like_that;1856306 wrote:I brought this up in the progressive thread. I don't recall many obama supporters bringing up the bolded when he was in office. Now that he is gone, this is an issue?

To think this whole time it was only sticky wages. :RpS_lol:

Drudge, Trumpbart and the rest of the conservative media no long post links to the number of people not in the labor force. Moreover the concept of sticky wages and unemployment is that in theory reducing the cost of labor and cutting wages/other compensation or employer payroll costs (e.g. employer-side payroll taxes) will reduce unemployment. But, employees are generally unwilling to take lower nominal pay over time even if they would be better off in real terms. And so labor markets historically throughout capitalism don't clear like other markets and in many cases, reducing labor compensation can even make things worse because workers rely on that money to spend elsewhere - i.e. what Keynes' overarching claim was.

Interestingly enough, even with the labor supply dropping substantially you still don't have wages rising substantially which should allow for the regular unemployment to continue to drop for the time being.

Soon we'll all be selling LulaRoe to each other on Facebook all day and spending everything we earn on Netflix and Amazon : thumbup:

gut;1856403 wrote:GDP growth @3.5% and all the employment stuff will follow.

I'd also like see something much less than $1T+ deficits.

IMHO You're not going to see GDP growth that high w/o the tax cuts that would create > $1 Trillion Deficits. If the GOP stalls Trump's agenda to cut the deficit they will lose out IMHO.

Not to mention that the Fed is in a rate hike cycle and can further undermine such an agenda from Trump IMHO.

BoatShoes;1856618 wrote:IMHO You're not going to see GDP growth that high w/o the tax cuts that would create > $1 Trillion Deficits.

That's why you cut spending. This is why high govt spending = lower growth. The dirty secret of socialism is that it largely redistributes poverty, not wealth.

Democrats have been selling shared misery for decades. What a waste of effort.

NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers told lawmakers 'I have never been directed to do anything I believed to be illegal' when asked if President Trump pressed him to end Russia probe.




Thanks Mike.


Now can we please do tax reform, obamaKare repeal etc..

It's not his place to decide legality. It's a yes or no question. Did Trump press him to end Russia probe? As I said on another thread I think there's probably nothing to this Russian collusion but a non answer by Director Rogers doesn't exactly remove any specter of doubt.

rocketalum;1857124 wrote:It's not his place to decide legality. It's a yes or no question. Did Trump press him to end Russia probe? As I said on another thread I think there's probably nothing to this Russian collusion but a non answer by Director Rogers doesn't exactly remove any specter of doubt.

This is Fake News.

QuakerOats;1857122 wrote:NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers told lawmakers 'I have never been directed to do anything I believed to be illegal' when asked if President Trump pressed him to end Russia probe.




Thanks Mike.


Now can we please do tax reform, obamaKare repeal etc..

Agreed. Now just need Comey to tell us Trump did not obstruct justice and cancel the Mueller probe.

On to MAGA!

MAGA is obviously on the march, otherwise the anti-Americans in media, academia and law would not be in hysteria.



Reminds me of that McDonald's slogan .....................

QuakerOats;1857137 wrote:MAGA is obviously on the march, otherwise the anti-Americans in media, academia and law would not be in hysteria.



Reminds me of that McDonald's slogan .....................

You really need to see a therapist. Sorry you are so brainwashed and ignorant.

QuakerOats;1857137 wrote:MAGA is obviously on the march, otherwise the anti-Americans in media, academia and law would not be in hysteria.

Reminds me of that McDonald's slogan .....................

When you assume that someone is anti-American merely because they oppose a candidate, and then use the notion that they're anti-American to invalidate their objection to the candidate, you're using cyclical reasoning.

Also, the most recent McDonalds slogan is "What we're made of."

It appears that Trump is mostly made of Cheeto powder, tan-in-a-can, and riveting (if empty) slogans to get people frothing at the mouth.

O-Trap;1857183 wrote:When you assume that someone is anti-American merely because they oppose a candidate, and then use the notion that they're anti-American to invalidate their objection to the candidate, you're using cyclical reasoning.

And guilty of being anti-American for the past eight years, if that's the case.

QO is just our resident example of a larger national issue. This idea that those with differing views are the "enemy" or 'anti". Neither the right or left is anti-American. They're just Americans with differing opinions on how America should work. Having to constantly survive on the value of your ideas is what makes America and all democracy based governments superior to single party or autocratic systems. I swear many on either side actually want the other to not exist. That's not America dumb-dumbs.

O-Trap;1857183 wrote:When you assume that someone is anti-American merely because they oppose a candidate, and then use the notion that they're anti-American to invalidate their objection to the candidate, you're using cyclical reasoning.

Also, the most recent McDonalds slogan is "What we're made of."

It appears that Trump is mostly made of Cheeto powder, tan-in-a-can, and riveting (if empty) slogans to get people frothing at the mouth.

I do not assume that someone is anti-American merely because they oppose a candidate; I am sorry you made that incorrect assumption.


Nor did I write that all the those media, and all those in academia, and all those in law are anti-American. Comprehension issue.

And the slogan I was referring to was something like 'Luvvin' it'.

No need to thank me for the dime.

rocketalum;1857206 wrote:QO is just our resident example of a larger national issue. This idea that those with differing views are the "enemy" or 'anti". Neither the right or left is anti-American. They're just Americans with differing opinions on how America should work. Having to constantly survive on the value of your ideas is what makes America and all democracy based governments superior to single party or autocratic systems. I swear many on either side actually want the other to not exist. That's not America dumb-dumbs.

The problem is when the right/left-wing start running the parties and dictating policy, rather than serve their more useful purpose of moving policy forward responsibly.

While the Tea Party has been hijacked and has undermined the Repubs, that party is still led (barely) by moderate establishment types. The Dems, however, are led by the leftist of the left. That's what has destroyed bipartisanship - Repubs can't work with the leftists, and moderate Dems aren't allowed to work with Repubs.

QuakerOats;1857213 wrote:I do not assume that someone is anti-American merely because they oppose a candidate; I am sorry you made that incorrect assumption.

No need to apologize. I'm happy to do as much if you can demonstrate to me why anyone within the media would be objectively anti-American.

QuakerOats;1857213 wrote:Nor did I write that all the those media, and all those in academia, and all those in law are anti-American. Comprehension issue.

I neither stated that you did nor alluded to you doing so. I'd be wary of throwing around accusations of comprehension problems.

QuakerOats;1857213 wrote:And the slogan I was referring to was something like 'Luvvin' it'.

What exactly "reminds" you of that slogan?

QuakerOats;1857213 wrote:No need to thank me for the dime.

Don't worry.

Impressive.



Hysteria in media and academia .................luvin' it

In the same way we all loved your hysteria over the past eight years?

Plz be serious.

Differentiating between pro-American (people, taxpayers, freedom lovers) policies, and anti-American policies is helpful.


Best wishes.

A private company suggested adding solar panels to the proposed border wall between the US and Mexico and Tuesday,



Sweet; looking forward to the tree-huggers jumping on board.

QuakerOats;1857267 wrote:A private company suggested adding solar panels to the proposed border wall between the US and Mexico and Tuesday,

That HAD to be Elon Musk....he's always looking for some gubmit gravy.

Harder to find now that the enviromarxists have been drained from the swamp.

QuakerOats;1857251 wrote:Impressive.

Did I just get covfefe'd?

QuakerOats;1857265 wrote:Differentiating between pro-American (people, taxpayers, freedom lovers) policies, and anti-American policies is helpful.


Best wishes.

Differentiating between blind partisans who support anything their party says and denounces anything the other one says, even if they're very similar, and regular people who identify themselves as being more than a "D" or "R" also is helpful.

Best wishes.

QuakerOats;1857265 wrote:Differentiating between pro-American (people, taxpayers, freedom lovers) policies, and anti-American policies is helpful.


Best wishes.

Agreed.

Feel free to demonstrate what you just mentioned to be objectively pro-American and the opposite to be anti-American.

Also, demonstrate why those who oppose your position, but would argue that they are ALSO in support of "people, taxpayers, and freedom lovers," are not part of the pro-American group.

Finally, you suggested that opposing a particular political leader doesn't make anyone anti-American, but in what you've just laid out, it would appear that opposing a candidate that espouses your particular brand of laws for "people, taxpayers, and freedom lovers" is, in fact, the metric you use for calling someone anti-American. This would appear contradictory.