"I stump for Trump"

[joeblast]

Perhaps in other parts of the countries it might be different, but you are right, here in Northern California they are absolutely an integral part of the economy and I don't see them in the least taking jobs from honest americans. They are for the most part behind the scenes, at the restaurants, maid services, landscaping, etc. The main problem for me is the word 'illegal' - if I break the law, i get a ticket or go to jail, why should that not apply across the board? We simply need a better way of making them legal immigrants. It's complex.

There is already an established process by which they become legal immigrants, and it BEGINS with entering the country legally.  All those low paying jobs were the entry level jobs that students used to take getting out of high school, min wage was never meant to raise a family on.  Our unemployment stats are utterly abysmal and at great depression levels or higher, so its bullshit trying to assert that illegal immigrants simply take jobs that noone else wants to do.

[noonespecial]

Your manufacturing disappeared because you businesses couldn't compete. The US and all western countries are living in debt. It is no longer about how much you can produce, but how much loan money you can obtain and how little you will have to pay back. Too much subsidised protectionism in the US created an uncompetitive, stagnant place.

 

 

I dont know if its that we could not compete our that we were sold out by our leaders on multiple tiers of command, from the president all the way down to the labor unions.

[Jim D.]

Here's a model to live by. It comes out of Family Dynamics. If you quit enabling the identified client, and teach the family to become responsible for themselves individually, than there is a state of Homeostasis and personal growth.

 

Homeostasis: the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

 

Apply this model to the free market and outcome will be that it will stabilize on its own without anyone controling  the outcome. 

 

Isn't this a recommendation found in Tao Te Ching.

 

There is another post and thread where MH talks about Wu Wei. We dont't have to be a Ph.D. in economics to see the simplicity in that.

[Karl]

I dont know if its that we could not compete our that we were sold out by our leaders on multiple tiers of command, from the president all the way down to the labor unions.

In a sense. If you look back in history it all began short of the beginning of the 20ty century when big company owners began to lobby for protectionism. They said it was about efficiency and that the competition were wasting resource by duplicating effort. That was really the beginning of the end for Laissez Faire in the USA and led to a corresponding rise in government and cronyism-which included unions. During the 1st world war this cronyism accelerated and then went into over drive around 1920. This was the beginning of deliberate monetary expansion. By this time the world had abandoned the Gold standard in full or part and instituted a phoney gold standard (Bretton Woods). By 1971 the USA was broke as cronyism had turned a once great nation producing brilliant products into a nation of producers who couldn't care less what they turned out. Taxes had risen as money spent on subsidies, wars, welfare schemes and space exploration ballooned. In order to keep printing and spending they threw Bretton Woods in the bin.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Karl

[Michael Sternbach]

I agree with you there.  However, IMO, Clinton poses a bigger risk.  As I said, she is after Iran, she is funded corporations/bankers who are no doubt affiliated with the military industrial complex.  You are welcome to your opinions, but I don't think the Democrat is the more peaceful candidate this time around.

 

So, do you trust the person who is part of a team who, for the last 16 years or more, have been destabilizing the Middle East for economic purposes, which is creating a lot of terrorism and unrest in the EU and elsewhere.  Or, do you go with the guy who seems to be focused not on obtaining oil, but ending ISIS, who are not only extremely fucked up, but being supported by the current administration (and likely the future one as well)?

 

Like I said, Trump is a wildcard.  I have my reservations for him.  but Clinton legitimately scares me.  I see WW3 breaking out with her, compared to Trump with a war on ISIS.  I am not a political expert, but I consider myself open-minded and trust my intuition.  My greatest fear of Trump has nothing to do with Trump himself, but the dangerous way the media portrays him which leads people to want to kill/hurt Trump or Trump supporters.  I was reading about a black conservative who was a vocal Trump supporter, who is facing death threats after a video of him supporting Trump went viral (he also schooled a BLM supporter who was very dumb)

 

What makes the war against the IS so tricky is that it's NOT just about the IS but about the future of Syria - that is, about Assad.

 

This is an older NY Times articles which sheds some light on the underlying issues.

 

In effect, you have the USA opposed to Assad and Russia in support of him. And it goes without saying that both countries count on various allies. I.e., Iran and China are siding with Russia. Note that Iran also has a defence pact with the Syrian government directly.

 

The US waging a trade war with China would move the latter even closer to Russia. A highly volatile situation.

 

I am not saying that Clinton would necessarily do a better job handling it. I don't know. All I'm saying is: Don't get me started with Trump stabilizing and pacifying this mess.

[joeblast]

without having read the oded yinon plan, you're missing significant parts of the equation.  syria is in the crosshairs not because of assad, because Greater Israel stretches from the delta to the euphrates, far as they're concerned.

[zerostao]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/donald-trump-fbis-clinton-email-005025175.html

 

in the us house of representitves aka congress

sanders spoke to house dems this morning

"My message was a simple message: We have got to fight for the needs of the middle class and working families of this country."

and the house dems booed him

Edited July 6, 2016 by zerostao

[Jim D.]

Democracts are usually for the middle man. Republicans are for big business. Trump does not like Politicians. He wants to keep my National Home safe. He is not in it for the money. He is in it to build something, our Nation.

 

Sanders is not saying anything different than Obama...just different words. Politicians look for the buzz words to get your attetion. I liked guys like Mayor J. Daily. Everything went through him. The buck stopped with him. I would recommend reading The American Pharoh.

 

You see, it does not make a difference to me who is running or what party is endorsing who. It is the character of a man that I  vote for.

[futuredaze]

What makes the war against the IS so tricky is that it's NOT just about the IS but about the future of Syria - that is, about Assad.

 

This is an older NY Times articles which sheds some light on the underlying issues.

 

In effect, you have the USA opposed to Assad and Russia in support of him. And it goes without saying that both countries count on various allies. I.e., Iran and China are siding with Russia. Note that Iran also has a defence pact with the Syrian government directly.

 

The US waging a trade war with China would move the latter even closer to Russia. A highly volatile situation.

 

I am not saying that Clinton would necessarily do a better job handling it. I don't know. All I'm saying is: Don't get me started with Trump stabilizing and pacifying this mess.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to suggest Trump could magically fix this.  There are concerns I have about Trump.  I think that while, on one hand, he is addressing legitimate problems, he is addressing them in inflammatory rhetoric.  Some people like this, but it offends a lot of people.  It would do him good to try to filter himself better.  Some main issues Trump brings up (unfair trades, illegals from Mexico, and Islamic terrorism) are legitimate concerns.  However, he is addressing them in a way that I could say is a bit childish or even troll-like.  This is unfortunate because it makes it harder to have a rational dialogue about these matters.

 

The thing is, Hillary just seems more like a war-hawk based on her record.  Trump has said meaner stuff than Hillary, but Hillary has DONE worse stuff.  I go by actions more than words, but Hillary's words don't mean shit either.

Edited July 6, 2016 by futuredaze

[Aetherous]

All those low paying jobs were the entry level jobs that students used to take getting out of high school, min wage was never meant to raise a family on.  Our unemployment stats are utterly abysmal and at great depression levels or higher, so its bullshit trying to assert that illegal immigrants simply take jobs that noone else wants to do.

 

Truth.

 

I can tell you all, as a grad student who tries to find summer work...it's hard out there.

 

I got hired last summer when a hotel was bought out by a larger hotel management chain...they had to fire all illegal workers, which is the only thing that opened up the job for me. I had spent about 2 months applying to places prior to that.

 

I got paid minimum wage, and worked over 60 hours a week due to them being understaffed...it really sucked.

 

But it was nice to put food on the table for myself. There are many American citizens who are in need of this...the actual unemployment percentage is much higher than is reported.

 

Also, it helps us Americans to learn the value of our money and of putting in your best work...helps us become humble. Americans can benefit from these jobs in more ways than simply earning pocket change.

 

And...is it acceptable to give these jobs to illegals, and underpay them? It's hard enough to survive on minimum wage...must be really challenging on illegal pay. In America we shouldn't have the equivalent of sweat shops, which create poverty conditions due to their low wages. If we're accepting these people into our country, why don't we at least treat them humanely? If a job can't afford to pay minimum wage for a position, then is it viable?

[Karl]

All jobs are viable provided the hirer and employer agree on the terms of trade. What is being shown here is that the minimum wage is too high. There could be many more jobs created if the minimum wage was abolished. What has been created is a black market just as happened in communist Russia. When capitalism is crowded out by state it has to go underground to survive. Russian communism only survived as long as it did because of that black market which is why Governments tend to turn a blind eye to what's going on. A black market tells you that state oppression is evident. A disparity between the rules and practicality. Without these low paid Mexicans your economy would be closer to collapse. So not only are these jobs viable, but they are a necessity.

 

The alternative is that you import the fruits of this labour, or you lose the service that is provided completely. That's what happened to cinema usherettes, receptionists, telephonists, petrol station attendants, bank tellers and more recently till operators. Instead of getting the gas pumped whilst you sit in your car and have the oil checked, water topped up and windshield cleaned-now you are forced to pump the gas yourself, dispense with the other services then stand at a kiosk to pay. You no longer get shown your seat in a cinema so you bump about in the dark.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Karl

[Aetherous]

There could be many more jobs created if the minimum wage was abolished.

 

 

Such jobs are worthless in an economy where even the minimum wage doesn't permit survival.

[Karl]

Such jobs are worthless in an economy where even the minimum wage doesn't permit survival.

But this isn't what it's about. These jobs aren't worthless to the Mexicans, or for someone unable to get any job. People move from countries where the living standard is worse to where it is better. Perhaps the Mexicans hope to bring their sons and daughters up to be educated in the US and to get better jobs.

 

The reason US citizens don't take these jobs is that the opportunity cost is too high. They are better educated and connected, they speak the language fluently and understand the culture. To take one of these low paying jobs would reduce the opportunity to take a higher paying one. These jobs either have to be done by someone or the service will be transported to another country. A Mexican Apple picker in Vermont would pick Apples in Mexico and export them to the US whilst the Vermont orchard owner would shut down his business and take it to Mexico.

 

You know, we got on just fine before minimum wages. We got on the earning ladder where we could and worked our way up by gaining experience and skills that we could take on to new employers and sell at a higher rate. It's hard to get your first job because you have no history and employers must take a higher risk. The higher the risk, the less likely they are to take someone on even at minimum wage. My Grandad used to say that second class driving was better than first class walking. In other words it's better to get a job than not.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Karl

[Jim D.]

Nationality for me is not an issue. What is an issue is what is right for me and you has to be the standard for all. Let me explain.

 

I am attending a Post Graduate school. I did everything I was suppose to do to meet the requirements of admission. An Illegal comes along who does not meet the requirements for admission, but gets in anyway because Administration over looks it because the Illegal will do the cleanup work around campus, that no one else will do, and cheaper. Adminstration makes out in Popularity and revenue...more Illegals come and sooner or later they are running our classes and setting policy.

 

So, the Janitorial Staff that was there are let go, because it is an at Will State. Those positions are filled and stay filled. The earnings the Illegal makes goes back to his wife, kids, extended family who live outside of our Country. The Illegal does not pay into taxes, Social Security, or Public Aid.

 

Ilegals are entitled to Welfare, Food Stamps, and Insurance in the United States. "We the people" support this entitlement through our taxes. So, in practice, if you have a family of four including yourself, you are also supporting another non-member of your family who is draining your wallet and buying power.

 

In summary, the Illegal gets to enjoy what I had to work for since the age of 16 without having to support me through a bonified job. There is no passing of the baton, because the Illegal does not have to carry his own weight as a Citizen of the United States. But because Government have ignored the numbers of Illegals that have streamed in, they have become a Political Entity that now have the audacity to challenge Trumps wanting them to stay in Mexico, and let Mexico resolve the problem of unemployment, lack of welfare, food stamps, and health insurance. Why you say. It means votes and jobs for the Politician.

[Spotless]

He definitely wants to wreck havoc on ISIS.  Besides that, is banning illegals and having more rigorous screening for Muslims really that outrageous?  Even if you don't agree, is it not hard to understand why people want a wall or more secure borders?  I am liberal in some ways but I agree with Trump here.

 

I think relations with Mexico would be a bit cold, but I doubt things would get violent.  I could see a trade war with China, as others mentioned.  However, I get the impression that Trump will not be the only one working these trades, he will have a team and they will really think before acting (unlike Trump who just speaks his mind without really thinking).

 

Clinton scares me.  With her, there is a chance of war with Iran, conflict with Russia.  Some say she is as war-hawk as Bush.

 

Clinton is satan, Trump is a wildcard.  I only agree with Trump sometimes, but at least I know where he stands.  Clinton will lie about everything, so I don't even know where she stands.  That is dangerous.

Actually - in one large study of the various political front runners - Clinton was approx 95% accurate while campaigning, Bernie Sander's scored 65%, Trump came in at 12%.

[Michael Sternbach]

without having read the oded yinon plan, you're missing significant parts of the equation.  syria is in the crosshairs not because of assad, because Greater Israel stretches from the delta to the euphrates, far as they're concerned.

Doing a Google search on this, I found mostly blogs offering information that is hard to evaluate. Conspiration theories abound. What seems clear to me is that any state not willing to help backing up the dollar by its oil trade policy is considered an enemy of the US. It's not too hard to imagine what role Trump would play in this!

 

What increases the unreliability is that many alleged sources of information are of an ultra right orientation. I have heard enough when I read about "the plans of the Jews" somewhere, when the topic is at the most the agendas of certain individuals in or close to the Israeli or US government. Racism abounds, spread by spiritually unaware individuals prone to blame their personal difficulties in life on national and international politics. As if those had ever been better. I find such even on a spiritually oriented site like TDB.

 

I recommend that cultivators don't overly concern themselves with grand scale political schemes and focus more on straightening things out for themselves and in their immediate environment. The more people will be doing this, the more will the world at large get in order all by itself. Sages like Lao Tzu spoke to this.

[joeblast]

L<>R is relatively meaningless these days, the terms have all been so thoroughly perverted that the references no longer have substantial value when referring to things via that paradigm.  Of course there's "conspiracy theories" about it, because that's what happens when people conspire to do things.  (Some)People recognize the story doesnt add up and must start putting pieces together on it.

 

Its one thing to speculate, but when they write papers about what their aims are - look at the Project for a New American Century and realize that telegraphed punch.  They were talking about establishing Israel as early as the late 1800s, for cripes sake.  Just like they talked about a new pearl harbor before they gave it to us.

 

While I'll agree that folks shouldnt overly concern themselves....it should be on people's radar, and people should indeed act when the time is appropriate to act.  The Globe has a cancer and its in the visible form of Central Banking, ripping off just about the entire globe and causing war, death, destruction, starvation, and loss of freedoms.

[Karl]

L<>R is relatively meaningless these days, the terms have all been so thoroughly perverted that the references no longer have substantial value when referring to things via that paradigm.  Of course there's "conspiracy theories" about it, because that's what happens when people conspire to do things.  (Some)People recognize the story doesnt add up and must start putting pieces together on it.

 

Its one thing to speculate, but when they write papers about what their aims are - look at the Project for a New American Century and realize that telegraphed punch.  They were talking about establishing Israel as early as the late 1800s, for cripes sake.  Just like they talked about a new pearl harbor before they gave it to us.

 

While I'll agree that folks shouldnt overly concern themselves....it should be on people's radar, and people should indeed act when the time is appropriate to act.  The Globe has a cancer and its in the visible form of Central Banking, ripping off just about the entire globe and causing war, death, destruction, starvation, and loss of freedoms.

That cancer is Kantianism. The philosophy that finally tipped the world from reason back to mysticism.

 

A better paradigm is more/less freedom. The far right has always been the far left in everything but some minor dabbling about with ownership of the means of production. Amazing that both groups still fight. The actual battle is between the Mystics. The far left are essentially atheistic muscle Mystics and the far right religious, intrinsicist Mystics. The left trying to control the body, the right trying to control the mind. This is why republicans are essentially fascistic Christians and the democrats are socialistic atheists. Sins of the body predominate socialism everything is about labour, effort, dress. Sins of the mind occupy the Facists, burning books. Yet, we see the same elements at work in both groups because they are essentially one and the same. The intent is to strip man of identity and create a sacrificial beast of burden that only thinks for the good of the cause and only labours for the good of the cause.