Hacker News Reader

Comment by alchemist1e9 | Hacker News Reader

> I don't understand any other way they vote someone in who has demonstrated time and again he'll work against their own interests.

Isn’t it possible that the educated elite are incorrectly perceiving what is in the interests of the “uneducated and poor”?

Perhaps it’s possible they have a different utility function and set of preferences than the elites perceive?

It’s aways funny when the left who claim to “save democracy” go from 0-60 in a split second toward totalitarianism when they have decided the masses simply aren’t educated enough and don’t know what they need.

As a final point, since this is HN, would you mind sharing some examples of what Trump has done or policies he has that are “against their own interests”?

View on HN

Here I'll bite:

Didn't fill existing positions for monitoring pandemic diseases arising in China that were put in place by Bush then strengthened by Obama, allowing for a slower response to what would become covid[1].

Huge corporate tax cuts that lead to stock buy backs, which enriched the wealthy while doing little to nothing below (buying stocks back and raising stock value generally does not help the average/low income individual beyond maybe their 401k).[2]

[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/how-whi...

[2] For just the tax information later, there are plenty of articles about stock buybacks at that time if you don't trust the org. https://itep.org/one-legacy-of-the-trump-tax-law-big-tax-bre...

Which part of the republican plan is in the best interests of the uneducated and poor?

Restricting immigration.

https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/ris...

Except even that isn't in the best interest of anyone. Immigrants increase the health of the economy, even for the working class.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/immigrants-contribute-greatly-...

https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/b...

It's possible for immigrants to both increase the health of the economy in the medium to long term and to cause localized economic pain in the short term. For those living paycheque to paycheque it's the short term that matters because they don't have the luxury to wait for the longer term effects to play out.

I say this kindly, you must have never worked a labor-intensive job and watched your friends(co-workers) get laid off for cheaper labor.

This happens regardless. Either the factories go to different countries or the cheaper labor is imported. There's not really a way to prevent this.

Hmm, tariffs and closed borders might.

I am not saying I endorse either thing, just answering your "not possible" claim. Most things are possible, few things are not.

Closing border, halting illegal immigration, mass deportations - these are massively net positive for US citizens who are uneducated and poor. Migrates are competing with them for jobs, housing, social services, all resources.

Lowering taxes especially payroll and corporate and overtime taxes has a massive benefit to them. Lower income tax rates are actually very high once it’s understood that any tax or regulatory cost that is a head tax is a tax on them - “employer taxes” is a fairy tale economically, all taxes are on the employees if they aren’t paid if you are fired, if they are still paid then they are on investors/shareholders/capital and those are also negative for growth and employment.

Ending forever wars will allow shifting of budget priorities. A reduction of just 10-15% of defense and intelligence budgets and cutting funding to Israel and Ukraine can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.

The list goes on …

Better question is what policies did Harris propose that help the uneducated and poor?

> Closing border, halting illegal immigration, mass deportations - these are massively net positive for US citizens who are uneducated and poor. Migrates are competing with them for jobs, housing, social services, all resources.

If that was really the case how come you just elected the very same guy who killed the border deal?

> Ending forever wars will allow shifting of budget priorities. A reduction of just 10-15% of defense and intelligence budgets and cutting funding to Israel and Ukraine can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.

There is no "funding to Israel and Ukraine". For Ukraine there's transfer of outdated weapon systems reaching the end of life and already obsolete, which in turn is creating jobs in the US to restock and replenish the US's arsenal. If anything, you're seeing money go into the US defense industry which ends up being the US's take on welfare and social security program with all the pork programs.

Whoever fooled you into believing people are handing over cash to Ukraine, fooled you very well.

The border deal provided amnesty that is clearly NOT in the interests of uneducated and poor citizens.

> The border deal provided amnesty that is clearly NOT in the interests of uneducated and poor citizens.

You should inform yourself about the bipartisan border bill that Trump killed at the last moment. The "amnesty" thing only exists as a propaganda talking point. The bill tightened up requirements for asylum and imposed automatic deportation rules.

There is a link in this thread that I'll never find that refutes your point. It quotes the bill even.

> There is a link in this thread that I'll never find that refutes your point. It quotes the bill even.

There isn't. Go read the bill.

Hell, the bill was co-authored by republicans, and even approved by some republicans after Trump told them to sit.

Who falls for this bullshit talking point?

I tried to find it, maybe it was another thread.

In any event, I'm not saying I agree with trump that the bill should have been squashed. It just had a lot of provisions and exceptions that one could take umbrage with, if read impartially, which right now probably is a bit too tricky for half the country.

I didn't vote for the guy, I don't like the guy. I find it to be a fascinating mental exercise to hold two opposing ideas in my head without accepting or denying either. I think someone smart said that once, long time ago.

Emotion clouds judgement.

> can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.

It can also pay for unicorns and rainbows, what makes you believe "paying for childcare" has ever been a part of Trump/Republican agenda?

Immigration is a net good. Even if there's now suddenly a bunch of unskilled labor vacancies, what makes you think American workers even want those jobs in the first place? What makes you think those companies can afford American workers? People aren't out of a job because some immigrant took theirs. We know this through hard data, not vibes.

We don't need to cut foreign military aid to fund childcare in the US. Reforming entitlements would get us there with more leeway and without ripping the rug out from under our allies.

Lowering taxes is a good thing, and that's about the only area you would find me in agreement upon.

how poor is poor then? 44k is at 12% for taxes.

I would say it was the part where Elon Musk was giving out a million dollars a day . . .

0-60 in a split second toward totalitarianism? Care to give an example of that, or just throwing stuff against the wall?

I'll give a policy example against the average person's interests -- his 20% tarrifs across the board will cause approximately 20% inflation and a trade war that will ruin our export markets just like it did the first time. Trump brags about giving billions to farmers because he had to after his policies decimated their markets.

The comment I replied to has an undertone that the masses don’t know how to evaluate what is in their interests. I can guarantee terms like “failure of democracy” will start being used by democrats if they haven’t been already today. All totalitarianism is horrible and it comes from both right and left sides, however the left is very often the source of it, and the logic to justify that is often much like the comment I was responding too - “for their own good”.

Regarding tariffs this is a complex issue and he has said repeatedly that it’s a negotiation tool. The records reflects that in he expanded US overseas market access with heavy handed negotiations. Most countries are much more protectionist than the US.

Industrial farming with massive soybean exports to China, who can’t even produce 50% of the calories their population needs domestically, is again a very complicated topic.

China is not in good shape and Trump’s first term was a clear inflection point in their trajectory.

> China is not in good shape and Trump’s first term was a clear inflection point in their trajectory.

So you believe it had nothing to do with a global pandemic and propping up their real estate markets until they popped?

No I never said that but Trump’s policies were certainly also a factor.

I think their own failed fiscal policy and the pandemic had so much more to do with it than anything Trump did it's not even comparable. I guess we will see how he and his policies do over next 4 years.

Agreed on the tariffs. It's a significant concern if all the tariffs get implemented. However, I doubt it will happen due to political opposition from both Republicans and Democrats as well as legal concerns.

The US president has limited authority to unilaterally implement tariffs. He would have to claim national security concerns or retaliation to unfair trade practices from other countries. Trump previously imposed tariffs on China due to (well documenented) unfair trade practices. Biden then extended the China tariffs. But Trump would be legally challenged and most certainly lose if he claimed unfair trade practices by every country on earth.

Here's a good video explaining the problems with tariffs. They have lots of unpredictable long term outcomes and are hard to remove once implemented. Apparently there's still a chicken and truck tax on trade between US and Europe that dates back to WWII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eHOSq3oqI

Reply on news.ycombinator.com