They found socialists throw temper tantrums, whine and place blame on others when they lose at video games too.
Steve Bannon wants Trump to hike taxes on the rich he wants a 4 in front of it.
- Thread starter bullitpdq68
- Start date
Do you support the republican health care bill? Because it's literally more of everything you say you hate.
Yet he will blast the Dems day after day.
Both sides represent corporate America.
60% of us want medicare for all to be offered. The corporate Dems refuse to submit. But at least they arent trying to punish poor people like satans party.
Nope, I have said all along I would like to see something like universal care....Where have you been?
I've been watching you blast Dems, when in their policy they are much more in favor of the working man than the republicans.
Duck what I blast is the refusal of some to open their eyes to the truth. Dems are no better than the pubs but some on here no matter what comes out of the other party refuse to support it because it came from the other party. I don't care for Bannon but I like what he is proposing when it comes to taxes. I would have voted for Bernie although I did not care for everything he campaigned for. I did not vote for Trump but the Pubs hold the power currently and some of the things they have proposed I like.
The party lines are changing you are seeing more blue collar workers moving to the pubs and because of that I think you will see them evolve as a party or lose that vote just as the Dems did.
What is much more favorable for the working man NAFTA LOL?? give me a break I watch many family members and friends lose jobs because of that....Thank the lord Hillary did not get elected or TPP would have been signed and the corporate Dems would have sucked even more jobs out of America as their CEO buddies would have reaped in more profits and bloated their already to high salaries to screw the working man.
the difference between a Pub and a Dem is the lies. The pub you sort of know what you are getting the support business and don't lie about it, the Dem will tell you hey vote for me and I will make sure you have a good job and work hard for you then turn around and sign a bill like Nafta that sucks all the jobs overseas. They then give you free stuff to make sure you will vote for them again.
Yeah and I watched Obama lie to us about what he wanted for healthcare and all he did was make sure to bend over for the insurance companies and screw us...Yeah I rail against that...
Please look at the big lie the Pubs are trying to pass right now. It's called healthcare.
Your opposition is based on one piece of legislation? Hard truth: those jobs would've been lost one way or another.
So its the lying and deceit that gets you?
Trump never does that. Bahahahaha.
Come on man. Fess up.
First when did I ever say I agree with with what they are trying to pass please show me??
But let's be clear I am not for forced insurance because healthcare cost to much.
LOL when did I say Trump never lies? Just because I call out the Hypocrisy of both parties you think I support Trump, be real. I told you who I wanted.
I think this is 100% false equivocation about the two parties. Ds may have moved on trade but there's not a comparison when you consider tax policy and entitlements.
Easy to say that is the truth because it passed....no way to roll back time and see what would have happened if it didn't?
While I do not disagree or am I saying some job loss would have happened...
we didn't sign TPP and those jobs are still going away. The truth hurts, which is that the ship has sailed on those jobs, and Trump isn't going to bring them back
We have a President who ran on trade and immigration whose first two big bills are gutting health care for the poor to fund a rich person tax cut followed by a second rich person tax cut and his complaint is Ds lie.
It certainly hurt to some extent but the real manufacturing job crusher is technology.
The ACA was not a health care cost bill. Neither is the AHCA/BCRA/whatever, yes.
Thee hypocrisy is not comparable. One party's core reason to exist is to pass tax cuts for rich people. The Ds at least legislate on their main stated priorities.
I call bull, I could find so much more where Obama broke his promises, Obama came in with control of both houses what did he do besides pretty much keep Bushes tax cuts in place. Obama his first 4 years did nothing lots of hot air and bull. So we got to line the pockets of the millionaire CEO of the hospitals insurance and pharmacy companies, with mandatory insurance for all, he did nothing to address the underlying issue that healthcare and drug cost are out of control and really you should not need health insurance to see a dang doctor!!!
The Promise:
"Will create a 'contracts and influence' database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them."
Update December 28th, 2016: The database was never developed
Expand the child and dependent care credit
Expand and make refundable the child and dependent care credit, never done.
Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax
Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax. never done
Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay
Congress has set rules regarding the tax deductibility of the salaries of CEOs, but forms of non-salary compensation have become popular. Obama would look at revamping definitions of compensation. never done
End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
"Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."
Tax carried interest as ordinary income
Carried interest is a way of compensating executives by giving them ownership stakes, or "interest," in a business. Carried interest is taxed as a capital gain, which has a lower tax rate than ordinary income. Obama proposes taxing carried interest at the same rate as regular income.
Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses
"Protect the jobs and benefits of workers and retirees when corporations file for bankruptcy by telling companies that they cannot issue bonuses for executives during bankruptcy while their workers watch their pensions disappear."
Lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000
"Barack Obama believes that the first place to look to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Obama believes that one strong option is increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security by lifting the payroll tax cap on only earnings above $250,000."
Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices
"Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices."
Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs
"Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers."
Allow imported prescription drugs
"Allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S."
NM, I am not your typical sheep, I can read I know what the Dems did....Whatever...
One of the reasons why I could not vote for the man, I knew what he would do.
Obama generally kept his big campaign promises. This article is total cherry picking.
You could find examples of every President saying they were going to do things they didn't do. That's not terribly insightful on its own.
For example, how do you think this type of research would look on GWB? Clinton I? Probably like Obama. Then, do it for Trump. He wouldn't even be close.
IMO, the better criticisms of the Ds relate to their overfocus on the poor and educated elite vs. the middle class and also on their overfocus on special interests.
Democrat John Kerry's vacation home courtesy of Elite Liberal Democrats contributing to his fame.
This is only one of course...
Many, many more overseas away from US Federal Taxation.
$4.9 Million
If you libs would like to enjoy life the way simple Democrat John does then trade in that wooden Bass Boat for his 3.9 million yacht.
Or perhaps John's tastes are a bit to simple for you.
Here is a small sample of what the money a descendent of the Richest Man on Earth can buy.
BIG STANDARD OIL Tycoon ..
Democrat Jay Rockefeller
Ever heard of Rockefeller Plaza?
Gee these Republicans must be really rich!!!
Cherry picking like Obama and his supporters!! The issue is alot of things he passed were very low hanging he never tried to go for the things that mattered or I guess truthfully mattered to me. I don't care if a man can use the ladies room, that does not put food on my table, and yes I keep hammer that point away but that is how alot of blue collar workers feel and because of that the dems lost touch.
Well actually Trumps either looks like he is trying to do it or it is stalled...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/
http://www.epi.org/files/page/-/BriefingPaper308.pdf
Cowherd here are some jobs information for you from a study on Nafta.
- The United States had a small ($1.6 billion) trade surplus with Mexico (supporting 29,400 jobs) in 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect.
- U.S. trade deficits with Mexico as of 2010 displaced production that could have supported 682,900 U.S. jobs; given the pre-NAFTA trade surplus, all of those jobs have been lost or displaced since NAFTA. This estimate of 682,900 net jobs displaced takes into account the additional jobs created by exports to Mexico.
- Most of the jobs displaced by trade with Mexico as of 2010 were in manufacturing industries (415,000 jobs; 60.8% of the total jobs displaced).
- Computer and electronic parts (150,300 jobs, 22% of the 682,900 displaced jobs) and motor vehicles and parts (108,000 jobs; 15.8% of the total) were the manufacturing industries hardest hit by growing bilateral trade deficits
- More jobs were created in Mexico (30,400) by the growth of net exports of autos and auto parts to the United States in 2010 than were created in the entire U.S. auto industry in the same period, which added only 25,700 jobs between December 2009 and December 2010. The 30,400 jobs displaced in autos and parts in 2010 explains more than one-quarter of all jobs displaced by the growth of trade deficits with Mexico between 2007 and 2010 (116,400 jobs).
- The 682,900 jobs displaced as of 2010 were distributed across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 10 hardest-hit states (i.e., jobs displaced as a share of total state employment) were Michigan (43,600 jobs lost, 1.0%), Indiana (24,400, 0.8%), Kentucky (12,100, 0.6%), Ohio (34,900, 0.6%), Tennessee (16,400, 0.6%), New Hampshire (4,000, 0.6%), Illinois (34,700, 0.6%), Alabama (11,100, 0.6%), Massachusetts (17,100, 0.5%), and Texas (55,600, 0.5%). • The states with the most jobs displaced were California (86,500 jobs), Texas (55,600), Michigan (43,600), Ohio (34,900), Illinois (34,700), New York (34,300), Florida (28,800), Pennsylvania (26,300), Indiana (24,400), and North Carolina (18,900).
You can't look at NAFTA without looking at the agricultural gains the US made as well. the net impact of NAFTA is not very big in the aggregate - but the winners and losers are different people.
NAFTA is a heck of a deal for American corn farmers, for instance.
Realistically, a lot of the jobs lost to NAFTA in manufacturing would also already have been lost to super low cost countries like China or to automation. Their analysis assumes the world would never have evolved from 1994.
NAFTA is a heck of a deal for American corn farmers, for instance.
Realistically, a lot of the jobs lost to NAFTA in manufacturing would also already have been lost to super low cost countries like China or to automation. Their analysis assumes the world would never have evolved from 1994.
You Corp dems just keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night but I have 15 years in manufacturing and logistic I know what thought process went into moving products.
Maybe, but it might not have made sense for all of that manufacturing to move to China based on logistics and cost to ship products. Listen I did this for a living for over 15 years. Mexico worked out so well because parts you can almost have within 24 hours due to the proximity of Mexico to certain Manufacturing plants within America. If you are doing a leather boot you don't want to have to wait 2-3 weeks for the leather vamp to show up and you are not going to FedEx over night from China. But from Mexico you can have it most usually overnight or 2 nights by truck.
What you are describing goes both ways - both sides of the US/MX border send materials to each other.
And there's nothing stopping manufacturers from moving the entire operation you've described to China, which is a viable alternative. Companies can and do make the entire shoe in China, including leather uppers, as I'm sure you're well aware - take a quick look at the # of shoes made in China vs. in Mexico or the US.
Having a lower cost neighbor next door to supply some cheaper materials like you are describing has kept some jobs in the US instead of shipping the entire plant to China.
This is another example of why NAFTA is overplayed relative to China - a decent chunk of the Mexican trade is trade of materials and partially finished goods among an integrated supply chain that helped make US based products more cost effective against 3rd world imports.
The more relevant cases of loss from NAFTA are things like Carrier, where a product with decent margin still leaves the country to turn 8% profits into 15% profits. Those would not necessarily have occurred in a pre NAFTA world.
And there's nothing stopping manufacturers from moving the entire operation you've described to China, which is a viable alternative. Companies can and do make the entire shoe in China, including leather uppers, as I'm sure you're well aware - take a quick look at the # of shoes made in China vs. in Mexico or the US.
Having a lower cost neighbor next door to supply some cheaper materials like you are describing has kept some jobs in the US instead of shipping the entire plant to China.
This is another example of why NAFTA is overplayed relative to China - a decent chunk of the Mexican trade is trade of materials and partially finished goods among an integrated supply chain that helped make US based products more cost effective against 3rd world imports.
The more relevant cases of loss from NAFTA are things like Carrier, where a product with decent margin still leaves the country to turn 8% profits into 15% profits. Those would not necessarily have occurred in a pre NAFTA world.
WHO GIVES A CRAP IF THE JOBS ARE NOT COMING BACK. AT THE VERY LEAST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOT IN THE WHITEHOUSE AND HAVE PAID FOR THE TERRIBLE TRADE DEAL.
NAFTA-WITH-MEXICO failed because USA companies violated their promise "to create millions of high-paying jobs for American workers who will manufacture product we export to Mexico." Instead of hiring on Americans to make products to export to Mexico, our companies fired the American workers they already employed, moved their jobs to Mexico, and started importing product back into the USA.
Our American companies are more the villain than Mexico on the failure of NAFTA-WITH-MEXICO.
SO WHAT THAT NAFTA does not apply to farm produce. Canada, like other nations, maintains as much self-sufficiency as possible in agriculture. They even have a tobacco growing area in Ontario. I can't imagine it's very good tobacco, but they grow it there to avoid having to import it from the USA.
Every country protects its agriculture ferociously, and most countries grow a surplus of many crops, which they try to dump in each other's laps. It seems, like everything else, that USA exports of farm produce are declining, while our imports from other countries are rising:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produ...s-charting-the-essentials/agricultural-trade/
NAFTA-WITH-MEXICO failed because USA companies violated their promise "to create millions of high-paying jobs for American workers who will manufacture product we export to Mexico." Instead of hiring on Americans to make products to export to Mexico, our companies fired the American workers they already employed, moved their jobs to Mexico, and started importing product back into the USA.
Our American companies are more the villain than Mexico on the failure of NAFTA-WITH-MEXICO.
SO WHAT THAT NAFTA does not apply to farm produce. Canada, like other nations, maintains as much self-sufficiency as possible in agriculture. They even have a tobacco growing area in Ontario. I can't imagine it's very good tobacco, but they grow it there to avoid having to import it from the USA.
Every country protects its agriculture ferociously, and most countries grow a surplus of many crops, which they try to dump in each other's laps. It seems, like everything else, that USA exports of farm produce are declining, while our imports from other countries are rising:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produ...s-charting-the-essentials/agricultural-trade/
A) Yes, the growth of manufacturing during all those years 33 years combined 2.1%.
B) The cumulative growth in manufacturing happened in those 10 years of 1984 to 1994 BEFORE NAFTA-WITH-MEXICO and GATT-WITH-CHINA
C) The manufacturing sector stopped growing in the years AFTER 1994.
D) Robots did not cause the loss of 5,000,000 American manufacturing jobs. The jobs were lost when companies closed the plants and moved the work to Mexico and China.
E) American companies moved the work to Mexico and China to have the work done by Mexicans and Chinese in order to AVOID having to pay for robots to make our people in the USA more productive.
Actually, the reason you are emphasizing Big Ag is that farmland can't be shipped overseas.
Similar threads
