Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#281

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

pfraze wrote: post #229

stcredzero wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the term "clean coal" can be bandied about with a straight face says something about the state of science education of the general public. (Pretty much the same knowledge needed to instantly realize that various wind/solar operated water-from-air devices and Solar Freakin Roadways aren't viable from back of the envelope calcs.)

Coal mining and related production is a large employer. It's about propping up small coal-towns.

Put out of work coal miners on social security early at their full benefit and fund it with a carbon tax. This doesn't even need to be a carbon tax; simply a transfer from the general fund.

The average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year. 174,000 coal workers in the US @ $31,668k/year (the max SS benefit permitted) = $5.5 billion/year. This is not expensive, nor in perpetuity, only the years from now until they would've hit their full retirement age regardless, not to mention the cost savings from drug addiction and other social negatives currently occurring from the industry collapsing (please, please, please take the 2 minutes to read this footnote) [1].

People should not be harmed by our transition to renewables, and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy.

This is not unprecedented. The shipping industry used redundancy payments to transition longshoremen out of the workforce when containerization exploded, funded by profits from the efficiency gains of containerization. I'm simply arguing for the formalization of the process, and administration through the Social Security Administration (one of the most efficient orgs in the US government).

To be clear: I am essentially advocating a bridge basic income for these workers. Not subsidies, not incentives. You quit your job at the coal mine or coal generator today, and you're retired from the coal industry.

EDIT: @derekdahmer & @ArkyBeagle: I'm not requiring someone to retire if they don't want to. I'm simply ensuring they don't fall into poverty. What more can be done when your job is destroying the environment? Allow it to continue? That is unacceptable. I'm not proposing welfare, I'm proposing financial freedom to explore other options to find purpose and self actualize.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/07/us/drug-overdo...

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#282

Post by nkw » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

jhpriestley wrote: post #251

nkw wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/…

These regulations seem completely reasonable. Several are protecting government-related insignia such as the postal uniform, and presumably serve a similar purpose to trademark law. Then you have a ban on transporting an invasive species (water hyacinth), restriction on the mailing of tobacco (often mailed to avoid taxes or tariffs), a ban on unregistered submarines (this isn't some ridiculous idea, drug smugglers ha…

Some background on the water hyacinth [1]. You might have a point there. Mailing of tobacco? It is already illegal to avoid taxes and tariffs on tobacco. Why ban mailing it as well? Similarly, it is also illegal to smuggle drugs, why does the fact that someone may have done so with a submarine mean that "unregistered submarines" should be banned?

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#283

Post by novia » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #181

This is actually pretty good and what I was expecting of him once he got to stop the smear campaigns that are U.S. elections. Now, let me cross-reference a few that might be good against what he's said or done in the past where I think he might try to make them happen with a possibility they will. 1. Renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. I opposed both as they were mainly just for the richest to get richer moving jobs & playing…

Yeah, you get child and elder care if you make enough money to owe enough taxes to cover those bills. Poor? Working minimum wage? Sorry, I guess your kid gets to stay at home with gramma to kill two birds with one stone.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#284

Post by Angostura » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #181

This is actually pretty good and what I was expecting of him once he got to stop the smear campaigns that are U.S. elections. Now, let me cross-reference a few that might be good against what he's said or done in the past where I think he might try to make them happen with a possibility they will. 1. Renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. I opposed both as they were mainly just for the richest to get richer moving jobs & playing…

> I have doubts climate change strategies will work at all given how they're partial with lots of noncompliance. Meanwhile, those infrastructure aren't getting much support. Lesser of two evils.

Sorry, but once the worst effects of climate change kick in, your infrastructure won't last terribly long at all.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#285

Post by rocqua » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #43

Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying. Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. The scariest things for me are the backing out of cli…

It's quite feasible, because it is very difficult to distinguish 'a regulation' from 'many regulations'.

Sadly, that quickly leads to huge compendiums of regulations covering a lot rather than neatly organized reasonably scoped regulations.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#286

Post by threeseed » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #124

qaq wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? Russia's economy is the size of NYC so that is even stranger point especially given Trumps position on " I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal"

> Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? China's actively seeking trade deals all over the world. The US taking a strongly antitrade position could improve their relative position. The devil is really in the details, though.

Actively is putting it lightly. They are aggressively seeking trade deals and investment opportunities. Especially since they use those to further their foreign policy aims.

The geopolitical implications of Trump's isolationist position is going to be significant.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#287

Post by Zpalmtree » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:14 PM UTC

yolesaber wrote: post #230

davemel37 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't make sense to demand that Mexico pay for it. It's like building a wall on your property and demanding your neighbors pay for it. When buying a house, wouldnt you try to negotiate for seller concessions like paying for repairs? Trumps wall comments were always in conjunction with discussing the massive trade deficit with Mexico. If we are in a stronger position to negotiate with Mexico, why wouldnt we neg…

>If you really think about it. We only need this wall because of Mexico, so why should we pay if we dont have to? If you really think about it, we don't need the wall at all because people will just dig holes underneath it, like they have with all the other walls and fencing we have built. 1,954 miles is a long way to go - https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/best-of-luck-with-the-wa...

Israel built a 245 mile wall. Illegal immigration dropped from 9570 to 34 over the same time period.

Obviously it won't be foolproof, but that's pretty good.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#288

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:14 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #238

cyberferret wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? Will he step down? Come up with yet another plan? Contracts usually stipulate this as well. [Edit: And the downvote brigade strikes - for merely asking a genuine question. I guess this is an indication of the sort of thing that we can expect 'top down' from now on... Stay silent, never question, just obey the mandates... sigh]…

In France Hollande have been moving goal posts every time these 'N days' plans failed. He's now thinking about a second mandate. Out of curiosity, in this era of disruption (for better or worse) where are the plans to disrupt politicians ? So many flaws yet we keep believing in the same democratic design every election.

> So many flaws yet we keep believing in the same democratic design every election.

There are two ways of changing the fundamental issues in a constitution: 1) violent revolution, 2) changes getting done in democratic process.

1) obviously works, but rarely (you need a LOT of support in the population in order to stage a coup).

2) I am afraid to say doesn't really work in America (or for that matter any major nation) any more. You have too many people who need the system to be "stable" for personal gain (reelections, in some cases continuing a supply of corruption money like with the private prison scandal, ...). You simply cannot fix issues like gerrymandering because it's too entrenched.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#289

Post by ThrustVectoring » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #118

dragthor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes. - Yes. Too many regulations by unelected bureaucrats. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have one clear and meaningful regulation than two "up for random interpretation." - Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do…

> Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. Tax cuts are all well and good in a vacuum, but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels? Some people say we can cut all of this govern…

>how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt

We don't want to pay down the national debt. Each treasury note is a promise to provide the holder with real goods and services later, and we need to make those promises to our aging citizenry. We do this in part with the intra-governmental debt that the Social Security Trust Fund holds. Regular citizens also save for retirement, and they hold and demand Treasury bonds as well.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#290

Post by rdtsc » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #207

dmfdmf wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You beat me to it. Indeed, it was a Dunning-Kruger election but not in the way that the OP meant it. Also, following on your second point, if the Dems are so smart how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate. We'll never know but I think its likely Sanders would have won versus Trump.

> how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate All of the people positions of power in the DNC were pro-Hillary. That's why they were blinded. Their mind was made up before the election cycle even started.

> > how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate

> All of the people positions of power in the DNC were pro-Hillary. That's why they were blinded.

Running a campaign vs running a country is very different, no doubt. But many will make a case there. She has dropped the ball on the election, besides other list of things vs someone won against all odds (CNN projecting less than 1% odds of winning).

The interesting thing is much as people like to say Trump is stupid, anti-intellectual, just a TV personality, somehow he had intuition to poll in the right states at the right time, to understand what people want and respond do. All that while the both the Republicans, and Democrats, the media, the DOJ and POTUS where against him.

Taking everything away and just comparing based on those things, it is possible to draw some conclusions perhaps.