I think it suks that your job got lost to a foreign worker. It's certainly no consolation that you are merely the latest casualty of globalization, along with your US manufacturing workers.
I say that sincerely- losing your job suks.
Of course the root of the problem, for you and steel workers, US that American consumers care more about money than where something is sourced. They buy the cheapest car, cheapest steel, cheapest computer etc. So to survive companies have to reduce costs, which inevitably means off-shoring.
Tarifs are a solution, but are simpler to do on physical imports than on remote labor. Basically though they help by driving up local prices, allowing say American Steel to compete.
Yes, prices going up (inflation) is a side effect, and yes salaries have to remain fixed (else the import is still cheaper) so disposal income, and hence standard of living have to come down. That's a feature not a bug.
Alternatively taxes could be slashed, requiring massive reductions on spending on military, social security and Medicare. That would mean some job losses in the military-industrial sector, but frankly that's probably a good thing.
Social Security and Medicare are unpopular to cut, but its easily done, and a necessity to make significant cuts. I think the electorate has given a mandate to the govt to do this, do I expect they'll do it. (Trump campaigned on this, so its pretty much what people clearly want.)
I know attempts at American isolationist policies have not worked in the past, but I expect it'll be different this time.
The alternative to this approach would be higher taxes on companies and the mega rich - along with reduced military spending and increases to the social security net. That's the route most of the other countries took, but how many billionaires can Poland boast?
Sure they're sucking up programmer jobs, but there aren't too many companies complaining about that.
>Social Security and Medicare are unpopular to cut, but its easily done, and a necessity to make significant cuts. I think the electorate has given a mandate to the govt to do this, do I expect they'll do it. (Trump campaigned on this, so its pretty much what people clearly want.)
No he didn't campaign on this. It's not easily done either. You're talking about people's families who paid into the system and were promised to be paid, and their kids certainly aren't going to be paying those bills when nobody is doing great financially speaking.
Maybe the government's promises can't be kept, but the politician that voluntarily casts the elderly into destitution or drastically increases taxes on workers is not going to last long.
> Social Security and Medicare are unpopular to cut, but its easily done, and a necessity to make significant cuts. I think the electorate has given a mandate to the govt to do this, do I expect they'll do it. (Trump campaigned on this, so its pretty much what people clearly want.)
Can you please point me to Trump campaigning on this? I heard him say the exact opposite repeatedly in his speeches at his rallies.
Trump lies all the time. So what he says and what he campaigns on are different things. He says he is pro-women (but acts the opposite) pro-US (but sources all his grift from China), says he wants to bring down prices (but plans on tarifs to raise them).
He claims no affiliation to Project 25 (but then hires all those planners into key positions), claims to be pro-worker, but eliminates labor protections and gives tax cuts only to rich people.
The American public are smart. They are not easily duped. They understand that when he says Social Security and Medicare are bring left alone, he intends to cut them.
They understand that campaigning on fiscal responsibility means widening the deficit. They understand that improving health care means taking it away and giving health care companies more profit.
This is the future he campaigned on - this is the future they voted for. This is no a politician changing between campaign and office. His intentions, interests, and affiliations - his transactional nature - are front and center and have been all along.
This is the man the people have decided will best lead them. This is democracy in action.
>The American public are smart. They are not easily duped. They understand that when he says Social Security and Medicare are bring left alone, he intends to cut them.
That's ridiculous. Your central premise seems to be that because Trump has lied before, we live in opposite land. Not only that but that the American public is 100% behind the opposite of what they were promised, which is also very bad for them and their families personally. Your rationale makes absolutely no sense.
Yes all politicians lie. But Trump doesn't lie like that, he lies about everything all the time. He lies about things that are obviously untrue, right there in front of you.
He's not a "liar" in the way most people are. He's a liar in the sense that you are in on the lie, that you understand the lie is a lie.
This is not "some of the act" - its his whole shtick.
Yes, I think most of what he does will be very bad for most of the people who voted for him. Yes I think they voted for the exact opposite of what is good for them.
But this is a guy with a 4 year term already behind him. This is a guy running to stay out of jail. This is the guy people voted for. More than in 2016, more than in 2020. More across all demographics. More in 90% of counties .
The voter understands the pain that is coming, and embraces it as necessary for the coming greatness. The willingness to put their own suffering aside, to willingly endure the oncoming hardships, to vote against their personal best interest is admirable.
>But Trump doesn't lie like that, he lies about everything all the time. He lies about things that are obviously untrue, right there in front of you.
Again you describe what most politicians do. Trump's lying is not quantitatively nor qualitatively more severe than any other politician at that level, certainly not more than Biden or Kamala.
>He's not a "liar" in the way most people are. He's a liar in the sense that you are in on the lie, that you understand the lie is a lie.
I don't buy this.
>But this is a guy with a 4 year term already behind him. This is a guy running to stay out of jail. This is the guy people voted for. More than in 2016, more than in 2020. More across all demographics. More in 90% of counties .
Need I remind you that Biden pardoned his son for a huge period of time and undisclosed crimes which he himself might be an accomplice?
>The voter understands the pain that is coming, and embraces it as necessary for the coming greatness. The willingness to put their own suffering aside, to willingly endure the oncoming hardships, to vote against their personal best interest is admirable.
I don't think this is what happened. Although the Trump campaign did make vague references to temporary pain, it explicitly denied that any benefits would be cut or taxes increased (except for the tariffs). People are suffering because of high inflation and a stagnant economy. They see hundreds of billions of dollars go abroad as we struggle to cover expenses at home. They are not down for more taxes, reduced benefits, or any such thing. You're bending over backward to say that voters want the exact opposite of what they were promised, and that's ridiculous.
I don't know how many people think our Western lifestyles are sustainable. One thing is for sure though. If you're a politician and you admit defeat, and say we can't possibly have the lifestyles we've had for many decades without some kind of awful intervention like a massive war, high taxes, or cuts to essential services, you're guaranteeing your own loss. People want to believe there is a way, and they're not ready to give up their way of life yet just because some politician says they aren't being reasonable or they don't deserve it.
>> Again you describe what most politicians do. Trump's lying is not quantitatively nor qualitatively more severe than any other politician at that level, certainly not more than Biden or Kamala.
I'd argue that it is much worse - but each to his own bubble.
>> Need I remind you that Biden pardoned his son for a huge period of time and undisclosed crimes which he himself might be an accomplice?
ahh yes, the mythical Biden crime family... Any minute now there's be some evidence of literally anything - anything at all... No wait, before we get to evidence we'll at least have an idea of what crime he's supposed to have committed? (The drug and gun charges are fair enough - but they're very much related to Hunter - not to Joe.)
>> They are not down for more taxes, reduced benefits, or any such thing.
That's a pity then. 'Cause that's what's coming. That's obvious to anyone who's paid the slightest attention to the Republican agenda for this term. I _assumed_ that voters understood that's what they were voting for - whereas you're correcting me to explain that they were simply duped. (I'm not in the US, so it's hard to see that from here, so thank's for the correction...)
>> I don't know how many people think our Western lifestyles are sustainable.
>> ...
>> People want to believe there is a way, and they're not ready to give up their way of life yet just because some politician says [it's not possible].
So they cast a vote based on wishful thinking?
Ironically I think the current lifestyle is sustainable in the long term, with only minor lifestyle changes. But it would seem then that your voters would prefer to simply pretend the problems don't exist? That they can magically go back to 50 years ago?
I must say, it sounds like you have less faith in the US voter than I do...
>> it explicitly denied that any benefits would be cut or taxes increased (except for the tariffs).
I mean sure, if you call it a "tariff" not a "tax" then maybe it sounds better. But they're the same thing no? Given that it was such a focal point of the platform I'm pretty sure Republican voters understand that.
On the benefits front - a target cut of $2 trillion was made very clear. Looking at govt spending how exactly can that number be reached _without_ cutting benefits?
I guess the next 4 years will play out, and either it'll be better or worse. My money is on worse (just based on the economic impact of the policies already announced) but I don't have a crystal ball, so I guess anything is possible...
>ahh yes, the mythical Biden crime family... Any minute now there's be some evidence of literally anything - anything at all... No wait, before we get to evidence we'll at least have an idea of what crime he's supposed to have committed? (The drug and gun charges are fair enough - but they're very much related to Hunter - not to Joe.)
What more evidence do you need besides Biden pardoned his son in general for any and all offenses he committed in a 10 year period? The laptop has been acknowledged by even the pro-Democrat media now, after years of trying to bury the story and censor everyone on the topic. There is evidence of crimes related to Hunter's position on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil company. Biden had a lot of political protection to cover this up which is falling apart now.
>So they cast a vote based on wishful thinking? Ironically I think the current lifestyle is sustainable in the long term, with only minor lifestyle changes. But it would seem then that your voters would prefer to simply pretend the problems don't exist? That they can magically go back to 50 years ago?
>I must say, it sounds like you have less faith in the US voter than I do...
I say it's wishful thinking because the bottom line is we are going deeper and deeper into debt, outsourcing everything, and this election is the first sign in a long time that the public is waking up to their own demise.
>On the benefits front - a target cut of $2 trillion was made very clear. Looking at govt spending how exactly can that number be reached _without_ cutting benefits?
That was quite literally a random number that the campaign picked. I don't think they know how to cut $2 trillion. They promised not to cut benefits. Ending the wars might help, and maybe some things can be made more efficient. But a noticeable reduction in government benefits won't fly.
>I guess the next 4 years will play out, and either it'll be better or worse. My money is on worse (just based on the economic impact of the policies already announced) but I don't have a crystal ball, so I guess anything is possible...
My money is on worse. Not because Trump has the wrong idea, but because it's never gone any other way in my lifetime really, and I don't think he is a magician. I think a lot of people recognize that we're in a lot of trouble but don't see a way out. They can't even stop their jobs from being given to foreign workers and overseas companies. Many of them are struggling to get by. I myself make "good" money but I don't know when or if I will be able to buy a house or retire. Don't even get me started on the dating/marriage market.
Of course the politician does this, but if you think this somehow granted you carte blanche to write out of your ass you are a special kind of delusional.
I say that sincerely- losing your job suks.
Of course the root of the problem, for you and steel workers, US that American consumers care more about money than where something is sourced. They buy the cheapest car, cheapest steel, cheapest computer etc. So to survive companies have to reduce costs, which inevitably means off-shoring.
Tarifs are a solution, but are simpler to do on physical imports than on remote labor. Basically though they help by driving up local prices, allowing say American Steel to compete.
Yes, prices going up (inflation) is a side effect, and yes salaries have to remain fixed (else the import is still cheaper) so disposal income, and hence standard of living have to come down. That's a feature not a bug.
Alternatively taxes could be slashed, requiring massive reductions on spending on military, social security and Medicare. That would mean some job losses in the military-industrial sector, but frankly that's probably a good thing.
Social Security and Medicare are unpopular to cut, but its easily done, and a necessity to make significant cuts. I think the electorate has given a mandate to the govt to do this, do I expect they'll do it. (Trump campaigned on this, so its pretty much what people clearly want.)
I know attempts at American isolationist policies have not worked in the past, but I expect it'll be different this time.
The alternative to this approach would be higher taxes on companies and the mega rich - along with reduced military spending and increases to the social security net. That's the route most of the other countries took, but how many billionaires can Poland boast?
Sure they're sucking up programmer jobs, but there aren't too many companies complaining about that.