Congratulations to the President. Trump's tariffs are winning...

[Dragonlady]

Canada can trade who we want to trade with, this has not been due to Trump, we are being fleeced in trade with the E.U and China. The issue we have had for decades has been protectionism. Canadian consumers are the most indebted on earth by far, only nation on earth where personal debt of citizens is over 100% of GDP, and food is excessively expensive. That has to do with the lack of competition here as Canadian legacy companies have been protected by multiple governments at different levels. Ontario is leading our massive cost of living increase and Ontarios collapse is almost certain. Did you know that a year after saying that trade would be free between provinces, we STILL do not have free trade amongst provinces. Think about that...we do NOT have free trade between provinces in our own country...

More bullshit from the Clueless Iranian. Canadian consumers have the lowest level of public debt in the G7, you moron. Your knowledge of the Canadian economy wouldn't even fill a thimble. And yes, we DO have free trade between the provinces.

Whatever you post, we can be certain that the OPPOSITE is the truth.

 

[Dragonlady]

The success or failure is not the point?

No one ever said that they would like being told that the gravy train is over.

That they are desperately trying to avoid having to deal with that, is not... surprising.

The success or failure is EXACTLY the point. The ONLY gravy train that is over, is the one which made the USA the richest nation in the world. Something that YOU ignore completely, because you personally didn't benefit from it.

Here is the thing. Republican tax and labour codes passed by Ronald Reagan and subsequent Republican Presidents, were designed to reward the business owners, and ace the American worker out of the equation.

But you keep voting Republican so you deserve what you're getting.

 

[Mac1958]

The success or failure is EXACTLY the point. The ONLY gravy train that is over, is the one which made the USA the richest nation in the world. Something that YOU ignore completely, because you personally didn't benefit from it.

Here is the thing. Republican tax and labour codes passed by Ronald Reagan and subsequent Republican Presidents, were designed to reward the business owners, and ace the American worker out of the equation.

But you keep voting Republican so you deserve what you're getting.

The elites have had the flock convinced that they're going after the elites for a long time.

You could lay out how Trump has spectacularly enriched himself, his family and his friends in just the last 12 months alone, and the flock will call every bit of it a lie. Or they'll point the finger elsewhere. There is nothing that can be said to them.

 

[Dragonlady]

The elites have had the flock convinced that they're going after the elites for a long time.

You could lay out how Trump has spectacularly enriched himself, his family and his friends in just the last 12 months alone, and the flock will call every bit of it a lie. Or they'll point the finger elsewhere. There is nothing that can be said to them.

It's because Republicans LIE about the economy all of the time. And billionaire owned right wing media promotes those lies to keep the tax cuts coming, and the labour unions hobbled. The rich are getting richer every time the US economy crashes.

But your current tax system is unsustainable. 80% of your wealth and income is flowing to the top 10%. Your middle class is declining, with more people falling back into poverty, than are rising to wealth. The ratio of wealth flowing to the top is 50% in Denmark, and 40% in Canada. 80% is way past the tipping point for workers.

 

[Mac1958]

It's because Republicans LIE about the economy all of the time. And billionaire owned right wing media promotes those lies to keep the tax cuts coming, and the labour unions hobbled. The rich are getting richer every time the US economy crashes.

But your current tax system is unsustainable. 80% of your wealth and income is flowing to the top 10%. Your middle class is declining, with more people falling back into poverty, than are rising to wealth. The ratio of wealth flowing to the top is 50% in Denmark, and 40% in Canada. 80% is way past the tipping point for workers.

Given the cost of living, our middle class is just about gone. Is it the definition of "fairness" to require the wealthy to pay an outsized percentage of the taxes? No. But we're beyond that now. If we don't save the middle class very, very soon, we will have only two classes in this country.

 

[Dragonlady]

Given the cost of living, our middle class is just about gone. Is it the definition of "fairness" to require the wealthy to pay an outsized percentage of the taxes? No. But we're beyond that now. If we don't save the middle class very, very soon, we will have only two classes in this country.

The reality is that Milton Friedman's "free market on steroids" economic theories destroyed the 1970's economies of South America, which have NEVER recovered from the destruction of their social safety network. Friedman was disappointed that Reagan didn't end all social programs in 1981 when he reformed the tax code. Keeping Medicare and Social Security, over Friedman's objections.

Also, the USA was unlikely to start assassinating leftist leaders, as happened in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. So the destruction of the working and middle class has taken far longer in the USA, than it did in South America. Damn that Constitution!!!

So Americans went with tax cuts for the wealthy, and destruction of the union movement. Tax cuts destabilized the markets, and lead directly to economic crashes, which did more for the wealthy than even the tax cuts. The crashes kept workers from demanding higher wages, and the capital accumulated from the tax cuts, allowed corporations to take advantage of low prices during the crashes, to expand their capital base.

It's taken a lot longer than South America, but today, the USA is well on it's way to becoming Venezuela. And Trump is accelerating the process with his tariffs and his chaos, which is driving out foreign investment.

 

[Hafar1014]

The reality is that Milton Friedman's "free market on steroids" economic theories destroyed the 1970's economies of South America, which have NEVER recovered from the destruction of their social safety network. Friedman was disappointed that Reagan didn't end all social programs in 1981 when he reformed the tax code. Keeping Medicare and Social Security, over Friedman's objections.

Also, the USA was unlikely to start assassinating leftist leaders, as happened in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. So the destruction of the working and middle class has taken far longer in the USA, than it did in South America. Damn that Constitution!!!

So Americans went with tax cuts for the wealthy, and destruction of the union movement. Tax cuts destabilized the markets, and lead directly to economic crashes, which did more for the wealthy than even the tax cuts. The crashes kept workers from demanding higher wages, and the capital accumulated from the tax cuts, allowed corporations to take advantage of low prices during the crashes, to expand their capital base.

It's taken a lot longer than South America, but today, the USA is well on it's way to becoming Venezuela. And Trump is accelerating the process with his tariffs and his chaos, which is driving out foreign investment.

Socialism destroyed south and central America. Today America is thriving under Trumps tax cuts and less government which firces people like you to face the failure of your beliefs. You can always move to Cuba

 

[Mac1958]

The reality is that Milton Friedman's "free market on steroids" economic theories destroyed the 1970's economies of South America, which have NEVER recovered from the destruction of their social safety network. Friedman was disappointed that Reagan didn't end all social programs in 1981 when he reformed the tax code. Keeping Medicare and Social Security, over Friedman's objections.

Also, the USA was unlikely to start assassinating leftist leaders, as happened in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. So the destruction of the working and middle class has taken far longer in the USA, than it did in South America. Damn that Constitution!!!

So Americans went with tax cuts for the wealthy, and destruction of the union movement. Tax cuts destabilized the markets, and lead directly to economic crashes, which did more for the wealthy than even the tax cuts. The crashes kept workers from demanding higher wages, and the capital accumulated from the tax cuts, allowed corporations to take advantage of low prices during the crashes, to expand their capital base.

It's taken a lot longer than South America, but today, the USA is well on it's way to becoming Venezuela. And Trump is accelerating the process with his tariffs and his chaos, which is driving out foreign investment.

I look at the beginning of this as being the moment the Republicans took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line as gospel. It's as if everything we've seen since has flowed from that.

The strangest part of this is that so many of these people are barely making it from month to month, and they're still clinging to this notion that all this wealth is going to some day trickle down to them.

They've also been conditioned to view regulation as the bane of capitalism, when proper, efficient regulation is an absolutely critical component of capitalism.

 

[Hafar1014]

I look at the beginning of this as being the moment the Republicans took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line as gospel. It's as if everything we've seen since has flowed from that.

The strangest part of this is that so many of these people are barely making it from month to month, and they're still clinging to this notion that all this wealth is going to some day trickle down to them.

They've also been conditioned to view regulation as the bane of capitalism, when proper, efficient regulation is an absolutely critical component of capitalism.

The middle class will get a 10 billion dollar tax cut this year

 

[forkup]

I would think just about ALL of them, barring massive policy reversal.

This is a pivotal moment and I think the trade relations we forge now will define a lot of the economy for quite a while.


BETTER, counts, imo, as a middle class income rising faster than inflation, over the long term.

Okay, let’s go with that criterion. But I have two caveats.

First: “long term” is vague. Can you define the time frame more specifically?

Second: if we’re using middle-class income rising faster than inflation as the benchmark, we also need to define what income range qualifies as “middle class.” And we should account for distributional effects. If policies cause a significant portion of people to move out of the middle class, whether upward or downward, then the metric becomes unreliable on its own.

I’m not trying to be pedantic. But if we’re going to evaluate something like this, we need clear ground rules.

So, working within the framework you’ve set:
What specific policy do you think will advance the criterion you outlined?

 

[Correll]

The success or failure is EXACTLY the point.

i agree completely. That was MY point, in responding to Mac1955's assertion.

The ONLY gravy train that is over, is the one which made the USA the richest nation in the world. Something that YOU ignore completely, because you personally didn't benefit from it.

Disagree. FREE TRADE, or GLOBALIZATION, led to good macro-economic numbers, but at teh expense of the working class.

Here is the thing. Republican tax and labour codes passed by Ronald Reagan and subsequent Republican Presidents, were designed to reward the business owners, and ace the American worker out of the equation.

Labor codes? GLOBALIZATION shipped jobs overseas. A plant being union, doesn't matter if the whole plant is shut down.

But you keep voting Republican so you deserve what you're getting.

MAGA, noticed that the previous status quo was hurting the American worker, and we changes our policy accordingly.

YOU are on the side of MAINTAINING the policies that you admit have NOT benefited the American workers.


And you are attacking us... for what? Wanting policy that serves our economic interests?

That's not rational. At all.

 

[Correll]

Okay, let’s go with that criterion. But I have two caveats.

First: “long term” is vague. Can you define the time frame more specifically?

Well, our current model, really was implemented back in the 70s and 80s. So, let'sc all long term, 50 years and above.

I want to see middle class income, generally rise for the next 50 years, at least, to make up for the hit we took from globalization.

Second: if we’re using middle-class income rising faster than inflation as the benchmark, we also need to define what income range qualifies as “middle class.” And we should account for distributional effects. If policies cause a significant portion of people to move out of the middle class, whether upward or downward, then the metric becomes unreliable on its own.

If middle class income seemed to stagnate because significant percentages of that population were rising to some sort of UPPER CLASS, that of course would be a factor that would have to be considered.

Such qualifiers should not be needed to be spelled out, if people are serious about the issues and of good faith.


What is the middle class?

Current numbers seem to about 56k to 170k depending on local cost of living.

More details on how it is defined.

Are you in the American middle class? Find out with our income calculator

About half of U.S. adults (52%) lived in middle-income households in 2022, according to our new analysis of government data.

www.pewresearch.org

I’m not trying to be pedantic. But if we’re going to evaluate something this consequential, we need clear ground rules.

So, working within the framework you’ve set:
What specific policy do you think will advance the criterion you outlined?

There are several.

If you want ONE for discussion purposes, lets go with DEPORTING ILLEGALS, and restricting immigration afterwards, to reduce labor pool.

 

[forkup]

Such qualifiers should not be needed to be spelled out, if people are serious about the issues and of good faith.

I felt it did need to be spelled out, mainly because it was the one thing, besides vagueness, which is easily rectified, that would make your criterion meaningless. Your criterion has several flaws but none that would make the discussion meaningless. This one did. So I spelled it out.

If you want ONE for discussion purposes, lets go with DEPORTING ILLEGALS, and restricting immigration afterwards, to reduce labor pool.

Yes for discussion purposes one is good. If we hash it out, we can add another one.

So, I'll try to steelman the argument I think you're going to make. I'm not trying to strawman you and feel free to correct what I get wrong, and add to what I miss.


You will say, and this is as short as I know how to make it. That deporting illegals frees up jobs for Americans and that restricting immigration afterwarths will reduce the labor pool thereby increasing wages for the middle class.

Now feel free to add or subtract to it.

And maybe try to steelman a rebuttal?

I think playing devil's advocate helps with perspective. If you'd indulge me ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

... for our former friends, allies and trading partners.

=====

Canada Leads New 40-Nation Trade Bloc
Carney Surprises Trump With 40-Nation Alliance Against MAGA
Can smaller economies really create a new world trade order? Yes, they can.

...further formalizing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s trade diversification strategy — an alliance among Canada, the 27-member European Union and the 12-nation Indo-Pacific bloc — is now under negotiation, with Canada spearheading the talks.

And, in the face of an apparent divide-and-conquer strategy from Washington against CUSMA’s other two signatories, the Carney government has this week deployed a 370-person business delegation to Mexico led by Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic Leblanc.

=====

Europe, Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, South Korea, the European Union, Canada, Japan, Singapore, Uruguay, Saudi America, Mexico. That's a good start.

Now that America is viewed as essentially a Mafia organization -- you'd better deal with us only if you absolutely HAVE to -- we have done the world a favor by demonstrating that we're not needed as much as the world thought. That will help us hide from everyone as much as possible. American exporters will suffer for this, but they're just commie whiners!

Trump's "**** you, you need us more than we need you, so we're going to insult, mock, troll, namecall, threaten and punish you all we want, so tough shit" foreign policy is Winning!

You cant make plans with a madman.

 

[Mac1958]

You cant make plans with a madman.

Yep. One of the many things that Trump/MAGA don't understand.

Business agreements absolutely have to be stable, predictable and reasonable, as businesses have to plan and forecast. Trump has made that impossible.

He's STILL saying that other countries pay our tariffs. And since he says that every time he talks about tariffs, he is knowingly saying something that isn't true. In other words, he's lying. And the flock doesn't care.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yep. One of the many things that Trump/MAGA don't understand.

Business agreements absolutely have to be stable, predictable and reasonable, as businesses have to plan and forecast. Trump has made that impossible.

He's STILL saying that other countries pay our tariffs. And since he says that every time he talks about tariffs, he is knowingly saying something that isn't true. In other words, he's lying. And the flock doesn't care.

Countries that domt homour treaties are also a big no.

 

[Mac1958]

Countries that domt homour treaties are also a big no.

Yeah, the world has learned that about him, too.

Yet another historical parallel. Toss it on the pile with the rest of them.

 

[berg80]

Whatever you post, we can be certain that the OPPOSITE is the truth.

It's all too common among trumples.

 

[berg80]

I look at the beginning of this as being the moment the Republicans took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line as gospel.

Much of POT orthodoxy has flowed from that bit of ignorance from the bumbling old codger. It's been immensely destructive as is the long term effect of his presidency.

 

[Mac1958]

Much of POT orthodoxy has flowed from that bit of ignorance from the bumbling old codger. It's been immensely destructive as is the long term effect of his presidency.

Imagine if he tried to run for office today. He and Tip O'Neil were good friends. They'd consider Ronnie a RINO.