Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Report Card for Donald Trump
#1
When Obama was elected, as a supporter, I formulated a report card on what I wanted him to do, giving that I had voted for him.  The grade was based on six things:

1. Prevent a Depression and initiate a bull market.
2. Implement a form of universal health care.
3. Take some significant action to address climate change.
4. Kill Osama Bin Laden
5. End torture, close Guantomano and roll back the surveillance state and use of drones
6. Make sure you are succeeded by  Democrat.

Obama got  a B-, four A's and two F's (#5, 6).

I did not do Bush, since I did not vote for him, but it I had done so, this is what I would have wanted:

1. Pass at least one major tax cut and restore the deficit and cut regulation.
2. Pursue a humbler foreign policy (i.e. keep up out of unwinnable conflicts)
3. Prevent any financial collapse arising from (1) from killing my portfolio (i.e. pass TARP).

Bush also got a B-, two A's and one F (#2).

I also did not do any of the other presidents before 2000, but if I had it would have been one on thing (he deficit).  SO it goes as:

Reagan F
Bush I C (hell he tried)
Clinton A
And then there is Carter whom I gave an F--I was fucking 21, give me a break Huh .

So now I will write up the report card on which I will grade Trump (assuming I had voted for him)

1. Reduce net immigration rate by at least 40% (the 1924 law decreased immigration by 45%).
2. Deport at least 1 million undocumented aliens per year for a total of 4 million by end of 1st term
3. Reduce American force posture in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East/Central Asia (except for operations against ISIS).  No new wars.
4. Enact tariffs against US trading partners with which we have very large trade deficits (particularly China and Mexico).
5. Pass a major tax cut.
6. Do nothing about a financial collapse arising from tax cut: i.e. no TARP, no deficit spending (stimulus), allowing me to buy at the most optimal price.

Before I get all sorts of confused responses, I will point out, this "report cards" is based on the assumption that I voted for Trump, which I did not. I do not favor forcibly deporting 4 million people from this country.  But if I had voted for Trump then I would be OK with this, seeing is as an evil, but a necessary one (like a just war).
Reply
#2
If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson. The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B). The foreign policy promise was to get tough with the Soviets (A+, no one expected the stage to be set actually to defeat the Soviet Union).

Also, how are people getting more grades than items?

I actually voted for Trump. His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars. Nor have tariffs been promised. Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse. The immigration goal is legitimate.

So from an actual Trump voter:

1. Appoint justices in the mold of Scalia.
2. Reduce net immigration rate to 0 or below.
3. Deport at least 4 million illegal aliens by end of 1st term.
4. Increase manufacturing jobs as a percent of the economy.
5. Pass a major tax cut.
6.. No new wars.
Reply
#3
Not saying he'll achieve it - #4 is probably near impossible - just listing what his voters want.
Reply
#4
(12-06-2016, 11:50 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson.  The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B).  The foreign policy promise was to get tough with the Soviets (A+, no one expected the stage to be set actually to defeat the Soviet Union).

Also, how are people getting more grades than items?

I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars.  Nor have tariffs been promised.  Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.  The immigration goal is legitimate.

So from an actual Trump voter:

1.  Appoint justices in the mold of Scalia.
2.  Reduce net immigration rate to 0 or below.
3.  Deport at least 4 million illegal aliens by end of 1st term.
4.  Increase manufacturing jobs as a percent of the economy.
5.  Pass a major tax cut.
6.. No new wars.

Good luck with your #2 not if but when we go into negative population growth (soon). Oh, and the brain drain thingey. Seems not very many Anglo kids want to do STEM. We'll be GREAT AGAIN as a nation of wanna bes of famous athletes, celebs, etc, with the brainier ones being lawyers and MBAs. EE? Tooooooo hard, tooooo much math! But with your "no brownies" plan, STEM will go down, down, down .....

(12-06-2016, 11:51 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Not saying he'll achieve it - #4 is probably near impossible - just listing what his voters want.

#1. Just make sure that he doesn't appoint a right-wing version of Andrei Vishinksy.

#2. America will be much less attractive as a country to which to immigrate. Figure also that there are people who have long worked in the American workforce who will find cheaper places in which to retire.

#3. This would require an internal passport, something that few Americans want to get.

#4. It's ironic: Boomers may have killed off the manufacturing sector by taking seriously the career advice to avoid the assembly line and do anything else -- even food service and retail sales.  The other reality: we are probably saturated with manufactured  goods as it is.  It's replacements or upgrades now.

#5. The major tax cut (likely for the economic royalists) will surely create a sudden need for taxes to be imposed upon the middle class.

#6. Lots of luck with this consummately-angry man.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
(12-06-2016, 12:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: #3. This would require an internal passport, something that few Americans want to get.

If you include both removals and returns - people who are forcibly deported and people who agree to leave under threat of forcible deportation - both Clinton and Bush deported more than a million a year.  It really shouldn't be difficult for Trump to get there.
Reply
#6
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I actually voted for Trump. His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars. Nor have tariffs been promised. Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse. The immigration goal is legitimate.

So from an actual Trump voter:

1. Appoint justices in the mold of Scalia.
2. Reduce net immigration rate to 0 or below.
3. Deport at least 4 million illegal aliens by end of 1st term.
4. Increase manufacturing jobs as a percent of the economy.
5. Pass a major tax cut.
6.. No new wars.
Good luck with #4. As automation becomes ever less expensive, machines are taking more and more of the manufacturing jobs that used to be done by people. Instead of thousands of people in plants, you'll have maybe one-tenth (or less) of them overseeing the robots.
Reply
#7
(12-06-2016, 02:46 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars.  Nor have tariffs been promised.  Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.  The immigration goal is legitimate.

So from an actual Trump voter:

1.  Appoint justices in the mold of Scalia.
2.  Reduce net immigration rate to 0 or below.
3.  Deport at least 4 million illegal aliens by end of 1st term.
4.  Increase manufacturing jobs as a percent of the economy.
5.  Pass a major tax cut.
6.. No new wars.
Good luck with #4.  As automation becomes ever less expensive, machines are taking more and more of the manufacturing jobs that used to be done by people.  Instead of thousands of people in plants, you'll have maybe one-tenth (or less) of them overseeing the robots.

and of course focusing only on manufacturing jobs ignores the ever changing economy - over the next four years there will be big hits to the service industry as well ... to wit, Amazon's new Go stores with no cashiers

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/amazon-g...-1.3883115
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Reply
#8
(12-06-2016, 02:46 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars.  Nor have tariffs been promised.  Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.  The immigration goal is legitimate.

So from an actual Trump voter:

1.  Appoint justices in the mold of Scalia.
2.  Reduce net immigration rate to 0 or below.
3.  Deport at least 4 million illegal aliens by end of 1st term.
4.  Increase manufacturing jobs as a percent of the economy.
5.  Pass a major tax cut.
6.. No new wars.

Good luck with #4.  As automation becomes ever less expensive, machines are taking more and more of the manufacturing jobs that used to be done by people.  Instead of thousands of people in plants, you'll have maybe one-tenth (or less) of them overseeing the robots.

It may be even worse than that.  At some point in the not too distant future, we'll be decrying the loss of jobs in general.  Expert systems and AI enhancements will kill knowledge jobs, law being first in line. 
  • I just paid $35 for a software package that will allow me to do complete estate planning that would have cost between $2,000 and $4,000 through a lawyer.  I can get the entire package reviewed by one for about $250. 
  • We already rely on WebMD for medical advice and have access to Lancet, JAMA and other medical publications that were hard to obtain in the past, and help deciphering the content is also available and free (or nearly so).
  • Self-driving vehicles will be the single largest impactor, since driving is the #1 blue collar job category. 
  • Feel free to add to the list, since the only limitations are imagination and financial justification. 
This may be a good point to ask about the concept of disruption.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#9
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson.  
I did.

Quote:The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B). 
Reagan ran on tax cuts.  It was his is signature issue.  That's why I could never support him.  I supported Anderson in the primary (I liked his 50 cent tax on gas) and voted for him in the general.

Quote:I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars. 
"Restoring our military" means increasing defense spending. Republicans always want to do that, its boilerplate. He made noises about withdrawing from NATO if they don't pay their share. THAT was different. He talked about letting Japan and S. Korea get nukes.  THAT also was different. Both things I support. Yes I am sure he's not going to do either of them, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.

Quote:Nor have tariffs been promised.

He's talked about a 45% tariff on China and similar tariffs on Mexican imports.  Both of which I support.  I am sure he's not going to do it, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.

Quote:Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.
No he hasn't.  But if a financial crisis were the happen he's going to have to do something.  How about nothing?  The Tea Party Republicans would be opposed to any sort of government intervention.  So should you be, you are an Austrian right?  Trump shouldn't try to circumvent them. Had I voted for him this too would be one of the reasons.

Quote:The immigration goal is legitimate.
I should hope so. He blathered about it non-stop during the campaign.  I don't care about this issue, but he talked about it so much he HAS to do it now.
Reply
#10
(12-06-2016, 11:51 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Not saying he'll achieve it - #4 is probably near impossible - just listing what his voters want.
Aren't you setting him up for defeat.  Like zero net immigration. Asking Trump to what Coolidge did not in '24 is unfair. You voted for the guy, your grade should at least be fair.

For me to have supported Trump would require he fill a tall order (you saw my list).  I don't think he can do these things.  But if he somehow got straight A's hell I'd vote for him in 2020.
Reply
#11
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Also, how are people getting more grades than items?

They are not.  The first grade is the average.  So Obama got a B- as the average if 4 As and 2Fs.
Reply
#12
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson.  The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B).  The foreign policy promise was to get tough with the Soviets (A+, no one expected the stage to be set actually to defeat the Soviet Union).

Also, how are people getting more grades than items?

I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars.  Nor have tariffs been promised.  Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.  The immigration goal is legitimate.

So from an actual Trump voter:

1.  Appoint justices in the mold of Scalia.
2.  Reduce net immigration rate to 0 or below.
3.  Deport at least 4 million illegal aliens by end of 1st term.
4.  Increase manufacturing jobs as a percent of the economy.
5.  Pass a major tax cut.
6.. No new wars.

I'm not sure Trump promised to reduce net immigration. He promises to reduce illegal immigration, and says immigration is ok if it's done legally. I don't think he promised to deport that many illegal aliens either, but I might be wrong on that. Of course, doing this report card scheme for Trump is difficult, because he keeps changing what he promises.

He did promise tarriffs, and especially as punishment for American companies that move factories abroad. He definitely promised to renegotiate or junk NAFTA, the "worst deal" in US or world history according to him. You can't get rid of NAFTA by definition without imposing tarriffs.

My hope is that he either loses re-election, a daunting prospect according to my cosmic crystal ball; or that he loses the congress and is thus forced to reverse course, as he has already done before.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#13
(12-08-2016, 11:59 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 02:46 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars.  Nor have tariffs been promised.  Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.  The immigration goal is legitimate.

So from an actual Trump voter:

1.  Appoint justices in the mold of Scalia.
2.  Reduce net immigration rate to 0 or below.
3.  Deport at least 4 million illegal aliens by end of 1st term.
4.  Increase manufacturing jobs as a percent of the economy.
5.  Pass a major tax cut.
6.. No new wars.

Good luck with #4.  As automation becomes ever less expensive, machines are taking more and more of the manufacturing jobs that used to be done by people.  Instead of thousands of people in plants, you'll have maybe one-tenth (or less) of them overseeing the robots.

It may be even worse than that.  At some point in the not too distant future, we'll be decrying the loss of jobs in general.  Expert systems and AI enhancements will kill knowledge jobs, law being first in line. 
  • I just paid $35 for a software package that will allow me to do complete estate planning that would have cost between $2,000 and $4,000 through a lawyer.  I can get the entire package reviewed by one for about $250. 
  • We already rely on WebMD for medical advice and have access to Lancet, JAMA and other medical publications that were hard to obtain in the past, and help deciphering the content is also available and free (or nearly so).
  • Self-driving vehicles will be the single largest impactor, since driving is the #1 blue collar job category. 
  • Feel free to add to the list, since the only limitations are imagination and financial justification. 
This may be a good point to ask about the concept of disruption.

And the obvious point is that this trend will destroy completely the main Republican slogan and talking point. That will be the main disrupting item.

Republicans with their free-market, anti social-program slogans harp constantly that Americans should "get a job" (as Trump shouted at his hecklers) and "stop freeloading" by using "MY" tax money so you don't have to "work." It has been complete bullshit for the 35 years it has ruled over us. But from now on, it's not only bullshit, it has no relevance whatever. Warren and Classic Xer, you guys are going to eat your words and then have to wash your slogans out of your mouth! There IS no fucking "WORK" anymore! Machines are taking over.

So the question is, what supports the economy, then? Who buys all the stuff and services that the machines churn out for us? And most of all, why should a few CEOs and a few engineers get ALL the fucking money for what the MACHINES produce? Who invented and built these machines? The workers, the people did. The people should get the rewards for this work-saving revolution. Good. We don't have to work anymore. So the owners and managers of the machines will have to COUGH UP THE DOUGH! No more trickle-down economics. No more blaming poor ethnic freeloaders for your problems, libertarians! We all should get the money we need directly from government taxes on the machine owners, and then and only then will they have any customers. I don't see how that's not the future.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#14
(12-09-2016, 06:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson.  
I did.

Quote:The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B). 
Reagan ran on tax cuts.  It was his is signature issue.  That's why I could never support him.  I supported Anderson in the primary (I liked his 50 cent tax on gas) and voted for him in the general.

If you grade him on tax cuts, he gets an A too.

Incidentally, I also voted for Anderson because I didn't at the time think tax cuts were a good idea.  Once they worked so well, though, I had to vote for Reagan the next time around.  He was right, I was wrong, and much later I came to understand why.

Tax cuts were not Reagan's signature issue during the campaign, though.  "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" was.

Quote:
Quote:I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars. 

"Restoring our military" means increasing defense spending. Republicans always want to do that, its boilerplate. He made noises about withdrawing from NATO if they don't pay their share. THAT was different. He talked about letting Japan and S. Korea get nukes.  THAT also was different. Both things I support. Yes I am sure he's not going to do either of them, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.

No one thinks it's likely Trump would withdraw from NATO or let Japan or South Korea get nuclear weapons; they would be incompatible with his core promise of making America great again.  I know lots of people who voted for Trump and they all think those things are stupid ideas.

You didn't vote for Trump so no one, not even you, can say what would have made you vote for him, but my judgement is that you would be more likely to have changed your mind realized those were stupid ideas and thus forgive the fact that he was probably not serious about them, and voted for him for other reasons, than that you would change your mind and think they were core promises that he would make good on.

Quote:
Quote:Nor have tariffs been promised.

He's talked about a 45% tariff on China and similar tariffs on Mexican imports.  Both of which I support.  I am sure he's not going to do it, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.

He's talked about lots of things that were not promises.  Tariffs were one of them.

Many of the things he's talked about that seem off the wall are his initial bargaining position with respect to various negotiating partners.  He talks about withdrawing from NATO as an initial bargaining position to get NATO members to meet their defense spending obligation.  He talks about nukes in South Korea and Japan as a bargaining position against nukes in North Korea, perhaps because he thinks China has the leverage to get North Korea to give up their nuclear program.  He talks about trade war level tariffs against China and Mexico as an initial bargaining position with respect to trade negotiations with those two countries.

Quote:
Quote:Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.

No he hasn't.  But if a financial crisis were the happen he's going to have to do something.  How about nothing?  The Tea Party Republicans would be opposed to any sort of government intervention.  So should you be, you are an Austrian right?  Trump shouldn't try to circumvent them. Had I voted for him this too would be one of the reasons.

I don't think there are any expectations from his voters about this; it's quite obvious he doesn't expect another financial collapse and would make up his responses if it happened.

Trump is not the first choice of us Austrian Tea Party folks; for most of us, Cruz was.  We don't necessarily expect Trump to follow our policies in every respect.  Certainly the "do nothing" response worked great in 1920 and that's what we would hope for, but I certainly don't view it as a promise.

Incidentally, while I believe the Austrian school regarding how free markets function, our market is very far from a free market, and the chances of the government letting it get all the way there are nil.  If I were a strict Austrian, I would not be talking about how it's better for fiscal stimulus to be supply side because it leaves room for more monetary stimulus, since from an Austrian standpoint, monetary stimulus is bad because it distorts time domain pricing signals.

I keep hoping I can get into a serious discussion with Galen on that, but thus no luck.
Reply
#15
(12-09-2016, 07:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 11:51 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Not saying he'll achieve it - #4 is probably near impossible - just listing what his voters want.
Aren't you setting him up for defeat.  Like zero net immigration. Asking Trump to what Coolidge did not in '24 is unfair. You voted for the guy, your grade should at least be fair.

Coolidge hadn't campaigned for President primarily on an antiimmigrant platform.  Trump made big promises in that area.  I allow for the possibility of getting partial credit if he gets part way to the goals.

It might be more accurate to try to figure out a way to measure "good" jobs - aside from the traditional measure of "jobs that pay more than what you're worth" - so it wouldn't have to be tied explicitly to manufacturing.

Quote:For me to have supported Trump would require he fill a tall order (you saw my list).  I don't think he can do these things.  But if he somehow got straight A's hell I'd vote for him in 2020.

I thought your list included things you didn't want?
Reply
#16
(12-09-2016, 08:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Republicans with their free-market, anti social-program slogans harp constantly that Americans should "get a job" (as Trump shouted at his hecklers) and "stop freeloading" by using "MY" tax money so you don't have to "work." It has been complete bullshit for the 35 years it has ruled over us. But from now on, it's not only bullshit, it has no relevance whatever. Warren and Classic Xer, you guys are going to eat your words and then have to wash your slogans out of your mouth! There IS no fucking "WORK" anymore! Machines are taking over.

When agriculture was taken over by machines, somehow people still remained employed.  When ditch digging was taken over by machines, somehow the economy came up with the jobs.

The same will happen this time around.

Quote:So the question is, what supports the economy, then? Who buys all the stuff and services that the machines churn out for us? And most of all, why should a few CEOs and a few engineers get ALL the fucking money for what the MACHINES produce? Who invented and built these machines? The workers, the people did. The people should get the rewards for this work-saving revolution.

Actually, the engineers built the machines, facilitated by the CEOs, and investors paid for the machines.
Reply
#17
Warren Dew Wrote:When agriculture was taken over by machines, somehow people still remained employed.  When ditch digging was taken over by machines, somehow the economy came up with the jobs.

The same will happen this time around.


Yeah, but baristas , waiters, and fast foodies jobs are shit jobs.


Quote:Actually, the engineers built the machines, facilitated by the CEOs, and investors paid for the machines.

Today's CEO's are just like the Robber Barons.  Rags sees a bull market in lamp posts and ropes if things keep going like they are.

Quote:Tax cuts were not Reagan's signature issue during the campaign, though.  "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" was.

Yup, I remember that one.  How about are you better off now then you were in 2008?  The answer here is a resounding no. Say, let's also have a bull market in torches and pitchforks! Tongue  Btw, here's hoping for a cat 5 hurricane to take out the Wall $treet Hamptons hangout.  That would make my day you know.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#18
(12-09-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-09-2016, 06:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson.  
I did.

Quote:The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B). 
Reagan ran on tax cuts.  It was his is signature issue.  That's why I could never support him.  I supported Anderson in the primary (I liked his 50 cent tax on gas) and voted for him in the general.

If you grade him on tax cuts, he gets an A too.

No he doesn't. He raised taxes many times after initially lowering them, and particularly on the middle class with his social security tax rate hikes. Since then, the money raised from this tax has been used less and less for its purpose.

Quote:Incidentally, I also voted for Anderson because I didn't at the time think tax cuts were a good idea.  Once they worked so well, though, I had to vote for Reagan the next time around.  He was right, I was wrong, and much later I came to understand why.

Tax cuts were not Reagan's signature issue during the campaign, though.  "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" was.

And if you were better off, and the tax cuts worked for you, you must have been a wealthy man. No-one but the rich benefited from Reaganomics. If you thought so, you were seriously hoodwinked. That is the American condition today: hoodwinked by Reagan. You are one of them. Such a shame. NO, the Reagan tax cuts did NOT work at all; it was an abject failure of the worst order.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:I actually voted for Trump.  His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars. 

"Restoring our military" means increasing defense spending. Republicans always want to do that, its boilerplate. He made noises about withdrawing from NATO if they don't pay their share. THAT was different. He talked about letting Japan and S. Korea get nukes.  THAT also was different. Both things I support. Yes I am sure he's not going to do either of them, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.

No one thinks it's likely Trump would withdraw from NATO or let Japan or South Korea get nuclear weapons; they would be incompatible with his core promise of making America great again.  I know lots of people who voted for Trump and they all think those things are stupid ideas.

You didn't vote for Trump so no one, not even you, can say what would have made you vote for him, but my judgement is that you would be more likely to have changed your mind realized those were stupid ideas and thus forgive the fact that he was probably not serious about them, and voted for him for other reasons, than that you would change your mind and think they were core promises that he would make good on.

Quote:
Quote:Nor have tariffs been promised.

He's talked about a 45% tariff on China and similar tariffs on Mexican imports.  Both of which I support.  I am sure he's not going to do it, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.

He's talked about lots of things that were not promises.  Tariffs were one of them.

Many of the things he's talked about that seem off the wall are his initial bargaining position with respect to various negotiating partners.  He talks about withdrawing from NATO as an initial bargaining position to get NATO members to meet their defense spending obligation.  He talks about nukes in South Korea and Japan as a bargaining position against nukes in North Korea, perhaps because he thinks China has the leverage to get North Korea to give up their nuclear program.  He talks about trade war level tariffs against China and Mexico as an initial bargaining position with respect to trade negotiations with those two countries.

There is nothing to negotiate about except to raise tariffs again; that's it.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.

No he hasn't.  But if a financial crisis were the happen he's going to have to do something.  How about nothing?  The Tea Party Republicans would be opposed to any sort of government intervention.  So should you be, you are an Austrian right?  Trump shouldn't try to circumvent them. Had I voted for him this too would be one of the reasons.

I don't think there are any expectations from his voters about this; it's quite obvious he doesn't expect another financial collapse and would make up his responses if it happened.

Trump is not the first choice of us Austrian Tea Party folks; for most of us, Cruz was.  We don't necessarily expect Trump to follow our policies in every respect.  Certainly the "do nothing" response worked great in 1920 and that's what we would hope for, but I certainly don't view it as a promise.

Incidentally, while I believe the Austrian school regarding how free markets function, our market is very far from a free market, and the chances of the government letting it get all the way there are nil.  If I were a strict Austrian, I would not be talking about how it's better for fiscal stimulus to be supply side because it leaves room for more monetary stimulus, since from an Austrian standpoint, monetary stimulus is bad because it distorts time domain pricing signals.

You view it as a promise and an expectation. You want a response like the one in 1920, which eventually gave us the great crash. Things will work out for you faster this time; you'll get a serious recession in 2018, and nothing will be done about it. Just what you want. But if you are speaking for Trump's voters, and not yourself, no doubt you have a point; some of them would expect him to improvise some stupid scheme.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#19
(12-10-2016, 12:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-09-2016, 08:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Republicans with their free-market, anti social-program slogans harp constantly that Americans should "get a job" (as Trump shouted at his hecklers) and "stop freeloading" by using "MY" tax money so you don't have to "work." It has been complete bullshit for the 35 years it has ruled over us. But from now on, it's not only bullshit, it has no relevance whatever. Warren and Classic Xer, you guys are going to eat your words and then have to wash your slogans out of your mouth! There IS no fucking "WORK" anymore! Machines are taking over.

When agriculture was taken over by machines, somehow people still remained employed.  When ditch digging was taken over by machines, somehow the economy came up with the jobs.

The same will happen this time around.

What will machines do that will need work from all these people being laid off by machines? Didn't you get what mikebert was saying about how much work is being taken over?

There is no future for the ideal of work, or for its excuse as a political slogan.

Quote:
Quote:So the question is, what supports the economy, then? Who buys all the stuff and services that the machines churn out for us? And most of all, why should a few CEOs and a few engineers get ALL the fucking money for what the MACHINES produce? Who invented and built these machines? The workers, the people did. The people should get the rewards for this work-saving revolution.

Actually, the engineers built the machines, facilitated by the CEOs, and investors paid for the machines.

The engineers don't build machines; workers do. Without customers, a business can't build machines from investors alone; there's not enough revenue, and no return for the investors either. The CEOs do nothing but give orders and play financial games with money and people. They deserve practically nothing, yet get paid almost everything. They need to be dispossessed and their income redistributed.

Machines belong to the people. Many were invented by people working in their garage, who never saw much financial gain from their work.

Give it up. Your Austrian Tea Party economics (aka Reaganomics, trickle-down, libertarian economics, laissez faire, neo/classic liberalism, social darwinism, rugged individualism, supply side, free market fundamentalism) was always an abject failure, and it has no future at all.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#20
(12-10-2016, 01:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(12-09-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-09-2016, 06:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson.  
I did.

Quote:The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B). 
Reagan ran on tax cuts.  It was his is signature issue.  That's why I could never support him.  I supported Anderson in the primary (I liked his 50 cent tax on gas) and voted for him in the general.

If you grade him on tax cuts, he gets an A too.

No he doesn't. He raised taxes many times after initially lowering them, and particularly on the middle class with his social security tax rate hikes. Since then, the money raised from this tax has been used less and less for its purpose.

Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Nor have tariffs been promised.

He's talked about a 45% tariff on China and similar tariffs on Mexican imports.  Both of which I support.  I am sure he's not going to do it, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.

He's talked about lots of things that were not promises.  Tariffs were one of them.

Many of the things he's talked about that seem off the wall are his initial bargaining position with respect to various negotiating partners.  He talks about withdrawing from NATO as an initial bargaining position to get NATO members to meet their defense spending obligation.  He talks about nukes in South Korea and Japan as a bargaining position against nukes in North Korea, perhaps because he thinks China has the leverage to get North Korea to give up their nuclear program.  He talks about trade war level tariffs against China and Mexico as an initial bargaining position with respect to trade negotiations with those two countries.

There is nothing to negotiate about except to raise tariffs again; that's it.

China could reduce tariffs on our products, and improve intellectual property law enforcement.

Mexico could impose worker and environmental protections similar to our own to help level costs.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump's real German analog Donald Trump takes office on Friday, and the world hol pbrower2a 2 1,126 02-09-2017, 05:52 PM
Last Post: freivolk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)