US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[sealybobo]

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.

Or NAFTA. The only reason Clinton signed it was because bush lost. NAFTA was the GOP's baby but they only credit clinton

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

 

[DGS49]

People are adapting to a new reality, where a large swath of the population cannot find (and have given up looking for) employment that they consider acceptable. So they scale back, and learn to live on one income, or one income supplemented by reduced social security or a part-time under-the-table job, or whatever.

It is the reverse of the New Reality that came into being in the late 60's, with the universal availability of safe, effective birth control, which gave women the prospect of full-time employment, uninterrupted by the occasional unplanned pregnancy. This new reality brought about a dramatic increase in inflation - mainly manifested in skyrocketing housing prices - as two-income families drove prices up, while families with "stay-at-home moms" were crushed by the inflation.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

So, oldsty;e is suggesting, apparently, that the bls is lying, and there is more unemployment because those nasty dems are lying to us. But has no proof. And has only a conspiracyAnd has no suggested reason for lower wages. Got it. You know nothing, but to push con talking points, as usual
Stand by. Personal attacks are incoming.

That's called being brainwashed. They've been taught to hate liberals so much they'd rather vote for ANYONE but us. Luckily the rest of America isn't that stupid. I mean they voted for Bush twice but since then the only problem Americans have is not voting in midterms. If they'd just do that we could start taking this country back.

But as soon as the 2016 elections are over they'll go right back to telling people that voting doesn't matter in hopes that they keep their secret weapon, and that is the midterm elections. Rich people and Republicans vote every 2 years. The people that will elect Hillary won't show up again until 2024. That is how the rich maintain control of the country.

If Americans are mad at the direction this country is going, they have only themselves to blame.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

So, oldstyie is suggesting, apparently, that the bls is lying, and there is more unemployment because those nasty dems are lying to us. But has no proof. And has only a conspiracy theory to suggest. And has no suggested reason for lower wages. AND NO CONCEPT OF WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. Got it. You know nothing, but to push con talking points, as usual

The problem we are still trying to overcome is obvious. Except to OS. It is well know, as the Great Republican Recession of 2008. From which, thanks to democratic efforts, we have recovered. Thanks to the Obama Stimulus. And to prove the fact that we recovered from the recession, you should consider what the CBO has stated.
But what has not been helped is workers wages. Having a con troll argue that this is Obama's problem is funny. Because the lower wages are EXACTLY what republicans SUPPORT. And exactly why, as Oldstyle well knows, there have been:
1. Numerous bills sent forward by democrats which republicans have voted against in a block. There have been no Republican votes. ever, to allow the president to try to address the problem; EVER.
2. Exactly zero Republican economic bills have been sent forward to address the problem by Republicans, even though the problem was part and parcel of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, BECAUSE REPUBLICANS LOVE THE FACT THAT WORKERS WAGES ARE NOT GROWING, AND THAT THE LOWER 99% OF THE POPULATION HAVE RECEIVED ONLY 7% OF THE ECONOMIC GAINS SINCE THE GREAT REPUBLICAN RECESSION OF 2009, WHILE THE TOP 1% OF THE POPULATION HAVE RECEIVED 93% OF THE GAINS. WHICH AGAIN, MAKES CONSERVATIVES VERY, VERY HAPPY.

So, SOP for con tools like OS to suggest the problem is mysterious, but is a problem of Dems. Even though they have made efforts to fix the problem. Even though republicans have made no effort to fix the problem. And even though republicans have tried in every way to stop progress.

Stand by. Personal attacks are incoming.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

So, oldsty;e is suggesting, apparently, that the bls is lying, and there is more unemployment because those nasty dems are lying to us. But has no proof. And has only a conspiracyAnd has no suggested reason for lower wages. Got it. You know nothing, but to push con talking points, as usual
Stand by. Personal attacks are incoming.

That's called being brainwashed. They've been taught to hate liberals so much they'd rather vote for ANYONE but us. Luckily the rest of America isn't that stupid. I mean they voted for Bush twice but since then the only problem Americans have is not voting in midterms. If they'd just do that we could start taking this country back.

But as soon as the 2016 elections are over they'll go right back to telling people that voting doesn't matter in hopes that they keep their secret weapon, and that is the midterm elections. Rich people and Republicans vote every 2 years. The people that will elect Hillary won't show up again until 2024. That is how the rich maintain control of the country.

If Americans are mad at the direction this country is going, they have only themselves to blame.

The Republicans are much better funded, overall. There are probably 200 far right nut case conservative web sites pumping out propaganda. There is an entire NETWORK attacking dems 24/7. And the repubs have managed to redistrict states to the points that it will take decades to give those states a chance of voting dem. The republican wealthy have control of a huge network that goes after people with no ability to reason, and love to be told what to believe. Like Oldstyle. And many others.
And you are completely correct that repubs always vote. In the short term, it is a huge problem. But what their biggest problem is, is that cons are mostly OLD. The young and the well educated are heavily liberal. So, in the long run, they will probably loose. If we can keep them from continued redistricting, and packing the courts.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

/QUOTE]

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?[

Trillions is a big number. Have any proof?

And perhaps you can provide some indication of the benefits of regulations?

What is the value of one more person who is saved as a result of food health laws?

What are the overall costs to people of no federal regulations?

Somolia has just about no regulations. Is that your model?

 

[Mcflipper]

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

"From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas. I remember when he was running against Ross Perot. He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S. Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened. After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass. But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.

 

[Mcflipper]

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

If pick pocket democrats came up with a good way to pick pockets, do you really thing that pick pocket republicans are going to expose it:?

 

[Mcflipper]

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

For all you know, people who have given up looking for work is at a 4 decade high. Also, what's Trump going to for blue collar workers? Obviously keep them from having to compete with even poorer and more desperate illegal workers from the violent and corrupt third world countries south of the border. What is Hillary going to do to help blue collar American workers? Make the illegal ones legal. What do you think is going to help poor blue collar American workers more.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

So, oldsty;e is suggesting, apparently, that the bls is lying, and there is more unemployment because those nasty dems are lying to us. But has no proof. And has only a conspiracyAnd has no suggested reason for lower wages. Got it. You know nothing, but to push con talking points, as usual
Stand by. Personal attacks are incoming.

That's called being brainwashed. They've been taught to hate liberals so much they'd rather vote for ANYONE but us. Luckily the rest of America isn't that stupid. I mean they voted for Bush twice but since then the only problem Americans have is not voting in midterms. If they'd just do that we could start taking this country back.

But as soon as the 2016 elections are over they'll go right back to telling people that voting doesn't matter in hopes that they keep their secret weapon, and that is the midterm elections. Rich people and Republicans vote every 2 years. The people that will elect Hillary won't show up again until 2024. That is how the rich maintain control of the country.

If Americans are mad at the direction this country is going, they have only themselves to blame.

Ah so what you're saying is that liberals are either too stupid or too lazy to show up for mid-term elections? Gee, Sealy...that really doesn't say much for you and your fellow progressives...does it?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Interesting concept. Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct? So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade! Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening! Are we really at full employment? Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics? Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!

So, oldsty;e is suggesting, apparently, that the bls is lying, and there is more unemployment because those nasty dems are lying to us. But has no proof. And has only a conspiracyAnd has no suggested reason for lower wages. Got it. You know nothing, but to push con talking points, as usual
Stand by. Personal attacks are incoming.

That's called being brainwashed. They've been taught to hate liberals so much they'd rather vote for ANYONE but us. Luckily the rest of America isn't that stupid. I mean they voted for Bush twice but since then the only problem Americans have is not voting in midterms. If they'd just do that we could start taking this country back.

But as soon as the 2016 elections are over they'll go right back to telling people that voting doesn't matter in hopes that they keep their secret weapon, and that is the midterm elections. Rich people and Republicans vote every 2 years. The people that will elect Hillary won't show up again until 2024. That is how the rich maintain control of the country.

If Americans are mad at the direction this country is going, they have only themselves to blame.

The Republicans are much better funded, overall. There are probably 200 far right nut case conservative web sites pumping out propaganda. There is an entire NETWORK attacking dems 24/7. And the repubs have managed to redistrict states to the points that it will take decades to give those states a chance of voting dem. The republican wealthy have control of a huge network that goes after people with no ability to reason, and love to be told what to believe. Like Oldstyle. And many others.
And you are completely correct that repubs always vote. In the short term, it is a huge problem. But what their biggest problem is, is that cons are mostly OLD. The young and the well educated are heavily liberal. So, in the long run, they will probably loose. If we can keep them from continued redistricting, and packing the courts.

Packing the courts? The last party to try THAT were the Democrats under FDR. Good to see you're still here displaying your breathtaking lack of knowledge, Georgie!

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

"Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

Let's see if OS is finally correct, for a change.
" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

Nope. Missed again.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

"Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

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.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

 

[Rshermr]

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

"Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

[/QUOTE]

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!