tralalalalalala

Bringing back some number of repetitive mindless jobs is better than the current system that puts those people who would have those jobs on the govt. dole and in jobs that pay so low that they can't support a family. This leads to societal issues because many of these people start abusing drugs and heroine. Just look at what has happened to the rust belt, the demographic crisis is similar to what happened during the black plague. 

Just because the elite don't want these jobs doesn't mean they can destroy these families just to raise their incomes. (remember, these people who are a part of our society and helped build its foundation have had no gains in the wealth creation which has went entirely to the 1%).

jmgregory1 said:

Others have said it, we live in a world that has shrunk and there is no way we are going to, or should, try to become some isolated, protectionist, country.  It is ridiculous at best to suggest we do so, and in reality is just pandering to an un-educated populace who are "mad" about things they don't even understand.  One of my business partners complained about the ACA, yet recognizes that without it, he wouldn't be able to afford or get health insurance.  And because he feels betrayed by this fact, then he complains that it's not really affordable - because you know it's "Obama's fault that he couldn't make insurance cost less".

Trump is selling the idea of what he thinks was a great America, one from the 1950's, where women participated in society by staying home to raise the kids, and anyone of color (read as not WASP) knew their place in the world.  American's should be embarrassed of Trump and the "ideals" he is spewing.

Curious, if we shouldn't try to be protectionist ("protecting those in our nation"), who should we strive to protect? In the past, typically you start by protecting your family, and then when that is taken care of you move on to community, state, nation, etc. You seem to be proposing a flipped perspective of 'help the world' at a time when most of the world still yearns to protect themselves first (i.e. at a time when it is suicide to think good intentions and sacrifice will lead to a greater good. e.g. China in regards to massive human rights abuses).

It's interesting you bring up the 1950's, because in the US quality of life surveys indicate that women are far less satisfied with quality of life today than they were in the 50's.

Many on the ACA are paying $1000 premiums with $10k deductibles. That's not really insurance. 

Single payer is the economically sound solution due to economies of scale arguments. Only Sanders and Trump support single payer.

anantksundaram said:

tralalalalalala said:

The poor and lower middle class who have been left out of the economy for the past two decades due to globalist elites might still be worth supporting. (note: all wealth gain has gone to the top 1% in the US since the 1970s) Because our current system (and that proposed by the dems) is that it is better to not have a job than have a job that you don't want (one reason the dems voicing support the US economy losing 2 million people in the workforce due to the affordable care act), it could be an improvement to actually raise costs and reduce taxes. Consider: walmart pays their workers next to nothing because of the tacit agreement with the elite that their workers will be subsidized an additional $18 or so from our taxes in the form of earned income tax credits (for example). tl;dr: We could raise costs and lower taxes and improve the quality of life for Americans. Is it worth propping up the anti-human right Chinese govt. with our innovative technologies and growing their economy while our 99% suffer?

I am sorry, but since when is it the mandate of profit-making businesses to support "the poor and lower middle class?" What is a government for, then?

And, are you saying that you never shop at Walmart? What is the typical demographics of the person that shops at Walmart?

It is the mandate of a business to add wealth to society through healthy feedback of attracting customers. It is the government's mandate to create conditions that allow this to happen in a way that is healthy for the society that represents it.

Currently, our govt. incentivizes American corporations incorrectly.

Since when is it the mandate of profit-making businesses to support the poor by forcing society at large to support their poor business practices. This is what happens in the case of many employers now like the walmart example above. They pay people below living wages and force society to bear the cost while the executives continue to absorb all the wealth creation.

Consider that through the technical revolution in the last 50 years, and all the accompanying productivity gains, have gone entirely towards wealth creation for the 1%. Does that seem odd to you?

Govt. can change their policy to create an environment that doesn't incentivize companies to not share the productivity-driven wealth creation with 99% of their employees. 

Does the US have to settle for sacrificing the lower middle class and below to the alter of artificially low prices just to prop up the wages of those in Washington and NYC? We could vary well support our poor by giving them jobs instead of propping up the Chinese economy. If only the 1% benefit from the current system (this has been proven economically and sociologically based on quality of life metrics), why is it worth it for the 99% to keep it the same. This is why Trump is popular... He is actually saying he will fight for the poor and not the establishment (the 1%).

The poor and lower middle class who have been left out of the economy for the past two decades due to globalist elites might still be worth supporting. (note: all wealth gain has gone to the top 1% in the US since the 1970s) Because our current system (and that proposed by the dems) is that it is better to not have a job than have a job that you don't want (one reason the dems voicing support the US economy losing 2 million people in the workforce due to the affordable care act), it could be an improvement to actually raise costs and reduce taxes. Consider: walmart pays their workers next to nothing because of the tacit agreement with the elite that their workers will be subsidized an additional $18 or so from our taxes in the form of earned income tax credits (for example). tl;dr: We could raise costs and lower taxes and improve the quality of life for Americans. Is it worth propping up the anti-human right Chinese govt. with our innovative technologies and growing their economy while our 99% suffer?