Trump, Doctors and Taxes.

[nimbus]

Sure, and these are the same types of polls that gave Trump no chance at winning last year. His poll numbers now don't matter anyways. The outcome of problems like North Korea, taxes, healthcare, and environmental concerns will have more of an impact than anything he has done so far.

The problem is that he hasn't done anything so far. Like it or not Obama was able to get ACA through.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Twiggidy]

Normal? No. Racist? No. Given the circumstances of his family and childhood, inappropriate? No.

I’ll give you this one. Anyone with any knowledge of presidential history will show you the birther debates didn’t start with Pres. Obama. As a matter of fact, we’ve had six presidents with foreign born parents.

 

[Twiggidy]

Billionaire businessman with no leadership qualities. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

You didn't need one day to see how "bad" he would be because you had your mind made up before inauguration.

I will commend you for your support for you guy. I supported my guy. You’re allowed to support yours. That’s America

 

[Precedexed Out]

The problem is that he hasn't done anything so far. Like it or not Obama was able to get ACA through.

I'll be the first to admit the republican establishment is a disaster and embarrassment. They are a bunch of incompetent spineless fools. After seven years of promising to repeal the disastrous ACA, they couldn't get anything done. That underscores my belief they never had any intentions to actually repeal it.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Sure, and these are the same types of polls that gave Trump no chance at winning last year. His poll numbers now don't matter anyways. The outcome of problems like North Korea, taxes, healthcare, and environmental concerns will have more of an impact than anything he has done so far.

I will agree with you on this, and have said the same. If, in 4 years, the economy is better off and the world is a safer place, then obviously he's done something right and he'll get re-elected. But I also don't think it's too early to start judging him. Every other President has been judged off of their first 6 months or one year, why should Trump be any different?

For now, I approve of his actions towards North Korea, I don't think he has any clue about health care and will let the mainstream Republicans take the fall for failing to come up with something better (which is probably wise), he is going to set us back 30-odd years on the environment, and TBD on taxes. It looks like right now lower-class Americans will not see much difference (other than it being slightly simpler), but upper-class Americans will see significant gains. The gap is already wider than it has been in a long time, and if Joe Schmoe sees the gap getting even wider, it may come back to bite him in the ass. Or maybe he hopes that with enough race-baiting, football, and Hillary talk, people won't care. Panem et circenses, as they say.

Socially/culturally, we're already worse off (though maybe in the long run getting all this out in the open might be a good thing). I don't think his economic philosophies are as good as he thinks they are, because the problem is not immigrants taking our jobs or our jobs being shipped overseas, it's that there has been a fundamental shift in what jobs are necessary, and no amount of hand-wringing is going to bring back those low-skilled/reasonably high-paying jobs of yesteryear.

As far as his business acumen, I have mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I saw an article somewhere that if he had taken his father's initial investment and put it all in a S&P500 index fund and done nothing with it, he'd actually be worth more today than he currently is. On the other hand, there is some degree of survivorship bias, so just the fact that he's still around is probably an accomplishment. It's also tough to evaluate, because it seems like he aggressively argues down the tax value of his properties for tax purposes, but also wants to turn around and claim how much more they are worth to the public.

 

[Precedexed Out]

I will agree with you on this, and have said the same. If, in 4 years, the economy is better off and the world is a safer place, then obviously he's done something right and he'll get re-elected. But I also don't think it's too early to start judging him. Every other President has been judged off of their first 6 months or one year, why should Trump be any different?

For now, I approve of his actions towards North Korea, I don't think he has any clue about health care and will let the mainstream Republicans take the fall for failing to come up with something better (which is probably wise), he is going to set us back 30-odd years on the environment, and TBD on taxes. It looks like right now lower-class Americans will not see much difference (other than it being slightly simpler), but upper-class Americans will see significant gains. The gap is already wider than it has been in a long time, and if Joe Schmoe sees the gap getting even wider, it may come back to bite him in the ass. Or maybe he hopes that with enough race-baiting, football, and Hillary talk, people won't care. Panem et circenses, as they say.

Socially/culturally, we're already worse off (though maybe in the long run getting all this out in the open might be a good thing). I don't think his economic philosophies are as good as he thinks they are, because the problem is not immigrants taking our jobs or our jobs being shipped overseas, it's that there has been a fundamental shift in what jobs are necessary, and no amount of hand-wringing is going to bring back those low-skilled/reasonably high-paying jobs of yesteryear.

As far as his business acumen, I have mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I saw an article somewhere that if he had taken his father's initial investment and put it all in a S&P500 index fund and done nothing with it, he'd actually be worth more today than he currently is. On the other hand, there is some degree of survivorship bias, so just the fact that he's still around is probably an accomplishment. It's also tough to evaluate, because it seems like he aggressively argues down the tax value of his properties for tax purposes, but also wants to turn around and claim how much more they are worth to the public.

Yea, he should let congressional republicans take the heat for healthcare because they won't get anything passed. As for the rest, like you said, time will tell. If the economy continues to do good that will be a major plus. As far as income gap, even if the gap widens, but lower income individuals are making more money and better off financially, that will be ok. I don't directly judge my level of sanctification with my wages based on what someone else makes. However, I do judge how much I pay for health insurance when it is mandated by law to buy and the health insurance companies are making killer profits.

 

[68PGunner]

I'm taking a knee...

 

[fakin' the funk]

Are we done feeding this troll yet?

 

[facted]

Are we done feeding this troll yet?

This. 1000 times.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Are we done feeding this troll yet?

It doesn't appear anyone is trolling, but that is easier to say than trying to defend some your positions.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Huh? Are you playing the race card now? The fact is that no candidate is required to publicly release their birth certificate just like they are not required to release their tax records.

Is this making you a little uncomfortable?

Yes, no one is required to release their birth certificate. However, that doesn't change the fact that questioning a person's birth place doesn't equate to being racist.

 

[Twiggidy]

Yes, no one is required to release their birth certificate. However, that doesn't change the fact that questioning a person's birth place doesn't equate to being racist.

But when one does produce a birth certificate and then the "birther" questions the authenticity...then I may have questions.

 

[PlutoBoy]

Yes, no one is required to release their birth certificate. However, that doesn't change the fact that questioning a person's birth place doesn't equate to being racist.

Given the context, it does raise some questions.

 

[Precedexed Out]

But when one does produce a birth certificate and then the "birther" questions the authenticity...then I may have questions.

Questions about authenticity are fair, especially after procrastinating for so long to produce such a simple document. Question authenticity isn't racist.

 

[Perrotfish]

Yes, no one is required to release their birth certificate. However, that doesn't change the fact that questioning a person's birth place doesn't equate to being racist.

Why it appears as racist in this context:

The requirement to be president in this country is not to be born on American soil. It's to be a 'natural born citizen', meaning you do not need to undergo any naturalization process to become an American citizen. In the US that means either being born on American soil OR being born to at least one American parent. That is why John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney's father George Romney were all allowed to run for president without any (citizenship related) objections from anyone despite having been born in Panama, Canada, and Mexico respectively. They were the children of American citizens and therefore natural born.

When you understand that context, you realize that, even if Obama was born in Kenya, or Indonesia, it would not be a challenge to his presidency unless you are also arguing that his mother is not his mother (which is insane). So this isn't a legal issue and has nothing to do with his right to run for the presidency.

When you realize that the birth certificate has no legal bearing on anything, you need to wonder why some people put such a high priority on 'proving' that Obama was born somewhere other than the US, or why they felt he had a responsibility to provide proof beyond his word as a sitting senator, his government issue IDs, his short form birth certificate, and the two announcements his parents took put in the papers when he was born. The only reason I can think of is that you are trying to label him as 'other', and to create a subconscious, scary association between him and somewhere else. When you realize that as of 2015 fully 1/3 Republicans polled thought that it was 'likely' Obama wasn't a citizen AT ALL you realize it probably worked.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I respect Tillerson’s candor (in private at least), although I think most of us have considered his a ***** for quite some time now.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Why it appears as racist in this context:

The requirement to be president in this country is not to be born on American soil. It's to be a 'natural born citizen', meaning you do not need to undergo any naturalization process to become an American citizen. In the US that means either being born on American soil OR being born to at least one American parent. That is why John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney's father George Romney were all allowed to run for president without any (citizenship related) objections from anyone despite having been born in Panama, Canada, and Mexico respectively. They were the children of American citizens and therefore natural born.

When you understand that context, you realize that, even if Obama was born in Kenya, or Indonesia, it would not be a challenge to his presidency unless you are also arguing that his mother is not his mother (which is insane). So this isn't a legal issue and has nothing to do with his right to run for the presidency.

When you realize that the birth certificate has no legal bearing on anything, you need to wonder why some people put such a high priority on 'proving' that Obama was born somewhere other than the US, or why they felt he had a responsibility to provide proof beyond his word as a sitting senator, his government issue IDs, his short form birth certificate, and the two announcements his parents took put in the papers when he was born. The only reason I can think of is that you are trying to label him as 'other', and to create a subconscious, scary association between him and somewhere else. When you realize that as of 2015 fully 1/3 Republicans polled thought that it was 'likely' Obama wasn't a citizen AT ALL you realize it probably worked.

Showing his birth certificate was a simple way to prove he was born in the US since he said he was, effectively ending the birth place discussion. Showing this immediately would have proven that he was born in the US and his parent's citizenship wouldn't have mattered.

 

[deleted59964]

Showing his birth certificate was a simple way to prove he was born in the US since he said he was, effectively ending the birth place discussion. Showing this immediately would have proven that he was born in the US and his parent's citizenship wouldn't have mattered.

Are you going to contribute anything clinical to this board?
I just looked at your past posts and all of them are political.

I just want to know, because I’m considering putting you on my ignore list, and I thought “hey before I write this guy off ... i’ll Just ask”

 

[deleted171991]

Are you going to contribute anything clinical to this board?
I just looked at your past posts and all of them are political.

I just want to know, because I’m considering putting you on my ignore list, and I thought “hey before I write this guy off ... i’ll Just ask”

I hope SDN does ban people who don't show any dedication to SDN's mission.

 

[chessknt]

His comment about the calm before the storm is quite telling--if we assume he does not actually have dementia (or at least mci) then he has no comprehension or respect for the position he now wields.

I for one hope he does have dementia because the latter is more concerning for our longevity.

 

[Twiggidy]

I hope SDN does ban people who don't show any dedication to SDN's mission.

But then he’ll just go somewhere and say SDN are a bunch of liberals banning his free speech

 

[deleted171991]

My mistake. S/he is a student, hence s/he's here to be helped to become a doctor (i.e. educated).

 

[deleted59964]

My mistake. S/he is a student, hence s/he's here to be helped to become a doctor (i.e. educated).

Yes, so maybe precedexed can contribute some clinical questions.

I’m not saying they’re not entitled to a political opinion ... far from it,but personally I’ve heard enough of it and if all precedexed wants from the board is a soap box ... well i’m done listening.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Are you going to contribute anything clinical to this board?
I just looked at your past posts and all of them are political.

I just want to know, because I’m considering putting you on my ignore list, and I thought “hey before I write this guy off ... i’ll Just ask”

They are not all political, that is entirely false, I do contribute to other stuff. You wouldn't have considered posting this if I was posting pro-liberal stuff.

 

[Precedexed Out]

His comment about the calm before the storm is quite telling--if we assume he does not actually have dementia (or at least mci) then he has no comprehension or respect for the position he now wields.

I for one hope he does have dementia because the latter is more concerning for our longevity.

Dementia, are you a quack doctor? Seriously, this type of talk is embarrassing to the medical profession. He displays no signs of dementia or MCI. He has done nothing to suggest he has dementia or any other psychiatric disorder. Just another liberal cheap shot to question his positions without directly confronting his view point. Instead of discussing something logically, it is easier for liberals to say he is psychotic or demented. Pathetic for any one to say that, especially from some one in the medical community. If necessary, I can refer you to some sources to help you review what these medical conditions entail.

 

[Precedexed Out]

But then he’ll just go somewhere and say SDN are a bunch of liberals banning his free speech

SDN is a private organization, therefore I could be banned for my dissent on liberal topics. Similar to the NFL issue, banning me wouldn't be violating my free speech. However, it would be very pathetic and counterproductive for SDN to take a liberal stance on membership or tolerating only certain types of speech.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Yes, so maybe precedexed can contribute some clinical questions.

I’m not saying they’re not entitled to a political opinion ... far from it,but personally I’ve heard enough of it and if all precedexed wants from the board is a soap box ... well i’m done listening.

Maybe you should look at other users on here. There post history is predominately political too. It only bothers you if it is someone you disagree with.

 

[deleted59964]

They are not all political, that is entirely false, I do contribute to other stuff. You wouldn't have considered posting this if I was posting pro-liberal stuff.

I looked through 6 pages of your posts, nothing clinical.

I’ve had robust discussions on politics here, with many people that I have strongly disagreed. I would never put them on ignore though, because
1. their arguments were cohesive and
2. they make valuable contributions in clinical discussions.

I’ve learnt a lot about anesthesia from people who’s politics I disagree with ... it’d be a shame if you lost that opportunity

 

[chessknt]

Dementia, are you a quack doctor? Seriously, this type of talk is embarrassing to the medical profession. He displays no signs of dementia or MCI. He has done nothing to suggest he has dementia or any other psychiatric disorder. Just another liberal cheap shot to question his positions without directly confronting his view point. Instead of discussing something logically, it is easier for liberals to say he is psychotic or demented. Pathetic for any one to say that, especially from some one in the medical community. If necessary, I can refer you to some sources to help you review what these medical conditions entail.

For being such a sensitive guy about ad hominem that was a great example there. Maybe you should go finish your training before becoming an expert on dementia after your ~2 months of psychiatry that was probably all inpatient and advanced.

His rambling, non-cohesive speech, repeated use of platitudes like 'great' 'very' 'believe me', forgetting Paul Ryan's name etc are all signs of potential cognitive decline. Sure some could be explained away and if he were a retiree that just golfed all day it wouldnt be a big deal (though MOCA still warranted), but he isnt and his public profile gives us a good idea of his ability to think on his feet.

Family members of people with MCI/dementia are often in denial or think it is part of the normal aging process and wont bring it up unless asked. And even though he should have received some sort of routine testing as a medicare beneficiary I can all but guarantee this wasnt done due to his fame and the perceived insult of performing such testing. I doubt anybody who can do anything about it will actually publicly voice any concern even if he is sundowning in the white house since he has fired members of his cabinet for far less--it would be political suicide.

So yes, I will responsibly posit as a physician who has seen hundreds of people with cognitive decline that Trump is both at risk for and exhibiting signs consistent with cognitive decline based on his public behavior. I am also not a liberal.

 

[Precedexed Out]

For being such a sensitive guy about ad hominem that was a great example there. Maybe you should go finish your training before becoming an expert on dementia after your ~2 months of psychiatry that was probably all inpatient and advanced.

His rambling, non-cohesive speech, repeated use of platitudes like 'great' 'very' 'believe me', forgetting Paul Ryan's name etc are all signs of potential cognitive decline. Sure some could be explained away and if he were a retiree that just golfed all day it wouldnt be a big deal (though MOCA still warranted), but he isnt and his public profile gives us a good idea of his ability to think on his feet.

Family members of people with MCI/dementia are often in denial or think it is part of the normal aging process and wont bring it up unless asked. And even though he should have received some sort of routine testing as a medicare beneficiary I can all but guarantee this wasnt done due to his fame and the perceived insult of performing such testing. I doubt anybody who can do anything about it will actually publicly voice any concern even if he is sundowning in the white house since he has fired members of his cabinet for far less--it would be political suicide.

So yes, I will responsibly posit as a physician who has seen hundreds of people with cognitive decline that Trump is both at risk for and exhibiting signs consistent with cognitive decline based on his public behavior. I am also not a liberal.

Much of what you said is purely speculation, both about me and Trump.

Yes, I'm not a psychiatrist and don't pretend to be. That doesn't change the fact I did learn a few things and a few fundamental principles about psychiatry.

Have you ever heard of the Goldwater rule? "The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics, which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements."

I have seen plenty of patients with all levels of dementia, from MCI to severe, and never anyone who articulates like Trump. Don't confuse his style of speaking with dementia.

Again, your assessment is based entirely on speculation, an irresponsible and unethical method to diagnose.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Dude, go ask for your medical school tuition back. He has the vocabulary level of a demented person. He has the poor judgment of a demented person. The impulsivity. The short attention span. The rambling due to inability to concentrate. The poor memory (he doesn't remember stuff he did or said in the past and denies them). All the quirks people attribute to his personality may be just early signs of dementia. If you watch his interviews from 10-15 years ago, his vocabulary was much more appropriate and he made much more sense.

Plus his father had Alzheimer. It's very likely that he has/will have it too. Don't forget that Reagan was able to hide his dementia during the last years of his mandate.

I would be very sorry (for all of us, including him) if it were true. You'll see in 10 years, like with Reagan. We shouldn't elect 70 year-olds as president. I am a registered independent, by the way.

Personal insults do little to get your point across. In grade school had an IQ test and my score was significantly above average. Also, my medical school GPA and board exams make it highly improbable that you or anyone else in this discussion has done better than me. All of the stuff you mentioned isn't consistent or directly observable by you, so you can't contribute that speculative garbage to make a diagnosis for someone you have never evaluated in person.

FFP had three posts that disappeared, including the one quoted above. What happened?

 

[deleted171991]

Personal insults do little to get your point across. In grade school had an IQ test and my score was significantly above average. Also, my medical school GPA and board exams make it highly improbable that you or anyone else in this discussion has done better than me. All of the stuff you mentioned isn't consistent or directly observable by you, so you can't contribute that speculative garbage to make a diagnosis for someone you have never evaluated in person.

FFP had three posts that disappeared, including the one quoted above. What happened?

What happened is that I remembered:

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

"Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

― Mark Twain

P.S. And you're not as intelligent by far as you think. Says somebody who's more than 2 SDs above the average. No, I am not in the who has it bigger contest. Plus IQ is not everything, just look at Mensa.

 

[Precedexed Out]

What happened is that I remembered:

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

"Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

― Mark Twain

Based on your deleted post about diagnosing Trump with dementia, it does go to show your stupidity and lack of fundamental understanding of some topics of medicine.

 

[Precedexed Out]

What happened is that I remembered:

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

"Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

― Mark Twain

P.S. And you're not as intelligent by far as you think. Says somebody who's more than 2 SDs above the average. No, I am not in the who has it bigger contest. Plus IQ is not everything.

I'm just stating that I'm not stupid like you are now calling me. IQ isn't everything, but as someone who has honored every rotation I have ever had and never received a negative comment on any evaluations, I feel reasonably comfortable in stating my potential abilities are equal to yours.

 

[chessknt]

To revert back on topic-are the healthcare or taxes issues actually moving forward? I know they missed the reconciliation deadline but I feel like the national tragedies and disasters have made these issues shrink in sexiness and then Trump decided to go after Iran and birth control because, hey, why not?

 

[deleted171991]

I won't continue this, because I don't have a burning desire to be banned after 10 years. I answered your question honestly. And no, I did not delete my post because it was medically inaccurate. I have seen many more demented people than an MS-4.

 

[Precedexed Out]

To revert back on topic-are the healthcare or taxes issues actually moving forward? I know they missed the reconciliation deadline but I feel like the national tragedies and disasters have made these issues shrink in sexiness and then Trump decided to go after Iran and birth control because, hey, why not?

Time will tell. It seems like McConnell takes forever to bring bills up for a vote, plus the tax bill is a big deal so I except lots of behind closed doors stuff to occur before it makes it formally into congress for open debate.

 

[Precedexed Out]

I won't continue this, because I don't have a burning desire to be banned after 10 years. I answered your question honestly. And no, I did not delete my post because it was medically inaccurate. I have seen many more demented people than an MS-4.

Undoubtedly, you have seem many more demented people. That doesn't change the fundamental fact you do not diagnose those who you have never formally evaluated.

One of your deleted posts credited me with posting something accurately, you could have left that one up.

 

[nimbus]

I'm just stating that I'm not stupid like you are now calling me. IQ isn't everything, but as someone who has honored every rotation I have ever had and never received a negative comment on any evaluations, I feel reasonably comfortable in stating my potential abilities are equal to yours.

Hmmm...then it seems like you would have more than 8 interviews.

 

[deleted59964]

Based on your deleted post about diagnosing Trump with dementia, it does go to show your stupidity and lack of fundamental understanding of some topics of medicine.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Hmmm...then it seems like you would have more than 8 interviews.

Fair point. I applied to about 26 programs, so ~33% have invited me to this point. I have applied to programs based mostly or the region where I want to live. I'm somewhat concerned some of the programs, like low-tier or mid-tier, haven't invited me because my application may seem too competitive. Most of the programs I have applied to aren't top-tier anesthesiology residency programs.

I don't know how committees select who to interview, but I'd guess it has something to do with how they perceive the desirability of their program and previous year applicants statistics. Maybe they stratify applicants and base most of their interviews around the caliber of applicants they usually end up matching along with inviting a few with above and below statistics. If all programs only interviewed the applicants with the best scores, there would be a bunch of programs that may not fill their spots, or so it would think.

Regardless, I'm up to 8 and based on the published data, my probability of matching is approaching 100%.

 

[nimbus]

Fair point. I applied to about 26 programs, so ~33% have invited me to this point. I have applied to programs based mostly or the region where I want to live. I'm somewhat concerned some of the programs, like low-tier or mid-tier, haven't invited me because my application may seem too competitive. Most of the programs I have applied to aren't top-tier anesthesiology residency programs.

I don't know how committees select who to interview, but I'd guess it has something to do with how they perceive the desirability of their program and previous year applicants statistics. Maybe they stratify applicants and base most of their interviews around the caliber of applicants they usually end up matching along with inviting a few with above and below statistics. If all programs only interviewed the applicants with the best scores, there would be a bunch of programs that may not fill their spots, or so it would think.

Regardless, I'm up to 8 and based on the published data, my probability of matching is approaching 100%.

They don't invite you because you're too competitive?? That's an interesting line of reasoning. I know my old program rated applications by giving a numerical rating for med school competitiveness, deans letter, letters of recommendation, and board scores and just offered interviews to the highest rated applicants.

If you're interested in the mid-Atlantic region there are several top-tier or 2nd tier programs in the area. Why wouldn't you apply to them given your qualifications?

 

[facted]

To revert back on topic-are the healthcare or taxes issues actually moving forward? I know they missed the reconciliation deadline but I feel like the national tragedies and disasters have made these issues shrink in sexiness and then Trump decided to go after Iran and birth control because, hey, why not?

It's still being worked on in committee, but I really doubt anything gets passed. For starters, the only way they're even partially paying for the cuts is by eliminating state and local deductions. The issue is there are 50+ Republicans who are in high local tac areas that would be VERY vulnerable if they went with this. Very unlikely they get enough of them on board which is why you're hearing about them already walking down for this position and leaving one or the other deduction intact. Regardless, this will continue to happen on many aspects of this bill. There is zero leadership from the White House, and the are way too many entrenches interests for any tax reform to be done without bipartisan support. I give the chance of meaningful reform at less than 10% personally. Not losing any sleep over it.

 

[Twiggidy]

It's still being worked on in committee, but I really doubt anything gets passed. For starters, the only way they're even partially paying for the cuts is by eliminating state and local deductions.The issue is there are 50+ Republicans who are in high local tac areas that would be VERY vulnerable if they went with this. Very unlikely they get enough of them on board which is why you're hearing about them already walking down for this position and leaving one or the other deduction intact. Regardless, this will continue to happen on many aspects of this bill. There is zero leadership from the White House, and the are way too many entrenches interests for any tax reform to be done without bipartisan support. I give the chance of meaningful reform at less than 10% personally. Not losing any sleep over it.

And that's the rub right there.

 

[fakin' the funk]

I'm somewhat concerned some of the programs, like low-tier or mid-tier, haven't invited me because my application may seem too competitive. Most of the programs I have applied to aren't top-tier anesthesiology resid...

Right on you didn't get an invite because you're *too good*

Oral boards examiner: "Tell me how you'd proceed with this anticipated difficult intubation"
Precedexed: "Preoxygenation is a liberal conspiracy"

 

[GA8314]

I will agree with you on this, and have said the same. If, in 4 years, the economy is better off and the world is a safer place, then obviously he's done something right and he'll get re-elected. But I also don't think it's too early to start judging him. Every other President has been judged off of their first 6 months or one year, why should Trump be any different?

For now, I approve of his actions towards North Korea, I don't think he has any clue about health care and will let the mainstream Republicans take the fall for failing to come up with something better (which is probably wise), he is going to set us back 30-odd years on the environment, and TBD on taxes. It looks like right now lower-class Americans will not see much difference (other than it being slightly simpler), but upper-class Americans will see significant gains. The gap is already wider than it has been in a long time, and if Joe Schmoe sees the gap getting even wider, it may come back to bite him in the ass. Or maybe he hopes that with enough race-baiting, football, and Hillary talk, people won't care. Panem et circenses, as they say.

Socially/culturally, we're already worse off (though maybe in the long run getting all this out in the open might be a good thing). I don't think his economic philosophies are as good as he thinks they are, because the problem is not immigrants taking our jobs or our jobs being shipped overseas, it's that there has been a fundamental shift in what jobs are necessary, and no amount of hand-wringing is going to bring back those low-skilled/reasonably high-paying jobs of yesteryear.

As far as his business acumen, I have mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I saw an article somewhere that if he had taken his father's initial investment and put it all in a S&P500 index fund and done nothing with it, he'd actually be worth more today than he currently is. On the other hand, there is some degree of survivorship bias, so just the fact that he's still around is probably an accomplishment. It's also tough to evaluate, because it seems like he aggressively argues down the tax value of his properties for tax purposes, but also wants to turn around and claim how much more they are worth to the public.

Please consider the bolded statement. So many people have argued, incorrectly, that so many outsourced jobs are no longer viable. It's true that modern manufacturing relies heavily on automation (indeed automation occurs in those outsourced countries increasingly so), but 1) you simply can't automate everything, and 2) automation creates an entire industry of it's own which I can go into further another time. So, yes, we aren't going back to 10,000 people working at the "plant" but you will still have several hundred to thousands, and the scale received in manufacturing, indeed automation itself is a huge industry, is massive.

Also, there is this other liberal paradox. On the one hand, they say over and over that we have an extreme lack of low skilled jobs in this country. How, our economy has changed so much that there just aren't the low skilled jobs available, as they've become unnecessary in an advanced economy.

Well, how is it solving anyone's problem to bring in tens of thousands of legal immigrants, while letting tens of thousands more come in illegally without much fanfare, who have little to no real skills OR education. Some don't even speak the LANGUAGE.

Which is it? Is it fair to immigrants to even allow them to come into our advanced economy with low skill and education levels? From culturally very different countries? If indeed you are correct about our economy, then it's not only NOT fair to the low skilled immigrant (likely to fail in such a system) but also unfair to the American taxpayer.

But, you see. We do have plenty of unskilled jobs (just think poultry processing or some aspects of farming). Corporations favor this cheap labor. Democrats see future voters for gibs.

AND, nobody wants to tell their own voters that they must apply (and for corporations to give preferential consideration to US citizens) for those jobs before receiving state aid. So, we fill those jobs with cheap labor (Large corporations win), and Democrats gain favor from their base of poor and underemployed citizens (often minorities and misguided people), while setting up for future constituents of the immigrant classes who will later want gibs.

For the status quo, it's a win win! Yay! Who loses though? The taxpayer, and the poor and disenfranchised. They lose.

We've been importing a race to the bottom economic strategy in many ways. Is this making it harder on the poor and disenfranchised? I think the answer is obvious. Perhaps for example, look at African AMERICANS as an example. Is this a good thing for their long term future??

 

[Precedexed Out]

Right on you didn't get an invite because you're *too good*

Oral boards examiner: "Tell me how you'd proceed with this anticipated difficult intubation"
Precedexed: "Preoxygenation is a liberal conspiracy"

Entirely possible. Given the high number of applicants that apply, if each program only interviewed the top applicants, many programs wouldn't fill all their spots. For example, a few months ago I spoke with one program that had eight spots, interviewed 90 applicants, and received over 600 applications. Do you believe they only invited the top 90 people that applied? This was a program most would consider mid-tier. I believe nearly all programs approach their interview with a strategy to select those likely to attend their program, at least to some extent.

However, I can see you don't waste opportunities to take cheap shots. I have received invites from two top-tier academic programs, so its not like I haven't gotten any invites from top programs. One I will probably cancel because the location isn't very desirable. The season is young, so I will still get more invites. It is clear you are too short sighted to be able to grasp all that.

 

[Precedexed Out]

They don't invite you because you're too competitive?? That's an interesting line of reasoning. I know my old program rated applications by giving a numerical rating for med school competitiveness, deans letter, letters of recommendation, and board scores and just offered interviews to the highest rated applicants.

If you're interested in the mid-Atlantic region there are several top-tier or 2nd tier programs in the area. Why wouldn't you apply to them given your qualifications?

Simple really, location is more important to me than other factors. I'm not necessarily interested in attending the most prestigious program. I just want a solid program that isn't malignant that will teach me how to be an anesthesiologist.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Please consider the bolded statement. So many people have argued, incorrectly, that so many outsourced jobs are no longer viable. It's true that modern manufacturing relies heavily on automation (indeed automation occurs in those outsourced countries increasingly so), but 1) you simply can't automate everything, and 2) automation creates an entire industry of it's own which I can go into further another time. So, yes, we aren't going back to 10,000 people working at the "plant" but you will still have several hundred to thousands, and the scale received in manufacturing, indeed automation itself is a huge industry, is massive.

Also, there is this other liberal paradox. On the one hand, they say over and over that we have an extreme lack of low skilled jobs in this country. How, our economy has changed so much that there just aren't the low skilled jobs available, as they've become unnecessary in an advanced economy.

Well, how is it solving anyone's problem to bring in tens of thousands of legal immigrants, while letting tens of thousands more come in illegally without much fanfare, who have little to no real skills OR education. Some don't even speak the LANGUAGE.

Which is it? Is it fair to immigrants to even allow them to come into our advanced economy with low skill and education levels? From culturally very different countries? If indeed you are correct about our economy, then it's not only NOT fair to the low skilled immigrant (likely to fail in such a system) but also unfair to the American taxpayer.

But, you see. We do have plenty of unskilled jobs (just think poultry processing or some aspects of farming). Corporations favor this cheap labor. Democrats see future voters for gibs.

AND, nobody wants to tell their own voters that they must apply (and for corporations to give preferential consideration to US citizens) for those jobs before receiving state aid. So, we fill those jobs with cheap labor (Large corporations win), and Democrats gain favor from their base of poor and underemployed citizens (often minorities and misguided people), while setting up for future constituents of the immigrant classes who will later want gibs.

For the status quo, it's a win win! Yay! Who loses though? The taxpayer, and the poor and disenfranchised. They lose.

We've been importing a race to the bottom economic strategy in many ways. Is this making it harder on the poor and disenfranchised? I think the answer is obvious. Perhaps for example, look at African AMERICANS as an example. Is this a good thing for their long term future??

Minorities and low-income Americans of all races struggle to find good paying jobs as it is and the democratic party is determined to flood this country with as many immigrants as possible. Doesn't seem like a strategy to help your constituents, but I can't remember the last time the democratic party actually demonstrated they cared about US citizens.

 

[deleted171991]

Oh, come on, @GA8314! You really believe all the fairy tales about the manufacturing jobs coming back? Stop kidding yourself. Nowadays you can run a factory with 1% of the previous workforce plus robots. And that workforce is not that unskilled. Those jobs are never coming back, not without huge subsidies. Regarding the latter, it's probably cheaper to just give the money to poor folk.

About illegals taking unskilled American jobs, I agree. The problem is with enforcing the laws. Already, employers have to check every employee against an immigration database, by law. It's just not properly enforced.

All the system needs is huge fines for hiring illegals. As in $100K fines for each violation, with a big part going to the citizen who reports it (similar to the system for discovering Medicare fraud etc.). This is something the republican government could do overnight, except there is no real interest in it. All those farmers who vote republican would go bankrupt.

So don't fool yourself. The reason we have illegals is that there is no political will to discourage them from coming. The wall is just a joke for stupid people, as long as there will always be tunnels, and as long as those who come in illegally will find work. The way to stop illegal immigration is to make it very expensive and risky to hire an illegal. Let's not forget: people who take even one job illegally forfeit any chance of becoming a legal immigrant, hence will stay illegal in perpetuity (without some mass pardon).

Stop blaming the liberals. They are not running the country.