Why does Donald Trump resonate with Americans?

[Vigilante]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

 

[owebo]

The majority of normal Americans hate LWNJs and Trumps makes that OK again....

 

[MACAULAY]

Everyone I know realizes that he is fucked up, but they are all voting for him, because he ain't Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

 

[Vigilante]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

Right, that's why he has higher voter numbers than the MODERATE with PROGRESSIVE views, Mitt McRomney had!...You NEVER get tired of LYING!

 

[owebo]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

Trump is going to win in an epic landslide....America is repulsed by you fascist nazi democrats......

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

Trump is going to win in an epic landslide....America is repulsed by you fascist nazi democrats......

Would you like to bet $1000?

 

[Vigilante]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

Trump is going to win in an epic landslide....America is repulsed by you fascist nazi democrats......

 

[Rexx Taylor]

and Hillary only resonates with insects

 

[Vigilante]

and Hillary only resonates with insects

 

[owebo]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

Trump is going to win in an epic landslide....America is repulsed by you fascist nazi democrats......

Would you like to bet $1000?

You're far to late to the game child, I'm already in for the kids at St. Jude's....you know, a charity, something liberals have no fucking clue about, for kids, which liberals hate.....

 

[aaronleland]

It wasn't exactly a glowing article.

"Trump is a jackass, but... ANGER!!!!"

It makes his supporters look like dopes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The majority of normal Americans hate LWNJs and Trumps makes that OK again....

When we want an outsider's opinion of what normal people think, we'll be in touch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

Trump is going to win in an epic landslide....America is repulsed by you fascist nazi democrats......

Would you like to bet $1000?

You're far to late to the game child, I'm already in for the kids at St. Jude's....you know, a charity, something liberals have no fucking clue about, for kids, which liberals hate.....

You're also a dishonest anonymous poster on the internet.

 

[owebo]

The majority of normal Americans hate LWNJs and Trumps makes that OK again....

When we want an outsider's opinion of what normal people think, we'll be in touch.

You democrats have been saying that since your slavery of blacks....

 

[owebo]

Many answers to that...here's one mans thoughts on it!

The Charleston Gazette-Mail ^ | July 10, 2016 | David A. Latif

By many accounts Donald Trump is a deeply flawed political candidate. It is difficult to imagine a bigger narcissist, at least by his public persona. Even on the day of the tragic Orlando, Florida slayings by a person probably radicalized by the Islamic State’s warped version of Islam, he managed to self-congratulate himself by tweeting: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

”Many have viewed his comments during the past year as misogynist and xenophobic. His disparaging comments targeting those who disagree with him are full of vitriol, and beyond the pale of what many would view as acceptable political discourse. In short, Donald Trump often attacks the person rather than debating the issues. This strategy is contrary to theories of supportive communication. Despite these flaws, and against long odds, Trump has vanquished a large field of rivals and has ascended to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party. The question that has to be asked is “what explains Trump’s popularity?”

One answer trumps all others (no pun intended): Donald Trump has used his charisma to tap into the widespread anger and discontent of a significant portion of the United States population.

A cogent explanation can be found in an informative May 2016 article in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler titled, “The secret shame of middle-class Americans.”Gabler asserts that a deal of the anger and discontent that Americans perceive today has to do with the decline of trades: from coal to communications to the auto industry. This decline is a real problem, given the fact that approximately 68 percent of those aged 25 to 55 years have not earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

Partly because of this decline (and outsourcing jobs), real wages are less for all but the top quintile (20 percent) of earners.This means 80 percent are not getting ahead financially, after taking into account inflation! This is evident in a recent Federal Reserve survey that revealed 47 percent of respondents would have difficulty finding $400 to pay for an emergency!The report examined how long families headed by someone in the 25- to 55-year age range could live without an income, assuming they liquidated all financial assets (but not home equity). Forty percent (first two quintiles) had no financial assets and could not survive a day; 20 percent (third quintile) could survive for six days, and 20 percent (fourth quintile) could survive 5.3 months.

Partly due to the housing collapse, median inflation-adjusted net worth (Total Assets minus Total Liabilities) declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $54,500 in 2013! Gabler labels those having difficulty in getting ahead financially as “financially impotent.”

Much like sexual impotence, financial impotence is characterized by shame, a feeling of inadequacy and a need to mask it.In addition to reduced standards of living, those who are fortunate to have retirement plans at work will be challenged in the future, even those with seemingly stable defined-benefit pension plans because it is virtually impossible for financial assets to produce similar returns the next 30 years compared to the previous 30 years.

Bond returns will drop to levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s because the best predictor of total annual bond returns 10 years out is the present yield. As 10-year treasuries are presently below 2 percent, this is the expected to continue. This is not much compared to the fairly safe 5, 6, or 7 percent one could fetch during the 1980s and 1990s.

Likewise, the United States stock market is richly priced by almost all credible measures. Future stock returns are more difficult to predict than bonds. But, over long periods of time prediction is easier.One measure that has shown validity is Schiller’s PE/10 ratio. It is defined as the US S&P 500 equity market price divided by the average of 10 years of earnings (moving average), adjusted for inflation).

Using data since the turn of the 20th century, it has been shown to be accurate over 10 to 15 year spans. It reveals limited returns for stocks over the next 10 to 15 years.So, a balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds during the next 10 to 30 years will likely be in the single digits (compared to a 12 to 14 percent average return in the 1980s and 1990s). This will have real consequences when, and if, workers will be able to retire in dignity.Defined benefit plans may also be impacted negatively. Because of likely lower future asset returns, corporations, federal and state governments that offer defined benefit plans may have to readjust their expected returns from present 7.5 percent assumptions to 3 to 5 percent.

This will require increased contributions on both employees and employers, and/or increased taxes, and/or reduced benefits to recipients.

Answers to address the decline of the trades, the decline of real wages for 80 percent of Americans, and the lower expected future asset investment returns require different ways of thinking.

Perhaps the United States needs, as columnist Scott Burns recently stated, a 21st century Henry Ford. Ford is remembered for inventing the conveyor belt to reduce the time needed to make the Model T from a day and a half to an hour and a half. But, he also experimented with the notion that “if I increase worker wages from $2.50 per day to $5 per day I might have less production problems, less turnover, and better quality cars.”

Productivity increased dramatically, and Ford became very rich. Where is this line of thinking today?

We have gone from a nation in which the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to optimistic prosperity, to what we have today: financial insecurity.To his credit, Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and discontent that many Americans feel. Because of this, and despite his flaws, he has a real shot at being our next President.

He doesn't 'resonate' with Americans. Not even as much as Mitt Romney did 4 years ago.

Trump is going to win in an epic landslide....America is repulsed by you fascist nazi democrats......

Would you like to bet $1000?

You're far to late to the game child, I'm already in for the kids at St. Jude's....you know, a charity, something liberals have no fucking clue about, for kids, which liberals hate.....

You're also a dishonest anonymous poster on the internet.

No, I not a liberal....

 

[Vigilante]

It wasn't exactly a glowing article.

"Trump is a jackass, but... ANGER!!!!"

It makes his supporters look like dopes.

Only when analyzed by a queer liberal.... But we forgive you, we know it must be HARD!

 

[Vigilante]

The one on the right is The carbonated!

 

[aaronleland]

It wasn't exactly a glowing article.

"Trump is a jackass, but... ANGER!!!!"

It makes his supporters look like dopes.

Only when analyzed by a queer liberal.... But we forgive you, we know it must be HARD!

No. Try reading your own article. Not one good thing was said about Trump as a person or a candidate.