies or airline food - simply no real choice.

This is where your local government becomes important. If Americans (well any country really) invested the same time and effort into politics as they do to sports there might be a reason for change. Think of how we ring out Errors in sports, keep track of historical stats, and all around keep an eye on ever aspect of everything. I don't simply mean watching the three-ring circus that happens every 4 years, but in-depth participation that happens at every level.


Oh and about everyone showing up at that top 1% Houses and demand their share... your right there is always a "Cheater" waiting in the wings to snag more than their share, and really it would only likely lead to inflation.


Here's to hoping that the better angels of our nature one day rule our decisions.
 
I knew I should have provided a link to that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/a...collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html?_r=0

There must be taxes. The manner in which those taxes are structured will have a social impact. Reducing taxes in some ways encourages the growth of the middle class; in other ways it encourages the growth of the top 5, 1, or .1 percent. It's all "wealth redistribution," it's just a question of which direction. Me, I like the kind of tax system that favors a healthy middle class. I think that's good for the country.
Very interesting article. I wonder how much money is tied up in art held in ports?

There are deductions that target the middle class (mortgage, IRA/401K, dependents, EITC, etc.). I still think that jobs are the key to helping the middle class.

I have talked to a number of unskilled workers who support Trump on the basis of his immigration policies. While I'm not going to support a ban on Muslims, I understand their concern about illegal immigrants taking jobs.
 
My point with the reference to art - and with the link to the article - is that there is no reason to think that the money spent by the wealthiest of the wealthy inures to the benefit of anyone but themselves.

Is there a rational connection between Trump's immigration policies and employment in this country? I certainly wouldn't assume that the answer to that question is "yes," or that the people with whom you've spoken are competent to analyze it. Employment has risen steadily under Obama; I don't know why that wouldn't continue under Clinton.
 
I would love to see two things:

1. Corporate taxes tied to the number of Middle Class Jobs you provide.
2. More money spent on infrastructure to get people working.

Oddly enough the solution is not to offer tax breaks to the middle class, the key is to raise up the lower class. You want a country where "Unskilled works" are rare due to robust training, apprenticeship (not internship) and education programs.

I don't know about you but I don't want the jobs that typically go to Illegal Immigrants. Instead of worrying about illegals I would focus on wage reduction, part-time, disappearance of benefits and outsourcing.
 
I don't know about you but I don't want the jobs that typically go to Illegal Immigrants.

I am not a fan of this argument. I don't want those jobs either, and it's because they are in the the country illegally that illegal immigrants are paid such ridiculously low wages for such hard work.

We need to make it easier for people to come to the country legally and then enforce those laws precisely to prevent these things. Illegal immigration should not be tolerated just because it gives employees for jobs no one wants to do, it just perpetuates both the poverty of current and future illegal immigrants and their children.
 
Back
Top