jwgsgg #fundie

jwgsgg #fundie npr.org

Perhaps America:s Trump has finally taken the *be politely correct what ever the cost* away and instilled some common sense to immigration policies with European citizens and their leaders.He is responsible for the well being and safety of his country and it:s people. Leaders with this responsibility cannot afford to live in Disneyland and think that Cinderella will be all smiles and wiggles even though she has explosives strapped to her girdle.

25 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Perhaps America:s Trump has finally taken the *be politely correct what ever the cost* away"

...and perhaps that's why his poll rating - compared with Tom Cruz Control - is now in single figures.

In the general elections last year, my MP Karl Turner (Labour, Hull East) was the complete opposite of Donald Fart: he didn't go the 'populist' way of the inferior subhuman UKRAP (with the Donald Fart-esque Nige FaRAGE)& it's candidates; nor the neo-Nazi National Front, who both were on an anti-immigration platform, but he - and in a very much Politically Correct way - simply campaigned on the policies that mattered to voters. They were very common sense policies, and on very much a common sense platform.

So why was it that Karl - and his fellow Labour MPs in Hull - was returned to Parliament with an increased majority, and UKRAP & the National Front got nowhere?

Politically Correct. As opposed to the 'common sense 'Nige FaRAGE & his UKRAP, and the National Front: Wrong. And always will be. Otherwise, why didn't they - with their 'common sense' policies - win...?!

Being Politically Correct. Karl Turner MP likes being Correct. And as one of his voters, so do I. Correct = Superior.

So why isn't Wiggy's poll ratings higher...?!

old comment by Skidie

@1922431:

Oh he does, or at least should be able to since I believe this was included in his upbringing as a rich elite with inheritance uncounted. He still won`t lift a finger, whatever he`ll promise he WILL find a way to back out of it and this is simply cause this man lives on the other side of the pond, so to speak his interests simply do not correlate with yours, unless I`m writing to a ~5 milionaire from birthright.

He knows just how damaging outsourcing is to your middle class and he will still sell all your souls gladly to the China and India and any new trend there might be in these practices simply since it makes good buisness for him and his buddies.

When one rapes you up the back you should at least scream, wasn`t it in the bible or something?

old comment by ThatOneGuy

@1922431
>He knows enough about jobs being outsourced and wants to put a stop to all these trade deals that don't benefit the US, wants to renegotiate them,

If you raise tariffs (which is what he said he'd do) the following occurs.

1. In importer has to pay the tariff on goods, this is passed onto the retailer.
2. The retailer passes the price onto you, increasing the cost of goods.
3. The manufacturer doesn't interact with the tariff at all, keeps the manufacturing in where-ever has the weakest labour laws, and you're still unemployed.

>He wants an immigration system that actually benefits the US, not increases the risk of terrorism, the cost of policing or drives down wages due to a flood of workers willing to work for peanuts and not even pay any taxes.

If employers went to jail for paying people bellow min wage,like they should, a flood of workers wouldn't be a problem.

If the worker is on the books, they're paying taxes - in fact they're probably paying more taxes because they won't be deducting anything. If the worker is not on the books, the employer should be in jail for fraud.

Creating a whole new department to chase down illegal immigrants is increasing policing.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

"He wants an immigration system that actually benefits the US, not increases the risk of terrorism, the cost of policing or drives down wages due to a flood of workers willing to work for peanuts and not even pay any taxes.

Tell me why his policies would be bad for the US worker?"

Oh, I dunno...:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/08/trump-tower-was-built-on-undocumented-immigrants-backs.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431933/donald-trump-foreign-workers-american-workers-arent-good-enough

'The news that Donald Trump turned down 94 percent of American job applicants to his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., in favor of foreign workers brought in under the H-2B visa program should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. Over the course of the campaign season, Trump has proven himself a liar of Clintonian proportions, and there has never been any reason to believe that he was somehow more trustworthy when it came to his rhetorical opposition to America’s foolish immigration policies the ostensible raison d’être for his presidential campaign, one might recall. Moreover, the fact that he is more gold-obsessed than King Midas should have suggested otherwise.'

'Last year, the Washington Post reported that Trump is using undocumented workers in the construction work on his much-feted project to convert Washington, D.C.’s Old Post Office Pavilion into a luxury hotel. “Interviews with about 15 laborers helping renovate the Old Post Office Pavilion revealed that many of them had crossed the U.S-Mexico border illegally,” the Post’s Antonio Olivo wrote in July'

...you tell me.

old comment by Thinking Allowed

#1922431 said:

He knows enough about jobs being outsourced and wants to put a stop to all these trade deals that don't benefit the US, wants to renegotiate them, lower taxes at home and increase for imports so US companies STAY in the US.

No he doesn't. Look at his track record for the businesses he still has running (for exaple)Trump Towers, Trump Airlines, and Trump University.

He wants an immigration system that actually benefits the US, not increases the risk of terrorism, the cost of policing or drives down wages due to a flood of workers willing to work for peanuts and not even pay any taxes.

Building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. then charging Mexico for it is not good policy.

Tell me why his policies would be bad for the US worker?

Just as soon as you tell me why Trump will make a good president.

old comment by

@ThatOneGuy

"If you raise tariffs (which is what he said he'd do) the following occurs."

Okay...

"1. In importer has to pay the tariff on goods, this is passed onto the retailer."

Yes.

"2. The retailer passes the price onto you, increasing the cost of goods."

Yes, and guess what? Now the consumer is going to be VERY reluctant to buy it if he's even going to buy it AT ALL, he's going to prefer the cheaper but equally good products made inside the US. Don't pretend that consumers are just mindless drones, they can say no.

So combine tariff on imports with less regulation and LOWER taxes INSIDE the country (which Trump also supports), this will discourage businesses from going to another country while encouraging the creation of new ones inside the US.

"3. The manufacturer doesn't interact with the tariff at all, keeps the manufacturing in where-ever has the weakest labour laws, and you're still unemployed."

Not directly but the manufacturer will have to make changes to his business model when importers and retailers no longer find it profitable due to the tariffs. It's a chain reaction, you can't change something in the economy and expect it to only apply to that one thing. Everything is connected.

Furthermore, you can also loosen up labour laws in the US, in fact it should be as free as possible as long as it doesn't put people's lives in needlessly danger. The 15$ minimum wage per hour proposed by Bernie Sanders is absolutely insane, now that will definitely kill even more jobs.

Literally one of the few things I agree with Sanders on is that American workers can't be expected to compete with cheap labour from third world countries. So then WHY does he support a law that gives entrepreneurs another reason to leave the country?

"If employers went to jail for paying people bellow min wage,like they should, a flood of workers wouldn't be a problem."

Actually it would still be a problem (even assuming you could perfectly enforce the law in all places which is fantasy) because many of these immigrants send the money back home, they don't spend it inside the US, while US citizens do.

Furthermore, one way or the other you'd have an extra mass of unemployed people that are either going to be a burden on welfare, on their families, maybe on their churches, or they're just going to start to rob other people so they can pay the bills. I don't believe most crime is caused by a genuine concern of starvation, but it's not inconceivable that some of it is. Even risking a jail cell can't be much worse than starvation.

Frankly I'm a bit surprised to see liberals defend these kind of policies. You're supporting policies that really do allow big businesses to rig the rules in their favor. And in case you didn't figure it out, big business is not, in fact, conservative. (In reality they're corporate socialists.) Rigged trade deals with foreign countries and regulations help them both kill competitors and get access to a population so traumatized by psychopath dictators that they'll work for 10 cents an hour and put up with any crap.

So much for helping the "little guy".

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431933/donald-trump-foreign-workers-american-workers-arent-good-enough

Frankly I'm a bit surprised to see you defend this kind of hypocrisy.

Fortunately, so many are seeing through Donald Fart's bullshit. And LIES.

old comment by Canadiest

There's a notable aspect to this "politically correct" nonsense of late in America. RightWingers have condemned it pretending it stops dialogue or impedes on free speech but the wave of hypocrisy is loud and clear if you dare cross their sacred cows.

Christopher Hitchens was politically incorrect. Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Keith Oberman, Rachael Maddow, Micheal Moore all cross decency lines, ACCORDING TO THEM, by talking truth or being a little critical of their heroes like Palin, Trump, W, and other hugely dishonest assclowns they worship.

They're trying to frame it so our critiques on the liberal side, even though true, must stop BUT their chosen ones are to be uncontested. FoxNews, Limbaugh, Beck and many right wing pundits call their heroes "straight talkers" "honest and brave" or other such buzzwords when they go off on racist sexist or theocratic tirades.

old comment by ThatOneGuy

@1922789
>Don't pretend consumers are just mindless drones, they can say no.
What is Inelastic Demand? For 500 Alex.
And this relies on there being a local alternative.

>So combine tariff on imports with less regulation and LOWER taxes INSIDE the country (which Trump also supports), this will discourage businesses from going to another country while encouraging the creation of new ones inside the US
So competing with third-world sweat-shops by creating your own?

>The 15$ minimum wage per hour proposed by Bernie Sanders is absolutely insane, now that will definitely kill even more jobs.
Australia's min wage is $16.87 an hour. The US $7.25. Aus GPD per capita USD67,458. The US USD54,269. Aus budget deficit 3.4% GDP. US budget deficit 6.8% GDP. Economic Freedom (Heritage definition) Aus - 82.6/100 US - 76/100. Export GDP Aus - 20.1%, US - 13.5%

The economy is built on consumption. Higher wages create more consumption, which drives production which creates a stronger econmy.

>even assuming you could perfectly enforce the law in all places which is fantasy
Granted.

>because many of these immigrants send the money back home
Increasing that countries consumption and demand for imports, creating a larger market to be taken advantage of, driving up labour prices due to local firms having to compete with US ones, further increasing demand for goods. The solution isn't to reduce the US to third-world labour conditions, it's to drive third-world conditions up.

>Furthermore, one way or the other you'd have an extra mass of unemployed people that are either going to be a burden on welfare, on their families, maybe on their churches, or they're just going to start to rob other people so they can pay the bills.
Personally, if we're stuck with government, I premote the idea of "employer of last resort". That is, if people cannot find a job the state (sensu lato) employs them for it's shit-work.

>Frankly I'm a bit surprised to see liberals defend these kind of policies.
I'm a market anarchist, not a US!liberal.

>You're supporting policies that really do allow big businesses to rig the rules in their favor.
I've pointed out why Trump's policies don't work. I haven't talked about my policies at all. (Partly because corporations wouldn't surive under them, partly because I'm getting tl;dr enough, and partly because it would involve four or five posts of semantics at the begining, and I'm a lazy fuck)

>And in case you didn't figure it out, big business is not, in fact, conservative. (In reality they're corporate socialists.)
Conservative means they want things to stay the same, the current system is state corporatism, ergo supporting it is conservatism.

While we're here.
Socialism =/= Progressivism
Capitalism =/= Free Market
Conservative =/= Capitalist

>Rigged trade deals with foreign countries and regulations help them both kill competitors and get access to a population so traumatized by psychopath dictators that they'll work for 10 cents an hour and put up with any crap.
You mean like
>you can also loosen up labour laws in the US
do you?

old comment by

@ThatOneGuy

"What is Inelastic Demand? For 500 Alex.
And this relies on there being a local alternative."

There will be entrepreneurs bringing an alternative, (not to mention companies returning the jobs in the US) always happens sooner or later, it just has to be profitable. You encourage that with less regulations and lower taxes.

What you're worried about is merely a temporary inconvenience, but that always happens with large scale changes. Transition from communism to democracy in Eastern European countries also rocked the boat but it had to be done.

"So competing with third-world sweat-shops by creating your own?"

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Also, sweat-shops (poor conditions, shit pay) aren't that easy to create in a proper free market because people can start their own business easier. They can also just all decide to strike and the government won't tear gas them all. The worst that can happen is they all get fired, but that might not be in the interest of the employer. He might just decide that it's too much of a hassle to find an entire new team of 50 or whatever number of people and train them.

Most of the problems in the third world are caused by government corruption and rampant authoritarianism. They're not much of a welfare state, but they are too big. Takes ages just to get a shitty permit for minor things. Nepotism is rampant too. How do you think that will encourage business innovation?

"Australia's min wage is $16.87 an hour. The US $7.25. Aus GPD per capita USD67,458. The US USD54,269. Aus budget deficit 3.4% GDP. US budget deficit 6.8% GDP. Economic Freedom (Heritage definition) Aus - 82.6/100 US - 76/100. Export GDP Aus - 20.1%, US - 13.5%"

Australia's GDP per capita is a mere 51k, US 54k. I took me 30 seconds of google search to find those numbers so you're just outright lying here.

Also please notice the youth unemployment rate, it's a little higher in Australia:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/youth-unemployment-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/youth-unemployment-rate

In Europe it's even worse.

The explanation is pretty simple. If your work isn't worth 15$ and you have no/little job experience, you just won't get hired, employers will look for other ways to handle their problems, like automate things or just hire part time.

Also keep in mind the parasitical relation between these 1st world welfare states (Australia, Canada, western EU countries) and the US.

Most medical innovations get made in the US due to the freer market, despite Europe having double the population. Sanders' universal healthcare would kill that and make the US mediocre. (Keep in mind that new antibiotics will be needed and even now there's not much incentive for companies to find new ones, it's way too expensive)

Welfare states can't afford a strong military so they rely on the US too much for defense. If you take US out of the equation, NATO isn't that strong really.

"Increasing that countries consumption and demand for imports, creating a larger market to be taken advantage of, driving up labour prices due to local firms having to compete with US ones, further increasing demand for goods. The solution isn't to reduce the US to third-world labour conditions, it's to drive third-world conditions up. "

The only way third-world countries will rise up to the levels of the US is if they copy traditional US values: small government and individual rights. Not gonna happen until the people realize government is the problem not the solution and revolt (mainly to limit its size and scope).

Google LA 1870. Looks a bit a like a third world town doesn't it?

Now google Los Angeles 2010. How did that happen? Government magic? Nah, for the most part, free people built shit.

jwgsgg #fundie npr.org

25 comments

Confused?