2016 March 12 Saturday
Trump Opponents Trapped By Delusions Of Donor Class

Reihan Salam gets this part right.

Having recognized this chasm separating the Republican donor class from the grassroots, Trump has exploited it brilliantly. He has defended entitlement programs, and he has bashed bankers. He has defied the elite consensus on trade and immigration. He is channeling the Republican id, and in doing so he may have already dashed conservative hopes of winning the White House. Why canít his GOP opponents convince Republican voters that they would do a far better job than Trump of defending middle-class economic interests? The answer is that they are trapped by the delusions of the donor class, and they canít break free.

In a nation where median household income peaked in the 1990s it is hard to argue that the elite consensus is good for the middle class.

If I was king I would require companies to pay immigrants a minimum of $100k per year. This would eliminate all the low skilled immigrants and those who are net burdens on society. It would greatly raise the skill level of the average immigrant as well. The number of immigrants would fall by at least an order of magnitude.

As king I would also deport all criminal immigrants, legal or illegal. I would also deport all illegal aliens.

I am amazed at the turn of events in this election cycle. The base in the Republican party is in rebellion. The MSM is in full fury trying to delegitimize them and trying not to yield an inch of their narrative. The billionaires don't want to accept that their right to buy the political system should in any way be limited by the views of mere citizens and voters. I am not excited by this yet because I think the establishment could still win and continue on their merry way in full contempt for Americans.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2016 March 12 02:41 PM 


Comments
James Bowery said at March 12, 2016 10:49 PM:

What would inflation-adjusted family income look like over the last 50 years if inflation had been indexed to the cost of replacement reproduction to take into account the bidding war for young women that erupted between the economy (with its "careers" requiring birth control) and the family (requiring mothers)? What kind of tax on the economy would be necessary and appropriate in order to subsidize the family in this bidding war to prevent the population from collapsing -- and therefore requiring wholesale replacement of the population via immigration from patriarchal societies?

More to the point, why is it up to guys like me to point stuff like this out?

Brett Bellmore said at March 13, 2016 9:54 AM:

At this point it certainly looks like Trump is going to get the nomination. I wouldn't dismiss his chances in the general election, either. Defeating expectations in the primaries doesn't support the validity of expectations in the general election; You have to figure that, when he turns those same skills to the general election, he'll get comparable results.

The political establishment has been successfully, for many years, suppressing majority opinion on a number of topics. They're losing that capacity, and haven't accepted that yet. Trump is riding the wave of collapsing preference falsification. He recognized what the establishment hasn't admitted yet: That they no longer control what can be said.

Now, it's entirely possible that Trump is being very cynical in doing this, and if elected, will turn out to be just another bait and switch player. If this is the case, look for a real, violent revolution in the US. You don't get revolution out of despair. You get revolution out of hope betrayed. Trump has given a lot of people hope, if he betrays that, things will get ugly fast.

Brett Bellmore said at March 13, 2016 9:57 AM:

By the way, are you running this site out of your home computer? If it's professionally hosted, you're getting cheated. It's amazing how slow your site runs lately. It takes anywhere up to 30 seconds to a minute for the site to accept a comment.

Seth W. said at March 15, 2016 2:56 PM:

What's with you Check it out. Why don't you say something useful? Why are you so angry with life?

K.T.Kendrick said at March 15, 2016 9:03 PM:

Trump has stated that if he is elected president he will send illegals back to their home country.That is a bad idea.They will only trample back across the border.What he should do is send them to Rwanda.There is a dictator there.You give him A billion dollars he'll do anything you want.The prospect of being shipped of to Rwanda will have a chilling effect on future illegals.

WJ said at March 16, 2016 8:16 PM:

"If I was king I would require companies to pay immigrants a minimum of $100k per year. This would eliminate all the low skilled immigrants and those who are net burdens on society."

While I totally get the point of requiring employers to pay immigrants higher wages, it seems a somewhat naive approach. In theory it will restrict companies to importing only immigrants whose skills are genuinely in need. In reality it will work something like this: "Hey, would be immigrant to America, I gotta great job offer for you! It pay $100,000 a year in real American dollar. It can all be yours for a reasonable finder's fee of $50,000 a year! Great deal, you take now!"

Since most of the employers of H-1B immigrants are actually body shops, they'll have no problem ensuring that a big chunk of the "salaries" of their H-1B's wind up right back in their own bank accounts. You can be sure of it.

If you want companies to actually feel the cost of their H-1Bs you need to make sure the entire fee goes into the pockets of the federal government. On top of requiring reasonable pay of $60k per year, sell each H-1B visa for $40k per year, and allow the H-1B holder to switch employers at will (new employers would have to buy out the H-1B contract, of course).

Seth W. said at March 17, 2016 3:37 PM:

The ultra-right radical has withdrawn from the contest. However, we still have the religious fanatic and the nazi billionaire.

I'm not voting.

Jim said at March 18, 2016 4:58 AM:

Seth W. - There are certainly valid criticisms of Trump's views and also considerable confusion as to what they exactly are. But describing him as a "nazi" is just plain silly.

Brett Bellmore said at March 21, 2016 5:13 AM:

No, there's precedent for it. Going back through the records, it turns out Democrats have called every Republican nominee going back decades a "Hitler". Even Wendell Willkie got compared to Hitler.

The only reason it didn't go back further, I guess, is that you had to have heard of Hitler to call somebody one.

The irony of it, of course, is that in terms of economics, the Democrats are fascists. Look at the ACA: The health insurance companies remain nominally private, but are regulated to the point where they become de facto extensions of the government. That's the fascist approach to economics in a nutshell.

Tim Minchin said at March 21, 2016 5:54 PM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCojZQ-L0ZY

Randall Parker said at March 21, 2016 10:44 PM:

Hey Checker,

I deleted your most recent insult post. I've told you before: Act more polite and civilized or I'll just keep deleting your posts.

Oh, and unlike you I'm not posting using multiple pseudonyms, your false claim to the contrary.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©