TGHusker

and why I could not vote for him - Kasich/Rubio (or Rand Paul/Rubio - or even Jeb - not that I want another Bush but hey...) sure would sound good today or I could take some Dems not named Hillary - I know they would at least know how to govern. ++++ I dare say, that Hillary would be better. At least she has a head on shoulder that knows how to govern - --- Did HELL JUST FREEZE OVER??

I have not been on this thread for some time. But in reading all of the above, I've come to this conclusion............. .................................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................We have a lunatic for a president Let me repeat it again so you can really hear me: We have a lunatic for a president!!! Regardless of what good his administration may accomplish over time, it will be by others and in spite of him. Like the Commerce and Ag secretaries talking sense by appealing to his ego (the voters who will be affected)- backing him away from the "drop out of NAFTA cliff" the other day.

What a disaster.

Agree with ^^^^ - He's gotten what he wanted out of the job already, - governing is work - He'd rather play. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he doesn't run in 2020 but he may keep that campaign office open for his daughter to step into the role or her husband - I think they pretty much are calling the shots anyway.

The Okla Cornhusker Club sponsored a BQ once - part of a golf fundraiser with players from NU, OU and others - ate with and talked to Tommie Frazier, Doug Dubose, Jammie Williams, Mike Rozier, Jeff Kinney, Johnnie Rogers, Brandon Sti, Got great pics that I'll cherish. Nothing like doing the Heisman pose with Johnnie The Jet Rogers.

Everyone - what is in your opinion the best way to stream video's - get movies, TV shows onto my TV? - I'm on DSL in my local for the internet. It has some issues. We still get Netflex via the mail and I want to jump into this century. So how would you suggest I go forward without breaking the bank. I'm not a techno wiz by any means. I'll get my son to help me. Thanks

A Trump win. ---- ok just kidding - I wanted someone else to win - not Hillary either. As a teenager - making a lot of money bailing hay. How does stacking hay for $2/hr in a 100 degree barn sound?

I think if you go issue by issue, there isn't as much disagreement between individual voters as it's made out to be in the press and the parties. Abortion is always going to be an issue that polarizes people, but I think most other issues we can find some common ground even between the far left and right. I agree with this. As I have said often - we are all trying to find answers to problems and provide the solutions. We often just have a different path to the solution - most issues are not 'good vs evil' but 'good vs better'. The press and extremes have made it good vs evil.

Yes, I do discuss that. I also tell them, if possible, try to get a position in one of their companies overseas offices so that they can immerse themselves in another culture. It will be one of the best things they can do for their career. For me, my company is full of diverse culture - We are owned my a Mexican corp, wt a German name, based in Tulsa. I once had a meeting in the conference room with 13 individuals - 8 different countries were represented in that conf room. Culture is a big portion of my class - you can have all of the business skills in the world but if you mess up with a cultural slip of the tongue or hand gesture - you might blow the deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs&feature=em-subs_digest Another Prager U video to promote discussion. Dennis Prager asks and tries to answer the question: Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism? Think about it - why do people bring up the 'Hitler' card in arguments and not the Stalin, Mao, Lenin card? I haven't thought about this before - but Mr Prager has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

Yes, Anheuser Busch in another one we discussed in class. I had a fun quiz I used in class - listing 25 companies and the students had to name the USA owned companies - all well know companies. Best guess were 50% were USA owned when in actuality all 25 for foreign owned. Think of these companies below. Our 1st thought is American. But all have foreign ownership. Trader Joes Firestone Colombia Pictures RCA Random House Bic pens Miller Beer Wilson Sporting Goods Beringer Winery 7-11

No cable in our house for many years. Don't miss it - big waste of time and money. Someday we might be saying the same thing about all social networking - digitally disconnecting. Then maybe real communication will return again.

An American Life - Ronald Reagan's autobiography. Very enjoyable read with all of the stories told with the Reagan humor. I think liberals would like it also! He talks a lot about his upbringing, his family, how he got into politics, and his the importance of his faith. Starts with his birth and goes through his transition from being a Dem to a Repub (although he would not identify with the current class of Republicans - regardless how they try to claim his mantle) and covers his fight against communism (starting during his acting days) and also his desire to reduce the # of nukes.

Maybe they will arm wrestle over who gets the better subscription rate.

Exchange hair stylists numbers. https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+trump+with+kim's+haircut&tbm=isch&imgil=0RikL1YkINICwM%253A%253B6vA8_Btn054f9M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fpatriotvideos.net%25252Fthis-is-why-kim-jong-un-endorsed-trump-it-wasnt-the-hair%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=0RikL1YkINICwM%253A%252C6vA8_Btn054f9M%252C_&usg=__ufjTY8XTYhCo_PJ4HGqlc0plJm8%3D&biw=1920&bih=844&ved=0ahUKEwjkodybuM_TAhVB-2MKHXidCkAQyjcIQA&ei=zY0HWaSHB8H2jwP4uqqABA#imgrc=wM5I6QrKEQ-S4M:&spf=205 I couldn't get the pics to post - Trump and Kim with each other's hair

Well, this subject of Nationalists and Globalists is such a relatively knew subject at this level of debate that I'm sure there are lots of different definitions. My assumption is that the people that throw these terms around don't even know exactly what it all means. My view is that a Nationalistic trade policy would be one that is protectionist towards our industries. For instance, Brazil has (I think still) a policy where if you want to import products that compete with a major industry in Brazil, there is a very heavy tariff on your products so the domestic industry has the upper hand. I actually know a company that was banned from importing products into Brazil because they were somehow getting around the tariffs. That all sounds wonderful doesn't it? We are protecting American jobs. We are keeping jobs here. What people don't think about (like Trump in the campaign) is that each industry doesn't work within a vacuum. OK...you don't want cars produced in Mexico so you are going to put a big tariff on auto parts coming in from Mexico. Sounds good right? Problem is, then Mexico turns around and does the same thing to our agricultural products and our farmers suffer. To your point BRB - how many manufactured goods - from underwear to autos are 100% USA origin. Not many. To be competitive in today's world economy (even if you are just a domestic seller and you don't export), most companies source materials (cotton, or raw fabric for example for underwear) - One story I saw some time ago showed a clothing company (I believe T-shirts) were buying USA cotton, shipping it overseas to Vietnam, the cotton was made into fabric and then shirts, then shipped back to the USA to be finished and labeled. Even with the freight back and forth, it was less expensive for them to have the raw T-shirts made overseas and then finished in the USA - screen printing. I teach a Global Business class on the side and find it amazing also how many USA companies (those we think are USA) are actually owned by foreign interests. The one that breaks my heart is Ralston Purina. As a kid, I remember going to the town's grain elevator's office with my Dad and on tip toes looking over the counter and seeing the red checkered Ralston Purina sign. The company is now owned by the Swiss food giant - Nestle. An American made car doesn't exist - American assembled car yes - but the parts come from all over. Large tariffs would hurt our industry worse than any benefit protection hoped to gain. I think the key is improving quality, productivity, speed of service, and innovation and technology advancements to making us more competitive with lower cost providers from overseas. I'm all for us making sure the playing field is level but we aren't going to turn back the clock.

Knapp, I take it as establishing trade policies that maximize protection of nationally based businesses including agriculture. Tariffs, taxes, treaties all come into play. I see it more as relating to imports vs exports. Protecting our manufacturers against completion from incoming goods. Keep the other guys goods out and let our goods flow out as freely as possible. It sees Exports are Great - Imports as Bad. However, history has shown that taking this road (a nationalistic road of heavy tariffs, import taxes, etc) leads to retribution by the other countries - whose goods are taxed high entering into the USA. Our country's economy is now based on 'cheap goods' - & not just consumer goods (Walmart etc). Our company sources from the least expensive sources as possible and unfortunately only buying from USA manufactures only when "time' is important or if in our customer's specs. (We are an international manufacturing company). Personally when given a choice at a store, I try to buy USA when possible - my own personal 'tariff' to help the American worker. This is a good article that debates the affect of the Smoot Hawley tariff on or as the cause of the Great Depression. While I'm not an economist (and don't play one on TV ) I agree with the conclusion of the article. If Trump follows a heavy tariff policy that he promised during the campaign - against those who don't play well with us (China for example), I believe it will lead to a recession at best and with over inflated stock prices, a near depression at worse. This article was written in 2012 but is even more applicable today with Trump's stated campaign promises. https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-hawley-tariff-and-the-great-depression/ Final 2 paragraphs All of which brings us to today (2012 but even more applicable today). While “welfare-warfare” states throughout the world are running huge fiscal deficits, their central banks are recklessly monetizing massive quantities of debt (inflation). Extraordinary volatility now characterizes financial markets amidst a worsening sovereign debt crisis. Major financial institutions throughout the world hold mountainous portfolios of worthless assets that government policy has steered them into holding. Defaults threaten to destroy the world monetary systems in spite of all the short-run political machinations of prime ministers and central-bank leaders. And in these dangerous waters, what do we hear from the politicians, many already with their hands red? Trade protectionism! When political agents denounce China on trade and demand an appreciation of its currency, it is the functional equivalent of placing a tariff on each and every Chinese export. This type of protectionist saber-rattling risks igniting not only a destructive international trade war but also, with the economy in the aftermath of a colossal bubble and the world’s banker growing restless with its hoard of depreciating IOUs, vastly more damage than the world is prepared to handle. Have we learned nothing from the past?

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-meet-north-korea-kim/2017/05/01/id/787440/ Trump says he'd be willing to meet wt NK Kim if the circumstances were right. My or my - what would be the content of their conversation. (Let my son's build a resort there, and I'll insure you can stay in power)

Nationalism works fine if you can produce all or most of what you consume as a nation. Pre WW2 - we produced over 90% of what we consumed. But the world is a far different animal now. We are all tied to together for the economic benefit of all - the 'rising of all boats' . Unfortunately what creates 'winners' over there may create 'losers' here. Thus we have seen a wave of nationalistic movements sprout up. Great Brittan, our election (although it seems to be a head fake by the president during the campaign now), France is facing it in their election. Part of it is the movement of workers across the boarders and we see that in our country, the rising anti Muslim attitudes in Europe, etc. I'm OK wt Trump trying to level the playing field somewhat with better deals if he can make it happened, but it will be impossible to isolate ourselves in this world economy and community. The train named Globalism left the terminal many years ago and isn't returning to any ash heap of history. In fact history is really the story of globalism on the march.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-trump-nafta-map More on this topic. Trump was ready to terminate NAFTA - giddy to sign the paperwork after he heard of Wisc milk producers being hurt by Canadian rules. He says he was 'really ready and psyched to terminate Nafta' But the 2 leaders of Canada and Mexico politely asked to renegotiate and because 'I like them' he decided 12 hours later to renegotiate. Just so happens that the Commerce Sec and Ag Sec meet with him and showed him a map of the hardest hit states, just so happened to be the very states that turned the election to him, he changed his mind. The best way to persuade Trump is to be the last one in line to give your side of the argument. Or to appeal to his massive ego. If he likes you - you get what you want, as it appears he liked the Chinese leader who persuaded him not to call China a currency manipulator (I think he had Trump around his little finger- or maybe middle finger). Trump has no values to guide his political decisions - if he can change his mind this flippantly and this quickly on something this important - we are in for a long and potentially dangerous ride. Personally, I'm glad he didn't terminate NAFTA as he originally planned - that would have been a disaster. It appears the wiser heads (secs of commerce and ag) won the day.

David Stockman, Reagan's former budget chief, says Trump's tax plan: DOA Too many goodies not enough money to pay for it - a disaster in the making. http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/David-Stockman-Trump-Tax-Plan/2017/04/30/id/787314/ "It's a wonderful fantasy,” he said of Trump’s tax proposal. “But there's no way to pay for the $7.5 trillion cost of the main features," he contended. "I like [the tax plan] but you have to pay for it either with a new tax like the border adjustment tax, which is dead, or spending cuts which Trump has ruled off the table," Stockman explained. "What you have down there is a total fiscal calamity that is going to basically dominate Washington," said Stockman, who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981). Of Trump's first 100 days in office, Stockman again referred to the White House as a "pop up store giving out candy before the 100th day to say they've accomplished something." Adding, "this isn't a serious plan, it can't be done. And I think it's only indicative of the huge trouble that's brewing down there in the beltway," he said. "I don't know what the stock market is thinking but if they have faith in a giant fiscal stimulus and tax cut then it's a delusional faith that's going to be badly disappointed and I think fairly soon," he added.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147454324.html It will be interesting to see how Trump handles this. One of his big money supporters, Robert Mercer is in trouble with the IRS. Per the article, he was a big supporter of Trump and has called for the abolishment of the IRS (conveniently since the IRS started investigating his taxes). I wonder if the reason Trump doesn't release his tax info is due to ties to this guy in some way. Mercer is a big hedge fund CEO who played a shell game of moving short term capital gains into long term cg and saving $7-8 billion (wt a b) on taxes. So will Trump help his friend out and remove the existing FBI director and replace him wt a puppet?

This is funny http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/pence-really-thought-hed-be-president-by-now

All true. One could in some way say that Reagan's 'war time' high spending on the military was not that different than Obama's stimulus spending. While I think Reagan wanted to shrink govt and make it smaller, it wasn't his # one objective. His # 1 objective was to stop the Soviet threat & end the cold war as you mentioned- in so doing he sacrificed balanced budgets and shrinking govt. Again as I mentioned before - there has to be a balance related to the economy at a specific time - a one size fits all 'cut tax' policy won't work. Kansas and now Okla are proving it on the state level.

thanks Obama yes, you can't have it both ways - saying America is great again and all of the jobs you saved and not also claim this #. So if he doesn't claim the GDP # he can't claim the other 'beneficial' #s.