Britain votes to exit EU

[peplaw06]

Why do some ignore the fact that people aren't just wage earners, they're consumers. When you "bring that job back" from China or Mexico, the worker here cannot possibly do the job for as little as his Chinese or Mexican counterpart. Literally he can't, because of our minimum wage which is multiples higher. So as Dooms says, it's a tax on ourselves. Costs of basic goods for people are going to be not just a few percentage points higher, but MUCH higher.

Here's a question: If you want to be isolationist country-wide, why not make it even smaller? Why not deal only with people in your own state, or even county or city? How do you think that would work?

None of this has anything to do with Wall Street tricking us. This is basic economics that has nothing to do with the stock or bond markets.

This.

It's a minimum wage issue... and in general it's an over-regulation issue. People who have no understanding of economics have been making the "greedy companies" out to be the bad guys for decades. Then they pass laws, act like they're looking out for the consumer... but it only hurts the consumer in the end.

 

[peplaw06]

That sounds like the typical liberal mantra. Eliminating all the b/s up there will absolutely do something.

I mean do something as it pertains to the budget deficit. Trump doesn't even know how much he can cut on spending by "eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse." He thinks it's a catchy phrase, and no one could possibly be against it. But it's not a substantive spending cut. At best, it's probably a 1% cut in spending outlays.

And as fyi, just because it might not make a major dent in the ridiculous 19+ trillion in debt we are doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. This is OUR fucking money they are throwing away.

I didn't say it shouldn't be done... I said it's not going to accomplish anything vis a vis the budget defecit.

Something needs to be done about entitlements, no doubt. The problem is when one particular party or group of conservative people suggests some course of action, the democrats run to the masses and the media screaming to high heavens that old people are hated, children and women are hated, poor people are hated etc etc

Who cares? Those people who are on the government teat are voting democrat anyway. As you and others have said, Trump doesn't hesitate to "tell it like it is," no matter who he offends. So why would he hesitate on this issue of cutting entitlement spending? It's probably just because he has no intention of cutting entitlements, just as he's said.

This is another liberal theme and has been disproven time and time again.

It's a liberal theme that cutting taxes brings in less revenue to the government? Da fuq?

Slashing our ridiculous corporate tax rate and making it more penal for companies to outsource jobs (something Trump also supports) creates more people in the workforce here, which vastly increases revenues to the government. Getting more people back to work and doing something to grow the middle class (unlike Obama, who has done everything possible to increase dependence on government and shrink the middle class) also reduced people's dependence on government, which means less people on government assistance, which saves tons of money.

Slashing corporate taxes is a good idea. Penalizing (aka over-regulating) companies for manufacturing goods in other places is a terrible one. Take away the overbearing regulations that force companies to seek cheaper labor, and you have something that will be more likely to have the effect that you have laid out here.

And cutting corporate taxes isn't an overnight fix to the budget issue. That's going to take years to see more jobs created, more tax revenue coming in, and less people on government assistance. It's a good long term solution, but there's still a serious budget defecit right now, that will be made worse in the short-term by cutting taxes without serious spending cuts.

He said he's going to slash individual and corporate taxes, which is a principle conservative ideal.

Cutting spending would be an economically conservative ideal too... why isn't he serious about that?

We shall see I guess. I'd rather take my chances with Trump though over Hillary, who I know is going to continue vast out of control spending, almost assuredly continue to raise corporate and middle/higher income earners fed income taxes, doesn't believe in capitalism and has overseen some of the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of our country. In addition she loves radical Muslims, loves PlannedParenthood, loves Black Lives Matter and a whole host of other loser groups.

You don't need to sell me on the ills of Hillary. Trump's just not going to be much better.

 

[peplaw06]

Agree the govt is a huge problem, but not the only problem.

Greed is a part of it as well. Wall St and hedge funds and the fixation on the next quarter always having to be more profitable than the the last quarter rather than thinking long term. Its all short sighted. Sure its a different world today but what could possibly be wrong with a long term business model that makes a decent profit year after year after year and is a household name? Why do companies always have to try and squeeze every possible penny of profit and not settle for a sound business/fiscal model that sustains for long term providing good service and/or product and a fair price for consumers? Why do CEO's need to continually make millions and millions and millions while the workers cant even make a living that keeps up with the continual cost of living increases? Its greed. Nothing else.

So yea, the govt is a huge problem, but not the only problem.

I used to hate unions. Actually still do even tho I was a teamster at one time. But unions came about for one primary reason, greedy owners and corporations not wanting to fairly compensate their employees. I hate democraps and I hate unions, but I also hate greedy corporations.

This is the longest substantive post I've seen you make in this thread... And I'm pretty much convinced you don't have a clue.

I mean really, you're a Trump supporter, and you're complaining about the evils of greedy corporations? Do you even know what he's done his whole life? The name Trump is synonymous with greed.

Despite your protestations, you can't paint all companies with the broad brush of maximizing profits at the expense of their labor force and consumers. If that's all they cared about, no one would make above the minimum wage. That's not what happens in the real world. Instead corporations invest in employees and pay wages above the minimum in order to keep the good ones.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/

Minimum wage workers are generally young people, and part-time workers. In other words, they're either newly entering the workforce, or they're not working towards a career. In all, minimum wage workers make up 4% of all hourly wage workers and 3% of all salaried workers.

This means companies are not just paying as little in wages as possible, which means they're not trying to squeeze every possible penny of profit, like you say. And this is just on this one issue. There are probably hundreds of other examples out there of companies doing things for "the greater good" as opposed to trying to only maximize profits.

This demonization of corporations is seriously a progressive, socialistic ideal... which is rather ironic considering that's the label you have tried to apply to me when I disagree with you on anything (hey, there's the ad hominem again).

So like I said, you seem to be clueless.

 

[dbair1967]

I mean do something as it pertains to the budget deficit. Trump doesn't even know how much he can cut on spending by "eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse." He thinks it's a catchy phrase, and no one could possibly be against it. But it's not a substantive spending cut. At best, it's probably a 1% cut in spending outlays.

The anti- waste/fraud/abuse is why democrats and establishment republicans hate Trump. They want this system to remain as-is because it enables them.

I didn't say it shouldn't be done... I said it's not going to accomplish anything vis a vis the budget defecit.

You know this how exactly? Have you thoroughly evaluated all fed spending or something?

It's a liberal theme that cutting taxes brings in less revenue to the government? Da fuq?

Its a liberal theme that you don't get the concept. Again, cut corporate taxes and companies will have more funds at their disposal to grow. This isn't rocket science.

Penalizing (aka over-regulating) companies for manufacturing goods in other places is a terrible one. Take away the overbearing regulations that force companies to seek cheaper labor, and you have something that will be more likely to have the effect that you have laid out here.

I didn't say penalize them for manufacturing goods elsewhere. But if they do what they say and get our corporate tax rates much more competitive, companies should be penalized for cutting bait and running. They leave because its more competitive to run their business elsewhere and our astronomically high corporate tax rates is reason #1. Of course if democraps have their way and drastically raise minimum wage, it'll give another huge incentive for companies to move elsewhere and hire cheaper labor (which is exactly what liberals want, because it means more un/under employed people here and more dependence on the government)

And cutting corporate taxes isn't an overnight fix to the budget issue. That's going to take years to see more jobs created, more tax revenue coming in, and less people on government assistance. It's a good long term solution, but there's still a serious budget defecit right now, that will be made worse in the short-term by cutting taxes without serious spending cuts.

People like you said the same shit in 1980, and look what happened

Cutting spending would be an economically conservative ideal too... why isn't he serious about that?

He'll run the country like a business, as it should be. I have confidence in him in that. Far more than Clinton for sure.

You don't need to sell me on the ills of Hillary. Trump's just not going to be much better.

The country is done if she gets elected. At least we have a chance if Trump wins.

 

[Doomsday]

Agree the govt is a huge problem, but not the only problem.

So yea, the govt is a huge problem, but not the only problem.

Nobody said it was the only problem, but it IS the main problem.

But unions came about for one primary reason, greedy owners and corporations not wanting to fairly compensate their employees.

Bull. Shit. Henry Ford invented the 40 hour week and many high pay and other bennies for the workers which other companies had to emulate in order to compete. This was before unions came to be in this country.

The unions - like most everything we see today that started with ostensibly good intentions - became nothing but a tool for first the mob, and then the Left. The Mob used its political power to get and stay rich and to cover their misdeeds, the Left uses its political power to stay in power and to inhibit technological progress. PEX pipe is a example - Union-bought politicians kept this very efficient, reliable, safe and easy to install and maintain product forbidden in building codes for decades, just so union jobs wouldn't be lost. This is why you still have lead pipes in the Rust Belt. There's many other examples of this.

The MARKET would have given us every "union" bennie we see today, it was already happening.

Cloward and Piven are two people you should study. Under the guise of "eliminating poverty" they proposed using unions, the blacks and the poor to overload the system, to collapse it. They proposed usurping the Democrat party to obtain these ends. Their strategy was implemented in the 60s and IS working - you're starting to see the effects of it. Oh and meanwhile, they of course spend decades demagoguing "greedy corporations" and fools like you just lap that shit right up. My fucking GOD, people are SO stupid and gullible.

Congrats, this is the first smart thing you've said in this thread.

Hell it might be your best post ever here.

More likely it's the first one you ever read because it was on your 2nd grade reading level and was one short sentence.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Nobody said it was the only problem, but it IS the main problem.
Bull. Shit. Henry Ford invented the 40 hour week and many high pay and other bennies for the workers which other companies had to emulate in order to compete. This was before unions came to be in this country.

The unions - like most everything we see today that started with ostensibly good intentions - became nothing but a tool for first the mob, and then the Left. The Mob used its political power to get and stay rich and to cover their misdeeds, the Left uses its political power to stay in power and to inhibit technological progress. PEX pipe is a example - Union-bought politicians kept this very efficient, reliable, safe and easy to install and maintain product forbidden in building codes for decades, just so union jobs wouldn't be lost. This is why you still have lead pipes in the Rust Belt. There's many other examples of this.

The MARKET would have given us every "union" bennie we see today, it was already happening.

Cloward and Piven are two people you should study. Under the guise of "eliminating poverty" they proposed using unions, the blacks and the poor to overload the system, to collapse it. They proposed usurping the Democrat party to obtain these ends. Their strategy was implemented in the 60s and IS working - you're starting to see the effects of it. Oh and meanwhile, they of course spend decades demagoguing "greedy corporations" and fools like you just lap that shit right up. My fucking GOD, people are SO stupid and gullible.
More likely it's the first one you ever read because it was on your 2nd grade reading level and was one short sentence.

Ford is best described as an early adopter of today’s familiar working hours, experts said.

"That happened more than 60 years after workers, through their unions, began organizing for an eight-hour day in the 1860s," said David Bensman, a professor at Rutgers University's School of Management and Labor Relations. "When Ford adopted the eight-hour day for his factory, he was responding to a working force that had been demanding the eight-hour day for a long time."

Other experts agreed that labor unions, rather than Ford, deserve the primary credit for today’s working-hour schedule -- including Matt Anderson, curator of transportation at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Mich.

"Henry Ford was an early proponent of the five-day week, but the American Federation of Labor fought for it to be adopted more widely via contract negotiations," Anderson said. "Unions absolutely deserve much credit for the reform."


Does the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week come from Henry Ford, or labor unions? | PolitiFact




Surprisingly, Ford didn’t do it for scientific reasons (or solely for the health of his employees). Rather, one of the main reasons he came up with the idea to reduce the working hours of his staff was so employees would have enough free time to go out and realize they needed to buy stuff.

In an interview published in World’s Work magazine in 1926, Ford explains why he switched his workers from a 6-day, 48-hour workweek to a 5-day, 40-hour workweek but still paid employees the same wages:

Leisure is an indispensable ingredient in a growing consumer market because working people need to have enough free time to find uses for consumer products, including automobiles.?’?Henry Ford
So the 8-hour work day, 5-day workweek wasn’t chosen as the way to work for scientific reasons; instead, it was partly driven by the goal of increasing consumption.


The surprising reason we have a 40-hour week – Crew blog




Ford was tired of continuously losing good employees, he was trying to increase employee retention and at the same time increase profits, so he basically doubled wages and implemented a 5-day work week, and in the process effectively invented the modern weekend. It is Henry Ford who is widely credited with contributing to the creation of a middle class in the United States.

In addition, if you look at why Henry Ford did this, you will see that his reasons had nothing to do with charity, and everything to do with increasing profits and dealing with the forces of competition.

Economic Myths: The 5 Day Work Week And The 8 Hour Day « Hispanic Pundit

 

[NoMoRedJ]

"greedy corporations" and fools like you just lap that shit right up. My fucking GOD, people are SO stupid and gullible.

You dont think corporations are greedy and you are calling me or others stupid?

 

[Dodger12]

Good debate all the way around and I'd like to quote some folks but there are just too many good (and not so good points) that I wouldn't know where to start.

First off, this whole argument has nothing to do with the law so I don't know why some folks jumped on Pep and brought up his profession in response to one of his posts. Maybe it's his writing style but I still think that was kind of lame, especially since he made some good points. I will say that Pep brings up some solid points on issues that Trump is going to have to overcome. I'm a Trump supporter by default because I'll support the Republican ticket but he's got to get clear on the major issues and where he stands on those issues. His tactic of repeating the same lines over and over again like it's some commercial for Trump Corp won't cut it when he's debating Hillary who is a career politician.

Trump has to surround himself with some solid domestic and foreign policy gurus and be able to explain to the country where he wants to take it as President and do so in an articulate way. "Hillary slept when Benghazi was attacked," "Hillary didn't answer the phone," "Hillary should be in jail," "I'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it," "China has to play fair," and "I'm going to make America great again" really have no substance when millions of people will be watching Trump debate Hillary. Hell, Romney destroyed Obama with facts in the first debate then took his foot off the gas for some reason and lost all the momentum. Trump can't afford to do that and the debates will either make or break him.

I hate Hillary but Trump also has his share of issues.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Good debate all the way around and I'd like to quote some folks but there are just too many good (and not so good points) that I wouldn't know where to start.

First off, this whole argument has nothing to do with the law so I don't know why some folks jumped on Pep and brought up his profession in response to one of his posts. Maybe it's his writing style but I still think that was kind of lame, especially since he made some good points. I will say that Pep brings up some solid points on issues that Trump is going to have to overcome. I'm a Trump supporter by default because I'll support the Republican ticket but he's got to get clear on the major issues and where he stands on those issues. His tactic of repeating the same lines over and over again like it's some commercial for Trump Corp won't cut it when he's debating Hillary who is a career politician.

Trump has to surround himself with some solid domestic and foreign policy gurus and be able to explain to the country where he wants to take it as President and do so in an articulate way. "Hillary slept when Benghazi was attacked," "Hillary didn't answer the phone," "Hillary should be in jail," "I'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it," "China has to play fair," and "I'm going to make America great again" really have no substance when millions of people will be watching Trump debate Hillary. Hell, Romney destroyed Obama with facts in the first debate then took his foot off the gas for some reason and lost all the momentum. Trump can't afford to do that and the debates will either make or break him.

I hate Hillary but Trump also has his share of issues.

Trump is simply the lesser of the 2 evils. At his worst he will be far better than Hillary at her best. Once again the Rep nominee is better by default. And all of it is a sad testimonial to the state of affairs we find ourselves in as a country.

 

[SixisBetter]

Good debate all the way around

Lurked in this thread off and on since Brexit took place, and I agree with Dodger.
Props to the whole crew.

 

[Doomsday]

You dont think corporations are greedy

Never said that. PEOPLE in corporations can be greedy, can violate laws, can commit fraud. But it is the exception, not the rule. It's akin to percentage of bad cops vs. the good ones. Your problem, as pointed out earlier, is you try to broad brush everything.

Ford is best described as an early adopter of today’s familiar working hours, experts said.

"That happened more than 60 years after workers, through their unions, began organizing for an eight-hour day in the 1860s," said David Bensman, a pr

Okay, so the fact that organized labor existed before Ford means what exactly? He definitely didn't get any political pressure from it, or faced strikes. It wasn't influential towards his decision making. He was a forward thinking businessman and his competition got stung by his labor policies until they too fell in line. Soon you'll be linking us to a site that claims Ford started making his cars after the government started making all these roads.

It's okay for you to ignore the rest of my post, choosing to just deflect with the Ford stuff that's a red herring vs. what I said anyway. You're on record saying you want moar big government to punish "greedy" corporations and put tariffs on those mean ole companies who manufacture outside our borders. You want moar big government to "fix" a problem big government caused. That's what makes you a sucker and foolish, and stupid.

 

[Doomsday]

Once again the Rep nominee is better by default.

Especially when he is just a big government tax and spend liberal who merely traded in his lifetime (D) for a (R).

 

[Doomsday]

Can anyone here even remotely articulate Trump's core beliefs? I'd really like to see that. Thus far, he's been a towering fail at articulating them himself.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Never said that. PEOPLE in corporations can be greedy, can violate laws, can commit fraud. But it is the exception, not the rule. It's akin to percentage of bad cops vs. the good ones. Your problem, as pointed out earlier, is you try to broad brush everything.
Okay, so the fact that organized labor existed before Ford means what exactly? He definitely didn't get any political pressure from it, or faced strikes. It wasn't influential towards his decision making. He was a forward thinking businessman and his competition got stung by his labor policies until they too fell in line. Soon you'll be linking us to a site that claims Ford started making his cars after the government started making all these roads.

It's okay for you to ignore the rest of my post, choosing to just deflect with the Ford stuff that's a red herring vs. what I said anyway. You're on record saying you want moar big government to punish "greedy" corporations and put tariffs on those mean ole companies who manufacture outside our borders. You want moar big government to "fix" a problem big government caused. That's what makes you a sucker and foolish, and stupid.

Im anything but an advocate for big government. If it were up to me Id reduce the government by about 90-95%. Id have a federal government for national defense primarily and not a whole lot more. AT the state or local level Id have govt mostly for roads, trash, police & fire, and not much else. Id keep the govt out of the education system.

Im all for true competition and a free market, but dont really have that with our current mess where the govt helps to protect monopolies. True competition in a true free market is what is best for consumers. If we would let the market dictate prices for goods and services we would see better prices for consumers and better and more efficient run businesses. Everybody would benefit. Instead we have a bureaucratic inefficient system that limits true competition and essentially protects the greedy ways of corporations and politicians.

If you think otherwise then you are the foolish and stupid sucker.

Have a true free market where true competition exists and then the market would dictate prices. Instead we have a controlled system that keeps prices up and makes it hard for true competition.

Do you think there is any real competition when it comes to energy/oil and what consumers pay? With utilities? With tv/internet? Healthcare? The list could go on.

Tell me yes there is true competition and then you reveal that you are the biggest dumbass in this thread.

 

[onlyonenow]

Can anyone here even remotely articulate Trump's core beliefs? I'd really like to see that. Thus far, he's been a towering fail at articulating them himself.

we have had nothing but politicians with 'core beliefs' for how long and look where it has gotten us. You are just being blind and willfully stupid.

WE NEED MASSIVE CHANGE. And right now Trump is our best bet. Get your head out of your ass.

 

[onlyonenow]

Good debate all the way around and I'd like to quote some folks but there are just too many good (and not so good points) that I wouldn't know where to start.

First off, this whole argument has nothing to do with the law so I don't know why some folks jumped on Pep and brought up his profession in response to one of his posts. Maybe it's his writing style but I still think that was kind of lame, especially since he made some good points. I will say that Pep brings up some solid points on issues that Trump is going to have to overcome. I'm a Trump supporter by default because I'll support the Republican ticket but he's got to get clear on the major issues and where he stands on those issues. His tactic of repeating the same lines over and over again like it's some commercial for Trump Corp won't cut it when he's debating Hillary who is a career politician.

Trump has to surround himself with some solid domestic and foreign policy gurus and be able to explain to the country where he wants to take it as President and do so in an articulate way. "Hillary slept when Benghazi was attacked," "Hillary didn't answer the phone," "Hillary should be in jail," "I'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it," "China has to play fair," and "I'm going to make America great again" really have no substance when millions of people will be watching Trump debate Hillary. Hell, Romney destroyed Obama with facts in the first debate then took his foot off the gas for some reason and lost all the momentum. Trump can't afford to do that and the debates will either make or break him.

I hate Hillary but Trump also has his share of issues.

you are just as blind as dooms. Where have all these 'experts' to presidents for the last 40 years or so gotten us?

And Trump has figured out what Joseph Goebbels and the democrats have known for a long time with people who have short attention spans and are not willing to look hard at things.

Repeat the same thing again and again- eventually it becomes accepted whether its true or false.

That is why "Hilary is a crook' Hilary is incompetent' Hilary has been bought and sold more times than any stock in the market' is the way HE HAS TO GO.

There are too many people in this country too lazy, too stupid, too blind to actually look at things and ask intelligent questions. IF we had that we would not have Hilary and Obama and the rest of our current political class on both sides of the isle. You have TO KICK THE TABLE OVER AND TRUMP IS OUR BEST BET AT THAT.

 

[onlyonenow]

one more thing people. This might be the last election where we have a chance to really start changes that will prevent a second American Civil War. Its getting that bad.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

we have had nothing but politicians with 'core beliefs' for how long and look where it has gotten us. You are just being blind and willfully stupid.

WE NEED MASSIVE CHANGE. And right now Trump is our best bet. Get your head out of your ass.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dbair1967]

Can anyone here even remotely articulate Trump's core beliefs? I'd really like to see that. Thus far, he's been a towering fail at articulating them himself.

Can you articulate Hillary's? Or that guy running as Libertarian?

 

[VTA]

Can anyone here even remotely articulate Trump's core beliefs? I'd really like to see that. Thus far, he's been a towering fail at articulating them himself.

Self aggrandizement. More wealth; greater influence. Just like the rest.
The only difference might very well be the means of achieving that, and if righting this listing ship will do that for him, he’ll do it. It’s pretty clear that Hilary’s means are the polar opposite, and Johnson has as even less of chance than Ron Paul did, who at least had a broader appeal, but still, no chance.

Trump will do the things he’s proclaiming if it will increase his stature. If that’s his motivation, so be it, the U.S. benefits. He's no more moral than the others, only different. Those are the choices.

I personally think he stands a great chance of being the next U.S. President to be assassinated, because our political establishment has been so deeply compromised with anti-American elements who won't easily give up the ground they've gained.