Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A perma-class of intractibly underemployed, for over half a century. Because would-be employers can't pay for all of the taxes and filler and overhead and packaging of employees that come shipped with their own storybooks.
The unemployment situation in France is horrific, has been years. French come into the U.S. on student visas and drive cabs and steal your cheap quiet apts. because there's no work in their home country because taxes and regs. needed to support all the goodies like the ones you want make their sorry presences unacceptably costly.
Eisenhower warned agains the military industrial complex--while the progressive left wants high taxes to shore up Big Government that doles out crony capital to it.
Your article is almost 3 years old. Scare tactics don't work on me, thanks for playing.
As you've now been made aware, it's been going on for years and years and years.
Now bring it here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyegirl
Scare tactics don't work on me, thanks for playing.
Thanks for playing. Another tired worn, low-vocab leftyism. Spew, Noam, 1%, capitalism, Austin, short bus, Molly, thanks for playing. You're the one giving your employment future to the house.
This kind of comment (below) is the reason I can't vote for Sanders. I want a president who remembers that America is a republic, not a monarchy.
“As president, passing a legislative solution to our broken immigration system will be a top priority,” Sanders said. “But, let me be clear: I will not wait around for Congress to act. Instead, beginning in the first 100 days of my administration, I will work to take extensive executive action to accomplish what Congress has failed to do and to build upon President Obama’s executive orders.”
Obama has given progressive leftists only a mild taste of what underemployment their sorry asses are going to find when employers can't afford their fragility under more socialism.
The USA has been a socialist nation for awhile already. Anyone who has served in the military and had assisted tuition, GI Bills, free medical/dental care, base housing - we already have lived in (and liked) a socialist society. The military is a very socialist environment from the top-down, so I find it ironic that so many vets slam socialism. Socialism isn't communism and your nation can still be a Representative Republic/Democracy AND be socialist.
Except it ain't happening. We're turning back that clock!
This kind of comment (below) is the reason I can't vote for Sanders. I want a president who remembers that America is a republic, not a monarchy.
“As president, passing a legislative solution to our broken immigration system will be a top priority,” Sanders said. “But, let me be clear: I will not wait around for Congress to act. Instead, beginning in the first 100 days of my administration, I will work to take extensive executive action to accomplish what Congress has failed to do and to build upon President Obama’s executive orders.”
What would you do if you were POTUS, truly wanting to serve Americans as best you could, promote the mandate you were put in office to promote, but you find you are dealing with a "broken" Congress where special interests with too much money rule the day?
I think I too would do what Obama has done and as Sanders threatens to do, Trump too in his way, not to defy the Constitution but to apply what pressure you can with legal executive orders and whatever other political tactics possible to actually make things happen. Ultimately this is what politics is supposed to be about -- getting things done on behalf of "we the people" (not the special interests with the most money).
Obama has given progressive leftists only a mild taste of what underemployment their sorry asses are going to find when employers can't afford their fragility under more socialism.
We might all try to figure out just what sort of problems and issues we would have if our economy were truly left to laissez faire capitalism. We have learned some things from history about this, lessons that have in large part evolved today's modern day economies to where they are today, but have we learned enough?
Sure seems to me that whether we swing hard right and leave things entirely to the free enterprize system or whether we go more the other way and implement a more "socialist" approach, there is no real likelihood that there will be enough jobs for everyone or enough money generated to lift "all boats" to minimum quality of life levels. Hard to imagine a day or economic system for over 300 million Americans that will be free of poverty or too many unemployed and under-educated.
My point is that we probably can't get to a point where either direction will have us all fully employed or where we can't point to the current administration and complain about all the problems we have been complaining about for decades. We'll always be able to point to all the people employers can't employ no matter whether we turn hard right or hard left. The question is where between the extremes can we find that "sweet spot" where we are doing the best for all concerned all considered?
Does Sanders point closer to that spot or Trump? Did Bush move us closer or further from that spot as compared to Obama?
I know the answer pretty well depends on who you ask, while the true answer continues to be somewhere out there "blowin' in the wind."
What would you do if you were POTUS, truly wanting to serve Americans as best you could, promote the mandate you were put in office to promote, but you find you are dealing with a "broken" Congress where special interests with too much money rule the day?
I think I too would do what Obama has done and as Sanders threatens to do, Trump too in his way, not to defy the Constitution but to apply what pressure you can with legal executive orders and whatever other political tactics possible to actually make things happen. Ultimately this is what politics is supposed to be about -- getting things done on behalf of "we the people" (not the special interests with the most money).
I would understand that I was not the KING of the United States, I was the president, and that our constitution was written for a reason. So no, I would not use executive orders to force through my own agenda.
I would understand that I was not the KING of the United States, I was the president, and that our constitution was written for a reason. So no, I would not use executive orders to force through my own agenda.
You don't need to be a "king" to use all your powers to overcome the political obstacles that stand between you and getting things done in accordance with what you believe the people elected you to get done. You also don't need to abuse those powers, but if I were POTUS given the situation with Congress today, I would certainly do what I could, most certainly including as much as I could in the way of executive orders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Question...
