U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-20-2017, 09:43 AM
 
1,151 posts, read 428,888 times
Reputation: 1034

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Believing that green card restrictions and trade restrictions help American workers is a partisan approach to economics.
Then why did the Democrats of the 1980s and early 1990s support green card restrictions and trade restrictions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2017, 09:44 AM
 
22,770 posts, read 25,209,535 times
Reputation: 14506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
Then why did the Democrats of the 1980s and early 1990s support green card restrictions and trade restrictions?
I don't think the Democrats are economists, nor can they serve as a stand-in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ area
2,934 posts, read 2,402,108 times
Reputation: 3372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
Then why did the Democrats of the 1980s and early 1990s support green card restrictions and trade restrictions?
Because it makes sense. But their stance has evolved, new term for flip-flopping politicians, as their donors have become more demanding of cheap labor. Why should tech companies pay an engineer or programmer $80k a year just because they are US citizens when they can bring in someone from India and pay them half that, not even considering the savings in benefits. Same reason they think gay (less than 4% of the population) and trans (less than 1% of the population) issues are more important than actually helping minorities (non-hispanic whites are only 61% of the population).

If red AZ can pass huge changes to minimum wage, $12 an hour tied to inflation and mandatory sick time, while electing Trump why couldn't the Dems do it in 2009-10 on the federal level? Because the Democrats aren't for the people anymore; their banking and tech donors wouldn't allow it. The ACA didn't have much of an impact on tech companies or bankers just small business owners and individuals so it was allowed through. Same reason the left is against tax cuts, they help small businesses much more than their tech donors who hide their cash offshore anyway. If we taxed Apple, Google, and the like correctly then you could garuntee they would be in support of real, meaningful changes to the tax code.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 10:21 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,399 posts, read 30,672,464 times
Reputation: 12863
People that want to think for themselves v. People that cannot think for themselves, combined with people that wish to think for every one.

There is a majority and a minority here. Who will win, when emotions and feelings are set aside?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,464 posts, read 2,303,363 times
Reputation: 5231
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Republicans oppose high min wages and healthcare for everyone. And the latest republican tax plan gives 80% of the tax cuts to the richest 1% of Americans.
Trump Hands 80 Percent of Proposed Tax Cut to Top 1 Percent – Mother Jones

Democrats want high min wages and healthcare for everyone. And Hillary Clinton wanted to raise wealthy peoples tax rates and tax wealthy children's inheritances at 65%.
Here's how much Hillary Clinton's tax plan would hit the rich - Aug. 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton Wants a 65% Inheritance Tax on Billionaire Estates | Fortune

Could you please explain how republicans are the party of workers and democrats the party of the wealthy?
No, they don't.Republicans want everyone to get paid well. What they opposed is federally mandated minimum wages. If a state wants to mandate a minimum age then fine, have at it. But the federal government should have nothing to do with that.

And No, Republicans do not oppose healthcare for everyone. They want everyone to have access to good, affordable healthcare. They oppose federal mandates forcing people to buy a product they often don't want or need and then subsidizing that purchase. The terrible results of Obamacare are vivid evidence that such a mandate is a lousy idea.

Now you've been educated. You're welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Land of the Caddo and Tonkawa
3,953 posts, read 1,487,169 times
Reputation: 5551
One look at this country's history will tell you that these things are never fixed, never static. Even trends can change dramatically in just a short time. And with the increased volatility these days, that's even more so.

You can place your bets - if you think you're so knowledgeable and know the future - but you're only kidding yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 11:22 AM
 
3,724 posts, read 1,112,709 times
Reputation: 2233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster View Post
No, they don't.Republicans want everyone to get paid well. What they opposed is federally mandated minimum wages. If a state wants to mandate a minimum age then fine, have at it. But the federal government should have nothing to do with that.

And No, Republicans do not oppose healthcare for everyone. They want everyone to have access to good, affordable healthcare. They oppose federal mandates forcing people to buy a product they often don't want or need and then subsidizing that purchase. The terrible results of Obamacare are vivid evidence that such a mandate is a lousy idea.

Now you've been educated. You're welcome.
How many Republican-led States have a higher minimum wage than the Federal guidelines require?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,464 posts, read 2,303,363 times
Reputation: 5231
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
How many Republican-led States have a higher minimum wage than the Federal guidelines require?
That isn't the point. My point was that the poster incorrectly characterized where Republicans stand on this issue. I correct him.

If red states don't feel the need to raise the state minimum wage there can be all kinds of reasons for that. It's doesn't mean all Republicans are against a minimum wage. Some are, some aren't. I live in a boom/bust state... right now we are just barely coming out of a bust cycle. Raising the minimum wage would be a sure job killer. Other states have their own reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 11:49 AM
 
4,203 posts, read 1,543,373 times
Reputation: 5271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
... Remember blood is thicker than bank accounts.
Survival, hunger and desire for shelter trumps all.

In 1928 the Republicans elected Hoover in a huge landslide, 444-87. Just about everybody was a Republican -- laissez faire, the business of government is business, and why not? Prosperity, Roaring 20's, good times.

In 1932 -- just 4 years later -- Americans did a huge ideological and political reversal electing FDR 472-59. Just like that business was out and government intervention was in. When you're out of work, the bank is closed, you've lost your farm to foreclosure and the kids are hungry, a spoonful of socialism looks very appealing.

Today's income inequality and a struggling middle class is a powder keg. All it takes is a deep recession with unemployment > 10%, foreclosures and people cold and hungry, and the majority will once again demand government intervention and assistance. People will be shocked at how many red states will flip and vote blue, if things get bad enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 12:15 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,632,414 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Republicans oppose high min wages and healthcare for everyone. And the latest republican tax plan gives 80% of the tax cuts to the richest 1% of Americans.
Trump Hands 80 Percent of Proposed Tax Cut to Top 1 Percent – Mother Jones
TPC estimates that the plan would reduce total tax revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Republicans’ plan to eliminate some tax deductions would increase individual tax revenue by almost $500 billion over the next decade. But those gains would be wiped out by $2.6 trillion of business tax cuts. (Another $240 billion in losses would come from eliminating estate taxes on the share of inheritances exceeding $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples.)

That figure would be ridiculously NOT TRUE because it would mean companies would see almost a 100% tax cut to 0%

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top