US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That's because Clinton inherited a growing economy from George H. W. Bush.
You're REALLY giving Al Gore credit for the Dot Com Boom? That's amusing, Faun...ridiculous...but amusing!

That growing economy was due to tax increases. First by Bush, then by Clinton. Funny though... at the time, rightards credited Reagan.

And of course Gore gets some credit for the Internet. He passed legislation which helped foster its development. For example, his legislation led to the creation of mosaic. Sure, there were other networks already in place for decades, but none were used like the Internet is used today. Modaic was the beginning of the world wide Web (www) as we know the Internet today.

I know how much it pains a lying con tool like you to accept Gore's contributuons; but then, that's what makes you a lying con tool.

 

[Markle]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

 

[sealybobo]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Yea, "from what you heard". But fact is the same formula that gave bush 1&2 a deficit, gave Clinton a surplus.

Assuming the next president didn't get us into 2 wars and give massive tax breaks & send millions of tax paying jobs overseas

 

[sealybobo]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

So when Bush, campaigning for president in 2000, ran on the platform that we had a surplus, that it was the government overcharging us, and because of that he was going to give us a tax rebate and rax cuts -- he was lying?

"Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend.

But they've got it backwards.

The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

And I will act on principle.

On principle ... every family, every farmer and small businessperson, should be free to pass on their life's work to those they love.

So we will abolish the death tax.

On principle ... no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government.

So we will reduce tax rates for everyone, in every bracket.

On principle ... those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help.

So we will lower the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and double the child tax credit."​

Thank you thank you thank you. I didn't think to find a Republican in 1999 or 2000 talking about Clinton's surplus.

 

[sealybobo]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

America has 5.8 million job openings

Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters

Republicans so dishonest. The base votes for the very people who screw them over.

'Frightening' number of unemployed have stopped looking for work

"This is a tale of two economies," Express CEO Bob Funk said in a statement. "It's frightening to see this many people who could work say they have given up."

The results come just a few days after a government report showed that the unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent in May, but the drop came primarily because of a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate. The number of people of all ages whom the government considers "not in the labor force" swelled by 664,000 to a record 94.7 million Americans, according to Labor Department data.

Job creation, after averaging over 200,000 for much of the recovery, has slowed considerably this year. May saw just 38,000 new jobs, part of a trend in which payrolls have grown an average of 116,000 over the past three months and less than 150,000 for all of 2016.

Look at the rest of your article:

The greatest concentration of unemployment is in the 18-29 age group, which comprises one-third of all the jobless:

Other highlights of the poll:

83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014.

And then add in this fact:

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

And you have to wonder if people even want jobs?

Of course, congress could make education both affordable and within reach. I mean a Democratic Congress. This kind of help is something Republicans would NEVER, EVER do. It's simply not who they are.

I have friends who I try to explain these contradictions to. I try to explain how the republicans don't really have a solution for helping the people who can't find work.

And for the people who cant find work the solution isn't affordable school because those are uneducated blue collar workers. They'll never be engineers.

I'm starting to think there is nothing we can do to change the fact that the social contract companies had with American workers is done. The only responsibility a company has is to its shareholders. This fact should dramatically alter the birth rates in this country. When $30 union workers had job security, they had kids and then put there kids to school. Today factory workers make $10 hr. They probably won't have as many kids. This low birth rate is going to hurt us.

A big part of me wishes we would lower the population but if we do the corporations and rich will just import more Arabs and Mexicans.

 

[Faun]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

So when Bush, campaigning for president in 2000, ran on the platform that we had a surplus, that it was the government overcharging us, and because of that he was going to give us a tax rebate and rax cuts -- he was lying?

"Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend.

But they've got it backwards.

The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

And I will act on principle.

On principle ... every family, every farmer and small businessperson, should be free to pass on their life's work to those they love.

So we will abolish the death tax.

On principle ... no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government.

So we will reduce tax rates for everyone, in every bracket.

On principle ... those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help.

So we will lower the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and double the child tax credit."​

Thank you thank you thank you. I didn't think to find a Republican in 1999 or 2000 talking about Clinton's surplus.

Bush wasn't the only one....

"More surplus money for Washington means less money for families and workers across our country." ~ Bill Archer, 1999

"I'm glad to hear him discuss it again this evening. Unfortunately spending the surplus as he proposes will not save Social Security. It just temporarily props it up with extra cash." ~ Jennifer Dunn & Steve Largent, 1999

"And tonight, to show you that we are sincere and that we mean business, Republicans take a first step toward making Medicare stronger. To guarantee that seniors can rely on Medicare forever, we will add it to the Social Security lockbox, which will lock away the surplus for both Social Security and Medicare. We will not let anyone spend your Medicare money." ~ Bill Frist & Susan Collins, 2000

"I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative." ~ Newt Gingrich, 2011

 

[sealybobo]

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

So when Bush, campaigning for president in 2000, ran on the platform that we had a surplus, that it was the government overcharging us, and because of that he was going to give us a tax rebate and rax cuts -- he was lying?

"Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend.

But they've got it backwards.

The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

And I will act on principle.

On principle ... every family, every farmer and small businessperson, should be free to pass on their life's work to those they love.

So we will abolish the death tax.

On principle ... no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government.

So we will reduce tax rates for everyone, in every bracket.

On principle ... those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help.

So we will lower the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and double the child tax credit."​

Thank you thank you thank you. I didn't think to find a Republican in 1999 or 2000 talking about Clinton's surplus.

Bush wasn't the only one....

"More surplus money for Washington means less money for families and workers across our country." ~ Bill Archer, 1999

"I'm glad to hear him discuss it again this evening. Unfortunately spending the surplus as he proposes will not save Social Security. It just temporarily props it up with extra cash." ~ Jennifer Dunn & Steve Largent, 1999

"And tonight, to show you that we are sincere and that we mean business, Republicans take a first step toward making Medicare stronger. To guarantee that seniors can rely on Medicare forever, we will add it to the Social Security lockbox, which will lock away the surplus for both Social Security and Medicare. We will not let anyone spend your Medicare money." ~ Bill Frist & Susan Collins, 2000

"I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative." ~ Newt Gingrich, 2011

Republicans would have been all over bill if he lied about the debt. The truth is he had a projected surplus and bush squandered it.

And what would Republicans rather talk about. The fact that bush squandered it or that it was only a projected surplus?

Makes hillary seem like the right choice. If Republicans hate her I love her because I hate them. They are obvious liars

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That's because Clinton inherited a growing economy from George H. W. Bush.
You're REALLY giving Al Gore credit for the Dot Com Boom? That's amusing, Faun...ridiculous...but amusing!

That growing economy was due to tax increases. First by Bush, then by Clinton. Funny though... at the time, rightards credited Reagan.

And of course Gore gets some credit for the Internet. He passed legislation which helped foster its development. For example, his legislation led to the creation of mosaic. Sure, there were other networks already in place for decades, but none were used like the Internet is used today. Modaic was the beginning of the world wide Web (www) as we know the Internet today.

I know how much it pains a lying con tool like you to accept Gore's contributuons; but then, that's what makes you a lying con tool.

So you admit that George H.W. Bush gave Bill Clinton a growing economy and that Clinton gave George W. Bush a declining one?

I'm curious, Faun...what economic policy of Hillary Clinton's do you see growing the economy like it was during her husband's time in office? Without the Dot Com Boom, I'm afraid that Hillary is going to be hard pressed to recreate what happened during that time period.

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That's because Clinton inherited a growing economy from George H. W. Bush.
You're REALLY giving Al Gore credit for the Dot Com Boom? That's amusing, Faun...ridiculous...but amusing!

That growing economy was due to tax increases. First by Bush, then by Clinton. Funny though... at the time, rightards credited Reagan.

And of course Gore gets some credit for the Internet. He passed legislation which helped foster its development. For example, his legislation led to the creation of mosaic. Sure, there were other networks already in place for decades, but none were used like the Internet is used today. Modaic was the beginning of the world wide Web (www) as we know the Internet today.

I know how much it pains a lying con tool like you to accept Gore's contributuons; but then, that's what makes you a lying con tool.

So you admit that George H.W. Bush gave Bill Clinton a growing economy and that Clinton gave George W. Bush a declining one?

I'm curious, Faun...what economic policy of Hillary Clinton's do you see growing the economy like it was during her husband's time in office? Without the Dot Com Boom, I'm afraid that Hillary is going to be hard pressed to recreate what happened during that time period.

What's trump going to do? What's Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell going to do?

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

 

[Faun]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That's because Clinton inherited a growing economy from George H. W. Bush.
You're REALLY giving Al Gore credit for the Dot Com Boom? That's amusing, Faun...ridiculous...but amusing!

That growing economy was due to tax increases. First by Bush, then by Clinton. Funny though... at the time, rightards credited Reagan.

And of course Gore gets some credit for the Internet. He passed legislation which helped foster its development. For example, his legislation led to the creation of mosaic. Sure, there were other networks already in place for decades, but none were used like the Internet is used today. Modaic was the beginning of the world wide Web (www) as we know the Internet today.

I know how much it pains a lying con tool like you to accept Gore's contributuons; but then, that's what makes you a lying con tool.

So you admit that George H.W. Bush gave Bill Clinton a growing economy and that Clinton gave George W. Bush a declining one?

I'm curious, Faun...what economic policy of Hillary Clinton's do you see growing the economy like it was during her husband's time in office? Without the Dot Com Boom, I'm afraid that Hillary is going to be hard pressed to recreate what happened during that time period.

What do you mean, "admit?" I never said otherwise. As far as the economy under Hillary, I have no idea. No one does. There are so many variables that factor into the economy, no one could possibly accurately predict it. I will say, however, Trump's tax plan was calculated to cost us about $9.5 trillion over the next ten years, according to the tax policy center. Whereas Hillary's was calculated to raise about $1.1 trillion.

 

[Faun]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Jobs have already been created under Obama. We are currently at full employment.

 

[Markle]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

America has 5.8 million job openings

Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters

Republicans so dishonest. The base votes for the very people who screw them over.

'Frightening' number of unemployed have stopped looking for work

"This is a tale of two economies," Express CEO Bob Funk said in a statement. "It's frightening to see this many people who could work say they have given up."

The results come just a few days after a government report showed that the unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent in May, but the drop came primarily because of a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate. The number of people of all ages whom the government considers "not in the labor force" swelled by 664,000 to a record 94.7 million Americans, according to Labor Department data.

Job creation, after averaging over 200,000 for much of the recovery, has slowed considerably this year. May saw just 38,000 new jobs, part of a trend in which payrolls have grown an average of 116,000 over the past three months and less than 150,000 for all of 2016.

Look at the rest of your article:

The greatest concentration of unemployment is in the 18-29 age group, which comprises one-third of all the jobless:

Other highlights of the poll:

83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014.

And then add in this fact:

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

And you have to wonder if people even want jobs?

Of course, congress could make education both affordable and within reach. I mean a Democratic Congress. This kind of help is something Republicans would NEVER, EVER do. It's simply not who they are.

I have friends who I try to explain these contradictions to. I try to explain how the republicans don't really have a solution for helping the people who can't find work.

And for the people who cant find work the solution isn't affordable school because those are uneducated blue collar workers. They'll never be engineers.

I'm starting to think there is nothing we can do to change the fact that the social contract companies had with American workers is done. The only responsibility a company has is to its shareholders. This fact should dramatically alter the birth rates in this country. When $30 union workers had job security, they had kids and then put there kids to school. Today factory workers make $10 hr. They probably won't have as many kids. This low birth rate is going to hurt us.

A big part of me wishes we would lower the population but if we do the corporations and rich will just import more Arabs and Mexicans.

As you know and know well, lit was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, pushed through by Newt Gingrich, vetoed by President Clinton twice before it became obvious that his third veto would be overridden so he signed it into law. It was immensely successful up to the time Lame Duck President Obama gutted it with Obamacare and his failed Stimulus Plan.

Share with us what factory workers make $10.00 per hour.

 

[Markle]

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Jobs have already been created under Obama. We are currently at full employment.

 

[Faun]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

America has 5.8 million job openings

Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters

Republicans so dishonest. The base votes for the very people who screw them over.

'Frightening' number of unemployed have stopped looking for work

"This is a tale of two economies," Express CEO Bob Funk said in a statement. "It's frightening to see this many people who could work say they have given up."

The results come just a few days after a government report showed that the unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent in May, but the drop came primarily because of a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate. The number of people of all ages whom the government considers "not in the labor force" swelled by 664,000 to a record 94.7 million Americans, according to Labor Department data.

Job creation, after averaging over 200,000 for much of the recovery, has slowed considerably this year. May saw just 38,000 new jobs, part of a trend in which payrolls have grown an average of 116,000 over the past three months and less than 150,000 for all of 2016.

Look at the rest of your article:

The greatest concentration of unemployment is in the 18-29 age group, which comprises one-third of all the jobless:

Other highlights of the poll:

83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014.

And then add in this fact:

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

And you have to wonder if people even want jobs?

Of course, congress could make education both affordable and within reach. I mean a Democratic Congress. This kind of help is something Republicans would NEVER, EVER do. It's simply not who they are.

I have friends who I try to explain these contradictions to. I try to explain how the republicans don't really have a solution for helping the people who can't find work.

And for the people who cant find work the solution isn't affordable school because those are uneducated blue collar workers. They'll never be engineers.

I'm starting to think there is nothing we can do to change the fact that the social contract companies had with American workers is done. The only responsibility a company has is to its shareholders. This fact should dramatically alter the birth rates in this country. When $30 union workers had job security, they had kids and then put there kids to school. Today factory workers make $10 hr. They probably won't have as many kids. This low birth rate is going to hurt us.

A big part of me wishes we would lower the population but if we do the corporations and rich will just import more Arabs and Mexicans.

As you know and know well, lit was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, pushed through by Newt Gingrich, vetoed by President Clinton twice before it became obvious that his third veto would be overridden so he signed it into law. It was immensely successful up to the time Lame Duck President Obama gutted it with Obamacare and his failed Stimulus Plan.

Share with us what factory workers make $10.00 per hour.

It's cute how when it comes to Republicans pushing through welfare reform, which Clinton signed -- y'all credit the GOP Congress...

... but when that same GOP Congress pushed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after the three Republicans who wrote and sponsored the bill -- y'all blame Clinton because he signed it.

 

[Faun]

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Jobs have already been created under Obama. We are currently at full employment.

It's not my fault you're too dumb to understand the labor force participation rate is affected most by demographics, not the health of the job market.

Case in point, it was lower than it is now from the time they first began recording it until the late 1970's, yet we had many healthy job markets during that period. Including many years we were at full employment. The biggest factors in driving up the labor force were baby boomers entering the work force, blacks entering the work force after civil rights, and women entering the work force following the women's lib movement.

Those were all demographics driving it up during the 60's, 70's and 80's. Among the reason driving it down now is the exit of one of those demoraphics -- baby boomers retiring.

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

Nonsense.

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Broken record.

 

[sealybobo]

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That's because Clinton inherited a growing economy from George H. W. Bush.
You're REALLY giving Al Gore credit for the Dot Com Boom? That's amusing, Faun...ridiculous...but amusing!

That growing economy was due to tax increases. First by Bush, then by Clinton. Funny though... at the time, rightards credited Reagan.

And of course Gore gets some credit for the Internet. He passed legislation which helped foster its development. For example, his legislation led to the creation of mosaic. Sure, there were other networks already in place for decades, but none were used like the Internet is used today. Modaic was the beginning of the world wide Web (www) as we know the Internet today.

I know how much it pains a lying con tool like you to accept Gore's contributuons; but then, that's what makes you a lying con tool.

So you admit that George H.W. Bush gave Bill Clinton a growing economy and that Clinton gave George W. Bush a declining one?

I'm curious, Faun...what economic policy of Hillary Clinton's do you see growing the economy like it was during her husband's time in office? Without the Dot Com Boom, I'm afraid that Hillary is going to be hard pressed to recreate what happened during that time period.

What do you mean, "admit?" I never said otherwise. As far as the economy under Hillary, I have no idea. No one does. There are so many variables that factor into the economy, no one could possibly accurately predict it. I will say, however, Trump's tax plan was calculated to cost us about $9.5 trillion over the next ten years, according to the tax policy center. Whereas Hillary's was calculated to raise about $1.1 trillion.

Another surplus? Will the GOP president in 2024 squander it like bush did? Just give the "projected" surplus to the rich and claim its there money? Damn the debt? We know they would

 

[sealybobo]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

America has 5.8 million job openings

Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters

Republicans so dishonest. The base votes for the very people who screw them over.

'Frightening' number of unemployed have stopped looking for work

"This is a tale of two economies," Express CEO Bob Funk said in a statement. "It's frightening to see this many people who could work say they have given up."

The results come just a few days after a government report showed that the unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent in May, but the drop came primarily because of a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate. The number of people of all ages whom the government considers "not in the labor force" swelled by 664,000 to a record 94.7 million Americans, according to Labor Department data.

Job creation, after averaging over 200,000 for much of the recovery, has slowed considerably this year. May saw just 38,000 new jobs, part of a trend in which payrolls have grown an average of 116,000 over the past three months and less than 150,000 for all of 2016.

Look at the rest of your article:

The greatest concentration of unemployment is in the 18-29 age group, which comprises one-third of all the jobless:

Other highlights of the poll:

83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014.

And then add in this fact:

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

And you have to wonder if people even want jobs?

Of course, congress could make education both affordable and within reach. I mean a Democratic Congress. This kind of help is something Republicans would NEVER, EVER do. It's simply not who they are.

I have friends who I try to explain these contradictions to. I try to explain how the republicans don't really have a solution for helping the people who can't find work.

And for the people who cant find work the solution isn't affordable school because those are uneducated blue collar workers. They'll never be engineers.

I'm starting to think there is nothing we can do to change the fact that the social contract companies had with American workers is done. The only responsibility a company has is to its shareholders. This fact should dramatically alter the birth rates in this country. When $30 union workers had job security, they had kids and then put there kids to school. Today factory workers make $10 hr. They probably won't have as many kids. This low birth rate is going to hurt us.

A big part of me wishes we would lower the population but if we do the corporations and rich will just import more Arabs and Mexicans.

As you know and know well, lit was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, pushed through by Newt Gingrich, vetoed by President Clinton twice before it became obvious that his third veto would be overridden so he signed it into law. It was immensely successful up to the time Lame Duck President Obama gutted it with Obamacare and his failed Stimulus Plan.

Share with us what factory workers make $10.00 per hour.

Lots in Michigan. And I've already shared. I'm not going to jump just cause you ask.

Ok, $13 hr. That better?