Posted by Tina
In case it’s hard for some who read PS to understand the principles of economics or make sense of the arguments between Democrats (left) and Republicans (right), here are a few indications taken from life in America after eight years socialist economic policy:
Pam Dimitro, the controller at JNET Communications LLC, realized employees were often turning to payday lenders or high-interest credit cards in a financial pinch. So the Warren, N.J., employer of call-center workers and cable installers began offering employees a new benefit: low-interest loans to help pay for things such as car repairs and health expenses.
Worried about their financially strapped workforce, a handful of companies are stepping in to offer employees alternatives to payday loans and other expensive financial products.
While few other employers go that far, managers know that financial worries are taking a toll on U.S. workers. A recent PwC survey of 1,600 full-time employed adults found that 40% find it difficult to meet monthly household expenses and 51% consistently carry balances on their credit cards.
Payday loans, which are typically made in small amounts and come due on a person’s next payday, can carry fees equivalent to an annual percentage rate of almost 400%, according to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Some 12 million Americans use payday loans each year, according to Alex Horowitz, senior research officer with the Pew Charitable Trusts’ small-dollar loans project.
Retirement borrowing remains common, too. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 20% of all eligible 401(k) participants had loans outstanding against their 401(k) plan accounts at the end of 2014, up from 18% in 2008.
As an alternative, employers are joining with firms such as Kashable LLC, Ziero Financial Inc. and Zebit Inc. to help fund and service loans. Some companies are offering those products in conjunction with employee-focused seminars about saving, budgeting and debt.
My own business has fallen by more than two thirds. I have four employees now as opposed to ten in previous times. My customers have had to wait as much as six months before making payment…my own payables are impacted in the same way. It’s as if the nation is stuck in sludge and barely able to move.
All of this has gone on as we watched the Obamas take fabulous vacations and the Clintons jet set around the world collecting donations for their foundation, which quite possibly fascilitated state favors and secrets in return, and offers a meager 10% to charity.
Trump is attractive to a lot of voters because isn’t in politics or government. He increased his wealth through investment and hard work. His competitors prefer to live off the backs of the serfs who live “under” them.
How do we get out of this mess? It won’t be easy or quick, but with sound economics based on low taxes, reasonable regulation, and good old supply and demand (The right wing choice) we will again see our nation thrive.
Those who want a head start in the healing process should read, The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek, offered at the Misses Store:
What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship–and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.
America needs a change in leadership. Trump is the only candidate that can win who also represents change away from serfdom and toward full and robust employment.
I think Mr. Dimitro’s employees would prefer to be paid a wage that allows for the occasional car repair … and do not appreciate paying even low interest to an employer who makes it necessary for them to borrow in the first place.
Furthermore, Obama has not the power (and Trump would not use it if he had it) to do anything about vulture employers.
Nice try Libby. The problem is the economy under years of oligarchic rule by the Obama administration and the Fed. Businesses as well as employees are struggling. It would be irresponsible to offer a higher wage that yiudon;t feel comfortable to be able to support long term…we’re all in a holding pattern waiting for relief.
It’s incredible how you lefties make like this isn’t going on because of your parties deeply flawed economic policies…the cheek!
“The problem is the economy under years of oligarchic rule by the Obama administration and the Fed.”
This is baseless hyperbole … which leads me to believe that you need the dictionary for oligarch. The only guy in the might who might qualify there is The ELE.
Oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution
BO, Valerie Jarret, Janet Yellin, and all of those corporate and banking heads he arm twists like a champ to do is bidding with threats and enticements. Are you kidding me? Baseless my Aunt Fannie! Between the QE and the healthcare debacle there’s been a lot of control by the few going on.
And please, The ELE? What exactly does this mean?
I can appreciate the economy of words but our readers shouldn’t have to guess from among:
And the winner is, number one! … which you know perfectly well, because I said so. And I can’t be responsible for people who don’t keep up.
” … we watched the Obamas take fabulous vacations ….”
They’re not entitled to take vacations? That’s harsh. And it does prompt one to recall which President it was who set a record for paid days off.
Hee-hee.
Of course they’re entitled to vacations. It’s incredibly insensitive to take such lavish vacations while the nation struggles.
Yeah, Bush working at his designated western White House is exactly like all the trips to Martha’s Vineyard, Aspen, Africa and Hawaii, with the First Lady and kids traveling separately and bringing an entourage that doubled the cost to the taxpayer…please.
And then there’s the golf. Given the problems we face, this looks as though he isn’t interested in serving as president at all.
This article is from December, but I couldn’t find anything more recent:
Obama does not take an extraordinary amount of vacation time.
He’s taken 23 vacations spanning all or part of 177 days, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent who maintains an authoritative record of presidential activities.
By comparison, President George W. Bush at this point in his tenure had made 68 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 441 days, and 10 visits to his family’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine, spanning all or part of 39 days, according to Knoller.
Criticism of presidential vacations go back all the way to John Adams, who frequently traveled from the capital to his Massachusetts home, said Brendan J. Doherty, a political science professor at the U.S. Naval Academy.
In the modern era, traveling staff and ever-present telecommnications allow presidents to work even from vacation if they choose.
“Presidents are always on the job,” Doherty said. “They are never truly off the clock.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article50172810.html#storylink=cpy
The vacation critique is petty and inconsistent, Tina. Obama hasn’t vacationed any more than any other president.
He’s the President. His vacations are news. And he needs his entourage 1) to keep some cracker from shooting at him, and 2) in case the planet goes to pot while he’s out of town.
And you are being unreasonable.
Oooohh! I just thought. If the Oligarch, wins he will be required to put his empire into a blind trust. I don’t think he’ll like to do that. What’s more, if it comes to pass, and given the man’s character, I bet it’s real easy to catch him violating terms of said trust, and then we get to boot a President from office for fiscal malfeasance! Never done that before.
You’re behind the times Libby. He’s already turned over his empire to his children to run. He’s trained them and he trusts them.
“I bet it’s real easy to catch him violating terms of said trust, and then we get to boot a President from office for fiscal malfeasance! ”
Glad to hear you think Trump will be our next president!
Sorry to say we already have grounds for an investigation into “fiscal malfeasance,” and “racketeering” in Hillary and Bill Clinton…
Huffington Post has since pulled this story…was it a legitimate pull or just an ooops? Doesn’t matter, we all know she violated the law to avoid FOIA requests and hide her nefarious activities.
I doubt Bernie has a pot to pea in, which may be the real reason he’s running. The man didn’t think about the future, I’m afraid. He’s a bad choice, economically speaking.
“He’s already turned over his empire to his children to run.”
You don’t say! Then he’s already gotten round it. That is crafty, I have to admit. But you know, since the empire is not removed from Daddy’s influence, protected from any conflict of interest, the children’s every move will be scrutinized for such conflicts … and I’ll bet stuff turns up. This is still gonna be fun.
A friend of mine who owned a small business, once told me that he had taken a zip-lock baggie, put in $1.98, and taped it to the underside of his desk. That way, whenever someone accused him of being a rich business owner with bags of money under his desk, he could look them dead in the eye and reply “By golly, you’re right!”.
IMHO, if our nation does not change course, the last survivors will all be sitting around the same table trying to sell each other health care.
Great story. The public doesn’t know what it doesn’t know.
The Obama economy — Dog poop sealed in a zip-lock baggie and taped to the underside of the desk in the Oval Office.
You’re right. This whole insurance thing … We need to trash it and go single payer. If Europe has managed it for 50 years without imploding, so can we.
Tina: “Trump is the only candidate that can win who also represents change away from serfdom and toward full and robust employment.”
Trump doesn’t know anything about employment. He thinks the unemployment rate could be as high as 42%, which is mathematically impossible. You have tried and failed to justify this level of economic ignorance; you could try again, or you could skip to the end and admit it’s unjustifiable.
But there is no reason to think the “You’re fired!” guy knows how to put more Americans back to work.
Liar — Trump said he had heard that the rate might be as high a 42%, he did not say he thinks it could be as high as 42%.
Double Liar — “Trump doesn’t know anything about employment.” Trump is a major employer, he knows plenty about employment. In fact, he knows the most important thing about employment — creating jobs.
Triple Liar — An unemployment rate of 42% is not mathematically impossible, it depends on method and statistical base. I would direct you to such analysis, but that would be a waste of time as you have neither the background, intelligence, nor intellectual honesty to give it a fair examination.
Serial liar. “You have tried and failed to justify this level of economic ignorance…”
Tina has not failed, but you have, Chris.
I could have easily approached this in a civil manner by dropping the liar angle and the snotty slam at Chris’ ignorance and intelligence. I could have instead used terms like “no, this is incorrect” or “actually this is inaccurate” and “you might read this” but I had a Chris moment.
Actually, Pie, that was more civil than your usual. I’d rather be called a liar, which is a charge I can dispute, then a school yard nickname. You should have more Chris moments.
“Liar — Trump said he had heard that the rate might be as high a 42%, he did not say he thinks it could be as high as 42%.”
Dude. Those two things mean exactly the same thing. What is the distinction between “might be” and “could be?” There is none.
I supposed there is a distinction between “he had heard that” and “he thinks,” but you’re doing exactly what you accused me of earlier today: ignoring context. Why would Trump report that he had heard that, unless he was trying to get his audience to believe that the unemployment rate could be that high? He wouldn’t. So maybe Trump doesn’t think it’s that high, but chose to spread that rumor anyway just to spread ignorance among his already ignorant followers. Is that any better?
“Double Liar — “Trump doesn’t know anything about employment.” Trump is a major employer, he knows plenty about employment. In fact, he knows the most important thing about employment — creating jobs.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree here. Running businesses is not the same as running the world’s most important economy, and creating jobs as part of a business is not the same as shaping job-creating policy as president. Trump has endorsed several economically stupid ideas, such as floating the possibility of a trade war with China, which would plunge the world into another global recession. That would not create jobs; that would kill them.
“Triple Liar — An unemployment rate of 42% is not mathematically impossible, it depends on method and statistical base.”
Fine. I should have said it is mathematically impossible using statistically valid methodology. Better?
“I would direct you to such analysis, but that would be a waste of time as you have neither the background, intelligence, nor intellectual honesty to give it a fair examination.”
Pie, I’ve already seen the analysis you’re talking about, and addressed it here. That’s how I know that analysis is invalid.
Politifact explains better than I can:
The source of Trump’s 42 percent figure appears to be a column by David Stockman, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s budget director.
Stockman calculated that there are currently 210 million Americans between the ages of 16 and 68 — what he calls a “plausible measure of the potential workforce.” If you assume that each of those people is able to hold down a full-time job, he wrote, they would offer a total of 420 billion potential working hours. However, during 2014, Stockman noted, only 240 billion working hours were actually recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If you run the numbers, “the real unemployment rate was 42.9 percent,” Stockman wrote.
Economists say Stockman’s way of looking at the question — using actual hours worked divided by a theoretical maximum that could have been worked, rather than determining whether individual people are employed or unemployed — is provocative. But they say this raw measurement has serious flaws.
Indeed, in his column, Stockman acknowledges that this figure is imperfect, even though his tone is flip when he does so.
“Yes, we have to allow for non-working wives, students, the disabled, early retirees and coupon clippers,” he wrote. “We also have drifters, grifters, welfare cheats, bums and people between jobs, enrolled in training programs, on sabbaticals and much else.”
Snark aside, economists say this caveat is crucial.
Stockman’s calculation “treats people voluntarily working part-time hours as partly unemployed, even if they have excellent reasons for wanting to hold only a part-time job, such as rearing children, attending school or college, being disabled, or transitioning into retirement,” said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “A lot of the shortfall between full-time and part-time employment is perfectly reasonable, as is a potential worker’s decision not to work or look for paid work at all.”
In other words, Trump’s faith in the accuracy of the 42 percent figure is misplaced.
So is there a plausible calculation that can get us to 42 percent? The short answer is no.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-pants-fire-claim-unemployment/
So sure, if you use the wrong numbers entirely, it’s mathematically possible to get 42% unemployment. But that’s bad methodology, as well as totally useless: 42% compared to what? Do you honestly think Trump would continue using that same methodology into his own presidency? Do you think he was addressing an audience who even know the difference between the U-6 and the U-3? No, he was trying to inflate the unemployment rate to be yuuuuuge in order to dupe his ignorant audience. You’re not a part of that audience, and you shouldn’t defend them or him.
Thank you for responding with actual counter-arguments this time, Pie. I find this much more productive than our usual back and forth.
No Pie, YOU had a moment of extreme clarity…and I love it. Chris has been pushing this as a lie for some time and remains unbending to reason, explanation or facts.
I like the new approach…it’s stronger… filled with fire power!
Very effective and a great help to me (When I manage to read ahead)
Chris your charge, “Trump doesn’t know anything about employment,” is desperate, stupid, and another indication that you will dismiss a boat load of facts to prove a single statement defines what Trump “knows.” This is shallow thinking in the extreme!
“…there is no reason to think the “You’re fired!” guy knows how to put more Americans back to work.”
Really? How the hell would YOU know? How many people have YOU employed? Have YOU met a single payroll? Have you EVER had the need to hire? Would YOU know the first thing about creating a single job?
Trump IS a shrewd business man and a master negotiator; he KNOWS a heck of a lot more than you have even begun to know…especially on jobs and the economy.
CNN Money, not a pro-Trump source:
And for a man who supposedly treats women badly he sure hires a bunch of them through the “glass ceiling.”
Daily Caller:
Come on Chris, you’re just throwing stones.
Tina,
Again, personally employing people in one’s business is NOT the same as shaping public policy that will put people to work in the economy. They are entirely different skills, and there is no reason to believe that one automatically transfers to the other.
I am basing my opinion of Trump’s knowledge of the American economy by the public statements he has made about it, not his history as a businessman. That is fair and rational.
Will you defend Trump’s statement, “Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?” Will you defend his assertion that we should default on our debts? Will you defend his “clarification” that we don’t have to default, because we can always “print more money”–a stance you have blasted Democrats for saying in the past? All of these stances have been condemned by economists on both the left and right. Do you have any rebuttal to these condemnations? Or do you insist on ignoring everything Trump has said about the economy since he started running for president, just because he happens to be a successful businessman?
And no, Trump does not “supposedly treat women badly.” He treats women badly. You’ve watched him do it. Are you honestly going to pretend his attacks on Heidi Cruz and Carly Fiorina weren’t sexist? “Look at that face” wasn’t sexist? What, does the fact that he “hires a bunch” of women somehow make those attacks less sexist?
“personally employing people in one’s business is NOT the same as shaping public policy that will put people to work in the economy.”
Again…you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. You can’t even tell me how government spending will create a strong economy. Evidence to the contrary fails to move your stubborn self. What makes you think you know more than Trump?
One thing he has that you don’t is decades of facing employment decisions as policies and regulations change under different administrations.
“Will you defend Trump’s statement”
It’s not necessary for me to “defend” Trumps statement(s). He has explained, fleshed out, and revised all of the statements he’s made that grab headlines and drive liberals crazy. People who want to know dig deeper.
I’ll give you excerpts from one interview:
Some disagree with his assessment. Are they the same types that approve of Obama’s failed policies? It’s likely.
Look, every new president establishes new relationships with world leaders. Nobody is going to mistake Trump for a weak negotiator…he begins with the toughest possible scenario (for us) and progresses from there. Nothing he says today is written in stone.
Obama made a lot of lofty promises when he ran in 08. One was about transparency. looking back today, should we have believed his smooth talk? What about his position of deficit spending and the debt? His remarks look ridiculous now in light of eight trillion dollars in new debt.
Tina: “drive liberals crazy”
You have to stop living in this fantasy land where the only people who think Trump’s proposals are crazy are liberals. It isn’t real. As I said, both conservative AND liberal economists have said Trump’s “trade war” would cause a worldwide recession.
“Some disagree with his assessment. Are they the same types that approve of Obama’s failed policies? It’s likely.”
It would be really easy for you to find out. Why are you choosing not to? That’s irresponsible.
I asked you before to name one foreign policy expert who supported a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, and you couldn’t do it. Now you reveal your unfamiliarity with what economic experts think about Trump’s economic plans. Don’t pretend to know more about the economy than me and then pull this. You are completely uniformed on what economists on both the left and right think about Trump, because you don’t want to be informed–you’d rather believe all the attacks on Trump’s ridiculous economic ideas are from biased leftists, when in fact it’s pretty unanimous that Trump is a dunce.
Libby: “I can’t be responsible for people who don’t keep up.”
Spoken exactly like that witch who would be queen.
Chris: “You have to stop living in this fantasy land where the only people who think Trump’s proposals are crazy are liberals. It isn’t real.”
I don’t live in “this fantasy” of your imagination.
It also isn’t “real” that everybody thinks Trump is crazy or unqualified.
You need to stop telling people how to think and what to do, ya little control freak.
You’re right, Chris, I haven’t found a single “expert” on foreign policy who thinks banning Muslims temporarily is a “good idea.” So what? I have heard a few who were not as horrified as you are and suggest it’s worth considering until we untangle the mess Obama has made of the war and the border. And it isn’t like we’re talking about a seriously proposed policy that’s about to be voted on by Congress. In that case I’d expect to here quite a bit and given the number of left leaning apologists and PC nail biters in left politics I expect lots and lots of harrumphing and, “You can’t do thats!”
Trump isn’t the first person to step onto the world stage without fawning agreement and suck up promotion (BO). In fact, he could turn out to be one of those men, thought crazy, who ends up making a valuable contribution. They just knew Ronald Reagan was going to blow up the world. He was an “actor” and a “dunce.”
More food for thought from National Review on a leaders who was controversial in his time:
Popular thought isn’t always correct in the end.
If you really want to be taken seriously you need to broaden your perspective.
“Now you reveal your unfamiliarity with what economic experts think about Trump’s economic plans …”
Are we talking border and war issues or the economy? Your mixing your message.
I can and have sited opinions o the economy that align with Trumps policies many many times.
Art Laffer is one.
Over at Bloomberg, Narayana Kocherlakota, the Lionel W. McKenzie professor of economics at the University of Rocheste and ex-president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis wrote a column titled, “Trump Starts Making Economic Sense.”.
Eve Paul Krugman asserted, “Trump Is Right on Economics.”
“you don’t want to be informed”
Rock tosser…what do you get from this garbage talk?
We’re done.
My own business has fallen by more than two thirds. I have four employees now as opposed to ten in previous times. My customers have had to wait as much as six months before making payment…my own payables are impacted in the same way. It’s as if the nation is stuck in sludge and barely able to move.
Miss Tina, what business are you in?
She is, and fails to appreciate both the irony and absurdity, a government contractor.
Contracting what?
Meeting some product need created by some Homeland Security regulation, if memory serves. Things may have changed, but I believe the Fed was her chief customer.
So, you see, like most Republicans, she is only against government regulation that provides OTHER people with a living.
Could it be she has some business interest in the possibility of a wall? It would explain a lot.
Tina: “I don’t live in “this fantasy” of your imagination.”
Then stop suggesting my critiques of Trump are driven by partisan bias, when those exact same critiques have been made by many conservatives.
“It also isn’t “real” that everybody thinks Trump is crazy or unqualified.”
When did I ever suggest that “everybody” thinks this? Not everybody does; that’s the problem.
I did say that every rational person thinks Trump is crazy and unqualified. That’s not the same.
“You need to stop telling people how to think and what to do, ya little control freak.”
This is always what you resort to when you can’t come up with a counter-argument.
“You’re right, Chris, I haven’t found a single “expert” on foreign policy who thinks banning Muslims temporarily is a “good idea.” So what? I have heard a few who were not as horrified as you are and suggest it’s worth considering until we untangle the mess Obama has made of the war and the border.”
You have? Who are they? Name them.
“And it isn’t like we’re talking about a seriously proposed policy”
Of course. Nothing Trump suggests is serious. So why are you supporting such an unserious person?
“In that case I’d expect to here quite a bit and given the number of left leaning apologists and PC nail biters in left politics I expect lots and lots of harrumphing and, “You can’t do thats!””
Well, you can’t ban Muslim immigration, at least not without alienating our allies, violating international treaties against collective punishment, emboldening ISIS, and weakening our ability to fight terror. Do you want all those things to happen? If not, can you explain why those would NOT be the easily predictable results of such an extreme policy, as explained by nearly every foreign policy expert who has weighed in on the subject?
You have never, ever responded to these counter-arguments against Trump’s bigoted and counterproductive plan. Not. Once. And you never have because you can’t do it–the problems with it are obvious, and there is no rational defense of it. Your defense has, instead, been argument-free and mindless.
Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Your comparisons between Trump and Reagan and Trump and Churchill are insulting. You smear the honor of both men, who deserve better. Lord knows they had their faults, but both of them devoted their life to public service. Trump decided to run for president yesterday for personal gain and attention, and has been laughing all the way to the bank. Trump thinks you’re a bigger idiot than I do. He has said he could shoot a man in the street and you would still support him, and still you defend this man who openly admits he is playing you for a gullible rube? That’s a personality defect, Tina. That’s pure weakness. You’re his psychological toy, and when he’s done playing with you we’ll all be worse off because of the things you and your cohorts have allowed him to do to your minds and souls.
“Are we talking border and war issues or the economy? Your mixing your message.”
No, the remark you quoted and responded to directly referred to your weak defense of Trump’s “trade war” rattling about China. Keep up.
Krugman’s statements on Trump were in relation to Trump’s endorsement of raising taxes on the wealthy and support for universal healthcare–both of which he has since contradicted. That doesn’t bother you? You have previously declared both positions to be forms of socialism and tyranny, and now you are defending a man who supported both as recently as last year? Have you no principles whatsoever?
Christopher,
It is you who lives in a fantasy land. You have a gooberment job that it is virtually impossible to get fired from with a guaranteed pension while Miss Tina runs a business, has no guarantee of anything, must meet a payroll and to top it off must support all of society’s parasites through oppressive taxation.
And your point? Other than “teachers suck, business owners rule?” Your comment is nothing but an ad hom fallacy, without even a hint of rebuttal to any of my arguments. Say something real next time. This is the response of a child. Be better.
Other than “teachers suck, business owners rule?”
Christopher, where did I say that? You’re great at making up straw men.
The point is that businesses, especially small businesses, have to provide a product or service that someone is actually willing to buy.
Whereas the “lil childern” have to go to the
government run youth indoctrination campsgooberment schools or else their parents get thrown in jail…unless they can afford to send their kids to a real school.So you accused me of setting up a strawman…right before confirming that said “strawman” was 100% an accurate reflection of your position re: teachers and business owners. Thanks, Bob.
Of course, nowhere did you rebut anything I said; you merely insulted my profession.
Not insulting your profession, just the gooberment schools. They are atrocious and it’s no wonder we see things like this so often.
http://fox40.com/2016/02/16/family-of-12-year-old-suicide-victim-says-bullying-to-blame/
The point is that businesses, especially small businesses, have to provide a product or service that people actually want to buy.
While the “lil childern” in the
government run youth indoctrination campsgooberment schools have to be there or their parents will get thrown in jail unless they can afford to send their kids to real schools.Bob, this simplistic position is not helpful. I don’t know the answer to this dilemma, but we need to find it. Because the fact is that Chris’s job pays enough to support a retail economy, and Tina’s employees do not make that kind of money. Until this changes the economy stays in the toilet.
Tina will now say that if she paid less tax her employees would make more. Alas, we have been on this capitalist road for about 500 years and there is not a shred of evidence to back this claim. Just the opposite, sadly.
… and Tina’s employees do not make that kind of money.
How would you have any idea what she pays them?
Do you even know what line of business she is in?
If you do, then speak up!
Pardon, Bob. We’ve been at this so long, I think it maybe 20 years, which is really sick, that a lot of the stuff posted back and forth was set in stone years ago.
I’m gonna try and be more explicit for newcomers.
She’s never said and doesn’t have to, but being a Republican in Chico a reasonable inference is that she pays the minimum wage.
20 years? I didn’t know this blog went back to 1996. Not too long after Algore invented the Internet! 🙂
Before Nor-Cal Blogs was set up there was a forum of sorts on the ER, where we all got acquainted. How’s that for pre-history?
That Bloomberg article begins, “Donald Trump has offered up a number of questionable ideas on how to manage the U.S. economy. Some of his latest proposals, though, might make a lot of sense.”
Translation: “He’s said a lot of crazy crap, but some things he has said lately might not be crazy. Maybe.” THAT’s supposed to inspire confidence? Wow.
The writer goes on to admit that her interpretations of Trump’s statements are based almost entirely on assumptions about what he means, and he has no real idea if his interpretation of Trump’s proposals is what he actually meant to say. And that’s the best you can offer up when it comes to his support from economists? You’re making my case for me.
That Laffer interview was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen. The interviewers just nodded their heads and complimented him after he made wrong statement after wrong statement–he said that this is the worst recovery ever, ignoring that it’s also following the worst recession ever; that government revenue always goes down when tax rates go up, which is demonstrably false; that the labor participation rate is Obama’s fault rather than primarily the result of changing demographics including an aging population; that “all” the people who have left the unemployment rolls have also left the work force; that Obamacare has killed jobs, an entirely unsupported assertion; and more. The man is an ideologue. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that he is assuming Trump means it when he says he will lower taxes, something no one has any reason to believe, since he has as long of a record of supporting raising taxes on the rich. Just embarrassing to watch someone so educated prove himself so willfully stupid.
Looks like Art Laffer also thinks Trump is a liar, and that this is a good thing:
Laffer said in an interview that he does not believe Trump will follow through with his plan to deport all immigrants here illegally. He also said Trump, who has threatened tariffs on China and Mexico in order to leverage more favorable terms of trade for the United States, is no more protectionist on trade than Cruz — or almost any other American politician – and that he will eventually favor freer trade than America has now.
He said business leaders who have dealt with Trump in the past speak glowingly of the real estate mogul, and he suggested that Trump’s most controversial campaign statements are simply plays for the cameras.
“He’s not going to deport every person in America who’s illegal, really,” Laffer said. “Don’t you see him as a showman?” He added: “I don’t think the policies he will do will be extreme, in terms of being really bad. I do see him being extremely pro-growth. I see him bringing lots of jobs back by cutting the corporate tax.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/19/one-part-of-the-republican-establishment-actually-loves-donald-trump-and-ted-cruz/
Got that? So Laffer believes the promises of Trump that he wants to be true, while dismissing the promises he doesn’t want to be true as mere “showmanship” (No, Art, making promises one has no intention to keep is called lying.
The article includes Republican criticism of Trump’s tax plan:
“The praise has alarmed some other conservatives, who say the supply-side crowd is showing itself to be chiefly concerned with cutting taxes for companies and high earners, at the expense of its other principles.
“Trump is the caricature of supply-side economics that supply-side enthusiasts have fought against for decades,” said James Pethokoukis, a columnist for National Review who has criticized Trump and who has pushed GOP candidates to focus their economic policies on helping the middle class. “And now they’re embracing him.”
Laffer is getting as big a kick out of watching Trump push media and lefty buttons just as we are.
The “seriousness” expressed in your concerns is pretty funny as well, especially given the sleaze, radicalism, and failure that dominates your parties main choices past and present.
Hmmm, People on the right have engaged in honest discussion about our candidate, his attributes and flaws, and you think that’s a problem of some kind.
Would that we could get an honest word about Hillary or Bill or Obama.
The avowed socialist is mostly honest but a real economy killer. Not much criticism is directed toward him.
It’s almost like democrats have a double standard or something. What no smelly socks under those beds?
This is still the primary season. You should be fighting it out in your party between Hillary and Bernie. In such a fight I would expect fierce clashes and lots of derogatory remarks from the opposing factions. Instead you choose to spend your time bashing our candidate. Are you really that frightened and desperate?
I’m torn, part of me finds that possibility utterly delicious!
“Laffer is getting as big a kick out of watching Trump push media and lefty buttons just as we are.”
Trump’s behavior is disgusting and dangerous to the integrity of our country. If you’re still “getting a kick out of” it, you are sick inside.
“Hmmm, People on the right have engaged in honest discussion about our candidate,”
Well, some people on the right. Not you.
“Would that we could get an honest word about Hillary or Bill or Obama.”
That would be a refreshing change of pace for this blog.
“This is still the primary season. You should be fighting it out in your party between Hillary and Bernie. In such a fight I would expect fierce clashes and lots of derogatory remarks from the opposing factions.”
I’m sorry Trump has lowered your expectations to the gutter. Previously such derogatory comments from primary opponents within the same party were uncommon. Should Bernie talk about his penis more and mock Hilary Clinton’s looks? Should Hilary Clinton reveal Bernie’s home address, insult his Jewish heritage and call a reporter who asks about Benghazina “sleaze?” Neither of them would ever behave that way, and if they did you’d condemn them. But Trump does it and it’s baby town frolics. And you have the nerve to insist their supporters hold a double standard? Your mind has turned to jelly.
I’m not scared of Trump. He’s not going to win. I’m scared to live in a country with people ready to elect such a petulant, abusive moron to the highest office in the land.