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.
Sure there was. For example: Job creation via renegiotiation of trade deals, lower taxes/regs. It's already happening.
Those aren't policy specifics. That just goes to show how far public policy intellectual discourse has fallen. There is nothing specific about "I'm going to renegotiate a trade deal."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanJ
And why should policy details be #1? Every pundit says that, but lets be honest here...the president can learn policy in a month or so with advisors if you are president. It's not difficult in that case. And if it was, then why is the public deciding which policy is best? How is the public going to decide of axing Dodd-Frank is good? Most people voting aren't financial experts. And many "Experts" in the media are total shills and scum.
I don't recall pundits saying policy details should be #1. I remember pundits talking about the establishment vs change, email servers, Billy Bush, etc. It was one big spectacle of nothingness.
And if the public is casting a vote without considering at all the merits of Dodd-Frank and the broader question of financial regulation, then we deserve whatever negative repercussions come our way. It wasn't that long ago that we were facing economic armageddon and yet people seem sublimely oblivious (or indifferent) to the fact that banks will go back to the same practices that caused the Great Recession.
Those aren't policy specifics. That just goes to show how far public policy intellectual discourse has fallen. There is nothing specific about "I'm going to renegotiate a trade deal."
I don't recall pundits saying policy details should be #1. I remember pundits talking about the establishment vs change, email servers, Billy Bush, etc. It was one big spectacle of nothingness.
And if the public is casting a vote without considering at all the merits of Dodd-Frank and the broader question of financial regulation, then we deserve whatever negative repercussions come our way. It wasn't that long ago that we were facing economic armageddon and yet people seem sublimely oblivious (or indifferent) to the fact that banks will go back to the same practices that caused the Great Recession.
Yea they are specifics. And with trade deals...Do you want a pre-made script he's going to follow in the negiotiation? A line by line list? Gimme a break. Oh, and it's already working. Thousands of jobs have been saved already.
Most people don't have the time or financial knowledge to learn about banking regulations. Same with TPP (nobody read that!) This is why competency and benevolence are more important.
Yea they are specifics. And with trade deals...Do you want a pre-made script he's going to follow in the negiotiation? A line by line list? Gimme a break. Oh, and it's already working. Thousands of jobs have been saved already.
Thousands of jobs?? Where?? Maybe 1000 at Carrier at a cost of $7million to the people of Ohio. All Trump's Carrier deal has done is set a new precedent and low for industry. The game years ago was corporations would threaten to move to "right to work" (for less) states unless unions gave into their demands. Now they're going to threaten to move to Mexico and get concessions and tax breaks. Still @ 800 workers are STILL LOSING their jobs. Carrier will still manufacture in Mexico and will either move a few years down the road or come through with new demands for tax incentives.
Most people don't have the time or financial knowledge to learn about banking regulations. Same with TPP (nobody read that!) This is why competency and benevolence are more important.
I agree most people don't have the time to learn about banking regulations. Wall St is a game with a language all it's own. We don't need to repeal the protections that were put in place with Dodd-Frank, it seems we obviously can't trust the banking industry to police itself, and you surely will not find ANY benevolence on Wall St.
EVERY TIME their has been a financial crisis in the US it's because the banking/stock market has run unchecked, they've put together huge "deals" where the public are the ones who get hurt. The honcho's in banking walk away relatively unscathed. This holds true for the crash of '29, the saving and loan scandal, Enron, and the last Wall St debacle. Yes the blame goes all around, realtors sold homes to people who couldn't afford them, banks gave subprime loans, and people bought houses on speculation because they were increasing in value overnight. If you got in and out early and were a little guy you made out, if not you got hurt. The same thing in 1929, people who had no business doing it were buying stocks on margin, because the elevator operator in their bldg made a fortune. When the margin calls came in people were ruined. So there were regulations put in place which started to be rescinded in the 80's, and it continued until 2008. Then everyone said, "What happened?"
The worst of it was we bailed out the "too big to fail" banks, we should have let them fail like Iceland did. Instead of bailing them out so the banks could give the bailout money out as bonuses, to retain "good people". The very people that helped create the crisis to begin with.
Thousands of jobs?? Where?? Maybe 1000 at Carrier at a cost of $7million to the people of Ohio. All Trump's Carrier deal has done is set a new precedent and low for industry. The game years ago was corporations would threaten to move to "right to work" (for less) states unless unions gave into their demands. Now they're going to threaten to move to Mexico and get concessions and tax breaks. Still @ 800 workers are STILL LOSING their jobs. Carrier will still manufacture in Mexico and will either move a few years down the road or come through with new demands for tax incentives.
It's funny, I've heard these same talking points from Bernie. (The useless "socialist" who is chilling in his new 600k house thanks to his generous donations)
1100 at carrier and potentially 10,000 in PA now with steel possibly rehiring. Just 11100 people and their families lives, no biggie right? How many jobs has hero to the poor Bernie saved? ZERO.
And it's NOT A GRANT. It costs taxpayers nothing. In fact, it saves taxpayers money because they can avoid paying 1100 people unemployment.
Saying they will threaten to move is nonsense. This bogus I remember is right from Bernie. Their accounting can easily be verified and negiotiated with. And as we know (and don't like to admit) Trump can negiotate very well! And it's probably illegal to make threats like that regardless.
Unbeliable how media shills + Bernie criticize Trump for saving jobs. This is why people will start to flat out lose all credibility for the media. No analysis anymore, just 100% spin to oppose Trump.
It's funny, I've heard these same talking points from Bernie. (The useless "socialist" who is chilling in his new 600k house thanks to his generous donations) Do you have ANY PROOF of this??? This how "false news" gets spreadl
1100 at carrier and potentially 10,000 in PA now with steel possibly rehiring. Just 11100 people and their families lives, no biggie right? How many jobs has hero to the poor Bernie saved? ZERO. Maybe 1000 at Carrier, I doubt if steel production will come back to PA, again where is this rumor coming from? Even Sarah Palin called the Carrier Deal "crony capitalism".
And it's NOT A GRANT. It costs taxpayers nothing. In fact, it saves taxpayers money because they can avoid paying 1100 people unemployment. Who said "grant"???? It was tax incentives, that's not a grant, that's a giveaway, 800 jobs are STILL going to Mexico.
Saying they will threaten to move is nonsense. This bogus I remember is right from Bernie. Their accounting can easily be verified and negiotiated with. And as we know (and don't like to admit) Trump can negiotate very well! And it's probably illegal to make threats like that regardless. It was common for companies 20 yrs ago to threaten to move to "right to work" states, many have. Bernie is someone with media attention who isn't afraid to say this.
Unbeliable how media shills + Bernie criticize Trump for saving jobs. This is why people will start to flat out lose all credibility for the media. No analysis anymore, just 100% spin to oppose Trump.
Trump is getting criticized for "saving jobs" because 1000 jobs are a drop in the bucket.
If Trump really was interested in the Steel industry he could have specified steel made in the USA when he built a hotel in Las Vegas, but he didn't. We know how well Trump "negotiates", he approves plans, agrees to contracts, then when the time comes for payment tells contractors, "We'll pay you 1/3 less, and you'll take it or spent years in court and spend that money on lawyers. Ask any small business that's done work for Trump.
Yea they are specifics. And with trade deals...Do you want a pre-made script he's going to follow in the negiotiation?
They are not specifics. Saying "I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA" is about as specific as saying "I'm going to bring peace to the Middle East." What exactly in NAFTA does he intend to renegotiate? And how do you alter existing provisions of NAFTA without dislocating millions of American jobs and contractual arrangements that depend on the current law?
The same thing with tariffs. Donald Trump wouldn't be the first President to slap tariffs on China. Both Bush and Obama placed tariffs on Chinese steel and tires, respectively, and those tariffs ended up costing more jobs than they saved because they raised prices throughout the supply chains. Why wouldn't a Trump tariff have a similar effect?
I put a lot of blame on debate moderators for not pressing either candidate on the specifics. If you go back and look at the debate transcripts between Clinton and Dole, or even Bush and Gore, the questions were much more pointed (both from moderators and audience members) and the candidates got much deeper into the policy weeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanJ
Most people don't have the time or financial knowledge to learn about banking regulations. Same with TPP (nobody read that!) This is why competency and benevolence are more important.
Yet people have time to devote to posting on City-Data at all times of the day and night and watch Celebrity Apprentice, Real Housewives, Sunday Night Football, the Walking Dead, etc.
You don't even have to know much about the contours of banking reform to have some opinion on whether Congressional oversight is a good thing or not. I mean, after the Crash of 2008, is there anyone who thinks less oversight of banks is a good thing? Is it a bad thing when the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau goes after Wells Fargo for applying illegal fees to loans? It must be a bad thing because Republicans are out to destroy it, right?
Even if you buy the Republican line that "regulations kill jobs" hook, line, and sinker, why would the "little man" give a flying F about Wall Street jobs? Why vote for candidates who want to undo legislation to benefit the people responsible for blowing up the economy?
I suspect these are all questions people will now consider after they've cast their votes.
Trump is getting criticized for "saving jobs" because 1000 jobs are a drop in the bucket.
It's actually around 800-850 jobs. And the CEO of UTC has already said that most of the jobs will be automated in the not-too-distant future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue biker
If Trump really was interested in the Steel industry he could have specified steel made in the USA when he built a hotel in Las Vegas, but he didn't. We know how well Trump "negotiates", he approves plans, agrees to contracts, then when the time comes for payment tells contractors, "We'll pay you 1/3 less, and you'll take it or spent years in court and spend that money on lawyers. Ask any small business that's done work for Trump.
There is no negotiating steel back. Those jobs have been leaving for decades through offshoring, automation, or some combination of the two. And a lot of those jobs won't come back to the Rust Belt because companies prefer to use non-unionized labor in the South.
Trump is getting criticized for "saving jobs" because 1000 jobs are a drop in the bucket.
thats 1100 families lives, a-hole. this is why hill lost: elitists who can't give a s***t about anyone else
Quote:
There is no negotiating steel back. Those jobs have been leaving for decades through offshoring, automation, or some combination of the two. And a lot of those jobs won't come back to the Rust Belt because companies prefer to use non-unionized labor in the South.
Just you watch!
Quote:
They are not specifics. Saying "I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA" is about as specific as saying "I'm going to bring peace to the Middle East." What exactly in NAFTA does he intend to renegotiate? And how do you alter existing provisions of NAFTA without dislocating millions of American jobs and contractual arrangements that depend on the current law?
The same thing with tariffs. Donald Trump wouldn't be the first President to slap tariffs on China. Both Bush and Obama placed tariffs on Chinese steel and tires, respectively, and those tariffs ended up costing more jobs than they saved because they raised prices throughout the supply chains. Why wouldn't a Trump tariff have a similar effect?
That comparison is apples to oranges. Skilled people will work it out. You know that.
You don't understand that the tariff policy is a THREAT of tariffs.
Quote:
Who said "grant"???? It was tax incentives, that's not a grant, that's a giveaway, 800 jobs are STILL going to Mexico.
It doesn't cost taxpayers a dime, in fact it saves them from paying 1100 people unemployment! This deal was made in a short time. Cutting corporate taxes in the future for everyone is not crony.
Quote:
Even if you buy the Republican line that "regulations kill jobs" hook, line, and sinker, why would the "little man" give a flying F about Wall Street jobs?
Lets say it takes you 300 days to open a business in CA and only 35 in TX. Additionally in LA you have to pay lawyers 500k more in fees to deal with paperwork. Where are the jobs going to go? TX, unless the company gets special ways to deal with the regs from govt (Real cronyism)
thats 1100 families lives, a-hole. this is why hill lost: elitists who can't give a s***t about anyone else
Is calling me an a-hole a personal attack?
Just you watch!
That comparison is apples to oranges. Skilled people will work it out. You know that.
You don't understand that the tariff policy is a THREAT of tariffs.
It doesn't cost taxpayers a dime, in fact it saves them from paying 1100 people unemployment! This deal was made in a short time. Cutting corporate taxes in the future for everyone is not crony.
Lets say it takes you 300 days to open a business in CA and only 35 in TX. Additionally in LA you have to pay lawyers 500k more in fees to deal with paperwork. Where are the jobs going to go? TX, unless the company gets special ways to deal with the regs from govt (Real cronyism)
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for steel to comeback.
As far as the Carrier "deal" it going to cost the taxpayers something to make up for the '' $7m in "incentives" Carrier got.
Do you have any real proof of it taking 300 days to open a business in CA and only 35 in TX??? Or is this something you made up? Also when businesses choose a place to open, they take regulations, supply chain needs, qualified workforce availability, tax incentives, AND REGULATORY climate. I'm sure they look over the BIG Picture before building a factory or whatever.
Amazon built a warehouse in Robbinsville, NJ, as I understand it they had a hard time getting workers. The area doesn't have a large supply of unskilled low wage workers. Some places in NJ that use unskilled workers have made arrangements with NJ Transit to have bus runs come from Newark and subsidize the workers bus passes.
So it takes 35 days to go through the regulatory process in TX then it takes you another 280 days to find a full complement of employees. That's if you TX location meets your other needs.
To return to something like the original title. Has anyone else noticed more Trump bumper stickers lately?
I seem to see more of them, especially on pickup trucks.
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.
