Trump the destroyer could herald an unintended revolution: Don Pittis Lower taxes for the rich, renegotiated trade, a shakeup at the central bank — if a victorious Donald Trump makes his policy a reality, the result may be a more radical change than his supporters ever dreamed.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
It showed that a growing trend toward inequality means a large majority, an astounding 57 per cent, fear that we are heading for a period of "class conflicts" if things don't change.
"I take it with a grain of salt but I also think it's a really important indicator of just how concerned and upset the public increasingly are," said Graves in a phone interview.
In a book coming out next week, Graves says there are solutions, but the changes he proposes to create greater equality and "a shared prosperity" are not Trump's. He says inequality, which is even worse in the U.S., needs something more like the New Deal, the Depression-era reforms that helped restart the postwar North American economy.
"This was not a matter of tinkering," says Graves. "This was a matter of dramatic, bold reform."
While Trump's own reforms purport to make America great again, the short-term effect, making the rich richer through tax cuts, pulling the rug out from under international trade, sending global currency markets into confusion, could exacerbate a growing sense of class conflict.
Despite calls for bold reform by people like Graves, history shows that making changes in wealth distribution has been difficult, usually requiring a major crisis.
By precipitating such a crisis with untried radical reforms, a victorious Trump could be the catalyst for even greater change.
That always turns out well.
"Redistributing wealth" means stealing it and then putting in the trustworthy hands of government officials like Hillary Clinton.
That always turns out well.
Democrats have already had 8 years of 'redistributing', look at the mess.
The solution is not more Communism.
If the US really wanted substantive change, they'd vote for or write in a candidate not from the choices the two parties offer. Bernie. Ralph Nader. Harambe the Gorilla. Anyone else!
Should Trump become POTUS, we can drop the T & U from the acronym.
I'm actually leaning toward Trump now. I mean, he's still the worst candidate. But there would be a certain "WTF" factor immediately after the election, and then a daily enema of "you got exactly what you wished for" after that.
Should Trump become POTUS, we can drop the T & U from the acronym.
I'm actually leaning toward Trump now. I mean, he's still the worst candidate. But there would be a certain "WTF" factor immediately after the election, and then a daily enema of "you got exactly what you wished for" after that.
Yep, there'd be a certain satisfaction. But also as the article says, it could bring unintended consequences that finally get people pissed enough for real change to the system. With Hilary things would just keep dragging on. The whole global economy is in patch mode, trying to apply patch after patch hoping things will turn around. Instead it may be better to just tear off the patches, let it bleed and hope something better comes out of it. Of course it's just as likely that something worse comes out of it.
Should Trump become POTUS, we can drop the T & U from the acronym.
I'm actually leaning toward Trump now. I mean, he's still the worst candidate. But there would be a certain "WTF" factor immediately after the election, and then a daily enema of "you got exactly what you wished for" after that.
Or he could end up being the best President we've had since Reagan. I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.
Maybe.
Or he could end up being the best President we've had since Reagan. I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.
Maybe.
Why "since Reagan"? You've already had 3 presidents better than Reagan since Reagan.
Or he could end up being the best President we've had since Reagan. I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.
Maybe.
False premise: that Reagan was a good president. You've already had 3 presidents better than Reagan since Reagan.
Actually, my dog...a Shih Tzu, if it had been alive at the time would have made a better Pres. than Raygun!
"Redistributing wealth" means stealing it and then putting in the trustworthy hands of government officials like Hillary Clinton.
That always turns out well.
Democrats have already had 8 years of 'redistributing', look at the mess.
Yes Look at the mess
Look at the Communism
Do you even know what the word communism means?
I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.
Maybe.
He could become the heralder of change that's needed. I don't know. It could happen.
To me, he's the same born-with-a-silver-spoon trust fund rich boy that got the state of Presidential politics to where it is today. All I see is someone who flings insults around, and doesn't seem to have much of an actual plan to identify let alone change the things that people actually care about. He like to use 'win' and 'winning' a lot in speeches, but I don't see how this 'winning' is to become. Or even, "win" . . . at what? I notice too, in his speeches, that as I start to ask questions like that - he changes the thought process. I think you posted an article by Scott Adams on what he's doing there - manufacturing consent?
I hope that he'd (or whoever) becomes the change needed, but I'm not going to bet on it. I think getting someone from outside the system, someone who is not part of the 'old boys' club that is needed to obtain that office is elected. But that's the problem, is in a two party system you have to be part of the club in order to attain that nomination. And the people that put you there expect somethign in return.