Kenny Mayne: Dear Fellow White People: Or should I have said ‘Caucasian’?

[Veryoldschool]

2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Yes. No.

Next question.

 

 

The lowest black unemployment rate ever was announced, not nearly enough opportunity for all the blue-collar black families out there but it is a start.  I want to see the rates continue to improve and wage rates to grow and this before Trump's big infrastructure bill gets passed.  

[TradeTheBeal!]

24 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Pat writes a lot better than me, but I am flattered by the comparison.

 

Okay, let's go with your numbers they are clearly white supremacist racists.

 

Statistically speaking, Trump received the same support from minorities that every other GOP presidential candidate received post-Southern Strategy.

 

Practically speaking, you have no point and your “numbers” were utterly false.  

 

Thirdly, you sound a whole lot like a white supremacist to me.  Just a thin veneer of civility, but your overall tone is extremely Klannish.  See “globalist”.

[tshile]

Just now, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Statistically speaking, Trump received the same support from minorities that every other GOP presidential candidate received post-Southern Strategy.

 

I have to run for the caps game but last time I looked if you look at % of registered voters, both Trump and Clinton performed pretty poorly.

[Veryoldschool]

2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Statistically speaking, Trump received the same support from minorities that every other GOP presidential candidate received post-Southern Strategy.

 

Practically speaking, you have no point and your “numbers” were utterly false.  

 

Thirdly, you sound a whole lot like a white supremacist to me.  Just a thin veneer of civility, but your overall tone is extremely Klannish.  See “globalist”.

 

Klannish and white supremacist for voicing opposition to globalism?  Welcome to my ignore list. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 minute ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Klannish and white supremacist for voicing opposition to globalism?  Welcome to my ignore list. 

 

Hit it David!

 

https://davidduke.com/the-lies-of-globalism-2/

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I have to run for the caps game but last time I looked if you look at % of registered voters, both Trump and Clinton performed pretty poorly.

 

Go Caps!

[DogofWar1]

If we're gonna start talking about how present day economics situations are better than ever and those same things have been on a positive trendline for a while (like, say, ohhhhh 09/10) I have but one thing to add:

 

Thanks, Obama.

[NoCalMike]

A massive infrastructure bill? That's what you want? Well we can agree on that........but you voted for the wrong guy if that's truly what you want.

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

A massive infrastructure bill? That's what you want? Well we can agree on that........but you voted for the wrong guy if that's truly what you want.

 

Hold up. His infrastructure weeks have been lit!

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

If we're gonna start talking about how present day economics situations are better than ever and those same things have been on a positive trendline for a while (like, say, ohhhhh 09/10) I have but one thing to add:

 

Thanks, Obama.

 

Yeah, I honestly hate having to be one of the "Obama did it" echo chamber, but it's hard to avoid when people act like the job numbers were bad up until Trump got elected.  I am not sure if it is a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to trends and how once the numbers start going in one direction, they are likely to trend that way for awhile until a rumble in the economy causes a shake up.

 

It's like the Clinton-to-Bush Jr years all over again (not 100% the same, but similar people saying the same things).  Then came the tax cuts, everyone was happy for a month because they got a check, but it wasn't for a couple of years that the negative effects took place.  We're basically a major land war away from being in the same disaster we were 13 or so years ago.

[Veryoldschool]

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

A massive infrastructure bill? That's what you want? Well we can agree on that........but you voted for the wrong guy if that's truly what you want.

 

Have you even listened to Trump?  He's been talking non stop about his desire for a trillion dollar infrastructure program, he'll need Democratic votes but so maybe he forces an infrastructure vote prior to the midterm elections to force Democrats to support it or answer to their voters. 

[Cooked Crack]

28 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

The lowest black unemployment rate ever was announced, not nearly enough opportunity for all the blue-collar black families out there but it is a start.  I want to see the rates continue to improve and wage rates to grow and this before Trump's big infrastructure bill gets passed.  

Kinda ducked this one

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Have you even listened to Trump?  He's been talking non stop about his desire for a trillion dollar infrastructure program, he'll need Democratic votes but so maybe he forces an infrastructure vote prior to the midterm elections to force Democrats to support it or answer to their voters. 

 

There is zero money to pay for infrastructure after he handed a tax cut to his coastal elite friends. 

[DogofWar1]

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Hold up. His infrastructure weeks have been lit!

Totally!  We're only like 2 or 3 infrastructure weeks from Orrin Hatch being President!

 

Or maybe Nancy Pelosi if he waits until after November.

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

There is zero money to pay for infrastructure after he handed a tax cut to his coastal elite friends. 

 

@Veryoldschool

 

Trump's infrastructure plan is to offer a tax credit to companies that will work with states in private/public partnerships, coupled with spending by state and local spending.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/11/news/economy/trump-infrastructure-plan-details/index.html

 

 

The federal government is only supposed to put in $200 billion.

 

It is another case (if it works at all) that will benefit primarily the wealthy because companies are going to have to recoup their money, which means you will have to pay to use the infrastructure and the money will go to (the profits of) large companies.  Lower income/poor areas aren't going to see much building because it will be hard for companies to make the money back and lower income/poor people aren't going to benefit (much) from the profits the companies do make because they are less likely to own stock.  Most likely, if you are not wealthy and living in affluent area, this will be a lose-lose for you.

 

But there is an issue that in most of the cases where these things have been tried, they haven't paid off yet and companies/investors don't like the idea of generational pay offs on projects so I think it is most likely going to be a flop.

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2018/02/15/446720/public-private-partnerships-fail-look-southern-indianas-69-project/

 

(Unless states even pick up a larger portion of the spending).

 

Trump isn't selling what @Veryoldschool apparently bought.  (And I'll point that even before elected, the idea was very much dependent on a tax credit for companies and building).

[WelshSkinsFan]

I can just see all those poor blue collar workers cheering Trump on here

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/389605-china-signs-off-on-new-ivanka-trump-trademarks

 

If you believe Trump became President for any other reason than to enrich himself and his family then you are not necessarily racist but you are a very special kind of dumb.  He claimed he would lose out with his own tax bill but actually enriched himself to the tune of millions of dollars, he doubled membership fees at Mar-a-Lago to $200,000 as soon as he was elected and he spends every possible minute away from the White House playing golf on Trump owned properties which are billing the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars which further enriches him.  I am sure his heart is bleeding for the poor blue collar workers and it will still be bleeding when what is left of our auto manufacturing industry starts laying people off because the aluminum and steel tariffs ramped up production costs and the workers are as always the expendable item when it is time to cut costs.

 

Go back to coal country and ask them how they think he is doing.  He already eliminated funding to retraining programs for former coal workers which aimed to provide them with skills in the IT industry and other growth employment markets.  We may have a Presidential system but make no mistake, America is an empire and like every empire that preceded it America will fall.  If you care to look at the history of the great Empires of the past every one collapsed due to backwards thinking and increasing isolationism.  If we embrace change and the flow of fresh blood and ideas we can evolve to meet the changes of the future but if we harken back to a mythic golden era and enact policies to close our borders we will fail.  Remember, inbreeding never ends well.

[Veryoldschool]

Done with this thread and the Tailgate board for a while so if you direct a post at me I probably won't see it.

[Veryoldschool]

20 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

@Veryoldschool

 

Trump's infrastructure plan is to offer a tax credit to companies that will work with states in private/public partnerships, coupled with spending by state and local spending.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/11/news/economy/trump-infrastructure-plan-details/index.html

 

 

The federal government is only supposed to put in $200 billion.

 

It is another case (if it works at all) that will benefit primarily the wealthy because companies are going to have to recoup their money, which means you will have to pay to use the infrastructure and the money will go to (the profits of) large companies.  Lower income/poor areas aren't going to see much building because it will be hard for companies to make the money back and lower income/poor people aren't going to benefit (much) from the profits the companies do make because they are less likely to own stock.  Most likely, if you are not wealthy and living in affluent area, this will be a lose-lose for you.

 

But there is an issue that in most of the cases where these things have been tried, they haven't paid off yet and companies/investors don't like the idea of generational pay offs on projects so I think it is most likely going to be a flop.

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2018/02/15/446720/public-private-partnerships-fail-look-southern-indianas-69-project/

 

(Unless states even pick up a larger portion of the spending).

 

Trump isn't selling what @Veryoldschool apparently bought.  (And I'll point that even before elected, the idea was very much dependent on a tax credit for companies and building).

 

So will it be blue-collar or rich guys driving the trucks, running the heavy equipment building this all this stuff?  I think it will be blue-collar  guys who cash the paychecks not millionaires out there working and bringing wages home.  As for the proposal it is just a proposal Democrats need to provide votes if they want influence things, Trump wants enormous infrastructure bill if Democrats want their districts to benefit they can't sit up on their useless hands Trump wants to deal this the common ground the Democrats need to come to get something done.  If they bring a lot of votes the Freedom Caucus sits it out and it is a bipartisan infrastructure bill. If "resist" or whatever the lame word they want to use for not contributing the infrastructure bill will be a Republican bill like CNN describes and it will be on the heads of Democrats for failing to participate.

 

okay, now I really am going to take a break from this board.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

So will it be blue-collar or rich guys driving the trucks, running the heavy equipment building this all this stuff?  I think it will be blue-collar  guys who cash the paychecks not millionaires out there working and bringing wages home.  As for the proposal it is just a proposal Democrats need to provide votes if they want influence things, Trump wants enormous infrastructure bill if Democrats want their districts to benefit they can't sit up on their useless hands Trump wants to deal this the common ground the Democrats need to come to get something done.  If they bring a lot of votes the Freedom Caucus sits it out and it is a bipartisan infrastructure bill. If "resist" or whatever the lame word they want to use for not contributing the infrastructure bill will be a Republican bill like CNN describes and it will be on the heads of Democrats for failing to participate.

 

okay, now I really am going to take a break from this board.

 

Maybe'll you read this, maybe you won't, but let me try and explain any way.

 

Let's say I have some money to invest.  Then let me submit to you that somebody that is ultra conservative in their investing isn't going to put their money into one of these private/public infrastructure projects, especially given their history.  If I'm the type of person that likes to hide my money under my mattress, buy T-bills, Swiss Francs, or gold, I'm not putting putting it into a public-private infrastructure partnership.

 

Now, I've got multiple places I can put money.  Almost by definition, where I DO NOT put my money, I've hurt jobs in that sector.  Me investing my money one place over the other by default creates no more jobs.  At best, I'm deciding where the jobs are created.

 

By default, private money going into an infrastructure project almost certainly is not going to generate more jobs.  You might get more infrastructure jobs vs. Amazon warehouse jobs, but that's it.

 

From there, why am I going to put my money in one place than the other.  When I look for an investment, I'm really worried about my return on investment (ROI).  I'm going to put my money in the place where I'm likely to get the best ROI (given the time frame I'm interested in investing in w/ the security I'm looking for).  Then unless the person is a bad investor (which happens, but I don't think planning a nations economy based on assuming that investors are bad at investing their money is a good decision), then almost by default by giving people the ability to invest in these projects means more money coming back to people that are making the investment, which means less money going out as wages (and other things).  

 

If me investing my money in an infrastructure means long term, more of money is going to wages for workers that means less is coming back to me (my ROI is lower) and so I'm less likely to invest in it.

 

By giving people that have money more options to invest, they have more options to maximize their ROI, which actually means less money going to wages for everybody else.  It might mean lower real wages or fewer jobs, but one way or the other, that is going to be the impact.  But maximizing my ROI requires that other people are making less money, and we know that things like CEO pay isn't really tied to performance or supply and demand so it isn't coming out their pay.

 

The government giving the wealthy more investing options almost certainly cannot increase wages/jobs for the non-wealthy.

[killerbee99]

He ain't reading it... lol

[TradeTheBeal!]

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Done with this thread and the Tailgate board for a while so if you direct a post at me I probably won't see it.

 

Leabing dis gronp.

[Zguy28]

21 hours ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

We may have a Presidential system but make no mistake, America is an empire and like every empire that preceded it America will fall.  If you care to look at the history of the great Empires of the past every one collapsed due to backwards thinking and increasing isolationism.  If we embrace change and the flow of fresh blood and ideas we can evolve to meet the changes of the future but if we harken back to a mythic golden era and enact policies to close our borders we will fail.  Remember, inbreeding never ends well.

I'm not sure you could back that up with facts. Rome for instance expanded near the end and brought more "non-Romans" into the empire. Even its legions were filled with "non-Roman" peoples such as Germans and other former barbarians.

[mcsluggo]

On 6/7/2018 at 11:32 AM, Veryoldschool said:

 

Maybe you are the racist, I don't know.  I want the broad base prosperity that blue-collar America enjoyed in the 50-60's, not the social problems you describe.  I'm glad we have made progress on the racial problems and I think we would be even more aware of that progress if there was more blue-collar prosperity.  A lot of minority poverty is blue-collar poverty and I believe racial tensions would improve with an abundance of blue collar opportunity which is what I want.

 

I'm a retired white-collar guy whose kids are white-collar guys, we don't have any blue-collar workers in the family.  I want blue-collar prosperity because I want a fairer more just country.  I support Trump because I want broader-based prosperity even if it comes at the expense of my purchasing power.

 

so... what you actually want is a return to the time period when the rest of the industrialized world's industrial-base was destroyed, the developing world had not yet really begun to catch up, and American industry was really the only game on the planet.   right? 

 

I'm not quite sure what policies you think are going to restore that world order...   ?

 

 

 

(I'll just say that the global destruction required for the few i CAN think of aren't very appealing) 

 

 

as an aside.. you DO realize that those super prosperous days for America you cite ALSO coincided with a reduction of global protectionism on a historically grand scale.... right?   

[mcsluggo]

On 6/7/2018 at 12:01 PM, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

It's about a 2/3rds liberal demographic and Hispanic opinion of the Republican party is actually more unfavorable than that liberal/conservative split indicates, and foreign born Latinos are also more liberal than US born ones.  There is an estimated 9 million undocumented Hispanic immigrants in America right now, and presumably over 8 million of those are of voting age.  If you were to give them full status in our society and they turned out to vote at 60% like the rest of the population, you're probably looking at something like a net gain of almost three million votes for Democrats.  There is a reason why Democrats are pushing for immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship for this population and Republicans are blocking it and scheming up ways to suppress the Hispanic vote.

 

right NOW hispanics would vote overwhelmingly Democrat... of course... with the giant cartoon racist Cheeto breathing down their necks..... 

 

 

but if we stepped away from the situation with Trump as the face of the GOP...?

 

Hispanics would probably be much more conflicted on political choice than might be first apparent.   Overwhelmingly socially conservative Catholic..?  Abortion really IS a wedge/litmus test issue with lots of voters.   I personally know several people that lean Democrat on about 90 % of the perceived GOP/Democratic platform split, but view abortion as SO important that they just don;t care.... and reliably vote Republican     ...

 

just beacuse

of that ONE issue

alone.

 

In normal election gamesmanship (without Trump) i can see republicans peeling off a strong proportion of Hispanic votes.    (if the party survives as a thing, following this current experiment with full on race-baiting assholeness )

[mcsluggo]

On 6/7/2018 at 12:04 PM, Veryoldschool said:

 

On 6/7/2018 at 1:01 PM, Veryoldschool said:

 

I don't care what the illegals look like I want them to unemployable in the US and for them move back home of their own accord.  If businesses wouldn't employ them they would not be here, the feds really need to hammer employers of illegals. If Trump turned getting caught with illegals on the payroll to a business killer these folks would go home.  I am for domestic labor including unions and domestic production. 

 

"There has been a massive upward redistribution of our capital over the last generation"

 

I agree globalization doesn't work.  It does not produce the broad-based prosperity I saw growing up.  I want to change our trade and immigration policies and work on restoring the economic balance we used to enjoy.  Given all the advances it ought to be easier for people of modest skills to make a living in the US not harder.

 

there is 2 main differences between now and "when you grew up" on this front.

 

1) we had tax policies that were specifically designed to improve the distribution of prosperity.   SInce that time, tax policy changes have OVERWHELMING shifted income/wealth/prosperity distribution from the bottom 90% of the population to the top 10%.   Its not even debatable.   

 

2) Labor power and more international options.   Labor was more empowered in the USA then than it is now... and while  a portion of the reason that organized labor has lost its power is the systematic undercutting of labor rights by (mostly led by the GOP), another large portion of the erosion of labor bargaining power comes from more options from abroad.   It is not just that there is free trade... it is that there is the capacity for manufacturers in other countries to SUPPLY that trade.     

 

BUT... (and this is a huge ****ing butt..) you, and others like you, seem to think that we can cut ourselves off from that trade and somehow magically get more productive, rather than less productive... as has happened in EVERY SINGLE OTHER CASE when this has been tried.   Protectionism, is just that.   it protects from competition, it "protects" from innovation......  it is the DEFINITION of anti-capitalism, as we have come to know the term.   

 

Ask India (from the 1950s to around 2005-2010) how well protectionism works?   The country focused its entire industrial policy on "import substitution"   (keep out the nasty cheap goods made abroad, and let indians make the goods themselves) ...it...was... disastrous.      it is only since the country has begun to tentatively veer from that model that it has started to grow in any way that will eventually make its people less poor.   

 

Ask Yugoslavia?  (if the country hadn't imploded from its stagnation)

 

Albania?

 

Argentina?   

 

Soviet Union????     

 

Venezuela?

 

Ask China how much better the isolationist 1950s to 1990 were for THEIR economic well being?

 

(do you see a trend here? )  

 

Please give me ONE example of a country that made itself richer by cutting itself  off from competition.... ?    protected companies/industries get fat, lazy, inefficient and stagnant.   it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

 

 

(and this is even assuming that no other countries enact retaliatory trade protectionism against OUR export products.... how do you think THOSE will benefit US industry and consumers?)

 

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

22 hours ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

Go back to coal country and ask them how they think he is doing.

 

Swimmingly.