President Trump - It's Time for a Third Party

My Recent Posts

As the 100th day of the Trump Presidency approaches, it strikes me at just how openly partisan our mainstream media has become, and how foolish at least 50% of our electorate is for believing so much of what is broadcast.

 

"President Trump has Record Low Approval after 100 Days" crows the media; as if the 9:1 ration of negative articles vs. positive articles did not have anything to do with it.

 

To the non-critical thinkers out there, I invoke the spirit of Andy Rooney by asking "You ever wonder why the mainstream media opposition of President Trump is so fierce"?    

 

What's wrong with putting America first, I ask you?  If you have locks on your doors, why are you against putting a lock on the door of our country?  If you have a job, what's wrong with protecting that job by not allowing it to be outsourced?  Are you seriously going to place unproven acts of misogyny or racism against President above the interests of our country? 

 

Granted, over the past twenty years the average American family has saved about $10,000.00 per year by ignoring our Trade Deficit while making the top 1% even wealthier in the process......Duh, what, you didn't think that could go on forever without consequences did you?  National deficits, factories closing, reduced & stagnant wages and rampant underemployment are the bill coming due for our savings from Chinese child labor.  Oh and by the way,  congratulations to us all on the creation of a new world superpower in Communist China at the price of saving a few bucks on our stuff. 

 

So I'm thinking that Nero guy that fiddled while Rome burned is no different that at least 50% of the American electorate.  My guess is that about another 5% on the extreme left and 5% extreme right representing the disproportionately loud party base divide the rest of us by controlling their party on key social issues.  This leaves about 40% in the center comprised of both parties that still give a damn about their future and the future of the Country.

 

It is time for the President to stop trying to play the game the way it has been stacked by crocodile politicians that are fat & happy in their Washington DC swamp.  We need a third party to drain the proverbial swamp and by shaking up the nature of two-party political corruption.  A third party focused on America First.  A third party that refuses to engage in the war of social issues, whether LGTB bathrooms or Abortion.   A third party of the People that our forefathers would recognize and be proud of.

Comments

George N Romey Added Apr 25, 2017 - 8:26pm
Trump promised an immediate action on what he said were the biggest problems of the country.  Ditto for Obama.  Both now seemed to be stuck in the glue of Washington DC.  Remember big money donors do not want change so both parties play their duty to keep the stalemate going.
 
Trump's got enemies on both sides, as Jimmy Buffett sang "fins to the right, fins to the left."  At the same time the neocons are taking control.
 
A chunk of Trump voters saw him as either as the last desperate chance or marginally better than a career politician out for herself and her rich friends.  These voters are now saying second verse, same as the first.  Hope and change went nowhere as well as Make America Great Again.
 
The problem is that bringing 3rd parties into national office will take a good 8 years.  Economically this country doesn't have 8 years.  Student loan debt is in the same position as subprime mortgage debt in 2007.  Subprime auto loans are imploding.  Americans are more indebted now than in 2008.  Real unemployment runs rampant not to mention gross underemployment.  Wall Street is back into casino banking on a grander scale.  Americans are now more broke.  The stock market has no reality to earnings.  The Fed is manipulating markets to make all seem well.  If this doesn't scream economic meltdown I don't know what does.  And what will happen next time?  Will there be trillions and trillions of bailouts?
 
There is a reason that China and Russia are hording gold.  Or that billionaires are building reclusive homes on far away uninhabited islands. Or that real estate flippers are again in business.  When the bubble bursts half see and profit from the impending doom and the other half get smashed.  It happened in the 1880s, 1907l, 1929, 2008 and will happen again. 
 
 
Richard Plank Added Apr 25, 2017 - 8:27pm
Norton I am not sure a 3rd party is the way to go, but it could be.  Serious thinkers examine their assumptions and  try to determine root causes of processes.  I have known our system was broken for some 55 years; since high school, but it has taken a while to get rid of many of the assumptions I had then and examine the issues.  It all comes down to power and that does not reside in the people but a relatively small number of people who have the financial power to dictate essentially what gets done.  I voted for Trump because I abhor professional politicians  of all stripes not because I was under any illusions he was going to make the changes that I thought would improve the situation, but might be an in between phase; with eventual movement to balance power and bring it where it belongs.  One basic assumption is we are all better off, that is the system when beneficence rather than special interest becomes the outcome of the process.  I can go into much more detail, but it would probably take a book to explain the various nuances that drive that really very complex statement. 
Norton Louis Added Apr 25, 2017 - 10:35pm
George, I tend to agree with you.  It seems that big money is playing the short game for financial gain, and not looking decades down the road to still be in business as a nation, economy, etc.  Enron at a National level if you will.
 
Richard, I really like your statement "Serious thinkers examine their assumptions and  try to determine root causes of processes." This is a statement that pins the best motivations on the human race to seek to do the right thing, with the uglier aspects of human nature stripped out. Also agreed the situation is extremely complicated.   From drugs rushing over the border, to Colin Kaepernick being allowed to take a knee during the National Anthem, to facilitating the creation financial "musical chairs" over and over again by our government that leave the voter sitting on their butts paying for market bubbles popping, our tribe is obviously fragmented and broken.
 
Our actions are dictated by filters that helped us survive as a species for millions of years.  These include the survival traits of jealousy, greed, envy, lust, etc. in addition to altruism.  This is why any successful governmental system eventually fails.....human nature to take just a little bit more on an individual level eventually topples all governments when the division of wealth and power becomes too great.
 
One way or the other, we're headed for big change as a country. The establishment of a third party would be ugly, and take 8 or more years to materialize and for the dust to settle as George suggests.  However, it may beat the alternative of widespread economic revolt or a descent into fascism.
 
 
John G Added Apr 26, 2017 - 2:41am
Economically illiterate. You'll get plenty of fans here.
John G Added Apr 26, 2017 - 2:52am
Granted, over the past twenty years the average American family has saved about $10,000.00 per year by ignoring our Trade Deficit
This is an utterly clueless statement.
 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 26, 2017 - 7:25am
Naivety at its most embarrassing proportions.
 
The time frame for the corruption of your ballyhooed third party by corporate interests would be in the nano-second spectrum. Look how fast they got to Trump. 
Dino Manalis Added Apr 26, 2017 - 9:28am
A third party is probably necessary, the Reform Party fell apart after Ross Perot, it has to be centrist, generally conservative on economic and social issues, but still pro-labor; pro-choice; pro-immigration; and pro-environment.
Norton Louis Added Apr 26, 2017 - 9:47am
John G.....what part of my statement about the Trade Deficit is clueless?  Do you disagree we've racked up over 17 Trillion in trade deficits over the past 20 years?  Do you disagree that those cheap goods effectively put Main Street USA out of business and are at the heart of our lack of growth as an economy?  Or do you disagree that the average US family saved $10K per year thanks to the deficit/cheaper goods?  Please provide more info. and basis for your statement.
Norton Louis Added Apr 26, 2017 - 9:51am
Jeffrey - "Naievete' at it's most embarrassing proportions"  Yes perhaps.  But then people were saying the same thing to early supporters of Trump and look what happened.  Your comment is reminiscent of a scene in Mel Brook's History of the World Part 1 where the King is told the peasants are revolting (see link).  In other words, you seem to exhibit a ruling class perspective.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0iAcQVIokg
  
Most revolts of the people in response to a disproportionate concentration of wealth in a few hands at the expense of the populace  throughout history have been minimized by those in power........ until the revolt actually occurs, that is.  Electing Trump was not the destination, but one more step in the journey of taxpayer revolt that started with Perot, led to the Tea Party and then elected Trump.
 
What's next will come in our 11th hour as a country....a small chance to pull back from the abyss greed has created in governing systems throughout history....but a chance nonetheless (no matter how naieve' you may think it is).
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 26, 2017 - 10:26am
In other words, you seem to exhibit a ruling class perspective. 
 
Had you not reacted to one comment and had instead done a little research you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of deeming me possessing a ruling class perspective. Rather, you'd have found I'm the furthest thing from ruling class on WB.
 
No, you'd realize that I hold all things DUHmerican in utter contempt especially the ruling class and their political pets. That I recognize they will corrupt a third party just as they have all so-called parties whether in DUHmerica or elsewhere far from sanctions their despicable behavior. 
 
Furthermore, I recognize your point is moot because the imminent start WW3 will end any need for any number of parties anywhere.
 
Instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking ship grab an adult beverage, a lovely, a comfortable place to recline and enjoy the show. Don't forget your 10,000SPF!
 
Have a great day!
Ari Silverstein Added Apr 26, 2017 - 10:34am
Allow me to answer your questions:
 
You ever wonder why the mainstream media opposition of President Trump is so fierce?   
 
No.  With the exception of Fox News the mainstream media has proven itself to be liberals time and time again.  The Candy Crowley takedown of Mitt Romney is my favorite piece of evidence but there are obviously many more. 
 
What's wrong with putting America first, I ask you? 
 
That’s merely a slogan, I judge all politicians by their actions.  However, I will concede that liberals don’t have nearly as high regard for America as Conservatives. 
 
If you have locks on your doors, why are you against putting a lock on the door of our country? 
 
Much like locks on a door can be easily broken or circumvented via a window or something, the same is true for a border wall. 
 
If you have a job, what's wrong with protecting that job by not allowing it to be outsourced? 
 
Outsourcing is an important element of job security here in America.  For example, if Apple was required to use only American labor it wouldn’t exist in America.
 
Are you seriously going to place unproven acts of misogyny or racism against President above the interests of our country?
 
Character is an important component of who should serve as POTUS.   The problem for liberals is that they are attacking his character without much by way of evidence.   All I can say is thank God Trump is a Republican, otherwise Hillary with the help of the media would have easily defeated whoever ran on the Republican ticket. 
Norton Louis Added Apr 26, 2017 - 11:07am
Ari - there is a lot to unpack in your reply, but I'll start with the lock issue.  So, you seem to be saying people can break in anyway, so why bother with a lock (or a wall)?  That is the kind of absolute statement that unfortunately governs politics and misleads about 50% of the (asleep) electorate.  Locks (and walls) make it more difficult to break in, and allow our police force to focus on fewer overall crimes, which improves their overall effectiveness at protecting us.  Do you disagree with this proposition?
 
I submit to you America First is more than a slogan when applies to the Trade Deficit.  I recall about 25 years ago, the Trade Deficit was something politicians often spoke of......then big money in the form of campaign contributions started coming from companies that located manufacturing overseas.  Walmart is the poster child of this dynamic.  As far as Apple goes....they should not exist in their current form in my opinion..  Apple sales primarily support a Communist Government, and they pay little or no US corporate tax.  I simply don't buy the concept that innovation relies on providing the American consumer with cheaper, foreign made goods that benefit our geopolitical rivals financially.  So we have two obsolete Smart Phones in our drawers at home instead of four as a result of Fair Trade.....is it really hurting Americans  to require taxes be paid by companies that have access to the American consumer?  Not when you consider the US deficit bill we all owe.............
Of course, I wish Character were taken more seriously by the electorate.  Sleaze and politics are unfortunately synonymous in American politics.  Character matters only so far as character assassination works against your opponent.  But I also agree with you, character is important in POTUS....its ironic that Trump probably has 100 times the character of H. Clinton, yet he's painted as an out of control sociopathic monster by the media.  I don't dispute that Trumps attitudes towards procreation are probaby stereotypical of Type A males......however he shares this attitude with many politicians including Presidents Clinton and Kennedy.  Objectification and a desire to procreate with women is part of our caveman DNA as much as we would like to believe we have evolved beyond this......I care more about what Trump can do for the economy than I do about his sex life.  Perhaps that makes me a caveman too.
Billy Roper Added Apr 26, 2017 - 12:24pm
Trump is actually a centrist, allied with the establishment, and both ends, left and right, are against that middle, now. So, while there actually have become three coalitions, if not parties, the centre cannot hold.
Norton Louis Added Apr 26, 2017 - 12:45pm
Billy - agreed that President Trump is a Centrist that is trying to work within the system to get things done.  This is exactly my point.....President Trump needs to carve out the center with a third party to effectively strip the rational middle away from the Dems and GOP.  This will stop the extreme fringes in both parties trying to distract us with dialogue on social issues while they facilitate the greatest Bank Heist in history of the American economy. 
George N Romey Added Apr 26, 2017 - 2:08pm
Trump was a centrist if not left leaning in years back. Then he got into the entire birther movement. I get it.  He made a calculation on how best to get noticed whether his original intention was becoming President or PR for his show and then he realized he could actually win.
 
All Presidents that get most of their agenda through (whether you agree with the agenda or not) tack center because that is where the negotiations end up. 
 
Norton I agree that if America is ever to again have a decent standard of living we are going to have to accept more expensive merchandise. Maybe not trade the IPhone in every time a new model comes out.  Or a new laptop or tablet every two years.
 
Ari Silverstein Added Apr 26, 2017 - 4:24pm
There was a lot to unpack in the questions you asked.  I agree we should make it as difficult as reasonably possible for illegals to break into our country, much in the same way you should make it as difficult as reasonably possible for intruders to break into your house.  However, a wall in remote parts of the Arizona desert will do nothing.  They can tunnel under or bring a ladder and your wall is rendered useless.  In populated border towns, the border security apparatus is gigantic with walls, fences and guards.  At other parts of the border, the security apparatus is barely noticeable.  So while you’re building walls where nobody crosses, perhaps the answer is increased security elsewhere.  All I’m saying is that a wall isn’t the only answer and that we need to be smart/reasonable about what is needed and where it’s needed.  Oh and by the way, 40% of illegals are here because they over-stayed their legal right to be here, how will your wall stop all those people? 
 
Let’s shelve the debate over slogans and trade for another day. 
George N Romey Added Apr 26, 2017 - 4:31pm
Ari I agree that too many people miss the fact that half the illegals arrive her mostly by plane on a tourist visa and just overstay.  Since we have no tracking and no exit customs they can simply leave when they want and come back and repeat over and over.  Now if we put money into tracking when foreigners left fewer would overstay.  Overstay your visa in Brazil and you get an all expenses paid trip to the top floor of the airport to explain yourself to the police.  You will most likely miss your flight.  If you are wanted for something you've got a real big problem. 
Richard Plank Added Apr 26, 2017 - 5:17pm
Some really interesting comments here.  John G, I don't think Norton is illiterate here, far from it in fact he may have much more knowledge about economics then you do, but that is speculation because I can't judge what either of you know, but depending on the depth of the comments I may get a sense of what your assumptions are.  It is quite clear from comments over time that many  have a very narrow understanding of the breadth of economic argument and the assumptions.  A good course in economic history might do a lot of people well and at least give them an understanding of the different assumptions that underlay all of this.  Many of us get into a lot of depth, mostly minutia in my opinion, and fail to see the big picture and fail to  understand the impact of different assumptions on the logic of a solution.    Good point George and Ari on the source of illegals, I myself was not aware of such, but of course none of this is documented so I have to take it all with a grain of salt.  That said my gut tells me you are both right although you  numbers may be overestimated a bit.  My guess is there is some documentation, but upon reflection it is probably a WAG (wild assessed guess) but still your point is well made.  And folks the big picture is are we going to continue to grow ourselves into extinction in 200 or 300 years or are we going to do what is necessary to survive.   I know that is hard to swallow, but more and more people are coming to the same conclusion and in another 20 years that group will be a majority and we will see the tipping point.  Or perhaps that is wishful thinking on my part, but I plan to be around to see.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 26, 2017 - 8:12pm
Norton L., great article. I have heard the call for a third party from the tea party now for some time. Recent poles present the position we are in. Most people poled say that Trump does not have the personality and attitude to be President. But most people would not change there vote. Now what does this say? Yes, it says that electing Democrats, Hillary Clinton, 4 more years of Obama's government, is worse then having the wrong person in the White House.
 
And this believe is not a fluke. Since 2010 the Democrats have been loosing seats in state and federal legislatures and governorships. We have the most Republic states then ever before. Democrats lost the house in 2010. The GOP candidates promised to repeal ACA, Obamacare. When elected did not use the power of the purse to keep their promises to the voters. They payed for ALL OF OBAMA'S PROGRAMS AND EXECUTIVE ACTIONS AND NON-ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW. So they lied.
 
But in 2012 even more seats were lost. The candidate the GOP put against a sitting president was the Governor that signed into law ACA of his state, Romneycare. The voters show disapproval by given Obama a second term. This clearly indicates that the peak disapproval of ACA 63% in poles is real.
 
In 2014 the Democrats lost enough seats to loose the Senate. And again they put a show bill to repeal Obamacare on Obama's desk. For 6 years the GOP candidate ran on repealing Obamacare which can be summarized by the campaign words of the new Senate leader Mitch McConnell 'ROOT AND BRANCH REPEAL OF ACA,' but they continued to pay for the Obama administration including Obamacare. They refused to use the tools provide, purse strings. I provided this history to show that in effect we have two factions in congress that agree with the direction of government but only have different tactics.
 
Tea party, GOP conservative branch and a few other groups oppose the move toward socialism/marxism. For in the end as we see in Venezuela socialism turns to a totalitarian government, communism. The GOP has been ruthless in trying to extinguish the Conservative wing. The tactics they would not consider using against Democrats they freely apply to the conservative wing of their party.
 
A similar situation existed in the 1850's. The result was a new party, Republican started in Wisconsin. It took many middle term seats from the Whig party and by the next 1860 election four parties had candidates for the president: Whigs, Republicans, Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. Lincoln swept the field as the Republican candidate. But all of the parties took at least one state. The Whig controlling wing, a faction, like the present GOP faction, agreed with the Democrats on critical issues that fostered crony capitalism. The opposition wing in the Whig and today GOP followed the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. They believe that the Constitution is the law of the land and written to support every word in the Declaration of Independence.
 
I think we need have a new party of Lincoln and the starting effort has begun. One would never expect that Illinois house would have about equal Democrat and Republican sponsors for a Convention of States. The founders realized that state will act in their own best interest. Being a VASSAL of the Federal government is not in the interest of a Democratic party state like Illinois. That is why two days before the end of the convention that drafted the Constitution George Mason proposed added an amendment drafting process to circumvent congress. Federalism, the reason for having a senate, shows that the founder understood that colonies and then states would act in their best interests. Repeal of the 17th amendment will make the senator's responsible to their state legislature the repeal will fix the problem of a dead locked legislature by the governor appointing the senator if the legislature does not fill the post in a time period.
 
Another amendment that maybe discussed is to put Federalism into the Judicial branch by a supermajority repealing their decisions. Many other amendments we all have heard over the years would also be considered. But remember in the end an Article 5 state drafted Amendment does not change or alter the requirement for approval of any amendment. So a run away State Constitutional Amendment Convention can not run away.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 27, 2017 - 8:29am
Federalism implies the state have a check.  Thus  put Federalism into the Judicial branch by a supermajority repealing their decisions.  This is a supermajority of state legislatures.  Congress can draft a law today to answer a court decision or even impeach a judge.
Billy Roper Added Apr 27, 2017 - 10:31am
I don't think the establishment needs their own party: they are the establishment, and control the bulk of both major parties, already.
J. Riddle Added Apr 28, 2017 - 2:54pm
"With the exception of Fox News the mainstream media has proven itself to be liberals time and time again.  The Candy Crowley takedown of Mitt Romney is my favorite piece of evidence"
 
Romney was lying. What was she supposed to do, just stand there and ignore it after he made such a fuss over it?
Norton Louis Added Apr 28, 2017 - 4:10pm
J. Riddle  "Romney was lying".  Yeah, right.  Here is what Candy Crowley had to say the next day about correcting Romney during the debate:

“I heard the president’s speech at the time. I re-read a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question,” Crowley told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
“We knew that the president had said, ‘These acts of terrors won’t stand,’ or whatever the whole quote was. I think, actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn around and say [to Gov. Romney], ‘but you’re totally correct … they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that there was this, you know, riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t.’ So [Gov. Romney] was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.”


It is the moderator's job to moderate, not become a third party to the debate.  The fact that Crowley had to "rescue" Obama on this point  and debate Romney herself is an embarrassment to journalism. 


Get your facts straight man!  The media is for the most part a tool of corruption and  liberalism - terms that are becoming increasingly synnomous. 
  
J. Riddle Added Apr 28, 2017 - 5:58pm
My facts are just fine. The exchange:
 
ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/politics/fact-check-crowley-critics-debate/
 
Obama, in fact, called the attack an act of terror three times in the first two days after it happened.
Norton Louis Added Apr 28, 2017 - 8:33pm
J. Riddle Great! Obama said terror in connection to Benghazi three times while sending his administration out to lie dozens and even hundreds of times to the American people that is was the result of a movie and spontaneous demonstration.  Either way it was wrong for Crowley to insert herself into the debate directly.  Granted Romney blew the point too by focusing in the word "terror" in lieu of the more powerful word "lie".
 
My point to you was to answer your question about "what was Crowely to do while Romney told a lie?". Romney may have been an idiot in this situation but even Crowley says he was not lying, which makes the underlying premise of your question incorrect.  The facts are that It was Obama that lied about the event in general ( in spite of a lawyerly parsing of the word "terror" three times), not Romney.  This is what I mean by getting your facts straight before calling someone a liar.
 
This is an example of the worst of politics. Obama and his administration out and out lied about Benghazi to the American people, yet somehow Romney gets he blame.
J. Riddle Added Apr 28, 2017 - 9:06pm
"Great! Obama said terror in connection to Benghazi three times while sending his administration out to lie dozens and even hundreds of times to the American people that is was the result of a movie and spontaneous demonstration."
 
This was a popular--and transparently false--dichotomy advanced by the Benghazi scandal-pimps, that the attack must either be an act of terror or inspired by the YouTube vid. It can be both and apparently was both, though the intel community, which explained it to the administration as being in retaliation for the vid, backed away from that explanation after about 2 weeks. The suspected ringleader apprehended and, at last I heard, awaiting trial has reportedly confirmed the attack was in retaliation for the vid. In any event, the public comments of the administration directly reflected what the intel community was telling them in private. The nut-right roasted Susan Rice for making the rounds on the Sunday news shows repeating almost word-for-word what the IC had given her in a brief.
 
Crowley's motives for her sort-of retraction are her own and don't really interest me. The fact that Romney was directly and flatly lying about the incident isn't open to being "interpreted" away. Crowley never called him a liar, which would have been the truth. She merely corrected his falsehood.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 28, 2017 - 9:29pm
So what does Obama, Benghazi,  Candy  Crowley, or Romney have to do with Trump it is time for a third Party?   The politicians named are part of the two present parties and have no intention to consider a third.  
Norton Louis Added Apr 28, 2017 - 9:35pm
Yeah I usually take my mortars to a Video demonstration too.  
 
My personal theory is that the Whitehouse played the telephone game with the original assessment from Intel on Benghazi until it became a movie.  Then Obama dropped the affair scandal on Petraeus when it looked like he would not go along with the revised version.    We'll probably never know the full truth.
 
However apooogies to all for getting off Topic. 
John G Added Apr 29, 2017 - 1:51am
John G.....what part of my statement about the Trade Deficit is clueless? 
 
All of it.
Do you disagree we've racked up over 17 Trillion in trade deficits over the past 20 years? 
If you tell me the amount of federal 'debt' is foreign owned, I'll tell you the cumulative current account deficit.
Do you disagree that those cheap goods effectively put Main Street USA out of business and are at the heart of our lack of growth as an economy? 
I think that's a far too simplistic way of looking at it.
 
Or do you disagree that the average US family saved $10K per year thanks to the deficit/cheaper goods? 
So when you say 'saved' you meant 'didn't have to spend'?
Please provide more info. and basis for your statement.
In stark macro terms the US got to benefit from real goods and services provided by foreigners in exchange for electronic ones and zeroes created out of thin air deposited in electronic spread sheets aka bank accounts.
That's not a bad deal.
That the government doesn't spend enough to keep Americans fully employed is a different issue. There are plenty of things Americans could do to improve your economy and society outside of manufacturing consumer goods which you aren't good at anyway.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 29, 2017 - 7:39am
There is another way to look at trade deficits.  Realize that they do not have to purchase anything from us.  So when they purchase from us verses others they make a choice.  They have are saying my money in safer if invested in our country then the alternative.  Holding dollars is better then holding the currency of Venezuela.   Purchasing oil rights or an oil well is better then doing the same in Venezuela.   A trade deficits says your a better investment then others.  The end result is that the nation gains the wealth of the investor.  That will be reinvested in this country most of the time.  
 
A trade deficit increases the countries wealth.  A trade surplus means wealth is flowing out of the country. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 29, 2017 - 7:43am
Trade with other countries means the purchaser can choose the best value, and that often means at a lower cost.  So to have trade usually means we can obtain more goods.   
 
Border tax which is just a type of tariff is a tax like sales tax that is added to the price paid for the goods.  We pay in the manufactures finds less of a demand.
John G Added Apr 29, 2017 - 4:39pm
Not when you consider the US deficit bill we all owe.
Government liabilities are private sector assets.
You are completely wrong.
Norton Louis Added Apr 30, 2017 - 12:15pm
 John G.  Yes well this particular "asset" will only remain an asset as long as the interest is serviced.  What follows too much debt, however, is default.
 
Just as with anything, imbalance is bad.  The US has too much debt, and as it reaches about 24 Trillion, this debt imbalance will begin impacting our ability to borrow, which will cascade into unintended consequences for the US and world economy.  
 
I find it both humorous and ironic that as a non- US citizen (based on your comments) you are advocating positions like outsourcing, debt, etc. that are helpful to other countries while hurting the US.
 
Thank you for your input, however, under Trump we'll increasingly do what's best for most of the citizenry of our country.  
Norton Louis Added Apr 30, 2017 - 12:18pm
Thomas., there is a cost to everything.  Yes, we can obtain more stuff with cheaper prices from overseas.  The bill is coming due for these savings over the past two evades in the US however....loss of jobs, factories, tax revenue etc. is making itself felt in our economy.  We are going to save ourselves into a third world country if we don't stop these massive trade deficits and get better trade deals in place.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 30, 2017 - 5:55pm
Norton L. the lose of jobs is not due to us purchasing cheaper goods from overseas.  The lose of jobs is the result of added cost from all levels of government taxes and regulations.  
 
The investments of that foreign money helps pay for the higher productivity which keeps high paying jobs in the country.  But again even these jobs are at risk of being lost due to the cost added by government.
 
Put the blame where it belongs.  Adam Smith accurately defines it. 
"Adam Smith key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit. ... Adam Smith put it, an individual who "intends only his own gain" is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it.  By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.  I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."  ... "an individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private interest, "which was no part of his intention." " Ref: "Free to Choose" Milton & Rose Friedman 1979 Introduction
 
As you can see Adam Smith would put the blame on Government since taxes and regulations is an action of fostering government intervention.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 30, 2017 - 5:59pm
Banking industry size is a measure of wealth that is being invested.  Adam Smith's approach was applied and resulted in the sun never setting on the British empire.   Bankers is a prestigious profession still in Britain.  The two world wars have depleted the investments.  And America was a primary recipient of the wealth that created our growth from the Civil war to today.  Our banking industry is also a measure of the wealth that is being invested.
John G Added May 6, 2017 - 4:00am
Norton Louis Added Apr 30, 2017 - 12:15pm
Nope. You have no idea of what you are talking about.
The US government does not borrow to spend and it can always sell its 'debt' instruments. The interest paid is private sector income.
It doesn't really need to sell treasuries anyway. It could just pay interest on excess reserves to maintain it's target rates. Selling 'debt' is a hangover from gold standard days.

Recent Articles by Writers Norton Louis follows.