Trump vs Clinton Styles

From MP Debate. Constance drew some pretty negative conclusions from "how the candidates chose to prepare for the debate".  Being a person who usually manages problem solving Teams by dragging them all into a room where I help to facilitate them through anger, frustration, confusion, etc to consensus, I offer a different view.

By the way, my style rubs some managers the wrong way.  They like to have lots of "one on one" discussions where they work to try to broker a deal.  Neither is right or wrong.  I like my way because almost never do I have a personal agenda, being an analytical nerd,,,  It is just a problem and other people know more than I do about the possible root causes and solutions, what I add to the process is team tools, data tools, logic, restating / translating, peace making, etc.

My one team was a bunch of Financial Managers and IT people, they looked so disappointed when I said that I knew almost nothing about the issue we were there to address. I thought they were going to revolt and ask for a new 6 Sigma Black Belt. Then I started to explain the roles, process, tools, etc and they figured it out.

"Which one respects the office. 

Many news outlets have commented on how unprepared Trump seemed for this debate, the first one-on-one he's ever had to participate in. He actually criticized Hillary Clinton for "staying home" to prepare for the debate (and she took great advantage of that dumb comment).

What does it mean for our country that Clinton was so well-prepared and Trump so ill-prepared for this debate? It means that she respects the office of President of the United States. He regards the presidency as a vehicle of his self-importance and his power to exact revenge on those who oppose him or contradict him. For Trump, to be president is to be Number One--it's all about him. That's why he hasn't bothered to make and offer plans to us about how he would handle this or that problem. 

For Clinton, the presidency means taking responsibility for the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans, and of others around the word. Working to improve lives, save lives. It's not all about her. For her, it's all about US." Constance

Really: "For her, it's all about US."

Now please remember that the Clinton's are the couple who went from broke to being worth $100+ million and having a large charity with questionable donors over a ~16 year period. And she maintained a home server so she could control public access to "her" affairs and communications. She is not a Jimmy Carter who seeks to give and help wherever he can.

I offer a different view, she believes that preparing for a debate is the best way for her to attain the power and influence that she has been pursuing for decades. I mean I understand, she is so close to attaining that power and it may be pulled away from her like it was in 2008. That would be terrifying and I would work hard to prepare.

Clinton is more of an analytical introvert and therefore to store up energy and focus she tends to seek privacy. Trump is more of a extroverted collaborator and therefore being with people listening to them is what works for him.

Having worked with both personalities for decades, neither is good or bad... They are just different." G2A

"Planning vs Reality
Since I don't like Clinton or Trump, some of my readers are telling me I should vote for Clinton because she is the safe bet. I mean she has adopted many of the far Left planks from Bernie's Social Democracy platform, and she has spent a lot analytical effort creating detailed plans for how she would do them which scares me to death. However my readers remind me that nothing she is selling will come to pass as long as the GOP controls the House, which is likely to happen.

I mean their reasoning is very logical and practical. It is very likely that a vote for Hillary is a vote for 4 more years of gridlock. Which ironically I am a big fan of. If they would only freeze governmental spending for a couple of years, force the government to become more effective / efficient and let GDP growth raise the tax revenues so we could start paying down the debt... It would be perfect !!!

So I asked the following questions: Why is Hillary making all of these promises that she will not be allowed to implement? Shouldn't she be honest with her voters and explain this reality?

Is it a bad or good thing that Trump does not sell a detailed plan that he knows may not become reality? Remember he is a deal maker so long term detailed plans are pointless to him... He will get between the GOP / DFL and see where they can agree to take things. Thoughts? " G2A

The Debate: Expectations and Analysis

Written before debate:
Well it is almost time for an event that may draw as many viewers as a Superbowl, and include even more cheap shots...  I am drawn to watching it like one faced with watching some destructive event...  I was thinking I should go to a bar...  It would fun seeing how everyone reacts.

So what do you think will happen?
MP Debates and the American Attention Span
MP What to Expect for the Moderator
MP PBS Bio on the Candidates



Written after the debate:
Did it happen as you expected?
Who won/lost?  Rationale?
Any surprises?
MP I Watched the Debate 3 Times
MP Viewing Event has Full House

Trump Predicted to Win

On the lighter side.  Here is an interesting story.

Why Should Economics be Divorced from Morality

Helen got no responses to her question over at MinnPost, maybe we can give it a try. Now my first impression is that she is a somewhat deranged socialist who dreams of the masses overthrowing our capitalistic society and replacing it with a place where a wise entity sets all of our wages based on some community determined value determination, but I am curious what others think?

"Why should economics be divorced from morality? 

It shouldn't, it isn't, and it can't be. However, one of the most usual moral criteria applied to the question:

• "How much should the people at the bottom of the wage system be paid?" is "They can't be paid so much that they're raised to our level." ("$50 an hour"?) 

Questions or observations about this moral assumption are rarely raised in these discussions. Questions like:  

• Why is work organized the ways it is, with arbitrary judgments about the economic value of different jobs?  

• Why are making decisions about the value of other people's work financially rewarded at so much higher a level than the actual work of the economy: building, nursing, customer service, educating, making deliveries, inspecting, maintaining, cleaning?  

• Who has decided that women's home and child raising work has no economic value at all?  

• Why are some communities condemned to chronic poverty?  

• Why is there a belief that a poor class ("the bottom of the wage system") is NECESSARY to our capitalist system?

I heard in this discussion troubling assumptions about the ability or willingness of us ordinary citizens to understand complex or even simpler political and economic issues, a distrust of direct democracy as OPPOSED TO representative democracy (they can and do coexist).  I know that many of us don't trust our own abilities, either.  

This can be changed, by trusting ourselves to understand even complex issues, by caring enough to find out facts and history, by trusting that even though the present system makes it hard for us to feel like important members of our semi-democracy, WE DO get to choose how much we know and how we involve ourselves in what is after all our own lives."

It is the Government's Fault !!! Give me More !!!

CNN Money Working class whites blame Washington, want more help


Now it would be hard to make this up...
And maybe that is why many of them support Trump...
I wonder if they blame the government as they are filling their Walmart carts up with foreign products and then push it out to their Hyundai...


Thoughts?

Trump Tax Plan

From Laurie

Trump tax plan as commented on by Kevin Drum

Today's Boring Policy Number: 16%

Minimum Wage Pro/Con

From MP Afraid of Democracy


"Or use California's example, where an initiative DESTROYED the entire public education system in the state at every level,...  a debacle from which the state is only lately beginning to recover,... and a hot-button-issue-of-the-moment initiative on gay marriage ended up costing the state a massive amount of money to seek to defend.

I would FAR prefer that we elect representatives who can take the time to study important issues and devise well-though-out legislation,... than that we allow the latest hot-button issue to be demagogued into law by ignorant people,...  and let's face it, the general public IS ignorant on a whole variety of issues,... some of them are even "deplorable."

The founders were too wise to trust direct democracy.  They knew each other and their friends and neighbors too well for that. Those who would cast aside their wisdom and who regard the checks and balances they devised into our system of turning ideas into laws as "elitist,"... are likely the same people who would NOT bother to study and research important issues,... and would be far too willing to make law based on what they believe must CERTAINLY be true,...  (which is far too often PROVABLY false);... the kinds of people who STILL very willingly fall prey to every snake oil peddler or pied piper they see on TV.

It takes maturity and patience to win what you want the old fashioned way,... but in the end, that's the ONLY way that works." Greg


"I second that whole heartedly... $15/hour sounds great until the businesses start relocating to the first ring suburbs, or using a lot more of those check yourself out scanners. For a community that has such high unemployment, it seems there are some serious pros/cons that need to be evaluated.

I also enjoy / am scared by those "Man on the Street" sketches where he/she asks the typical citizens simple political questions and the people do not know the answers." G2A


"Here's a question just for you, because you follow and pose possible consequences very well.

Would a $15 minimum wage further dislocate low tier labor as it may be the marginal dollar at which many somewhat more qualified people who would not apply at current rate might find $15 personally workable?
So, would raising the minimum reduce unemployment at the targeted lower end---or not? Jim


"Interesting question. So are you proposing that the high unemployment rate for minorities is a self inflicted choice? That they are simply choosing not to work because the jobs do not pay enough to leave unemployment, welfare, cash jobs, or however they are currently paying their bills?

Usually the folks here report that it is employers and society being unfair/biased that is causing that high unemployment rate. Where as I believe that the academic achievement is leaving many of them unqualified for many jobs. (ie that's why I am tough on Parents & Schools)

If your proposal is correct, it may help entice more workers in to the market. But I don't think there are an excessive number of lower income jobs that are going unfilled. And I think the law will pressure some of those jobs to leave Mpls proper.

Please remember that American consumers are the ultimate capitalists, they shop anywhere to save money, get better quality, get better reliability, keep up with trends, etc. So if we arbitrarily raise costs here, they will choose to shop elsewhere.

If you doubt me: checkout the cars on the road, the appliances in the homes, the cell phones in our hands, etc." G2A

Eliminating Poverty Through Wealth Transfer?

From Laurie.

Here is a random comment from EJ Dionne that I felt inclined to post over here to combat your idea that govt spending does little to reduce poverty:

"The standard rap from the right is that government programs don’t ease poverty. Oh yeah? As Jason Furman and his colleagues at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers pointed out, redistributive measures such as the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit lifted 4.8 million children out of poverty. Those children also have a hell of a lot to lose if such benefits were trimmed — and more families could be helped if they were expanded."

My questions are:

1. Is the government taking money from the Peters through taxes and giving it to the Pauls via credits, Medicare, subsidies, food stamps, etc really what winning the war on poverty looks like.
2. If the government programs continue to promote twice as many people to earn too little... And the government takes twice as much from the Peters to give twice as much to the Pauls. Does this mean the government programs are succeeding or failing?
3. And if it happens a few more times and there are fewer Peters to take from, and so many Pauls to subsidize... What then?

It is easy to understand that the government distributing fish eases poverty. (ie expanding medicare and the others gifts noted above) It is also easy to understand that people being fed free fish from the trough are very likely to become dependent on their keeper. The problem is that only teaching people to fish and making them do it eliminates poverty.  The credits, subsidies, Medicare, etc just masks and propagates it.

The Challenges of Reporting

MP Fun Mirror  Here is a much more rational comment and my thought.

"Greenwald and Intercept do represent a new hope for change where investigative means asking the questions and where certainty is not a positive conclusion? 

Krugman surprises me a bit ...but maybe what's happening in those supported by mainstream corporate ,media will eventually compromise to survive by being with the "winner' candidate and his/her whichever of the 'non-choice' we now are stuck with? 

So it goes...if all we are left with are two unacceptable choices certainly I suppose media voices we thought were columnists with integrity will start accepting the negative foibles of whom they assume will win among our two sad choices ...and cling for survival as columnist not necessarily as wordsmiths of integrity if one wants to survive? 

Sad yes,so I suggest one need to develop a most athletic mind of sorts; to read beyond what you necessarily may not believe or accept at the moment but consider alternatives to standard, mainstream journalism sources, that read too often like the minutes of the local men's club...and explore a little further without fear of being beyond the limited scope and the influence of other ideas if your mind dare explore? Maybe Intercept sets a new standard where 'investigative' means something more that soaping of the news gathering culture? 

Hope this makes sense ...or scrap it, but either way one of Eric's finest articles lately...do appreciate." Beryl

"It seems the people a ways Left and Right of Center insist on seeing Heroes and Villains... When in reality these politicians are just flawed humans just like us. 

Trump and Clinton are both self centered people who have willingly chosen to live in the public eye and be "successful". Both have made questionable choices and made mistakes. 

How does that go... Let the perfect throw the first stone... 

I wish our culture would start focusing on why the candidates would be good for the position, instead trying to scare everyone against the opponent by turning them into the "villain"... 

Those Mills vs Nolan attack ads are going to get real old by Nov. But apparently us silly voters buy " G2A

The Challenges of Democracy

MP SW Rail  This discussion is an exercise in futility, but it does explain how some of the more "Far Left' folks think.  Of course the irony is that folks on the "Far Right" often say something similar about Liberals...

"The problem with the mentality that currently dominates the republican/libertarian leadership is that it's driven by dystopian fantasy rather than evidence or reason. This mentality is part magical thinking, and part toxic sociopathic. It's magical thinking in the sense that the assumption is that no planning or policy is actually necessary, growth and prosperity are magical entities that float around and manifest themselves as long as we keep cutting taxes and don't grow government. 

This mentality is sociopathic in that it takes an adolescent: "You're not the boss of me" declaration to toxic heights. This notion that any taxpayer or their like minded politicians should be able to veto any project they don't like not only violates the very premise of democracy, it makes civilization and impossible objective. 

I don't know what they're doing with County Rd. 101 out in Minnetonka between 394 and Minnetonka Blvd., but it's taken about two years and I know no one ever asked me as a taxpayer whether or not not I support it. It looks like they built a new road and bridge but they had a perfectly good road and bridge already as far as know. The difference I'm not whining about my taxes, I wouldn't veto the 101 project even if I could. 

Yet that's exactly how republicans think we should run things, and that's why whenever republicans are given a chance run things it literally falls apart. Remember Kiffmeyer's plan to have the contractors front the money for the 35W - 62 interchange? Yah, that was sooooooooo innovative. Whatever." Paul 

"So somebody who disagrees with your position and uses political methods to block that position is Sociopathic? 

Does this same concept apply when people work to block tax cuts, right to work, accountability in our public education system, etc? 

I have a different view... This is Democracy a work... It may be messy, inefficient, etc but it is the best system of it's kind !!! God Bless America !!!" G2A 

"A lot of very nice people disagree with each other all the time, that doesn't make us all sociopaths. In politics we have a concept of: "loyal opposition". The idea is that while we may disagree and fight for different agendas, we recognize that governance isn't a game to be won or lost, and winning elections doesn't make us dictators. The "loyalty" part is about recognizing that we are communities in a nation working towards a common "good" despite our differences. The "loyalty" is for the democratic process. 

Sociopaths have no coherent concept of "community", in fact they tend to classify communities as agents of oppression and may even find the notion of being loyal to something other than themselves or their own mentality nearly incomprehensible if not outright immoral. For Libertarians this is actually a philosophy of selfishness pretending to be a fight for liberty. While reactionary republicans share some libertarian disgust for communal governance; they also have an inclination to deploy the levers of government as mechanisms of dictatorial power. In essence neither libertarians or reactionary republicans can actually believe in democracy. 

Rather they tend to view democracy and citizenship itself as form of oppression that requires they submit to the will of the people rather than their own interests. Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise. In other words the "republicans" in question don't want to participate in the democratic process, they want to capture it and use it towards their own ends, which of course is a fundamentally undemocratic impulse. 

The absence of "loyalty" to the democratic process makes bipartisan progress nearly impossible. We used to have bipartisan progress despite disagreements but in recent decades bipartisan progress has collapsed into partisan gridlock as "toxic sociopathy" has ascended to power within the republican party. 

Now I should clarify that when I talk about "sociopaths" I'm describing an intellectual tendency, not labeling individuals as sociopaths per se. This is a socio-political analysis not a psychological profile. Obviously personality traits present across a continuum among individuals and aren't determined political affiliation." Paul 

"Of course I disagree, I believe almost all people believe this. "Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise." 

I mean look at how unhappy the Liberals were/are when States did not support LGBT rights.
Or when States believe in a flatter tax code, rather than the highly progressive one they prefer.
Or when the Democracy decided that welfare needed to be reformed... 

As I repeatedly note, for ~100 years the Liberals have been striving to pull our country towards being a Northern European Social Democracy. (ie 7% of GDP to 37% of GDP) Now they have pulled the rubber band tight enough that the tension has increased. So of course an increasing number of citizens are becoming resistant and people are pulling back harder. 

As I often ask, how many percent of your paycheck are you willing to give to the government so they can distribute it as they deem correct? You know my number is 33%... I truly think the government and our public employees should be able to fulfill their assigned duties for 1/3 of our country's GDP. That leaves 2/3rds for families to use as they wish. Or do you think the politicians/bureaucrats can make better spending decisions than us individuals?" G2A 

"G2A says:
"Of course I disagree, I believe almost all people believe this: "Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise." 

Thank for confirming that this mentality isn't just a figment of my imagination. I would suggest to the readers at large that this isn't just the view of one guy on this comment thread, as I've already stated. 

I would point out however that contrary to John's assumption many Americans believe in the democratic process despite the fact that it doesn't always deliver what each of us wants and sometimes delivers stuff we as individuals don't want. We don't in fact considers ourselves victims of tyranny (Tyranny of the masses) every time a vote doesn't go our way. 

This is the difference between the loyal opposition I've described, and the "disloyal" opposition we see among reactionary republicans/tea party/libertarians. I don't want subsidized stadiums and nobody asked me about paying for a County Rd. 101 rebuild but I'm not going to shut down government or try to disnenfranchise any voters in order to stop them being built. Sure, we're not always "happy", but that doesn't mean we're being crushed under the oppressive heal of the masses. 

As for the movement towards "liberalism", yes, I frequently point out that the best way to get your head around the republican agenda is to accept the fact that they want to repeal the 20th century. 

The government/tax percentage thing struggles to but never attains economic coherence because A.) We know our system works better than the Somali model. And B). All this "spending" the government does is the product of a democratic process. Our "government" isn't some independent entity beyond our control that collects taxes and spends money in a separate economy." Paul 

"I think this must be a matter of perspective, as long as I have been paying attention / blogging, it seems the Liberals have maintained a continuous narrative that most Americans are victims of a relatively corrupt government and the companies / wealthy people who supposedly have paid for it. 

Please also remember that it takes a conscience choice by 2 parties to shut down a government. Either side can sweeten the pot and get things moving again. 

As for the ideal "% of GDP" target, I guess I have not heard of any politician who wants to "repeal the 20th century". Please remember that would reduce our spend to ~7% from our current ~37%. Personally I think most Americans would be happy if we could get back to 30% in good times and ~36% during recessions. This should be pretty easy to do if we actually held our politicians accountable for reducing the complexity and size of the governmental bureaucracy, and paying down the debt. And just think how happy people would be to have some more money to use as they wish. 

Now I know you like to scare folks with the Somalia comparison. And yet I have to ask if you thought the USA in 1907 was a lawless state fulled with chaos and murder? If so I must have missed that when watching Little House on the Prairie..."G2A

Mills Healthcare Plan

Mills Healthcare Plan

"If you want to look at the success of a program over time, you need to look at a bunch of things that are not discussed by Mills. What is the health status of people coming into the plan, which relates to a number of facts - their average age, the gender breakdown, their health history and their lifestyles? What the outcomes of the program in terms health improvement, the break out of costs between the company and whether people continue to work their in good health?

If you employ younger employees to begin with, and make an effort to eliminate older employees who have more health issues and hold down your corporate costs, you keep your costs down and your employee's can more easily handle the occasional health issue. Whether intentional, if you punish those who get sick financially to save corporate funds and financially reward those who through no effort of their own are healthier, you fail to understand the purpose of health insurance, to make sure employees with real persistent problems get the care they need.

Encouraging healthy lifestyles is of course a good idea, but you need to be careful how you do it. Some of us get a bad draw genetically. I person knew for 25 years before I got it, that a genetic condition would some day mean I would need a kidney transplant. Nothing I could do would alter that fact - and that treatment was 1) extremely expensive and 2) somewhat toxic, as after effects are the norm. Early death was the only way to avoid the need. Only the very rich could fund this treatment out of their personal funds and all of us face the cost of a chronic illness that will be tremendously expensive, if not soon rather than later.

People don't think of these things, but benefit managers do. When I had the surgery, obviously any smart employer knew my continuing costs would be high. For self funded companies, there is a big temptation to get rid of those with these problems. In fact, it was necessary for Congress to ban genetic discrimination in hiring and firing. This didn't pass without strong Republican opposition. I suspect that if Mills had he been in a position to vote of this law, he would have opposed it, as genetic discrimnation would allow him to cut corporate spending.

So ultimately, for a program like company health insurance, one needs to look at what motivates a company to offer things like wellness programs. If they call on employees doing things that they have some control over, produce better health status and don't discriminate against older, sicker employees, OK. However, if they are designed mostly to lower corporate benefit costs, increasing employee risk of neglecting their care need or experiencing medical bankruptcies, it is not OK. It is never right to weed out those who are less health due to their genetics and the aging process.

It is not clear where this company comes out. However, if worker interests are not served well, then any person who designed such a program should not be rewarded by being allowed to impose their wrong-headed notions on the country. If Mills has designed program that is more beneficial than not, then he should back up his claims with supporting data." Joel S.

"My company just implemented one of these plans and did a terrible job of explaining it.  However after studying how it worked I think they are a step in the correct direction. (maybe)

You are correct that as long as the company is paying a large part of the employee's healthcare cost, there is an incentive to employ young healthy people. I was talking with a friend and found that their company's premiums are much lower because their workforce has many young single men in it, whereas my company's employee pool is very diverse.

So exactly how much more should the young single men with excellent lifestyle habits at my firm have to pay each month to subsidize the premium of older peers who make poor lifestyle choices?

How do you think we can encourage the older person to change their life long habits to become healthier?

With obesity and overweight sky rocketing in the USA, we need to do something about it if we truly want to reduce healthcare costs. I think programs like that set up by Mill's is a good start.

By the way, the program I am part of allows employees to get their Doctor to sign a medical waiver if the employee truly has a condition that prevents them from attaining the normal and is under the direct care of a doctor for that issue." G2A

Stop: We Are Hitting Ourselves

G2A Border Security Revisited took an interesting turn.

"Sanders was attempting to stage a Socialistic coup and would have been happy to take a huge amount of wealth from the savers/investors and give to the spenders/debtors.  Now I agree that Trump uses the same tools, I am not sure why you are hesitant to agree." G2A

"Good Lord, Sanders was trying to win an election not stage a coup. Come in off the ledge. " Sean

"Another thing Trump and Sanders had in common. :-) And yet Liberals insist Trump wants to end American democracy as we know it. Maybe both sides should come off the ledge. By the way, I agree that coup was not the correct word... The correct word was Revolution." G2A

"Revolution: Something we citizens of the United States of American can be thankful for.  But maybe you can prove that Sanders was inciting hatred instead of pointing out the problems with the way we are governed. You have that opportunity." Joel

"Wiki Political Revolution "Such political revolutions are envisioned to overthrow undemocratic governments of bureaucratic privilege, replacing them with governments based on workers' democracy while maintaining state owned property relations."

I wonder if we would be the first fully transparent Democracy to have a revolution against ourselves?" G2A

What I thought was fascinating was Joel's comment about "pointing out the problems with the way we are governed".  To me it seems that he thinks "someone" out there is governing us...  Now from a Conservative this would be a non-statement since they are certain the "Government" is a self fulfilling animal of it's own making. 


But to hear a Liberal say this is fascinating.  To me it often seems that they see our "Government" as a benevolent effective force for good. I mean what is their answer for almost every social ill, "Let's raise taxes, pass a regulation, start a new department, spend more on the existing departments, strengthen tenure and pay for Public Workers, etc.


Thoughts?

Minneapolis Minimum Wage Discussion

MP Mpls $15/Hr Pros / Cons

"Poverty, government subsidies and income disparity

This discussion ignores a number of critical issues. First, the shrinking of the middle class in terms of the race to the bottom with wages. If you look at the minimum wage of 30-40 years ago and applied the inflation rate, the minimum wage worker would be making closer to $15 per hour than the current minimum. Likewise wages of middle class workers as the investor manager class has shifted money into their pockets. 

Second, the level of poverty in our prosperous society is appalling and the children of low wage workers have little chance to get out of poverty as long as their parents don't earn enough to support a family. Single parent households - often a result of who adults who cannot have a decent lifestyle with both parents working. $3000 per year more income, chump change for most Americans, make poor families more whole. 

Third, in essence government by providing social benefits to low wage adults are providing business subsidies. When a highly profitable company like Walmart force the government to support its workers, that money goes right to the company bottom line. In other words, middle class people pay for social benefits, allowing executives and stock holders to pocket bigger checks. 

Finally, this dynamic fuels income disparity and creates problems through society. When people have education and good paying jobs, they are better family members, neighbors and citizens. Why should government tolerate greedy people expecting subsidies, when it creates social dysfunction. Trump supporters, you are not getting screwed by government, but by businessmen like Trump who care about nothing other than their personal bottom line. Only government action can set things right." Joel Stegner

"Same Old Story
1. A large majority of American Consumers want the best quality, features, performance, etc for the best price. Therefore many jobs went overseas and wages dropped. (ie the first Datsuns, Hondas, Nissans, etc)

2.Single parent households are poor because there is one adult and one or more kids. And unfortunately often the one Parent is low skilled or has low academic capability.

3. The subsidies go to those low skilled / low academically capable parents to reduce the natural consequences of their poor choices. They are better for our society than raising the minimum wage. Rationale: a higher minimum wage will increases prices for everyone, and put more pressure to off shore more jobs. Where as work credit, child credit, food stamps, etc are paid for by the wealthy and given to the poor.

4. Currently we encourage single parent households and all the societal problems they cause by paying them with medical care, food, cash, etc. This unfortunately promotes the behavior, children failing in school, generational poverty, etc. I understand your desire to double down on the "war on poverty, however I am not sure the poor or our country will be able to survive it." G2A

It will be interesting to see where the minimum wage discussion goes from here.  Thoughts? 

Make Personal Finance Education Mandatory

This article makes an interesting case.  Sex Education is mandatory and yet many students simply never learn how to manage their money. CNN Money: Personal Finance


Thoughts?

Border Security Revisited

From MP Trump Immigration

"Based on the last numbers I saw, net illegal immigration was about zero. Now that sounds good until one digs and finds out that it means that ~400,000 people entered the country with no backgrounds checks and that we Americans had to pay to process and deport ~400,000 people. Not to mention the amount of illegal drugs imported from down South.

What is your rationale that this is adequate / acceptable border security?

And for the folks who want higher wages for Americans with low skill and/or academic capabilities, do you support having an open border even though it keeps downward pressure on the wages of these American citizens? What is your rationale?" G2A