(03-17-2017 05:55 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 03:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I mean no disrespect by this David. I enjoy your viewpoints. However, Trump voters are a proud people. They want jobs. They don't want handouts. Trumps ultimate success or failure in my opinion will be entirely based upon bringing good jobs back. That's the alpha and the omega. He's stolen the Democratic base in a lot of ways. I think my Dad would have been a Trump voter. Yes, Trump's budget and policies do hurt the working poor. In reality I think they will be fine with it as long as they have jobs that will take them from the working poor to the working middle class. That's what he is going to be judged by.

I believe you are right. Job creation (or enough coming back) will be how he is judged. With that said, anyone that doesn't think the Federal government needs a pretty big haircut as far as spending doesn't see the inefficient, wasteful, monolith staring them in the face.

And Obama created massive bloat in the State Department and EPA.

No he didn't. Where do you come up with this crap. Out of whole cloth?

(03-17-2017 03:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I mean no disrespect by this David. I enjoy your viewpoints. However, Trump voters are a proud people. They want jobs. They don't want handouts. Trumps ultimate success or failure in my opinion will be entirely based upon bringing good jobs back. That's the alpha and the omega. He's stolen the Democratic base in a lot of ways. I think my Dad would have been a Trump voter. Yes, Trump's budget and policies do hurt the working poor. In reality I think they will be fine with it as long as they have jobs that will take them from the working poor to the working middle class. That's what he is going to be judged by.

I think this pretty much captures the great philosophical debate here. How do you help the poor more--by keeping them poor and giving them ever bigger handouts, or by creating good jobs that move them from poverty to the middle class?

Trump has plugged into this issue at least part way. He recognizes the problem. But at this point he is too invested in the "solutions" that make good sound bytes but don't solve the problem--blaming NAFTA and TPP as bad trade agreements, rather than recognizing that the reason they are bad trade agreements is because our current domestic tax laws and regulatory processes put us at a disadvantage going in, so that we have little negotiating leverage.

Here's the way to bring back jobs:
1) Implement a national consumption tax. This puts us on an even footing with the rest of the developed world regarding imports/exports, and it provides additional funds to allow the following steps.
2) Implement Bismarck health care, removing the health care cost burden from businesses and providing a health care safety net for everyone.
3) Lower and flatten corporate and individual tax rates to levels competitive with the rest of the world. If you had a 15% consumption tax, you could raise tax revenues in excess of current levels with a 15% flat tax on all business and investment income, and no individual income tax. That would make us more than competitive with anywhere else.
4) Convert the current welfare hodgepodge of focused and means-tested programs to a guaranteed minimum income, along the lines of Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. That builds a safety net under everyone and gets rid of the "welfare trap" that currently allows people to game the system and disincentives the poor from moving up to the middle class.

Do that and you'd see $3 trillion come home and get invested in things that would create good paying jobs. Here. Now. What would that do to the economy?

Yes, there are jobs being lost to automation worldwide. But you can't automate everything. And it won't all happen immediately. And automation will create new jobs building and operating and maintaining those automated systems. Those jobs will be fewer in number, but much higher paying, and that extra disposable income will be spent in ways that magnify the job creation impact tenfold.

(03-17-2017 05:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  What if he fails to bring back jobs? There is no way to bring them all back. Since most of them are replaced by robots.

If he fails to bring back a majority of the jobs he promised, he'll be out the door the next election.

Plain and simple.

(03-17-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 03:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I mean no disrespect by this David. I enjoy your viewpoints. However, Trump voters are a proud people. They want jobs. They don't want handouts. Trumps ultimate success or failure in my opinion will be entirely based upon bringing good jobs back. That's the alpha and the omega. He's stolen the Democratic base in a lot of ways. I think my Dad would have been a Trump voter. Yes, Trump's budget and policies do hurt the working poor. In reality I think they will be fine with it as long as they have jobs that will take them from the working poor to the working middle class. That's what he is going to be judged by.

I think this pretty much captures the great philosophical debate here. How do you help the poor more--by keeping them poor and giving them ever bigger handouts, or by creating good jobs that move them from poverty to the middle class?

Trump has plugged into this issue at least part way. He recognizes the problem. But at this point he is too invested in the "solutions" that make good sound bytes but don't solve the problem--blaming NAFTA and TPP as bad trade agreements, rather than recognizing that the reason they are bad trade agreements is because our current domestic tax laws and regulatory processes put us at a disadvantage going in, so that we have little negotiating leverage.

Here's the way to bring back jobs:
1) Implement a national consumption tax. This puts us on an even footing with the rest of the developed world regarding imports/exports, and it provides additional funds to allow the following steps.
2) Implement Bismarck health care, removing the health care cost burden from businesses and providing a health care safety net for everyone.
3) Lower and flatten corporate and individual tax rates to levels competitive with the rest of the world. If you had a 15% consumption tax, you could raise tax revenues in excess of current levels with a 15% flat tax on all business and investment income, and no individual income tax. That would make us more than competitive with anywhere else.
4) Convert the current welfare hodgepodge of focused and means-tested programs to a guaranteed minimum income, along the lines of Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. That builds a safety net under everyone and gets rid of the "welfare trap" that currently allows people to game the system and disincentives the poor from moving up to the middle class.

Do that and you'd see $3 trillion come home and get invested in things that would create good paying jobs. Here. Now. What would that do to the economy?

Yes, there are jobs being lost to automation worldwide. But you can't automate everything. And it won't all happen immediately. And automation will create new jobs building and operating and maintaining those automated systems. Those jobs will be fewer in number, but much higher paying, and that extra disposable income will be spent in ways that magnify the job creation impact tenfold.

Another issue is that the elderly can't afford the high cost of living. Targeting cuts that are aimed to helped the elderly, the disabled and the disabled vets would hurt this group out since they can't work, or can't work a full time job. We need the safety net for food and health care intact.

Plus, people forget that there is a bloat spending at the Pentagon. They spend money to give weapons to other countries. We gave weapons and arms to these Middle East Countries to fight ISIS.

(03-16-2017 04:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There is one thing they are cutting that is wrong. Meals on Wheels feed the elderly. Cutting that would make the elderly go hungry. That jerk said that program is not working. I call that pants on fire.

I call everything you post pants on fire.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

I didn't kn9w the government paid for meals on wheels. I thought it was funded by the United way or something

(03-17-2017 06:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  I didn't kn9w the government paid for meals on wheels. I thought it was funded by the United way or something

The government doesnt. 97% of Meals on wheels budget comes from charities and charitable donations. The federal government's portion came from funds that was to be allocated for the elderly. But Meals on Wheels serves more than just the elderly, and that caused federal funds for the elderly to go to younger people who were already receiving federal food funds through another avenue.

(03-17-2017 05:45 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

stupid post. 97% of meals on wheels comes from private donations.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-17-2017 07:15 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 05:45 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

stupid post. 97% of meals on wheels comes from private donations.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Jesus is stupid?

(03-17-2017 06:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  I didn't kn9w the government paid for meals on wheels. I thought it was funded by the United way or something

The government doesnt. 97% of Meals on wheels budget comes from charities and charitable donations. The federal government's portion came from funds that was to be allocated for the elderly. But Meals on Wheels serves more than just the elderly, and that caused federal funds for the elderly to go to younger people who were already receiving federal food funds through another avenue.

Sooooo more fake news. Why am I not surprised. Next story will prolly be about how it will kill puppies and baby ducks.

(03-17-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And automation will create new jobs building and operating and maintaining those automated systems. Those jobs will be fewer in number, but much higher paying, and that extra disposable income will be spent in ways that magnify the job creation impact tenfold.

Except the people being replaced by automation... aren't going to have the necessary skills or intelligence to become robot service technicians.

Walmart shelf stockers, fast food workers, etc are not going to have the capability to get one of those higher paying automation technicians jobs.

If 100 people are put out of work, and 10 technician jobs are created... those 10 people will not be earning enough to be able to spend enough to compensate for the money those 100 individuals have lost.
Besides... they will most likely be spending it in areas that are ALSO affected by automation. In this example, they would mathematically have to be making 10 times what each individual would have made to have a break even point for society as far as spendable income. If those initial 100 people were making 20K a year that means that these technicians would have to be making 200K for things to be even. That's never going to happen. That's not even considering your tenfold impact you claim. The math just will never work out the way you may think.

There is a huge section of society that is going to be unemployable in the next 50 years. And for everyone that wants to claim 'oh they can go back to school' or some similar line. Remember the average IQ in this country is right around 100. Half of society has below average intelligence. They are cognitively incapable of learning the necessary skills to compete for higher skilled jobs.

It's not a matter of them not being willing to strive for those jobs... they fundamentally will be unable to meet the mental requirements for them.

(03-18-2017 05:54 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And automation will create new jobs building and operating and maintaining those automated systems. Those jobs will be fewer in number, but much higher paying, and that extra disposable income will be spent in ways that magnify the job creation impact tenfold.

Except the people being replaced by automation... aren't going to have the necessary skills or intelligence to become robot service technicians.

Walmart shelf stockers, fast food workers, etc are not going to have the capability to get one of those higher paying automation technicians jobs.

If 100 people are put out of work, and 10 technician jobs are created... those 10 people will not be earning enough to be able to spend enough to compensate for the money those 100 individuals have lost.
Besides... they will most likely be spending it in areas that are ALSO affected by automation. In this example, they would mathematically have to be making 10 times what each individual would have made to have a break even point for society as far as spendable income. If those initial 100 people were making 20K a year that means that these technicians would have to be making 200K for things to be even. That's never going to happen. That's not even considering your tenfold impact you claim. The math just will never work out the way you may think.

There is a huge section of society that is going to be unemployable in the next 50 years. And for everyone that wants to claim 'oh they can go back to school' or some similar line. Remember the average IQ in this country is right around 100. Half of society has below average intelligence. They are cognitively incapable of learning the necessary skills to compete for higher skilled jobs.

It's not a matter of them not being willing to strive for those jobs... they fundamentally will be unable to meet the mental requirements for them.

couldn't agree more....

this is why an infrastructure rebuilding plan must be implemented in the next 12 mos.....there is no shame holding a shovel or operating heavy equipment....there is shame sitting on the porch pounding the olde english 40 oz. on the middle class' dime


'tech education' for those that have the capacity to transfer into those jobs???....my guess is that would mostly occur 'in-house'

(03-18-2017 05:54 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And automation will create new jobs building and operating and maintaining those automated systems. Those jobs will be fewer in number, but much higher paying, and that extra disposable income will be spent in ways that magnify the job creation impact tenfold.

Except the people being replaced by automation... aren't going to have the necessary skills or intelligence to become robot service technicians.
Walmart shelf stockers, fast food workers, etc are not going to have the capability to get one of those higher paying automation technicians jobs.
If 100 people are put out of work, and 10 technician jobs are created... those 10 people will not be earning enough to be able to spend enough to compensate for the money those 100 individuals have lost.
Besides... they will most likely be spending it in areas that are ALSO affected by automation. In this example, they would mathematically have to be making 10 times what each individual would have made to have a break even point for society as far as spendable income. If those initial 100 people were making 20K a year that means that these technicians would have to be making 200K for things to be even. That's never going to happen. That's not even considering your tenfold impact you claim. The math just will never work out the way you may think.
There is a huge section of society that is going to be unemployable in the next 50 years. And for everyone that wants to claim 'oh they can go back to school' or some similar line. Remember the average IQ in this country is right around 100. Half of society has below average intelligence. They are cognitively incapable of learning the necessary skills to compete for higher skilled jobs.
It's not a matter of them not being willing to strive for those jobs... they fundamentally will be unable to meet the mental requirements for them.

So you reform our education system, including a much more vigorous and rigorous vocational/technical track, to give more of them the skills they need.
And you implement a Consumption tax and use the revenues to fund Bismarck health care and reduce top income rates to world class levels or below, which greatly reduces the cost of doing business here so that we move back toward being a producer economy, and that creates more top-end jobs.
And you reform welfare to provide a truly comprehensive safety net for those who do fall through the racks, while eliminating the welfare trap that keeps families trapped in poverty for generations.

And your math is wrong. Because of the Keynesian multiplier effect, those 10 technicians don't have to make $200k for the deal to work. Somewhere around $80-100k probably gets it done. And with the return of investment and production, those 10 technician jobs become 20-30, and the math gets even better.

(03-17-2017 07:31 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  I didn't kn9w the government paid for meals on wheels. I thought it was funded by the United way or something

The government doesnt. 97% of Meals on wheels budget comes from charities and charitable donations. The federal government's portion came from funds that was to be allocated for the elderly. But Meals on Wheels serves more than just the elderly, and that caused federal funds for the elderly to go to younger people who were already receiving federal food funds through another avenue.

Sooooo more fake news. Why am I not surprised. Next story will prolly be about how it will kill puppies and baby ducks.

I loved Spicers answer to "but but the seniors dying from no food" question. Just because you spend less money on the dept does not equate a cut. That is such a Washington way to look at things. The OMB Director told all agencies to look at their budget and strip out duplication, etc. Just because you throw money at a problem, doesn't mean it's solved. Look at the DC Education system.

Man, he educated the willfully ignorant pres and then slammed teacher unions backhandedly all while schooling the press on proper fincancial discipline. #Winning

(03-17-2017 06:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  I didn't kn9w the government paid for meals on wheels. I thought it was funded by the United way or something

The government doesnt. 97% of Meals on wheels budget comes from charities and charitable donations. The federal government's portion came from funds that was to be allocated for the elderly. But Meals on Wheels serves more than just the elderly, and that caused federal funds for the elderly to go to younger people who were already receiving federal food funds through another avenue.

Except in rural areas where there is not enough charitable donations and charities to handle this problem. Most of the charities are located in large cities, but small towns and some small populated counties in each state does not have any help. There are not even any medical places like hospitals, doctors and clinics to go to.

(03-17-2017 07:26 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 07:15 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 05:45 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

stupid post. 97% of meals on wheels comes from private donations.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Jesus is stupid?

what's stupid is what the meme is implying. you continue to offer very little substance here.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-18-2017 05:54 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And automation will create new jobs building and operating and maintaining those automated systems. Those jobs will be fewer in number, but much higher paying, and that extra disposable income will be spent in ways that magnify the job creation impact tenfold.

Except the people being replaced by automation... aren't going to have the necessary skills or intelligence to become robot service technicians.

Walmart shelf stockers, fast food workers, etc are not going to have the capability to get one of those higher paying automation technicians jobs.

If 100 people are put out of work, and 10 technician jobs are created... those 10 people will not be earning enough to be able to spend enough to compensate for the money those 100 individuals have lost.
Besides... they will most likely be spending it in areas that are ALSO affected by automation. In this example, they would mathematically have to be making 10 times what each individual would have made to have a break even point for society as far as spendable income. If those initial 100 people were making 20K a year that means that these technicians would have to be making 200K for things to be even. That's never going to happen. That's not even considering your tenfold impact you claim. The math just will never work out the way you may think.

There is a huge section of society that is going to be unemployable in the next 50 years. And for everyone that wants to claim 'oh they can go back to school' or some similar line. Remember the average IQ in this country is right around 100. Half of society has below average intelligence. They are cognitively incapable of learning the necessary skills to compete for higher skilled jobs.

It's not a matter of them not being willing to strive for those jobs... they fundamentally will be unable to meet the mental requirements for them.

great post.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-18-2017 07:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  I didn't kn9w the government paid for meals on wheels. I thought it was funded by the United way or something

The government doesnt. 97% of Meals on wheels budget comes from charities and charitable donations. The federal government's portion came from funds that was to be allocated for the elderly. But Meals on Wheels serves more than just the elderly, and that caused federal funds for the elderly to go to younger people who were already receiving federal food funds through another avenue.

Except in rural areas where there is not enough charitable donations and charities to handle this problem. Most of the charities are located in large cities, but small towns and some small populated counties in each state does not have any help. There are not even any medical places like hospitals, doctors and clinics to go to.

but there are a lot of churches in those areas. churches do a lot for the elderly in rural communities.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app