mustardoverlordI want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them.
I was saying all along that this was the main reason
mustardoverlordAll tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.
It's not all it does, it also allows for more investment. He is also not only going to lower taxes for the wealthy, he is going to lower it for everyone.
mustardoverlordIf there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).
You are a fool if you believe Hillary will not pass TPP, she has called it the golden standard before the public opinion of it shifted towards the worse, and suddenly (like many of her other positions) she suddenly changed opinion about it. Leaked emails from Podesta even revealed that she was (obviously) going to pass it regardless. And what is so ludicrous about demanding countries to actually pay for their protection? This dependance on the US is not helping anyone other than the american arms industry. This is exactly the kind of stuff he is talking about when he is saying you guys are being ripped off.
mustardoverlordWhen Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.
How exactly does it benefit the corporations not to be able to outsource to 3rd world countries without consequences anymore? Seems like mental gymnastics to me, there is a reason all the big business hates Trump. If Trump get's this through, it will be a major blow for the big global corporations and a big win for the average working man.
mustardoverlordFirst of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.
I agree that there needs to be a living-wage. I work a minimum wage job while studying here, and I can barely say that it is worth my time with a straight face, and I make 17USD/hour. Doesn't change the fact that having a real job good job is vastly superior to receiving welfare. It makes you independant and you are no longer a burden for the taxpayer.
mustardoverlordThere is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.
The main reason unemployment "vastly decreased" under Obama, is because A: it could pretty much only go up after 2008 and B: just like the big scandal in Brazil and elsewhere, the definition of what it means to be fully employed has been watered down. The reality is that a large majority of the jobs created, are worthless part-time minimumwage jobs that only look good as a number in a statistic. It's the same everywhere.
mustardoverlordLastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.
I suppose it is very different in your country and mine, but here we have a huge problem with people not working because they don't feel it's worth it, when they can get basically the same from the welfarestate doing nothing. Anyhow, surely everybody can agree that putting these people to work is a better solution for everybody.
No matter how this turns out, it wont be pretty. It seems like there is a huge divide like I have never seen before, it's just like back here in europe. I expect massive turmoil no matter who wins. 2 years ago, I thought it was all over, but the events of lately have given me hope for the west again. It's sad how divided everyone is though, 2017+ is going to be one hell of a ride