US Politics: Follow the Money!

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No one is arguing the first part I bolded.  You're arguing with someone that doesn't exist.  I for one, am curious to see what the actual scope of interference was.  

 

As to the second part of bolded - you know very well that abdoultely no one is arguing that either.  This is a bunch of hand-wringing over what are basically strawman arguments.

Thank you so very much for setting me straight.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Thank you so very much for setting me straight.

Anytime

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

It remains that never in the history of our national elections has there been interference from another country -- and if there had been, surely it wouldn't be laughed off the way some of the members of this forum are doing in the face of the facts that there was interference. 

I'm not laughing it off, I'm laughing off your contention 2016 was the most corrupt presidential (let's not even get into Senate/MC/State-level) election ever.  Just as I wasn't saying Clinton's lack of campaigning was the major cause of her defeat.  Stop changing the goalposts and arguing against a strawman.

[Martell Spy]

How America Broke Its Economy

Unemployment is at a 15-year low, so why aren't wages surging? Because the old rules no longer apply.

https://newrepublic.com/article/148329/america-broke-economy

Quote

 

Capitalism, as it’s practiced in the United States, has broken economics. Employers have been allowed, through laissez-faire policies, to build up enough power that they’ve become impervious to how economic models dictate they should react.

For example, the New York Times’ Paul Krugman highlighted the possibility that the Great Recession is still depressing wages. Because wages are “sticky”—meaning that it’s hard to cut them even in times of desperation—employers don’t want to increase them in good times, because they know those wages will get stuck at a certain level. “If there’s any truth to this story,” Krugman writes, “the protracted economic weakness that followed the financial crisis is still casting a shadow on labor markets despite low unemployment today.”

 

 

[Spring Bass]

It takes longer, but I think we will get rising wages if unemployment stays below 4% for a few years. At least anecdotally, that's been true here in Utah.

I'm not so sure about the corporate power hypothesis. Do we see slower wage growth in sectors with fewer firms dominating large shares of their markets? I don't doubt that the much weaker unions have had a big role in it - at the very least, they greatly enhance workers' power to push for wage increases in good times.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

How America Broke Its Economy

Unemployment is at a 15-year low, so why aren't wages surging? Because the old rules no longer apply.

https://newrepublic.com/article/148329/america-broke-economy

 

Queue conservatives asserting that if we make it easier to cut wages, wages will increase. 

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Queue conservatives asserting that if we make it easier to cut wages, wages will increase. 

QFT

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Queue conservatives asserting that if we make it easier to cut wages, wages will increase. 

"Mobility begets mobility."

[Mexal]

This makes a ton of sense, not only because it’s not our responsibility but ZTE paid $1.2B in penalties due to selling technology to Iran and NK while sanctioned. Oh and they use their network for compiling intelligence for the Chinese govt. So let’s use our government institutions to save them? What?

 

[LongRider]

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This makes a ton of sense, not only because it’s not our responsibility but ZTE paid $1.2B in penalties due to selling technology to Iran and NK while sanctioned. Oh and they use their network for compiling intelligence for the Chinese govt. So let’s use our government institutions to save them? What?

 

Wait, what, we're supposed to be saving Chinese jobs now?   ffs, I'm so confused. 

edt; with this tweet the world must be laffing at 45 again, outplayed by the Chinese at every turn.   So much winning!!

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

17 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Wait, what, we're supposed to be saving Chinese jobs now?   ffs, I'm so confused. 

edt; with this tweet the world must be laffing at 45 again, outplayed by the Chinese at every turn.   So much winning!!

 

Trump selling America to China has already been an irrational and Xenophobic thought of mine. So, naturally have a tweet showing that.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Trump selling America to China has already been an irrational and Xenophobic thought of mine. So, naturally have a tweet showing that.

This part of the post quoted below, shows that the directive in the tweet; Commence Dept. 'getting it done' takes the sting out of the proposed sanctioning of Iran. Go ahead and do business with Iran, the USA will not only forgive you later, but help the sanctioned firms recoup their losses?    Ffs, that's not coherent in any way.

 

23 minutes ago, LongRider said:

but ZTE paid $1.2B in penalties due to selling technology to Iran and NK while sanctioned.

 

[Zorral]

16 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I'm not laughing it off, I'm laughing off your contention 2016 was the most corrupt presidential (let's not even get into Senate/MC/State-level) election ever.  Just as I wasn't saying Clinton's lack of campaigning was the major cause of her defeat.  Stop changing the goalposts and arguing against a strawman.

Deliberately nothing was mentioned about other elections beyond the POTUS election and campaign.  So why are you bringing that up?  Give me an example of another POTUS election that involved another nation's meddling?  The Hayes-Tilden election was filthy, so was the Kennedy - Nixon election, so was the Bush-Gore (but -- you want to talk about a really really really bad campaigner, there you got him -- he couldn't even win his own damned state), so was the Bush-Kerry -- which is why Cheney couldn't believe they lost to Obama.

These were filthy, but nothing like what was going on with the dumbster and his people $elling and peddling and taking cut$, making deal$ -- with the US's enemies -- and not even in office.  Who else openly palls with torturing, murdering tyrants like Deurte, the Sauds (what exactly what Jared up to with those private meetings, hmmm? which resulted in so many like Saad Hariri being detained)?  Not to mention how every single person around the dumbster is neck deep in Russians and Russian money.  How is that a straw man?

If you weren't saying Clinton's lack of campaigning wasn't the cause of her loss, why did you bring it up at all, and bring it up as the only factor in your protest instead of mentioning the other factors.

Where is the strawman?  Russian meddling isn't. Where are the goalposts changed? Corruption and Russian meddling are not changing goalposts.

Your wonkywinkywiggery -- the straws you throw in the air do not conceal that they are blowing in the direction the wind blows them, and the big -- and blowharding -- winds blow from the direction of white supremacy, hatred of women, massive election corruption and corporate corruption and the Russians are in all of it.  Calling this straw men and moving goalposts -- that's telling someone to sit down and shut up. 

No wonkerywinkerywiggery grave professorial invocation of straw men can hide this -- unless one feel totally secure from any of it affecting you and yours personally, or if you believe that somehow the people who object to these massive coverups, lies and corruptions are responsible because they're too mean to the people who vote for this shyte.

Not saying its exactly the same thing, but it sure does remind one of the rethug  the other day, yelling at Maxine Waters on the floor of the House, who vociferously was objecting to the nullification of the 5-year regulation against discrimination against black people for auto loans, to sit down and shut up, yelling how sick he is of hers and others blathering about anti-discrimination.  He stated right there on the House floor, that anti-discrimination laws stood un the way of making America great again.  He could hardly have been more blatant in telling the world what he believes makes America great is white supremacy and oppression of women, could he?  There it is, folk, right there, recorded on C-Span.

 

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Wait, what, we're supposed to be saving Chinese jobs now?   ffs, I'm so confused. 

edt; with this tweet the world must be laffing at 45 again, outplayed by the Chinese at every turn.   So much winning!!

 

That's why we need a trade war with China I guess. They are laughing at us as they make our President do their bidding, they are playing 3-dimensional chess, like old laser-nipples. 

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

That's why we need a trade war with China I guess. They are laughing at us as they make our President do their bidding, they are playing 3-dimensional chess, like old laser-nipples. 

The USA pulled out of TPP, China was happy to step up and keep negotiating the treaty.  45 pulls out of the Paris Accords and China brags to the world about their advancements in renewables.  45 turns to protectionist measures,  China vows to widen up markets.

Quote

From deals with blocs including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to bilaterals with tiny countries like Maldives, China’s FTAs already cover 21 countries. That compares with the 20 countries covered by U.S. agreements. More than a dozen additional pacts are being negotiated or studied, according to the Ministry of Commerce. 

While President Donald Trump this week imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, underscoring his America first outlook, China is hoping for a "bumper year" for new trade deals, according to the Commerce Ministry.  from here

And now 45 is having a sad because some of China's lost jobs were due to sanction penalties?  Good grief, best deal maker evah!  No, not Dipshit Trump, but President Xi.

[Martell Spy]

11 hours ago, Fall Bass said:

It takes longer, but I think we will get rising wages if unemployment stays below 4% for a few years. At least anecdotally, that's been true here in Utah.

I'm not so sure about the corporate power hypothesis. Do we see slower wage growth in sectors with fewer firms dominating large shares of their markets? I don't doubt that the much weaker unions have had a big role in it - at the very least, they greatly enhance workers' power to push for wage increases in good times.

I bet the Republican/conservative drive to keep the minimum wage low also factors in heavily. The places were there have been large minimum wage increases are blue states, and in general are already higher wage and needed it less than many of the areas where the minimum wage is being purposely kept low. 

Some examples how how corporations can keep wages low. A rural hospital, it's a large employer and the only one around. Now nurses employed can move states or across the state if they don't like the wages, but many people don't want to leave their home region. 

There's the movement of jobs purposely by employers to low regulation states, and an accompanying slashing of wages and benefits. There's the generally pitting of cities and states against each other, perhaps best exemplified by Amazon's current threats to Seattle over the head tax proposal currently being debated. 

Corporate America has been putting out a real sociapathic, Hunger Games vibe for decades now. Bezos barely bothers to hide it now. It is not a far stretch to think they are purposely stifling wages. We certainly see the outcomes.

(And for all the worry that Trump is bullying Amazon, well they seem quite comfortable, as they are not afraid at all to extort Seattle. )

[LongRider]

We need less 'jobs, jobs, jobs' from Prez and MOC's and more 'wages, wages, wages'.  Won't hold my breath though.

[Isalie]

Come at me bro! seriously though, the pace with which the us is losing its standing in the world is kind of amazing.

[TheKitttenGuard]

10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

So Bolton is telling Europe that the US may sanction them if they continue to deal with Iran.  Just great.

Well, it is the rubber and road with this move. Every pro-withdrawal article state Europe will choose trading with U.S over Iran. Also will be Russia and China will not look to defend Iran as well. So even though the U.S violated a Treaty the rest of the world will still follow us or not interfere.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Deliberately nothing was mentioned about other elections beyond the POTUS election and campaign.  So why are you bringing that up?  Give me an example of another POTUS election that involved another nation's meddling?  The Hayes-Tilden election was filthy, so was the Kennedy - Nixon election, so was the Bush-Gore (but -- you want to talk about a really really really bad campaigner, there you got him -- he couldn't even win his own damned state), so was the Bush-Kerry -- which is why Cheney couldn't believe they lost to Obama.

These were filthy, but nothing like what was going on with the dumbster and his people $elling and peddling and taking cut$, making deal$ -- with the US's enemies -- and not even in office.  Who else openly palls with torturing, murdering tyrants like Deurte, the Sauds (what exactly what Jared up to with those private meetings, hmmm? which resulted in so many like Saad Hariri being detained)?  Not to mention how every single person around the dumbster is neck deep in Russians and Russian money.  How is that a straw man?

Reagan colluded with the Iranians to delay the release of American hostages until his inauguration to deny favorable press to Carter during the 1980 election. Nixon sabotaged the 1968 Vietnam peace talks by secretly promising the North Vietnamese a better deal once he is president.

Republicans colluding with US enemies during presidential elections is hardly unprecedented, and considering Roger Stone's involvement in Trump's campaign, it was possibly inspired by previous "successes".