Trump will lose.

[Eric the Green]

(08-28-2016, 10:16 AM)Anthony Wrote:

Quote:Hillary's better-than-nothing is much better than Trump's better-than-nothing.

But Hillary is offering Paul Fussell's mid proles and low proles less than nothing - no wage bump because she's for the TPP and amnesty for illegal aliens, and higher taxes on them in the form of a 2.2% across-the-board increase to pay for expanded ObamaCare.

But she's NOT for the TPP, and Trump is a hypocrite and therefore unreliable on this issue. And Hillary offers a minimum wage bump and Trump does not. Immigration boosts the economy, and Trump is "softening" on the issue. Who knows WHAT he might do differently. "Illegal" immigrants do not threaten jobs that anyone wants or that pay anything much. Health care for all is a right, and Hillary offers the better plan. Trump offers nothing on this issue; Hillary does. Losing insurance is a worse threat than a small tax increase to pay for it, although I haven't heard of any such tax plan.

[playwrite]

(08-26-2016, 03:32 PM)Anthony Wrote: Yeah I'd say that cutting off immigration has worked out great for Japan - where any unemployment rate above 4% is indicative of a "lost decade."

And Trump would cut the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%.  Big deal.  Gary Johnson would cut their taxes to basically nothing: If a super-richie makes $50 million in a year and spends $50,000 of it, you do the math under the Fair Tax - and its "pre-bate" is a red herring if ever there was one: The soon as the usual moral judgmentalists point out that it would give Skid Row bums and druggies free money to indulge their pathologies, the pre-bate is toast, and then the poor pay the full 30%.

Only 47% of them pay taxes already?  You mean that a single taxpayer with no dependents who makes $10 an hour is part of the top 47%?  Really?

And if you're thinking ahead to a future Presidential run, maybe it's a good idea to join those 15 votes against that bankruptcy bill?

Japan's "lost decade" is now going on 20 years plus and while unemployment hasn't risen that much, millions have lost full time jobs with benefits to become temporary workers without any benefits.  Wage growth has not only been stagnant like in the US but has actually fallen.  This is even after heroic Bank of Japan bank monetary policy and PM Abe's fiscal stimulus that makes whatever the US or even Europe has done milquetoast in comparison.

While the "lost decade" was kicked off by over-investment in real estate, its continuance for 20+ years is all about a lack of demand driven by rapidly aging population and lack of immigration.

The impact of immigration, legal or not, is very complex and most people's belief systems concerning it are absolutely backwards.  Here's just one example of facts that are counter-intuitive to most people -

Illegal Immigrants Don't Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs

Quote:According to an April 2015 symposium on the effects of illegal immigrants in the Southern Economic Journal, illegal immigrants actually raise wages for documented/native workers. Meanwhile, rules preventing illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses raise our car insurance premiums and E-Verify requirements raise the cost of doing business and reduce employment.
Using data from Georgia, Julie Hotchkiss, Myriam Quispe-Agnoli, and Fernando Rios-Avila find that documented workers’ wages rise with increases in the share of undocumented workers in a worker’s county and employed by their employers. The biggest boosts are for workers in low- and medium-skill firms that hire a lot of undocumented immigrants with an even larger boost for workers in low-skill firms with a lot of undocumented workers in the county and industry.

Why? The law of comparative advantage says we get more productive when we have more trading partners, and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English. In July, I had the honor of sharing the stage with Ann Coulter, and fellow Forbescontributor Rick Ungar on Fox Business’s Stossel show, and I got to explain how unskilled immigrants make us more productive at the end of the show.
Some states make it harder for undocumented workers to get driver’s licenses. Mauricio Caceres and Kenneth P. Jameson estimate that drivers in states with these restrictions pay an average of about $17.22 (in 2009 dollars) more for car insurance because they are surrounded by more uninsured motorists.Many states are hustling to attract foreign investment. Alabama, where I live, has given lots of money to foreign manufacturers (Mercedes and Airbus, for example) in order to entice them to locate in Alabama. Catalina Amuendo-Dorantes, Cynthia Bansak, and Allan A. Zebedee report results suggesting that even after controlling for possible confounders E-Verify reduces states’ ability to attract investment from foreign companies, with employment growth at foreign affiliates falling by 3-4.7%.

Shifting the symposium’s focus to the labor market, Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny estimate that E-Verify lowers wages for unauthorized male Mexican immigrants, raises wages for US-born Hispanic men, increases the labor force participation rate of undocumented Mexican female immigrants, raises employment for Mexican-born naturalized citizens, and has essentially no effect on whites’ earnings.

E-Verify compliance is costly, which could reduce total employment. In the final contribution to the symposium, Sarah Bohn, Magnus Lofstrom, and Steven Raphael conclude that the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act reduced employment among low-skilled Arizona workers, albeit with higher wages for those who are still employed. They find that the law did reduce Arizona’s population of undocumented immigrants, but with the negative unintended consequence of reducing employment opportunities for those they were trying to protect from undocumented immigrant competition.
The researchers are careful to discuss the limitations of the papers in the symposium, but the the results are broadly consistent with existing evidence on the effects of immigration. Anti-immigration voters and candidates are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of social science on this: opening the borders—even just a little bit—could make a huge difference for the world’s poor while making Americans richer as well.

[playwrite]

(08-27-2016, 05:53 PM)Anthony Wrote: All right, I believe in "Better-Than-Nothing-ism."

Knowing full well that so long as anyone with even a childhood memory of the Cold War is still alive - having been taken to see The Hunt For Red October by one's parents as a 6-year-old will do - there will never be socialism, "democratic" or otherwise, in America, propping up wages by cutting off immigration and having a large personal exemption from income taxes, even at the cost of a lower top marginal tax rate if necessary, is better than nothing - and certainly better than a return to the 19th Century, as the only recently defeated wing of the Republican Party was actively seeking to bring about.

Similarly, replacing ObamaCare with charity care funded by a tax on legalized marijuana sales would be better than the "nothing" that we would have in fact gotten had Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio won the Republican nomination and then the November election.  EMTALA would have been gone in that scenario just the same.

And I'm anticipating the retort that my "better-than-nothing-ism" on the Culture Wars - ENDA and civil unions in lieu of same-sex marriages - proved not to be necessary.  But is that really true - considering that the better-than-nothing approach here too would have meant less backlash, and therefore, fewer Republicans in both houses of Congress?  And who knows what might have happened in that case?

Your assumption that cutting immigration would raise wages completely ignores the impact on demand growth.  We are in a demand-starved economy; its gotten better but the basic problem is still there.  Any measure, such as reduced migration, could easily throw us into another economic contraction.  And with monetary policy already basically at ZIRP, even the behavioral effects of FED jawboning would be ignored - getting a contraction going in this current environment could lead to soup lines quicker than most people want to believe.

I'm fine with your desire for lower taxes, but if you truly want to make a difference, reducing or eliminating the payroll taxes (as Obama did early on in his 1st Term) would have, by far, the biggest bang for the buck.  Just need to keep the monetary clueless morons from their knee jerk stupidity of cutting SS and other safety nets.

On the other end, Trump's proposal to greatly reduce the Estate Tax would do absolutely nothing for the economy - it would be great for his kids though.

[playwrite]

(08-28-2016, 12:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-26-2016, 11:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To "cut off immigration" you'd have to cut off legal immigration. Trump just wants to get all the illegals and "put them through the process" at which point they could immigrate. He doesn't even want to do that with all the illegals. And he praises Obama and Bush for controlling immigration, and pledges to continue doing that "perhaps with a lot more energy." How's that for a well-defined plan! No, not only does immigration create jobs, there's no immigration to cut off now!

And I don't get your constant references to cutting taxes for workers. Only 47% of them pay taxes already; didn't you hear Mitt Romney? Trumpie can't cut taxes for low income working people lower than they already are.

Yes, Hillary wants the USA to do its part to help the millions of refugees fleeing the tyranny about which we have done too little too late. But don't count on Trump to be any tougher on trade than Hillary. Hillary is often against free trade, while Trumpie uses and benefits from it.

Trump like all the worst politicians tries to soften his policies so he can be all things to all people. Everybody loves me, he says. And he truly wants everyone to love him. That's why he says that he won't get his tax policies adopted, which make huge cuts for the wealthy and send the deficit into orbit. He'll have to negotiate, he says, so the cuts won't happen. Really? If the people are so stupid to elect Trump president, you can be sure they will be stupid enough to put the Republicans back in control of congress too, and then some. You can bet those Republicans will give him every tax cut for the rich that he wants. Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric will be well taken care of.

Trump would dedicate more money and resources to border security. What happens to the illegals here will most likely be left to the legislative branch to work out among themselves.  Hilary is not winning on the issues and she's not in Obama's position of following a major crisis. Hilary is winning a least unpopular contest. This election is going to be nothing compared to Obama's election.  Hilary has become a multi-millionaire with her support of global policies and free trade. Do I care if Hilary wins, becomes the 1st woman president and accomplishes nothing substantial for you for the next four years? Do we need Trump in office to do it for us or do we need Hilary in office to do it for us instead? It's a win-win either way for Republican voters.

It's pretty easy to look at the Clinton's tax statements and see their wealth has been build nearly solely on book sales and speech making; there is no income related to trade.  People who believe otherwise are ignorant. 

At a minimum,  Clinton will form a Progressive SCOTUS that will have consequences for our grandkids - doing so is a major step in blowing away the rearguard actions (e.g., Citizens United, gerrymandering, voter suppression) of the Right that is dying away from simple demographics.  Further, she is under no illusion of working with the GOP and will not repeat the near fatal mistake of Obama's first term - I fully expect her to be charming and smiling at GOP Congressional critters as she slips the knife between their ribs - politically speaking.  I fully expect many on the Right to get frustrated, with officials just deciding to retire from the government (e.g. Chief Justice Roberts, Paul Ryan?) and their sheeple voters deciding not to bother voting.  I'd like to see some of the more crazy ones take over  more bird sanctuaries and either get shoot or put in jail for long periods of time.  It will be entertaining to see how you choose to go down in the next few years.

[playwrite]

(08-28-2016, 10:16 AM)Anthony Wrote:

Quote:Hillary's better-than-nothing is much better than Trump's better-than-nothing.

But Hillary is offering Paul Fussell's mid proles and low proles less than nothing - no wage bump because she's for the TPP and amnesty for illegal aliens, and higher taxes on them in the form of a 2.2% across-the-board increase to pay for expanded ObamaCare.

The TPP will have no impact on employment; it's primarily an intellectual property agreement that provides a formal bases for resolving some trade disputes.  The big trade hit on domestic employment came from China's entry into the WTO; there will never be any trade related issue that is going to repeat that impact.  And those jobs to China are not coming back no matter what trade agreement, tariff or whatever happens.  China is losing them to other nations like Vietnam that now have lower costs and all these jobs are getting creamed by automation regardless of where the manufacturing takes place.  It's time to realize that vacuum tubes are no longer inside our radios.

I think your 2.2% was a Bernie thingee; not going to happen.

[playwrite]

(08-28-2016, 04:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-28-2016, 12:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It may be that, Classic, but Republican voters are still a diminishing demographic, and their party is on the way out, because it promotes ideas that are the most outdated of any ideas ever promoted since the 1860s by any substantial group of the population.

What makes you think that they are diminishing? I'd hope that you aren't foolish enough to believe that minority voters are incapable of changing their views, their minds, their values and their primary interests over time. I'd hope that you would able to give them more credit for their ability to advance themselves without the need for blue sympathy, government support and hand outs. Hell, I'm giving them more credit for that than you appear to be giving them.

It's foolish to believe minority voters will come to believe they can advance themselves with what passes as the Right today.  At least the bulk of them; ignorance and stupidity can cross all kinds of lines, so some will feel pretty comfortable with joining the rest of you, but most will smartly pass on the 'opportunity' to F themselves.

[pbrower2a]

The Crisis will redefine what will be 'conservative' and what will be 'liberal'. Conservatives used to have some validity when they promoted such virtues as probity, rationality, thrift, self-reliance, loyalty, and community. Now what passes for conservatism is the endorsement of an entrenched hierarchy in which those in the economic elites can follow the dictum "Do what thou wilt" while demanding that others accept the consequences as the Will of God.

Probity, rationality, thrift, self-reliance, loyalty, and community? Do those better fit Dwight Eisenhower or Donald Trump?

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

------

Although the political cultures of some states have changed in 52 to 60 years, such cannot explain why the party loyalties of most states are practical opposites. Only one state went three times for the Democratic nominees in those two elections, and none went four times Democratic. The states may have changed far more than the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Rather few states went Republican all four times (but one of those is Texas). I look at the map and I suspect that in those states that went Republican all four times have more ranching than dairying. Ranch hands and dairy workers may both be involved with cattle on the job, but their working conditions are very different. Dairy workers work like and are treated more like industrial workers; ranch hands need a world created by the ranch owners. The ranch hand probably gets and needs housing and food supplied by the rancher. Tennessee is an oddity here.

[Anthony '58]

Cutting off immigration is also good for the environment - since people living in the USA obviously leave a much larger "carbon footrpint" than people living in Mexico or Honduras.

This is why restrictionists just barely failed to shoe-horn an anti-immigration plank into the Sierra Club's platform in 2000.

[pbrower2a]

People coming into California from Nicaragua are no worse at devouring natural resources, or contributing to air pollution or urban sprawl than are people from New Hampshire.

[pbrower2a]

(09-02-2016, 11:54 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-01-2016, 11:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: People coming into California from Nicaragua are no worse at devouring natural resources, or contributing to air pollution or urban sprawl than are people from New Hampshire.

These days, now that we have essentially a reverse flow to Latin America, most of the newbs are coming in from Asia and Far Eastern Europe. Many of them are upper crust folks. It is notable that human trafficking issues have grown along with this trend. These are not huddled masses. But some of them know how to exploit huddled masses. Unlike elites who have Western, Central or Near Eastern European backgrounds, they don't have an instinct to temper the excesses of capitalism with philanthropy and volunteering. This is the real, actual, "immigration problem" - at least here in California. Of course, Trump, doing the bidding of Far Eastern European elites, won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Figure that if one is a Mexican immigrant or offspring thereof and finds the housing costs too high or can sell out a house for a huge amount and retire to Mexico and live very well on American retirement.  Hmmm. Mexico would be a nice place to retire if it weren't for the drug activity serving American addicts. Yes, I hate drugs.

...Human trafficking, and exploiting trafficked people, ought to be great shames.  It's obviously not only the people from East Asia, South Asia, and eastern Europe who patronize it; we have plenty of massage parlors (excuse me, "spas") in rural Michigan, a pace where the immigrants are largely Latino.

I have no desire to visit any places of sexual entertainment; if it is sleazy it isn't sexy, for one thing, so I don't have to be self-righteous about it. Reputedly many of the 'dancers' come from the former Soviet Union so they are slightly exotic, and they get rotated from one sleazy venue to another so that they don't find out how to get away. (For anyone in this plight I have some advice -- go to church on Sunday morning, and call attention to your plight -- someone will surely help you. It doesn't matter what church. The people in the sex-trafficking business are godless people, and there are enough godly people in any church to ensure that you will get help, even if it is being referred to a police station).

I am tempted to believe that for all the well-educated people who come to America to be technical experts making great pay or to start businesses, some want to make money the dirtiest way possible -- human trafficking. It's an effective way to amass capital quickly because it is almost pure profit with a small investment. It's also a favorite activity of the Russian Mafia. Oh, do I hate those bastards! Some of their mobsters make the late John Gotti look like Albert Schweitzer by contrast.

I doubt that Donald Trump has a clue about the dirtiness of his connections.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Hillary has again been caught violating the law: first the email scandal, now the illegal Clinton foundation contributions.

[Eric the Green]

There are no such illegalities. YOU have been caught again believing Republican lies. Shame on you; even you.