Even if repubs had full control of our government, there are zero policies to fix...

[Billy000]

...our economic problems. Tell me republicans, assuming they had full control over congress and the presidency, how would republicans fix the following problems:

1) Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs. That means many people have NO CHOICE but to have low wage jobs that they can't support themselves with.

2) 1% of the top earners in this country own 40% of the nation's wealth. 95% of income gains in 2013 have gone to the top 95% of earners. In fact, wages for the bottom 5% have only increased 8% since the 30s despite productivity increasing 100%.

Tell me republicans - how would republicans fix these problems if, hypothetically, they had full control of congress and the presidency? Let me guess. Tax cuts? Yeah that won't do shit. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. All it will do is further increase our national debt. Face it, republican policies won't do shit to save this country.

 

[OKTexas]

Try reading the 321 House bills sitting on reids desk and get back to us.

 

[Billy000]

Try reading the 321 House bills sitting on reids desk and get back to us.

Or how about you just answer my plainly worded questions?

 

[blackhawk]

He could be right Obama and the Democrats had full control for awhile and we know how that spend more and raise taxes on the rich worked out.

 

[Billy000]

He could be right Obama and the Democrats had full control for awhile and we know how that worked out.

Of course 2x many private jobs were created in Obama's first 4 years than all of Bush's 8. Oh, and the financial crisis happened on his watch.

 

[Billy000]

Surprise! Obama Is Creating More New Jobs Than George W. Bush - US News

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/04/17/job-creation-obama-bush-factcheck/

http://www.minyanville.com/business...s-Created-Under-Obama-Than/4/17/2013/id/49323

 

[Rikurzhen]

1) Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs. That means many people have NO CHOICE but to have low wage jobs that they can't support themselves with.

Wages are set by two factors - supply and demand and by a value created by work. These are the levers we have to work with.

If wages are too low then this means that there are too many employees competing for every job and most of the employees don't have enough human capital that they can apply in the marketplace so as to create value commensurate with their wage expectations.

Consider this inconvenient truth from the Washington Post:

These advances are especially impressive because the massive immigration of unskilled Hispanic workers inflated the ranks of the poor. From 1990 to 2007, the entire increase in official poverty was among Hispanics.​

We're IMPORTING POVERTY.

So the solution here is to tighten up the labor market. The way to do this is to round up 20 million illegal infiltrators and deport them. The jobs they held will now be vacant. Unemployed Americans can now fill those jobs and of course the employers will have to raise wages offered to entice Americans back into the labor force.

Labor scarcity does wonders for increasing wages.

Next up, do what we can to send back any legal green card holders. At the same time put in place a total immigration moratorium until our labor force participation rate comes back to a historical peak, which would be a strong signal that there really aren't any more viable potential employees in the ranks of the "not working."

2) 1% of the top earners in this country own 40% of the nation's wealth. 95% of income gains in 2013 have gone to the top 95% of earners. In fact, wages for the bottom 5% have only increased 8% since the 30s despite productivity increasing 100%.

This problem is solved by implementing the solution to problem #1. The historical data showed that Capital's share of the National Income was lowest during our multi-decade immigration moratorium. When there is a shortage of workers, then Capital has to bid up the price of labor and so it captures less of the share of wealth created by Labor+Capital.

 

[bripat9643]

...our economic problems. Tell me republicans, assuming they had full control over congress and the presidency, how would republicans fix the following problems:

1) Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs. That means many people have NO CHOICE but to have low wage jobs that they can't support themselves with.

2) 1% of the top earners in this country own 40% of the nation's wealth. 95% of income gains in 2013 have gone to the top 95% of earners. In fact, wages for the bottom 5% have only increased 8% since the 30s despite productivity increasing 100%.

Tell me republicans - how would republicans fix these problems if, hypothetically, they had full control of congress and the presidency? Let me guess. Tax cuts? Yeah that won't do shit. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. All it will do is further increase our national debt. Face it, republican policies won't do shit to save this country.

Simple: repeal everything the Dims have passed since Obama got elected.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What party's 'in control' doesn't matter. Nature of the government itself is what's fucked up. So long as money determines policy, nothing needing to be done will ever get done regardless of who's in charge unless the campaign donors say ok. Without money from influential corporations and individuals, politicians don't get elected or re-elected. And both sides are guilty of being whores bought and paid for by the wealthiest people around, here at home, and in foreign countries.

Either people who complain and argue democrat vs republican issues are profoundly ignorant and stupid, or they're being disingenuous in their ire knowing full well neither side's to blame. If the patient has lung cancer, fixing the coughing doesn't matter in the least. Similarly, gaining majority control for either party doesn't achieve anything more than a campaign fundraising victory.

Rome had wars and gladitorial entertainment to keep the people distracted and obediant. We have politics. But just like Rome, our time is finite and our decline is already underway.

 

[Billy000]

1) Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs. That means many people have NO CHOICE but to have low wage jobs that they can't support themselves with.

Wages are set by two factors - supply and demand and by a value created by work. These are the levers we have to work with.

If wages are too low then this means that there are too many employees competing for every job and most of the employees don't have enough human capital that they can apply in the marketplace so as to create value commensurate with their wage expectations.

Consider this inconvenient truth from the Washington Post:

These advances are especially impressive because the massive immigration of unskilled Hispanic workers inflated the ranks of the poor. From 1990 to 2007, the entire increase in official poverty was among Hispanics.​

We're IMPORTING POVERTY.

So the solution here is to tighten up the labor market. The way to do this is to round up 20 million illegal infiltrators and deport them. The jobs they held will now be vacant. Unemployed Americans can now fill those jobs and of course the employers will have to raise wages offered to entice Americans back into the labor force.

Labor scarcity does wonders for increasing wages.

Next up, do what we can to send back any legal green card holders. At the same time put in place a total immigration moratorium until our labor force participation rate comes back to a historical peak, which would be a strong signal that there really aren't any more viable potential employees in the ranks of the "not working."

2) 1% of the top earners in this country own 40% of the nation's wealth. 95% of income gains in 2013 have gone to the top 95% of earners. In fact, wages for the bottom 5% have only increased 8% since the 30s despite productivity increasing 100%.

This problem is solved by implementing the solution to problem #1. The historical data showed that Capital's share of the National Income was lowest during our multi-decade immigration moratorium. When there is a shortage of workers, then Capital has to bid up the price of labor and so it captures less of the share of wealth created by Labor+Capital.

Illegal immigrants has always been a problem. The Bush years were no different. In fact Obama has deported more illegals than Bush ever did. The causation between immigration and the economy just isn't there. Would deporting all illegals hep? Yes, but hardly.

 

[blackhawk]

He could be right Obama and the Democrats had full control for awhile and we know how that worked out.

Of course 2x many private jobs were created in Obama's first 4 years than all of Bush's 8. Oh, and the financial crisis happened on his watch.

The problem the majority of those jobs are lowing or part time not full time and high paying not the type people need or want. As for the financial crisis I refer you to Barney Frank in July of 2008.

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) July 14, 2008

 

[Rikurzhen]

Illegal immigrants has always been a problem.

Crime has always been a problem too but crime levels are responsive to law enforcement presence and effectiveness.

In fact Obama has deported more illegals than Bush ever did.

You've bought into propaganda here. This is not true. This result is creating my massaging data and definitions.

The causation between immigration and the economy just isn't there.

The causal model is sound - labor scarcity drives up wages.

Remove immigrants from the labor market and you drive up wages, just like happened in the early 20th Century:

 

[Billy000]

He could be right Obama and the Democrats had full control for awhile and we know how that worked out.

Of course 2x many private jobs were created in Obama's first 4 years than all of Bush's 8. Oh, and the financial crisis happened on his watch.

The problem the majority of those jobs are lowing or part time not full time and high paying not the type people need or want. As for the financial crisis I refer you to Barney Frank in July of 2008.

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) July 14, 2008

Corporate profits are at an all time high. Why is it Obama's fault for the quality of these jobs?

 

[Billy000]

Illegal immigrants has always been a problem.

Crime has always been a problem too but crime levels are responsive to law enforcement presence and effectiveness.

In fact Obama has deported more illegals than Bush ever did.

You've bought into propaganda here. This is not true. This result is creating my massaging data and definitions.

The causation between immigration and the economy just isn't there.

The causal model is sound - labor scarcity drives up wages.

Remove immigrants from the labor market and you drive up wages, just like happened in the early 20th Century:

It's not propaganda. It is a fact.

Obama is deporting immigrants faster than Bush. Republicans don?t think that?s enough. - The Washington Post

I'll concede deporting illegals would be economically beneficial, but considering illegal immigration was a still a huge problem in 2000 when the economy was great, it is hardly a cure all. It is something that has been a problem for decades and the economy thrived for decades.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It's not propaganda. It is a fact.

Here's how Obama's propaganda masters do their work - the changed the definition of deportation that was used during the Bush term and presto-chango:

The people who count in the “removals” numbers (which is what administration flacks mean when they boast of “deportations”) are legal immigrants who’ve committed crimes or illegal aliens caught inside the country. (The immigration statistics yearbook says, “Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.”) Those numbers do not include “returns,” who are Mexicans caught sneaking in by the Border Patrol and dumped back across. (The yearbook again: “Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.”)

The reason this matters is that, as Representative Smith determined, the administration has started counting certain “returns” as “removals” in order to artificially inflate the numbers and create a “record level” of deportations. Specifically, those illegals caught by the Border Patrol who are shuttled to a different town along the border before they’re returned are being dishonestly counted as deportations. The point of this Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) is to disrupt smuggling networks and make it harder to just keep crossing until you get through. But they’re still just returns, without any “administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry.” This has falsely increased the number of total removals by more than 100,000 in the past two years. Smith noted, “When the numbers from this Border Patrol program are removed from this year’s deportation data, it shows that removals are actually down nearly 20% from 2009.”​

I'll concede deporting illegals would be economically beneficial, but considering illegal immigration was a still a huge problem in 2000 when the economy was great, it is hardly a cure all. It is something that has been a problem for decades and the economy thrived for decades.

The economy has multiple factors influencing its performance. During the late 90s there was a boom in the economy and this was reflected in the labor market and illegals flocked in but the labor market was pretty tight during this period and so we didn't really see illegals driving citizens out of the market. Now we do. We have record low levels of workforce participation. This means that removing 20 million people from the labor market will SIGNIFICANTLY tighten up the labor market, will significantly increase wages and will significantly decrease income inequality.

Look, I get it. Liberals want to be nice and "caring" and they don't want to be mean to illegal infiltrators but at the same time they want to decrease poverty and decrease income inequality. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick which is most important to you.

 

[Billy000]

It's not propaganda. It is a fact.

Here's how Obama's propaganda masters do their work - the changed the definition of deportation that was used during the Bush term and presto-chango:

The people who count in the “removals” numbers (which is what administration flacks mean when they boast of “deportations”) are legal immigrants who’ve committed crimes or illegal aliens caught inside the country. (The immigration statistics yearbook says, “Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.”) Those numbers do not include “returns,” who are Mexicans caught sneaking in by the Border Patrol and dumped back across. (The yearbook again: “Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.”)

The reason this matters is that, as Representative Smith determined, the administration has started counting certain “returns” as “removals” in order to artificially inflate the numbers and create a “record level” of deportations. Specifically, those illegals caught by the Border Patrol who are shuttled to a different town along the border before they’re returned are being dishonestly counted as deportations. The point of this Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) is to disrupt smuggling networks and make it harder to just keep crossing until you get through. But they’re still just returns, without any “administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry.” This has falsely increased the number of total removals by more than 100,000 in the past two years. Smith noted, “When the numbers from this Border Patrol program are removed from this year’s deportation data, it shows that removals are actually down nearly 20% from 2009.”​

I'll concede deporting illegals would be economically beneficial, but considering illegal immigration was a still a huge problem in 2000 when the economy was great, it is hardly a cure all. It is something that has been a problem for decades and the economy thrived for decades.

The economy has multiple factors influencing its performance. During the late 90s there was a boom in the economy and this was reflected in the labor market and illegals flocked in but the labor market was pretty tight during this period and so we didn't really see illegals driving citizens out of the market. Now we do. We have record low levels of workforce participation. This means that removing 20 million people from the labor market will SIGNIFICANTLY tighten up the labor market, will significantly increase wages and will significantly decrease income inequality.

Look, I get it. Liberals want to be nice and "caring" and they don't want to be mean to illegal infiltrators but at the same time they want to decrease poverty and decrease income inequality. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick which is most important to you.

These figures about deportation are not coming just from Obama. These are non partisan figures. That means Bush's figures had the same parameters. Either way, that is not at all evidenced that the main reason why our economy has been stagnant. You said yourself the economy is influenced by many factors.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Reality doesn't matter to losertrians. They'd defund our science institutions, infrastruture and fuck over the poor without blinking a, eye.

Their chant is always lesse faire capitilism without regulations!

 

[Rikurzhen]

These figures about deportation are not coming just from Obama.

It doesn't matter how many different news organization repeat the claim, they all rely on ONE source, the government's data. When that data is corrupted, then all of the downstream reporting is corrupted.

When Obama's administration changes the definition of deportation so that it is now different than how deportations during the Bush terms were counted, then we're no longer comparing apples to apples.

During Bush's terms "returns" were not counted as deportations, only "removals" counted as deportations. Now Obama counts both removals and returns and claims that deportations have increased when they have in fact decreased by 20%.

Think about it on a different level - when has a Democrat ever been honest about anything? Look at all of the lies that are always needed to sell Democratic policies, like immigration, like civil rights, etc so why would you expect a Democrat to report honestly on deportations?

Either way, that is not at all evidenced that the main reason why our economy has been stagnant. You said yourself the economy is influenced by many factors.

The economy is influenced by many factors but a good many of them, in fact probably all of them are interrelated. Just like you can't pull an isolated thread out of a tapestry without influencing the tapestry.

The problem we have in the economy is intimately tied in with labor force surpluses. Those surpluses work to depress wages and give disproportionate returns to capital. This is why rich people and big business LUV high immigration - it lowers their labor costs and allows them to keep the differential. The sell high immigration levels to the saps by pulling on heartstrings and using other tactics to influence the gullible.

If you want to lower income inequality then a.) stop importing poverty and b.) stop adding additional labor to the labor market. If we had choked off Hispanic immigration back in the early 90s, the progress made in our social welfare system would have almost removed every American citizen from poverty. Look back to the Washington Post report I linked. ALL our increases in poverty since 1990 have been from Hispanics.

The principle in discussion here is really quite simple - supply and demand. That's the only tool you need to fix what bothers you leftists so much - inequality. Make labor scarce and then employers have to keep increasing wages in order to attract and then to hold onto their employees. This will lower the returns to capital and increase the returns to labor. This is, by definition, a reduction in income inequality.

 

[Billy000]

These figures about deportation are not coming just from Obama.

It doesn't matter how many different news organization repeat the claim, they all rely on ONE source, the government's data. When that data is corrupted, then all of the downstream reporting is corrupted.

When Obama's administration changes the definition of deportation so that it is now different than how deportations during the Bush terms were counted, then we're no longer comparing apples to apples.

During Bush's terms "returns" were not counted as deportations, only "removals" counted as deportations. Now Obama counts both removals and returns and claims that deportations have increased when they have in fact decreased by 20%.

Think about it on a differeunt level - when has a Democrat ever been honest about anything? Look at all of the lies that are always needed to sell Democratic policies, like immigration, like civil rights, etc so why would you expect a Democrat to report honestly on deportations?

Either way, that is not at all evidenced that the main reason why our economy has been stagnant. You said yourself the economy is influenced by many factors.

The economy is influenced by many factors but a good many of them, in fact probably all of them are interrelated. Just like you can't pull an isolated thread out of a tapestry without influencing the tapestry.

The problem we have in the economy is intimately tied in with labor force surpluses. Those surpluses work to depress wages and give disproportionate returns to capital. This is why rich people and big business LUV high immigration - it lowers their labor costs and allows them to keep the differential. The sell high immigration levels to the saps by pulling on heartstrings and using other tactics to influence the gullible.

If you want to lower income inequality then a.) stop importing poverty and b.) stop adding additional labor to the labor market. If we had choked off Hispanic immigration back in the early 90s, the progress made in our social welfare system would have almost removed every American citizen from poverty. Look back to the Washington Post report I linked. ALL our increases in poverty since 1990 have been from Hispanics.

The principle in discussion here is really quite simple - supply and demand. That's the only tool you need to fix what bothers you leftists so much - inequality. Make labor scarce and then employers have to keep increasing wages in order to attract and then to hold onto their employees. This will lower the returns to capital and increase the returns to labor. This is, by definition, a reduction in income inequality.

Where is the evidence that Bush didn't count returns? Second, where is the evidence that Bush had less returns? Your returns figure makes no mention of comparable numbers under Bush. Even so, this return stat you are touting is weak anyway. Those illegals were still detained.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Say good bye to the clean water, air and national parks
Say goodbye to nasa
Say good bye to the nws
Say goodbye to taxes on the rich
Say goodbye to the safety net
Say goodbye to public education = fuck you poor! Ovaler twist you don't get any today, sucker!
Say goodbye to the cdc
Say good bye to the fda
Say good bye to everything that has to do with a middle class.
Say good bye to banking regulations
Say good bye to monopoly regs

Fuck there isn't anything these assholes wouldn't do away with.