Message Forum

Welcome to the Woodland High School Message Forum.

Ground Rules

(By posting in this forum, you acknowledge that you have read and will abide by these rules.)

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful. But be respectful. The administrators reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Access and participation on this forum is not a right, it is a privilege and abuse may result in suspension or revocation of WHS60s site access at any time.

Posting involving politics or religion are prohibited as they typically and quickly become offensive/demeaning.

We don't actively monitor the forum, but respond to complaints and take action as deemed appropriate.

V/R, Co-site Administrators Joan Lucchesi ('60) and Gary Wegener ('66)

Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum

(you always have the option to edit or delete your post).

Post Message

Prior Page

Page

12/17/16 07:17 AM

#3167

Sherry Bailey (Westland) (1968)

Actual Free Trade and Trump Trade Are Absolutely, Perfectly Compatible
Seton Motley | December 13, 2016

One of the biggest mistakes made by so many people on the Right freaking out about President-elect Donald Trump is looking at him through a political prism. Donald Trump is not a politician. Thus a political prism is out of phase and focus when trained on someone like Trump.

Trump is a businessman - thus one must regard him through a business prism. Too many lifelong politicos simply don’t possess that particular looking glass - so their view of the man is perpetually warped and skewed.

To wit: The Art of the Deal. Trump has a lifelong track record of, on the main, transcendentally successful negotiated transactions. He turned a million dollar loan from his father into a multi-billion-dollar international empire - largely by cutting good deals.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has a lifelong track record of starting a negotiation where they’d like to end up, then preemptively negotiating with themselves backwards from that position - and winding up with terrible deal after terrible deal.

The GOP just announced its unilateral, pre-game capitulation on the terrible Dodd-Frank banking law. Trump campaigned on repealing entirely this “very negative force.” And before Trump’s even sworn in, his congressional party colleagues are already lining up to cower in the corner: “While President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to ‘dismantle’ the law, Republican lawmakers are setting their sights on a lower target.”

This is pathetic. Trump actually had coattails - and saved the GOP Senate while maintaining the House majority. They run everything legislative. And this is how the congressional leadership “leads?” Truly terrible negotiating.

An old saw in negotiations is: The first person to name a number loses because that person has marked where they think they are. You tell your boss you want $50,000 per annum - but he may have entered the room thinking of paying you $80,000. Think after that you’ll get anywhere near his number? Heck no - he’ll immediately agree to yours. And you just lost big league.

Does Trump think we can completely repeal Dodd-Frank? Maybe - maybe not. We don’t know - because he rightly thinks holding this information close to the vest is the way to win. Whether it’s militarily - or when negotiating a (legislative) deal.

If they don’t know what you're thinking, they’re off balance, unsure, and much more likely to move much closer to where you want them.

So Trump shoots for the moon - “Repeal Dodd-Frank.” Aim highest - begrudgingly negotiate lower. Congressional Republicans aim pathetically low - and immediately start negotiating even lower. With themselves - because the Democrats haven't yet even said a word. Truly terrible negotiating.

So it is with Trump’s approach to trade. Regarded through a political prism - it looks like he’s anti-free trade. I don’t think that’s true. Trump is correct - the “free trade” deals we’ve cut for decades are in many respects awful for America. As demonstrated by the decades-long gutting of the American middle class. We’ve eviscerated ours - so as to allow China, India and other countries to build theirs. That ain’t putting America first.

This exodus of millions of jobs allowed government at all levels to (with impunity) continue to massively, ever-increasingly overtax and over-regulate. Because the employers who would and should have been helping us fight this omni-directional, multi-government abuse - instead escaped abroad.

They began cutting crony “free trade” deals - government-tailored to maximize businesses’ ability to leave the U.S. Rather than fighting big government, these businesses donate to it - and then get “free trade” deals that allow them to get the heck out

And when the primary government priority is this sort of cronyism - you rarely if ever end up with actually-free free trade deals.

Actual free trade deals - should be, like, eight pages. “This agreement eliminates the following tariffs, taxes and subsidies:….” The Trans-Pacific Partnership - has reached (at least) 5,544 pages. That’s not a free trade deal - that’s a cronyism-packed, government-riddled nightmare mess.

And these “free trade” deals - routinely ignore the anti-free trade practices of the nations with which we are trading. To wit: China. Trump has long and rightly pointed out how damaging to us is China’s currency manipulation. And China imposes all sorts of tariffs on all sorts of U.S. imports, which we continually, blithely ignore - in the name of one-way, America-damaging “free trade.”

To all of which Trump rightly responds - “No more.” And throws out a prospective tariff on Chinese imports (he’s mentioned 25% and 45%). Does he actually want that? We don’t know - because he’s smartly not broadcasting his ultimate intention. Is it freaking out the currency-manipulating, massive-tariffs-imposing Chinese? You bet it is.

The Conventionally Wise think this is terrible. The Conventionally Wise are, as usual, wrong.

Trump can now walk into trade negotiations with China and say “You get rid of this, this and this tariff - and we’ll drop my tariff proposal.” He gets something major - for nothing. Before talks have even really begun.

Through a political prism - this looks bizarre. Through a business prism - this makes perfect sense.

Trump is in the process of building what appears to be the most deregulatory Cabinet in our nation’s history. He is proposing massive tax cuts for the American people. Aside from the ridiculous $1 trillion infrastructure proposal, this is, from all appearances, a man who wants a whole lot less government.

So you have to ask yourself - does a new, huge tariff on China fit into the broader administration vision he’s building? Or is it the first step in a negotiation towards much less government interference in international trade?

And before you answer that - make sure you’re looking at it through the right prism.

Hopefully none was truncated...if so and you're interested, feel free to Google it. SW

12/17/16 09:07 AM

#3168

Dan Ree (Ree) (1964)

Craig........have Faith and Believe in him......remember back when you started after graduating high school and those that look at you .....you ask your clients to Believe in you...they did and your Practice grew.....you learned as you aged and feel to pick yourself up and get it right...that what I mean...support those that do not have it right at first...we all were not perfect...just thought we were...........if we had all the correct answers we would not be where we are today...Something to think about......

12/17/16 11:28 AM

#3169

Sherry Bailey (Westland) (1968)

Craig,

I was recently talking with friends about how many prominent liberal politicians are attorneys. Yet, I might point out that they also comprise those who have been disbarred from practice, and/or are otherwise unsuccessful in that field.

As for the other traits needed in a President, such as, intelligence, morals, ideals, wisdom, honesty, and the ability to engender trust and respect, and more....I clearly see these traits in our President Elect. Moreover, do you see any of those traits in Hillary? (Whose husband was one disbarred....just sayin'...)

12/17/16 11:57 AM

#3170

Sherry Bailey (Westland) (1968)

So sorry Craig. I must have hit a sensitive spot. My point is that your choice for President, I assume, was Clinton. Does she model the traits you listed as necessary for a President? And that you now hold Trump to.

No one's perfect. Several of us are asking you to give Trump a chance....

12/17/16 12:25 PM

#3171

Duane Jackson (1965)

Was reading thought strings of many views.......WOW.....Can't wait for the next four years, should be a hoot....I'm moving on, got life to live and enjoy, I know many will rise up and visorate (did spell it right) me on that, but ho hum....................Other things....... Dan, we dropped calling our Christmas Parade here in Modesto years ago, as to not offend the offended ones........It's now called the Festival of Lights........It's still a Christmas vein......... Getting ready to enjoy our 50th wedding anniverary tomorrow with Vicki (Hayden) Jackson....So far she does not know I've got the church hall set up for cake and punch, coffee for close friends and family down here......Also renewing vows before the chow line.

12/17/16 12:57 PM

#3172

Sherry Bailey (Westland) (1968)

You have nothing to fear but fear itself, my friend....

If you want to engage in further discussions, I will, by humbly sharing what I might know, but not here...others will appreciate that...

Merry Christmas!

12/17/16 02:39 PM

#3173

Justene Manchester (Lipphardt) (1963)

Congratulations on your 50th Anniversary Duane Jackson! Sounds like you will have a lovely day renewing your vows and celebrating after. I know your wife will be pleasantly surprised.

12/17/16 03:43 PM

#3174

Sherry Bailey (Westland) (1968)

Craig,

No need to be patronizing....you might better be served by getting your info from other than main stream media who exists to destroy Trump and/or put fearful expectations and negative ideology into the minds of the left.

I told you we can talk...you want to do it here?

12/17/16 07:22 PM

#3175

Mike Miller (1966)

Thanks Craig for responding to Sherry. I was going to but held back as this is not the forum. As I had mentioned before, at our age, when we speak politics we are either preaching to the choir or to those so stubborn and set that it does no good.

12/17/16 09:44 PM

#3176

Monte McCray (1966)

Craig. I respect your feelings about Trump but I know you are not a stupid man. Other people feel the same about Hillary and trump was there only option after the primarys to obtain something different. If they were satisifed with the present government and Hillarys 30 years of service and her achivements she would be the President elect.We were taught when you have a choice to vote for someone. after the election you dont have to like the person but you respect the results and try to work with them and at least respect the position even if you do not like the person. After all that is supposed to be the way democratic society works.

12/18/16 09:48 AM

#3177

Duane Jackson (1965)

Good Morning members of both Class 65 and 66 that know us......Today is our 50th wedding anniversary and I'm having a get together after church for her at 1PM....She doesn't know this happening, going to renew our vows and after some cake and coffee in the hall for family and friends here in Modesto....7 days to Christmas, I wish everyone well................Update.......... it came off like a charm, Vicki didn't know it was happening until it happened. Was hard keeping it a secrect from her, with so many folks helping, but no one leaked the true story....We have so much extra cake, Vicki is taking it to the church for the church party of the Homeless and Street people to eat...I'm a lucky fellow to have her, I feel blessed she's still with me all these years...Looking forward to many more years to follow and more adventures with her.........Peace out Y'All

12/18/16 10:55 AM

#3178

John Eaton (1964)

Craig, I don't agree that lawyers are skilled at negotiating, as a class. Most of what I have seen lawyers do is try to get the best of the opposing party and that is a deal killer in situations where either party can just walk away from the negotiations, as is the case in most business negotiations, and is not the case in legal negotiations. A good negotiatior arranges the positives for both parties to find the best fit, and if there is no fit knows early on there is nothing to negotiate and moves on. In my experience lawyers come later and often upset the deal by making unrealistic demands that favor one party too much over the other.

12/18/16 12:17 PM

#3179

Joel Childers (1966)

When we fail to deal with one another, we call in the lawyers. When we fail to take care of ourselves, we call in the government.

12/18/16 01:32 PM

#3180

Mike Miller (1966)

Monte,

The American voter over whelming voted for HRC. They opposed Trump by the millions. Our electoral system got in the way, as it has before in our history. Thus because of that flawed system, the will of the people did not prevail.

I am looking forward to the next 4 years. In the words of a once great actress, "Hold on everyone, it looks like it's going to be a very bumpy ride." And besides, I can't wait to see Trump's hair after 4 years of high end stress.

12/18/16 03:28 PM

#3181

Monte McCray (1966)

Mike I agree that hrc got more votes.don't know if it were in the millions but I agree that maybe it should be the popular vote but that is not the way our fore fathers set it up. It has allways been the electorial college right or wrong.If hrc had won the college but not the popular vote do you suppose The Democrats Would say we didnt get the popular vote so we can't accept the presidency? I think not. My point is this is the way it has allways been so if you want it changed do it before the election not after you have lost. My suggestion is this one is over suck it up and concentrate on changing the electorial process before the next election and then there will be no disputes.

12/18/16 06:41 PM

#3182

Paul Schattauer (1961)

It has been a rough year for liberals/progressives/socialists. HRC lost and Fidel died. In the nation conservatives now dominate from from the state houses to the White House. The American experiment continues. The machinations of the left are fair politics if a bit rabid, the right has done its share of attempting to delegitimiatize President Obama. Much of all this is entertaining. If Trump grants Craig his wish to reveal his taxes Trump will regret it. It will be ammunition unlimited for the next 4/8 years. Watching Hollywood present a bunch of people who make their living in pretend land claim that the left has suddenly discovered originalist interpertations of the founding documents is fun. What is not fun is personal attacks. We have sources for news and thought expanding exponentially. All are filtered through a human mind and all are biased to some degree. I don't expect a rough ride coming but I do expect change and its accompanying controversy.

12/18/16 07:16 PM

#3183

Mike Miller (1966)

Sorry Monte. I went back and read your previous post. I thought you said that the people elected Trump. Obviously it was the system, not the people. And that is fine. As stated, I am looking forward to a Trump presidency.

12/18/16 08:17 PM

#3184

Paul Schattauer (1961)

You are correct that I am not as exercised as you over the Russian hack. We know that the Russians and others are in that business constantly. It also appears that the hack was not much more than a simple phishing attempt. They did not hack the vote but someone did give unpleasant information to wikileaks that made the dems look bad. It does not appear that that changed the outcome. President Obama has charged the intel community to provide him and I assume the rest of us an explanation of what happened. Beyond that congress will investigate that issue and cyber security in depth and hopefully issue useful recommendations but that will take some time. The Russians and Putin do not have our best interests as international policy and we don't have theirs. We do however have to deal with them. Are you suggesting that anyone who has had dealings with them is a traitor? As to political questions it no longer matters, not even why HRC facilitated the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia in exchange for speaking fees and donations. It's over, we will live with our choices, I believe we made the right choice, time will tell.

If Trump releases his taxes it won't matter what is in them. You and your side will vilify him. Why give you more material, you will digup enough without help.

12/18/16 11:08 PM

#3185

Janet Long (Levers) (1966)

JOEL-YOU'RE right on.

12/19/16 06:25 AM

#3186

Miguel Michel (1966)

Craig et al;

I would hope that we would all want transparancy in our government. I for one believe that we need to have a requirement that any candidate for the highest office in our country has to reveal their tax returns. We can see how relevant they are in light of the conflict of interest issues that are arising.

Regardles of what party you support or candidate you supported, all investigatory agenies of the US are in agreement that the Russians hacked into our internet system. The purpose of an open investigation is NOT for the purpose of trying to change the results but rather expose the Russians and to make sure that it does not happen again.

12/19/16 08:08 AM

#3187

Theresa Eve (1964)

Merry, Merry Christmas everyone!! It has been frosty in the mornings. Do hope everyone is well and moving along with all those Christmas projects. I just finally finished baking and frosting all those gingerbread people I do every year since 1964. My Aunt started me on that project, so it is now a tradition. Does anyone have a Christmas tradition they share with their families?

12/19/16 09:01 AM

#3188

John Eaton (1964)

Craig, if I was talking about mediators I would have said mediators.

12/19/16 09:06 AM

#3189

Monte McCray (1966)

Mike.I agree that things aren't right but people have to understand that if you don't agree with a law you have to work in an orderly way to change that law.

I did not vote for HRC but if she had won the election I would not have liked it but I would have accepted it.

When the opponents who loose, riot, protest, and do everything in general to disrupt the winners transition and time in office instead of working with them it just pisses the rest of the people off.

I think Craig might agree with me that the world including work, government, and every day life is to some extent a game.

To play any game you have rules.

If you don't like the rules you change them but you cant' play the game without the rules.

Once you have rules if you are smart enough you figure out what you can and can't get away with.

If you are smarter or more skilled than other people you win the game.But you have to follow the rules otherwise you are either a cheater or a bad sport.

12/19/16 09:59 AM

#3190

Justene Manchester (Lipphardt) (1963)

Theresa, your little gingerbread people are so cute. I bet your family looks forward to seeing them each year. When I worked for the State my supervisor whould make us each a gingerbread man every year. We looked forward to that.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

12/19/16 01:01 PM

#3191

Miguel Michel (1966)

Monte;

I agree 100% that we must obey the rule of law however ALL parties must play by the rules. Mr. Trump was encouraging a foreign goverment (Russia) to violate the laws that we have to hack into an opponents emails.

I would hope that you would agree that this is NOT playing by the rules. And to exacerbate things, Mr. Trump refuses to accept the conclusions of our own investigatory agencies that Russia hacked into our nations political process and what their motive was.

I am afraid that Mr. Trump is threatening our (yours included) constitutional rights that include the freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, just to mention a few. What makes matters worse is that Mr. Trump appears to be a very vindictive person that will go to no lengths to attack anyone that he feels is threatening him.

I just read where three professors , one that is the head of the psychiatric department at Harvard, and two other psychiatrists that want Mr. Trumpet evaluated because he demonstrates a lot of characteristics of mental illness.

I am sure that you will not agree with my thoughts or those of persons that are more learnded than I.

Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas!

Post Message

Prior Page

Page