In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 15 2016 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So when this becomes a national story NAFTA will back in the spotlight...
We should tax them, so then their cars cost more than foreign cars. Then we can tax the foreign cars. Then every other country in the world taxes US cars. Then we can't see cars abroad.
Everyone loses.
In fairness with regards to the auto industry, there is a legitimate case for some protectionisim. News flash no one buys American cars outside NA.
Probably more to do with how cheap gas is in the US compared to elsewhere in the world. Europeans can't afford to run those gas guzzlers.They might be great cars but it's a running cost issue. Saying that i do see a decent number of jeeps around here but the Ford f250s I only see them as tow trucks. The future of cars will be increasingly the small car and not the gas guzzler which is why this move from Ford is such a disaster for the US economy.
MSNBC interviewed audience members after the taping to get a scoop before it airs. Such suckers.
In other words, it looks like Trump is trying to get away with "revealing" his "medical records" without really doing it at all. Unless he doesn't know what such a thing professionally and officially entails during a presidential election, but I have a feeling that he knows full well what is expected of him and he's just trying to dodge more by showing off two random sheets of paper at the last second on reality television and then whisk them away.
What do you expect from Trump and what do you want to see?
Unfortunately, I expect Trump to keep lying (and have his doctors keep lying) about his health, like how Trump's physician insisted that Trump would be the healthiest individual to ever become president. My eyes rolled so far that they almost got stuck.
I had zero reason to think that anything was wrong with his health (or his wealth, for that matter) until he started really going out of his way to dodge releasing his medical records (or his tax returns, respectively). For him not to do what is the norm for presidential candidates (nowadays, anyway) calls attention to himself. I hope that Trump is healthy (because god forbid he becomes president), but him being evasive only calls negative attention and suspicion. I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't release "easy" things like these, unless he's hiding something.
There isn't a standard health statement form for POTUS candidates. This is why I wanted you to actually ask yourself what you want to see, so you can have expectations that you could test whether you're satisfied. Instead you're just poisoning the well and going "if his lips are moving he's lying." I want to break this down in case we could find specifics that you're after.
I am David L. Scheiner, a board certified general internist licensed to practice in the State of Illinois. I am on staff at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Rush University Medical Center. I have been Senator Barack Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The following is a summary of his medical records for the past 21 years.
Letter from personal physician for decades, check.
During that period of time, Senator Obama has been in excellent health. He has been seen regularly for medical checkups and various minor problems such as upper respiratory infections, skin rashes and minor injuries.
His family history is pertinent for his mother’s death from ovarian cancer and grandfather who died of prostate cancer. His own history included intermittent cigarette smoking. He has quit this practice on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.
Fred Trump died in hospital with Alzheimer's and pneumonia in his 90s. Trump doesn't drink or smoke, in fact publicly so.
Senator Obama’s last medical checkup was on January 15, 2007; he had no complaints. He exercised regularly often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. A complete review of systems was unremarkable. On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute. His build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His physical examination was completely normal.
Laboratory studies included triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal. So the main points are: -Patient feels fine, doctor has never found anything wrong. -Some standard tests in normal levels -Exercise and diet
And in Trump's case: -No history of cancer, only surgery an appendectomy at age 10, only medication is a statin -In the original letter, his PSA was 0.15 and his blood pressure 110/65. Wait and see what else comes out tomorrow, if you're really concerned about DJT's triglycerides and cholesterol. -Said he lost 15 pounds in the past 12 months
In short, his examination showed him to be in excellent health. Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the Office of President.
Astonishingly excellent?
No. Just excellent. No need for hyperbole. But the main culprit was that other sentence.
Your problem is you want his medical history but he doesn't have one to speak of. It's like asking Bernie to release his Wall Street speeches. Except in this case you've decided, whatever happens, he must be lying. I support you 100% if you think someone is dishonest, but then don't pretend the issue is his health. And then impugn his doctor's ethics. Like if you said "I want an MRI of Trump's brain and every x-ray he's ever had," that would be a real, if unreasonable, request, not this "Do the norm" that you can't elaborate.
No. A letter from his personal physician would be completely fine, if the physician didn't use such stupidly hyperbolic statements. Whether they are true or not (they probably aren't... for starters, he's 70 years old, and thus almost certainly less fit than presidents who were in their 40s when they entered office, e.g. Teddy Roosevelt or Bill Clinton), Donald Trump's physician is in no way qualified to say whether or not Trump will be the most healthy president ever. That kind of hyperbole discredits the whole letter. We know that he isn't qualified to make that statement, and in fact is qualified to know that it probably isn't true. So, given that he is lying in that sentence, shouldn't we just mistrust the whole letter? He has destroyed his credibility with that one sentence.
Really America ? That's soviet russia's kind of productivism.
Wild horses in government holding facilities in the US are set to be killed to make room for cattle farms.
Following a vote from the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board of the Bureau of Land Management, up to 45,000 wild horses are set to be culled using taxpayers’ money as part of an “emergency measure”.
No details have yet been disclosed how the agency would kill the animals or when.
On September 15 2016 16:22 Silvanel wrote: Funny thing when it comes to brand perception. Perhaps Japanese put more emphasis on qulity when fighting for American market? It certainly dont feel that way here. I dont know anyone who would say that Japnese cars are reliable. BTW:Everyone in my family drives Opel (yeah i know its owned by GM but its still German car) they are cheap, reliable and repairs are not terribly expansive either.
Toyota cars are pretty good. It is very rare to have any issue with their engine.
But the emails, many of which were sent in recent weeks, also reveal Mr. Powell’s disapproval of Mrs. Clinton’s handling of her email scandal and expose his sometimes unflattering observations of the Democratic presidential nominee and her husband. In a series of exchanges, Mr. Powell lamented efforts by Mrs. Clinton’s “minions” to drag him into the controversy surrounding her use of a private email server by claiming he had advised her on the issue.
“H.R.C. could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done and not tie me into it,” Mr. Powell wrote late last month, referring to Mrs. Clinton by her initials. “I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini-tantrum at a Hamptons party to get their attention. She keeps tripping into these ‘character’ minefields.”
A few months later, in a discussion about Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal, Mr. Powell lamented that “everything H.R.C. touches she kind of screws up with hubris.” He then related a story about “the gig I lost at a university” when the institution said it could no longer afford his speaking fees after paying Mrs. Clinton. “I should send her a bill.”
She keeps tripping over character minefields Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris
Both aren't really new revelations, but that word choice!
We should tax them, so then their cars cost more than foreign cars. Then we can tax the foreign cars. Then every other country in the world taxes US cars. Then we can't see cars abroad.
Everyone loses.
In fairness with regards to the auto industry, there is a legitimate case for some protectionisim. News flash no one buys American cars outside NA.
This 'legitimate case' has existed for decades. There has already been protectionism for the big car makers and it didn't work back then why would it now? News flash if nobody buys your products it means you have a shitty product.
uhh Japan ? Pretty good model for why protectionism works. Not sure what you mean by it didnt work back then. As we can see now, it worked brilliantly. But its not the sole reason and never should be ofcourse since there is a high risk the protected industry gets sloppy. Japanese industries dont do that because as much as people like to bitch about the lack of creativity in Kaizen, its disciplined and efficient. Americans cant handle that shit.
And its not like it was a race to the bottom in terms of cost cutting via shafting wages which is what China does.
News flash, American cars arent really that bad. Its just that they cant compete financially with markets abroad. And they wont for a long time. But they could do quite decently at home provided some actual will involving some improvements in manufacturing and will. But they dont want to do that because they want to make cars that let you let your hair down. Thats their problem.
We should tax them, so then their cars cost more than foreign cars. Then we can tax the foreign cars. Then every other country in the world taxes US cars. Then we can't see cars abroad.
Everyone loses.
In fairness with regards to the auto industry, there is a legitimate case for some protectionisim. News flash no one buys American cars outside NA.
This 'legitimate case' has existed for decades. There has already been protectionism for the big car makers and it didn't work back then why would it now? News flash if nobody buys your products it means you have a shitty product.
uhh Japan ? Pretty good model for why protectionism works. Not sure what you mean by it didnt work back then. As we can see now, it worked brilliantly. But its not the sole reason and never should be ofcourse since there is a high risk the protected industry gets sloppy.
And its not like it was a race to the bottom in terms of cost cutting via shafting wages which is what China does.
The other issue is that the auto industry doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If we tax the Japanese cars to make US citizens buy US cars, the Japanese will response by attacking some other aspect of US trade with Japan. And there are thousands of US auto dealers that sell those Japanese cars that will not respond kindly.
It is the risk of engaging in a trade war with another nation over a very small number of jobs.
We should tax them, so then their cars cost more than foreign cars. Then we can tax the foreign cars. Then every other country in the world taxes US cars. Then we can't see cars abroad.
Everyone loses.
In fairness with regards to the auto industry, there is a legitimate case for some protectionisim. News flash no one buys American cars outside NA.
This 'legitimate case' has existed for decades. There has already been protectionism for the big car makers and it didn't work back then why would it now? News flash if nobody buys your products it means you have a shitty product.
uhh Japan ? Pretty good model for why protectionism works. Not sure what you mean by it didnt work back then. As we can see now, it worked brilliantly. But its not the sole reason and never should be ofcourse since there is a high risk the protected industry gets sloppy.
And its not like it was a race to the bottom in terms of cost cutting via shafting wages which is what China does.
The other issue is that the auto industry doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If we tax the Japanese cars to make US citizens buy US cars, the Japanese will response by attacking some other aspect of US trade with Japan. And there are thousands of US auto dealers that sell those Japanese cars that will not respond kindly.
It is the risk of engaging in a trade war with another nation over a very small number of jobs.
I think you are severely over estimate the impact of protectionism in that "nobody will trade with us" if we do this. While that is true its just business. Other countries wont go and tax other shit just because you taxed something else. Thats not how it works.
Im not sitting here telling you that protectionism = good. Im telling you that in key sectors it can work and has worked and there is a plethora of examples of it being done correctly. There is an equal amount of failures, but that applies to relatively free trade situations aswell and is usually not because the macro strategy was wrong.
The real problem is at this point there is little incentive for the auto industry on the sales side to want that. Foreign cars are well embedded into the dealership setup and no ones going to want to move from that and honestly you cant blame them. American auto makers are to blame for that. Just sell your trucks and enjoy.
Wild horses in government holding facilities in the US are set to be killed to make room for cattle farms.
Following a vote from the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board of the Bureau of Land Management, up to 45,000 wild horses are set to be culled using taxpayers’ money as part of an “emergency measure”.
No details have yet been disclosed how the agency would kill the animals or when.
On September 15 2016 19:28 WhiteDog wrote: Really America ? That's soviet russia's kind of productivism.
Wild horses in government holding facilities in the US are set to be killed to make room for cattle farms.
Following a vote from the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board of the Bureau of Land Management, up to 45,000 wild horses are set to be culled using taxpayers’ money as part of an “emergency measure”.
No details have yet been disclosed how the agency would kill the animals or when.
If you made any effort to read about the problem the cull would make sense. The population has gotten totally out of control.
This is going to be another one of those animals that has zero natural predators due to human culling and its population is so large we risk mass starvation.
On September 15 2016 17:00 Silvanel wrote: I think that when it comes to fixing and replacing parts proximity of manfacturer and competition on market matters greatly. I mean for my car not only is manfacturer nearby (like in the same State close if i were to compare to US) but also i can buy from number of different retailers and on top of that subtitute and used parts. All this drives prices down.
I checked and for example VW break pads are 3-4 times cheaper here in Poland comapred to prices on EBay.
Edit: Also checked and VW has 37 factories across Europe compared to just one in US. No wonder the prices (in part due to availability) differ.
Sounds like a small business opportunity if you ask me
On September 15 2016 22:54 ticklishmusic wrote: She also said Clinton doesn't have a childcare plan. Come on Ivanka, I I know you support your dad but lying like that ain't cool.
It is literally on Clinton’s website. But Trump’s plan is to just keep claiming things that are not true and assume the voters won’t bother to check or listen to Clinton. Which might work right up until the debate.
On September 15 2016 05:41 Dan HH wrote: [quote] I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Would this apply even in a society which started with an aristocracy? If one group owned all the means of production (land/factories/capital etc) would you conclude that the invisible hand will fix it so that those with merit will replace those without at the top? I would argue that even if that would happen over a long enough time frame it would still be a far less productive society than one would a more equitable foundation. Punitive estate taxes are what finally broke the English aristocracy, by forcing each generation increase the estate they were born with by 67% in order to pass on the same amount to their children after a 40% estate tax ((1*1.67)*.6=1) the capital was reallocated over multiple generations to those who could actually make good use of it.
Ultimately my answer is still no; the result is generally that individuals are discouraged from gathering wealth (which is, loosely speaking, bad for society). It's not "the invisible hand will solve wealth inequality" as much as it is "the nature of societies to develop class structures will lead to some individuals being wealthier than others." This is true even in "communist" countries with no private property and equal salaries.
I'm absolutely fine with inequality of outcome within a generation within reason (nobody starving etc) but I'm baffled that a permanent aristocracy is being defended in the name of encouraging wealth generation. A birth lottery suppresses wealth generation while equality of opportunity enhances it by allowing fair competition between the labour of individuals within society and the success of those who merit it. In such an environment taxation for the express purpose of increasing the opportunity of the poor (through state funded education etc) at the expense of the rich (less money to own the means of production) is both necessary and a boon to economic productivity, social cohesion and society as a whole.
The problem is that you really can't get rid of the wealth at the top without destroying wealth. Taxes are distortionary and when you move beyond revenue generation into reallocation of resources, a lot of productive wealth is destroyed in the process. I don't see the "birth lottery" issue as something to be solved by wealth redistribution; as long as individuals have a reasonable chance of upward social mobility within the country, then that should be mostly good enough even if it doesn't quite reach equality. Besides, even in communist countries there was still a wealth inequality / birth lottery effect that was the result of an implicit upper class that exists in every human society ever.
This discussion could go on forever, but I'd also note that some of the least pleasant discussions I have ever seen or had on this site have to do with inheritance taxes, redistribution of wealth, neo-Marxist philosophizing, and the like. That's probably why I've talked about it so rarely that it might not be clear that that's my position on the issue.
The purpose of progressive tax is not by any means to achieve equality or eliminate class, the pressing issue is that inequality is rising at similar or even higher rate than the economy is growing. Regardless of the subjective nature of what constitutes reasonable chance of upward mobility, that chance is decreasing. There is a crystal clear inverse proportionality between rising inequality and lowering social mobility. All the more so because this inequality isn't so much driven by the creation of additional wealth, as it is by upwards distribution of existing wealth via market speculation.
This discussion approached with communism or neo-Marxism in mind would be deeply flawed and pointless. When talking with an 'utterly foolish' European in favor of wealth tax or an increase in progressive tax, regardless of the degree of disagreement, the discussion won't be as unpleasant if you're on the same page and start from the premise of modern inequality economics a la Piketty or Stiglitz.
So did you get the "upwards distribution of existing wealth via market speculation" thesis when you read Piketty's book or after reading Stiglitz?
Stiglitz. It's the core of his more recent works that the current rise is inequality is not driven by the creation of additional wealth but by speculation and 'rent seeking' (of any kind of ownership, not land in particular) which he includes in speculation although not entirely.
On September 15 2016 23:17 Plansix wrote: And Trump is attacking the pastor for interrupting him yesterday. He couldn't just let it slide.
"The audience was saying let him speak, let him speak," Trump told Fox and Friends.
That isn't true. In fact, several audience members began to heckle Trump, asking pointed questions about whether he racially discriminated against black tenants as a landlord.
EPT
