Trumps Economic Policies Have Failed US Workers

a reply to: DBCowboy

Face it: most people don't understand economics. At one time, society said "I need that and I can't afford that, so I have to work harder or smarter to get it." Society today says "I need that and I can't afford that, so give it to me! Now!"

TheRedneck

a reply to: smurfy

I would love to see the corporate taxes lowered even more, as long as the companies getting them provided high-wage domestic jobs. "Jim" in my example wouldn't pay any corporate tax (assuming he paid his workers above average pay scale), but GM would pay a high tax rate (they use a lot of non-domestic labor and materials). That would be a complex negotiation, though, and require that both sides understood economics and had similar goals. In other words, it just ain't happening.

So we're stuck with both Jim and GM getting similar rates due to our own incompetence. We know from recent history what the results of a too-high corporate tax rate are: less jobs, higher unemployment, and a slower economy. We also know what the results of the present corporate tax rate are: more jobs, lower unemployment, and a bustling economy. We can debate over what that tax rate should be, but too many people seem to ignore the effect on the economy in general.

It boils down to this: do we allow some tax relief to trickle down, understanding that larger companies will not follow the intended route, or do we stop all of it? I prefer some to none.

TheRedneck

a reply to: murphy22

This "trickle down" ideology needs to stop! The government works for us!
It should only trickle up!

"Trickle down" does not refer to money coming down from the government; it refers to money coming down from employers. The idea that workers should pay their bosses, which is what "trickle up" would mean in that context, is ludicrous. I cannot even imagine how that would work.

All economics is "trickle down," in the sense that employers hire employees and pay them. Income does not come from the old drunk lying in the gutter; it comes from business selling goods and services and then paying employees and suppliers for the things they need to sell those goods and services. It's worked that way since the concept of money began, an endless cycle of money flowing up to the best producers and down again to the employees and suppliers. The only thing we are debating is whether the government should take the money before it can flow back down.

TheRedneck

What a hilarious thread!

Record low unemployment, including for minorities - but yeah, focus on income inequality. Typical liberal... yeah, I know I am better off, but I want to be a 1%er and until i am I want to take the 1%ers money...

Your chart in the OP is too funny. Unions, lol.

a reply to: stosh64

Yes....


Just like a grocery store would instantly die if it decided that “only the customers who wanted to pay had to..” and the republicans HAD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKE THAT A LAW...


I even more accurate, I magazine the federal government FORCED every grocery store to only charge those who felt like paying..


Sure is funny for all the conservatives “the government is forcing me..”


What has the government forced a conservative Business to do more than that?!!! Lol





Plus that wasn’t the only ant-union policy either... Th fact you have put that little thought into it speaks volumes..


Just like every other issue.. tptb train you to instantly hate certain buzz words and you guys just lap it up with a spoon...



ALL THE WHILE FORGETTING THAT CONSERVATIVE BY DICTIONARY DEFINITION MEANS “the old money establishment “..

Yet another way rightwing media makes its base look stupid.. the conservatives are by definition the establishment lol.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Just like a grocery store would instantly die if it decided that “only the customers who wanted to pay had to..” and the republicans HAD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKE THAT A LAW...

This is why I ask for Title and Statute when someone mentions a Federal law... because in this case there is no such law. Alabama is a right-to-work state, for example, which means that Unions cannot force people to pay dues that choose not to, as you say. In some other states, however, Union companies can and do force all employees to pay Union dues.

It's not a Federal law. It is a collection of state laws that only apply in certain states.

I have also had experience with Federal Union restrictions. I worked for TVA out of high school; every person in the engineering division was automatically a member of the Union. There were at least no dues to pay, and I actually thought it was funny... it was illegal for us to strike, by Federal law (not that anyone wanted to strike; we had pretty good payscales and benefits). So all that Union was, was a newsletter that came out once a month and had nothing of interest in it and a formal grievance procedure that worked less effectively than just walking into the boss's office and saying what the problem was.

I also think your example is a bit off the mark. A better one would be to suppose there is only one grocery store, and that store starts a policy that every customer who walks in is required to buy $20 whether they bought something or not for the privilege. The state then passes a law that says no, customers can walk in and buy whatever they want, or nothing if they choose and you can't charge them for walking into the store.

Someone who has spent years learning a skill can't just decide to go into a different profession, and since Unions typically control every company in the area that employs people with that skill, the result is that people using that skill are basically required by Union contract to pay for the privilege of having a job. I find that ridiculous. I have no problem if a company wants to go Union, but I do have a problem when that decision applies to everyone whether they wanted to go Union or not. The Union is not the government. The government can already force people to do things they do not want to do... that's enough force for me.

If there is a problem with how the company is treating me as an employee, there are laws on the books that I can use for protection... and I can go find another job with another company if things get bad (as long as the economy is doing fine). I find that arrangement preferable to yet another authority taxing me by taking my hard-earned money whether I want them to or not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dfnj2015

How can I take this post seriously when you say things like Make this country white again. SMH

a reply to: dfnj2015

You say:
"Under the Trump administration, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has systematically rolled back workers’ rights to form unions and engage in collective bargaining with their employers, to the detriment of workers, their communities, and the economy. "

I say:
If the owner of a business doesn’t want to be unionized, then that’s what the own wants.
There are many companies in my area that will fire you if you talk about forming a union. It’s an legal agreement between the labor and owner that must be signed before employment.

So your quote above is wrong! (At least for my state)

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're preaching to the the wrong guy. I agree with you. All I'm saying is government, especially the US. Government has no business controlling or "trickling" anything. Under the US. Constitution they're not a for "profit" government or organization. Now they're $23 Trillion short on cash and over $222 Trillion of "unconstitutional" "promises" in debt. Did you give them a line of credit? The "government is an entity. So who can be held accountable? Only me and you. It's a win win, for them. Whoever "them" are. But no matter how the cards are dealt. You, me and our kids will "pay" for it. Either by our labor or on a battle field.


Read the Declaration of Independence
and the US. Constitution. Then tell me they haven't F'ed it up.



Trickle down, is a "catch phrase". To be used by hard socialist or soft socialist, depending on who's driving at the time. The whole "monetary" system is a mafia like construct, based on lies, lousy comprehension of plain English words and individuals believing their own debt is "wealth".

Actually? Money does "come down" from the government. How so? They have "national standards" of how much "money" you get (you're allowed) to keep from your labor, before they "tax" it. I believe the current, generous offer is? $12,000 annually for a single individual.... That is SOCIALISM.

"Income" is profit and gain, not earnings. Earnings are, and is, payment for service provided and for your time. Because life (time) has value. If you failed to sell your labor to make an "income"? That's just bad business, unless all you're trying to do is keep the lights on and a roof over your head.

Why do you think they changed the name of the "War Department", to the "Department of Defense"? Because who wants to pay for "war" when there's no war?

Men, governments should be held accountable for their words. Or their misuse of them.

I think the signs are on the wall. Low workforce participation, 47% of 18-37 year olds making poverty wages, 50% of workers under 15/hr. Middle class jobs being replaced by service sector gig economy. Automation coming in the next 5 years will decimate sales jobs which are the largest employment sector in the us, 30% of those will be gone then. Truckers about to lose their whole industry. 40% of retirement age adults with nothing saved, 60% with less than 10k saved, and only the top 10% has 100k or more saved up, 100k being the bare minimum for an austere retirement.

And trump pushing to drop the interest rates closer to Europe’s levels (which are negative), which they ONLY do when trying (and failing) to fend off impending disaster. It’s also why he submitted in his trade war with China. I’d say we have six months left, and trump knows it too. But he thinks it’ll be after the next election and stated he doesn’t care because he won’t be president then. How has that trade war worked out again? How many manufacturing jobs have moved back home? How many are still fleeing?

a reply to: JustJohnny

What dictionary are you reading from and what year is it from?

"The old money establishment" definition is a fine example of the libs/socialist interpretation of the word. But then again they do control the public "education"/propaganda currently.

I guarantee that the meaning of "Conservative" has nothing to do with money. The definition has more to do with morals, individual responsibility and ideology than it does "money".

Conservative, "Old money establishment" sounds pretty "political" and biased to me.
Dictionaries tend to be pretty big. If you're half as "educated" as you're trying to portray? You could save a bundle on toilet papper!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep! The deference between NEED and WANT. The deference between freedom and "bread and circus".

a reply to: pexx421

Pres. Tremp is only playing the lousy hand he was dealt. There was people in that chair before him, that didn't leave him any chips on the table.

Kinda like occupying a foxhole, relieving the dead during a battle. And that dumb, dead bastard, ate all his ammo before he died. So the enemy wouldn't use his own rifle, against his own. Wether it was done out of stupidity, or patriotism? Nobody will ever know. But Pres. Trump fought to that foxhole and he now occupies that position, low on ammo....
You can only play the cards that are dealt. That's the rules! It ain't Trumps fault.
Unless you'd like him to go 1776 on some organization? Please say you want him to do that. Otherwise, shut your trap about Trump and be a happy sheep.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: pexx421

Pres. Tremp is only playing the lousy hand he was dealt. There was people in that chair before him, that didn't leave him any chips on the table.

Kinda like occupying a foxhole, relieving the dead during a battle. And that dumb, dead bastard, ate all his ammo before he died. So the enemy wouldn't use his own rifle, against his own. Wether it was done out of stupidity, or patriotism? Nobody will ever know. But Pres. Trump fought to that foxhole and he now occupies that position, low on ammo....
You can only play the cards that are dealt. That's the rules! It ain't Trumps fault.
Unless you'd like him to go 1776 on some organization? Please say you want him to do that. Otherwise, shut your trap about Trump and be a happy sheep.

Ha! I think trump is a buffoon with no understanding of economics or diplomacy. But make no mistake, I have nothing but disdain for the people who preceded him as well. And he was absolutely the better choice over Hillary.

a reply to: murphy22

All I'm saying is government, especially the US. Government has no business controlling or "trickling" anything. Under the US. Constitution they're not a for "profit" government or organization.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that "trickle down" does not refer to the "trickling" coming from the government. The trickle comes from business; all the government can do is stop it with high taxation.

In one sense, the government does directly "trickle down," in the area of government employees... but I don't think that's what you are talking about.

Trickle down, is a "catch phrase".

Of course it is! Absolutely! It was coined by Reagan to try and describe how decreasing taxes on business would lead to more money for workers.

I really don't agree with your claim that it is used by socialists, though. Quite the opposite. A government cannot exist without taxation, because a government has certain functions that require labor and supplies to accomplish. The military, for instance, needs soldiers... and while those soldiers could be attained without money through required service, the things the soldiers require cannot. I'm talking about food, shelter, and equipment. Those have to be provided somehow.

So the question becomes not whether taxes should exist, but at what level is taxation acceptable. All corporate taxation, even that which is legitimate, is a drain on business and therefore a brake on the economy. Push that brake too hard and the "trickle down" slows, which also slows the "trickle up" which further slows the "trickle down" which further... you get the idea. All individual taxation, even that which is legitimate, is a drain on the individual and therefore slows the "trickle up" (aka, purchasing goods and services)... which starts the exact same cycle. The trick is to only tax as much as necessary.

Which speaks to your concern over the national debt. In that area, you are preaching to the choir as well. It is corruption at the highest levels of government that has caused this, and only removing the corruption can slow our descent into bankruptcy.

i will also argue with the personal exemption and progressive tax rates; in a capitalist economy, they may smack of socialism, but they also serve to combat the excesses that pure capitalism can create. Those with more find it easier to make more, while those with less find it harder... at the extreme end are those who simply cannot survive well enough to better themselves. It makes sense to me that the poorest pay no taxes, because the first order of government is to protect its people, and that includes from itself. It also makes sense that the wealthy pay more in tax, since that makes the taxation rate more accurately reflect the actual difficulty in earning the income. My only complaint about the tax rates concerns the range that is used, not the fact it is non-linear.

Time is, of course, the ultimate currency; I agree with you and that is my defense for the progressive taxation. It more closely represents taxation on time instead of simply dollars (which are, truly, a man-made substitute for time). It is that use of time that separates the wealthy from the poor quite often. Whereas one person will see a need for more money and work harder and smarter to increase their income, another person will see the exact same need and turn to complaints which serve no purpose than to waste their own ultimate resource of time. That's just human nature, and that human nature is what today's socialists seek to avoid consequences for. That's why socialism fails when applied in too large doses to an economy; no one is going to work harder to support someone they don't even know, and that is the central requirement of socialist policies. I have a feeling we also agree on this.

Men, governments should be held accountable for their words. Or their misuse of them.

I agree... but so should the public bear some responsibility for their ability, or even their desire, to accept those words at face value. The phrase "trickle down" was not adopted to 'fool' anyone IMO... it was adopted to try and deliver a meaning to a public unable to comprehend the full truth of the proposals. We see this right here in this thread... people still unclear how the process works even after what now? Almost 40 years since the term was coined?

TheRedneck

a reply to: LSU2018

Meanwhile the stocks are breaking records for something like the 150th time, I've lost count

Which mean middle class 401k's,Keoghs, union pensions are making bank.

Doesn't sound like a failure to me.

a reply to: UKTruth

But still the American worker on median wage can't afford to buy his own home. He lives in fear of a chronic health condition.

It wasn't like that thirty years ago.

Huh, you say you don't care about republican or democrats on this issue, and then you state trump is an establishment republican after all. Sounds like you in fact do care about political party, in fact quite a bit if one pays attention to your many partisan OP pieces.

So that graph, with data points starting in 1920, a full century ago, you are blaming on trump? Are you sure that's the correct and intelligent position to take, from your own graph looks like wayyy more than trump deserves a finger pointed. Going further, you haven't actually stated a single specific policy trump has enacted that rolls back workers rights in America.


a reply to: dfnj2015

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Houses thirty years ago weren't like houses today either. Thirty years ago, those houses didn't automatically come with central heat/air, a kitchen full of automated appliances, double the number of electrical outlets, and bathroom fixtures that cost five times as much. they were smaller, and designed to take advantage of economics in construction instead of "purty" facades that waste more lumber than they actually use to build them.

Cars thirty years ago were a fraction of the cost they are now, primarily because of EPA requirements, which also indirectly require new and more expensive high-strength, low-weight materials, additional sensors, computer controlled fuel systems, spark timing systems, and air control systems. Today they come complete with rear-view cameras, blind spot sensors, integral air bags, seats which can twist into a pretzel if one wishes, audio systems that rival the biggest home systems of thirty years ago, mapping services, built in cell phones with impact detection, and even WiFi!

Insurance raised the cost of medical care... not my money, so why do I care what it costs? Obamacare lit a rocket under those cost increases, assuring insurers that they had a captive audience. Insurance has never entered an industry and not raised prices dramatically.

The only way we will see the economics of thirty years ago is to return to thirty years ago. No WiFi, no video games, a handful of channels on the TV that are picked up from that monster antenna on the roof of the house, the cars are hard to start when it gets cold and have no alarm systems except a door lock, gasoline burns dirtier, and you get your heat in the winter from a space heater.

Overall, I'm happy with what we have...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I completely disagree.

Our dollar is worth much less than it was back then when you compare wages to cost of goods then and now.

No clue what wifi and video games have to do with any thing when it comes to the price of things today. Not like me having wifi means I have to spend more money on other goods.

I don't think you have done your research. If you compare what a dollar can buy today compared to what it could buy 30 years ago then you would clearly see there is a problem.

But why would you? you're happy with what you have so you have no reason to compare i guess.