Trump announces 8,000 more jobs for American workers

domer76 said:
Perhaps they are call center jobs like the ones Trump is deceivingly beating his chest about.

Well, I'll be

"Fewer and fewer Americans are on food stamps, and the decline is only getting faster."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...mps-plummeting-faster-than-ever-before-2016-9
Click to expand...
I blocked him weeks ago. Remind him that many who collect food stamps are working poor. Walmart has a free service where they help underpaid employees sign up for assistance.

This might be a good time to argue for a higher minimum wage with the idiot.
 
cawacko said:
Oh, the left on this forum was shitting all over Bush when unemployment was under 5% for the jobs not being good. So what say you homeboy?
Click to expand...
The Left was shitting on Bush for waging war in Iraq, 'misplacing' billions of dollars, all while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Let's keep the facts straight.
 
tsuke said:
and not every job created during obama's term had anything to do with obama. Trump even participated in these more than a president normally does. Softbank had 100b in worldwide funds for new jobs. Trump secured 50b of it for america.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense.

Check the date, and then check the fact that Sun wanted to buy T Mobile, but met with regulatory hurdles.

http://www.softbank.jp/en/corp/news/press/sb/2016/20161014_01/
 
"I know it was less than eight when he started" PP #231
Click to expand...
This source says 7.8%
Barack Obama's Economy: The Ugly Truth | National Review
www.nationalreview.com/article/435093/barack-obama-economy-jobs-ugly-truth

May 6, 2016 ... In spite of his insistent rhetoric, President Obama's economy is the weakest in ... The unemployment rate has improved significantly, from 7.8 percent at ...
Click to expand...
And now it's 4.x%
So not quite half.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers or your conclusions; not even entirely sure what they relate to.
No worries.

Lackluster though the Obama recovery may be, we're still better off in year 8 compared to year 1; the exact opposite of the Bush administration.

#232
Not my job to educate you.
"It ought to be.....taxpayers bought it and gifted it to the unions....." #233
Click to expand...
a) "bought"?
Rented is probably more accurate.
My understanding is they were not grants, but loans, and are to be paid back in full.

b) To the benefit of us all.

According to a PBS documentary Secretary Paulson (Treasury Secretary / President GWB) is reported to have intended to let the banks whose bankers ran them aground with risky loans & other foolish bank practices simply fold.
Was it Lehman Bros. that was allowed to go under?

BUT !!

Larger organizations became protected by the "too big to fail" scenario; thus $700 $Billion $TARP of the Bush administration.
It wasn't enough to rescue the U.S. economy from the Bush recession.
It was merely enough to keep it on life-support until Bush / Cheney / Paulson could get out of town Jan. 20, 2009.

Obama / Biden took it from there, and it's been a fairly steady if gradual path to recovery.

President Trump will be taking charge of a nation in far better shape than the U.S.of A. President Obama inherited.
 
Althea said:
I blocked him weeks ago. Remind him that many who collect food stamps are working poor. Walmart has a free service where they help underpaid employees sign up for assistance.

This might be a good time to argue for a higher minimum wage with the idiot.
Click to expand...

I'll remind you that if the only job you can work is one paying minimum wage based on your skills, the problem is with you.

The only argument for a higher wage is offering better skills. Handing someone something more with the only reason being they're at the bottom explains that the problem is with their lack of skills not a lack of pay.
 
Althea said:
The Left was shitting on Bush for waging war in Iraq, 'misplacing' billions of dollars, all while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Let's keep the facts straight.
Click to expand...


You mean many of those same lefties that voted for the war and said the same thing Bush did should happen? Suddenly, when Bush does it, they call what they said should happen before Bush was President a lie. Yeah, let's keep the facts straight.
 
CFM said:
I'll remind you that if the only job you can work is one paying minimum wage based on your skills, the problem is with you.

The only argument for a higher wage is offering better skills. Handing someone something more with the only reason being they're at the bottom explains that the problem is with their lack of skills not a lack of pay.
Click to expand...

my main argument against minimum wage is that liberals keep wanting to tie the federal minimum wage to something that is livable in new york and los angeles screwing over the rest of the country in the process as opposed to doing it on a state by state level.

This is inspite their main economic model, sweden, running minimum wage on an industry by industry level as opposed to a federal one.
 
Althea said:
The Left was shitting on Bush for waging war in Iraq, 'misplacing' billions of dollars, all while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Let's keep the facts straight.
Click to expand...

Let's keep the fact straight, again. Half this country doesn't pay a dime in income taxes, the ultimate cut. When those freeloaders start contributing to the cause instead of taking from the system, let me know. The only argument those that take out but don't put in have is for those putting in to be forced to put in more so they can continue to have something handed to them.
 
tsuke said:
my main argument against minimum wage is that liberals keep wanting to tie the federal minimum wage to something that is livable in new york and los angeles screwing over the rest of the country in the process as opposed to doing it on a state by state level.

This is inspite their main economic model, sweden, running minimum wage on an industry by industry level as opposed to a federal one.
Click to expand...


One of my arguments against minimum wage is that it's the government telling a business they have to pay a wage that, in many cases, is far above the level of skills offered by the one getting it.

Recently, Liberals led by Ed Asner and Ed Harris went to court to try and get a judge to allow them to not pay the minimum wage set by law for local theater workers. The Liberals argued that by doing so, the wage would put many of those local theaters out of business. However, when the argument is posed by conservatives about what raising it will do, those same Liberals claim it won't.
 
tsuke said:
my main argument against minimum wage is that liberals keep wanting to tie the federal minimum wage to something that is livable in new york and los angeles screwing over the rest of the country in the process as opposed to doing it on a state by state level.

This is inspite their main economic model, sweden, running minimum wage on an industry by industry level as opposed to a federal one.
Click to expand...
You have a valid claim in theory. But....the bump in wages will spread the cost over millions of people via a slight increase in costs. Taxpayers are going to pay one way or another, via social programs, or increased prices for burgers.

The point is that the minimum wage is a concept of the past. With corporations taking higher profits at the expense of the worker, the few jobs left in this country have to make it possible for people to eat.

Because we have one side of the debate demanding cuts to social programs, and fighting against higher wages. You can't have both in a civilized society.
Especially one that wastes so much money on wars.
 
cawacko said:
clearly you weren't on this board
Click to expand...

How many of those lefties that, as Althea puts it, were shitting on Bush for Iraq voted to go into Iraq and how many of them said the same thing needed to be done and did so before Bush was President? Suddenly, when Bush does it, with their votes, it's a lie.
 
Althea said:
You have a valid claim in theory. But....the bump in wages will spread the cost over millions of people via a slight increase in costs. Taxpayers are going to pay one way or another, via social programs, or increased prices for burgers.

The point is that the minimum wage is a concept of the past. With corporations taking higher profits at the expense of the worker, the few jobs left in this country have to make it possible for people to eat.

Because we have one side of the debate demanding cuts to social programs, and fighting against higher wages. You can't have both in a civilized society.
Especially one that wastes so much money on wars.
Click to expand...

I have a solution to the it's going to happen either way bullshit. Stop mandating the funding of social programs and let those of you that think one person deserves another person's money get it from you.

In a civilized society, people do for themselves what they should be doing for themselves and if someone else wants to do for them, that one wanting to do it does it with their money not though a mandate forcing others to do it so they can take credit for it.
 
cawacko said:
Did you support it or not?
Click to expand...
That's a pretty big question. Did I support AIG getting money, and subsequently handing out millions in bonuses? Absolutely not. Did I recognize that something was necessary? Yes I did. I wanted to see the money go directly to the people with the mortgages, as a rewrite of terms with better rates. Of course, that would be 'Socialism', and it could never happen.

But...Obama's extension of the bailout included serious mandates that the banks hated. As such, they rushed to pay back the loans with interest. The govt made money in the long run...AIG notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top