Donald Trump for president?

[Braivo]

30 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I'm not going to fall for the angry tactic and the emotionally charges sound bites with no substance. I want to see detailed plans and proposals with actual calculations. And I want it on my desk by Monday morning. 

Don't vote with anger. This country is too special to let the angry people (on both sides) control things.

I agree with everything you said. Tax dollars used to provide collective benefits are essential. Infrastructure, defense, etc. should all be top priority. 

My initial socialism comment was in response to someone suggesting we tie wages to cost of living, etc. That gets dangerously close to socialism, sounds like a Bernie Sanders proposal. While I don't think a pure capitalist model will work, I do believe you have to leave room for the market to set wages, prices, etc. with the government only acting as a regulator to make sure everyone is playing the game fairly. 

I am in finance and I love to see the real proposals, but the unfortunate reality in our nation is that most voters are uneducated and vote purely out of emotion. I can't blame any politician, including Trump, that plays into that hand. There are better candidates out there than those at the front of the race, but they don't evoke any emotion. 

I am not voting for Trump out of anger, I believe he is the best candidate to slay the Washington bureaucracy and authoritatively deal with the tough issues our nation faces regarding immigration.  

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I still think that large social programs are not the answer. I do agree that pure capitalism is not the answer. Human beings are just not that wise to run free reign. I do not think taxation is a viable option as a muzzle. I think more creative measures can be done to secure income equality than just playing Robin Hood with the top 1%. 

This is an excellent statement and very true. 

One look at Europe and you can see where out of control social programs can lead. A measured amount of regulation by the government can go a long way to creating stability. 

Take, for example, the utility industry. Once CA deregulated the utilities all hell broke loose. Regulated utilities are thriving and providing affordable, reliable power while allowing shareholders to earn fair returns, everyone wins. 

The mistake people make about Trump is they assume since he is rich that he is a pure capitalist and wants zero government intervention and very low taxes. That just isn't the case. He is very pragmatic. He knows how to make deals that help everyone. He revitalized key parts of New York City by working with government officials and having a vision. He gets it. 

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Braivo said:

My initial socialism comment was in response to someone suggesting we tie wages to cost of living, etc. That gets dangerously close to socialism

How is it close to socialism?

3 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I do believe you have to leave room for the market to set wages, prices, etc. with the government only acting as a regulator to make sure everyone is playing the game fairly. 

So the market can keep wages the same, and jack prices continually over time to create a disproportionate system where they have ever increasing revenues and an ever decreasing spending power of the employees? 

 

[Braivo]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

How is it close to socialism?

So the market can keep wages the same, and jack prices continually over time to create a disproportionate system where they have ever increasing revenues and an ever decreasing spending power of the employees? 

 

I simply don't have the time or energy to explain the economics of why we can't legislate economic equality. 

[newtogolf]

50 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

And yet you live in a country that has many, many socialist functions and are probably fine with them all paid for by the people and run by the government at different levels. Your tax dollars pay for these entities collectively. Pure socialist states tend to transform into dictatorships or authoritarianism like Cuba, Venezuela and the USSR. This happens when profitable private industries are taken over by the government like oil companies and manufacturing. Then greed takes over and so called elected officials desire to always be in control. I agree that is a failed model because it devolves into corruption and greed is king.

But having our military, police, fire protection, courts, infrastructure, ports and other key sectors paid for and controlled by all of us collectively through a representative government is a model we have used successfully for a long time.

Early on, our military was not paid for by the Federal Government. In the War of 1812, our military were militias sent by individual states. It was not really effective either especially against Canadian forces. The Mexican American War, where the illegal immigrants were us when we took Texas from Santa Anna, was a mostly volunteer affair.

We changed our approach after that making the defense of the nation a Federal responsibility. The same with police and fire. They all evolved into community, state and federally funded organizations that we pay for collectively. Where would we be now without local and state police and the FBI, ATF, Border control, TSA, immigration? We the people demanded that these be created.

Pure capitalism doesn't work either. Do you want to live in a country were the police, military and justice system are owned by the rich? We kind of revolted against that in 1775. It is called a Monarchy. Russia has moved away from the socialist model into a much more greed fueled oligarchy, also a bad model.

We live in a fantastic country that is a balance between different ways of governing. It is the longest single government form unchanged in the world, a Federalist Republic. Going strong for 240 years. It baffles me why other democracies don't use our model.

We have created an accomplished incredible things with this model and should really be trying to fine tune it. But right now, our politicians running for office want everyone to be angry to the point of violence. No one thinks straight when they are angry. No one. When you're scared, anxious, excited, you can focus. But when you are flaming angry, you lose all sense of control.

I'm not going to fall for the angry tactic and the emotionally charges sound bites with no substance. I want to see detailed plans and proposals with actual calculations. And I want it on my desk by Monday morning. 

Don't vote with anger. This country is too special to let the angry people (on both sides) control things.

The Federal Government doesn't know how to manage costs which is why they are so inefficient in providing services.  Those who manage budgets within the Federal Government view the size of their budget as a indication of their importance and encourage maxing out the spending of their budgets to ensure the budgets aren't cut in future years.

General Services Administration (GSA) that was formed to reduce the costs of products and services purchased from the private sector is a joke.  The loopholes and inefficiencies have not reduced costs, the government is still buying $100 hammers.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae offered federally guaranteed mortgages that led to the mortgage bubble and financial collapse of banks.

The next bubble will be student loans where students that racked up 100's of thousands of dollars in debt will default and the tax payers will be forced to bail out the banks that issued the loans.

VA Hospitals and Obama Care have equally been mismanaged, starting with the billion dollar website that didn't work and then was hacked to the failed promises of keep your doctors.

Social Security was secretly reclassified as an entitlement so the funds we paid into it could be stolen to help fund the National Debt.

There are some areas like the military, FBI, border patrol, TSA, interstate highways that the Federal Government has to manage but beyond that, I want them out of my life, regardless of what party they represent.

 

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I simply don't have the time or energy to explain the economics of why we can't legislate economic equality. 

Fair enough. You might want to stay away from making such comments when you are not readily willing to explain them. The proof of burden is on you to back your claims. 

 

[newtogolf]

29 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

How is it close to socialism?

So the market can keep wages the same, and jack prices continually over time to create a disproportionate system where they have ever increasing revenues and an ever decreasing spending power of the employees?

 

Because wages are not tied to cost of living in business they are tied to employee performance, business performance and future financial projections.

[Marty2019]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Because wages are not tied to cost of living in business they are tied to employee performance, business performance and future financial projections.

That, but mostly wage rates are set by supply and demand for labor, specific to the job to be filled.   Businesses pay whatever they have to pay, as long as they can still make a profit employing that person.  

 

[Braivo]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Fair enough. You might want to stay away from making such comments when you are not readily willing to explain them. The proof of burden is on you to back your claims. 

Heh, we aren't publishing research papers here, just a friendly debate about our future President. 

In other news - Trump handily eclipses 40% support among registered Republicans. The Trump Train rolls on. 

http://morningconsult.com/2016/02/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-national-polling/

 

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Because wages are not tied to cost of living in business they are tied to employee performance, business performance and future financial projections.

You sure about that? 

At least from what I have seen. A lot of places just give you a cost of living increase on your salary. Very few places will give you a promotion. Yet, they never cost of living increase minimum wage? I'm not really sure it's ever performance based. 

 

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You sure about that?

At least from what I have seen. A lot of places just give you a cost of living increase on your salary. Very few places will give you a promotion. Yet, they never cost of living increase minimum wage? I'm not really sure it's ever performance based.

 

If an employee does a good job and the business is stable existing, employees would minimally get a raise equivalent of cost of living.

If you adjust the minimum wage each year to coincide with cost of living, you're going to force businesses that are not performing well to lay off employees to offset the costs.

Not all businesses are created equally or have the same profit margins, so imposing mandatory cost of living increases on their wages would be a form of socialism imo.

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Not all businesses are created equally or have the same profit margins, so imposing mandatory cost of living increases on their wages would be a form of socialism imo.

Fair enough

 

[Elmer]

18 hours ago, Braivo said:

He may have a big ego, but I don't understand how this precludes him from being able to make positive changes. In fact, it is likely to help as he would not want to fail as President. He does not want to let the American people down, he wants to go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents ever. You don't do that by alienating the middle-class, you do that by reviving it. 

Trump is not afraid to take on big corporations and the special interests like the Koch brothers. Those guys control more than any of us realize, and it takes someone just as big to take them down. Sanders, etc. will just get crushed by the special interest groups. It takes a lion to fight a lion. We're going to have to get used to his abrasive style, it will come in handy later on.

Trump keeps saying he wants to "make America Great Again".

And that alone loses my vote.
1- are we not great now? Best Military power in the world. We are the country every 3 world citizen wants to run to.

2-if we are not great now? What period are we rolling back to?
20's
50's?
60's?
80's?

Each of those periods had their social and economic issues? Should we go back to the time of Jim Crow? Maybe back when women could not vote. Or how about back when Italian immigrants were ostracized?
Back to when we spoke of Gay and Aids in hushed tones?

[Jeremie Boop]

5 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Trump keeps saying he wants to "make America Great Again".

And that alone loses my vote.
1- are we not great now? Best Military power in the world. We are the country every 3 world citizen wants to run to.

2-if we are not great now? What period are we rolling back to?
20's
50's?
60's?
80's?

Each of those periods had their social and economic issues? Should we go back to the time of Jim Crow? Maybe back when women could not vote. Or how about back when Italian immigrants were ostracized?
Back to when we spoke of Gay and Aids in hushed tones?

We've slipped economically and education wise at the very least. Why does it have to be that we are rolling back? I would rather say we need to move forward more if anything... We are no longer as great as we once were because we fell behind, not because we moved too far forward...

[Braivo]

There isn't a single candidate that even comes close to energizing the American people like Trump. Not even close. This is a revolution. 11,000 + turn out in a Deep South state. 

Do not underestimate the undercurrent of first time voters that are going to cast a vote for him. 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/11/pictures-of-massive-trump-rally-in-louisiana-full-11000-seat-venue-many-turned-away/

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

There isn't a single candidate that even comes close to energizing the American people like Trump. Not even close. This is a revolution. 11,000 + turn out in a Deep South state. 

Do not underestimate the undercurrent of first time voters that are going to cast a vote for him. 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/11/pictures-of-massive-trump-rally-in-louisiana-full-11000-seat-venue-many-turned-away/

The fascination with Trump reminds me how it was when Howard Stern first became popular on the radio. When asked why the people listened to him both the people who hated him and liked him both said the same thing "to hear what he would say next". I feel like that's almost exactly the same reason people are attracted to Trumps rallies and such. You'll get people who like and hate him just because they want to hear what he'll say next. Trump is a polarizing figure, there are very few people who are middle of the road about how they feel about him.

[Braivo]

27 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Trump keeps saying he wants to "make America Great Again".

And that alone loses my vote.
1- are we not great now? Best Military power in the world. We are the country every 3 world citizen wants to run to.

Never in our history have we allowed 3rd world citizens to freely invade our great country. We help them over there, not here. 

We can have the greatest military in the world, but if we let the enemy flood into our country through immigration none of it matters, it is the trojan horse of modern times. 

People don't want to see us give this country away to those that never fought to create it.

They should stay in their own country and fight for their own freedom if it matters that much to them. 

[saevel25]

18 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Do not underestimate the undercurrent of first time voters that are going to cast a vote for him. 

Unless he's up against Sanders who's demographic advantage is the age group for first time voters ;) 

 

[newtogolf]

22 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Unless he's up against Sanders who's demographic advantage is the age group for first time voters ;)

 

Unless the Super delegates switch sides, Sanders doesn't have a chance.