Donald Trump for president?

[Mr. Desmond]

41 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

There's no sense in us debating this, we won't ever agree.  I don't believe governments role is to decide who gets what, the free market decides that.  If you want a free college education, study hard and earn scholarships.  We already have a financial aid system in place for those who qualify.  Bernie suggesting that kids are entitled to a college education on the backs of taxpayers is ludicrous.  I say this as a parent who's currently paying for one child that's a sophomore in college and another in 11th grade that is headed to college.

The reality is, we have an ever growing sector of people in this country who through conditioning, laziness and poor life choices have decided that they would rather leech off of others rather than work hard for the things they want.  IMO it's not the governments job to encourage such behavior or to figure out more free things to give them.

Funny that the hopelessness exists only for our own citizens, as many immigrants continue to flock to this country with less than most have here and somehow through hard work and diligence end up being quite successful.

 

I am not offering much of an opinion either way and am not "arguing." It is a discussion.

I don't think Bernie said people are entitled to the education -- but if they get in, they should not pay. You take it that I agree with Sanders. I do not. I think that if you do not qualify for aid, maybe one ought to think about Community College for the first two years, or similar to the GI Bill, if you go into a government service program like the Peace Corps or Domestic Corps, then your loans are paid by the Government depending on your service.

Your second paragraph is the typical excuse I see from my wealthy friends.  The "people are lazy" stereotype. What you forget is that people who worked for you or for my clients are hardworking people but still will not have a retirement. Others work for WalMart, MacDonalds, or both, and still can't afford a house, 2 cars, and a chicken in the pot and healthcare.

Immigrants flock here because of government instability and corruption. Ever been to Honduras? You'd flock here, too.

The issue is not hard work and diligence. Yes, some people want to leach off the government tit. But that is overblown by certain media. The issue is lack of income, security, retirement and healthcare.

I think the system must change -- the free market is brutal and requires gentle regulation. The government is not the free market -- it's job is to provide for the traditional issues of defense, security, infrastructure, etc, and also assist those who work but are not as talented or do not have the benefits of wealth so they can attain a modicum of wealth. 

I think the government must kick in for health care because the market has shown that it is not efficient. ObamaCare is not revolutionary -- it was insurance reform and subsidies. Without a plan, the GOP wants to do away with it. Basically, a private insurance government backed plan to get more people healthcare. If the GOP had a brain, they would realize that if they do not fix ObamaCare, then they are headed to single payer. But solutions are not what the GOP does -- it's about divisiveness. We need to come together... isn't that Sanders' appeal?

I think we need to recognize real problem and come up with real solutions -- this us against them mentality is us going nowhere but downhill.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is laughable. 

You don't think both sides of Congress wouldn't wait for one mishap to send him through an impeachment process. Sorry, but this will be a lame duck session from day 1. 

If Trump became President, then Congress would be doing so at great risk of alienating and/or pissing off all the people who voted for Trump.

---

Cool down a bit, Matt. Respect the opinions of others, and watch the name-calling.

[Ernest Jones]

2 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Agreed. But one could argue that this was an anomaly in our history.

Yes, unfortunately, it's a fairly rare occurrence that the ruling class or 1% don't get their way, but clearly it is to the benefit of the rest of us! 

Viva la revolution! Off with their heads!

 

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So two wrongs make a right then? 

3 lefts make a right.

It's about balance, you can't allow for a stacked deck. The stakes are too high. I have children and I don't want them growing up in a world there is no middle class.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I am not offering much of an opinion either way and am not "arguing." It is a discussion.

I don't think Bernie said people are entitled to the education -- but if they get in, they should not pay. You take it that I agree with Sanders. I do not. I think that if you do not qualify for aid, maybe one ought to think about Community College for the first two years, or similar to the GI Bill, if you go into a government service program like the Peace Corps or Domestic Corps, then your loans are paid by the Government depending on your service.

Your second paragraph is the typical excuse I see from my wealthy friends.  The "people are lazy" stereotype. What you forget is that people who worked for you or for my clients are hardworking people but still will not have a retirement. Others work for WalMart, MacDonalds, or both, and still can't afford a house, 2 cars, and a chicken in the pot and healthcare.

Immigrants flock here because of government instability and corruption. Ever been to Honduras? You'd flock here, too.

The issue is not hard work and diligence. Yes, some people want to leach off the government tit. But that is overblown by certain media. The issue is lack of income, security, retirement and healthcare.

I think the system must change -- the free market is brutal and requires gentle regulation. The government is not the free market -- it's job is to provide for the traditional issues of defense, security, infrastructure, etc, and also assist those who work but are not as talented or do not have the benefits of wealth so they can attain a modicum of wealth.

I think the government must kick in for health care because the market has shown that it is not efficient. ObamaCare is not revolutionary -- it was insurance reform and subsidies. Without a plan, the GOP wants to do away with it. Basically, a private insurance government backed plan to get more people healthcare. If the GOP had a brain, they would realize that if they do not fix ObamaCare, then they are headed to single payer. But solutions are not what the GOP does -- it's about divisiveness. We need to come together... isn't that Sanders' appeal?

The people that worked for me did work very hard (all 48 of them) and for a very fair wage.  They all owned their own homes (mortgaged like mine is) and were offered 401K plans that included matching funds.  We paid for their individual healthcare and 60% of their families premium, offered free life insurance, dental and eye glass coverage as well.  We had financial people provide financial and retirement consulting for each employee that opted for it.  Our average salary was $60,000+, we treated our employees like family and in return they treated our customers like family, that's how you run a successful small business.

If not for the regulatory laws that exist for businesses with more than 50 employees I'd probably still own the business but I had no interest in dealing with all the regulations that Bush and Obama forced on small businesses that graduate to medium size.

Small businesses need to have the restraints removed, they are the ones that offer more competitive salaries and benefits because each employee is more critical to them than they are to big business.  Silicon valley has some large businesses that do right by their employees but imo if you want to see wages go up without government regulation, reduce the tax burdens and regulations for small businesses.  We know how to take care of our employees.

[Ernest Jones]

So, if Trump is a buffoon, Cruz is a whack-job and all the other Republicans are also-rans, isn't it time to consider voting for whichever of Bernie or Hillary is least jarring to your ideals? I think Hillary takes it under these circumstances, Bernie is far too radical for the average voter and the GOP doesn't (hopefully) have an electable.

[Mr. Desmond]

18 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If not for the regulatory laws that exist for businesses with more than 50 employees I'd probably still own the business but I had no interest in dealing with all the regulations that Bush and Obama forced on small businesses that graduate to medium size.

Small businesses need to have the restraints removed, they are the ones that offer more competitive salaries and benefits because each employee is more critical to them than they are to big business.  Silicon valley has some large businesses that do right by their employees but imo if you want to see wages go up without government regulation, reduce the tax burdens and regulations for small businesses.  We know how to take care of our employees.

That's why small businesses hire people like me -- to discover what rules apply and when, and how to avoid them if possible. Agree with too much government regulation -- yards of paperwork that should be more efficient. I think taxes should be lower rates and simpler -- do away with many personal deductions, and for businesses, deduct everything - forget depreciation.

I think the hole in Sanders' arguments is that it lends itself to the same abuse as the institutions charging too much for an education. Students are not paying for tuition -- they are paying for more buildings so more students can attend, so the educational institutions get bigger and more powerful. Give the students something for free and they do not appreciate it. Share the burden.

But Sanders does have some good ideas on prescription drugs, bargaining for lower prices, and healthcare. He "gets" the inequality.

I think his revolution is misguided. We need to look inside government -- how the government budgets and spends money, and look at its inefficiences and reorganize it. Make it simpler and less expensive to operate.

Then we need to see what makes people secure so they have the confidence and hope to work for the American dream. Right now, confidence and hope is diminishing. That's why Sanders and Trump have risen towards the top.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[Jeremie Boop]

49 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Most of that isn't being bought with money, it's being bought with debt load. What happens when the bottom falls out? Remember the housing crisis? People don't need more debt, they need more income. 

Actually, no they don't need "more income" they need to learn to budget their income better to be able to afford things. My ex has a college degree and makes $15 an hour. She raises 3 kids on her own *not my kids*. She makes too much for food stamps but is able to pay all her bills, get food, buy the kids clothes, pay for their sports, pay her car loan and insurance. She also was able to buy both of the older kids cars *not brand new but good, reliable cars*. All the kids have cell phones, of the prepaid variety, and pretty much get to do whatever they want. How does she do all this on her income? Well, she's probably one of the most financially responsible people I've ever known and a fantastic saver. She doesn't spend money on frivolous things. The kids have also learned that it is necessary to work for what you want and the two how are old enough started working as soon as they could. By doing so they've also helped by paying for their own car insurance and covering the cost of their gas as well as some of their less expensive activities. People spend money on way too many unimportant things and by doing so leave themselves struggling to afford the basic necessities. You put someone in her position that right now gets all sorts of help and they will struggle worse than they do now because they would receive next to no help. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't jobs out there that are paying too little, but I'm definitely saying that not every job out there is deserving of making $10-15 an hour.

[Ernest Jones]

9 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Actually, no they don't need "more income" they need to learn to budget their income better to be able to afford things. My ex has a college degree and makes $15 an hour. She raises 3 kids on her own *not my kids*. She makes too much for food stamps but is able to pay all her bills, get food, buy the kids clothes, pay for their sports, pay her car loan and insurance. She also was able to buy both of the older kids cars *not brand new but good, reliable cars*. All the kids have cell phones, of the prepaid variety, and pretty much get to do whatever they want. How does she do all this on her income? Well, she's probably one of the most financially responsible people I've ever known and a fantastic saver. She doesn't spend money on frivolous things. The kids have also learned that it is necessary to work for what you want and the two how are old enough started working as soon as they could. By doing so they've also helped by paying for their own car insurance and covering the cost of their gas as well as some of their less expensive activities. People spend money on way too many unimportant things and by doing so leave themselves struggling to afford the basic necessities. You put someone in her position that right now gets all sorts of help and they will struggle worse than they do now because they would receive next to no help. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't jobs out there that are paying too little, but I'm definitely saying that not every job out there is deserving of making $10-15 an hour.

That's why $15 has been identified as a living wage, because with intelligent spending and careful budgeting you can make a go of it. $7? Not so much. People deserve a chance, $7 doesn't give them that chance regardless of how carefully they budget. 

[Psyber]

Not to mention $15 an hour being a living wage really depends on where you are. I make more than double that and have a very hard time making ends meet and I am single! I don't know how anyone survives on their own with $15 an hour. Not that I think the government needs to do anything about it but you're really scraping the bottom at $15 an hour to have any sort of life.

[Jeremie Boop]

14 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

That's why $15 has been identified as a living wage, because with intelligent spending and careful budgeting you can make a go of it. $7? Not so much. People deserve a chance, $7 doesn't give them that chance regardless of how carefully they budget. 

Nobody should expect to be able to support a family on a single minimum wage income, but guess what, 2 people making minimum wage = right around $15 which apparently a living wage, right? I don't have a problem with welfare services for people who are actively working to improve their situations, however many are just content to stay in their same situation and ask for more instead of doing for themselves. Minimum wage, in my experience, has always been the starting rate for very minimal skill jobs. I don't personally know of any job that pays minimum wage and never gives raises. Heck, most places around here, fast food/walmart/the mall all start higher than minimum wage and I live in a lower than average income city.

 

That being said, we've swerved off track of the subject of this thread, again. As for the topic, well I don't think I'll be voting for Trump, but then again I don't think I'll be voting for anyone. There isn't a single candidate that has enough parts of their platform that I agree with enough to feel comfortable backing them.

Quote

Not to mention $15 an hour being a living wage really depends on where you are. I make more than double that and have a very hard time making ends meet and I am single! I don't know how anyone survives on their own with $15 an hour. Not that I think the government needs to do anything about it but you're really scraping the bottom at $15 an hour to have any sort of life.

@Psyber I agree that it does depend on the cost of living where you are. I don't make much over $15 but I live pretty darn comfortably. I think that minimum wage should be based on the job and the cost of living in that area. There's no reason that it should be federally mandated because some places $15 an hour puts you way over what the cost of living is.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jeremie Boop

[14ledo81]

 

43 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

That's why $15 has been identified as a living wage, because with intelligent spending and careful budgeting you can make a go of it. $7? Not so much. People deserve a chance, $7 doesn't give them that chance regardless of how carefully they budget. 

 

I don't think $7 an hour was ever meant to be a living wage.  I look at it as more of a stepping stone position.  Youth, under-skilled, etc.  I would not expect the small town convenience store owner to pay my daughter (when she becomes 15 years old) $15 an hour to work the cash register.

 

29 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

 

@Psyber I agree that it does depend on the cost of living where you are. I don't make much over $15 but I live pretty darn comfortably. I think that minimum wage should be based on the job and the cost of living in that area. There's no reason that it should be federally mandated because some places $15 an hour puts you way over what the cost of living is.

 

This is the first time I have seen this mentioned.  I think this idea has merit.  It follows with all positions that are above minimum wage.  Journeymen plumbers get paid differently in different parts of the nation.

[Mr. Desmond]

So for those on a bare living wage, how is that retirement income accumulating?

Will the Donald help?

Should we tax the typical IRA? Or should we allow a tax deduction and not tax it when it comes out; i.e., a deductible Roth IRA.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[Jeremie Boop]

41 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

So for those on a bare living wage, how is that retirement income accumulating?

Will the Donald help?

Should we tax the typical IRA? Or should we allow a tax deduction and not tax it when it comes out; i.e., a deductible Roth IRA.

I'm sorry, what? Just about every job has some sort of retirement options. Outside of that, I didn't realize that it was the governments job to make sure people have some sort of retirement available to them. I didn't even start being able to put into retirement until 2 years ago when I got hired in here, and they just take 10% of my income straight away to put into my retirement by default. Again, I really feel like the burden is on the person to work to improve their situation. Look for a better job, look for ways to continue education and/or work skills to make yourself more marketable. People do it all the time, from horrible situations, worse than many who are out there advocating for jumping minimum wage up to some absurd amount. There are programs, already in place, to help people find jobs and help get them training, that are provided by the government. I just don't understand your shift from "living wage" to "but what about retirement".... Tossing in the "Will the Donald help?" was a good save to try to keep on topic though. In that regard, what do the other candidates have in their platform that addresses retirement for people? Giving people more money does not exactly mean those people are going to start putting away for retirement though.

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I'm sorry, what? Just about every job has some sort of retirement options. Outside of that, I didn't realize that it was the governments job to make sure people have some sort of retirement available to them. 

There are 8.1 million small businesses, which represent 99.7% of all employers. Only 32% of them offer any sort of retirement plan. 

 

[Dave2512]

If Trump wasn't a xenophobic, sexist freak I'd probably vote for him. He may not spew canned responses about policy but honestly I don't want to hear that anymore, being well versed in jargon heavy government-speak hasn't made any of our previous officials good at what they do. His strength is he has a feel for the pulse of the people on the street struggling to make ends meet, but only if they meet his weird criteria.

But something has to change. I've made more than a million dollars in say 8-9 years and have retained very little of it. I get taxed to death and cost of living is ridiculous. I'm not frivolous I live modestly in a 1100 sq. ft. house, I own my vehicles and I'm not drowning in debt. Still I live pay check to pay check with just enough left over my one guilty pleasure golf.

Watching the debates and seeing what the candidates say in interviews has me thinking they are out of touch with people like me. There are bits and pieces that appeal to me with Trump, bits and pieces of good with Bernie and Hillary. But I'd rather be scraping by and living a decent life meeting my obligations than support someone that only wants a good life for people he chooses so there is no way I can consider him. Someone that's less abrasive needs to start sharing some of his ideas.

[GolfLug]

I know this is not minimum wage thread but since it is being discussed....

While I agree $15 may be 'comfortable' in some areas and if set as min wage may simply eliminate some base jobs, but I can certainly say $7.25 anywhere is silly. Just silly. Virginia Beach/Norfolk is what I would call median to slightly below median cost of living area.

Company I work for has 400 employees, most (direct labor) of who fall in the $8.50 (straight labor)to $10.50 (somewhat skilled labor) range. The quality of life even for the responsible ones below $10/hr. outside of paying bills is let's just say non-existent. I'm not saying we should all pool in and wire-transfer then monthly aid but that is just too polarized. The owners can do better, much better and still do well on their bottom-lines. Really well. I can attest to it first hand. The alternative answer to it that they should all train themselves and work hard to find better paying jobs is offensive. Sure, some, but majority, no.

 

 

[Braivo]

5 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Watching the debates and seeing what the candidates say in interviews has me thinking they are out of touch with people like me. There are bits and pieces that appeal to me with Trump, bits and pieces of good with Bernie and Hillary. But I'd rather be scraping by and living a decent life meeting my obligations than support someone that only wants a good life for people he chooses so there is no way I can consider him. Someone that's less abrasive needs to start sharing some of his ideas.

You seem to mirror the sentiment of a lot of folks. They seem conflicted on Trump. You admit to liking his ideas, but also say you'll never vote for him for an ambiguous reason that you can't quite describe. 

I get it, my parents were the same way. Lifelong union dems who don't see much hope in the other candidates, they eventually came around to Trump. 

Why? He is less inclined to help only "people he chooses" than the other candidates that have their campaign funded by Goldman Sachs (true story, look it up). He is indebted to no one. I truly believe he wants what is best for America and he has a history of succeeding once he sets his mind on something. 

Btw, a successful businessman such as yourself has the most to lose under a Sanders administration. He hopes to tax the likes of yourself into oblivion, he makes no apologies for it. Trump's tax plan is much more measured. 

[Jeremie Boop]

22 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

There are 8.1 million small businesses, which represent 99.7% of all employers. Only 32% of them offer any sort of retirement plan. 

 

Interesting, I guess my experience has just been significantly different in that regard. Just about every place I've worked has had an optional retirement plan you can sign up for. Still though, I don't see how that's something that the government needs to be responsible for.

18 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

If Trump wasn't a xenophobic, sexist freak I'd probably vote for him. He may not spew canned responses about policy but honestly I don't want to hear that anymore, being well versed in jargon heavy government-speak hasn't made any of our previous officials good at what they do. His strength is he has a feel for the pulse of the people on the street struggling to make ends meet, but only if they meet his weird criteria.

But something has to change. I've made more than a million dollars in say 8-9 years and have retained very little of it. I get taxed to death and cost of living is ridiculous. I'm not frivolous I live modestly in a 1100 sq. ft. house, I own my vehicles and I'm not drowning in debt. Still I live pay check to pay check with just enough left over my one guilty pleasure golf.

Watching the debates and seeing what the candidates say in interviews has me thinking they are out of touch with people like me. There are bits and pieces that appeal to me with Trump, bits and pieces of good with Bernie and Hillary. But I'd rather be scraping by and living a decent life meeting my obligations than support someone that only wants a good life for people he chooses so there is no way I can consider him. Someone that's less abrasive needs to start sharing some of his ideas.

Your point of view is very understandable. Just change the bolded line and substitute it in for any number of variations and you could apply it to people who are for just about any candidate. Some will say they'd rather keep scraping by as long as they don't have to foot more of a bill to support people who want to stay on welfare, or rather keep scraping by as long as more people can get the help they need, or rather keep scraping by as long as large coorperations stop getting bailed out or help from the government etc etc . Everyone is fed up with the status quo pretty much, we just differ on what we think needs to change and who we think can actually affect that change. The major problem is, I don't think anything is going to change quickly. Candidates talk a big game, about implementing policies, changes, cuts, increases, and of just generally "getting stuff done", but the problem is once they are in office that becomes incredibly difficult to do in an effect manner. Some stuff could be simple, but the bigger things get mired in the whole bureaucracy of the governmental process. Special interest groups will fight against different changes, regardless of how beneficial they would be to the common citizen. 

9 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I know this is not minimum wage thread but since it is being discussed....

While I agree $15 may be 'comfortable' in some areas and if set as min wage may simply eliminate some base jobs, but I can certainly say $7.25 anywhere is silly. Just silly. Virginia Beach/Norfolk is what I would call median to slightly below median cost of living area.

Company I work for has 400 employees, most (direct labor) of who fall in the $8.50 (straight labor)to $10.50 (somewhat skilled labor) range. The quality of life even for the responsible ones below $10/hr. outside of paying bills is let's just say non-existent. I'm not saying we should all pool in and wire-transfer then monthly aid but that is just too polarized. The owners can do better, much better and still do well on their bottom-lines. Really well. I can attest to it first hand. The alternative answer to it that they should all train themselves and work hard to find better paying jobs is offensive. Sure, some, but majority, no.

 

 

I disagree that it's offensive to suggest that people try to improve themselves so that they can get better jobs. I think it's offensive to say that they can't improve themselves because you are discrediting their ability. I worked construction for several years, I started out as a completely green laborer but because I didn't want to stay stuck at the bottom pay I worked hard to learn as much as I could to make myself more valuable. It got to the point where people request me specifically to work with them, I became a more valuable employee through hard work and got a pay raise and was even kept on the job longer than other people who had done the job much longer after the work slowed down. There are classes here locally that you can learn how to weld, for example, at very little or possibly no cost depending. If you get into a union hall, they train you for any number of jobs and even provide free room and board as well as some pay while in training. As I said, there are a multitude of ways to improve yourself so that you can make more money, and to say that it's offensive to suggest that people make use of such opportunities just doesn't make sense to me.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jeremie Boop