One political party criticizes the other for doing something it was previously in favor of. News at 11.
$15 isn't much, though.Not really. We are nearing full employment and the amount of poor people entering the middle class is declining. $15 is probably exactly what we need.
NO! Hillary and her alt-left nuts jobs were defeated. After all, Hillary's hero supported eugenics.
Perhaps blue states could lead by example. The LA Times has recently been featuring stories on how 20% of city tax revenues are going towards pension obligations for public employees. 20%!!! The product of decades of collusion between Democrats and unions. We are talking about people retiring in their 50s with 6-figure near full salary entitlement benefits.
We've become a welfare society.
The minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity, according to a March study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. While advancements in technology have increased the amount of goods and services that can be produced in a set amount of time, wages have remained relatively flat, the study points out.
Even if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in the late 1960s, low-wage workers should be earning a minimum of $10.52 an hour, according to the study.
Between the end of World War II and the late 1960s, productivity and wages grew steadily. Since the minimum wage peaked in 1968, increases in productivity have outpaced the minimum wage growth. Currently observed in 31 states, the federal minimum wage translates to an annual income of about $15,000 a year for someone working 40 hours per week.
Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.
The meltdown continues. hahaAll I'm seeing is another four/eight years of Bush-Cheney "corporate fiscal responsibility" where the end result is more corporate welfare at the expense of the middle class and the poor, and another economic tragedy that for the most part will only affect the middle class and the poor while the rich get ever more richer......again.
One of the very first things that Trump and his corporate owned Repub legislators announce is corporate tax cuts "to bring back jobs and trillions of $$$ back to the economy". Now where have I heard that very same bait and switch bullshit before?
Same 'ol same 'ol.
Here we go again.
I really do hope I'm wrong, but after decades of proven beyond doubt Repub led forays into legislating giveaways that exclusively benefit the very wealthy, the evidence seems to be on my side of this issue.
Thank you, you dumb ass shitheads that voted against your own best interests......again. You got played and now the rest of us who didn't buy into Trump's scam are going to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Thank you not at all.
I am seeing a double 180. People in favor of big government intervention in the market now questioning Trump doing so and throwing a fit over it.I don't see Democrats criticizing the action outside of saying it's basically an ineffective PR stunt, which it is. I do see Republicans magically in favor of something that they hated before though.
It's not just the party either, it's the people. I get why political parties lie all the time, it's advantageous. What I don't get is why individuals would do a 180 on something like this unless it's just an emotional response to supporting their political sports team.
"Both" parties have been corporate/bankster folks for a long time. Really, they're one party — The Plutocracy Party — with two types of marketing.
There's an interesting piece at The Atlantic about the "Watergate Babies" and how the Democratic party killed populism.
The Obama white house literally mocked unions for supporting their pro-union candidate instead of the anti-union Obama/DNC candidate. When the pro-union guy lost the Obama people laughed at them for "wasting all that money".
The meltdown continues. haha
I am seeing a double 180. People in favor of big government intervention in the market now questioning Trump doing so and throwing a fit over it.
People who threw a fit over Obama adventures in bailouts and investment suddenly overjoyed that Trump saved what 700 jobs?
Investments with a future? The companies I listed were all failures.DOE loans are for investments with a future.
You assume wrongly, I don't have enough information about the "deal" at this time to judge its merits. Nice attempt to twist this though...I would expect nothing less from you.Well conservatives were extremely angry about that so I assume you are enraged about this as well?
Investments with a future? The companies I listed were all failures.
We don't know if this is a "bailout" at this point. Also, I don't see removing governmental impediments as a violation to free market principles.I am seeing a double 180. People in favor of big government intervention in the market now questioning Trump doing so and throwing a fit over it.
People who threw a fit over Obama adventures in bailouts and investment suddenly overjoyed that Trump saved what 700 jobs?
We don't know if this is a "bailout" at this point. Also, I don't see removing governmental impediments as a violation to free market principles.
I'm talking about those who criticize Trump for picking a company and allegedly giving it special treatment "for his own PR reasons" in contrast to Obama effectively doing the same for an entire sector of companies "for his own PR reasons". Are you slow or is this just your "dishonest dummy brain" ignoring the context of my words?That's just your dishonest dummy brain ignoring the successes. Long term tech is high risk/reward.
I'm talking about those who criticize Trump for picking a company and allegedly giving it special treatment "for his own PR reasons" vs Obama effectively doing the same for an entire sector of companies "for his own PR reasons". Are you really slow or is this just your dishonest brain ignoring the context of my words?
I understand fully how tech investment works. You're a complete idiot ffs. Can you not read and actually grasp what I said?I've already pointed out the dishonesty of your words given it's pretty obvious you can figure out how tech investment works.
You assume wrongly, I don't have enough information about the "deal" at this time to judge its merits. Nice attempt to twist this though...I would expect nothing less from you.
I am seeing a double 180. People in favor of big government intervention in the market now questioning Trump doing so and throwing a fit over it.
People who threw a fit over Obama adventures in bailouts and investment suddenly overjoyed that Trump saved what 700 jobs?
We don't know if this is a "bailout" at this point. Also, I don't see removing governmental impediments as a violation to free market principles.
I'm talking about those who criticize Trump for picking a company and allegedly giving it special treatment "for his own PR reasons" in contrast to Obama effectively doing the same for an entire sector of companies "for his own PR reasons". Are you slow or is this just your "dishonest dummy brain" ignoring the context of my words?
We don't know if this is a "bailout" at this point. Also, I don't see removing governmental impediments as a violation to free market principles.
I understand fully how tech investment works. You're a complete idiot ffs. Can you not read and actually grasp what I said?
Everyone can see your dishonest rhetorical attempt at conflating dissimilar things. For your sake you don't want to follow buckshot's lead.
And saving 1000 jobs is just a "PR stunt" as well. There's a reason I used quotes.Yes, clearly increasing the scale and scope of a Department of Energy loan program into alternative energy was just a PR stunt. What I do know though is that conservatives were enraged by the government intervening in the market and 'picking winners and losers'. Shockingly enough, conservatives have suddenly become totally okay with that. I wonder what changed? Maybe you can help with this.