Your Opinion: Is Trump actually damaging the USA or is everyone misconstruing it?

I don't doubt that he's trying to take the US back in the right direction, but I sometimes wonder if he totally understands which direction we need to go, and I think he's getting ahead of himself in some cases.

 

He's clearly destroying it.

At this point the Second U.S. Civil War might end up actually being a good thing.

He's committed so many crimes while in office I've legitimately lost count.

He needs to be impeached. NOW.





You asked for my opinion and that's exactly what you just got.

 

I'm not disagreeing that a lot of what Trump does seems to be in his own best interests as a billionaire businessman, but I would point out that a large portion of the American economy relies on billionaire businessmen.
The "trickle-down" economic theory is far from perfect (VERY far from perfect), but I personally consider it preferable to our nation's biggest employer's being taxed and regulated into bankruptcy, or being driven to operate in other countries.

 

Correction, it is so bad, the vast majority of economists and even the Congressional Review Office said trickle down economics dont work except making the richer richer. https://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy Top Rates.pdf . Not to mention Kansas tried trickle-down to its fullest possible that a state can do, and it went bad. Also, the economy relies on consumers, not billionaires.

Anyway, I wouldnt say Trump is destroying America, but he certainly isnt helping it, especially with our perception and influence abroad, and his de-regulation campaign is getting rid of a lot of common sense stuff (net neutrality, not dumping coal into rivers, etc)

 

This thread is a disaster waiting to happen, and I don't think we can be trusted to be civil after last time.

 

Nah, I'm hoping we ALL learned our bloody lessons.
Or at the very least, I'm hoping we all have the sense to stick to passive aggression.

When I say that the economy relies on billionaires, I meant in the sense that most Americans, either directly or indirectly, work for billionaires. Without jobs, there can be no consumers.
I probably could have been a little clearer on that point.

Like I said, the trickle-down theory is flawed. But the fundamental flaw with the theory is the same flaw found with ALL economic theories: human nature.
People are greedy. They're dishonest. They want to advance their own best interests, and the interests of those closet to them, even if doing so comes at the expense of others.

So, obviously, you're right that complete industry deregulation is a terrible idea. But for the most part, the economy as a whole benefits from deregulation.
When prices are set by the free market, more often than not they end up lower than they were before.
With a bare minimum of effective consumer and worker protections in place, we would all stand to benefit from the economic growth that usually accompanies deregulation.

 

Er. You obviously didnt read my source. I posted something that directly contradicted the theory that less regulation and taxes equals more growth, from a nonpartisan Congressional office. Trickle-down policies have never worked except with enriching the rich. And before you deign to bring up Reagan, no, Reaganomics were a horrendous failure that caused a recession that until 2008, was the largest recession since the Great Depression, and his policies continued to screw over small business owners even after he backed off full-blown trickledown economics.
The economy does not benefit as a whole from deregulation, it never has, especially not in a healthy manner that provides stable growth. You do know the emergence of trickle-down policies is the reason why the average American hasn't gotten an actual payraise when adjusting for inflation since the 80s, right? The rich do not make more jobs simply because they have more money, nor do they pay their employees more. They will always work with as few employees and at as low of wages as is possible.

 

And he never will. It's not worth your time.

 

I skimmed it, and read the conclusions.
Sound logic and irrefutable mathematics says that it doesn't work. I've also heard a number of economists, also armed with sound logic and irrefutable mathematics, talking about how it does work.

So what am I supposed to think? I have to trust history on this one.
In the 1920s, a massively deregulated market led to incredible prosperity in the US, a period known as "the Roaring Twenties."
Now, obviously, we know how that ended up. With no oversight whatsoever, the bubble eventually burst, leading to the Great Depression.

But what if there had been just a small amount of consumer protections in place? Not enough to be overly detrimental to businesses, but enough to keep the most crooked and corrupt individuals out of the game?
The economic growth wouldn't have lasted forever, of course, but it likely would have stabilized at a high point, rather than bottoming out altogether.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while complete deregulation is clearly a bad idea, partial deregulation would be a good thing, as long as consumers and workers are properly protected.
What I'm proposing is that we try again. Take the risk of aiming for another Roaring Twenties, and hoping we can get it right this time.

 

Dude...You really going with that example? The "Roaring Twenties" were not a time of prosperity for everyone, but only for the top 1%. The people did not get adequate pay. The conditions were much the same as in the 1880s Industrial era with only a little more protections from, ya know, rat poison going into the meat. And to continue with this, President Hoover tried to use trickle-down esque policies to try to alleviate the Great Depression, but it did not work. FDR's Keynesian inspired ideas of the New Deal, while they did not end the Great Depression, they put a floor on it. History is not on your side, nor is the math, and the majority of economists do not support trickle down economics. This is literally part of what Im studying for my major Ridley, I know what Im talking about.

 

Very well said @Snow, well done

 

I'm not saying you don't. Hell, I readily admit that you're considerably more informed on this subject than I am.

I'm saying that I believe trickle-down economics could work, if we had the proper safeguards in place to insure that the money did, in fact, "trickle down."
A reasonable minimum wage, for starters. Not the sudden jump to $15 that a lot of folks want, but perhaps a gradual increase to $10.
Basic consumer protections, certainly. Enough to keep people from being scammed, but not so strict as to not allow for high-risk, high-reward ventures -- so long as the risks are properly communicated, of course.

A personal one for me is an overhaul of jobsite safety regulations. As it stands, OSHA is such a bureaucratic clusterfrak that productivity is often choked by pointless rules, while actual safety issues are overlooked.
Admittedly, the economic impact of this is minimal, but it is still a contributing factor.

I'm not looking for complete laissez-faire capitalism. I know it doesn't work.
But there has to be some kind of middle ground between that and the crippling regulations than tend to do more harm than good.

 

I also never said you were wanting laissez-faire capitalism, Im trying to point out every time what you are suggesting has been tried, nothing good has come of it. I'd say the regulations need an overhaul in general as they are just in most cases just a mound of rules that have been thrown on top of each other yes, but most regulations are there for a reason. And no regulation has ever prevented high-risk, high-reward ventures, bills like the Dodd-Frank think only limited their number by making sure that companies can afford to take the losses involved without collapsing like Lehman Brothers and causing another massive recession. I can't say much on OSHA myself other than I know its general responsibilities however.

 

And that's probably the solution to the whole mess right there. To, like, everything.

Stop making new rules and enforce the ones that that are already in place. Stop wasting time, energy, and money trying to solve problems that were already solved years ago. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, throw it out.

 

There's a problem with the "dont make new rules" idea. There are situations that can occur that cause new rules to need to be put in place, like after many airline disasters, industrial fires, or gross incompetence by business owners. Plus, if we dont make new rules, we wouldnt be able to make things like net neutrality and not dumping coal waste into rivers regulations again. It's give and take, regulations get a bad rap but most do make sense, and you cant put a cap on the number in place, however making sure they don't contradict each other and are progressive in nature (not, for example, no more coal ever, all must use solar starting now, or making the minimum wage $15 an hour tomorrow, etc.) is important.

 

On the original subject of this thread I will say Trump is over all no better or worse than Obama. He hasn't done squat and the stuff he'd tried has just been trampled on and ruined so things aren't a lick different over all.

 

I disagree.
Since Trump's election, the stock market is up. Unemployment is down. Illegal immigration has slowed considerably.

And perhaps most importantly of all, Trump pulled the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potentially disastrous deal that would have given foreign businesses an unprecedented and unthinkable level of influence over US policies.