Donald Trump for president?

[GolfLug]

12 hours ago, Lihu said:

Allowing private companies to hire more people through better tax credits is a starting point. . .

So you think, companies don't hire enough people because they are not getting enough tax credits? Or let me ask you this way, companies will hire more people which they may or may not need because they have more tax credit, i.e., they have bottom line money to pay out? Isn't the same type of waste?

Isn't that what the gov. orgs like IRS and military have done, except they are self funded? So either they give the money to private companies via tax credits as you say or they do it through gov employment. It is the same people.

Anyway, the only point I am making is no POTUS can make fundamental changes like making the 'country great again' just because they want to. There is finite number of people, finite resources for new product, finite buyers and finite money that will exchange hands. You have to rob Peter to pay Paul - not that simple.

I just hope whoever ends up being POTUS is not a complete A-hole. Trump has the capacity to be one.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

So you think, companies don't hire enough people because they are not getting enough tax credits? Or let me ask you this way, companies will hire more people which they may or may not need because they have more tax credit, i.e., they have bottom line money to pay out?

Isn't that what the gov. orgs like IRS and military have done, except they are self funded? So either they give the money to private companies via tax credits as you say or they do it through gov employment. Either way it is the same people.

Anyway, the only point I am making is no POTUS can make fundamental changes like making the 'country great again' just because they want to. There is finite number of people, finite resources for new product, finite buyers and finite money that will exchange hands. You have to rob Paul to pay Peter - not that simple.

I just hope whoever ends up being POTUS is not a complete A-hole. Trump has the capacity to be one.

Not the same jobs. People in the private sector produce things, people working for the government, well, govern the people who produce.

Many people seem to forget that it's the private sector jobs that make the economy. If you want a stronger economy you need a smaller government.

It's really that simple.

[newtogolf]

43 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

So you think, companies don't hire enough people because they are not getting enough tax credits? Or let me ask you this way, companies will hire more people which they may or may not need because they have more tax credit, i.e., they have bottom line money to pay out? Isn't the same type of waste?

Isn't that what the gov. orgs like IRS and military have done, except they are self funded? So either they give the money to private companies via tax credits as you say or they do it through gov employment. It is the same people.

Anyway, the only point I am making is no POTUS can make fundamental changes like making the 'country great again' just because they want to. There is finite number of people, finite resources for new product, finite buyers and finite money that will exchange hands. You have to rob Peter to pay Paul - not that simple.

I just hope whoever ends up being POTUS is not a complete A-hole. Trump has the capacity to be one.

You've made great points throughout.  You won't see much benefit from cutting waste (people) from the Federal budget if there aren't jobs waiting for them in the private sector (there aren't).  Until you fix the private sector, you can't get to where we need to be by cutting the public sector.  

Small businesses hire the majority of people, regulations and Obama Care have made it very unpalatable to grow your small business to over 50 employees unless you are certain you can launch to medium - large quickly.  

I sold my small business when it reached 48 employees because the regulations would have completely changed the way we operated.  

The major reasons large businesses aren't hiring are; 

• US Labor is too expensive, the push to $15 minimum wages will only result in the loss of more jobs.  Add in health care, unemployment, payroll taxes, social security, etc and that one person costs the business a fully burdened rate of $30+ per hour.  
• Qualitative easing - international businesses are doing well but they are losing net income because every country is manipulating the value of their money to gain trade advantages. 
• Taxes - businesses like Apple will continue to move offshore to reduce their tax burden to the US.  This mentality that we keep taxing the wealthy and businesses will just force more companies out of the country and result in even less tax income.  Same goes for the states.  NY is losing major businesses because NY state taxes are ridiculously high to cover all the entitlement programs.  

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Not the same jobs. People in the private sector produce things, people working for the government, well, govern the people who produce.

Many people seem to forget that it's the private sector jobs that make the economy. If you want a stronger economy you need a smaller government.

It's really that simple.

The Federal Government is the country's largest employer. Those employees are consumers too. I think your logic is a bit off here. It is not that simple. Smaller government is a frequent outcry, but so is the outcry for a strong defense, better infrastructure, job creation, etc. Each of those items also create jobs, both public and private. It is a complex system. Neither party does a good job of weeding out the waste. They just target different areas to eliminate based on ideology.

[ppine]

Beware of anyone that asks you to raise your hand and pledge your support to them.

Look for a candidate that pledges his support to you.

The last two guys to try this approach were Mussolini and Hitler.

[acerimusdux]

17 hours ago, GolfLug said:

I don't understand how would Trump (or anybody, for that matter) bring efficiency by 'eliminating' waste? The 'waste' here is people.

Actually, salaries and benefits only account for about 15% of Federal Spending. And for civilian employees, it's only about 7%. There is probably a lot of waste that could be found other places. In fact, the number of federal employees is the lowest it has been since 1966. Steadily increasing spending isn't due to the number of employees.

 

21 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

You've made great points throughout.  You won't see much benefit from cutting waste (people) from the Federal budget if there aren't jobs waiting for them in the private sector (there aren't).  Until you fix the private sector, you can't get to where we need to be by cutting the public sector. 

While that has been true, I'm not sure it is anymore. Labor markets have been tightening. You now have the insured unemployment rate at a record low (1.7% SA), job vacancies at the highest rate in 15 years (5.6M vacancies), and people who had left the work force being drawn back in, as the civilian labor force grew by 2M in the last 5 months, the fastest rate in 16 years.

At this point, I think the private sector probably will continue to expand if you get government more out of the way.

 

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Many people seem to forget that it's the private sector jobs that make the economy. If you want a stronger economy you need a smaller government.

It's really that simple.

But this isn't necessarily true either. If one looks at the most prosperous countries in the world, I would say it even appears the correlation runs in the other direction. For the most part, they have government revenues of anywhere from 30%-60% of GDP. The US is on the low end of this (even including state and local).

Countries like Norway (55.4%), Denmark (55.6%), Sweden (51.8%), The Netherlands (44.8%), Finland (57%), New Zealand (43.1%), Canada (37.2%), The U.K. (38.4) Germany (45%), and Belgium (49.5%) all rank amongst the world's most prosperous nations while having significantly higher levels of government than we do.  Such countries also dominate the Forbes list of the Best Countries for Business.

I'm not saying we need a larger government, either. But I think far more important than the size, is what the government spends on. In the U.S., I think we're spending too much on transfer payments and military spending. I think we need to spend a lot more on education and infrastructure.

All of which I suppose is veering off topic. But I'll say that I do think Donald Trump ought to understand the value of making the right kinds of investments. He didn't get rich just by keeping costs low, he did it by understanding the value of the right kind of spending, even on some very big projects.

[Lihu]

19 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

Actually, salaries and benefits only account for about 15% of Federal Spending. And for civilian employees, it's only about 7%. There is probably a lot of waste that could be found other places. In fact, the number of federal employees is the lowest it has been since 1966. Steadily increasing spending isn't due to the number of employees.

 

While that has been true, I'm not sure it is anymore. Labor markets have been tightening. You now have the insured unemployment rate at a record low (1.7% SA), job vacancies at the highest rate in 15 years (5.6M vacancies), and people who had left the work force being drawn back in, as the civilian labor force grew by 2M in the last 5 months, the fastest rate in 16 years.

At this point, I think the private sector probably will continue to expand if you get government more out of the way.

 

But this isn't necessarily true either. If one looks at the most prosperous countries in the world, I would say it even appears the correlation runs in the other direction. For the most part, they have government revenues of anywhere from 30%-60% of GDP. The US is on the low end of this (even including state and local).

Countries like Norway (55.4%), Denmark (55.6%), Sweden (51.8%), The Netherlands (44.8%), Finland (57%), New Zealand (43.1%), Canada (37.2%), The U.K. (38.4) Germany (45%), and Belgium (49.5%) all rank amongst the world's most prosperous nations while having significantly higher levels of government than we do.  Such countries also dominate the Forbes list of the Best Countries for Business.

I'm not saying we need a larger government, either. But I think far more important than the size, is what the government spends on. In the U.S., I think we're spending too much on transfer payments and military spending. I think we need to spend a lot more on education and infrastructure.

All of which I suppose is veering off topic. But I'll say that I do think Donald Trump ought to understand the value of making the right kinds of investments. He didn't get rich just by keeping costs low, he did it by understanding the value of the right kind of spending, even on some very big projects.

The examples you posted are not representative of a standard economy.

For example, if you quoted a country like Switzerland, then they do a lot of banking and money transactions for wealthy. Even their tourism and dairy industry could be turned into government programs and still show profit. Swiss heavy machinery depends heavily upon consumers of their inventions. Their economy could be all government workers and they could still have a decent GDP per capita. These service countries depend heavily upon other countries for natural resources and manufacturing.

A standard economy encompasses agriculture, mining, steel working, production, invention, services etc. You need everything to prosper.

[baller7345]

3 hours ago, Braivo said:

Michigan could very likely go red for Trump, first time since 1988. Many of those Bernie supporters may go Trump in the GE because 1) he is anti-establishment and 2) he is signalling some toughness on trade. The working class in MI is fed up with Democrats, they will vote for a man who promises closed borders and better trade deals. 

I find this argument weak at best.  Everyone I know that supports Bernie would rather be shot than vote Trump.  Not saying, some people would switch to Trump, but I doubt it would be many.  I figure a large amount would abstain, and most of what's left would reluctantly go with Hilary just because she isn't Trump.

Maybe I just know the wrong people.

Edited March 9, 2016 by baller7345

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

The Federal Government is the country's largest employer. Those employees are consumers too. I think your logic is a bit off here. It is not that simple. Smaller government is a frequent outcry, but so is the outcry for a strong defense, better infrastructure, job creation, etc. Each of those items also create jobs, both public and private. It is a complex system. Neither party does a good job of weeding out the waste. They just target different areas to eliminate based on ideology.

Exactly. Good post. It is a closed loop. It is complex and self feeding. Picking out or 'eliminating' any of the elements does not solve something that is more inherent in the structure. That is why I don't get when somebody says 'drastic' change.

40 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

Actually, salaries and benefits only account for about 15% of Federal Spending. And for civilian employees, it's only about 7%. There is probably a lot of waste that could be found other places. In fact, the number of federal employees is the lowest it has been since 1966. Steadily increasing spending isn't due to the number of employees.

Whatever it is due to, it is I am not in disagreement that there improper distribution/spending  and could use a better balance (not talking Bernie style re-distribution but better targeted). All I know is that it is easier said than done and in the least Trump could show a bit more respect to details. It smells and tastes awfully like cool-aid otherwise.  

[pumaAttack]

23 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

Easy to work long hours when you live an otherwise cushy lifestyle, he's not out there breaking rocks.

 

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

The Federal Government is the country's largest employer. Those employees are consumers too. I think your logic is a bit off here. It is not that simple. Smaller government is a frequent outcry, but so is the outcry for a strong defense, better infrastructure, job creation, etc. Each of those items also create jobs, both public and private. It is a complex system. Neither party does a good job of weeding out the waste. They just target different areas to eliminate based on ideology.

That's the main problem. It really shouldn't be.

It would make sense to force all federal employees to purchase only American goods***, though.

 

***Obviously impossible, but it's the thought that counts. . .

[pumaAttack]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

That's the main problem. It really shouldn't be.

It would make sense to force all federal employees to purchase only American goods***, though.

 

***Obviously impossible, but it's the thought that counts. . .

 

So you don't like that the governing body of the country also employees the most citizens?

[jamo]

8 minutes ago, Lihu said:

It would make sense to force all federal employees to purchase only American goods***, though.

 

***Obviously impossible, but it's the thought that counts. . .

What?

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Lihu said:

That's the main problem. It really shouldn't be.

It would make sense to force all federal employees to purchase only American goods***, though.

***Obviously impossible, but it's the thought that counts. . .

That makes no sense at all.

[Gunther]

11 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

So you don't like that the governing body of the country also employees the most citizens?

No, the governing body should be as small as possible, as the founders intended.

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

So you don't like that the governing body of the country also employees the most citizens?

No, I think it's ridiculous that the government of a country this size should employ most of its citizens. We might as well become communist because capitalism seems to be thriving pretty well in a communist regime.

 

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

No, the governing body should be as small as possible, as the founders intended.

Bingo! That's why my dad's family went to great lengths to come to this country legally. Even signed up to fight in this country's army to get around the Chinese exclusion act.

 

[nevets88]

OK @boogielicious, I was wrong, minuscule not so much. Even though not an influence, more than I thought.

And it's not an obstruction or protest vote. WaPo calls it a strategic vote. Kind of takes the venom out of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/no-donald-trump-is-not-winning-states-because-of-strategic-voting/

 

[pumaAttack]

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

No, the governing body should be as small as possible, as the founders intended.

The founding fathers were not at the helm of a 300 million person country...  You can't take their intentions and apply them to the modern world.  

 

Just now, Lihu said:

No, I think it's ridiculous that the government of a country this size should employ most of its citizens. We might as well become communist because capitalism seems to be thriving pretty well in a communist regime.

You can have federal employees and not be a communist nation...  I am sorry, I missed the memo where it's bad that our government employees people and provides infrastructure.