Republican Salute To Labor

[The Rabbi]

Well, that may be kind of difficult since I don't have girl parts but hey.....in todays twisted upside down sewer I could be princess. I'd be mean and just cut the tit off. What about you? Go for some triple d breast implants to support the hoards flocking to the govt induced gravy train.

Well OK - you have a girl avatar, so I just... Oh well, my bad, I'll take your word for it that you're a boy with a girl avatar - .

And after you cut off the government tit, then what?
.

Then nothing. Its not govt's responsibility to nurture generational freeloading leeches.

Obviously, the Republicans/rightwingers on this M/B have no sense of the meaning of society or civilization, but that aside...

The Republicans on this M/B want to let their fellow Americans "perish" because they are "freeloading leeches" -- I have a better idea!, shrink safety net programs down so far they can be drowned in a bathtub, while simultaneously giving people a pathway that allows people to put themselves in a position where they are allowed to pay income taxes, contribute to Social Security-healthcare-unemployment compensation-worker's compensation etc. and-----and allow people to maintain a consistent résumé throughout their working lives. Buy groceries with their own money and qualify for and maintain a mortgage.


FYI -
Myth - Families collect welfare benefits for their entire lives!

Truth - Families headed by able-bodied adults are eligible for welfare for 60 months in their lifetimes, and-----and only about two percent of welfare recipients ever reach that limit.
.

Gee Republicans want just that--people working. So why do Dems stymie every effort.

Just wanting people to work is not enough, you also have to want them to have decent pay, a chance for advancement and job security to truly claim to give a damn about the working class. Quit pretending you give a shit.

You understand those things are up to the worker, not government, to provide, right?

 

[occupied]

Well OK - you have a girl avatar, so I just... Oh well, my bad, I'll take your word for it that you're a boy with a girl avatar - .

And after you cut off the government tit, then what?
.

Then nothing. Its not govt's responsibility to nurture generational freeloading leeches.

Obviously, the Republicans/rightwingers on this M/B have no sense of the meaning of society or civilization, but that aside...

The Republicans on this M/B want to let their fellow Americans "perish" because they are "freeloading leeches" -- I have a better idea!, shrink safety net programs down so far they can be drowned in a bathtub, while simultaneously giving people a pathway that allows people to put themselves in a position where they are allowed to pay income taxes, contribute to Social Security-healthcare-unemployment compensation-worker's compensation etc. and-----and allow people to maintain a consistent résumé throughout their working lives. Buy groceries with their own money and qualify for and maintain a mortgage.


FYI -
Myth - Families collect welfare benefits for their entire lives!

Truth - Families headed by able-bodied adults are eligible for welfare for 60 months in their lifetimes, and-----and only about two percent of welfare recipients ever reach that limit.
.

Gee Republicans want just that--people working. So why do Dems stymie every effort.

Just wanting people to work is not enough, you also have to want them to have decent pay, a chance for advancement and job security to truly claim to give a damn about the working class. Quit pretending you give a shit.

You understand those things are up to the worker, not government, to provide, right?

I'm not saying the government has to provide these things, I am saying don't pretend to give a shit about people having jobs when far too many jobs are now low-paying dead-ends even for experienced people.

 

[Muhammed]

People who are non union usually smell like trash. They cannot even afford to take out the trash.

 

[Star]

Well OK - you have a girl avatar, so I just... Oh well, my bad, I'll take your word for it that you're a boy with a girl avatar - .

And after you cut off the government tit, then what?
.

Then nothing. Its not govt's responsibility to nurture generational freeloading leeches.

Obviously, the Republicans/rightwingers on this M/B have no sense of the meaning of society or civilization, but that aside...

The Republicans on this M/B want to let their fellow Americans "perish" because they are "freeloading leeches" -- I have a better idea!, shrink safety net programs down so far they can be drowned in a bathtub, while simultaneously giving people a pathway that allows people to put themselves in a position where they are allowed to pay income taxes, contribute to Social Security-healthcare-unemployment compensation-worker's compensation etc. and-----and allow people to maintain a consistent résumé throughout their working lives. Buy groceries with their own money and qualify for and maintain a mortgage.


FYI -
Myth - Families collect welfare benefits for their entire lives!

Truth - Families headed by able-bodied adults are eligible for welfare for 60 months in their lifetimes, and-----and only about two percent of welfare recipients ever reach that limit.
.

Gee Republicans want just that--people working. So why do Dems stymie every effort.

Please explain how Dems are stymieing job growth.
.

Wow, really?
Minimum wage laws
David Bacon Act
Increased regulations in every industry
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Higher taxes
etc.

If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion.

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then nothing. Its not govt's responsibility to nurture generational freeloading leeches.

Obviously, the Republicans/rightwingers on this M/B have no sense of the meaning of society or civilization, but that aside...

The Republicans on this M/B want to let their fellow Americans "perish" because they are "freeloading leeches" -- I have a better idea!, shrink safety net programs down so far they can be drowned in a bathtub, while simultaneously giving people a pathway that allows people to put themselves in a position where they are allowed to pay income taxes, contribute to Social Security-healthcare-unemployment compensation-worker's compensation etc. and-----and allow people to maintain a consistent résumé throughout their working lives. Buy groceries with their own money and qualify for and maintain a mortgage.


FYI -
Myth - Families collect welfare benefits for their entire lives!

Truth - Families headed by able-bodied adults are eligible for welfare for 60 months in their lifetimes, and-----and only about two percent of welfare recipients ever reach that limit.
.

Gee Republicans want just that--people working. So why do Dems stymie every effort.

Please explain how Dems are stymieing job growth.
.

Wow, really?
Minimum wage laws
David Bacon Act
Increased regulations in every industry
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Higher taxes
etc.

If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion.

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

WHat I wrote needs no explanation except for people who will never get it. Like you.
Our system does no such thing. The fact that you havent worked in 10 years shouldnt be applied to everyone else out there.

 

[Star]

Obviously, the Republicans/rightwingers on this M/B have no sense of the meaning of society or civilization, but that aside...

The Republicans on this M/B want to let their fellow Americans "perish" because they are "freeloading leeches" -- I have a better idea!, shrink safety net programs down so far they can be drowned in a bathtub, while simultaneously giving people a pathway that allows people to put themselves in a position where they are allowed to pay income taxes, contribute to Social Security-healthcare-unemployment compensation-worker's compensation etc. and-----and allow people to maintain a consistent résumé throughout their working lives. Buy groceries with their own money and qualify for and maintain a mortgage.


FYI -
Myth - Families collect welfare benefits for their entire lives!

Truth - Families headed by able-bodied adults are eligible for welfare for 60 months in their lifetimes, and-----and only about two percent of welfare recipients ever reach that limit.
.

Gee Republicans want just that--people working. So why do Dems stymie every effort.

Please explain how Dems are stymieing job growth.
.

Wow, really?
Minimum wage laws
David Bacon Act
Increased regulations in every industry
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Higher taxes
etc.

If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion.

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

WHat I wrote needs no explanation except for people who will never get it. Like you.
Our system does no such thing. The fact that you havent worked in 10 years shouldnt be applied to everyone else out there.

You're very funny. You somehow want me to explain your list of how Dems are stymieing job growth -giggle-. Mind reading isn't one of my talent - mind reading is more of a rightwing perceiver thing.

But look, I realize many righties believe what they believe just because they believe it, and most lack the communication skills to explain why, without talking themselves out of their own ideology.

Here's an idea for you, we could virtually end unemployment, reduce welfare and shrink almost all other safety net programs to near non-existence if government would hire the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability. What's your objection to the government hiring the unemployed and pushing unemployment to almost zero?
.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee Republicans want just that--people working. So why do Dems stymie every effort.

Please explain how Dems are stymieing job growth.
.

Wow, really?
Minimum wage laws
David Bacon Act
Increased regulations in every industry
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Higher taxes
etc.

If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion.

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

WHat I wrote needs no explanation except for people who will never get it. Like you.
Our system does no such thing. The fact that you havent worked in 10 years shouldnt be applied to everyone else out there.

You're very funny. You somehow want me to explain your list of how Dems are stymieing job growth -giggle-. Mind reading isn't one of my talent - mind reading is more of a rightwing perceiver thing.

But look, I realize many righties believe what they believe just because they believe it, and most lack the communication skills to explain why, without talking themselves out of their own ideology.

Here's an idea for you, we could virtually end unemployment, reduce welfare and shrink almost all other safety net programs to near non-existence if government would hire the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability. What's your objection to the government hiring the unemployed and pushing unemployment to almost zero?
.

I dont want you to do anything of the sort. Any person with even a passing familiarity with basic econ will understand why those things depress job growth and wages. The fact that you do not understand this indicates you shouldnt be taking part in this disucssion. Move along.
Yes we coud reduce unemployment to zero by simply hiring people by the gov't to dig ditches and then fill them in.
The fact that you actually think this is viable indicates you know nothing of economics and should bow out from this discussion.

 

[Star]

Please explain how Dems are stymieing job growth.
.

Wow, really?
Minimum wage laws
David Bacon Act
Increased regulations in every industry
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Higher taxes
etc.

If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion.

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

WHat I wrote needs no explanation except for people who will never get it. Like you.
Our system does no such thing. The fact that you havent worked in 10 years shouldnt be applied to everyone else out there.

You're very funny. You somehow want me to explain your list of how Dems are stymieing job growth -giggle-. Mind reading isn't one of my talent - mind reading is more of a rightwing perceiver thing.

But look, I realize many righties believe what they believe just because they believe it, and most lack the communication skills to explain why, without talking themselves out of their own ideology.

Here's an idea for you, we could virtually end unemployment, reduce welfare and shrink almost all other safety net programs to near non-existence if government would hire the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability. What's your objection to the government hiring the unemployed and pushing unemployment to almost zero?
.

I dont want you to do anything of the sort. Any person with even a passing familiarity with basic econ will understand why those things depress job growth and wages. The fact that you do not understand this indicates you shouldnt be taking part in this disucssion. Move along.
Yes we coud reduce unemployment to zero by simply hiring people by the gov't to dig ditches and then fill them in.
The fact that you actually think this is viable indicates you know nothing of economics and should bow out from this discussion.

Obviously, you are unable explain why you believe what you believe, which proves my point - you believe what you believe only because you believe it, but lack the intelligence/ability/communication skills to explain why.


Perhaps one of the rightwingers that think they understand economics, can explain how hiring the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability will "depress job growth and wages".

Of course-----of course you would like me to "move on", "bow out" of this discussion. But don't blame me for you embarrassing yourself and don't blame me for your lack of communication skills and inability to explain yourself... blame yourself.
.

 

[ABikerSailor]

My Grandfather belonged to a Union.

My Grandfather also was a Republican.

Strange to see that the Republicans are tearing down the Unions when they used to support them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, really?
Minimum wage laws
David Bacon Act
Increased regulations in every industry
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Higher taxes
etc.

If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion.

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

WHat I wrote needs no explanation except for people who will never get it. Like you.
Our system does no such thing. The fact that you havent worked in 10 years shouldnt be applied to everyone else out there.

You're very funny. You somehow want me to explain your list of how Dems are stymieing job growth -giggle-. Mind reading isn't one of my talent - mind reading is more of a rightwing perceiver thing.

But look, I realize many righties believe what they believe just because they believe it, and most lack the communication skills to explain why, without talking themselves out of their own ideology.

Here's an idea for you, we could virtually end unemployment, reduce welfare and shrink almost all other safety net programs to near non-existence if government would hire the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability. What's your objection to the government hiring the unemployed and pushing unemployment to almost zero?
.

I dont want you to do anything of the sort. Any person with even a passing familiarity with basic econ will understand why those things depress job growth and wages. The fact that you do not understand this indicates you shouldnt be taking part in this disucssion. Move along.
Yes we coud reduce unemployment to zero by simply hiring people by the gov't to dig ditches and then fill them in.
The fact that you actually think this is viable indicates you know nothing of economics and should bow out from this discussion.

Obviously, you are unable explain why you believe what you believe, which proves my point - you believe what you believe only because you believe it, but lack the intelligence/ability/communication skills to explain why.


Perhaps one of the rightwingers that think they understand economics, can explain how hiring the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability will "depress job growth and wages".

Of course-----of course you would like me to "move on", "bow out" of this discussion. But don't blame me for you embarrassing yourself and don't blame me for your lack of communication skills and inability to explain yourself... blame yourself.
.

I could explain it. But you wont get it. Thats because you are grossly ignorant of economics.
But just a hint: how would those legions of workers employed by the government get paid?

 

[Star]

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

WHat I wrote needs no explanation except for people who will never get it. Like you.
Our system does no such thing. The fact that you havent worked in 10 years shouldnt be applied to everyone else out there.

You're very funny. You somehow want me to explain your list of how Dems are stymieing job growth -giggle-. Mind reading isn't one of my talent - mind reading is more of a rightwing perceiver thing.

But look, I realize many righties believe what they believe just because they believe it, and most lack the communication skills to explain why, without talking themselves out of their own ideology.

Here's an idea for you, we could virtually end unemployment, reduce welfare and shrink almost all other safety net programs to near non-existence if government would hire the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability. What's your objection to the government hiring the unemployed and pushing unemployment to almost zero?
.

I dont want you to do anything of the sort. Any person with even a passing familiarity with basic econ will understand why those things depress job growth and wages. The fact that you do not understand this indicates you shouldnt be taking part in this disucssion. Move along.
Yes we coud reduce unemployment to zero by simply hiring people by the gov't to dig ditches and then fill them in.
The fact that you actually think this is viable indicates you know nothing of economics and should bow out from this discussion.

Obviously, you are unable explain why you believe what you believe, which proves my point - you believe what you believe only because you believe it, but lack the intelligence/ability/communication skills to explain why.


Perhaps one of the rightwingers that think they understand economics, can explain how hiring the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability will "depress job growth and wages".

Of course-----of course you would like me to "move on", "bow out" of this discussion. But don't blame me for you embarrassing yourself and don't blame me for your lack of communication skills and inability to explain yourself... blame yourself.
.

I could explain it. But you wont get it. Thats because you are grossly ignorant of economics.
But just a hint: how would those legions of workers employed by the government get paid?

You've made it clear, you can't respond without blowing up your own ideology - thanks for trying but... fail.

You probably missed it. Earlier in this thread I pointed out that almost full employment would simultaneously mean safety net programs would shrink. In addition to the cost of safety net programs shrinking to a small fraction of what it is today, employed people would be/become private sector employment ready when the opportunity arose, meaning they would be trained (OJT, trade and tech school) and would soon become taxpayers. But just as important...
...The Job Guarantee: A Government Plan for Full Employment
By L. Randall Wray

There is no economic policy more important than job creation. The private sector plays an invaluable and dynamic role in providing employment, but it cannot ensure enough jobs to keep up with population growth or speed economic recovery—much less achieve the social goal of full employment for all Americans. Thankfully, there is an alternative: a job guarantee through a government-provided “employer of last resort” program offering a job to anyone who is ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage plus legislated benefits.

In recent decades full employment has been wrongly dismissed as not only impossible but economically counterproductive. Though the Employment Act of 1946 committed the government to the goal of high employment (it was amended by the 1978 Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which targeted a measured unemployment rate of 3 percent), we act as if full employment would ruin us, destroying the value of our currency through inflation and depreciation, and weakening the labor discipline that high unemployment maintains through enforced destitution. Through the thick and thin of the business cycle, we leave tens of millions of Americans idle in the belief that this makes political, economic and social sense.

It doesn’t. The benefits of full employment include production of goods, services and income; on-the-job training and skill development; poverty alleviation; community building and social networking; social, political and economic stability; and social multipliers (positive feedbacks and reinforcing dynamics that create a virtuous cycle of socioeconomic benefits). An “employer of last resort” program would restore the government’s lost commitment to full employment in recognition of the fact that the total impact would exceed the sum of the benefits.

<snip>

I posted the paragraph below earlier in this thread, your response was just another of your boring ad hominem responses - do you have a response?
Here's an idea for you, we could virtually end unemployment, reduce welfare and shrink almost all other safety net programs to near non-existence if government would hire the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability. What's your objection to the government hiring the unemployed and pushing unemployment to almost zero?

Obviously, you have nothing-----nothing but ad hominem responses, why do you waste your, my, and everyone who's reading this thread's time? Is it just your way of surrendering?
.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Have you ever seen a group that whines more than the Unions? They believe they should be able TO FORCE people to join one and if you buck them they'll go around busting peoples heads open. And where's the wails of how a Big Corporation donates MILLIONS to ONE party? but they pretty much OWN the Democrat party. How fair is that to the small business owners in the country?

Yes, conservatives are whiner nation. Ever listen to con-talk radio. It is 24/7 whining about how 'life is miserable and its all someone else's fault'.

That is the modern conservative motto. Life is miserable, and its all someone else's fault.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the Republicans are so gung ho on job creation (which is what many of them ran on to get elected), then why hasn't either the Senate or the House (both Republican controlled), come up with a decent jobs bill yet?

I mean....................fixing the infrastructure and updating the power grid would be a decent start, the jobs need done, and people would more than likely be willing to go work on them.

Just more proof that the GOP has lied to the American people yet again.

 

[Star]

If the Republicans are so gung ho on job creation (which is what many of them ran on to get elected), then why hasn't either the Senate or the House (both Republican controlled), come up with a decent jobs bill yet?

I mean....................fixing the infrastructure and updating the power grid would be a decent start, the jobs need done, and people would more than likely be willing to go work on them.

Just more proof that the GOP has lied to the American people yet again.

Republicans whine about government growth during the Obama Administration, but as usual, Republicans are wrong/lying. If the so-called red-states hadn't been on a mission to destroy as many jobs as possible while Obama was president - job creation during the Obama's time in office would be nothing short of incredible.

The United States infrastructure will continue to crumble as long as we have a Republican congress.


There's A Huge Difference In Public Sector Jobs Under Obama Vs. The Presidents Who Came Before Him
Joe Weisenthal
Oct. 6, 2014, 6:

<snip>

As you can see, it's not even close.
Obama in the dark blue line has seen a sustained and violent slump in public sector employment since he became president, and we're not even close to closing the gap.
Reagan had a brief decline in public sector employment, but it came back fast. All the other presidents saw only gains on this measure.
So what's the takeaway?
Partisans will point out that Obama doesn't deserve any "credit" for the decline in government employment, because most of it has happened at the state and local levels.
And that's true as far as it goes, but it misses the simple story, which is that the Obama economy is facing a headwind that simply has not been seen in decades. If it hadn't been for the collapse in public-sector employment, the jobs picture would currently look much brighter than it is.

<snip>
.

 

[Stephanie]

You people want to be a slave to a Labor Union, that's YOUR CHOICE.

but it looks like more people prefer not be their slaves. and that's THEIR CHOICE.

But you come on here acting just like them, thuggish bullying others because of their choice. go stand on a street corner holding a sign claiming your love for Unions. see ya bye. No one here cares about your whining over them

 

[Mr Natural]

I mean....................fixing the infrastructure and updating the power grid would be a decent start, the jobs need done, and people would more than likely be willing to go work on them.

The people needed to do those jobs make way too much money for the cheap labor conservatards and the jobs can't be outsourced to some third world shithole.

 

[Mr Natural]

You people want to be a slave to a Labor Union, that's YOUR CHOICE.

but it looks like more people prefer not be their slaves. and that's THEIR CHOICE.

If working a job with good pay, good benefits, and decent working conditions amounts to slavery, then sign me up for one of those "slave jobs".

 

[Stephanie]

I mean....................fixing the infrastructure and updating the power grid would be a decent start, the jobs need done, and people would more than likely be willing to go work on them.

The people needed to do those jobs make way too much money for the cheap labor conservatards and the jobs can't be outsourced to some third world shithole.

really and who signed NAFTA? so put the blame on where it belongs. the Democrats and Union today don't care about you people . the stinking Unions are backing Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. now is that an organization that sounds like it care about YOU legal citizens in this country. Unions were a good thing many years ago, but then went off into being the mob with mob mentality and now all they care about lining their pockets. also the memebers are sick of their money going to the Democrat party whether they support them or not. Unions created their own death. so they can go out whining if they want

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Have you ever seen a group that whines more than the Unions? They believe they should be able TO FORCE people to join one and if you buck them they'll go around busting peoples heads open. And where's the wails of how a Big Corporation donates MILLIONS to ONE party? but they pretty much OWN the Democrat party. How fair is that to the small business owners in the country?

You tell me, when the GOP legalized corporations to be considered individuals, then you lost your government..

The GOP didn't legalize anything. But why let facts stop you.

 

[Star]

Please explain how Dems are stymieing job growth.
.

Wow, really?
Minimum wage laws
David Bacon Act
Increased regulations in every industry
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Higher taxes
etc.

If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion.

Obviously, you can't explain how your list of things that help the middle class "stymie every effort." or you wouldn't have written "If you need an explanation as to how these stymie job growth then you shouldnt be having this discussion."

I outlined some goals, you agreed with my goals by saying "Gee Republicans want just that--people working."

What we have now is a system that relies on a percentage of unemployed labor and excess capacity to hold down wage and price increases. Our system pays unemployed workers for not working and allows those workers to depreciate and develop behaviors that act as stumbling blocks to future private-sector employment.

Instead of just whining about stuff that helps the middle class, what's your/Republican plan to shrink entitlements and attain near full-employment? Whining and complaining without a plan to move forward is the unsuccessful, loser Republican/Tea Party way, hopefully, you-----you can explain how you would break that cycle?
.

WHat I wrote needs no explanation except for people who will never get it. Like you.
Our system does no such thing. The fact that you havent worked in 10 years shouldnt be applied to everyone else out there.

You're very funny. You somehow want me to explain your list of how Dems are stymieing job growth -giggle-. Mind reading isn't one of my talent - mind reading is more of a rightwing perceiver thing.

But look, I realize many righties believe what they believe just because they believe it, and most lack the communication skills to explain why, without talking themselves out of their own ideology.

Here's an idea for you, we could virtually end unemployment, reduce welfare and shrink almost all other safety net programs to near non-existence if government would hire the unemployed at a wage and benefits package that does not unsettle local wage and price stability. What's your objection to the government hiring the unemployed and pushing unemployment to almost zero?
.

I dont want you to do anything of the sort. Any person with even a passing familiarity with basic econ will understand why those things depress job growth and wages. The fact that you do not understand this indicates you shouldnt be taking part in this disucssion. Move along.
Yes we coud reduce unemployment to zero by simply hiring people by the gov't to dig ditches and then fill them in.
The fact that you actually think this is viable indicates you know nothing of economics and should bow out from this discussion.

Via Republican led legislation and Republican judicial appointments Republicans have been winning their war on labor since Richard Nixon was President - a brief interlude the last two years of the Clinton Administration notwithstanding.

When unemployment dips to 4% and below the middle class thrives-----thrives from both higher employment and all benefits employment brings with it and also-----also the employed get paid better for their labor, win-win. High union membership and Government as Employer of Last Resort is good for about 90% of Americans. But don't believe just my take, check out the attached chart below.

Wage growth of the top 1%
The ability of those at the very top to claim an ever-larger share of overall wages is evident in this figure. Two things stand out. First is the extraordinarily rapid growth of annual wages for the top 1 percent compared with everybody else: Top 1 percent wages grew 138 percent, while wages of the bottom 90 percent grew just 15 percent. If the wages of the bottom 90 percent had grown at the average pace over this period—meaning that wages grew equally across-the-board—then the bottom 90 percent’s wages would have grown by 32 percent, more than double the actual growth.

Figure 3
When it comes to the pace of annual pay increases, the top 1% wage grew 138% since 1979, while wages for the bottom 90% grew 15%: Cumulative change in real annual wages, by wage group, 1979–2013

Top 1% Bottom 90%
1979 0.0% 0.0%
1980 3.4% -2.2%
1981 3.1% -2.6%
1982 9.5% -3.9%
1983 13.6% -3.7%
1984 20.7% -1.8%
1985 23.0% -1.0%
1986 32.6% 1.1%
1987 53.5% 2.1%
1988 68.7% 2.2%
1989 63.3% 1.8%
1990 64.8% 1.1%
1991 53.6% 0.0%
1992 74.3% 1.5%
1993 67.9% 0.9%
1994 63.4% 2.0%
1995 70.2% 2.8%
1996 79.0% 4.1%
1997 100.6% 7.0%
1998 113.1% 11.0%
1999 129.7% 13.2%
2000 144.8% 15.3%
2001 130.4% 15.7%
2002 109.3% 15.6%
2003 113.9% 15.7%
2004 127.2% 15.6%
2005 135.4% 15.0%
2006 143.4% 15.7%
2007 156.2% 16.7%
2008 137.5% 16.0%
2009 116.2% 16.0%
2010 130.9% 15.2%
2011 134.1% 14.6%
2012 148.4% 14.7%
2013 137.7% 15.2%

Stagnant wages for middle-wage workers, declining wages for low-wage workers
Over the entire 34-year period between 1979 and 2013, the hourly wages of middle-wage workers (median-wage workers who earned more than half the workforce but less than the other half) were stagnant, rising just 6 percent—less than 0.2 percent per year. This wage growth, in fact, occurred only because wages grew in the late 1990s when labor markets got tight enough—unemployment, for instance, fell to 4 percent in 1999 and 2000—to finally deliver across-the-board hourly wage growth. The wages of middle-wage workers were totally flat or in decline over the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, except for the late 1990s. The wages of low-wage workers fared even worse, falling 5 percent from 1979 to 2013. In contrast, the hourly wages of high-wage workers rose 41 percent.

.