If these companies had announced these raised or bonuses at any time during the last year, after the cuts went into effect, we would be having a different discussion. Instead they had press releases ready to announce them within HOURS of the bill passing, clearly coordinated with the White House. Which means they had the ability to do so long beforehand, as they made these changes before they saw one penny of the tax cut. Doing right by your workers shouldn't necessitate being handed the keys to Fort Knox.
People rag on big government. But I'll take people who believe in good government over private business any day of the week. The government has never screwed me out of anything. Can't say the same for private businesses. The government isn't going to stop sending your Social Security check to you one day because they've "decided to go in a different direction".
I just looked this up for grins. If you stole every dollar the top 1% make in the US, it would amount to $3900 per person/year. That's about $330/month/person and that's if you confiscate EVERY PENNY THEY MAKE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Tell me again how the 1% is going to pay for this! Seriously people, I'm all ears. Again, don't lie to me and tell me it's going to be free because 'the rich' are going to pay for it. Tell me honestly how much it's going to cost me and just maybe we can work something out. The politicians on the left know it doesn't work out the way they say it will but they're buying votes. Period!
Edit: Keep in mind I'm already paying for me and my family...
Clearly no one is suggesting that ONLY the 1% pay taxes and have all their money confiscated. Though it's worth mentioning that the top marginal tax rate in the Eisenhower Administration (meaning after a certain amount, that is what was paid) was over 90%, and I don't ever hear anyone running around calling Ike the second coming of Lenin. Nor does anyone ever suggest anything is "free". I have never heard a Democratic politician talk about giving away "free" stuff. I don't know where the suggestion that they do comes from. Clearly, the fact that the party is up front about believing in higher taxes than their opposition concludes that they DON'T believe it's free, or why would they even bother to try and pay for it that way??
Oh they pretty much preach about the 'rich' paying for everything. Their higher taxes won't pay for any of this shit without the middle class paying the lion's share but they WILL not admit that. Name one time that they have.
Every time they vote against tax cuts, which is constantly. Including last year.
That's a joke right? All they ever said was tax cuts for 'the rich'. I'm sorry, but I got a tax cut too. I'm middle class. They never once admitted they voted against a tax cut for the middle class.
The corporations get to keep their tax cuts *Forever*. You, however, do not. It will go away in 2025. It's the incredible vanishing tax cut!
"Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase.
The Tax Policy Center broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth." From here:https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
So, the rich benefitted more than you did. The corporations benefitted most. The fact that Trump *knows* his tax-cuts didn't help the middle class is how he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut" in the run-up to the election that he knew was nothing but swamp gas because Congess wouldn't be back until well *after* the election.
Regarding tax cuts, I think it also deserves to be mentioned that the tax cuts led directly for wage increases for ordinary folks. Walmart, the largest private employer in the country last I checked, raised their minimum wage to 11$ an hour after the policy took effect and cited it as the reason. Wells Fargo and others did similar things.
I also don't see why things that benefit the rich are inherently bad, especially if the lower classes are also benefitting.
And no tax bill is going to live past 2025 anyway, as by then a new administration will be writing new tax policy.
In this case, no. Unless the tax cut is done away with, it stays. Even through other administrations. And a few corporations paying $15 an hour doesn't make it the Federal Minimum Wage. There are plenty of people still getting less than that.
I'm not a big fan of Walmart. It's a despicable company by both liberal and conservative values: it pays its workers low wages, sells foreign-made products over American-made products, hires illegal aliens in place of American workers whenever it can, and it encourages its employees to get on welfare and food stamps so they can keep wages low.
Yeah, Wal-Mart raised it's wages. And then immediately shuttered 63 stores mere DAYS later, including (if I remember correctly from that time, and I do) a group a Sam's Club employees who went into work that day not even knowing their building was no longer even open. Wonder how they felt about their increased wages. AT&T also engaged in massive layoffs days after a PR blitz about the tax cuts and bonuses. They probably correctly assume everyone has forgotten about that by now. I haven't.
Wal Mart closed stores due to tax cuts? lol what.
Unless they did so, I fail to see the relationship between it and the tax policy. I imagine those stores were unprofitable or ill located.
That sounds a lot more like throwing anything remotely negative at the wall and seeing what sticks, as the media is won't to do and as they did about the policy using that very factoid when it came out, rather than anything rational about the policy itself.
So Wal-mart just SAYING in a press relesse the tax cut is the only reason they raised wages is sufficient causation, but the news they were closing 63 stores mere days later is totally out of bounds for discussion?? Feel free to take the word of a company that used to take out life insurance policies on their own employees and purposely keeps their employeed under 32 hours a week to avoid paying them benefits.
There is a difference between out of bounds for discussion and throwing out random claims with no logical connection to the issue.
You are free to make the case that tax cuts causes store closures. It is completely in bounds. There is just no reason to see it as a cause right now, at all.
I just looked this up for grins. If you stole every dollar the top 1% make in the US, it would amount to $3900 per person/year. That's about $330/month/person and that's if you confiscate EVERY PENNY THEY MAKE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Tell me again how the 1% is going to pay for this! Seriously people, I'm all ears. Again, don't lie to me and tell me it's going to be free because 'the rich' are going to pay for it. Tell me honestly how much it's going to cost me and just maybe we can work something out. The politicians on the left know it doesn't work out the way they say it will but they're buying votes. Period!
Edit: Keep in mind I'm already paying for me and my family...
Clearly no one is suggesting that ONLY the 1% pay taxes and have all their money confiscated. Though it's worth mentioning that the top marginal tax rate in the Eisenhower Administration (meaning after a certain amount, that is what was paid) was over 90%, and I don't ever hear anyone running around calling Ike the second coming of Lenin. Nor does anyone ever suggest anything is "free". I have never heard a Democratic politician talk about giving away "free" stuff. I don't know where the suggestion that they do comes from. Clearly, the fact that the party is up front about believing in higher taxes than their opposition concludes that they DON'T believe it's free, or why would they even bother to try and pay for it that way??
Oh they pretty much preach about the 'rich' paying for everything. Their higher taxes won't pay for any of this shit without the middle class paying the lion's share but they WILL not admit that. Name one time that they have.
Every time they vote against tax cuts, which is constantly. Including last year.
That's a joke right? All they ever said was tax cuts for 'the rich'. I'm sorry, but I got a tax cut too. I'm middle class. They never once admitted they voted against a tax cut for the middle class.
The corporations get to keep their tax cuts *Forever*. You, however, do not. It will go away in 2025. It's the incredible vanishing tax cut!
"Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase.
The Tax Policy Center broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth." From here:https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
So, the rich benefitted more than you did. The corporations benefitted most. The fact that Trump *knows* his tax-cuts didn't help the middle class is how he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut" in the run-up to the election that he knew was nothing but swamp gas because Congess wouldn't be back until well *after* the election.
Regarding tax cuts, I think it also deserves to be mentioned that the tax cuts led directly for wage increases for ordinary folks. Walmart, the largest private employer in the country last I checked, raised their minimum wage to 11$ an hour after the policy took effect and cited it as the reason. Wells Fargo and others did similar things.
I also don't see why things that benefit the rich are inherently bad, especially if the lower classes are also benefitting.
And no tax bill is going to live past 2025 anyway, as by then a new administration will be writing new tax policy.
In this case, no. Unless the tax cut is done away with, it stays. Even through other administrations. And a few corporations paying $15 an hour doesn't make it the Federal Minimum Wage. There are plenty of people still getting less than that.
And again, this began during the Obama years. This is a link to the U.S. Census' records of median household income for all races by year for each quintile of the population. After the recession of 2008-2009, median household income made a recovery. The Social Security Administration shows the growth in median wages (as opposed to median household income): Notice that the ratio of the median to the average gets much lower as time goes on, a measure of the increasing level of income inequality (average wages are higher than median wages since they're distorted by high-income outliers).
This is yet another trend that clearly predates Trump. I don't remember how many times I've posted data demonstrating that a positive trend came before Trump took office.
I just looked this up for grins. If you stole every dollar the top 1% make in the US, it would amount to $3900 per person/year. That's about $330/month/person and that's if you confiscate EVERY PENNY THEY MAKE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Tell me again how the 1% is going to pay for this! Seriously people, I'm all ears. Again, don't lie to me and tell me it's going to be free because 'the rich' are going to pay for it. Tell me honestly how much it's going to cost me and just maybe we can work something out. The politicians on the left know it doesn't work out the way they say it will but they're buying votes. Period!
Edit: Keep in mind I'm already paying for me and my family...
Clearly no one is suggesting that ONLY the 1% pay taxes and have all their money confiscated. Though it's worth mentioning that the top marginal tax rate in the Eisenhower Administration (meaning after a certain amount, that is what was paid) was over 90%, and I don't ever hear anyone running around calling Ike the second coming of Lenin. Nor does anyone ever suggest anything is "free". I have never heard a Democratic politician talk about giving away "free" stuff. I don't know where the suggestion that they do comes from. Clearly, the fact that the party is up front about believing in higher taxes than their opposition concludes that they DON'T believe it's free, or why would they even bother to try and pay for it that way??
Oh they pretty much preach about the 'rich' paying for everything. Their higher taxes won't pay for any of this shit without the middle class paying the lion's share but they WILL not admit that. Name one time that they have.
Every time they vote against tax cuts, which is constantly. Including last year.
That's a joke right? All they ever said was tax cuts for 'the rich'. I'm sorry, but I got a tax cut too. I'm middle class. They never once admitted they voted against a tax cut for the middle class.
The corporations get to keep their tax cuts *Forever*. You, however, do not. It will go away in 2025. It's the incredible vanishing tax cut!
"Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase.
The Tax Policy Center broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth." From here:https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
So, the rich benefitted more than you did. The corporations benefitted most. The fact that Trump *knows* his tax-cuts didn't help the middle class is how he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut" in the run-up to the election that he knew was nothing but swamp gas because Congess wouldn't be back until well *after* the election.
Regarding tax cuts, I think it also deserves to be mentioned that the tax cuts led directly for wage increases for ordinary folks. Walmart, the largest private employer in the country last I checked, raised their minimum wage to 11$ an hour after the policy took effect and cited it as the reason. Wells Fargo and others did similar things.
I also don't see why things that benefit the rich are inherently bad, especially if the lower classes are also benefitting.
And no tax bill is going to live past 2025 anyway, as by then a new administration will be writing new tax policy.
In this case, no. Unless the tax cut is done away with, it stays. Even through other administrations. And a few corporations paying $15 an hour doesn't make it the Federal Minimum Wage. There are plenty of people still getting less than that.
True... median wages definitely need to be adjusted for inflation if we want to get an idea of how much that extra dollar really means. A 2.8% wage increase isn't that impressive if it's paired with a 2.7% inflation increase.
It's my understanding that real wages have been stagnant for decades (about 50 years for men, and 20 years for women), though I don't remember the source for that--it came up a really long time ago in the politics threads. The root issue is that GDP growth doesn't always mean real wage growth.
Your employer can get a 10% spike in profits, but it doesn't mean they have to pay you 10% more. I don't think we're going to get truly fair wages just by relying on the typical, employer-dominated, non-unionized labor relationship we've got now, where employers set the terms of employment and employees have very little bargaining power.
And again, this began during the Obama years. This is a link to the U.S. Census' records of median household income for all races by year for each quintile of the population. After the recession of 2008-2009, median household income made a recovery.
The Social Security Administration shows the growth in median wages (as opposed to median household income):
Notice that the ratio of the median to the average gets much lower as time goes on, a measure of the increasing level of income inequality (average wages are higher than median wages since they're distorted by high-income outliers).
This is yet another trend that clearly predates Trump. I don't remember how many times I've posted data demonstrating that a positive trend came before Trump took office.
Trump's first year had greater gains than all of Obama's 8 years. By a substanial margin, more than Obama's ECI usually fluctuated between years.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
Trump could rescue a kitten from a burning building and Obama would get the credit here.
I will always remember him, not only for his cameos in the Marvel movies, but his voiceovers in the Marvel Cartoons during the 70's and 80's. Farewell, Stanley Lieber! Forever you shall reign in Valhalla!
Another Ferguson Activist got Lynched. Has anyone heard anything about it? Why not?
FERGUSON ACTIVISTS ARE BEING LYNCHED ONE BY ONE AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT
I will always remember him, not only for his cameos in the Marvel movies, but his voiceovers in the Marvel Cartoons during the 70's and 80's. Farewell, Stanley Lieberman! Forever you shall reign in Valhalla!
Another Ferguson Activist got Lynched. Has anyone heard anything about it? Why not?
FERGUSON ACTIVISTS ARE BEING LYNCHED ONE BY ONE AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT
Lynched one by one? A total of 3 over a time period of 4 years and only one of them could remotely be described as lynched. Sensationalist headline anybody?
Even the media outlets which normally hate Trump have the sense to give credit where credit is due. To do otherwise would be a credibility killer, really.
In part, thanks to Donald Trump, who made the backlog problems worse. "There are many veterans, like Roundtree, across the country who are still waiting for VA to catch up with a backlog created after President Donald Trump signed the Forever GI Bill in 2017. The landmark piece of legislation greatly expanded benefits for veterans and their families, but it did not upgrade the VA's technical capabilities to account for those changes."
How colonial violence came home: the ugly truth of the first world war
Not really a surprise. After declaring a squeaking victory to be a "great win", if it got worse, it would seem like he is wrong. He knows he lost big, and he wants to prevent it from being an even bigger loss!
Even the media outlets which normally hate Trump have the sense to give credit where credit is due. To do otherwise would be a credibility killer, really.
Trump's first year had greater gains than all of Obama's 8 years. By a substanial margin, more than Obama's ECI usually fluctuated between years.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
What is ECI, and what are the numbers by year?
I have every reason to believe this is a wave being ridden. I predicted all of this at the beginning of Trump's term. I specifically predicted that the upward trend in the economy would continue under Trump, and I was right. It did.
I need more specifics than just "evidence indicates." What is the evidence that which Trump policy caused which change in which numbers, and how did it happen?
So, some prisoners are being used to fight the fire in CA. They are being paid a whole $1 an hour for risking their lives. Does that seem like too little to you?
$1 an Hour to Fight Largest Fire in CA History: Are Prison Firefighting Programs Slave Labor?
So, some prisoners are being used to fight the fire in CA. They are being paid a whole $1 an hour for risking their lives. Does that seem like too little to you?
$1 an Hour to Fight Largest Fire in CA History: Are Prison Firefighting Programs Slave Labor?
Uh, no. They're paying their debt to society, paying for three squares a day, and paying for the facility and guards that wouldn't need to be there if they all obeyed the law.
So, some prisoners are being used to fight the fire in CA. They are being paid a whole $1 an hour for risking their lives. Does that seem like too little to you?
$1 an Hour to Fight Largest Fire in CA History: Are Prison Firefighting Programs Slave Labor?
Uh, no. They're paying their debt to society, paying for three squares a day, and paying for the facility and guards that wouldn't need to be there if they all obeyed the law.
I see no reason imprisonment should also include slavery as part of the punishment. We decided to send them there as a society. Footing the bill is on us, not them. You can't send people to prison AND expect them to pay for it as well. If we aren't interested in paying for it, then we should stop sending so many people there. I highly doubt it's murderers and rapists being allowed out to fight the fire. It's almost certainly run of the mill inmates. But again, paying for the guards for your own imprisonment is absurd. Where does the punishment end for these people?? THIS sounds alot like wanting something for free.
Even the media outlets which normally hate Trump have the sense to give credit where credit is due. To do otherwise would be a credibility killer, really.
So, some prisoners are being used to fight the fire in CA. They are being paid a whole $1 an hour for risking their lives. Does that seem like too little to you?
$1 an Hour to Fight Largest Fire in CA History: Are Prison Firefighting Programs Slave Labor?
Uh, no. They're paying their debt to society, paying for three squares a day, and paying for the facility and guards that wouldn't need to be there if they all obeyed the law.
All of which they could do without leaving their cell. Are you aware that private prison companies are demanding the prisons be kept full?
Is it true that American Private Prisons are kept full in order to make more money from making the prisoners work?
What?!? Private prisons suing states for millions if they don’t stay full. That's right!!
By Terry Shropshire | September 26, 2013 8:44 AM EST | 334
Low crime rates bad for business for private prisons; they demand states keep them full
The prison-industrial complex is so out of control that private prisons have the sheer audacity to order states to keep beds full or face their wrath with stiff financial penalties, according to reports. Private prisons in some states have language in their contracts that state if they fall below a certain percentage of capacity that the states must pay the private prisons millions of dollars, lest they face a lawsuit for millions more.
To continue from above, from the second article: All the big private prison companies—CCA, GEO Group, and the Management and Training Corporation—try to include occupancy requirements in their contracts, according to the report. States with the highest occupancy requirements include Arizona (three prison contracts with 100 percent occupancy guarantees), Oklahoma (three contracts with 98 percent occupancy guarantees), and Virginia (one contract with a 95 percent occupancy guarantee). At the same time, private prison companies have supported and helped write “three-strike” and “truth-in-sentencing” laws that drive up prison populations. Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and keeping them there.
You might be wondering: What happens when crime drops and prison populations dwindle in states that agreed to keep their private prisons 80 percent or 90 percent full? Consider Colorado. The state’s crime rate has sunk by a third in the past decade, and since 2009, five state-run prisons have shuttered because they weren’t needed. Many more prison beds remain empty in other state facilities. Yet the state chose not to fill those beds because Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and CCA cut a deal to instead send 3,330 prisoners to CCA’s three Colorado prisons. Colorado taxpayers foot the bill for leaving those state-run prisons underused. In March, Christie Donner, executive director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, estimated that the state wasted at least $2 million in taxpayer money using CCA’s prisons instead of its own.
The prison-industrial complex is so out of control that private prisons have the sheer audacity to order states to keep beds full or face their wrath with stiff financial penalties, according to reports. Private prisons in some states have language in their contracts that state if they fall below a certain percentage of capacity that the states must pay the private prisons millions of dollars, lest they face a lawsuit for millions more.
This is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard about the criminal justice system. Who in the hell negotiated these contracts? Who the hell would be such a shameless pawn of a for-profit prison company that s/he would actually include a clause that makes the government spend taxpayer dollars compensating profits for a private corporation because the state had the audacity to keep crime rates low and protect their citizenry?
The prison-industrial complex is so out of control that private prisons have the sheer audacity to order states to keep beds full or face their wrath with stiff financial penalties, according to reports. Private prisons in some states have language in their contracts that state if they fall below a certain percentage of capacity that the states must pay the private prisons millions of dollars, lest they face a lawsuit for millions more.
This is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard about the criminal justice system. Who in the hell negotiated these contracts? Who the hell would be such a shameless pawn of a for-profit prison company that s/he would actually include a clause that makes the government spend taxpayer dollars compensating profits for a private corporation because the state had the audacity to keep crime rates low and protect their citizenry?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said when I first heard of it.
And again, this began during the Obama years. This is a link to the U.S. Census' records of median household income for all races by year for each quintile of the population. After the recession of 2008-2009, median household income made a recovery.
The Social Security Administration shows the growth in median wages (as opposed to median household income):
Notice that the ratio of the median to the average gets much lower as time goes on, a measure of the increasing level of income inequality (average wages are higher than median wages since they're distorted by high-income outliers).
This is yet another trend that clearly predates Trump. I don't remember how many times I've posted data demonstrating that a positive trend came before Trump took office.
Trump's first year had greater gains than all of Obama's 8 years. By a substanial margin, more than Obama's ECI usually fluctuated between years.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
How about just comparing Obama's last year (after he fixed the dumpster fire he was left with by Bush) and Trumps first year instead of everything?
Doing that, you'll note, that Obama created more jobs than Trump who couldn't keep up the momentum.
I am still waiting for this all to crash as Trump's tariffs are slowly eating away at profits for a majority of American companies and for him to blame the Federal Reserve for the fallout. (he's already planting the seeds) or even the now Democratic House. I am giving it till February/March.
And again, this began during the Obama years. This is a link to the U.S. Census' records of median household income for all races by year for each quintile of the population. After the recession of 2008-2009, median household income made a recovery.
The Social Security Administration shows the growth in median wages (as opposed to median household income):
Notice that the ratio of the median to the average gets much lower as time goes on, a measure of the increasing level of income inequality (average wages are higher than median wages since they're distorted by high-income outliers).
This is yet another trend that clearly predates Trump. I don't remember how many times I've posted data demonstrating that a positive trend came before Trump took office.
Trump's first year had greater gains than all of Obama's 8 years. By a substanial margin, more than Obama's ECI usually fluctuated between years.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
Trump could rescue a kitten from a burning building and Obama would get the credit here.
You're not refuting me, you're changing the goalposts. Real wages and wages are not the same thing.
Under the real wage model, we can say he is closer to closing the gap than at any point during the last admin.
Real wages are in the real world. We can talk about wages going up all we like, but if wages don't rise as fast as inflation, then those "wage increases" don't help, do they? If I get a 10% wage increase and cost of living goes up 20%, then I am qualitatively making 10% less than i used to. In a static world, yes, wages have gone up some. In reality, our world isn't static. Wages do not increase in a static world. They have to deal with real-time inflation, which means you can parrot Trump's rising wages all you like. Real wealth hasn't increased in decades, and I don't see Trump changing that.
And again, this began during the Obama years. This is a link to the U.S. Census' records of median household income for all races by year for each quintile of the population. After the recession of 2008-2009, median household income made a recovery.
The Social Security Administration shows the growth in median wages (as opposed to median household income):
Notice that the ratio of the median to the average gets much lower as time goes on, a measure of the increasing level of income inequality (average wages are higher than median wages since they're distorted by high-income outliers).
This is yet another trend that clearly predates Trump. I don't remember how many times I've posted data demonstrating that a positive trend came before Trump took office.
Trump's first year had greater gains than all of Obama's 8 years. By a substanial margin, more than Obama's ECI usually fluctuated between years.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
How about just comparing Obama's last year (after he fixed the dumpster fire he was left with by Bush) and Trumps first year instead of everything?
Doing that, you'll note, that Obama created more jobs than Trump who couldn't keep up the momentum.
I am still waiting for this all to crash as Trump's tariffs are slowly eating away at profits for a majority of American companies and for him to blame the Federal Reserve for the fallout. (he's already planting the seeds) or even the now Democratic House. I am giving it till February/March.
I was using every year, not his first, in my previous posts.
And I don't dispute the fact that Obama had good years of his own, most notably 2014, out of some partisan defensiveness. He did do good on unemployment.
And that combined with the good policies of this admin is why we are still really good on unemployment.
Nobody is saying Obama was a disaster. He had slow but steady growth during his tenure. Only his best year really compares though.
Comments
People rag on big government. But I'll take people who believe in good government over private business any day of the week. The government has never screwed me out of anything. Can't say the same for private businesses. The government isn't going to stop sending your Social Security check to you one day because they've "decided to go in a different direction".
Under President Trump, Workers Continue to Struggle
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2018/09/11/457811/president-trump-workers-continue-struggle/
Trump’s Tax Cut Hasn’t Done Anything for Workers
Wages were supposed to rise. Instead, they’ve fallen.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-18/trump-s-tax-cut-hasn-t-done-anything-for-workers
So, President Trump has done nothing for the average worker.
You are free to make the case that tax cuts causes store closures. It is completely in bounds. There is just no reason to see it as a cause right now, at all.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/01/31/pay-gains-under-trumps-best-since-the-great-recession.html
The Social Security Administration shows the growth in median wages (as opposed to median household income):
Notice that the ratio of the median to the average gets much lower as time goes on, a measure of the increasing level of income inequality (average wages are higher than median wages since they're distorted by high-income outliers).
This is yet another trend that clearly predates Trump. I don't remember how many times I've posted data demonstrating that a positive trend came before Trump took office.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
And Forbes agrees:
Real Wage Growth Is Actually Falling
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickwwatson/2018/09/25/real-wage-growth-is-actually-falling/#6eb750d47284
And Washington Post says:
Real wages are down over the year — but Republican satisfaction is spiking
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/15/real-wages-are-down-over-the-year-but-republican-satisfaction-is-spiking/?utm_term=.ea3b86733aab
It's my understanding that real wages have been stagnant for decades (about 50 years for men, and 20 years for women), though I don't remember the source for that--it came up a really long time ago in the politics threads. The root issue is that GDP growth doesn't always mean real wage growth.
Your employer can get a 10% spike in profits, but it doesn't mean they have to pay you 10% more. I don't think we're going to get truly fair wages just by relying on the typical, employer-dominated, non-unionized labor relationship we've got now, where employers set the terms of employment and employees have very little bargaining power.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
Trump could rescue a kitten from a burning building and Obama would get the credit here. You're not refuting me, you're changing the goalposts. Real wages and wages are not the same thing.
Under the real wage model, we can say he is closer to closing the gap than at any point during the last admin.
Stan Lee has passed away at 95
Stan Lee, Marvel Comics' Real-Life Superhero, Dies at 95
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stan-lee-marvel-comics-legend-721450?fbclid=IwAR2yIMvyFp7yzgkQOK_rFGraXZ4e4oipfeCGFscqDkdirj8ygJ92f65N4NMI will always remember him, not only for his cameos in the Marvel movies, but his voiceovers in the Marvel Cartoons during the 70's and 80's. Farewell, Stanley Lieber! Forever you shall reign in Valhalla!
Another Ferguson Activist got Lynched. Has anyone heard anything about it? Why not?
FERGUSON ACTIVISTS ARE BEING LYNCHED ONE BY ONE AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT
https://www.panafricanalliance.com/ferguson-activists-being-murdered/?fbclid=IwAR0m7q8XMtPB2garZFoG1FfMiBp6dji1A9XP7wpXe18sbRdLiSXxaqAMqbcSecond one. Why is no one on the news mentioning it?
Speaking of which, another death of a Journalist in Saudi Arabia...
Media Silent as Another Journalist is Tortured to Death by Saudi Arabia
https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-silent-another-journalist-tortured-death-saudi-arabia/251588/?fbclid=IwAR2WEJCDxmEkNLvMQD9b2JeiZstQ_Zwgna_xB6TesvsppKpqfHNokjl1zl8#.W-iyEK6fWgN.facebookThe Doctors replied.
After NRA Mocks Doctors, Physicians Reply: 'This Is Our Lane'
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/11/666762890/after-nra-mocks-doctors-physicians-reply-this-is-our-lane?fbclid=IwAR3T6Tt28PspfmhBdrOJ_Tx5BHnnBS6zEBtBClqQA6ibdROBWvoLrBakUhMA well-deserved smack back at the NRA. As the article put it: "We are not anti-gun: we are anti-bullet holes in our patients,"
Another smack back:
Hollywood Walk of Fame covered with names of blacks killed by police
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/hollywood-walk-of-fame-covered-with-names-of-blacks-killed-by-police/2016/03/31/285fd716-f738-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_video.html?fbclid=IwAR1_gCv5xdG--CH0HNTg0jTsZ-DMd8TcFHl1Z5PM2ato7H9XDJsZKWeGvtw&utm_term=.0ba55e30e538https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/donald-trump-economy-trade-gdp-growth-credit/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/05/trump-says-u-s-economy-may-be-the-greatest-in-history-lets-check-the-record/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/opinion/trump-economy-credit.html
Veterans haven't received GI Bill benefits for months due to ongoing IT issues at VA
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/veterans-haven-t-receive-gi-bill-benefits-months-due-ongoing-n934696?fbclid=IwAR2iwXw6cISpt4FCOX9XdurLxadL8tcgQFnXq68jzyx6XmLgnYZQoKx4hlwIn part, thanks to Donald Trump, who made the backlog problems worse. "There are many veterans, like Roundtree, across the country who are still waiting for VA to catch up with a backlog created after President Donald Trump signed the Forever GI Bill in 2017. The landmark piece of legislation greatly expanded benefits for veterans and their families, but it did not upgrade the VA's technical capabilities to account for those changes."
How colonial violence came home: the ugly truth of the first world war
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/10/how-colonial-violence-came-home-the-ugly-truth-of-the-first-world-war?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0hZZhY4GykGPti1hGyL8wL4HwAtelCWI947yXGIRK4BUBCABGRvi9fDvQ"The Great War is often depicted as an unexpected catastrophe. But for millions who had been living under imperialist rule, terror and degradation were nothing new."
And, of course, Trump decides to poke his nose into the Florida election recounts...
Trump seeks end for Florida recount as Republicans' leads shrink
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/trump-urges-florida-to-halt-recount-hand-races-to-republicans-idUSKCN1NH1U8?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&fbclid=IwAR2ZgEMJqg5H109UfGO0lW3RtYi-p-vwgVsm06Acq1wGPKNkcsqkxf2BDgATAMPA, Fla./WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday urged Florida election officials to end a recount and declare his fellow Republicans the winners of disputed races in last week’s midterm elections
Not really a surprise. After declaring a squeaking victory to be a "great win", if it got worse, it would seem like he is wrong. He knows he lost big, and he wants to prevent it from being an even bigger loss!
Definitely enemies of the state.
I have every reason to believe this is a wave being ridden. I predicted all of this at the beginning of Trump's term. I specifically predicted that the upward trend in the economy would continue under Trump, and I was right. It did.
I need more specifics than just "evidence indicates." What is the evidence that which Trump policy caused which change in which numbers, and how did it happen?
$1 an Hour to Fight Largest Fire in CA History: Are Prison Firefighting Programs Slave Labor?
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/8/9/1_an_hour_to_fight_largest?fbclid=IwAR2YRsss9KbAXcXdLLPD0ShBEDzytcsadIL-vEuCLYX6ZI9A1Uzii1SQXqYNurses fleeing fast-moving Camp Fire scramble to save patients — and themselves
"I'm about to hit the ground but the bottom of my shoes were melting. I ... prayed to God, 'Please, don’t let me die like this,'" said nurse Nichole Jolly.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nurses-fleeing-fast-moving-camp-fire-scramble-save-patients-themselves-n934961?fbclid=IwAR3mxKsDn2Yio_Kz9zP7U2ZgKFx1otVEmf_JcQ20hEqQQ3vaz9EFNHEuAH4
And in slightly off-topic, Cat Mummies found in Egypt. Wonder if it's a temple to Bast?
Archaeologists Discover Dozens Of Cat Mummies, 100 Cat Statues In Ancient Tomb
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/11/666704847/archaeologists-discover-dozens-of-cat-mummies-100-cat-statues-in-ancient-tomb?fbclid=IwAR3ASjIjxYGL6Ab6P2EtmDiiWE7ntlHRBUNHUWIRaYywchV-jm_BAgrgPmMFirst, Donald Trump would lose to any woman run against him right now.
Exclusive poll: Trump's 2020 woman problem
https://www.axios.com/trumps-women-problem-2020-poll-05a62799-a63d-422b-afb7-59b0139794f1.html?fbclid=IwAR3Ig8STcPtQo01-ZaB92XfFMHxZ5tiNpA0lE2izkaAZi8qwekgp5RhJQnsEven Hilary Clinton would beat him by 5 points!
And in the House, they already have 85 subpoenas ready to go...
Democrats load "subpoena cannon" with 85+ Trump targets
https://www.axios.com/house-democrats-subpoenas-trump-administration-cf3ed351-ff11-4498-89f4-cee588145198.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twsocialshare&utm_campaign=organic&fbclid=IwAR3YBoN7cqqZXhleb9HAbYKtajQRBvPRekIKVQKR5LAL3aOfjmo0NTpfii8And at least one press organization, thinks it is time to stop treating President Trump like any normal president...
It’s time for the press to suspend normal relations with the Trump presidency
It sometimes happens in diplomacy that one country has to say to another: “This is extreme. We cannot accept this. You have gone too far.” And so it suspends diplomatic relations.http://pressthink.org/2018/06/its-time-for-the-press-to-suspend-normal-relations-with-the-trump-presidency/?fbclid=IwAR1l47Fu6KvtVwM1Pz3oAf2JlZQ5M3wrdjhRlu9kacQNEDYAz7F50l9KpSQ
Is it true that American Private Prisons are kept full in order to make more money from making the prisoners work?
What?!? Private prisons suing states for millions if they don’t stay full. That's right!!By Terry Shropshire | September 26, 2013 8:44 AM EST | 334
Low crime rates bad for business for private prisons; they demand states keep them full
The prison-industrial complex is so out of control that private prisons have the sheer audacity to order states to keep beds full or face their wrath with stiff financial penalties, according to reports. Private prisons in some states have language in their contracts that state if they fall below a certain percentage of capacity that the states must pay the private prisons millions of dollars, lest they face a lawsuit for millions more.
And guess what? The private prisons, which are holding cash-starved states hostage, are getting away with it, says advocacy group, In the Public Interest.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-American-Private-Prisons-are-kept-full-in-order-to-make-more-money-from-making-the-prisoners-work
This Is How Private Prison Companies Make Millions Even When Crime Rates Fall
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/09/private-prisons-occupancy-quota-cca-crime/All the big private prison companies—CCA, GEO Group, and the Management and Training Corporation—try to include occupancy requirements in their contracts, according to the report. States with the highest occupancy requirements include Arizona (three prison contracts with 100 percent occupancy guarantees), Oklahoma (three contracts with 98 percent occupancy guarantees), and Virginia (one contract with a 95 percent occupancy guarantee). At the same time, private prison companies have supported and helped write “three-strike” and “truth-in-sentencing” laws that drive up prison populations. Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and keeping them there.
You might be wondering: What happens when crime drops and prison populations dwindle in states that agreed to keep their private prisons 80 percent or 90 percent full? Consider Colorado. The state’s crime rate has sunk by a third in the past decade, and since 2009, five state-run prisons have shuttered because they weren’t needed. Many more prison beds remain empty in other state facilities. Yet the state chose not to fill those beds because Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and CCA cut a deal to instead send 3,330 prisoners to CCA’s three Colorado prisons. Colorado taxpayers foot the bill for leaving those state-run prisons underused. In March, Christie Donner, executive director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, estimated that the state wasted at least $2 million in taxpayer money using CCA’s prisons instead of its own.
the fuck?
This is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard about the criminal justice system. Who in the hell negotiated these contracts? Who the hell would be such a shameless pawn of a for-profit prison company that s/he would actually include a clause that makes the government spend taxpayer dollars compensating profits for a private corporation because the state had the audacity to keep crime rates low and protect their citizenry?
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/economy/trump-obama-jobs/index.html
Doing that, you'll note, that Obama created more jobs than Trump who couldn't keep up the momentum.
I am still waiting for this all to crash as Trump's tariffs are slowly eating away at profits for a majority of American companies and for him to blame the Federal Reserve for the fallout. (he's already planting the seeds) or even the now Democratic House. I am giving it till February/March.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
Trump could rescue a kitten from a burning building and Obama would get the credit here. You're not refuting me, you're changing the goalposts. Real wages and wages are not the same thing.
Under the real wage model, we can say he is closer to closing the gap than at any point during the last admin.
Real wages are in the real world. We can talk about wages going up all we like, but if wages don't rise as fast as inflation, then those "wage increases" don't help, do they? If I get a 10% wage increase and cost of living goes up 20%, then I am qualitatively making 10% less than i used to. In a static world, yes, wages have gone up some. In reality, our world isn't static. Wages do not increase in a static world. They have to deal with real-time inflation, which means you can parrot Trump's rising wages all you like. Real wealth hasn't increased in decades, and I don't see Trump changing that.
And I don't dispute the fact that Obama had good years of his own, most notably 2014, out of some partisan defensiveness. He did do good on unemployment.
And that combined with the good policies of this admin is why we are still really good on unemployment.
Nobody is saying Obama was a disaster. He had slow but steady growth during his tenure. Only his best year really compares though.
http://fortune.com/2018/06/01/trump-jobs-report-labor-department/