U.S Politics; The Price of Steele

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

I'd agree that we have to be more nuanced about this stuff.

I'm really not anti-trade though and I do have some reasons why I could be. I'm 42 and been in the same geographical area all my life. As a result, I've seen the types of jobs different generations had. It's been pretty awful as a whole to the younger generations. While there are a lot of hot tech jobs in this area, these kids are not getting them. 

I just prefer to blame the American conservatives currently plotting how best to further destroy these kids rather than trade, because it is constant and ongoing.

But yes, the fact that the spoils of free trade ended up primarily in the pockets of the wealthy does drive some skepticism of trade on the left. Bernie Sanders for example I think has some skepticism.

Overall I am not an anti free trader, being mostly pro free trade. What I would have like to have seen is money set aside for people that lost because of trade, helping to them to retrain, move, or whatever. And that could have been done probably for a fraction of the cost the insane Republican corporate tax bill.

In the long run, trade is likely beneficial for most people. In the long run, the labor market will adjust putting people in more productive jobs. But for some folks the long run can be a very long time, perhaps their entire life time. The long run for them means nothing. I just wish things would have been handled differently.

But by no means, do I support Trumps current actions with regard to tariffs. I think they are more harmful than helpful. But, aside from pointing out Trump's incoherent and contradictory approach to free trade issues, I'd like the left to resolve it's differences over trade and come up with a coherent and unified approach to the issue. I don't think I quite agree with Sanders approach to trade, but I understand the source of his concerns.

And of course there is the fact that not all the wealthy inequality is driven by trade issues. In fact most of it is likely do to other reasons than free trade. It's only part of the story, but not the whole one.

[Martell Spy]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Overall I am not an anti free trader, being mostly pro free trade. What I would have like to have seen is money set aside for people that lost because of trade, helping to them to retrain, move, or whatever. And that could have been done probably for a fraction of the cost the insane Republican corporate tax bill.

In the long run, trade is likely beneficial for most people. In the long run, the labor market will adjust putting people in more productive jobs. But for some folks the long run can be a very long time, perhaps their entire life time. The long run for them means nothing. I just wish things would have been handled differently.

But by no means, do I support Trumps current actions with regard to tariffs. I think they are more harmful than helpful. But, aside from pointing out Trump's incoherent and contradictory approach to free trade issues, I'd like the left to resolve it's differences over trade and come up with a coherent and unified approach to the issue. I don't think I quite agree with Sanders approach to trade, but I understand the source of his concerns.

And of course there is the fact that not all the wealthy inequality is driven by trade issues. In fact most of it is likely do to other reasons than free trade. It's only part of the story, but not the whole one.

I agree Trump's trade actions are likely harmful. At best, there will be some retaliation and a forcing of withdrawal of the tariffs, much like with Bush Jr. It has the potential to do great harm though.

Quote

Well, it might seem strange that Ryan has failed to negotiate a grand bargain to cut spending and raise revenue, like Boehner attempted. Except Ryan doesn’t care about the deficit and never has, which is why he supported a wide array of deficit-increasing measures the last time Republicans held the presidency, under George W. Bush. For instance, why did Boehner’s grand bargain fail? Because Paul Ryan opposed it. And why did Ryan oppose it? Because he is motivated primarily by low taxes for the rich.

Paul Ryan Is a Trump Lackey for One Reason

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/paul-ryan-is-a-trump-lackey-for-one-reason.html

[OldGimletEye]

The Democrat Dirty Dozen:

Quote

Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Heitkamp, Heidi [D-ND]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]*    11/16/2017
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]*    11/16/2017
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]    12/06/2017
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE]    12/06/2017
Sen. Jones, Doug [D-AL]    02/15/2018

More on the Dirty Dozen:

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/3/6/17081532/republicans-dodd-frank-financial-regulations

Quote

In the next week, the Senate is expected to pass the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, a bill that rolls back some of Dodd-Frank’s financial regulations and widens existing loopholes.

Republicans drafted the bill. But it has 12 Democratic co-sponsors, giving it a filibuster-proof majority.

 

[DanteGabriel]

Stormy Daniels has dick pics.

Quote

The suit includes a copy of the NDA that Daniels and Cohen signed, as well as a copy of a side agreement showing that she is referred to in the NDA as Peggy Peterson and Trump is referred to in it as David Dennison in order to keep their actual names out of that document.

Daniels, the NDA states, "came into possession of certain 'Confidential Information' pertaining to DD," including "certain still images and/or text messages which were authored by or related to DD."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-saying-he-didnt-sign-hush-agreement?ref=home

[LongRider]

27 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Stormy Daniels has dick pics.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-saying-he-didnt-sign-hush-agreement?ref=home

Lordy, let there be tapes. And texts, and dick pics.   

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I don't understand what the hell is going on with Leo. He's a Canadian, was head of the equivalent union up here in Canada. Smart, aggressive guy. Has he been warped in America? He certainly understands trade issues.

I have no idea. I remember first seeing him on TV a decade or so ago and he seemed perfectly reasonable, but he seems to have been off his rocker for a couple of years. My only guess is that his constituency has changed a lot since then which has forced him to take a new tact.

 

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

There is always been part of the left that has been uneasy with free trade. And it's not completely void of good reasons. Standard models predict that free trade will redistribute income. The case that the trade with China actually caused job losses rather than merely redistributing income and the configuration of jobs seems fairly strong at this point.

Now the official story is that it is all robots. But for the people that have suffered job losses or have to shift to lower paying jobs are probably very suspicious of that story and well, honestly, they have some reason to be.

When these trade deals had been signed, and had we been more honest, that not everyone was going to be a winner, at least initially, and had taken steps to compensate the losers from trade, then we might not see so much populous backlash against trade.

Overall I tend to be a free trader. And over all. I think it is beneficial. But, I think it was just a tad dishonest to portray everyone as being winners from trade. And both the Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility here.

This is not a defense of Trump's actions as I think they are overall bad and likely just to piss off many of our key allies, who we already have strained relationships with.

I would have preferred more direct aid to have gone to those people that have experienced job losses as result of trade. Certainly, I think we could have done a lot for a fraction of the cost of the ridiculous corporate tax bill.

But, what I want to mainly get at here, I think, is that lets just get this out in the open is that yes some of the left is very skeptical of trade. And I think it's important we understand the reasons why. And it's important I think for the left to understand what it wants to to do about it, should it regain power. And I think it's important for the left to have a little more nuanced understanding of the issues here than the Republican right, which just mindlessly says "the market is always awesome!"

The support you are seeing from Democrats here is almost entirely pandering to constituents. It's all the people from places where steel workers scream a lot about tariffs.

You've got the sort of Sanders-type complaints about Chinese steel dumping and tariffs too. Of course this group's praise, from the articles I've read, is mostly incoherent since it keeps talking about sanctions on China rather then, you know, everyone. Some of it makes me wonder if the news articles are even showing statements from this week on the issue from these people or just past more general blather.

The support though is generally for the same reason Trump is doing this whole thing: blah blah blah loss of manly american steel jobs pander pander I don't understand how trade actually works

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I have no idea. I remember first seeing him on TV a decade or so ago and he seemed perfectly reasonable, but he seems to have been off his rocker for a couple of years. My only guess is that his constituency has changed a lot since then which has forced him to take a new tact.

His constituency is the same, it just seems like what you are talking about is him better reflecting that constituency, whose understanding of the issue is ... less then stellar.

[Ormond]

16 hours ago, dmc515 said:

 

Where is there data that separates early from late Boomers (sometimes called "Generation Jones")?  That'd be very interesting to look at.  In general, it's true that the Silents are more Republican than Boomers, but the difference between the two is substantially less than the difference between Boomers and younger generations.  Further, as mentioned in that PEW study, Boomers are becoming more conservative - while, interestingly, Gen Xers identified as liberal Democrats in 2016 at their highest rate since 2000.  However, it's important to emphasize this is largely driven by the demographic makeup of each generation, namely ethnicity and education:

 

 

There is data separating people out by specific year of birth. 

Here is a 2014 chart from Pew which does that, showing that the Silent Generation is the only group where a majority are Republican or Republican-leaning. Though Boomers are less Democratic than Millennials, on that chart the sharpest generational difference is almost right at the traditional boundary between Silents and Boomers -- actually about a year before, with it looking to me like those born in 1944 average out way more Republican than those born in 1945:

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/30/a-different-look-at-generations-and-partisanship/

And on that chart the second half of the Baby Boom definitely averages out less Democratic than the first half.

And here is a report from Gallup in 2014, showing that those born between 1931 and 1945, and between 1957 and 1970, were the two most "Republican" groups --again showing that the later Baby Boomers (and early Gen Xers) are more Republican than the early Baby Boomers:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Yukle said:

 

I've read the document, 

The infamous tape is something where he states that Trump was threatened with its existence, but as for the tape itself it's hard to say if it actually exists, as such.

OK, point of clarification please. Is the tape supposedly about Trump getting peed on, the Obama’s bed getting peed on, or both? I’ve heard all three, but never cared to look into it because I thought Trump was a germaphobe so it didn’t make much since. However, after learning that he rawdogged an adult film star, I’m of the opinion that all bets are off.

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

OK, point of clarification please. Is the tape supposedly about Trump getting peed on, the Obama’s bed getting peed on, or both? I’ve heard all three, but never cared to look into it because I thought Trump was a germaphobe so it didn’t make much since. However, after learning that he rawdogged an adult film star, I’m of the opinion that all bets are off.

I'd only heard it was the bed. Based on Trump's many statements about body fluids in the past, I'd be surprised if he was okay with getting peed on himself.

[Shryke]

The story as far as I know is that he went to the suite where Obama had stayed, hired a bunch of prostitutes and had them pee on the bed as some sort of attack on Obama to make himself feel better.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Yukle said:

On that, Trump doesn't strike me as hugely tech-savvy, what with his 140 year old phone, and his accidental post of cofveve. (Which could also be part or all of a password he typed into the wrong spot, which I also think entirely likely).

I'm still waiting for the day he accidentally tweets a text to his current mistress(es) instead of texting it.

This is an understatement. I’m sitting in my office and I have a desktop computer with two monitors and a laptop open as I work. What jumped out at me when I first saw Trump being interviewed in his office during the primaries was, “Where the **** is his computer?!?!?” He literally didn’t have one. After do a little reading I found out that he doesn’t like computers, doesn’t use them, or technology in general. Here’s a good summary:

https://gizmodo.com/has-donald-trump-ever-used-a-computer-1762376695

[SpaceChampion]

It be so amusing if Erik Prince makes admissions that lead to his downfall because congressional questioning triggers his inner grammar / spelling pedantry.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

What's the point of it, except for Nunes to use it to toady up to Trump and abuse his power? The House investigation has done more harm than good because it allowed Nunes to invent some bullshit scandals to muddy the waters.

Well, a) it sends a message to voters. Nothing to see here. Just an orange clown feeding in on the worst of humanity that needs a child as a human sacrifice every 7 years or so, but no collusion. So they don't ahve to deal with it during the midterms. b.) it can function as prelude for the Senate Republican to try to do the same and tell the same tale in the midterm. The House found nothing we should top this waste of tax payers money. c.) without ongoing investigation in congress firing Sessions and shutting down Mueller sounds somewhat more normal (I use that word very broadly in a Trump presidency sense).

So I can somehow see the appeal for doing it from the GOP point of view. Esp. since a few house Republicans will probably have some explaining to do, why Republican House is still looking into their President.

[Martell Spy]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/ted-cruz-drops-radio-ad-after-texas-primaries-mocking-opponent-beto-orourke-for-his-name.html

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz: Real Texas Men Don’t Have Nicknames

Quote

Apart from repeating over and over that a Lone Star man is not a liberal (“If you’re gonna run in Texas, you can’t be a liberal man,” the listener is reminded three times in the one-minute ad), the jingle seemed to emphasize that there was something particularly non-Texan about his opponent: his name

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, aeu said:

 

To be fair, that's his job, no?

I doubt that he does not understand the impact in other industries and for end customers.  Or at the very least that there would be adverse impacts. But why should he be worried about that, at the expense of the people he is representing?

It's the administration's job to weigh those concerns when making policy.  True, this president / administration is totally incapable doing that, but surely that's not the fault of the steelworkers.  

  

 

That’s an aspect of his job, but not the sole end. And he has repeatedly said that the economists who think this will lead to long term harm for the steel industry are full of it, even though their logic is sound. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that while this might help steel workers as far as their own jobs are concerned, it will hurt them in many other ways in their everyday lives which could have more impact. He simply isn’t listening to anyone who is critical of the tariffs, and he isn’t considering any of the obvious externalities of this policy change. He didn’t even understand that other countries would retaliate. He is willfully uninformed. That’s not what a good leader does.

[all swedes are racist]

lmao, damn. hope she absolutely crushes him

cynthia nixon may run against cuomo in ny governor primary

[Shryke]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s an aspect of his job, but not the sole end. And he has repeatedly said that the economists who think this will lead to long term harm for the steel industry are full of it, even though their logic is sound. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that while this might help steel workers as far as their own jobs are concerned, it will hurt them in many other ways in their everyday lives which could have more impact. He simply isn’t listening to anyone who is critical of the tariffs, and he isn’t considering any of the obvious externalities of this policy change. He didn’t even understand that other countries would retaliate. He is willfully uninformed. That’s not what a good leader does.

I don't see how it would help steel workers as far as their own jobs either.

Tariffs on steel are just going to raise the price of foreign steel. Domestic steel producers will respond to this by raising their own prices almost as much and then pocketing the difference. And that's it. And none of that is going to end up going to or helping your workers.

There is no reason for an american steel producer to invest that extra profit in any way because that requires a belief in this thing lasting long enough to make the large amount of time it would take to spin up new steel production, find the contracts and then run it long enough to make up for the investment and start making a profit. Assuming you even want to bother with that.

But the odds of this holding for a long time are slim, so why bother. As a domestic steel producer the smart bet is to make massive amounts of extra money and just wait till the tariffs get thrown out and not change anything else.

[S John]

14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/ted-cruz-drops-radio-ad-after-texas-primaries-mocking-opponent-beto-orourke-for-his-name.html

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz: Real Texas Men Don’t Have Nicknames

 

Every time I discuss Ted Cruz with any conservative I like to remind them about that time he endorsed the man who called him a liar and insulted his wife and father on national television.  Cruz is a spineless worm.  From what I gather about O'Rourke, I doubt he will attack Cruz on his about-face on Trump once he got a sense of which way the winds were blowing - but if it were me I'd fucking hammer him on that.  The man allowed his family name to get drug through to mud in front of the entire country and still kissed the ring.  Doesn't seem like a very Texan thing to do, if you ask me.