GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Trump Reversing Offshoring (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1187994)

pimpmaster9000 03-17-2016 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20781642)
Congrats on the self awareness.
Admiting you're a moron is the first step towards healing.



Better than fucking Serbia, broski.

I never said serbia was better did I o'desperado?

I said it is very amusing you think that jobs will reshore to the USA...dynamo and his 0.3% "reversal" LOL

crockett 03-17-2016 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20777190)
Can never understand the appeal of "Lower Taxes" when they're already too low.

US spending to borrowing is getting worse. So going out on a BIG cut taxes platform is meaningless. Until the needs to spend are reduced. So what would you like to see reduced? Think about it, because most cuts lead to more unemployment or higher prices.

Cutting Defence spending will lead to lots of jobs being lost and exports, welfare to riots and even worse, Healthcare, education, policing, prisons. Or just close all the Government departments that employ people and make sure big business doesn't rip the people apart?

Look at all the disasters recently and reduce the Public Sector by 33% and see how well the US can cope. Gulf Oil Spill, New Orleans, Flint, and a lot more. Because eventually that's what will end up being cut.

The appeal is they are living in fanasty land and their talking heads have sold them on the non sense that welfare programs are the reason for the debt hence Turing it into a political issue..

Of course it's not the trillions of dollars spent on the NSA spying and military. Nope we need to spend more money on that..

Rah,Rah liberals bad.. Republicans have started electing absolute morons into office andtheir dimwitted nonsense keeps getting worse.

dyna mo 03-17-2016 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 20781657)
I never said serbia was better did I o'desperado?

I said it is very amusing you think that jobs will reshore to the USA...dynamo and his 0.3% "reversal" LOL

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
slippery serb, don't try and slip out now, you stated unequivocally that USA capitalism would never ever let jobs come back, but in fact, jobs have returned, including an entire industry. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

plaster 03-17-2016 12:25 PM

I kinda feel this is the same debate as the insurance premiums getting lowered. Trumps response was to eliminate state boundaries on who can bid to offer health insurance. By creating this competition it would drive costs down. Just like in any bidding war. Sure makes sense to me.... yet, everyone in the news and sweaty guy mocked him and said what's the plan though. That is the plan, now he hires the lawyers to make it maw and right up the paperwork.

Same thing with bringing jobs back. His plan is if USA provideo x service, country receiving said service is going to pay for it where as before they were not, or paYing very little. More money coming in, grows the nation financially. If us company wants to move plants out of country, they get taxed to sell to us. Same idea as vat just not so greedy with a moral undertone to grow the us and keep the jobs here. Pretty simple stuff really in concept. Hire the attorneys to make the laws and draw up the paperwork.

You have to admit that alot of laws, foreign and domestic, are written to line the pockets of a few. It is trumps biggest campaign message and why he is cresting this movement you now see with the people.

pimpmaster9000 03-17-2016 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20781750)
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
slippery serb, don't try and slip out now, you stated unequivocally that USA capitalism would never ever let jobs come back, but in fact, jobs have returned, including an entire industry. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

0.3% came back...the other 99.7% did not...your point was so small I must have missed it ..."entire industries returning" LOL come on man 0.3 is 0.3 :2 cents:

any way you look at it, raising taxes on something making it less profitable to produce abroad, or making it less profitable domestically by forcing them to hire expensive labor, has never positively affected sales...the price is passed on to the consumer...investors want $$$$ or they go elsewhere...

basic basic stuff...

even if you get them to produce in the USA, the money you make from tax foreign produced goods will be lost on the inevitable reduction of sales due to the inevitable rise in price of the product or service in question...

2 factor problem:
1) more expensive to produce
2) less sales due to increased price of product

shit I wish I was a genius like superbonzo, both Austrian as well as Keynesian, I would know how these 2 factors play no role at all and would be able to explain it LOL

I bet you can explain how it will stimulate growth? no?

The Porn Nerd 03-17-2016 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 20781657)
I never said serbia was better did I o'desperado?

I said it is very amusing you think that jobs will reshore to the USA...dynamo and his 0.3% "reversal" LOL

Right, you fled Serbia just when your war torn country needed you most, I forgot.
My apologies.

The #1 issue with all mankind is this: trying to figure out how to have it both ways.
You can't have a rich upper class, a rich middle class and a rich poorer class, now can you? Someone's gotta be on the bottom rung of the ladder. Yet we stupid humans keep on a-tryin'. :)

Paul Markham 03-17-2016 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VRPdommy (Post 20781366)
Great Charts !
They show a reduced trade deficit based on lower economic activity and a much lower price for imported oil and a strengthening dollar compared to other currencies that we import from..

Look at the year the imports slowed down. 2008.

Then go back and study the figures and trend from 1970.

Paul Markham 03-17-2016 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20781630)
this would make sense if America was not #1.

but we are.

Take out the money borrowed every year. Compare manufacturing and look at trends.

http://ablog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554...f26191d970c-pi

Paul Markham 03-17-2016 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20781660)
The appeal is they are living in fanasty land and their talking heads have sold them on the non sense that welfare programs are the reason for the debt hence Turing it into a political issue..

Of course it's not the trillions of dollars spent on the NSA spying and military. Nope we need to spend more money on that..

Rah,Rah liberals bad.. Republicans have started electing absolute morons into office andtheir dimwitted nonsense keeps getting worse.

Money spent inside a country circulates inside the economy. A person working in the NSA pays US taxes, buys products in the US and keeps people employed. All this goes to keeping the economy buoyant.

A laptop made in China sends money to China. Employs s person working in the China pays Chinese taxes, buys products in China and keeps Chinese people employed.

All this goes to keeping the Chinese economy buoyant.

$100 in benefits is better spent than $100 sent to China. Because it's less likely that guy will be buying a computer made in China.

Employing that unemployed guy in the US to make computers will make Apple Shares tumble for a while. Until the money in wages in the US rises and newly employed workers start buying their own computers. It will see the deficit tumble and tax revenues rise.

Yes people will be buying less, and making it last longer. Continue down this road and eventually all your customers will suffer.

The 1% will hate it, as Crusithicko point outs, their income will fall. Comical watch him switch sides.

pimpmaster9000 03-17-2016 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20782026)

The #1 issue with all mankind is this: trying to figure out how to have it both ways.
You can't have a rich upper class, a rich middle class and a rich poorer class, now can you? Someone's gotta be on the bottom rung of the ladder. Yet we stupid humans keep on a-tryin'. :)

well if you have a lot of poor people they will inevitably take your jobs wont they?...the very system that exploits needs to be fed constantly, and when it gets too big it will start to feed off of your own high paying jobs...then the low paying jobs...it needs to grow...

Paul Markham 03-17-2016 02:45 PM

I was chatting with a neighbor today. She and her husband were living in the UK. He's a high-skilled mechanical engineer working in design and R & D. They were living in the UK where the company had the main manufacturing plant.

It was moved to Czech and they came with it. Then the manufacturing plant was moved China. Now she hears design and R & D are going to be done in China and they're not looking for many Europeans to move there.

He's looking for a job. This is a man with a skill that 10 years ago gave him the freedom to move anywhere in the world. They're not worried he can still get a job anywhere. But their children won't be so fortunate if we keep on this route.

Paul Markham 03-17-2016 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20782026)
The #1 issue with all mankind is this: trying to figure out how to have it both ways.
You can't have a rich upper class, a rich middle class and a rich poorer class, now can you? Someone's gotta be on the bottom rung of the ladder. Yet we stupid humans keep on a-tryin'. :)

Yes someone has to be on the bottom of the ladder, but they have to have enough money to go shopping. Otherwise, the middle gets hit, which is what's happening now. Think of 10% of your customers unable to afford your products, and there being no growth in the market.

Money flows up. The biggest company in the US is Walmart. Where will that be if more people can afford to shop there?

Or fewer?

pimpmaster9000 03-17-2016 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20782104)
I was chatting with a neighbor today. She and her husband were living in the UK. He's a high-skilled mechanical engineer working in design and R & D. They were living in the UK where the company had the main manufacturing plant.

It was moved to Czech and they came with it. Then the manufacturing plant was moved China. Now she hears design and R & D are going to be done in China and they're not looking for many Europeans to move there.

with ever decreasing profit margins businesses will be forced to do this more and more...

basic principles in economy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.

Robbie 03-17-2016 03:55 PM

Please God...let Paul walk away from these threads so that they can be interesting again...

jimmycooper 03-17-2016 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20777286)
jtfc markham, i already posted 4 articles including 1 study that studied the studies that show reshoring is trending up, which was and still is my point. i didn't say it is anything more than trending up. and that was only in response to the ding dong serb's illogical premise that capitalism is an absolute and total roadblock to jobs returning to America

jtfc dyna mo, yo! how do you always manage to stay abreast of all the hot new acronyms? haha! Jesus-titty-fucking-Christ! I'd never even heard of the phrase let alone the acronym. Good stuff!:1orglaugh

The Porn Nerd 03-17-2016 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20782245)
Please God...let Paul walk away from these threads so that they can be interesting again...

No, I want to see more pointless graphs and hear more stories of out of work neighbors. Please?

</sarcasm>

:cool-smil

Robbie 03-17-2016 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20782560)
No, I want to see more pointless graphs and hear more stories of out of work neighbors. Please?

</sarcasm>

:cool-smil

I have no idea what he is typing. I (just like almost everyone on GFY) just keep scrolling past his walls of pointless text until I hit a reply from someone who ISN'T Paul.

Paul Markham 03-18-2016 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20782245)
Please God...let Paul walk away from these threads so that they can be interesting again...

So offer an alternative view other than "I don't want to pay more for goods so an American can get a job."

Paul Markham 03-18-2016 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 20782131)
with ever decreasing profit margins businesses will be forced to do this more and more...

basic principles in economy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

As this points out the growth of the Third World has been at the expense of the First Wold.

Paul Markham 03-18-2016 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20782560)
No, I want to see more pointless graphs and hear more stories of out of work neighbors. Please?

</sarcasm>

:cool-smil

Do you think jobs leaving your marketplace is pointless?

So the migration of our customer base to free porn is pointless. :1orglaugh

Paul Markham 03-18-2016 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20782644)
I have no idea what he is typing. I (just like almost everyone on GFY) just keep scrolling past his walls of pointless text until I hit a reply from someone who ISN'T Paul.

I will make it simple. Your customers are disappearing and debt is rising but not because of government spending.

slapass 03-18-2016 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITraffic (Post 20776551)
it is one of the things he actually talks about the most and probably explains his appeal for many parts of the country where the american dream has all but died because of it.

no other candidate rep or dem talks about it but is a massive and painful issue for many many americans obviously.

but serious question ...

how does he actually plan to bring these jobs back to america?

He doesn't, and he can't but it makes a good sound bite.

slapass 03-18-2016 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 20780877)
capital is now global not just USA...if you make it less profitable to invest in US companies producing for pennies in china, then they will not invest <-----huge problem

open up a US domestic production and see how much serious capital you get...


investors want $$$$$...they want it NOW...or they go elsewhere...

I agree with this. Everything is global. If I can buy something for 30% less then I do. If I can make a higher return, I invest. It is not that we are anti american, we are just global. The high school grad in Tennessee does not have a ton of options in the manufacturing world but he can do service or construction and do well.

Eventually we will have a global standard of living and yes that will suck for the people who were much higher and be cool for those who were lower. It is just the way it works.

ITraffic 03-18-2016 08:40 AM

Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why | Thomas Frank | Opinion | The Guardian

not a good analysis as paul markham's, but worth a read.

JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE 03-18-2016 09:14 AM

I love how according to Paul Markham, Trump has to solve every single issue known to mankind and has to show us exactly how it's done! But Paul never mentions or does the same thing with any other candidate.

Then Paul says Trump doesn't have any plans. Does he not watch Trump speeches or go to Trump's website? Of course not! He takes 10 second media soundbites and goes from there

Out of the 5 candidates left, Trump is BY FAR the best choice to be President. It's not even close. It's like having Michael Jordan and four fat, D3 basketball players up there

JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE 03-18-2016 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITraffic (Post 20783241)

Amazing how you can call Trump a racist, xenophone, Hitler, cancer, stupid, etc but when he strikes back...."oh the humanity! How could he!" :1orglaugh

crockett 03-18-2016 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20782119)
Yes someone has to be on the bottom of the ladder, but they have to have enough money to go shopping. Otherwise, the middle gets hit, which is what's happening now. Think of 10% of your customers unable to afford your products, and there being no growth in the market.

Money flows up. The biggest company in the US is Walmart. Where will that be if more people can afford to shop there?

Or fewer?

Money flows up is common sense but Republicans live in Bazaro world and believe money flows down. They can't grasp the concept due to their own greed that 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $5k. They all believe they will be that one guy who gets to spend $5k rather than being one of the 500 spending $20.

Even though 99% of them are in that group spending $20 they convince themselves that they are special and will eventually be the guy spending $5k so they vote people into office which actually makes it harder for them to be that guy spending $5k.

JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE 03-18-2016 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20783754)
Money flows up is common sense but Republicans live in Bazaro world and believe money flows down. They can't grasp the concept due to their own greed that 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $1k. They all believe they will be that one guy who gets to spend $1k rather than being one of the 500 spending $20.

What the fuck are you talking about?

More like 1 guy spending $10,000,000 and 500 spending $20

pimpmaster9000 03-18-2016 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20783754)
Money flows up is common sense but Republicans live in Bazaro world and believe money flows down. They can't grasp the concept due to their own greed that 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $5k. They all believe they will be that one guy who gets to spend $5k rather than being one of the 500 spending $20.

Even though 99% of them are in that group spending $20 they convince themselves that they are special and will eventually be the guy spending $5k so they vote people into office which actually makes it harder for them to be that guy spending $5k.

heres the thing about money flowing down...most of it does not...

when a rich guy buys a $10 million house, those 10mil are locked there for the next 100 years for example...

a rich guy can buy a shirt...he can buy 100 shirts...but he will not buy 1.000.000 shirts...he will buy a car or 10 cars but not 1000 cars like 1000 people would...so what does he do with the bulk of his money?

invest...long term mostly...long term investments do not trickle down...

most of the money the rich make is not spent but invested...this money trickles up not down in some tax heaven...

I love how they coined the term "horse and sparrow" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh if you feed the horse enough oats he will shit some out so the sparrow can eat

this is literally the boldest name for a theory made by a rich guy that I have ever heard, "the poor can eat our shit" LOL

woj 03-18-2016 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 20783805)
heres the thing about money flowing down...most of it does not...

when a rich guy buys a $10 million house, those 10mil are locked there for the next 100 years for example...

a rich guy can buy a shirt...he can buy 100 shirts...but he will not buy 1.000.000 shirts...he will buy a car or 10 cars but not 1000 cars like 1000 people would...so what does he do with the bulk of his money?

invest...long term mostly...long term investments do not trickle down...

most of the money the rich make is not spent but invested...this money trickles up not down in some tax heaven...

I love how they coined the term "horse and sparrow" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh if you feed the horse enough oats he will shit some out so the sparrow can eat

this is literally the boldest name for a theory made by a rich guy that I have ever heard, "the poor can eat our shit" LOL

Consider the following 2 scenarios, which show the difference between "investing" and "spending":

some sophisticated person gets a $100k tax refund... figures: "oh cool, lets build a nice house with it".... takes $100k, borrows $400k... spends $500k to build a house... so with a $100k tax refund.... $500k is getting injected into the US economy + 100s of jobs get created along with it... US now has a nice house built, which will be enjoyed by someone in the US for generations...

vs

some less sophisticated person gets a $100 refund... he buys some bullshit widget made in China... benefit to US economy = practically zero... US jobs created = practically zero... widget breaks in 3 months, he throws it away... China is $100 richer, US has nothing to show for it...


which scenario sounds more appealing to you?

pimpmaster9000 03-18-2016 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj (Post 20783973)
Consider the following 2 scenarios, which show the difference between "investing" and "spending":

some sophisticated person gets a $100k tax refund... figures: "oh cool, lets build a nice house with it".... takes $100k, borrows $400k... spends $500k to build a house... so with a $100k tax refund.... $500k is getting injected into the US economy + 100s of jobs get created along with it... US now has a nice house built, which will be enjoyed by someone in the US for generations...

yes absolutely, he would be spending 500K on building material and services etc...this is a scenario where he actually builds something, this is great you will get no dispute from me...

on the other hand when he buys something already built, and new houses are a small fraction of total house buys, the situation is completely different...he will borrow 500K from the bank and return 500K to the bank...

also rich people have only a small fraction of their wealth in houses and most in stocks and these are "protected" either offshore in tax havens or by means of loop holes in the law because they can afford lawyers and advisors etc...

even if the money was not protected, and taxed, very little would trickle down...bill gates money will trickle down but the vast majority will keep their cash working for them, offshore...

you would do the same...so would I...

woj 03-18-2016 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 20784216)
yes absolutely, he would be spending 500K on building material and services etc...this is a scenario where he actually builds something, this is great you will get no dispute from me...

on the other hand when he buys something already built, and new houses are a small fraction of total house buys, the situation is completely different...he will borrow 500K from the bank and return 500K to the bank...

also rich people have only a small fraction of their wealth in houses and most in stocks and these are "protected" either offshore in tax havens or by means of loop holes in the law because they can afford lawyers and advisors etc...

even if the money was not protected, and taxed, very little would trickle down...bill gates money will trickle down but the vast majority will keep their cash working for them, offshore...

you would do the same...so would I...

1. they are only "protected" from further taxation...

lets say I'm a house builder, does it make any difference at all where I get the $500k from? (that I will use to buy materials and hire people) It's completely irrelevant if the new owner pays for it directly... through some corporation or through some offshore scheme... I still get my $500k and I still hire the same people and still build the same exact house...

2. it doesn't really matter that much if the house is new or used either... I sell a pre-existing $500k house, now I'm the one with $500k to spend, and what's kinda odd... I can take this $500k, borrow the typical 80% ($2M) and now I have $2.5M to stimulate the economy with...

3. investing in "stocks" is not much different than investing in real estate, names are different but the outcome is the same... you buy stocks of some startup (like many investors do), Google lets say, and as a result of your investment wealth gets created, 10s of thousands of people get hired, and as a result world is a better place? sounds like a pretty positive outcome? certainly better than a less sophisticated person buying some useless widget from china that he will throw away 3 months later?

4. money doesn't just "work", it "works" when it's invested... which involves transferring the $$ from the "investor" to the "entrepreneur"... which he uses to expand his business, hire people, etc...

Grapesoda 03-18-2016 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITraffic (Post 20776551)
it is one of the things he actually talks about the most and probably explains his appeal for many parts of the country where the american dream has all but died because of it.

no other candidate rep or dem talks about it but is a massive and painful issue for many many americans obviously.

but serious question ...

how does he actually plan to bring these jobs back to america?

unlike politicians, trump has been working for a living... different insights for sure :1orglaugh

pimpmaster9000 03-18-2016 07:01 PM

@ woj

its more of a matter what the really rich do and the big capital from corporations...the examples we mentioned are middle class...lets look at big capital,, the place its supposed to trickle from and the speed of trickle...

all big corps are forced to outsource to stay competitive, they try to hire at lowest possible cost, IE the suicide nets in apples china factory...<---this is what big investors want, bang for buck...

big capital wants sweat shop labour...so they get to keep more and in turn make more and more...it is not tricking down...the whole system is rigged for it to go up...

the rise of inequality is beyond dispute, I know it is not black and white and that some does in fact trickle down, but the big big holders of capital hold it in a system that is designed to do the exact opposite...

The Porn Nerd 03-18-2016 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20782776)
Do you think jobs leaving your marketplace is pointless?

So the migration of our customer base to free porn is pointless. :1orglaugh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20782782)
I will make it simple. Your customers are disappearing and debt is rising but not because of government spending.

With all respect due you Sir, and if I may speak for Robbie here as well, you don't know jack shit about our customers and whether or not they are 'disappearing'. You know how YOUR customers disappeared and you were unable to keep them or get more of them but that does not apply to me and I assume it does not apply to Robbie.

Paul Markham 03-20-2016 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20783754)
Money flows up is common sense but Republicans live in Bazaro world and believe money flows down. They can't grasp the concept due to their own greed that 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $5k. They all believe they will be that one guy who gets to spend $5k rather than being one of the 500 spending $20.

Even though 99% of them are in that group spending $20 they convince themselves that they are special and will eventually be the guy spending $5k so they vote people into office which actually makes it harder for them to be that guy spending $5k.

The problem with 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $5k is, where did the $20 comes from, what did they buy and the same with the 1 guy spending $5k.

500 guys on benefits spending $20 is what's causing the problems.

500 on a decent wage paying taxes and employed in the private sector making good the world buys. Is far better than 1 guy making the equivalent lump sum by importing goods from the third world.

Paul Markham 03-20-2016 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips (Post 20783310)
I love how according to Paul Markham, Trump has to solve every single issue known to mankind and has to show us exactly how it's done! But Paul never mentions or does the same thing with any other candidate.

Then Paul says Trump doesn't have any plans. Does he not watch Trump speeches or go to Trump's website? Of course not! He takes 10 second media soundbites and goes from there

Out of the 5 candidates left, Trump is BY FAR the best choice to be President. It's not even close. It's like having Michael Jordan and four fat, D3 basketball players up there

Where di I say he has to solve every single issue?

Trump has soundbites, that's not plans. Even on his website, his plans are;

Quote:

HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act?Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don?t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair unless the next President and a Republican congress lead the effort to bring much-needed free market reforms to the healthcare industry.

But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.

However, it is not enough to simply repeal this terrible legislation. We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country. By following free market principles and working together to create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans.

Any reform effort must begin with Congress. Since Obamacare became law, conservative Republicans have been offering reforms that can be delivered individually or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts. In the remaining sections of this policy paper, several reforms will be offered that should be considered by Congress so that on the first day of the Trump Administration, we can start the process of restoring faith in government and economic liberty to the people.

Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn?t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

The reforms outlined above will lower healthcare costs for all Americans. They are simply a place to start. There are other reforms that might be considered if they serve to lower costs, remove uncertainty and provide financial security for all Americans. And we must also take actions in other policy areas to lower healthcare costs and burdens. Enforcing immigration laws, eliminating fraud and waste and energizing our economy will relieve the economic pressures felt by every American. It is the moral responsibility of a nation?s government to do what is best for the people and what is in the interest of securing the future of the nation.

Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.

To reduce the number of individuals needing access to programs like Medicaid and Children?s Health Insurance Program we will need to install programs that grow the economy and bring capital and jobs back to America. The best social program has always been a job ? and taking care of our economy will go a long way towards reducing our dependence on public health programs.

Finally, we need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country. Families, without the ability to get the information needed to help those who are ailing, are too often not given the tools to help their loved ones. There are promising reforms being developed in Congress that should receive bi-partisan support.

To reform healthcare in America, we need a President who has the leadership skills, will and courage to engage the American people and convince Congress to do what is best for the country. These straightforward reforms, along with many others I have proposed throughout my campaign, will ensure that together we will Make America Great Again.
There's only one part that has a solid plan to reduce the costs. The rest misses the point and often just juggles with who pays. It offers no real plan to reduce the cost of healthcare, which is because it's controlled by the free market.

I understand why you can't see how he's bullshitting. Some of us can.

Paul Markham 03-20-2016 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20784681)
With all respect due you Sir, and if I may speak for Robbie here as well, you don't know jack shit about our customers and whether or not they are 'disappearing'. You know how YOUR customers disappeared and you were unable to keep them or get more of them but that does not apply to me and I assume it does not apply to Robbie.

With all due respect Sir. More people earning lower wages = fewer customers for leisure goods.

Because you and Robbie can work harder and wiser to replace those who have gone, isn't my point.

Paul Markham 03-20-2016 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 20783805)
heres the thing about money flowing down...most of it does not...

when a rich guy buys a $10 million house, those 10mil are locked there for the next 100 years for example...

a rich guy can buy a shirt...he can buy 100 shirts...but he will not buy 1.000.000 shirts...he will buy a car or 10 cars but not 1000 cars like 1000 people would...so what does he do with the bulk of his money?

invest...long term mostly...long term investments do not trickle down...

most of the money the rich make is not spent but invested...this money trickles up not down in some tax heaven...

I love how they coined the term "horse and sparrow" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh if you feed the horse enough oats he will shit some out so the sparrow can eat

this is literally the boldest name for a theory made by a rich guy that I have ever heard, "the poor can eat our shit" LOL

When a rich guy buys a $10 million house, he owns a company that employs people, who like him pay taxes, go shopping and pay more taxes, as you say he can buy 100 shirts. Pay more taxes and it all trickles down.

Or he can move out of the country and the country gets nothing. Or not be allowed to make so much money, so doesn't and everyone gets the bare minimum.

Spell out what the investment is before stating it doesn't trickle down.

Communism hurts the working class hard. The new Socialism is despised by the Working Class, they have no desire to share more of what have with others.

What we need is people earning enough to buy a $10 million house, by producing goods in the countries they sell the goods. Not making goods abroad and selling them in the First World or gambling a $1 bill is really worth $1.50 and expection the people to bail them out.

Paul Markham 03-20-2016 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj (Post 20783973)
Consider the following 2 scenarios, which show the difference between "investing" and "spending":

some sophisticated person gets a $100k tax refund... figures: "oh cool, lets build a nice house with it".... takes $100k, borrows $400k... spends $500k to build a house... so with a $100k tax refund.... $500k is getting injected into the US economy + 100s of jobs get created along with it... US now has a nice house built, which will be enjoyed by someone in the US for generations...

vs

some less sophisticated person gets a $100 refund... he buys some bullshit widget made in China... benefit to US economy = practically zero... US jobs created = practically zero... widget breaks in 3 months, he throws it away... China is $100 richer, US has nothing to show for it...


which scenario sounds more appealing to you?

Consider the one scenario. That person wasn't paying enough tax in the first place and the refund added to the Countries debt?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc