The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[TailsTellsTales]

21 hours ago, KHCast said:

Soooo...thoughts on those tariffs from trump that are on the solar panel industry?

That is one of the few rare good things he has done. He is stopping jobs from being sent overseas. If he can stop every trade deal that would be great.

[Patticus]

2 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

That is one of the few rare good things he has done. He is stopping jobs from being sent overseas. If he can stop every trade deal that would be great.

I'm struggling to figure out why Trump trying to hobble a growing industry just because he has a hard-on for fossil fuels is anything other than a bad thing.

If stopping jobs from being sent overseas were his goal, he'd be actively encouraging the growth and development of the renewable energy sector in the US, rather than allowing China et al to take the lead.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

5 minutes ago, Patticus said:

I'm struggling to figure out why Trump trying to hobble a growing industry just because he has a hard-on for fossil fuels is anything other than a bad thing.

If stopping jobs from being sent overseas were his goal, he'd be actively encouraging the growth and development of the renewable energy sector in the US, rather than allowing China et al to take the lead.

You assume he's even able to think that altruistically, or have the business acumen to do that. This is definitely the work of old crusty fossil corporations who don't want anything to change and assume they can somehow strangle the future to preserve their own present.

[KHCast]

43 minutes ago, Patticus said:

I'm struggling to figure out why Trump trying to hobble a growing industry just because he has a hard-on for fossil fuels is anything other than a bad thing.

If stopping jobs from being sent overseas were his goal, he'd be actively encouraging the growth and development of the renewable energy sector in the US, rather than allowing China et al to take the lead.

Something something coal miners. Honestly the “benefits” are really small and short sighted in the gran scheme 

[Chili Dawg]

https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-solar-product-manufacturing-us-tariffs/

Least good ole Musky is a few steps ahead of Trump on this one. 

[Dizcrybe]

2 hours ago, Patticus said:

I'm struggling to figure out why Trump trying to hobble a growing industry just because he has a hard-on for fossil fuels is anything other than a bad thing.

Like I said, he needs something to point at so he can claim he actually cares about coal miners. Just ignore the fact that coal jobs are still decreasing under his administration, he put a tariff on solar panels! That's gotta count for something, right?

2 hours ago, KHCast said:

Something something coal miners. Honestly the “benefits” are really small and short sighted in the gran scheme 

Not unlike most Republican business strategies.

In other news:

Quote

Fearing betrayal on a signature campaign issue, President Donald Trump’s loyalists across the country are lashing out against his proposal to create a path to citizenship for nearly 2 million “Dreamer” immigrants.

Trump-aligned candidates from Nevada and Virginia rejected the notion outright. The president’s most loyal media ally, Breitbart News, attacked him as “Amnesty Don.” And outside groups who cheered the hard-line rhetoric that dominated Trump’s campaign warned of a fierce backlash against the president’s party in November’s midterm elections.

“There’s a real potential for disaster,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the far-right Center for Immigration Studies. “The president hasn’t sold out his voters yet. But I think it’s important that his supporters are making clear to him that they’re keeping an eye on him.”

The public scolding was aimed at a president who has changed course under pressure before. Yet Trump has faced no greater test on a more significant issue than this one, which dominated his outsider candidacy and inspired a coalition of working-class voters that fueled his unlikely rise. Now, barely a year into his presidency, Trump can bend either to the will of his fiery base or the pressure to govern and compromise.

His leadership may determine the fate of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants and whether his party can improve its standing among a surging group of Hispanic voters. It may also alienate those who love him most.

“There’s a Trump movement. And It’s not necessarily about Donald Trump,” said Corey Stewart, a Republican Senate candidate in Virginia and a vocal Trump ally. “It’s about the things that Donald Trump campaigned and stood for during his campaign. Ultimately, every elected leader needs to stay true to the message that they ran on, otherwise people will leave them.”

 

[Blacklightning]

Okay this was just too fucking funny not to share.

tl;dr, Susan Collins brings a "talking stick" into congress during the shutdown and one of the Republicans nearly breaks a glass elephant with it.

[Dizcrybe]

That's some early Breaking Bad shit right there

[Tani Coyote]

15 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

That is one of the few rare good things he has done. He is stopping jobs from being sent overseas. If he can stop every trade deal that would be great.

Protectionism is a lie.

Sure, you keep jobs from going overseas.

But now, everyone else has to pay higher prices for goods.

Let's say there are 1,000 people laid off by a trade deal, each bringing in an average of $50,000 a year. They are bringing $50 million to the economy total, not counting the multiplier effect. Now imagine the goods they were producing are consumed by 1,000,000 people, and the resulting lower cost of production has lowered the price per unit by $55. That's $55 million saved, which can be spent elsewhere. The economy has a net gain of $5 million, and that's without considering the multiplier effect.

99% of the time, protectionism is a net loss for a developed country.

Not all jobs can go overseas, because not every operation can just relocate. The idea the US economy will somehow enter an endless downward spiral with free trade is just hilariously wrong. And even if the US economy did shrink, let's consider the key detail here: everyone else has more money to spend. Quality of life will go up.

The only reason we get antsy about job losses from free trade is because the people who are unemployed find it easier to get out and protest than the people who only saw a slight decrease in living expenses. But in total, free trade is a net gain for everyone.

Sure, free trade has its discontents. It has left the Rust Belt ravaged, hence the name Rust Belt. But that isn't an argument for protectionism. That's an argument for a larger welfare system that ensures nobody has to worry about putting food on the table, while also providing for retraining and relocation so they can move to new jobs and careers.

Oh, unionization as well. Trump and co. like to act as if they are the saviors of the industrial heartland, but strong anti-union policies are part of why the Rust Belt is in such dire straits to begin with.

[TailsTellsTales]

51 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Protectionism is a lie.

Sure, you keep jobs from going overseas.

But now, everyone else has to pay higher prices for goods.

Let's say there are 1,000 people laid off by a trade deal, each bringing in an average of $50,000 a year. They are bringing $50 million to the economy total, not counting the multiplier effect. Now imagine the goods they were producing are consumed by 1,000,000 people, and the resulting lower cost of production has lowered the price per unit by $55. That's $55 million saved, which can be spent elsewhere. The economy has a net gain of $5 million, and that's without considering the multiplier effect.

99% of the time, protectionism is a net loss for a developed country.

Not all jobs can go overseas, because not every operation can just relocate. The idea the US economy will somehow enter an endless downward spiral with free trade is just hilariously wrong. And even if the US economy did shrink, let's consider the key detail here: everyone else has more money to spend. Quality of life will go up.

The only reason we get antsy about job losses from free trade is because the people who are unemployed find it easier to get out and protest than the people who only saw a slight decrease in living expenses. But in total, free trade is a net gain for everyone.

Sure, free trade has its discontents. It has left the Rust Belt ravaged, hence the name Rust Belt. But that isn't an argument for protectionism. That's an argument for a larger welfare system that ensures nobody has to worry about putting food on the table, while also providing for retraining and relocation so they can move to new jobs and careers.

Oh, unionization as well. Trump and co. like to act as if they are the saviors of the industrial heartland, but strong anti-union policies are part of why the Rust Belt is in such dire straits to begin with.

Yeah I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I rather have protectionism then globalism. Every time a new trade deal is signed into law, millions of good paying jobs are sent overseas and are replaced with minimum wage jobs. The net gain is not worth it since that net gain goes to ceos and not workers. I rather pay a little more if I know that extra cost will go to workers. And sadly Trump is not the savior for unions but at least he was one of two candidates who fiercely fought free trade with the other being of course Sanders. The U.S. can provide for itself mostly. So there is no need to keep having trade deals that cause greedy companies to ship jobs overseas to pay horrific wages in other countries. Anyway that are my reasons for being against trade deals.

[Patticus]

I don't mean to wade into a debate that I'm not adequately equipped to engage in, but I feel like a point is being missed here:

International trade deals play an invaluable role in projecting American influence overseas, protecting and securing its interests, and maintaining or improving relations with other nations and powers. Trade deals are an important component of the national security and diplomatic apparatus, because they foster friendly ties and promote mutual co-operation for the benefit of all parties. Notice how the TPP's member states are still essentially in the TPP, doing deals with each other quite happily at America's expense, leaving the US at a great disadvantage.

And yes, jobs can and do shift from one country to another, it happens, but let's face facts: In some sectors, jobs like to go where the wages are cheap, stay until they're not, and then move on. It's up to the government to ensure that industries in decline or on the move don't leave destroyed regions in their wake.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/27/politics/trump-hotel-occupancy-rates-data/index.html

Sure Trump will take to Twitter to hate on this. CNN has found that Trump's hotel in New York was far emptier and far pricier than other luxury hotels in New York City during last year.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/27/politics/state-of-the-union-immigration-trump/index.html

Trump to announce his immigration plan in Tuesday's State of the Union. He would provide a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers in exchange for a $25 billion border wall.

It's unlikely to go anywhere though. Many Republicans don't like the amnesty or even the spending, and Democrats are enormously against the wall.

I won't be surprised if the final bill Congress agrees on removes the wall in favor of mobile forces, though.

Quote

The net gain is not worth it since that net gain goes to ceos and not workers.

That's an argument for socialism, not artificially inflating prices.

You may be saving some workers' jobs, but when you keep jobs in the USA, you are lowering every other workers' quality of life. That is also where the idea the gain only goes to CEOs is wrong; if importing from overseas didn't lower prices for everyday consumers, we wouldn't have monoliths like Walmart.

That aside, this is why the modern Democrats are so awful, because they are pro-free trade but only halfheartedly supportive of robust social reforms to smooth over issues arising from it.

[TailsTellsTales]

2 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

That's an argument for socialism, not artificially inflating prices.

You may be saving some workers' jobs, but when you keep jobs in the USA, you are lowering every other workers' quality of life. That is also where the idea the gain only goes to CEOs is wrong; if importing from overseas didn't lower prices for everyday consumers, we wouldn't have monoliths like Walmart.

That aside, this is why the modern Democrats are so awful, because they are pro-free trade but only halfheartedly supportive of robust social reforms to smooth over issues arising from it.

I am pretty sure workers quality of life is already lower or at least not better and part of that is the greed from giant profitable corporations continuing to ship good paying jobs overseas and replacing them with minimum wage jobs. Yeah that product made in China is cheaper but now all those people who lost their jobs work for less effectively cancelling any benefit of cheaper made products.

Not to mention the trade deals are ALWAYS written by corporations and not by the people. Both sides are guilty of this which is why democrats have basically almost killed off their working class votes since they no longer stand up for them.

Also really walmart? The company who makes massive sums of money and yet refuses to pay their workers better? The same company where the ceo makes so much that it takes several months for one employee to make what the ceo makes in one hour, and somehow this is arguing that free trade is a good thing?

I am sorry, I am trying to see it from a different point of view however we spent decades with free trade deals and it has brought nothing but cheaper goods at the cost of millions of jobs being replaced with minimum wage jobs.

It will be hard to convince people in the U.S. to go along with anymore free trade deals unless they can guarantee they actually BENEFIT the U.S. with JOBS that pay decently.

[Dizcrybe]

13 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Not to mention the trade deals are ALWAYS written by corporations and not by the people. Both sides are guilty of this which is why democrats have basically almost killed off their working class votes since they no longer stand up for them.

Okay I'm gonna stop you right here. You don't get to make that claim after Dems overwhelming voted against not one, but two Republican bills that would fuck the economy in half. I get you're angry at Dems for not just fixing America overnight, but this is just straight up ignoring facts.

13 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Also really walmart? The company who makes massive sums of money and yet refuses to pay their workers better? The same company where the ceo makes so much that it takes several months for one employee to make what the ceo makes in one hour, and somehow this is arguing that free trade is a good thing?

I'm pretty sure his argument was that free trade is good because people can buy goods at Walmart for dirt-ass cheap, not because they treat their workers like crap.

14 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Yeah that product made in China is cheaper but now all those people who lost their jobs work for less effectively cancelling any benefit of cheaper made products.

Here's a question: do you think that if we somehow got all those jobs back, CEOs wouldn't give them a salary just barely exceeding minimum wage, if that? It's not like bringing jobs back to America is going to fix income equality. Plus, like Oglivie said, all that's really gonna do is produce shit nobody can afford because they're still too broke. And if manufacturers are spending all this money to make a product and nobody's buying it, well...

[RedFox99]

Firstpost (@firstpost) Tweeted:
A 12-year-old girl was slapped 168 times over a period of six days by her classmates at a residential #school on the instructions of their teacher, the child's father complained to school authorities and police | #MadhyaPradesh https://t.co/izx9VLNJdf

I'm going to be honest, I think corporal punishment only be done by a child's parents or primary guardian so reading this makes feel... *sigh*. 

[Tara]

4 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

I'm going to be honest, I think corporal punishment only be done by a child's parents or primary guardian so reading this makes feel... *sigh*. 

I, er... think maybe you're missing the bigger picture here.

[RedFox99]

4 minutes ago, Tara said:

I, er... think maybe you're missing the bigger picture here.

Look I think this is excessive as well. Sorry for not being clear.

[Dizcrybe]

That's pretty terrible, to be sure, but... I don't see how it relates to American politics.

[Tani Coyote]

22 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

now all those people who lost their jobs work for less effectively cancelling any benefit of cheaper made products.

This is a false assumption.

Statistics show that free trade is generally a net gain for a society. The wages lost by the workers are eclipsed by the savings spread across a larger consumer pool.

It's just people protest job loss (due to free time) more effectively than they protest on favor of paying a dollar or two less for a product.

Quote

Not to mention the trade deals are ALWAYS written by corporations and not by the people.

Fair enough but that doesn't detract from the point that free trade without this issue would be a net good. Your problem is circumstantial, not inherent to free trade itself.

Quote

Also really walmart? The company who makes massive sums of money and yet refuses to pay their workers better? The same company where the ceo makes so much that it takes several months for one employee to make what the ceo makes in one hour, and somehow this is arguing that free trade is a good thing?

As Dizcrybe already qualified, I brought in Walmart because of their cheap prices, not the fact they treat their workers like crap.

The cheap prices are ultimately the result of cheap sources of goods, not the low wages. Walmart has a massive enough volume they are unlikely to see much of a price raise from better wages.

And indeed, we have seen that raising the minimum wage does not generally increase prices. So where's the source of cheapness? The goods themselves.

Quote

I am sorry, I am trying to see it from a different point of view however we spent decades with free trade deals and it has brought nothing but cheaper goods at the cost of millions of jobs being replaced with minimum wage jobs.

You keep ignoring how good it is for the people who didn't lose their jobs.

Your solution to job loss is to reverse it (good luck with that, comparative advantage is a thing), and force everyone to pay higher prices. My solution is to tax increased profit margins to pay for a larger welfare state and retraining.

I have to say mine seems like the better option because everyone wins except the capitalists. And I'm a commie, so you already know my thoughts on this arrangement.

Quote

It will be hard to convince people in the U.S. to go along with anymore free trade deals unless they can guarantee they actually BENEFIT the U.S. with JOBS that pay decently.

Or we could stop worshipping employment. We should expand our consideration of work. Parenting. Volunteering. Education. This would help the gender gap enormously as well, as much of women's wage discrimination has its roots in women's tendency to pick up care-related jobs, which aren't given appropriate value.

We should also build up our welfare state. People should tie their dignity to being human, not to whether or not they work for some CEO.

For the record, "everyone must work to eat" is an insane right wing talking point, completely at odds with economic theory that has demonstrated mass employment would actually hurt the economy.

[8ther]

I have question, i registered to vote for the first time in 2016, do i have to register again to vote this year?

[KHCast]

Well this is good to hear, even if it’s way past due. Amazed there are tons of people mad at this, or upset that people aren’t grateful and acting saying we’re “entitled” because we think this is something that should be common by now 

also love the whole “it’s a option, and expensive, that’s the problem, and why many businesses don’t offer it”. Because  essentially forcing sick workers to come in, lest they don’t get the money they may need is a great idea.(plus it probably costs them more in productivity than to do sick leave, as the risk of contamination is higher by again, leaving the worker with the option to work if they want to get paid.)

[Dizcrybe]

RE: bottom tweet

Honestly, this move well exceeds my expectations of corporations. Corporations aren't people; they're money-making machines that only think about how they can make an immediate profit.

[KHCast]

It’s still a bare essential that shouldn’t be something we’re shocked and amazed by. It only now happening is honestly ridiculous. Good that it’s happenimg nonetheless, but still ridiculous 

[Dizcrybe]

It shouldn't be, but this is just the nature of corporations, and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that stuff like this is by design

1. Have a problem for an extended period of time
2. Finally do just enough to fix the problem
3. Get praised for being the "good guy" company and receive good PR
4. Good PR = more business

[Patticus]

This is how corporations behave, in countries where there aren't enough regulations to ensure that the workforce is given inadequate provision for being treated like human beings rather than warm bodies to be used up and thrown away.