How likely is it for you to encounter people who haven't been to the US?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

The only upside I can see to the Trump administration is that it has interrupted the trend to rotating dynastic presidencies in the US... the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, that kind of thing.

But really, apart from that, do you really think that the general state of affairs in the US has improved since Trump was elected? If you are a hard-core right-wing nationalist or an extremely wealthy individual, I suppose it's possible. But that leaves out probably about 98% of the population.

Has the general state of affairs in the world generally improved? I suppose to governments in Russia and China it might appear so, I guess you could lump Israel in there too. Again, that's a fairly narrow band of interests.

I guess what it boils down to is that for all that words you've written on the subject, I have not seen anything that remotely approaches a persuasive argument for the good that is supposedly coming out of the Trump administration.

I don't necessarily share kool's views, and don't want to speak for him, but will end up doing just that anyway I think...

The people like him who welcome Trump's presidency don't see this as the end point or the final destination. It's just a milestone on the way to a destination.

It's not the immediate collapse of the "system" they welcome or want, but rather the beginning of a necessary maelstrom that will lead to its essential reform and recalibration.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't necessarily share kool's views, and don't want to speak for him, but will end up doing just that anyway I think...

The people like him who welcome Trump's presidency don't see this as the end point or the final destination. It's just a milestone on the way to a destination.

It's not the immediate collapse of the "system" they welcome or want, but rather the beginning of a necessary maelstrom that will lead to its essential reform and recalibration.

I suppose if one is rooting for Marxist revolution, then I guess there might be something to cheer for here.

But personally I'm not one for the "gotta break a few eggs" philosophy. A lot of lives are going to be ruined as the staggering divide between haves and have nots in the US is about to get a lot worse. And that's not even getting into the social turmoil being generated.

All I can say is that burning the house down to start over again is an easy thing to cheer for if you don't have to live in that house.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

I suppose if one is rooting for Marxist revolution, then I guess there might be something to cheer for here.

But personally I'm not one for the "gotta break a few eggs" philosophy. A lot of lives are going to be ruined as the staggering divide between haves and have nots in the US is about to get a lot worse. And that's not even getting into the social turmoil being generated.

All I can say is that burning the house down to start over again is an easy thing to cheer for if you don't have to live in that house.

You've fairly accurately summed up a lot of my fears about this.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by esquire

I suppose if one is rooting for Marxist revolution, then I guess there might be something to cheer for here.

But personally I'm not one for the "gotta break a few eggs" philosophy. A lot of lives are going to be ruined as the staggering divide between haves and have nots in the US is about to get a lot worse. And that's not even getting into the social turmoil being generated.

All I can say is that burning the house down to start over again is an easy thing to cheer for if you don't have to live in that house.

well said, and succinctly put.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by esquire

But really, apart from that, do you really think that the general state of affairs in the US has improved since Trump was elected? If you are a hard-core right-wing nationalist or an extremely wealthy individual, I suppose it's possible. But that leaves out probably about 98% of the population.

USA unemployment is the lowest it's been since George Bush. African American unemployment is the lowest it's been in 20 years. Stock markets are at record highs. US consumer confidence highest in 17 years. Wage growth has accelerated.

The narrative that people are getting left behind doesn't hold water.

You probably weren't around but you should have seen the fear mongering when Reagan dropped the tax rate from 70% to 28%.

Originally Posted by esquire

Has the general state of affairs in the world generally improved?

How's ISIS doing? USA is on track to meet Paris climate goals, unlike Canada.

It's strange how people in Canada have such an intense hate for a foreign leader that they lose their minds and can no longer think objectively.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess what it boils down to is that for all that words you've written on the subject, I have not seen anything that remotely approaches a persuasive argument for the good that is supposedly coming out of the Trump administration.

Thank you for expressing the crux of the argument. There has not been a compelling, persuasive argument advanced, neither by the contrarians nor by the intellectuals, to convince me that Trump et al. will, someday (when?) yield, for lack of a better term, a better society (how?).

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by geotag277

USA unemployment is the lowest it's been since George Bush. African American unemployment is the lowest it's been in 20 years. Stock markets are at record highs. US consumer confidence highest in 17 years. Wage growth has accelerated.

The narrative that people are getting left behind doesn't hold water.

You probably weren't around but you should have seen the fear mongering when Reagan dropped the tax rate from 70% to 28%.



How's ISIS doing? USA is on track to meet Paris climate goals, unlike Canada.

It's strange how people in Canada have such an intense hate for a foreign leader that they lose their minds and can no longer think objectively.

there you go again, blaming people for having an opinion that is different from yours. Why is yours automatically valid (and non "hyper-partisan"), and others, not valid (and "hyper-partisan")?

You do this all the time.

Of course, we could talk about the Canadian economy doing splendid, and attributing that to Trudeau's government, but I am sure you can find reasons (and these reasons could be partially legitimate, if not derived from 'hyper-partisan' opinions) why the current state of affairs in the US should be credited to Trump, wheres that in Canada could not possibly be attributed to Trudeau.

I am sure that I can expect a course in Advanced Mental Gymnastics or maybe its lazier cousin, bloviating self-righteous and self-serving discourse (with a dash of false equivalencies and generous spoonful of straw man).

[geotag277]

I blame people for not reading the news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...304_story.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1D01O5

https://www.ft.com/content/e737642c-...1-5e720a26771b

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DT1W7

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ews/913162001/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireS...arter-51455731

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

USA unemployment is the lowest it's been since George Bush. African American unemployment is the lowest it's been in 20 years. Stock markets are at record highs. US consumer confidence highest in 17 years. Wage growth has accelerated.

The narrative that people are getting left behind doesn't hold water.

You probably weren't around but you should have seen the fear mongering when Reagan dropped the tax rate from 70% to 28%.



How's ISIS doing? USA is on track to meet Paris climate goals, unlike Canada.

It's strange how people in Canada have such an intense hate for a foreign leader that they lose their minds and can no longer think objectively.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by geotag277

USA unemployment is the lowest it's been since George Bush. African American unemployment is the lowest it's been in 20 years. Stock markets are at record highs. US consumer confidence highest in 17 years. Wage growth has accelerated.

The narrative that people are getting left behind doesn't hold water.

You probably weren't around but you should have seen the fear mongering when Reagan dropped the tax rate from 70% to 28%.



How's ISIS doing? USA is on track to meet Paris climate goals, unlike Canada.

It's strange how people in Canada have such an intense hate for a foreign leader that they lose their minds and can no longer think objectively.

I can't get excited about stock market rallies when as of late they have been driven by tax cuts which will end up shredding what's left of the US social safety net.

Show me improvements to the quality of life for the downtrodden in rust belt states and inner cities, that's what I care about more than the uber-wealthy 0.01 per cent having their net worth increase 10% from hot markets.

And I don't see any social benefits coming from the ugly rhetoric that Trump is routinely spewing these days.

You like to paint Trump as a conservative standard-bearer like a modern day Reagan, but if anything I see him as being in a similar mold as Putin. In other words, not a man of any kind of discernible principle, but simply someone who will ruthlessly disregard the well being of millions in order to benefit himself and his cronies. I really have not seen anything meaningful that would suggest otherwise.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess what it boils down to is that for all that words you've written on the subject, I have not seen anything that remotely approaches a persuasive argument for the good that is supposedly coming out of the Trump administration.

The United States entire system of government has been disproportionately based on personal freedom, and with that, the associated economic freedoms that come from people unburdened by an overreaching government. This was the dream of the founding fathers in their new world grand experiment.

Over the centuries, the United States has emerged as a beacon of success regarding what is possible in a free market capitalist society where competition and market forces are allowed to freely dictate the economic terms.

In the 2016 election, Trump more closely embodied that philosophy out of all the candidates.

Now, at the end of the 2017, you are seeing some carry on effects of that. Wages are rising. Business confidence is up. Unemployment is at decade lows. More people are participating in the economy, more people are making more money, and businesses are ready to hire more, sell more, compete more, and thrive in the new business environment.

The economy is what enables personal freedom, and the economy continues to strengthen under Trump. Everybody is seeing the benefits.

It shouldn't need to be said, but no candidate is perfect. Trump is not perfect. Clinton is not perfect. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of ever increasing government spending and ever increasing government overreach. But people vote for the candidate based on what they get right, not what they get wrong, and I would argue that Trump got more things right, and the myriad of economic indicators showing growth, wage growth, employment growth, GDP growth, and so on, confirm at least some of those arguments.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The United States entire system of government has been disproportionately based on personal freedom, and with that, the associated economic freedoms that come from people unburdened by an overreaching government. This was the dream of the founding fathers in their new world grand experiment.

Over the centuries, the United States has emerged as a beacon of success regarding what is possible in a free market capitalist society where competition and market forces are allowed to freely dictate the economic terms.

In the 2016 election, Trump more closely embodied that philosophy out of all the candidates.

Now, at the end of the 2017, you are seeing some carry on effects of that. Wages are rising. Business confidence is up. Unemployment is at decade lows. More people are participating in the economy, more people are making more money, and businesses are ready to hire more, sell more, compete more, and thrive in the new business environment.

The economy is what enables personal freedom, and the economy continues to strengthen under Trump. Everybody is seeing the benefits.

It shouldn't need to be said, but no candidate is perfect. Trump is not perfect. Clinton is not perfect. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of ever increasing government spending and ever increasing government overreach. But people vote for the candidate based on what they get right, not what they get wrong, and I would argue that Trump got more things right, and the myriad of economic indicators showing growth, wage growth, employment growth, GDP growth, and so on, confirm at least some of those arguments.

I hope you are right and it would be great if a rising tide lifted all ships. However, I'm not sure that what I've seen over the course of my lifetime really supports the idea that lower taxes, fewer social programs (or "government overreach" as you put it), an ever-widening wealth gap and more corporate profits - things which have been put into overdrive under Trump - really create a recipe for the best, most harmonious society.

[Acajack]

Geotag’s comments about Trump raise an interesting thought.

For better or worse, he can be said to be bringing the US back to its foundational values.

Regardless of all the talk about “all men are created equal” and all that jazz, the founding fathers were hardly disciples of Thomas More looking to build a new world just society.

From the outset it was clear that this was going to be an enterprise where there was gonna be winners and losers.

[geotag277]

"You don't look at your neighbour's plate to see if they have more than you. You look to see if they have enough."

I find the recent focus on income inequality to be interesting as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ichest-poorest

If income inequality is increasing while at the same time poverty is decreasing, maybe the current conditions are good? If income inequality is increasing, but at the same time, unemployment goes down, wages increase, wages outpace inflation, poverty goes down, maybe it isn't a problem?

It seems many want to complain about income inequality for the sake of complaining about inequality, but if the economic conditions are such that such a wide number of people are benefiting, poverty is decreasing at record rates, and all ships are rising with wages increasing faster than inflation, maybe income inequality isn't such a big deal after all?

I get the sense that some people fundamentally have a problem with wealthy individuals existing, and I would say that another cornerstone of the American democratic capitalist experiment is the mindset that you should not begrudge anyone else their wealth.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

[DDP]

Grew up in Quebec, knew quite a few older people who never been to the US, but they couldn't speak English either so probably the biggest reason why.

They had been to Europe or the islands for most part though.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by geotag277

"You don't look at your neighbour's plate to see if they have more than you. You look to see if they have enough."

I find the recent focus on income inequality to be interesting as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ichest-poorest

If income inequality is increasing while at the same time poverty is decreasing, maybe the current conditions are good? If income inequality is increasing, but at the same time, unemployment goes down, wages increase, wages outpace inflation, poverty goes down, maybe it isn't a problem?

It seems many want to complain about income inequality for the sake of complaining about inequality, but if the economic conditions are such that such a wide number of people are benefiting, poverty is decreasing at record rates, and all ships are rising with wages increasing faster than inflation, maybe income inequality isn't such a big deal after all?

I get the sense that some people fundamentally have a problem with wealthy individuals existing, and I would say that another cornerstone of the American democratic capitalist experiment is the mindset that you should not begrudge anyone else their wealth.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

A few problems I have with this:

(1) poverty isn't declining in the United States. The proportion of the population living in poverty is roughly the same today as it was in 1960. In raw numbers, there are more people living in poverty in the United States than there were 50 years ago.

(2) One would hope that we measure success in our society a bit more ambitiously than by just the poverty line (especially while the super wealthy continue to get super-wealthier).

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

A few problems I have with this:

(1) poverty isn't declining in the United States. The proportion of the population living in poverty is roughly the same today as it was in 1960. In raw numbers, there are more people living in poverty in the United States than there were 50 years ago.

(2) One would hope that we measure success in our society a bit more ambitiously than by just the poverty line (especially while the super wealthy continue to get super-wealthier).

Two things.

1. It seems it would behoove us to consider worldwide poverty metrics, as the United States has been pretty instrumental and a central player in a massive transfer of wealth to developing countries, enabling them to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

2. By some metrics, poverty is at record lows - way down from the 1960s. As the article indicates, much of the credit is on the social safety net, and in particular the Child Tax Credit, which thankfully is going to be increased and expanded under Trump's tax reform.

Also important to point out that according to the graph referenced in the article, poverty increases during recessions and decreases during economic growth, a situation which lends itself to pursuing policies to expand economic growth, soften recessions, and make smart investments into the social safety net.

Income inequality doesn't really factor into any of this.

[esquire]

^ Meanwhile, in the real world...

Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday that congressional Republicans will aim next year to reduce spending on both federal health care and anti-poverty programs, citing the need to reduce America's deficit.

"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit," Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio show. "... Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements -- because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking."

Ryan said that he believes he has begun convincing President Donald Trump in their private conversations about the need to rein in Medicare, the federal health program that primarily insures the elderly. As a candidate, Trump vowed not to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. (Ryan also suggested congressional Republicans were unlikely to try changing Social Security, because the rules of the Senate forbid changes to the program through reconciliation -- the procedure the Senate can use to pass legislation with only 50 votes.)

"I think the president is understanding that choice and competition works everywhere in health care, especially in Medicare," Ryan said. "...This has been my big thing for many, many years. I think it's the biggest entitlement we've got to reform."

Ryan's remarks add to the growing signs that top Republicans aim to cut government spending next year. Republicans are close to passing a tax bill nonpartisan analysts say would increase the deficit by at least $1 trillion over a decade. Trump recently called on Congress to move to cut welfare spending after the tax bill, and Senate Republicans have cited the need to reduce the national deficit while growing the economy.

“You also have to bring spending under control. And not discretionary spending. That isn't the driver of our debt. The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said last week.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.65a684ec67d6

Create a debt crisis with tax cuts for the wealthy, "fix" it by cutting what's left of social programs that cater to the working classes and poor. This is not a new game but the current US government is taking it to new depths.

[Taeolas]

I grew up in Woodstock in Eastern New Brunswick, spitting distance from Houlton, Maine.

Since Houlton had the Ames, Walmart and the McDonalds and the Burger King, it was rare to find someone who HADN'T regularly crossed the border at some point. (Woodstock didn't get many of those until the 90's basically). Running across the border was common, even multiple trips on the same day, as well as getting milk/groceries and gas. Plus going down I-95 to Bangor was a lot easier than trying to reach Crystal Palace and Champlain Place in Moncton for shopping. (4 lane highway all the way vs 2 lane highways weaving through the centre of the province)

Hell, we even had inter-school basketball competitions with the schools in Maine.

Of course, regularly crossing the border there had one other side effect I didn't realize at first. It took me a while growing up to realize that "The time didn't change just because you entered the States." (NB is Atlantic, Maine is Eastern time zone), so that messed with me a bit when I would cross from Ontario. Or cross from NB to Quebec. (at least until I properly learned Time Zones).

Nowadays, I probably do know a few people who have never crossed, and I'm sure there are more folk from my home town who haven't crossed since the passport requirement. But probably more people than not have visited the States at least once. It's still a very common trip here in Fredericton and in Eastern New Brunswick in general.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Meanwhile, in the real world...

Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.65a684ec67d6

Create a debt crisis with tax cuts for the wealthy, "fix" it by cutting what's left of social programs that cater to the working classes and poor. This is not a new game but the current US government is taking it to new depths.

In the real world, welfare cliffs exist.





Seems some want to say simultaneously that poverty remains unchanged in the United States for decades, and at the same time, any thought of welfare policy reform at the Federal level should be absolutely off the table.

Again, the research showed that the Child Tax Credit was largely responsible for reductions in child poverty, and the Republican tax plan increased and expanded this credit. It's about focusing on what works, and fixing what doesn't.

The rest is just noise, including income inequality.