Not even producer, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER. Which basically is a credit for him be a co-creator of the show and perhaps providing money to make the show at some point. This is akin to saying Ronald Reagan should have had all his movie credits removed when he became president.
There are plenty of things to be outraged about Trump, this is a really stupid one.
Okay, so I can actually field this one. For Trump's policies to work, he must take the following axioms:
1) American workers are underemployed or are unemployed.
2) For some reason or another these un/underemployed workers are not counted in the unemployment data.
3) The only reason American workers are not fully employed is due to trade intervention on behalf of China, Mexico, Germany, and Japan (there are others but those are kind of the Big Four)
By adopting policies which essentially subsidize native industrial production in the US instead of the current stance of outsourcing, Trump is attempting to get American workers who are basically invisible to the system, back into the system. To do this, he's going to harm the workforce a little bit: Unions are going to be made less good, minimum wage laws might get ratcheted down a notch, etc. If successful, the gain from putting more households back into employment (and thus taxable income) will outweigh the loss of labor protections and whatever else goes on. If the gamble doesn't pay off, the opposite will occur.
Trade intervention and slapping outsourced products with tariffs isn't trickle-down economics in any meaningful way, though. In fact it's somewhat the opposite.
Your squirming about how your spite vote wasn't out of spite (not evolved into non-maliciousness) is just pathetic. Stop and don't embarrass yourself further.
Well, maybe or maybe not. There are definitely arguments to be made about American unemployment stats not fully reflecting the workerbase, and it's basically a given that countries with a large vested interest in exporting to the US intervene in trade through currency revaluations relative to the USD. Trump might tunnel-vision on China (the worst offender in absolute terms) but many countries in the world do it to some extent or another.
I have no clue why you're limping me with you. And thanks Obama? Congress was either split or GOP dominated during Obama's tenure and these laws were in their control. And part time jobs with no coverage, even if you managed to put them entirely on Democrat's hands, is still not as bad as things like trying to remove minimum wage or introducing trickle down economics which only works if you phrase it in context of the entire economy trickling down the drain.
Unions if left unchecked can be just as corrupt as corporations. Without knowing much about the Scandinavian unions, I'm wonder if they are simply less corrupt?
For example in the US, unions have often excluded minorities. They employ practices where their newest members do the vast bulk of difficult work, but at the same time if layoffs happen, these newest members are the only ones on the chopping block. Older members are often put in positions where they do little to no work. In cases where a company cannot sustain the budget created by a union, the union will often opt to have it's youngest workers laid off as opposed to the older members taking pay cuts, even when the older member are getting paid absurd rates.
My dad for example was in a union, no joke he'd go to work for about 2 hours, come home, and sleep, and get paid for 8 hour days. As a kid I remember all sorts of stories about guys showing up to work drunk, doing dangerous things (one guy drove a golf cart up an escalator lol), you could essentially get away with a lot of things without getting fired.
Just some of the problems, I'm not saying that unions are all bad - without them many workers would have a lot less rights, and as I mentioned, corporations can be extremely brutal too. There's no easy solution here but unions can be dangerous and that's why a lot of people have an issue with them.
Ive yet to see ANY system that in practice doesnt make the rich richer and screw the poor.
The thing with capitalism though is that it rewards the intelligent hard workers, whilst socialism punishes them.
Lesser of two evils for non-lazy people is definately capitalism.
Lesser of two evils for lazy people is socialism.
Im not lazy and work very, very hard.
Freeloaders dont deserve a penny of my work ethic and the Left just hands it to them on a plate.
No thanks.
If you aren't a Socialist by age 20, you have no heart. If you are still a Socialist by age 40, you have no head.The Left MUST appeal to the low paid white working class male if they want to regain ground. Rejecting them and castrating them in favour of a cheaper immigrant worker has backfired spectacularly.
Obamacare is more affordable than what it replaced. And you do realize the only reason Obamacare is in the state it is is because democrats needed to reach a compromise with GOP, right? The actual solutions they wanted to introduce were much better. And if anyone in US is guilty of creating ISIS it's Bush. You know, the guy responsible for starting an illegal war of aggression under deliberately false pretenses that destabilized the region and created a power vacuum for things like ISIS to fester in.
Obamacare is more affordable than what it replaced because it taxes people who weren't paying anything before, mostly poor-or-middle-income people, at that. It represented a handout to both the government and insurance companies, which should've managed to infuriate both the GOP and Democrat base but somehow the Dems just can't stay mad at Obama.
I do get that he wants to invest heavily into infrastructure and subsidize home-grown products. But since this is, at least in the short term, reducing the tax income from low-income workers while also reducing the taxation on the rich and companies, I am not quite sure where exactly that money is coming from. And it hinders America's ability to adapt to changes in global supply and demand; full subsidiaries are not truly sustainable. I'd rather have him invest in state-sponsored re-training programs and education that artificially keep non-competitive businesses afloat. His stance on coal exemplifies that really well in my opinion.
To be honest though, and I remarked this elsewhere too, I think it is too soon to truly talk about his economic policies. So far, he said a lot of stuff, but he has already gone back on a lot of stuff. He is going to take office soon and then he will implement things which may or may not be similar to what we think right now.