Yes, the electoral college system gives some voters more influence than others. Republicans have lost the populat vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections!
Are you kidding? To prove one is against illegal immigration, they enforce the laws. Not create a class of non citizens whom get treated as if they are citizens right now. Hillary should have bragged that Obama set records in kicking them out. Trump did mention it but the media did not feature that as top news. Funny innit?
I look at illegals as I look at bankrobbers. When they rob the bank, you do not change a law so they are now legally able to rob the bank. You enforce the law on the books. Kicking out illegals is no crime, it is the law. When you enhance the illegal, you diminish the legal.
That's incorrect as well. If the sum of the costs of production are lower in other countries then it is to the advantage of the US consumer to buy products from companies in those countries. And as a result US consumers have more disposable income to spend on goods and services in the US. Demand is not being stolen - net buying power (and the standard of living) is being increased. To make US companies more globally competitive supply side economic policies are focussed on reducing the costs of production by reducing tax rates and the costs of regulations on those corporations. Supply side economics has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
I think that is well known. Someone on here said something about Clinton being beaten badly - possibly implying a mandate or some sort of unanimity behind Trump policy. I just pointed out that more voters voted for Clinton.
Obama did not have a mandate. I put no real importance on this so called mandate. I understand the constitution is why. CA is why she got more voters. But this state did not manage to ruin the election. Even prior to the election, my call has been to stop seeking public votes for the job of president. I will enumerate some reasons. 1. Public retaliates on each other. 2. Country has long storied history of others doing the voting. 3. Congress votes on behalf of citizens. No reason to mistrust electors. 4. Courts do job for public. Again no need to mistrust electors. 5.Juries are able to decide guilt, Electors were created to handle this task of picking presidents, let them function. 6. Matter of fact, Electors will still decide. Should they want to, they can reverse the outcome. Some Democrats are urging the electors to reverse the election results.
- yes, parliamentary systems have some advantages. Our system really can not tolerate multiple parties, so we're stuck with the calcified hulks we have today while nations with parliamentary systems have multiple parties, allowing for representatives to be much more free about what they support. The GOP has had great success in demanding lock step votes, for example. That would be harder in a parliamentary system, as breaking with ones party establishment isn't nearly as catastrophic in terms of party retribution.. - in most (all?) states electors are chosen by the state political party without there being any national rules on that. There haven't been any cases of "renegade electors" that I know of, but we have an elector here in WA who says he will cast his electoral vote for Trump. (A real nut case who despises Trump as an individual and in terms of policy, but wants to vote against Clinton because she didn't do enough!) He would be fined $1,000 if he did so, as per the agreement he signed to abide by the decision of the voters. Also, the Dem party could replace him. I don't know what would happen in a close national electoral college race if this guy had kept his mouth shut and had simply cast his electoral college vote for Trump at the last minute. Could the state party invalidate that vote on the grounds that it was illegally cast as per his contract? With any luck we won't ever have to figure it out.
when you outsource American jobs you are outsourcing demand from Americans to foreign people who work for 1 dollar a day, for 12 hour days a week. these foreign people who you've given demand too ruin supply side economics, because they don't have any money to buy the supply of products and services. its the same with illegal immigrants who drive down wages in America, for example illegal immigrants cannot afford to buy the newest i fone for $600, so their demand ruins the supply side.
Amazing were it not coming from a Democrat loyalist. That only the GOP is called out when I know for a fact that in the two houses of Congress, when it came to amendments coming from Republicans, during Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's reigns, Democrats allowed republicans to vote, but always voted against them. With republicans then holding minority slots, naturally no republican amendments on pet projects to Democrats got accepted. I recall no republican amendments were allowed on the ACA for instance. Dodd Frank sailed through with just democrats approved law passed.
That also is not correct. An example in the reverse sense is the result of the steel tariff signed into law by Bush 43 early in his first term. The result was the saving of ~ 50K US steel industry jobs but the resulting loss of ~ 150K jobs in the US economy due to the higher price of steel in the US. If foreign workers can produce products which meet US standards as decided by consumers for lower prices it is net beneficial for US consumers to buy from those sources. The increase in purchasing power of the US population far out weighs the negative effects on certain non competitive US companies. If the US implemented a 100% tariff on clothing made in China how does that benefit the US consumer ?? Free trade is a big part of supply side economics because it results in lower prices for the US consumer. But the most focus is reducing the cost of production in the US for the same objective (price reduction) and to make US products more competitive on the global markets. And again supply side economics has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
that was after NAFTA was signed by clinton, when American workers are competing with people who work for 1 dollar a day the rich will choose slave labor over us. supply side economics by President Trump creates demand for supply by not outsourcing American jobs, nor creating demand at the cost of American jobs with illegal immigrants. you are confusing the unfair trade interpretation of supply side economics with President Trumps interpretation. when the economic borders are secure there is no need for demand side economics, or socialism.
Nafta has been a net benefit for the US. There have been winners and losers but more winners and net economic benefit. What Trump is talking about is to correct any restrictions on exports from the US to other countries and more importantly to reduce the gov imposed costs of production on US corporations. Supply side economics is centered on reducing the costs of production which result in lower prices and wealth creation. BTW low cost unskilled labor is one of the ways in which the US economy has grown into the economic power in the world. Denying the ability of third world countries to grow their economies is immoral and makes no economic sense. As those third world economies grow they become markets for US goods and service. Examples - China, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, ....
your morals of giving third world countries the ability to grow their economies comes at the expense of many Americans pursuit of happiness, that is why the 'losers' from unfair trade elected President Trump. President Trump is correcting trade imbalances with tariffs to bring back low cost unskilled labor to America. this increases demand from Americans since they will be paid higher wages over foreign people who 'earn' 1 dollar a day, working 12 hour days. if your theory is US goods and services being sold to asia and south america makes Americans richer, it hasn't for many Americans who are left behind, and that is not acceptable.
It does nothing of the kind. You are arguing that increasing prices of goods in the US is a net benefit to US consumers and the US economy. That is incorrect because less will be consumed and consumers will have less to spend. Standard of living gains will be reduced. The steel tariff is one recent and quickly corrected example. The other example is the Smoot Hawley bill which contributed to the Great Depression. I'm arguing that more goods and services exported to other countries because of price reductions resulting from reducing gov imposed costs of production is a net benefit to US workers, US consumers, and the US economy.
if the American market is not competing with cheap labor from illegal immigrants or the third world, then those increased prices for goods and services will be affordable to Americans from the higher wages they will earn. the law of supply and demand can be negotiated in favor of Americans with President Trumps tariffs, if we must remain trading with foreign countries. now that we have an experienced businessman as President, we can expect proper negotiations in the interests of the poor minority who were left behind. this is all possible because the American democracy gives a super-vote to the oppressed minority with the electoral college.
Walmart low prices are a god send to low income consumers. They benefit greatly and progressively. - - - Updated - - - But if prices are increased there will be more jobs lost than jobs gained. The 2001 steel tariff shows this. It was quickly repealed for that very reason.
Basically we have become a consumer society that expects more for less. That drive the jobs out of this country. Go back 100 years and one did not have a closet full of things never worn or a pantry that had to be thrown out because everything was out of date. I have more crap (tax deductions now) that I don't need or have never used in over a year. I believe we have become a society of largess that cannot be sustained. Low prices can be found at the Salvation Army.
Comparative advantage creates net benefits for all countries. You are assuming that the same total amount of products will be sold if prices are raised. That is not true. Tariffs are a fundamentally bad economic idea. Again I reference the 2001 steel and Smoot Hawley tarrifs. They caused net economic damage and net loss of jobs. In fact even if a country places tariffs on US exports the exact wrong thing for the US to do is implement import tariffs on that countries goods. This is basic economics. The populist narrative is that tariffs will grow the US economy but that is completely untrue. The threat of tariffs however can be used to negotiate better trade agreements with regard to US exports to other countries.
More for less is good. New York could legislate that only oranges grown in New York can be bought in New York but the costs/prices would be many times greater than oranges grown in Florida. How does that benefit the people of New York. Some workers would benefit from working the greenhouses required but fewer oranges would be consumed in New York and those people who consumed the same amount would have less to spend on other goods and services. What was the standard of living and life expectancy 100 years ago?
