WOW Ace this is the first time I've ever heard you say this.. In fact if I get ambitious enough I'll look back through some of your posts to see if you haven't said the opposite.

But for right now isn't healthcare and health insurance "commerce" in this country? And haven't you always said the federal government has no business trying to regulate them? So what is the difference?

 

Wow Ace it only took you less than half an hour to totally contradict yourself and prove my point. If Trump does it its totally constitutional and part of the federal government. But if Obama does it is socialism.

 

Yay for stumbler and Resident of Maryland.

 

The only Trump position that worries me is his stance on Dodd Frank. I can see how deregulating Wall Street might be economical in the short term, but in the long run it relies on people on Wall Street not being greedy. Don't know if that is possible.

As for communism, this particular policy isn't communist. If people accused you of it, then turn it back around on them.

I am glad the "not my president" activists are disappearing. It's pointless and wastes time. Trump is going to be the president, and anyone still toting that he will destroy minority groups hasn't been paying attention to the released plans. Almost all of the proposed policies seem to be economic or industry related. There have been certain visa program reforms proposed, but for the most part he has talked about economics.

Comparing the President Elects job saving stunts to an 8 year president Obama is irrational. Of course Obama will have done more in 8 years than Trump has before he is even president. All election people have been talking about false equivalences, well that is a false equivalence.

Compare Trump to all of Obamas blunders, the easiest one to name being the red line incident, or the fraud and legal issues with Obama care. I think "locker room talk" is mild compared to a president breaking the law time and time again.

 

President Obama. President-elect Trump.


Notice anything?

How many jobs was President-elect Obama credited with saving?


Here's How Many Manufacturing Jobs We've Lost Since Obama Took Office

As the media begins to draw a pretty picture about the November jobs report, namely that unemployment has dropped to 4.6 percent, its lowest level in nine years, they are unlikely to tell you the other part of the story. The labor force participation rate continues to decline and is stuck at a rate we haven't seen since February 1978, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

It gets worse. Last month, we lost 4,000 manufacturing jobs, offering more damage to the already 301,000 we've lost since President Obama took office. The Republican National Committee says that is going to change under President-elect Donald Trump, who has already brought 1,000 of those manufacturing jobs back.

“The 4,000 manufacturing jobs that disappeared last month come on top of the over 300,000 that have been lost under President Obama, more proof that President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to stand up for the American worker is the commitment our country needs right now,” said RNC Co-Chair Sharon Day in a statement on Friday. “This election showed that millions of Americans don’t trust Democrats to create good jobs and opportunity, and President-elect Trump’s determination to save 1,000 jobs in Indiana is just a preview of his agenda of prosperity for all. Even before taking office, President-elect Trump has proven that protecting and creating jobs will be among his highest priorities as president, and Americans who have spent years struggling under President Obama can look forward to a brighter future for themselves and their families.”

Just for giggles, here's a flashback of Obama mocking Trump for needing a miracle to keep Carrier jobs in the U.S.
------------------------

Let's not forget that, under the Obama economy, a job at McDonalds is now considered a career, one that deserves a living wage. Prior to that, it was a part-time job that high school kids got to earn some pocket money.

 

But Ace I also thought you and the other conservative/Republican/Tea Party members and socks have repeatedly raised Ronald Reagan up as some great conservative president. And here's Reagan's position.

The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/11/em371-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement

Now Trump is saying free trade are terrible things and Reagan must be stupid for supporting it. So is Regean wrong Ace? Is the Heritage Foundation wrong?

 

Hey Ace I think you might want to have a look at this. Because you aren't saying now what you were saying a few years ago.

https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/obamas-accomplishments.232510/page-8#post-4912768

 

There are two things that the federal government does really well... they are; hurt people, and break things, beyond that it's incompetence following idiocy.

 

I've been reading this story in the financial pages since before the election.

Like the Dakota/Bakken pipeline story (and in fact like most stories), there is a lot behind the headlines.

Carrier doesn't just make air conditioners. And that plant makes more than just HVAC parts. Carrier is a subsiary of UTC, and thanks to federal government, UTC makes a lot less-- and is a lot weaker-- than it once was. The company was forced into several bad moves, chief among them being the forced spin-off of Sikorsky.

I bring it up to illustrate that in this case, as in so many others, the "tax loopholes" that people rail against are often compensatory, for losses due to bureacratic meddling with the markets.

As for Trump's call to penalize companies that leave, no. It is clearly not collectivism, and he clearly can do it. Look beyond the headline. What he really is proposing is to reduce corporate tax rates across the board, for companies that maintain substantive domestic operations. You want the lower, more globally competitive tax rates? Keep your operations here. But you can't have both.

Sounds workable and sounds fair.

 

You know Ace you are a smarter PR Hack than I have given you credit for. I always thought it was just annoying laziness on your part the way you put your responses inside the post you are quoting instead of responding below the quote or separate them out with smaller pieces of the quote and then your response. But now I see the professional genius of your method. Doing that makes it nearly impossible to search your quotes for specific words and phrases. So that is brilliant on your part.

But none the less here's another quote where you are claiming the federal government has no business trying to regulate or force businesses to do anything. The opposite of what you are claiming now.

https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/the-truth-about-health-care.78147/page-171#post-2786954

 

If Trump offering tax cuts for a selected few businesses and threatening to penalize other businesses isn't bureacratic meddling with the markets then what is it?

 

@shootersa are tax breaks, subsidies, and loans for solar energy and other renewable energy sources OK in your book?

 

Ryan brings free market zeal to trade debate

 

You left out this part.....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/paul-ryan-free-market-zeal-trade-debate-114958



But critics of U.S. trade policy seized on data released earlier on Thursday that showed the U.S. trade deficit widened sharply in December to $46.6 billion and also increased for the entire year to $505 billion. One economist called the record month-to-month rise “a bit of shocker,” signalling slower-than-expected U.S. economic growth.


“This abysmal new data shows how the past agreements that serve as the template for the trade deals Obama is now pushing destroy more middle-class jobs and further suppress wages,” Lori Wallach, head of Public Citizen’s Public Trade Watch, said in a statement underscoring the group’s opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement with Japan and 10 other countries, including Vietnam and Malaysia.

Wallach zeroed in on the record $25.1 billion U.S. trade deficit with South Korea, saying that proved a free trade pact with that country that Congress approved in 2011 has not delivered the export boom that supporters expected.

“Since the Korea FTA, our trade deficit with Korea has surged more than 80 percent, which equates to the loss of more than 70,000 U.S. jobs – the same number of jobs that the administration promised would be gained under the FTA,” Wallach said.

Ryan did not discuss the trade report in his speech and seemed to cherry-pick other statistics to highlight the benefits of the trade deal with South Korea and two other pacts with Panama and Colombia that were also passed in 2011.

 

Lets see if we can find some common ground.
Can anyone disagree with the statement;
"Trade between countries should be done fairly, without advantage to one or the other."

 

According to his policy statements, he is proposing to reduce corporate tax rates across the board, across all sectors. Both for large corporations and S-corporations.

He is also proposing to ease the punitive hit on the repatriation of capital, to bring expatriated capital back and promote domestic investment and job creation.

Yes, there are conditions to be set on these benefits. Companies that keep jobs here should receive greater benefit from the tax policies.

As for "special deals," most of the tax code consists of special provisions. He is also proposing simplifying the tax code, which would necessarily abolish many special provisions. This is harder to do.

I am the last to claim he is going to achieve everything that he is proposing. Most do not. He will not. Personally I don't expect much.

If all he accomplishes in his first two years is to reverse most of Obama's executive orders and fire/replace all of Obama's czars, that will be good enough for me.

 

750 union jobs and 350 management jobs (that were never part of the Mexico deal) were saved. Carrier is still moving close to 1000 jobs from Indiana to Mexico. On top of that Carrier just raised prices by 5%. Still do not understand why the company that owns Carrier who makes $65,000,000,000 annually needs a $7,000,000 tax break.

 

No, no it's not.

The federal fucking governemnt was intended to regulate interstate commerce, for years it has been forbidden to shop across state lines to buy health insurance.

There isn't any interstate commerce when it comes to health insurance, you and I cant buy health insurance from a company in a neighboring state.