Okay --- so WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm still using the same argument I always have: Trump is not President. If things are suddenly as bad as you seem to think they are, the blame goes to President Obama.

As a matter of fact, precedence dictates that everything that happens the next four years be blamed on Obama. After all, Bush was blamed for everything that went wrong during Obama's first term.

Don't worry... I personally don't like or agree with that precedent. Put the blame on whoever caused the issue, I say.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That is the exact opposite of Trump's mandate, and of his promises. I don't think, after reading that, we have much to worry about from this Koch plan.

That's the thing, Trump said those things about The Wall up until late August, when Manafort left his team and Koch ideology believer Robert Mercer and his team of Bannon, Conway, and Bossie came aboard. Conway began to downplay Trump's Wall. By the start of September, Trump was being firmly guided by the Koch ideology team, imparting to him an ideology that would serve it well after the elections. All that was needed was a dirty political campaign, and Trump would come out after election day ready to shape an administration around this ideology.

How the Koch network rivals the GOP The billionaires and their allies have built a private political machine without precedent.

While the Kochs’ decision to build their own independent political organization was prompted largely by their dissatisfaction with George W. Bush and his Republican congressional majorities, so far, the network’s forays have almost exclusively complemented those of the official GOP. And the network is expected to spend heavily in 2016 on ads and other voter outreach boosting the party’s efforts to retake the White House and protect its congressional majorities. RNC and Koch network officials even meet periodically to discuss their respective efforts, to the limited extent that is legally permissible, POLITICO has learned. But the Koch network hasn’t hesitated to call out Republicans who violate the brothers’ brand of small-government fiscal conservatism. And perhaps more worrisome for the GOP, Koch operatives have signaled they’re looking for more chances to take on Republicans, including in primary campaigns.
....
Nonetheless, conservative leaders have grumbled that too much of their movement is being centralized under one umbrella ― the Kochs ― while GOP officials have openly fretted about the possibility of the party losing at least some control to “a group of very strong, well-financed individuals who have no accountability to anyone,” as RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh put it this year.

The GOP sold their soul decades ago to the Devil, and the Koch Devil finally came calling for their soul.

And while people may not have directly seen the Koch brothers, they have been imprinted with their ideology for years

Club for Growth and Koch nurtured Freedom Caucus

Koch Industries, the closely held oil and gas conglomerate out of Wichita, Kansas, contributed $599,400 over time to members now aligned with the caucus. The company’s PAC, combined with individual contributions from Koch employees, ranked as the top contributor only to Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. But the analysis showed that it spread around enough money to be the second-biggest donor overall to caucus members. The analysis did not cover the wide network of political groups marshaled by the Koch brothers that collectively have evolved as a major funding source for Republican candidates.

One last going back to education. I thought Obama's call for college-for-all was horribly stupid! For ex, sure we need engineers, scientists, and CIT to come up with alternative energy systems, but we need people to build those systems!. Loss of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education component in the Dept of Ed would not serve our nation well. But, hey, do away with the Dept of Ed, because it's federal control!

And over the years Americans have been told how many jobs they won't do, but it's been a self-fulfilling prophesy so that Americans no longer desire to break a sweat, do the dirty or "menial" work. And that is where immigrants come in to fill the jobs "Americans won't do". And Trump's Mar-A-Largo not hiring American workers. Another area is where Americans won't work for the lower professional/technical wages of an H1-B worker.

Ok, my 2c data used up

put in 2c more....

lol Trump is still talking about The Wall tonight in Wisconsin. Yes, sure makes something nice to drop into a speech in front of supporters. Politicians, my, my. Anyway,

In the end, Trump’s wall is likely to be the latest addition to the border barrier-building frenzy first launched by President Bill Clinton, greatly expanded by George W. Bush and continued by Obama. But Trump will take full ownership of it as the only president willing to actually call it a wall.

It will not stop migrants from entering the country illegally — going over, under or around it, with many of them dying in the process. But when Trump supporters grumble that the wall is too porous, Trump will no doubt promise to make the wall even longer, taller and stronger in his second term.

Yes, Trump will build his border wall. Most of it is already built.

Here's more data (particularly noteworthy due to the notes on Perry).

Transition News:

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Rick Perry to head up the Department of Energy , a choice that’s raised eyebrows given that the former Texas governor previously said he’d eliminate the department—and, memorably, he forgot its name .

He also lacks a science background, which critics say is crucial for the leader of the agency that, among other things, manages America’s national laboratories and nuclear weapons arsenal.

PERRY IS UNQUALIFIED, utterly unqualified. He wanted to eliminate the Dept of Energy entirely, remember? (He couldn't remember when asked at the debate, but anyway.....). So - Trump hires the guy who wants to dismantle the DoE to RUN THE DoE? There is no conflict of logic here?

Also, Trump said about Perry that he was stupid (yes, there is video of this at one of his rallies) and is wearing glasses to make himself "look smart." Perry is also a Dominionist (Bible-thumper wants to make this a theocracy).


Now - on to morality:

For his part, Trump himself is under fire for failing to distance himself from his businesses—though most of his voters don’t seem to care .

Do you all think Trump should separate himself from his businesses?

Politics and Morals: Trump isn’t the only one struggling to deal ethically in business. In talks with nearly 50 convicted white-collar criminals , one researcher found that most could hardly explain why they’d made their unethical decisions, any more than they’d thought of the negative consequences at the time.

The findings suggest that in certain circumstances, it doesn’t take much to lead an ordinary person into committing serious moral fraud—even though other studies show most people tend to think their own sense of morality is stronger than others’.

(JEFF SESSIONS wants to legislate morality, just remember that.)

a reply to: desert

We'll just have to wait and see how things play out. I still don't see his 'waffling' on the wall as actual waffling. There are large sections built (I think most people know that), and there are places where a fence is more appropriate. As long as it keeps illegal immigration at bay, I'm happy with a picket every ten feet.

That's why so few are listening to such arguments: we are looking for real results, not trying to micromanage details.

One last going back to education.

I agree completely. Some people are happier going the academic route, while others prefer trades. That is a personal choice.

Trades for actual skills are essential and whenever I mention college I intuitively include trade schools in my thought process. That said, I am interested in any plan that provides schooling for those willing to work for it. Say, paid tuition for students graduating in the top 40%, 20%, 8%, and 2% to cover Associates, Bachelor's, Masters, and Doctoral degrees respectively, as long as their grades hold. The increased future revenue in taxes, combined with the increase in the economy itself, would pay for most if not all of the cost.

And of course, skilled trades are an acceptable course instead of pure academia.

Bernie had the right idea, just a little too feverish with the 100% idea. There's wisdom in making someone work for success, as long as that work is both attainable and reasonable.

H1B wages should be required by law to be equal to average wages for similar jobs in the area. And the penalty should include prison time, not just fines.

TheRedneck

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

OK, that reference jogged my memory on Perry. I guess I just never saw him as a realistic candidate, so I had tuned him out.

What is the purpose of the DoE? I mean, really, they don't produce a single joule of energy. Private companies produce energy. Is it to regulate energy? Why would we want to regulate energy? Energy is a good thing; it gets us from here to there, warms and cools our homes, educates and entertains us, and makes our lives longer and more comfortable in so many ways.

The EPA should be taking care of pollution issues... market forces take care of production... what else is needed? Grants for research? OK, but why do we need an entire agency to administer grants. Loans for producers? The Federal government is not supposed to be a bank.

No wonder Perry forgot about it... it was kinda funny when it happened though.



I'm torn on the business interests issue. Trump deserves to reap the rewards of his work, but I also see potential conflicts arising. Staying on with "The Apprentice" shouldn't be an issue, and as I understand it, he's not going to be involved in his real estate ventures directly... so I withhold judgement at this time.



I really should let you know that continual legislative criticisms about someone leaving legislative office are not helping your position.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You know, TheRedneck, I'll bet there's a lot that you and I agree on. That's why, even in the Reagan era, Congress could still find compromise. There were some things conservatives put in place in the 1980s, that unfortunately would lead to less for We The Little People and more for the corporation. That, along with the increasing polarization of the political parties and the insidious spread of the Koch ideology, has made it impossible now for any compromise in Washington. And this extreme ideology is now at state level.

Our economic and political structural foundations have been eaten away by extreme ideological termites. We are a defacto parliamentarian system, with no compromise possible.

Bernie Sanders indeed had good ideas for We The Little People. I laugh, however, when people talk about the DNC "rigging" against him. The DNC did no more what the RNC would do; in fact, if one looks at what the RNC has done in the past against their own candidates, the Dems come in far second in dirty tricks. Politics is dirty business, period... I'm shocked, shocked that parties act the way they do!! (haha) If it wasn't Hillary, the RNC would have made Bernie out to be scum of the earth and turned off many of his supporters. People can be persuaded by masters at persuasion and dirty tricks. It works, that's why they do it.

Maybe because he wasn't dragged through the mud of a post convention campaign, Bernie can still continue on with the Bernie Revolution. It took decades to get the way we are today, it will take a long time to claw our way back up to the top of the slope which we fell down so easily.

God speed, my friend.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You are welcome, Buzzy! I enjoy contributing to your threads. Your passion inspires me.

You know that frog in a pot metaphor? That's what indeed has been happening. Well, the water is boiling now.

In the 1980s when I saw Oliver North, dressed in his Marine uniform and display of medals, get up in front of Congress and lie, I finally understood how Germany had become under the spell of Nazism. I knew then that falling under a spell that would radically change a nation for the worse was possible here.

Do you know why, when Allied armies freed the German concentration camps, the first thing they did was to take pictures? It was not for American consumption. It was to show the horrors to the German people themselves, to be faced with the horrors they let happen.

German soldiers react to footage of concentration camps, 1945

The image shows the faces of German prisoners of war, captured by Americans, watching a film about a concentration camp. This forced confrontation brought Germans face-to-face with the worst works of the Third Reich. It must be really hard to go through what they did and look back knowing that everything that happened to them, all of their friends who were killed or maimed was in the name of something horrific, something totally repugnant to their own values.
....
This forced process was part of the Allied policy of postwar denazification, meant to purge Germany of the remnants of Nazi rule and rebuild its civil society, infrastructure, and economy. The program included compulsory visits to nearby concentration camps, posters displaying dead bodies of prisoners hung in public places, and forcing German prisoners of war to view films documenting the Nazis’ treatment of “inferior” people.
.....

German soldiers weren’t necessarily Nazis. The Holocaust is just one side of the Second World War. The other side was the fight for territory and power. Sounds unthinkable today (especially when you are German), but in that respect the Second World War was just the last war in a very long of wars for supremacy in Europe, that went back and forth for centuries.

Strong nationalistic feelings and “war as extension of diplomacy” were quite normal back then. There was no conflict between not following (maybe even opposing) the Nazis and fighting for the “good of your Fatherland”. Some soldiers were Nazis, some just wanted revenge for Versailles, others wanted to sit at the same table as France and Britain. And many followed because they had no other choice.

Someday, Americans will be faced with what they have allowed to happen to their nation. I do not know when the day of reckoning will happen, but it will, and Americans at that time must face what they have wrought.

a reply to: desert

lol to save some needless replies and thoughts.... I didn't want to imply that America will have concentration camps, just that when nations go full tilt down certain paths, following a charismatic authoritarian leader who makes it clear he will solve all their problems, then they need to be held accountable for their actions beyond punishment, with a face to face confronting of the aftermath of their actions.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm still using the same argument I always have: Trump is not President. If things are suddenly as bad as you seem to think they are, the blame goes to President Obama.

As a matter of fact, precedence dictates that everything that happens the next four years be blamed on Obama. After all, Bush was blamed for everything that went wrong during Obama's first term.

Don't worry... I personally don't like or agree with that precedent. Put the blame on whoever caused the issue, I say.

TheRedneck

No.

Things aren't so bad right now. That's what it seems you all are missing.

Unemployment is DOWN since Obama got elected (remember, the "Great Recession" started on W's watch - as did 9/11). Stock markets are UP since Obama got elected. The popular vote went to Hillary. These are facts that are incontrovertible.

So, W caused the recession. Obama saved us. Now things are better. And you all threw it away.

THAT is what I see.

So - everything that happens from now on (up to and INCLUDING inauguration day and afterward) is SQUARELY ON TRUMP'S SHOULDERS.

Remember in that one rally where he said, "Well, maybe Russia could hack into Crooked Hillary's emails..."

Remember that?

YES.

They did. And that, dear Mr Neck, is a fact.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Things aren't so bad right now. That's what it seems you all are missing.

For you, Buzzy... for you. For me, and millions like me, yes they are that bad.

Bush caused the recession, absolutely. Things in politics do not happen instantaneously. But Obama did not save everyone. Unemployment is down in the record books, but a lot of people like me are still hurting terribly. We may have jobs, but they're low-pay, part-time gigs working under demeaning bosses. We barely get the crumbs anymore, when we could once get a whole loaf. Others are even worse off... no job whatsoever. No unemployment insurance either; it does run out, you know. And when the unemployment runs out, suddenly you are no longer considered unemployed. You are now indigent and don't get counted in the unemployment figures.

So of course unemployment numbers are down. Discount millions out of work since 2008, or barely making enough to keep body and soul together, and we're in a boom!

So - everything that happens from now on (up to and INCLUDING inauguration day and afterward) is SQUARELY ON TRUMP'S SHOULDERS.

That is the single most ridiculous statement I have seen on ATS to date.

You propose to blame everything bad that happened during Obama's first four years on Bush, then everything that happens during his last several months on Trump, and of course everything bad that happened in between was the fault of the Republicans not rubber-stamping whatever Obama said (which is not how it's supposed to work anyway), and then decide Trump is blamable for things that happen even before he takes office? Really?

The blame in my eyes goes to whoever is responsible. The recession happened due to policies put in place during Bush's administration (and some during Clinton's), therefore Bush is responsible for the recession. The continuing high real unemployment happened because of regulations on job producers, instability in the business market, and constant influx from Mexico of illegal workers working under the table for even less than we now can find, signed or executed by Obama, therefore he bears responsibility for it.

Or, I guess we could blame the next four years on Obama. After all, you fail to understand something: you do not get to decide who gets blamed in the public opinion. The public does that, and the majority of the public remembers the previous blame game administration. Backlash can be a nasty thing.

TheRedneck

my next steps : as i always lead with my left - the next steps will naturally be ` right , left , right ` - repeat as required untill waypoint reached

a reply to: desert

You know, TheRedneck, I'll bet there's a lot that you and I agree on.

That is usually the case when partisan politics is not used.

I want to see a country where everyone who wants to work can get a decent job, and those who want to work harder can get a better job. I want to see the USA make TVs, computers, telephones, machinery, and equipment again instead of importing them from other countries. I want people to be able to pursue their dreams to the best of their ability. I want to see help for those who are trapped financially. I want to see everyone who needs medical help getting it, without being wiped out completely financially. I want to see people getting along with each other, starting up meaningful discussions to try and find better ways to do things.

I do not want to see a country where not getting your way leads to riots in the street, where police shoot suspects without cause with impunity, where people are terrified of the next terrorist attack, where families split over selfish political ideals, where making a living is all one can possibly hope for, where every day is a fight for survival, where education is something out of reach, or where everyone shops at Walmart to get cheap goods form overseas because they can't afford better. I do not want to see our country as it is now.

I think even BuzzyWigs, who it seems considers me a die-hard Republican (I'm actually an Independent), can agree that the first choice is preferable to the second one. If only we could get those labels and the partisan politics out of the equation, some of that first list might just be possible.

Godspeed to you as well, sir.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Or, I guess we could blame the next four years on Obama.

You just said that. Earlier. And I refuted it.

Obama did the absolute best job conceivable considering he inherited the WAR, the BANK BAILOUT, the RECESSION, and all of that crap caused by W and your GOP folks.


Yes, the 'unemployment' figure does not include those who have stopped looking. Yes, ISIS is still a problem.

Do I think that we should turn the Middle East into a sea of glass and register all "Muslim" citizens? NO.

Do I think that those who have been receiving assistance from the government to survive should be disenfranchised and left to starve? NO.

Do I think that Trump will address those issues? MAYBE.

The only hope I can cling to is that he has said "no one will fall through the cracks" on his watch. But the immigrants will. The children of Mexican nationals who were born here will. The elderly dependent on Social Security and Medicaid will.

You all say that 'charity' will pull up the slack. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Or if they do, it will be at the point of a spiritual sword forcing them to "accept Jesus" or be symbolically 'beheaded' by being cut off from society.

The effing "faith initiative" all over again. Here's them: "Believe in Jesus? c'mon in!!! Don't believe? Go get screwed!"

a reply to: TheRedneck

So explain to me how it is that Congress and Trump are just fine with "buy Chinese and Asian" steel, instead of " Buy American".


Please.
HOW is that going with the America First agenda? Oh. Right. It isn't.

So our new infrastructure thing will be built with Chinese and other second-rate (CHEAPER) steel.
Coolio.

a reply to: TheRedneck

We may have jobs, but they're low-pay, part-time gigs working under demeaning bosses. We barely get the crumbs anymore, when we could once get a whole loaf. Others are even worse off... no job whatsoever. No unemployment insurance either; it does run out, you know. And when the unemployment runs out, suddenly you are no longer considered unemployed. You are now indigent and don't get counted in the unemployment figures.

So of course unemployment numbers are down. Discount millions out of work since 2008, or barely making enough to keep body and soul together, and we're in a boom!

You have apparently missed the part where I was a Social Worker in the 501c3 Community Mental Health system. I got paid less than 23,000/year to serve the most needy of the urban core. Later, I worked in the hospitality industry. Then my dad got too ill to be alone, and I had to leave that job because the oligarchs (Pritzker/Hyatt) wouldn't let me have a week off during Christmas.

I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A JOB SINCE. And ---- and I AM UNABLE TO PAY OFF MY STUDENT LOANS.


Because I was a social worker. Who had to give up. I was helping folks like you talk about get the benefits to which they were entitled but had to jump through hoops and navigate red laser-tape.

THEN I WAS OUT OF A JOB.

BECAUSE BUSH.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The effing "faith initiative" all over again. Here's them: "Believe in Jesus? c'mon in!!! Don't believe? Go get screwed!"

Once again, that's a false characterization of faith based charities in the main.

I'm not sure why the predisposition to take such a scornful approach towards people of faith, and here I'm talking about the totality of your contributions rather than this specific post, but in a discussion about what the next steps are to be in a nation that self reports as approximately 70 percent Christian, I think one of the first steps would be adopting a less disrespectful attitude towards people of faith, including Christians.

I'm not sure what progress you expect to achieve by alienating well over 70 percent of the population.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You just said that. Earlier. And I refuted it.

And I do not accept your refution due to use of a biased basis.

Do I think that we should turn the Middle East into a sea of glass and register all "Muslim" citizens? NO.

Do I think that those who have been receiving assistance from the government to survive should be disenfranchised and left to starve? NO.

Good. Neither do I.

Do I think that Trump will address those issues? MAYBE.

Then why not give him a chance?

he has said "no one will fall through the cracks" on his watch. But the immigrants will. The children of Mexican nationals who were born here will. The elderly dependent on Social Security and Medicaid will.

Do you mean the illegal immigrants? Then I agree.
Anchor babies? I am not overly concerned about them. Their parents knew exactly what they were doing. I don't think citizenship once given can be rescinded, at least no so easily.
Why do you think Trump wants to end Medicare and Social Security?

So explain to me how it is that Congress and Trump are just fine with "buy Chinese and Asian" steel, instead of " Buy American".

Trump did his job: he took the best deal he had on materials. The reason overseas materials were the best deal is because the policies of the last 20 years have given overseas manufacturers an unfair advantage in the US marketplace.

I do remember some years back a total hissy fit Trump threw that went public. It seems he decided to upgrade one of his fancier hotels and he decided he wanted American television screens in the new rooms. He was not able to buy any; no televisions are manufactured in the United States. None. Nada. Not one. He finally gave in and bought overseas screens, but was that his fault? Should we now condemn everyone who buys and uses foreign goods?

That would include you, by the way, because I know for a fact your computer was not made in the US. None are.

Donald Trump was not involved in passing the disastrous policies that led to this situation. He did not make the rules. He only played by them.

You have apparently missed the part...

No, I got it. What I don't get is that at the same time you lament about how poorly your own job prospects are, you also brag about how wonderful the economy is under Obama.

Don't try to explain it, please. The answer would probably make my head hurt.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Dear TheRedneck, anonymity online brings with it certain costs. The cost to me is not hearing you address me in a Southernly gentleman way as "Ma'am"... .... alas, I just have to imagine you saying that with that wonderful Southern accent.

You and I were blessed to have grown up in a post WW2 economy. When I look at an old item that was made in the Northwest or the South, my heart is sad about the manufacturing, the jobs, that began to leave decades ago. Honestly, I do not know how they would return today. And even if they did, they would come back here automated. When jobs started going to China, China's resource was their cheap labor by the millions, but now, they, too, are looking at automation.

After 1980 American corporations also began to think of themselves as multinational, they no longer wanted to be known as an "American company". This was done to have a multinational image in a country whose populace might not like an "American company" in their midst. With all the old "American" companies then taking on new multinational owners or part-owners, only the illusion of an "American company" existed.

Once shipping costs/infrastructure and quality control (esp for agriculture) could be acceptable to make increasing profit, the race was on to move jobs elsewhere. Opening up China as new customers to American companies also meant that manufacturing would end up going there also.

At the same time, "foreign" companies moved manufacturing here. We have been in a global economy for decades now. I question that "bringing back" those old jobs is possible.

Obama did indeed produce jobs, but what jobs were realistically left in the already globalized economy? We have had a structural change in the economy starting in the 1980s. It has several causes, one being monopolies...

As we seek new ways to jump-start America’s job growth, we would be wise not to rely only on big government or big business to accomplish the task for us. Indeed, the new and better jobs of tomorrow will be created not by any such abstract powers but by very real people—such as our own more entrepreneurial neighbors, cousins, and children—working in big corporations made subject to competition and working in small ventures launched specifically to compete. These entrepreneurs will be able to do so only after we have used our antimonopoly laws to clear away the great private powers that now stand in their way.

Who Broke America’s Jobs Machine?

Oh, also,by the 1990s our corporate and govt leaders believed that an American economy based on manufacturing jobs would be replaced with an economy of service jobs, and America would be the financial (not manufacturing) center of the globe.

Instead of attacking structural changes, we focused on Koch ideology of tax and regulatory reform to do the job. It didn't work for Reagan, it won't work now; that is only their fantastical strategy to get Americans to buy into their fantastical ideology of destroying the federal govt.

Re illegal hiring.... a look at how the meat packing industry destabilized American workers. This is a great read to understand how structural changes (and monopoly) in the industry forced changes for American workers and their economy.
Meatpacking industry has a long history of reliance on immigrant laborer
Other industries, such as construction and service, would follow. .... lol all those "jobs Americans won't do".

Oh, one more thing, it was General Motors in the 1990s that actually came to Washington as an effort to get national healthcare. They said that all the countries they wanted to move into/compete with had workers covered under their own national health plans. Washington refused.

Well, all I can say at this point is that Trump started his campaign talking like a Democrat but, because it was all just talk and he had no firm ideology, he ended up at the end with Koch ideology (fringe right wing). The GOP new it, too, but ended up having to accept Trump as their candidate and now leader. Congress is filled with Republicans with that fringe ideology, so it is a win-win for the Koch Private Party. They are the true winners in this election. They now own all three branches.

We have been screwed for years, and I only see the screwing getting worse. .... you know George Bush's Iraq Invasion? Rebuilding the country was supposed to be the grand display of what a Koch ideology could do. .... and we know how that turned out.

a reply to: desert

You apparently can read people pretty well across a keyboard. My accent makes Jed Clampett sound like a New Yorker by comparison. And yes, I do refer to women as "ma'am." Or "darlin'," on occasion... trying to break that one. Apparently it offends some folks.

To be honest, I didn't realize you were a lady. I'm not good at reading across the keyboard myself.

Anyway...

You have a good handle on the causes of our present situation. Especially in cars... my son's Silverado pickup is made in Mexico and Japan, while there's a large Mercedes-Benz plant not more than a couple hours' drive from me. Toyota are almost exclusively American made now, at least the ones sold here.

It all boils down to greed. There was a major shift in public opinion after the 80s toward materialism. It turned out to be a boon for manufacturing, and when the labor market here was exhausted, companies began to look overseas for more. When the boon subsided, they had a choice between keeping good-paying jobs here or low-wage jobs there. Of course they took the cheaper option.

China and later Mexico used their control over their currency to take full advantage of this. While we here were busy trying to maximize this quarter's profits, China was busy trying to achieve 5, 10, 20 year goals of financial conquest. Their strategy worked; between bond loans to America and corporate-friendly policies, they have managed to become a major economic superpower.

All the while, our 'leaders' were busily lapping up those Chinese loans to pay for entitlement programs to assure votes next election.

Obama's major mistake economically was two-fold: he was afraid to take on the Chinese directly by countering their actions, and he was convinced that regulation did not hurt business. Of course, regulation does indeed hurt business, and it primarily hurts small business... the very thing that we need so desperately right now, and that allowed the United States to become a financial superpower in the first place. The jobs he 'created' were almost all low-paying jobs, and the regulations he imposed turned them into part-time jobs as well. A company can hire one worker at full-time minimum wage and pay for expensive health insurance, paid leave, overtime, 401k's, etc. or they can hire two part-time workers for the same wage and not have to pay those overhead costs.

That's not evil... it's good business sense. It also lets the government publish lower unemployment figures. Win-win, except for the poor people trying to eek out a living.

Obama, like 95% of politicians, has no idea how business works. He has never held a job in the private sector or tried to manage a business. Thus, he made decisions that on the surface might have looked good, but managers across the country were horrified. The allure of Trump is that he does know what matters to business. He was born with a silver-spoon headstart, yes, but he built his empire from there himself. He has been a CEO, of both a small business and later a financial empire.

Business drives economy. Government can't; Unions can't; Workers can't.

The Koch Brothers may think they have him under control, but I read Trump as the uncontrollable wild card. He has always been the eccentric, the unpredictable, the unmanageable. That is why he got the name recognition to run effectively. He'll listen to anybody and everybody, but the final decisions will be his. That's just good business, and the way he has always worked.

TheRedneck