Hmm, I think a lot of voters of color will not vote for a Republican
And why would that be, asks the man who says "I don't have the disease that tells me I always need more money." The Republican Party has historically enacted policy platforms that are disadvantageous to these people's HUMANITY. While using them as a scapegoat for anything and everything that is "wrong" with the country.
Maybe the Republicans are right and the Democrats take voters of color for granted and make everything about racism. Well you can sure say the same for Republicans--they also take the uneducated white lower middle class for granted and also inflame racial hatred at that level. They also convince white suburban voters that it is only them who are "paying their own way," everyone else is "stealing from them," and inflame economic warfare. American suburbs have leached off of cities for decades and pay cents on the dollar.
But I think Trump/Bannon's policy ideas (whatever you think of them) are citizenhood-based not color-based. Some say (as we saw above) it is definitely 100% about race. So, citizenhood is about race, and is racist too maybe. Or, maybe being a US citizen is a real thing worth talking about.
Help me out here. "Talking about" being a U.S. citizen to what end? So you can clarify what you "deserve"? So you can get something at someone else's expense in the short-term? Sounds like an entitlement-type approach. I thought you guys were against those. There is no mainstream economic theory that I've seen that says kicking people out of the country is going to create more wealth, quite the opposite. But, hey, I'm sure when you need to go to a doctor, you must choose to go to a voodoo priest instead.
Anyway, the wages for "disadvantaged minorities" (certainly not all minorities) in the US have been doing very poorly too. Trump's cheap labor argument counts strongly for diverse groups of Americans. The rich are trying to avoid paying a good wage to middle class people.
Until the middle class has to pay higher for everything and then where's that going to leave them? That was standard Democratic Party ideology for decades.
Wasn't Trump's campaign song "You Can't Always Get What You Want"?
But private sector workers should be as low paid as possible. That's been our policy for 30 years.
Which party decimated unions again? And what was their rationale for doing so?
Unfortunately, for the misanthropic rich, that policy is not politically sustainable.
Trump is definitely not a "misanthropic rich"--he has a great reputation for always supporting the "little guy," right?
I would be happy to get a lower return on stocks if it meant the median real wage of US workers went up. It's only money. I don't have the disease that tells me I always need more money. I'd rather see the country do better.
A lot of cities are doing worse than they were in the 1970s-80s. And it's NOT because of human capital/talent. Human nature is very stable over decades.
If you want to see American cities collapse again, let's force millions of people out, and, with that tax revenue and, you know as well as I do, not U.S. government budget. So who do you think will end up paying for it? The fact that you think America will "do better" because of it is nuts. Point to a single example of a long-term protectionist economy that "does better" than the U.S. is doing now, please.
The US policy changed in favor of global stockholders over US workers... it was intentional... not a secret.
And why might I ask? Some sort of globalist elitist conspiracy?
You definitely are "Flighty."
If any of the above ideology takes hold and doesn't work out, I wish that we can enact a surtax so that a chosen few can pay the bill.