So you guys are Republican but anti-corporate?
I'm pro-business, whether small business or large business. I only oppose corporate lobby influence at the point it gives corporations an unfair advantage that hurts their free-market competition, and where it results in offshoring of jobs that hurts workers, and creates foreign dependency where a dangerous amount of what we produce is brought in from overseas.
If you are anti-big business then shouldn't you be Democrats? Or at least libertarians?
I'm assuming this means you don't subscribe to Reaganomics / trickle down economics?
Read the book OBAMANOMICS by Timothy Carney. It focuses on the lobbyist influence that infests about 80% of both parties. In addition to what I said above, corporations can withstand more regulation with a lower cost per unit. So regulation brought on by Democrat policies actually hurt mid- and small-businesses and drives them out. Thinning companies in the market results in less competition and higher prices.
Also, corporations never pay taxes, they just pass on the additional cost to consumers of their product. Which, despite Democrat rhetoric about making them "pay their fair shair", actually results in having the highest cost to the working and lower classes. So far from Democrat policy rhetoric of helping the little guy, it enriches corporations and hurts the poor.
Sorry for all the questions but I am trying to understand the perspective. It seems to be a phenomenon evolving from the sentiment of those left behind in globalisation. Some people transitioned - Palo Alto is the big one - and some did not. Those that did not have no new jobs and the system failed them and their families? Probably an element of emasculation in that too: the provider cannot provide and the traditional role of fsther and husband is eroded generating anger and feelings of self-worthlessness.
I appreciate the desire to understand my position, and i'm trying to give a clear answer. Yes, I iunderstand that in Germany, they subsidize and encourage business, and pay for re-training of employees with skills in new areas of growth. That doesn't happen in the U.S.
Lobbyists push for policy that is lax on immigration, so corporations can have cheap labor of under-the-table illegal workers. And also push for legal immigration of skilled engineers and other tech workers that work for 50-60% of what U.S. workers earn with the same skills. Both ends displace workers, and create unemployment, even for those with skills. Pat Buchanan talks a lot about this in his columns and books, along with "offshoring" jobs and factories to Mexico and southeast asia for cheaper labor. Buchanan terms this "hollowing out America's industrial base".
Hillary and the Democrats say you're a bigot and xenophobe if you cite these facts.
Likewise the threat of massive Islamic immigration resulting in a rise in terror attacks.
Then there is the nativism - dark skinned guys from the Middle East are going to rape our women and blow us up. That seems to be a response to 9/11 and over a decade of fighting in Central Asia.
I'm not sure what your question is in that last one. Whether Europe, the U.S., or even Turkey or Russia, what you said is pretty much a statement of fact, regarding the result of Islamic immigration.
