My message to Gen X'ers and millenials

The political climate today is absolutely frightening. I go online and all I see is dumbed down young people calling for a socialist revolution, or ivory tower feminists telling me that I need to check my white male privilege like I really owe them something, or George Soros backed social justice warriors telling me that black lives matter but that random cop killings are perfectly justified.

Well, I've got news for you! You're all being used. The Democrat politicians, George Soros and the crony capitalists all want you to stay poor, dumbed down, fighting with each-other over nonsense and ready to riot. Pressure from above and pressure from below. That's how the controllers operate. As Rahm Emanuel once said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". For more information, I suggest you go to Youtube and watch some videos on "The Cloward and Piven Strategy".

I'm a baby boomer and I'm actually disgusted by the fact that the people of my generation decided to bankrupt the country, destroy our economy and corrupt our morals. I never supported any of these disastrous policies, or the politicians who were making these decisions.

However, it was the responsibility of Gen X and the millennials to get educated, get organized and then stand up and demand real reform. Instead, you morons were too busy s******* around on social media and p*** sites while the baby boomers were burning down the country.

You morons grew up with the internet so you had free access to truthful political information that I had to acquire from books that I spent thousands of dollars collecting. The fact that today's young people support hard core socialists, communists and globalists like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tells me that, collectively, you Gen X'ers and millennials are brain dead. If you people really think that our decaying and bankrupt socialist system can ever be fixed with even more layers socialism than you have absolutely no future.

In less than two months from now we'll be having the most important presidential election of our lifetimes. Donald Trump my well be the last presidential candidate you'll ever see who will actually stand up for poor and working class people. My advice? Get informed and vote wisely. This may be your last chance..........

Report this


  • newest
  • oldest
  • most replies
  • most popular
  • Appealing to the masses by calling them morons? You want to get people to listen to you based on the qualification that you wasted your life? You're a special kind of idiot: a laughable idiot.

  • Sorry Bub, but you've been busted.

    First off, you've already HAD your last chance.

    Your elections are a w****.

    You don't have the system you have because of the candidates you've got.
    You have the candidates you've got because of the system you have.

    See the difference?

    Here is a chance to get politically educated by a real socialist.

    Like to see the whole program?

    Now tell me where is YOUR party program! Go ahead. I dare you!

    NO to Democrats!
    NO to Republicans!
    NO to Banksters!

    YES to the Socialist Equality Party

  • Saying that we need to replace capitalism with socialism because we have bad presidential candidates is like saying we need to build a new house because the walls need to be painted. The system that produced these candidates was not capitalism, it was the primaries for the Democrat and Republican parties. That is the system we need to fix.

  • This is not the place to peddle pamphlets. If you have something intelligent to add to the conversation, then say it.

  • Good grief I am so b***** sick and tired of you and your "Why aren't you cleaning up my mess?" argument that you think means jack s***. You had to bring it into my post twice, and like some geriatric who just can't learn, made another post. I like one thing you say, that you're frightened. Probably the one honest thing you said. Just some scared old over the hill fogie wondering who's gonna take care of him now that he's almost over the hill, wasted his entire life, and wasted the damn planet too. Nobody should give you the time of day until you're out there at least picking up roadside litter for say, a half hour a day. Then, to treat your blather with one second of intellectual attention, I would see your penance extended to three hours of litter. And if you want to be treated with any validation, you best spend the rest of your otherwise worthless days cleaning toxic waste. God I can't stand you old farts.

  • You don't know anything about me and you obviously didn't read my original post very carefully.............. In your case, I'll ask you to just do the American people this one simple favor: Stay home on election day! You moron!

  • I know you are a smug, pompous fraud who takes pride in the fact that you and the rsst of yor worthless generation wrecked everything. You should be spat on by those who know you personally. I wouldn't... if I saw you in a hazmat suit cleaning just one toxic spill. Oh and I have my ballot. Donald Trump is a fool and so are you.

  • Buddy, there's nothing of any validity in you. You say so yourself because you blew your life away. Go pick up garbage.

  • Are you pickingbup your tradh yet! No? Then shut up and get cracking, old fart.

  • Yes, a corrupt billionaire who started his life with his daddy's money and affluence is going to stand up for poor people. He has flat out admitted that he loves dumb people because they back him and his b******* and his narcissism. You're so ridiculous it's nauseating.

  • And don't forget defrauding people with Trump University and using Trump Foundation money to buy a massive painting of himself. Yes this is the great presidential candidate we've all been waiting for. STFU.

  • It doesn't matter who you vote for the same group of people is in charge

  • The establishment would like you to believe that so you don't bother getting educated and you don't bother getting involved.

  • Socialism is smarter than capitalism if you want the general population to be happier money always concentrates as it is easier to acquire money the more of it you have

  • If socialism is so smart then why is the European Union Going Bankrupt? In socialist countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain the youth unemployment rate (35 yoa and under) is at 50 percent while the social safety net is being drastically cut back. Socialism is a breeding ground for cronyism and and treasury looting by special interests. That's why socialist governments are always riddled with corruption and are guaranteed to go bankrupt!

  • Money concentrates in socialism the same way it does in capitalism. It just concentrates toward the government rather than toward corporations.

  • Real free market capitalism produces more wealth, more evenly distributed and for more people than socialism ever will. The the failures of the bastardized form of capitalism, known as American corporate fascism, is the reason why our jobs suck and our purchasing power is going down.

  • I'd rather have it in a legit democratic gov unfortunately for that to happen there needs to be a smart involved voter base....

  • Yes, but the "legit democratic government" you're imagining in your head is nothing like the democratic government we have in place. Giving more money and responsibility to our government won't magically turn it into the idea of government you have in your mind.

  • Agreed! That's what I'm saying..........

  • Not all Millenials and Gen X'ers are brain dead. I was born a millenial but inherited a bulletproof work ethic from my father along with common sense and a few other things that seem to be getting rare these days. I see right through the whole system. I am not fooled. The Democrats have been running the same game for 80 years, pitching social programs in the name of equality and justice that promise a brave new utopian world. Then after the election, what they deliver is cumbersome and expensive bureaucracy that creates 5 problems for every one it solves. I don't intend to allow my generation to bankrupt this country, and I fight everyday to stop it from happening. But if you think Trump is the answer, you're drinking the same kool-aid as the socialists, just in a different flavor. He's a TV personality, and an opportunist, not a hard-working American. I see the stream of people he stepped on as he climbed to the top, and it reminds me of neighbors of ours who would wait until someone delivered them hay, then change the price. Or follow them to their customers and try to undercut them. Every bone in my body tells me not to trust the man. I'm voting for Gary Johnson. He's not perfect, but he's a real person who has done something with his life other than politics, who has done it with integrity, and he has a track record of balancing budgets, which is exactly what we need as we careen further and further into debt.

  • I'm glad to see that you've done your research and are beginning to see through the matrix. Although I do disagree with you on several points.

    As far as balancing the budget is concerned? It's way too late for that now. Balancing the budget should have been done during the Reagan years. At this point, balancing the budget, without spending reform and abolishing the Federal Reserve, would just send our economy into a senseless deep depression that we could probably never get out of. Not a good idea at this point

    Back in 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul was calling for a total default on the national debt. At this point some kind of default is our only was out of our debt crisis without hyperinflating the dollar. Right now Donald Trump is calling for a partial default on the national debt which tells me that he's moving the discussion in the right direction. The fact that Trump is largely self funded and has stood up against both the Democrat and Republican establishment as well as the multinational corporations tells me that he's a real reformer. A Trump presidency might not be perfect, but right now he's the only realistic hope we have. That's why I say, "Vote wisely"! Trump might be our last hope to save the country.

    Up until recently I would usually vote libertarian in most elections although I've always hated their platform on immigration and on trade - which will just lead to more job outsourcing. Gary Johnson supports the TPP and his position on the Second Amendment is questionable at best. That's why I just can't support him. Recently I've been voting Constitution Party whenever they're on the ballet. They're just more
    patriotic and practical then the libertarian party will ever be.

    Glad to see that you care about your country and that you're thinking outside the box!

  • Eliminating the federal reserve isn't a bad idea but we can't do it from our current financial stance - the only way to go from 0% interest is up, and we would almost certainly bring about a second housing market crash. Granted, all of our values on long term assets is inflated because of the low interest, so they will come down anyways, but it would be smarter if we keep the Fed long enough to increase the interest rate in small increments over a span of time and give the market time to adjust so people don't end up upside-down in their mortgages.

  • The reason why the fed can't raise interest rates is because any increase over 5% would make the interest payment on the national debt so astronomical that it would bankrupt the country. Military spending and social security payments would be crowded out of the budget and that would be disaster! That's why I call for a full default on the national debt. It's a fraud anyway so why should we be forced to finance this elephant in the room. The constitution gives the federal government the authority to coin money interest free. So why do they have to borrow money at interest from private banks? That's why the national debt is a fraud that must be repudiated. Also the housing bubble and the Wall St. banks who created it must crash and burn before we can have an economic recovery. That's why the fed needs to be abolished ASAP.......

  • Forcing the country to borrow money rather than coin it keeps the federal government from expanding by providing a "cost" for money, the same way interest rates limit the cost of housing. If you allow them to coin money with impunity, they will do so any time they want to expand any program, and we will no longer have control over the size of the government. Unless you want to head to the grocery store with a few thousand dollars to get milk and eggs, this is not a solution. Your whole argument only further reinforces why we need to reign in spending and reduce the national debt.

  • Going back to the gold standard, as the constitution mandates, would stop the government from printing too much money. In fact, right now our federal government is so far in debt that not one cent of the principal can ever be paid back. Also, this money is owed to private international banks who will have a claim on our national assets when we default. Better to let the treasury print our own money debt free and interest free. That's how Lincoln financed the civil war and that's how Hitler successfully financed his rearmament of Germany. In both cases, not a penny was added to the national debt. Cutting out the banksters from getting involved in financing the government is just common sense. The inflation problem under that system wouldn't be any worse than it is now. The fed creates both debt and inflation. That's as bad as it gets............................

  • The constitution doesn't mandate the gold standard, it mandates that states may only use gold or silver coins as legal tender so they don't create their own currencies. It also gives the government the power to create and regulate the value of currency in section 8 of article 1. I do support going back to the gold standard, though. But by its very definition, it wouldn't allow the government to print more money instead of borrowing it. It would prevent the government from printing extra money period, because they wouldn't be able to increase the supply of money without having gold in corresponding quantity to be able to cover for it.

  • The paragraph that you were referring to in section 8 article 1 of the constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". This clause originally prohibited the treasury from issuing coinage for common use in any other form but gold and silver. By extension, I would think that it would prohibit the federal government from accepting payment in no other form but gold and silver. Nevertheless, this clause has been used and abused over the years ultimately giving us the unconstitutional 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

  • If gold and silver are the only forms of legal tender than that is exactly what the gold standard actually is..................

  • Technically that's a bi-metallic standard, which we tried for a while, and doesn't work. But what i'm trying to explain is that the paragraph in the constitution that specifies gold and silver as legal tender is describing what states may use to pay back the government. It is not in the section that describes the federal money system. To say that the section outlining limitations on states rights has one line in it that is intended to establish a gold standard is a flat out mis-reading at best. Not to mention, the founding fathers implemented a silver standard when the nation was started. We didn't have the gold standard officially until 1873.

  • I see what you're saying, but you're splitting hairs here. Actually, the gold standard act wasn't passed until 1900. The Coinage Act of 1873, as you say, seems to be a corrupt legislative effort by rich robber barons (who held gold) to cause a deflationary depression by legally driving down the value of silver (the common people's money). Nevertheless, America was on a strict, but informal, gold and silver standard from the early 1790"s up until 1933, excluding Lincoln's greenback years until 1873. Actually the gold standard, beginning in 1873, was a failure because it attempted to destroy the value of silver. In order for a hard money system to work fairly, and for all classes of people, than it must include silver as well as gold. BTW, I had to re-check my history to be sure I got this on right...........

  • I'm only splitting hairs to get to a point. What I'm getting at is that the founding fathers didn't specifically write a gold or silver standard into the constitution because, they gave the power to regulate money to the legislative branch, and it was the job of congress to implement whatever standard made the most sense for the times. I don't think they wanted to specify a gold or silver standard, because I don't think they wanted to paint themselves into a corner if one or the other became erratic in value.

  • I think we're in agreement on at least one thing- to balance the budget means we *must* have spending reform. But if we cut in the right places, it can be done. Our government doesn't have money problems, it has efficiency problems. All the money it needs to carry out its responsibilities is there, and more. We just need to give the workers motivation to use their allotment efficiently. Try this on for size - if a government department comes in under budget, then we take half of the money they saved, and split it evenly among all the members of that department in the form of a bonus check. They will find ways to cut back.?

  • This is a good suggestion but it's only a drop in the bucket! In order to actually balance the budget, and to preserve social security, then Medicare and Medicaid must be totally discontinued. Just try telling that to the army of dumbed down, sickly and self entitled baby boomers who are now retiring and have paid into those programs for all of their lives.

  • I don't think it's a "drop in the bucket" at all. Overall, i'd say we could gain 10% back that way, which would be more than enough to get us back in the black. Not to mention, what happens after we default on the debt? Will we suddenly have a government filled with responsible spenders? Of course not. The only way to teach the American public what happens when they spend more money than they make is to force them to go through the pain of paying it back. Of course Trump would suggest default on our financial obligations. Filing bankruptcy was his go-to solution any time his own ventures went into the toilet.

  • Like I said, you've made a good suggestion that should be implemented. However, it just doesn't go far enough. The big problem is with entitlements. Medicare and Medicade are complex open ended programs that are impossible oversee so the cost overruns can never be contained. These programs are a magnet for deliberate overcharging and outright fraud. The sheer volume of individual claims against these programs makes it impossible for the government to audit the majority of these claims. That's why I say that in order to save social security, and to prevent the government from going bankrupt, government must completely get out of the health care business. If something isn't done than Medicare, Medicade and the bloated government worker pension system will destroy this country, BTW, our founding fathers wrote the bankruptcy laws to protect our citizens from debt slavery and to keep our economy strong. Our founding fathers knew that bad debt needed to be flushed out of the system and they knew something about the evils of predatory lending practices that you haven't figured out yet. If Trump used the bankruptcy laws properly than good for him!

  • I agree that the bankruptcy laws in this country do a good job of reigning in predatory lending and reducing debt slavery. But they are also misused by large corporations and rich entities to escape responsibility for their blunders. When a CEO can file bankruptcy for a company and walk away with a 45 million dollar severance package as the shareholders walk away with nothing, that is not a correct use of the bankruptcy laws.

  • I totally agree with you here. This lack of accountability is one reason why Thomas Jefferson fought to make corporations illegal in this country. In personal bankruptcy, if the filer transfers any assets within 2 years prior to filing for bankruptcy, then those transferred assets are considered to be part of the estate and recoverable by the bankruptcy court. The fact that this same logic doesn't apply to corporate bankruptcy filings is a major form of corruption. Those golden parachutes should be taken from the CEO's and upper management and then included in the bankruptcy settlement. Corporate bankruptcy reforms such as this would stop the practice of CEO.s deliberately driving the corporations they run into bankruptcy and then walking away with millions and leaving the workers on the unemployment line. This is fraud and it should be punishable with jail time. On the other hand, if a company is insolvent than than bankruptcy is the beat option for all concerned because it allows for the orderly liquidation of the company assets and assures that creditors recover at least some of their investment.

  • Agreed.

  • Let's be clear here, cutting Medicaid and Medicare are not actually necessary to balancing the budget, in the short term. You are right that these programs, and the entirety of the government's involvement in healthcare, has the potential to grow over time to a place where we will be struggling to fund it. But it isn't there yet. I don't want the government to be in the business of healthcare either, but it is absolutely necessary for the government to regulate healthcare, and I will tell you why. In any other business, you could walk in, and ask how much something is going to cost, then if it was too much, decide that you don't want to buy it. But with health care, you come in under duress, and they have no idea how to price the procedures until they start working on you, and then send you out the door, billing you whatever they like because you've already agreed to let them do the work when you walked (or were carted) in. So it is an absolute necessity that the government keeps the health care system from taking advantage of people's emergencies and their fear of death to extort them for insane amounts of money.

  • You really need to do more research on this subject. I could write a whole dissertation on why your conclusions are wrong here. According to the congressional budget office Medicare is on the verge of insolvency right now and the disability program isn't far behind. Also, the social security program is projected to go in the red some time in the mid 2030's (a very optimistic projection in my opinion). So, if something isn't done soon than both of these programs combined will bankrupt our country long before 2035. My solution? Washington needs to completely defund Medicare now so than we can save social security and maybe even balance the budget. Our federal government just isn't capable of controlling skyrocketing health care costs. Look! Obamacare just added more fuel to the fire and now health care costs are rising faster than ever. So much for government solutions. That's why the whole health care system needs to be returned to the free market, where we'll have true market driven price discovery and cost containment

  • Social security would be fine if they hadn't invested all of their money into the treasury, which then "loaned" it to other branches of the government to fill budget gaps and in some cases, LOWER TAXES. Other branches of government robbed that program blind. It still has more than two and a half trillion dollars in the trust fund it was building to prepare for baby boomers, along with all of the money it will take in from now until the year 2035. Worst case scenario, the baby boomers have to take 70% of their promised benefits. But hey, Trump made contractors on his hotel take 70% payment for the work they did, so there's nothing wrong with that. Obamacare is a joke. The website and marketplace are unnecessary, and all the stipulations created by health insurance companies do nothing but line the pockets of the few remaining companies large enough to deal with the bureaucracy. And yes, medicare and medicaid are expensive and inefficient programs. I'm not defending them. I'm simply saying that the health care industry requires regulation, or at least some kind of intervention, because they are currently inventing a new definition for price gouging, and have been since before Obamacare.

  • The social security trust fund is completely empty. It was raided during the Clinton Administration.

    Here's what George Bush had to say on the subject in 2005;

    "Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund – in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money – payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust."

    Given the circumstances, government workers need to take a big hair cut on their bloated pensions, the military needs to be cut back and Medicare needs to be phased out before we even think about cutting one dime from social security benefits. Even with those cuts, we're probably still so buried under a s*** pile of debt and corruption that the whole system is going down no matter what we do,

  • What he meant is that there isn't a physical cache of money - as I said, the social security program sold all of their income to the treasury for bonds that are making interest (which is paid with still more bonds) I'm not saying that their trust fund is filled with money. No, it is filled with IOU's from the treasury. Then the treasury used that money to make up shortcomings over the last several presidencies. But the idea is that anytime social security wants to cash those bonds, the treasury has to honor them. Can they? Obviously not, they would have to borrow money to do that. So of course they want to make us cut other programs to pay for social security. They took our money and spent it on something else, then they turn around and expect the American public to take cuts to other benefits to get the benefits they already paid for but the government blew the money. That is so crooked it's not even funny. I think we need to start by cutting the pensions of the congress, and the people who worked for these branches of government who so irresponsibly used all that money up in the first place.

  • The TPP is not a blanket evil, as the pundits would like you to believe. It is good for some industries, bad for others. Mostly it depends on how it is negotiated. If it is negotiated well, it could be a bump for quite a few of our key exports. If it is negotiated poorly, it will be a disaster. I can't be 100% against it until we get to the negotiating table and I look at what we're getting versus what we're giving.

  • The TTP is NAFTA on steroids. So how has NAFTA been working out for you? The TPP is guaranteed to eroded our national sovereignty, raise our trade deficit and further drive down wages for American workers! If that doesn't suck than I don't than I don't know what to say. My default position is this: "If the globalists are for something than I'm against it"!

  • If the globalists were for drinking water instead of gasoline, would you disagree with them? Even idiots are right by accident some of the time. NAFTA hasn't been the great success they said it would be, but the general consensus is that it's effect on our overall GDP has been fairly negligible. Not to mention the fact that any TPP agreements that cover the same ground as NAFTA agreements automatically supercede the latter. So TPP gives us a chance to diplomatically re-write sections of NAFTA.

  • NAFTA was the treaty that ultimately landed our industrial base in China. We can never fix the failures of globalism with more globalism. These trade treaties are a corporate looting system on a planetary scale. That's why the TPP is guaranteed to be a disaster for America. It's already baked in the cake. Wake up!

  • NAFTA has been blamed for landing our jobs in Mexico, not China. China was not ever a part of NAFTA. NAFTA was not even a good example of globalism. Did you read anything about this treaty?

  • NAFTA, passed in 1992, gave US corporations the green light to leave the country. It was actually the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995 that landed our industrial base in China rather than in Mexico because Chinese wages are lower. The race to the bottom continues,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • This is what I don't understand about your position. You seem to be a capitalist, but you're against globalism. They're the same thing! Globalism is just capitalism applied on a larger scale. Our jobs went to China because they can do the same job for cheaper. It's supply and demand. You can't tell me that capitalism is the answer to all our problems and then turn around and complain that our jobs went to China because they have cheaper labor. The fact that our jobs left the country points out what is wrong with capitalism, and why we need regulations on it, like tariffs for global capitalism, or laws that govern local capitalism.

  • Globalism isn't free trade. It's managed trade who's laws were written by multinational corporations. When these treaties prevent a nation's law makers from raising or lowering tariffs when necessary then that nation has, in effect, given up it's economic freedom and sovereignty.

  • The laws will only be written by multinational corporations if we allow them to be the puppeteers for our politicians.

  • Like our founding fathers advised, I'm for a free trade zone within US borders. And to keep the playing field level, I 'm also for high tariffs on imports to prevent cheep slave goods from coming in from third world countries and destabilizing the competitive balance within our nation's borders. We shouldn't be importing anything that we can make at home.

  • Fair enough. I'm for essentially the same thing, with a few key industries regulated that historically are incapable of self-regulating.

  • Defaulting on the national debt may prevent heavy inflation, but it will cause steep drops in the value of the US dollar abroad, which would be great for our export markets, but would be vastly unpopular as the prices of all our imported goods skyrocketed and people could no longer afford their beloved technology. Although this would create the push to move manufacturing jobs back home - and I think that is what you're after - I don't think that is what our citizens want. All the things you want to accomplish are the perfect plan if what we want to do is move our blue-collar jobs back home. But most of the kids in these younger generations are not after blue collar jobs, they want white collar jobs in marketing, design, finance, entertainment, management, etc. They will turn their noses up at factory jobs, which will then ultimately go to immigrants and the poor, and they'll take their chances on a college degree that will ultimately land them back in their parent's basements wondering where they went wrong. You may see them as foolhardy, but in truth, they are just the product of the way our role in national trade is evolving. The economy is vastly different now than it used to be in 1950. We have transitioned from creation to marketing. That is to say that we are no longer the manufacturer of the world's goods, but instead we are its "Wal-Mart". And there is a benefit that comes from being the world's Wal-mart- there are a plethora of white collar jobs that come out of that role, enough to land many of our not-so-bright youth in good-paying, safe jobs where they get to use their true talents of BS-ing their way through busy work and pretending to be important. It's not the America I want to live in, but they can have the job they want, and i'll keep mine, and we'll all be happy.

  • The problem is that our trade policy is so incredibly bad that now even the white collar jobs are being outsourced. In reality, after graduation today's college educated kids are lucky if they can land a minimum wage job working part time at Starbucks or McDonalds. No nation in history has ever remained powerful and prosperous without a solid manufacturing base. You can look it up. Also, how long do you think that the Petrodollar can remain the world's reserve currency when we can't even manufacture our own underwear? When the Petrodollar goes down the Walmart shelves go empty and hyperinflation begins. That's when you'll see some p***** off millennials.

  • And I agree with the fact that manufacturing is a necessity for a prosperous nation. But you're suggestion that we chase down yesterday's industries with tariffs is a desperate grab at a world that doesn't exist anymore. Good old-fashioned American ingenuity is the only thing that will get us out of this pinch. I say we invent the next generation of powered vehicles to revive our manufacturing sector, and leave the rest of the world holding the ball on the gas-powered segment.

  • If what you're saying is true than we're doomed to be a third world country. Also, if we follow your plan, then who'll stop these new industries from moving offshore just like Apple did? However, I don't think that the situation is hopeless. The Japanese, the Europeans and recently the Chinese have been cleaning our clocks by putting high tariffs on our exports. It's high time we leveled the playing field by placing equally high tariffs on imports. If we do that then lowering the corporate tax and EPA deregulation will bring industry back to America real fast.

  • You have a point here - I think a wise use of tariffs is a good idea to keep some key industries and jobs at home, and we need to set up an environment that keeps industry at home to avoid outsourcing of newly created technologies. But you can't forget that our industries also stand to gain something with the TPP by reducing or eliminating a lot of the tariffs you're talking about.

  • Maybe so, but probably not. I'd much rather see our own congress and individual countries setting their own trade policies and having their own elected representatives ratify their own trade deals based on what is actually in their own national interests. The TPP is another one size fits all straight jacket and global racketeering scheme that will probably be a bad deal for Europe and America. We are perfectly capable of cutting our own trade deals and lowering or raising are tariffs without the help of the TPP, thank you!

  • The TPP is a disaster because it allows another international board of bureaucrats to override our own congress and dictate our trade policy. The NAFTA board and the World Trade Organization are doing just that right now. If Trump is serious about fixing our trade imbalance than he'll probably have to pull us out of NAFTA, the WTO and the TPP if it's ratified by the time he takes office. Because right now congress is powerless to do much of anything to change our international trade situation,

  • Yes, NAFTA, the WTO, and the TPP keep us from individually establishing different policies with each country that would benefit us in specific industries. But our position in each of those organizations gives us a bargaining chip in international negotiations in other areas that allow us to protect our own interests abroad. Discarding them could bring some jobs home, but it would put our military and intelligence community in a worse position. Trump cannot fix the trade deficit because it is caused in part by the fact that our currency is used as an international trade currency. In general, countries whose currencies play host to international trading always remain in a state of trade deficit as a result of that.

  • It's not our trade policy that is causing the out-sourcing of our white collar jobs, it is the Internet. 10 million talented foreigners were inadvertently added to our workforce when the Internet improved to the point that they could attend meetings and exchange work with American companies for money, and all they needed was access to a connected computer and the ability to speak English.

  • A sensible corporate tax policy would fix this mess. Just give big tax breaks to domestic corporations who hire American workers while placing confiscatory taxes on corporations who hire white collar workers who are foreign citizens living in other countries. Problem solved! This wouldn't be a problem if the right incentives had been put in place........

  • I agree with you here. A little sensible legislation that rewards companies who employ people here at home would go a long way to keeping jobs here. It doesn't have to even be really big - just enough to make outsourcing and insourcing approximately equal in cost, and let the language, time, and logistics challenges do the rest.

  • Agreed!

Account Login
Is this post inapropriate?
Is this comment inapropriate?
Delete this post?