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.
Detroit - A city in shambles, a ghost town that still has a population
San Francisco - Home prices so high only the elite can purchase them, homelessness rampant.
Chicago - Crime and murder rate out of control
The supply of land in the San Francisco area is very limited due to geography, and salaries are high because of the tech business. Supply and demand. What should be done to lower house prices there? Price controls would be more of a Democrat idea than a Republican one, no?
Detroit and Chicago suffered from White Flight to the suburbs. For the large AA population in those cities, the horrible legacies of slavery and Jim Crow are very hard to escape. Extreme poverty, lack of quality educational opportunities, lack of a tax base, broken families (a symptom of poverty, thus creating a vicious circle). Many turn to crime and drugs out of desperation. I have no idea how to fix that problem. If Democrat policies are somehow making the problem worse, then said policies should stop. But why do you think Democrat policies are making the problem worse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
The worst? High corporate taxes and trade deals which better other countries' citizens at the detriment of our own. It encourages companies to leave our country and to not repatriate the earnings because once again, the left wants to penalize them for doing so. Thus, we end up with more people on government assistance and underemployed driving the middle class out of existence but maintaining or increasing wealth at the top since they are able to operate globally after all while the workers of this country cannot. So while the left wants to scream the right's policies may increase income inequality, we know the left's policies do so.
Corporations have plenty of money to pay armies of accountants to reduce their effective tax rates. There are plenty of tax havens for American corporations to avoid taxes. America is a great place for corporations, since we have the best government money can buy. Corporate profits are near all-time highs; I don't think they are struggling to pay their tax bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njquestions
Listen, bro, I don't have time to explain the world to you if you've been asleep for the last 30 years.
In my 36 years I've seen my home country go from a first world country with a strong middle class to a plutocracy that only works for monied special interests. How are Democrats or "liberals" solely responsible for that? Yes, Clinton signed NAFTA but it was sponsored by Republicans. Both parties have been on the "free trade" bandwagon that has totally f*cked over average Americans.
Even without free trade, automation would have eliminated a huge number of good paying factory jobs. What are we going to do, eliminate technology? We could have a more progressive tax code so that the benefits of increased productivity could be shared more equally, instead of flowing exclusively to the factory owners. But that's more of a Democrat idea, no?
Both parties have refused to crack down on the illegal immigration that undercuts wages. But to be fair, how could either party stop illegal immigration? The root cause seems to be high birth rates in dirt-poor highly-religious societies south of the border. When the Catholic Church says "every sperm is sacred" in a world with 7 billion people, we have a problem.
Trump talked tough on illegal immigration, but do you really think he's going to stop it? What can he really do? Mass deportations? Wouldn't they just find their way back eventually? I'm no fan of illegal immigration but I don't see a practical or humane way to stop it, other than pressuring Latin American countries to get with the program on population control, women's rights, sex education, etc. If you're worried about illegal immigration, talk to the Pope.
Once Trump, Ryan and McConnell announce their regressive tax package where 99.5% of the cuts go to the 1% it will be clear who is the party of the 1% really is. They will then have to defend this going into 2018 and 2020 and will put Dems back in power sooner than anyone is anticipating.
Corporations have plenty of money to pay armies of accountants to reduce their effective tax rates. There are plenty of tax havens for American corporations to avoid taxes. America is a great place for corporations, since we have the best government money can buy. Corporate profits are near all-time highs; I don't think they are struggling to pay their tax bills.
Yes, by outsourcing jobs and keeping those dollars overseas because they have no need to repatriate those dollars if they're going to be penalized for it. The combination of both trade deals which harm our workers here and high corporate taxes have created this perfect storm of high outsourcing of jobs and making the already rich investors richer. We've tried this method of having high corporate taxes and free trade for years - it doesn't work. It simply created greater income inequality and further erosion of the middle class. And yes, this has been the mantra of the left to do these two things. GOP voters wanted the GOP to go another way but they were ignored time and again. Well, that helped usher in a completely different candidate on the right (Trump). What did the left offer? More of the same (Clinton).
What would you suggest? A more progressive income tax like the left wants to do? We already have the most progressive income tax in the world. You want all those great bennies they get in European countries? Well, they have highly regressive tax policies and in places like Ireland, a much, much lower corporate tax (absolute boon to the economy there by the way).
So, we have from the left:
- The most progressive tax policy in the world and yet they still claim the rich aren't paying their 'fair share'. Um sure.
- Third highest corporate tax rate in the world but the left claims they're making plenty of money so there's no problem there even though all evidence to the contrary with respect to jobs for Americans
- We have a $43 billion monthly trade deficit thanks to those free trade agreements which has flooded the market here with cheap Chinese made crap at the expense of the American worker and the middle class. Two people were against this - Sanders with his ridiculous notion of no borders and free everything if the rich just paid more or Trump who wants to lower corporate taxes and curb illegal immigration. Yeah, going with logic on this one to say Trump's plan is at least viable unlike Sanders was. Of course, the left chose Clinton so there's that.
This is leaving off things like Obamacare, another enormous expense and subsequent tax (as defined by SCOTUS) which the middle class is largely paying. So explain to me how the left hasn't been complicit and most times responsible for the mess we're in where we are quickly approaching a two class structure (the donors and the takers). Because from where I'm sitting, everything they have done in the last eight years has only further exacerbated the problem and done absolutely nothing to fix it.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,544,620 times
Reputation: 12193
This is an important point: Midwestern voters did NOT change. They are still voting for the candidate who talks against 'bad trade deals' and has sympathy for struggling working class people. The Democrats used to stand with Midwestern voters on those issues, now Democrats are against them and Republicans had a candidate who saw eye to eye with them.
In my 36 years I've seen my home country go from a first world country with a strong middle class to a plutocracy that only works for monied special interests. How are Democrats or "liberals" solely responsible for that? Yes, Clinton signed NAFTA but it was sponsored by Republicans. Both parties have been on the "free trade" bandwagon that has totally f*cked over average Americans.
Even without free trade, automation would have eliminated a huge number of good paying factory jobs. What are we going to do, eliminate technology? We could have a more progressive tax code so that the benefits of increased productivity could be shared more equally, instead of flowing exclusively to the factory owners. But that's more of a Democrat idea, no?
Both parties have refused to crack down on the illegal immigration that undercuts wages. But to be fair, how could either party stop illegal immigration? The root cause seems to be high birth rates in dirt-poor highly-religious societies south of the border. When the Catholic Church says "every sperm is sacred" in a world with 7 billion people, we have a problem.
Trump talked tough on illegal immigration, but do you really think he's going to stop it? What can he really do? Mass deportations? Wouldn't they just find their way back eventually? I'm no fan of illegal immigration but I don't see a practical or humane way to stop it, other than pressuring Latin American countries to get with the program on population control, women's rights, sex education, etc. If you're worried about illegal immigration, talk to the Pope.
Wait, you were trying to think about the big impacts liberalism has had on the economy and the first thing you went to was NAFTA? That says a lot.
I mean, nothing about high taxes, deficit spending, endless regulations, a corrupt tax code, funneling money to donors, ridiculous salaries/pensions/benefits for bureaucrats and unions? You decided to go with NAFTA?
Democrats prospered due to higher education and the jobs that followed. The economies of the cities are strong and the cities benefit from education and diversity. When you look at the West Coast and the Northeast, they don't regard education as elitist. Companies looking for educated workers chose to locate in these cities so there are more jobs. Interestingly, Trump markets to blue locations, so it's no wonder he's focusing internationally now that his brand will be less popular in those same blue locations. As an example, Trump only received 8% of the vote in Seattle where there literally are not enough houses for the amount of people moving there so multiple offers without contingencies are common.
Oh, really?
You should read some of this stuff (great read)! Some people believe you lose your soul when moving to these types of "utopias":
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.
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.
