POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Right you are. Maybe Republicans shouldn't have passed 4 years of continuing resolutions.
I also think the Republicans should have just passed a budget on their own and told Obama to actually go through with vetoing it, rather than just cowering in the corner at his threat.
nah, no turn. this is predictable. once safely in the bag for Trump, then they can turn the light on Hillary. Just for a bit. That way, forevermore, anytime someone points out how rough they were on Trump, ipso facto they can produce a number of pieces "equally" hard on HC.
That's exactly what the pu**ies should have done. Said here you go pal! If you veto this then YOU are responsible for shutting the government down. Republicans and Democrats at the upper level are crappy. That's why I'm voting trump!
First off, that isn't true. It is the lowest since 1978. The rate was never above 60% for the duration of the 1960's.
(CNSNews.com) - The labor force participation rate hovered between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months from April 2014 through February, and has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013.
Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent, the same rate it was in February.
"In 2000, baby boomers were aged 36 to 54 years and were in the group with the highest participation rates: the prime-aged group 25 to 54 years old. The participation rate for women in this group was 76.7 percent and for men was 91.6 percent, so that the overall participation rate of the group was 84.0 percent. The participation rate of the next-older age group, that 55 years and older, was 32.4 percent, so the difference between the two age groups was 52 percentage points.”
But, with the passage of every year after 2000, a segment of the baby-boomer population passes into the 55-years-and-older age group, thus moving from a group with a high participation rate in the labor force to an age category with a much lower participation rate, causing the overall participation rate to decrease
For younger couples, white collar salaries have gotten to the level that they don't need two incomes. Add that the cost of childcare makes it difficult to justify working in many cases when childcare costs $250-$300/week per child. Someone making $50K/yr with two kids requiring daycare would be paying out half their before tax earnings in childcare alone.
As they say on Fark, "You don't do nuance."
The crash was caused by the out of control derivatives market. I wonder if you can imagine some other role for Reaganomics that shouldn't have been followed.
Off your game today moe. Sad!
But yeah, too bad Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin opened the floodgates on derivative trading. NAFTA, Franklin Raines, and derivatives.....you and crow should have spoken up.
True in regards to the boomers; however, that does not explain why 95 million Americans are not participating in the Labor Force. Btw, white collar jobs are on the decline. They're becoming automated or simply vanishing via overseas. College graduates are having difficulty finding jobs.
Last edited:
Repeal of Glass-Stegall (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) was passed by a veto-proof majority. You could look it up. Or you could continue to blame Clinton. I think we both know what you'll do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5/25/AR2009052502108.html?sid=ST2009052502127
Good article on the lady that tried to warn the Clinton admin about derivitives. Also google, "Rethinking Rubin" , reading some non-Brock-approved stuff would be good for you. Or be unteachable.
Thank God we had a few good years with GWB in between those years from the period Clinton gutted oversight of Wall Street which created/allowed risky derivatives' trading and the Dems taking control in 2007.
/ifiwasaholikemoe
/ifiwasaholikemoe
You do realize that I just said that the derivatives market caused the crash? The Clinton admin wasn't the only one resistant to derivatives. As you'd see if you read the whole article.
I've never read Media Matters & had to google who Brock was when it was brought up the other day. You really need to get out more. There are lots of liberal voices on the net.
Now you are picking up your game. Both articles points to Rubin, Summers, and all the senior leaders being warned and ignoring it. They, the Clinton administration, screwed up. You can say it, you won't die. Promise.
ungodly terrible reading or comprehension or honesty (pick one). The people below were the financially leaders of the administration. I bolded them to help.
In part because of its complexity, less attention has been paid to Rubin’s role in the unleashing of the over-the-counter derivatives market. In March 1998, Brooksley Born, chairman of the CFTC, wanted to release a “concept paper” that would raise a series of questions about the possible regulation of derivatives. “I was very concerned about the dark nature of these markets,” Born told the Washington Post in 2009. “I didn’t think we knew enough about them.
Born’s plan was to have the CFTC oversee these new, often inexplicable financial products. Rubin, Summers, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt countered that Born was out of her depth. (Levitt is a board member of Bloomberg LP, which owns Bloomberg Businessweek.) They argued that the CFTC, created in the 1970s to regulate futures contracts bought by farmers, didn’t have the authority or expertise to regulate complex derivatives in a fast-expanding market. Born was no match for their firepower. They persuaded Congress to ignore her.
It's encouraging to see that Trump outreach to Blacks and Hispanics is having a positive effect - even the WaPo is impressed.
“I don’t know if you’ve seen what's happening, but over the last three weeks, the polls with African American folks and Spanish-speaking folks, the Hispanics, Latinos, have gone way up. Way up. They’ve gone way up,” Trump said, to applause. It seemed like it was validation of the time he'd spent over the last week making somewhat awkward appeals to voters in those demographics.
“I don’t know if you’ve seen what's happening, but over the last three weeks, the polls with African American folks and Spanish-speaking folks, the Hispanics, Latinos, have gone way up. Way up. They’ve gone way up,” Trump said, to applause. It seemed like it was validation of the time he'd spent over the last week making somewhat awkward appeals to voters in those demographics.
95 million...so you wonder why roughly 30% of Americans don't work?
20% of Americans are age 14 or under... 15% are 65 are over.
Yeah, many college graduates are having difficulties and some of that is because companies are losing baby boomers and want experienced people to replace them. Of course it is tough to get experience if you can't get hired. I've been lucky as all 4 of my kids had jobs lined up before they went through graduation. A couple of my youngest daughter's friends have had tough times finding work but according to my daughter they all think that they should be hired for director level jobs and passed on some entry level opportunities. Now having gone a couple of years without working in their fields of study employers are more likely to take on new graduates who are eager to have those entry positions than those who at one time saw themselves as too good to start at the bottom.
Per your linked story...I don't necessary buy into the doom and gloom of outsourcing. Over the past 35 years I've worked for multiple companies that have outsourced operations at one time or another. Sent jobs to Mexico, China, India...about 80% of the time they terminated those outsourcing agreements because it was too difficult to maintain quality and/or reduced customer satisfaction and/or communication difficulties and/or patents and trade secrets being compromised. We bring in a lot of IT workers from India because it is difficult to find qualified IT workers. We routinely have 30-40 unfilled positions at any one time. Companies are begging for IT people but for some reason US college students aren't jumping onto that wagon.
When it comes to white collar jobs like engineers, IT, etc that might get sent to India because they are cheaper...that is changing quickly as wages for those disciplines in India are rising.
Ain't nobody gonna read all that. Partly because it's way too long, and partly because nobody buying your BS No Moe.
(See what I did there?)
(See what I did there?)
If Trump wins and his presidency is bad we can just blame democrats right? Or does that only work for when a democrat is president?
Iran tried to intercept US ships. Good job, Obama.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...ian-boats-harassed-US-ship-Strait-Hormuz.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...ian-boats-harassed-US-ship-Strait-Hormuz.html
Great! We're replacing middle income manufacturing jobs with service jobs, do some study on economies like that.
The Great Recession was due to the housing bubble popping, know who was behind that?
It's encouraging to see that Trump outreach to Blacks and Hispanics is having a positive effect - even the WaPo is impressed.
“I don’t know if you’ve seen what's happening, but over the last three weeks, the polls with African American folks and Spanish-speaking folks, the Hispanics, Latinos, have gone way up. Way up. They’ve gone way up,” Trump said, to applause. It seemed like it was validation of the time he'd spent over the last week making somewhat awkward appeals to voters in those demographics.
Naughty, naughty
If youre going to act educated and try to prove a point, dont be a total dumbass.
You think my 14 month old is included in the labor force? How about my 4 year old? See below..
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force participation rate is the "share of the population 16 years and older working or seeking work."
According to the site, the formula for determining the "labor force participation rate" is:
Ok - this may be a bit confusing, so let's explain these terms a bit.
First off, what is the "total non-institutionalized civilian population"?
This is the total population minus a few key groups, including:
-kids under the age of 16
-people in prisons or other institutions
-military personnel
Ok - now what is the "civilian labor force"?
This group consists of people who are classified as being either employed or unemployed.
A key item to note - you have to be actively looking for a job in order to be considered "unemployed".
So, for instance, a woman who stays at home with her kids is not considered as being employed or unemployed.
Or, students or people who have retired early are not considered to be employed or unemployed as well.
So, again, in order to get the "labor force participation rate", we have to divide:
The Civilian Labor Force by The Total Non-Institutionalized Population and then multiply by 100.
The labor force participation rate has hovered around 65-67 over the past decade or so. It is currently sitting at 65.5.
The rate has increased dramatically over the past 50 years or so due to more women entering the workforce.
For comparison's sake, the labor force participation rate was around 58-59 in the late '40s.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Reagan would have blew them out of the water. Obama is laughed at all over the world. Ever thug, dictator and terrorist regime knows he won't do a damn thing, except issue a "strongly condemnation" which means nothing.
That's not entirely true nor fair. He delivered $400 million dollars to the Iranians, so he did send them a response.
Please back away from The Donalds ass-crack for just a sec.
Isn't he the guy banging the drum as loudly as possible about improprieties in the Clinton Foundation? Well then, how come he had a sudden case of amnesia when looking for a charity? OR, perhaps he trusted it then and is a habitual liar for political gain now.
But I'm sure that never crossed your mind. The same way he lied about being a democrat, the same way he lied about being pro choice, the same way he lied about his opinion on Clinton and the same exact way he lies about most everything.
Pols lie, we all know that. But this guy is an expert in the field of lying. These types lie so much and for so many years, they forget the truth and tie themselves in knots backtracking to cover their errors. Sounds like the perfect guy for POTUS huh?
But wait, I thought he was supposed to be different, an outsider who doesn't stoop to those levels and is someone to trust more than those dirtbags?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I'm confident the non-bigoted moderate is smart enough to recognize the biggest dirtbag of the two. Whether that's enough to keep him as far away as possible from the WH remains to be seen. Moderates are in short supply it seems and she has some skeletons of her own.
Last edited:
Really? Two other guys on here said he bought Hillary with a donation. I'm sure he's never done that before right?
Similar threads
