Week One

Kaos · « **Reply #60 on:** January 30, 2017, 11:23:27 AM »

Quote from: bottomfeeder on January 30, 2017, 11:00:21 AM

We as workers are losing ground. Bush, tax cuts to take jobs overseas. Trump, tax cuts to bring jobs back. I say put tariffs on all goods made overseas and brought in regardless, then let the cards fall where they may. With foreign-made products not selling because of higher prices, the companies will gladly pay for said relocation of production.

Screw 'em.

My only issue here is we've been down this circular road before.

Election of 1888:

Tariff policy was the principal issue in the election of 1888. Benjamin Harrison took the side of industrialists and factory workers who wanted to keep tariffs high, while incumbent Grover Cleveland strenuously denounced high tariffs as unfair to consumers.

Harrison won. In 1890 the McKinley Tariff was enacted. The tariff raised the average duty on imports to almost fifty percent, an act designed to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.Protectionism, a tactic supported by Republicans, was fiercely debated by politicians and condemned by Democrats.

The Election of 1892:

In the only presidential race that featured two former US Presidents (I think), Harrison lost to Cleveland.

Two reasons: 1) The Grange Movement (a populist third-party effort) drew voters away from Harrison and 2) the McKinley tariff proved to be unpopular as costs for basics rose, in some cases, dramatically.

In general I'm for protective tariffs, but I think we'd be better served by repealing NAFTA and giving American businesses incentives to keep facilities and employees in the US. It would be much cheaper for me to fire all of my developers and hire firms in India and Belarus for pennies on the dollar, but so far I've resisted out of my core belief in the US economy. I believe that by hiring and paying employees, I keep businesses I want and need (from restaurants to clothing stores to gas stations) open.

I lost a contract I really wanted because my competition saw our bid and on their "best and final offer" lowballed us by farming their development out to Croatia. I have no respect for that, but I did wonder how much longer I could hold out. Had that bellowing shrew been elected? I had resigned myself to doing at least some of that. Cutting American workers so I could compete with firms that went outside the US. On a side note? The project that was farmed to Croatia? It failed. Cost the agency several hundred grand and was never delivered. I had to spend a lot of my own development time and money trying to help them get it to work after the fact. Last I heard it was going back out for bid in April. I'm sure they'll make the same mistake again.

A 40-50% tariff won't work, though. We've seen that film before.

Study history. You'll learn things.

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #61 on:** January 30, 2017, 12:54:05 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on January 30, 2017, 11:23:27 AM

My only issue here is we've been down this circular road before.

Election of 1888:

Tariff policy was the principal issue in the election of 1888. Benjamin Harrison took the side of industrialists and factory workers who wanted to keep tariffs high, while incumbent Grover Cleveland strenuously denounced high tariffs as unfair to consumers.

Harrison won. In 1890 the McKinley Tariff was enacted. The tariff raised the average duty on imports to almost fifty percent, an act designed to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.Protectionism, a tactic supported by Republicans, was fiercely debated by politicians and condemned by Democrats.

The Election of 1892:

In the only presidential race that featured two former US Presidents (I think), Harrison lost to Cleveland.

Two reasons: 1) The Grange Movement (a populist third-party effort) drew voters away from Harrison and 2) the McKinley tariff proved to be unpopular as costs for basics rose, in some cases, dramatically.

In general I'm for protective tariffs, but I think we'd be better served by repealing NAFTA and giving American businesses incentives to keep facilities and employees in the US. It would be much cheaper for me to fire all of my developers and hire firms in India and Belarus for pennies on the dollar, but so far I've resisted out of my core belief in the US economy. I believe that by hiring and paying employees, I keep businesses I want and need (from restaurants to clothing stores to gas stations) open.

I lost a contract I really wanted because my competition saw our bid and on their "best and final offer" lowballed us by farming their development out to Croatia. I have no respect for that, but I did wonder how much longer I could hold out. Had that bellowing shrew been elected? I had resigned myself to doing at least some of that. Cutting American workers so I could compete with firms that went outside the US. On a side note? The project that was farmed to Croatia? It failed. Cost the agency several hundred grand and was never delivered. I had to spend a lot of my own development time and money trying to help them get it to work after the fact. Last I heard it was going back out for bid in April. I'm sure they'll make the same mistake again.

A 40-50% tariff won't work, though. We've seen that film before.

Study history. You'll learn things.

Your point is well taken. The knee jerk regarding tariffs is a slippery slope. I agree with the repealing of NAFTA and other fast track negotiations that Bush and Clinton pushed through. I'm not getting any younger and it's just not happening fast enough with proven results, that's all. It seems as if past administrations have only undermined the very fabric of this nation by default and something has to give. An improvement would be bring back the textile industries that devastated many female workers in plants like Lee Jeans, Levi, Vanity Fair, etc. That's all these people knew and there were no transitional programs offered at that time. They were, for the most part, on their own. Thompson tube factory was another who decided to move to Mexico with devastating results in quality control and loss prevention. I'm not sure they are still in business because this happened circa 2002. I guess it's really hard to identify if you haven't been there or had close family members affect by these policies. Globalization is a bad thing for American Workers, along with the H1B Visa program. The H1B Visa program is the one of the reason we are not farther behind in technology, engineering and science.

Kaos · « **Reply #62 on:** January 30, 2017, 01:32:57 PM »

Quote from: bottomfeeder on January 30, 2017, 12:54:05 PM

Your point is well taken. The knee jerk regarding tariffs is a slippery slope. I agree with the repealing of NAFTA and other fast track negotiations that Bush and Clinton pushed through. I'm not getting any younger and it's just not happening fast enough with proven results, that's all. It seems as if past administrations have only undermined the very fabric of this nation by default and something has to give. An improvement would be bring back the textile industries that devastated many female workers in plants like Lee Jeans, Levi, Vanity Fair, etc. That's all these people knew and there were no transitional programs offered at that time. They were, for the most part, on their own. Thompson tube factory was another who decided to move to Mexico with devastating results in quality control and loss prevention. I'm not sure they are still in business because this happened circa 2002. I guess it's really hard to identify if you haven't been there or had close family members affect by these policies. Globalization is a bad thing for American Workers, along with the H1B Visa program. The H1B Visa program is the one of the reason we are not farther behind in technology, engineering and science.

As long as we don't use a tariff as a punitive measure to right past wrongs it can work.

We don't need to eliminate imports or crash the global economy. But we have to bring things back into balance somehow. Rural america is all but dead. (This is another socialist/communist long play goal) Towns die because companies take their jobs to Indonesia or mexico or Croatia. With the death of the towns comes the death of traditional values and morality. It's easier to be an atheist (no offense) in the obscurity and social isolation of urban life than it is in the communal small town life.

I don't think there's any going back. Textile plants aren't going to spring up to save small southern towns. The auto industry isn't going resurrect in Detroit. But we can begin to build a new concept where businesses don't have incentives to build outside America.

We've gotten fat and lazy (and ripe for takeover). So many of us have convinced ourselves and our children that we are too good for the jobs that are going to Mexico and other countries. It's more than just creating jobs. It's about creating a new American mindset. Trump was the only candidate capable of that.

GH2001 · « **Reply #63 on:** January 30, 2017, 01:50:19 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on January 30, 2017, 01:32:57 PM

As long as we don't use a tariff as a punitive measure to right past wrongs it can work.

We don't need to eliminate imports or crash the global economy. But we have to bring things back into balance somehow. Rural america is all but dead. (This is another socialist/communist long play goal) Towns die because companies take their jobs to Indonesia or mexico or Croatia. With the death of the towns comes the death of traditional values and morality. It's easier to be an atheist (no offense) in the obscurity and social isolation of urban life than it is in the communal small town life.

I don't think there's any going back. Textile plants aren't going to spring up to save small southern towns. The auto industry isn't going resurrect in Detroit. But we can begin to build a new concept where businesses don't have incentives to build outside America.

We've gotten fat and lazy (and ripe for takeover). So many of us have convinced ourselves and our children that we are too good for the jobs that are going to Mexico and other countries. It's more than just creating jobs. It's about creating a new American mindset. Trump was the only candidate capable of that.

Again, I don't think anyone wants isolationism. Most simply want an even playing field. That's where the cases you've listed are different. Many tariffs and things like that before were for shear isolationist purposes. That's not what this is today. We have to get the trade deficit back in order. It has destroyed things.

Kaos · « **Reply #64 on:** January 30, 2017, 01:55:23 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on January 30, 2017, 01:50:19 PM

Again, I don't think anyone wants isolationism. Most simply want an even playing field. That's where the cases you've listed are different. Many tariffs and things like that before were for shear isolationist purposes. That's not what this is today. We have to get the trade deficit back in order. It has destroyed things.

Agreed. 100%.

GH2001 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 30, 2017, 02:01:04 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on January 30, 2017, 01:55:23 PM

Agreed. 100%.

What trump is saying will be promoted as smoot hawley. It is not.

Godfather · « **Reply #66 on:** January 30, 2017, 02:56:10 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on January 30, 2017, 02:01:04 PM

What trump is saying will be promoted as smoot hawley. It is not.

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.

AUJarhead · « **Reply #67 on:** January 30, 2017, 04:19:18 PM »

Where's your brain?

The Six · « **Reply #68 on:** January 30, 2017, 04:28:04 PM »

Quote from: Godfather on January 30, 2017, 02:56:10 PM

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #69 on:** January 30, 2017, 10:45:58 PM »

"has been absent NINE TIMES."

The Prowler · « **Reply #70 on:** January 31, 2017, 03:23:32 AM »

Aaaaannd he's taking a vacation this weekend...smh

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #71 on:** January 31, 2017, 04:47:47 AM »

Quote from: The Prowler on January 31, 2017, 03:23:32 AM

Aaaaannd he's taking a vacation this weekend...smh

When was the last break he had since campaigning and present? He's taking a break. Hell, if I had to put up with the liberal media hounding me at every corner, I would get away for a little while as to prevent their untimely deaths.

CCTAU · « **Reply #72 on:** January 31, 2017, 08:27:06 AM »

Quote from: The Prowler on January 31, 2017, 03:23:32 AM

Aaaaannd he's taking a vacation this weekend...smh

So taking the weekend off is now a vacation. No wonder my employer says I don't need a vacation. I get 52 a year already!

GH2001 · « **Reply #73 on:** January 31, 2017, 09:42:40 AM »

Quote from: The Prowler on January 31, 2017, 03:23:32 AM

Aaaaannd he's taking a vacation this weekend...smh

How dare he

He only did more in 10 days than your hero Barry did in 8 years.

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #74 on:** January 31, 2017, 12:15:23 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on January 30, 2017, 11:23:27 AM

In general I'm for protective tariffs, but I think we'd be better served by repealing NAFTA and giving American businesses incentives to keep facilities and employees in the US. It would be much cheaper for me to fire all of my developers and hire firms in India and Belarus for pennies on the dollar, but so far I've resisted out of my core belief in the US economy. I believe that by hiring and paying employees, I keep businesses I want and need (from restaurants to clothing stores to gas stations) open.

I lost a contract I really wanted because my competition saw our bid and on their "best and final offer" lowballed us by farming their development out to Croatia. I have no respect for that, but I did wonder how much longer I could hold out. Had that bellowing shrew been elected? I had resigned myself to doing at least some of that. Cutting American workers so I could compete with firms that went outside the US. On a side note? The project that was farmed to Croatia? It failed. Cost the agency several hundred grand and was never delivered. I had to spend a lot of my own development time and money trying to help them get it to work after the fact. Last I heard it was going back out for bid in April. I'm sure they'll make the same mistake again.

A 40-50% tariff won't work, though. We've seen that film before.

Study history. You'll learn things.

You are doing the right thing keeping American workers employeed. Trump agrees. Minimum wage increase.

http://www.teluguodu.com/donald-trump-signs-h1b-visa-reforms-bill/

Quote

Donald Trump has launched â€˜surgical strikesâ€™ on migrants to the US. Fulfilling his election promises, the American president started passing bills tightening immigration rules. He has black listed 7 countriesâ€™ immigrants from entering into the country. Today Trump has signed yet another bill hiking minimum wage from $60k to $130k for H1B visa holders. The bill comes under High-Skilled Integrity and Fairness Act of 2017.

It restricts the employers to prefer American nationals rather than cheap foreign workers. It will have direct impact on H-1B or L-1 visa holders. Dependents who are seeking jobs also could be effected. On the other hand, illegal immigrants with fake documents may have to face serious consequences. Buzz has it that Trump also has increased vigilance on students and employees who are working illegally outside visa rules. Immigration officials also have plans to track personal phone calls, scrutinize social networking accounts and organic search data of those who are seeking visas to enter the US.

dallaswareagle · « **Reply #75 on:** January 31, 2017, 12:19:29 PM »

Buzz has it that Trump also has increased vigilance on students and employees who are working illegally outside visa rules.

Damn, knew the dude was important but holy shit, connections at the white house.

AUChizad · « **Reply #76 on:** January 31, 2017, 05:01:47 PM »

#Memez

GH2001 · « **Reply #77 on:** January 31, 2017, 06:41:00 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on January 31, 2017, 05:01:47 PM

#Memez

Yeah that's exactly what we want.

Some of you are like a damn woman with the exaggerations. I guess we didn't ever get bananas in the 50s when the trade difference was even. Some things we have always gotten from south of the border and Always will. That's not what any of this is about and you know it.

The Prowler · « **Reply #78 on:** January 31, 2017, 08:48:24 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on January 31, 2017, 09:42:40 AM

How dare he

He only did more in 10 days than your hero Barry did in 8 years.

Probably didn't help that the Republicans did everything they could to block anything Obama wanted to do, and you stupid fucks cheered it on.
I just hope that he Democrats return the favor and do everything they can to block anything coming from Trump, just so I can sit back and marvel at the hypocrisy coming from your side.

Oh yeah, the 7 Countries that were already on the bill for additional security checks were placed there by the Republican-led Congress in 2015. This was added to a large spending bill that was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Obama. It is a Muslim ban...and it's probably just the beginning.

Kaos · « **Reply #79 on:** January 31, 2017, 10:46:41 PM »

Quote from: The Prowler on January 31, 2017, 08:48:24 PM

Probably didn't help that the Republicans did everything they could to block anything Obama wanted to do, and you stupid fucks cheered it on.
I just hope that he Democrats return the favor and do everything they can to block anything coming from Trump, just so I can sit back and marvel at the hypocrisy coming from your side.

Oh yeah, the 7 Countries that were already on the bill for additional security checks were placed there by the Republican-led Congress in 2015. This was added to a large spending bill that was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Obama. It is a Muslim ban...and it's probably just the beginning.

Everything that fucking puff of air tried to do was Islamo-focused and anti-American. You're fucking-a right sane people tried to stop him. Democrats are morons.

Trump is a true patriot. He's going to make a mistake here and there, but I have no doubt where his loyalties and heart are.

I don't give a fuck if we ban Muslims. Ban them. If they want to impose their will and ways on the US, they can stay in whatever hellhole they live in now.