Who will be better at getting America out of debt, Trump or Hillary?

[Indeependent]

Trump derived his original fortune because his Dad gave it to him.

The rest he derived from overextending and bankruptcy.

Hillary wants to raise the minimum wage to make a healthy middle class which will make a healthy economy.

Until you boneheads stop voting for Republicans, it WILL GET WORSE.

Right, we would have a great economy if we raised the wages for 3% of our entire workforce. Yeah, that will save the world.

Trump had a good start and made it much greater with his work and investments. Trust me, not everybody can handle money. We lost several customers because the owner died and left the company to one of their children and they ran it into the ground, or otherwise became too old and sold the business to their kids who eventually ended up closing the business.

I have a personal story of a person who won the lottery. She danced out of the company she worked for singing how she'll never have to work another day in her life. She was back at that company less than two years later begging for her job back. In fact, there are books written how lottery money destroyed people's lives.

I bet you're one of those people that think when you increase costs on a business, the business owner just digs deeper into his own wallet and forks out the money. When you increase costs to a business, they pass that cost down to their customers or they consider investments in automation.

Raising minimum wage increases wages for all.

Automation will not increase until technology increases. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It doesn't increase the pensions that millions of Americans are living on, but it will increase the cost of everything they need to survive.

You mean the pensioners that feed off the Asian Economy and don't give a darn about the fact that the next generation are struggling?

 

[Londoner]

Milton Friedman - Reagan's economic guru, and widely credited as being the greatest economist on the Right - said that the best possible political arrangement for curbing spending and reducing the deficit is when we have a Democratic President and a Republican congress. He said that one party rule, either by Democrats or Republicans is categorically a nightmare. Bush 43 didn't veto one piece of Republican Pork whe He said that when there is a Republican President and Democratic congress, the Democrats never try to discipline the Republican president. This is why Reagan and Tip spent 3x what Carter and Tip spent. However, when you pair a Democratic President with a Republican congress, the congress goes to war against the president and prevents spending in order to destroy him so they can re-take power. They refuse to pass even Republican spending for things like defense because they've created a culture where their candidates will be 'primaried' if their name appears on any legislation signed by a Democratic President, even if that legislation is built around Republican initiatives. The whole point of a Republican congress paired with a Democratic president is to starve the beast and prevent all government action.

 

[Indeependent]

Milton Friedman - Reagan's economic guru, and widely credited as being the greatest economist on the Right - said that the best possible political arrangement for curbing spending and reducing the deficit is when we have a Democratic President and a Republican congress. He said that one party rule, either by Democrats or Republicans is categorically a nightmare. He said that when there is a Republican President and Democratic congress, the Democrats never try to discipline the Republican president. This is why Reagan and Tip spent 3x what Carter and Tip spent. However, when you pair a Democratic President with a Republican congress, the congress goes to war against the president and prevents spending in order to destroy him so they can re-take power.

As though we needed Milton Friedman to tell us that...not.

 

[Indeependent]

So then you must be against tariffs as they will only increase costs.

Not crazy about them, but I like the threat to our trading partners who do use tariffs on our exported products. Maybe they will remove those so we could export even more and make it a level playing field.

I don't see how the threat of taxing us will change a foreign government.

India and China are already involved in the Presidential race and have been for months.
Both have had 30+ years to create a thriving economy and have failed due to their intrinsic totalitarian natures.
The land of 1,000 castes and the land of the Shanghai wealthy have NOT produced the Middle Class that Friedman predicted.
That's because Milty and his fellow Economists think in terms of THEORY, not how human beings REALLY behave.

 

[nicoleivy5]

This has to be the dumbest post of the year. How many bankers and CEO's did the Obama Justice Dept put in jail after the housing bust? That would be ZERO! And if you think the millions of dollars the bankers and Wall Street firms give to Hillary aren't meant to buy protection, you are stupid.

You know how it works you sly dog. When you are in front of your capitalist donors, you say Obama is anti-capitalist. You scare bankers and credit card companies by saying Obama is going to over-regulate them. Then, when you are in front of the poor working class, you say Obama is in bed with wealthy capitalist bankers.

You play both sides, just like with illegal immigration and trade. When you are in front of your wealthy capitalists, you promise to help them acquire cheap labor, like when Nixon opened trade with China, laying the foundation for the global shift of capitalist production to [wait for it] Communist China, or when Reagan & Bush 41 drew up the blueprints for the North American Super Highway or when the Bush/Paulson TARP bailed out the most corrupt Wall Street crooks we've ever seen. But then, when you are speaking to poor, uneducated nativists in red America, you talk about how the illegals and globalists (employed by your capitalists donors) took their jobs. It's a hilarious shell game. It's why Trump makes his ties in Mexico, but then convinces poor workers that he is on their side.

Yes, the Left is 100% complicit because we know it's really a one party system, but this doesn't excuse you for trying to play both sides of every issue, depending on which block of the electorate you are speaking with.

Same thing happened with Carter. One day your side claimed he was a weak ineffectual blow-hole who couldn't get anything done; the next day he was Stalin, who ruled the nation with brutal criminal efficiency, making massive changes that could never be undone. The only constant is that you change your story depending on who you are trying to fool.

Reagan passed the single largest Amnesty Bill in this nation's history. By flooding the Southwest with cheap labor, it had the quiet benefit of weakening Union control of big agro, construction and food service - it gave corporations cheap labor and fulfilled the Libertarian dream of a borderless world where there are no barriers between capital and resources. [Remember: Reagan offered himself as the bridge between Libertarian economics (which sees borders as legal/cultural/linguistics impediments to the flow of capital) and conservative social traditions (which sees borders, language and laws as sacrosanct and more important than economic efficiency]

But it gets better because ol' Ronny played both sides of the immigration issue. That is to say, by flooding the US with illegals, Reagan's Conservative advocacy groups were given grist for the war cry "Borders, Language, Culture". You might ask how conservative voters fall for this bullshit? It's called Fox News, and they don't speak about Reagan's deficit compared to Carter; and they don't speak about Reagan's Amnesty Bill, and they don't speak about the number of times Bush 43 and the GOP House/Senate raised the debt ceiling. They can play every side of every issue because they condition people not to trust any media source which they don't control - which means folks like you never learn about the shell game.

great post

 

[baileyn45]

Milton Friedman - Reagan's economic guru, and widely credited as being the greatest economist on the Right - said that the best possible political arrangement for curbing spending and reducing the deficit is when we have a Democratic President and a Republican congress. He said that one party rule, either by Democrats or Republicans is categorically a nightmare. Bush 43 didn't veto one piece of Republican Pork whe He said that when there is a Republican President and Democratic congress, the Democrats never try to discipline the Republican president. This is why Reagan and Tip spent 3x what Carter and Tip spent. However, when you pair a Democratic President with a Republican congress, the congress goes to war against the president and prevents spending in order to destroy him so they can re-take power. They refuse to pass even Republican spending for things like defense because they've created a culture where their candidates will be 'primaried' if their name appears on any legislation signed by a Democratic President, even if that legislation is built around Republican initiatives. The whole point of a Republican congress paired with a Democratic president is to starve the beast and prevent all government action.

I strongly agree that the worst possible situation is either party with control of both congress and the presidency. Such situations only lead to unabated payoffs to political donors. That goes for both parties.

Normally I would back others on this thread in that I would prefer the reps to control congress even if it meant giving up the presidency. Unfortunately I believe the power of the executive branch is getting out of control with the expanded influence of the bureaucracy which is overly leaning left. As far as I am concerned the most destructive force on the planet is an entrenched bureaucracy. You can't vote them out and even with a change in congress or the presidency they are so overly entrenched that only drastic measures are capable of any change.

 

[KissMy]

Republicans cause 5 times more Job Killing Recessions!!!

A paper written by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson.

The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Research’s official list of recessions.

Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president.

Looking at how many recessions started under Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats.

Every Republican President in History Caused Recessions or Depressions

Clinton Created More Jobs than Reagan + Bush1 + Bush2 COMBINED!

 

[nicoleivy5]

Republicans cause 5 times more Job Killing Recessions!!!

A paper written by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson.

The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Research’s official list of recessions.

Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president.

Looking at how many recessions started under Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats.

Every Republican President in History Caused Recessions or Depressions

Clinton Created More Jobs than Reagan + Bush1 + Bush2 COMBINED!

great article!

 

[nicoleivy5]

Milton Friedman - Reagan's economic guru, and widely credited as being the greatest economist on the Right - said that the best possible political arrangement for curbing spending and reducing the deficit is when we have a Democratic President and a Republican congress. He said that one party rule, either by Democrats or Republicans is categorically a nightmare. He said that when there is a Republican President and Democratic congress, the Democrats never try to discipline the Republican president. This is why Reagan and Tip spent 3x what Carter and Tip spent. However, when you pair a Democratic President with a Republican congress, the congress goes to war against the president and prevents spending in order to destroy him so they can re-take power.

As though we needed Milton Friedman to tell us that...not.

agreed

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There is a very good chance that Toyota was made here. We make a lot of cars here. If it becomes more expensive to import raw materials that may not be the case in the future.

Yes, that's true, but these are not UAW plants.

Toyota puts their money into quality parts and engineering instead of big union money and benefits, so they can make a much better car.

One of the first things I noticed when I purchased my first Toyota was the windshield wiper squirters. In American cars, they run a cheap rubber line to the outside of the windshield wiper arm to squirt the cleaner. That works okay in the summer, but up north during the winter time, those things always freeze up. Then you have to go into the house, get some hot water, pour it on the squirter and rubber line, and quickly run into the car to activate the washer fluid.

In Toyota's, the squirter is inside of the hood of the car. So even if the fluid would freeze, it would only be for a couple of minutes until the heat from the engine thawed out the squirter. To be totally honest, I haven't had a windshield washer fluid freeze up since I started driving Toyota's.

And if it becomes more expensive for Toyota to produce cars here due to tariffs they will move production to another country. I don't see what UAW has to do with it. We are talking about Trump tariffs and how they would kill our manufacturing.

There is truth behind government regulations killing jobs here in the United States. Every new regulation, and Obama has over 20,000 which surpasses George W Bush has allowed in 8 years, costs companies millions to allow them to continue operating in the United States. That is of course if Obama doesn't pass even more federal regulation standards for them to meet. You can give us the sappy story that regulations provides clean air, but over 20,0000 in 7 years? Yet so many liberals are scratching their heads and blaming republicans for sending all our jobs overseas, others don't really care as they have another agenda that's more important than providing jobs in the United States. Look at the impact of how regulations are effecting the economy.

The 600 major regulations have cost the economy at least $743 billion, or $2,294 for every person in the United States. The figure is “larger than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Norway and Israel combined.”

Record 600 Major Regulations Imposed Under Obama


Ever wonder why Democrats are unable to (or can't) go into specifics on HOW they plan to encourage companies and manufacturing to choose the United States as the country they are willing to establish themselves in, as opposed to taking those job opportunities elsewhere? Standing on a podium encouraging more education soending sounds great, until the time comes when you have to face the job market. Not only are you costing America jobs, you are also losing corporate revenue with each manufacturing plant that closes its doors and leaves the country. How much do you think the rich will endure those democrats rhetoric and effort to raise taxes to make up that corporate loss?

 

[TooTall]

This has to be the dumbest post of the year. How many bankers and CEO's did the Obama Justice Dept put in jail after the housing bust? That would be ZERO! And if you think the millions of dollars the bankers and Wall Street firms give to Hillary aren't meant to buy protection, you are stupid.

You know how it works you sly dog. When you are in front of your capitalist donors, you say Obama is anti-capitalist. You scare bankers and credit card companies by saying Obama is going to over-regulate them. Then, when you are in front of the poor working class, you say Obama is in bed with wealthy capitalist bankers.

You play both sides, just like with illegal immigration and trade. When you are in front of your wealthy capitalists, you promise to help them acquire cheap labor, like when Nixon opened trade with China, laying the foundation for the global shift of capitalist production to [wait for it] Communist China, or when Reagan & Bush 41 drew up the blueprints for the North American Super Highway or when the Bush/Paulson TARP bailed out the most corrupt Wall Street crooks we've ever seen. But then, when you are speaking to poor, uneducated nativists in red America, you talk about how the illegals and globalists (employed by your capitalists donors) took their jobs. It's a hilarious shell game. It's why Trump makes his ties in Mexico, but then convinces poor workers that he is on their side.

Yes, the Left is 100% complicit because we know it's really a one party system, but this doesn't excuse you for trying to play both sides of every issue, depending on which block of the electorate you are speaking with.

Same thing happened with Carter. One day your side claimed he was a weak ineffectual blow-hole who couldn't get anything done; the next day he was Stalin, who ruled the nation with brutal criminal efficiency, making massive changes that could never be undone. The only constant is that you change your story depending on who you are trying to fool.

Reagan passed the single largest Amnesty Bill in this nation's history. By flooding the Southwest with cheap labor, it had the quiet benefit of weakening Union control of big agro, construction and food service - it gave corporations cheap labor and fulfilled the Libertarian dream of a borderless world where there are no barriers between capital and resources. [Remember: Reagan offered himself as the bridge between Libertarian economics (which sees borders as legal/cultural/linguistics impediments to the flow of capital) and conservative social traditions (which sees borders, language and laws as sacrosanct and more important than economic efficiency]

But it gets better because ol' Ronny played both sides of the immigration issue. That is to say, by flooding the US with illegals, Reagan's Conservative advocacy groups were given grist for the war cry "Borders, Language, Culture". You might ask how conservative voters fall for this bullshit? It's called Fox News, and they don't speak about Reagan's deficit compared to Carter; and they don't speak about Reagan's Amnesty Bill, and they don't speak about the number of times Bush 43 and the GOP House/Senate raised the debt ceiling. They can play every side of every issue because they condition people not to trust any media source which they don't control - which means folks like you never learn about the shell game.

This is the Act that Reagan signed into law that was passed by a Democrat controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act

• required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
• made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
• legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
• legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

I will excuse your basic misunderstanding of the American system when you state "Reagan passed the single largest Amnesty Bill in this nation's history" Reagan didn't pass anything, the Congress did.

Obama pretends there is no Congress and signs Executive Orders to make immigration law, and they are slowly being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

I have never called Carter anything but an incompetent President. The sacking of the US Embassy and the taking of American hostages indicated others considered him weak and ineffectual, and they were right.

The Bush TARP was a bailout, and in case you missed it, Obama was the beneficiary of TARP and did not prosecute a single banker or CEO that was responsible for the housing bust.

I could go on, but why bother.

 

[TooTall]

Trump derived his original fortune because his Dad gave it to him.

The rest he derived from overextending and bankruptcy.

Hillary wants to raise the minimum wage to make a healthy middle class which will make a healthy economy.

Until you boneheads stop voting for Republicans, it WILL GET WORSE.

Right, we would have a great economy if we raised the wages for 3% of our entire workforce. Yeah, that will save the world.

Trump had a good start and made it much greater with his work and investments. Trust me, not everybody can handle money. We lost several customers because the owner died and left the company to one of their children and they ran it into the ground, or otherwise became too old and sold the business to their kids who eventually ended up closing the business.

I have a personal story of a person who won the lottery. She danced out of the company she worked for singing how she'll never have to work another day in her life. She was back at that company less than two years later begging for her job back. In fact, there are books written how lottery money destroyed people's lives.

I bet you're one of those people that think when you increase costs on a business, the business owner just digs deeper into his own wallet and forks out the money. When you increase costs to a business, they pass that cost down to their customers or they consider investments in automation.

Raising minimum wage increases wages for all.

Automation will not increase until technology increases. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It doesn't increase the pensions that millions of Americans are living on, but it will increase the cost of everything they need to survive.

You mean the pensioners that feed off the Asian Economy and don't give a darn about the fact that the next generation are struggling?

I mean the pensioners that retired from US companies after working their long enough to get a pension. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[nicoleivy5]

Trump derived his original fortune because his Dad gave it to him.

The rest he derived from overextending and bankruptcy.

Hillary wants to raise the minimum wage to make a healthy middle class which will make a healthy economy.

Until you boneheads stop voting for Republicans, it WILL GET WORSE.

Right, we would have a great economy if we raised the wages for 3% of our entire workforce. Yeah, that will save the world.

Trump had a good start and made it much greater with his work and investments. Trust me, not everybody can handle money. We lost several customers because the owner died and left the company to one of their children and they ran it into the ground, or otherwise became too old and sold the business to their kids who eventually ended up closing the business.

I have a personal story of a person who won the lottery. She danced out of the company she worked for singing how she'll never have to work another day in her life. She was back at that company less than two years later begging for her job back. In fact, there are books written how lottery money destroyed people's lives.

I bet you're one of those people that think when you increase costs on a business, the business owner just digs deeper into his own wallet and forks out the money. When you increase costs to a business, they pass that cost down to their customers or they consider investments in automation.

Raising minimum wage increases wages for all.

Automation will not increase until technology increases. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It doesn't increase the pensions that millions of Americans are living on, but it will increase the cost of everything they need to survive.

You mean the pensioners that feed off the Asian Economy and don't give a darn about the fact that the next generation are struggling?

I mean the pensioners that retired from US companies after working their long enough to get a pension. What the hell are you talking about?

agreed

 

[Indeependent]

Right, we would have a great economy if we raised the wages for 3% of our entire workforce. Yeah, that will save the world.

Trump had a good start and made it much greater with his work and investments. Trust me, not everybody can handle money. We lost several customers because the owner died and left the company to one of their children and they ran it into the ground, or otherwise became too old and sold the business to their kids who eventually ended up closing the business.

I have a personal story of a person who won the lottery. She danced out of the company she worked for singing how she'll never have to work another day in her life. She was back at that company less than two years later begging for her job back. In fact, there are books written how lottery money destroyed people's lives.

I bet you're one of those people that think when you increase costs on a business, the business owner just digs deeper into his own wallet and forks out the money. When you increase costs to a business, they pass that cost down to their customers or they consider investments in automation.

Raising minimum wage increases wages for all.

Automation will not increase until technology increases. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It doesn't increase the pensions that millions of Americans are living on, but it will increase the cost of everything they need to survive.

You mean the pensioners that feed off the Asian Economy and don't give a darn about the fact that the next generation are struggling?

I mean the pensioners that retired from US companies after working their long enough to get a pension. What the hell are you talking about?

agreed

I know and meet a lot of these pensioners.
All they care about is their Cheap Labor Investments.
Their pensions are for basic needs.
A 70 year old with over 1.8 million in Investments need not sweat.

 

[TooTall]

Raising minimum wage increases wages for all.

Automation will not increase until technology increases. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It doesn't increase the pensions that millions of Americans are living on, but it will increase the cost of everything they need to survive.

You mean the pensioners that feed off the Asian Economy and don't give a darn about the fact that the next generation are struggling?

I mean the pensioners that retired from US companies after working their long enough to get a pension. What the hell are you talking about?

agreed

I know and meet a lot of these pensioners.
All they care about is their Cheap Labor Investments.
Their pensions are for basic needs.
A 70 year old with over 1.8 million in Investments need not sweat.

What about the 70 year old with no investments?

 

[Indeependent]

It doesn't increase the pensions that millions of Americans are living on, but it will increase the cost of everything they need to survive.

You mean the pensioners that feed off the Asian Economy and don't give a darn about the fact that the next generation are struggling?

I mean the pensioners that retired from US companies after working their long enough to get a pension. What the hell are you talking about?

agreed

I know and meet a lot of these pensioners.
All they care about is their Cheap Labor Investments.
Their pensions are for basic needs.
A 70 year old with over 1.8 million in Investments need not sweat.

What about the 70 year old with no investments?

They will adjust just like the 30 year olds and the 40 year olds and the 50 year olds and the 60 year olds who are currently under and unemployed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There is a very good chance that Toyota was made here. We make a lot of cars here. If it becomes more expensive to import raw materials that may not be the case in the future.

Yes, that's true, but these are not UAW plants.

Toyota puts their money into quality parts and engineering instead of big union money and benefits, so they can make a much better car.

One of the first things I noticed when I purchased my first Toyota was the windshield wiper squirters. In American cars, they run a cheap rubber line to the outside of the windshield wiper arm to squirt the cleaner. That works okay in the summer, but up north during the winter time, those things always freeze up. Then you have to go into the house, get some hot water, pour it on the squirter and rubber line, and quickly run into the car to activate the washer fluid.

In Toyota's, the squirter is inside of the hood of the car. So even if the fluid would freeze, it would only be for a couple of minutes until the heat from the engine thawed out the squirter. To be totally honest, I haven't had a windshield washer fluid freeze up since I started driving Toyota's.

And if it becomes more expensive for Toyota to produce cars here due to tariffs they will move production to another country. I don't see what UAW has to do with it. We are talking about Trump tariffs and how they would kill our manufacturing.

There is truth behind government regulations killing jobs here in the United States. Every new regulation, and Obama has over 20,000 which surpasses George W Bush has allowed in 8 years, costs companies millions to allow them to continue operating in the United States. That is of course if Obama doesn't pass even more federal regulation standards for them to meet. You can give us the sappy story that regulations provides clean air, but over 20,0000 in 7 years? Yet so many liberals are scratching their heads and blaming republicans for sending all our jobs overseas, others don't really care as they have another agenda that's more important than providing jobs in the United States. Look at the impact of how regulations are effecting the economy.

The 600 major regulations have cost the economy at least $743 billion, or $2,294 for every person in the United States. The figure is “larger than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Norway and Israel combined.”

Record 600 Major Regulations Imposed Under Obama


Ever wonder why Democrats are unable to (or can't) go into specifics on HOW they plan to encourage companies and manufacturing to choose the United States as the country they are willing to establish themselves in, as opposed to taking those job opportunities elsewhere? Standing on a podium encouraging more education soending sounds great, until the time comes when you have to face the job market. Not only are you costing America jobs, you are also losing corporate revenue with each manufacturing plant that closes its doors and leaves the country. How much do you think the rich will endure those democrats rhetoric and effort to raise taxes to make up that corporate loss?

Crossing the Rubicon

We have no choice but to elect Trump and give him a Republican Congress, which he will push around. Career politicians are basically immature bootlicking flunkies of whoever has the power. They will back away from their present submission to the father-figure Republican Establishment. When such a truly independent and commanding figure as Trump towers over Washington, you can't judge by what happened previously under Presidents who were flunkies of the bipartisan ruling class. LIke Julius Caesar, Donald Trump is a traitor to his classmates. He will defy them and defeat them.

 

[TooTall]

You mean the pensioners that feed off the Asian Economy and don't give a darn about the fact that the next generation are struggling?

I mean the pensioners that retired from US companies after working their long enough to get a pension. What the hell are you talking about?

agreed

I know and meet a lot of these pensioners.
All they care about is their Cheap Labor Investments.
Their pensions are for basic needs.
A 70 year old with over 1.8 million in Investments need not sweat.

What about the 70 year old with no investments?

They will adjust just like the 30 year olds and the 40 year olds and the 50 year olds and the 60 year olds who are currently under and unemployed.

Most 70 year olds are unemployable while those you mention can change jobs, get an education and get better jobs. It isn't easy to adjust to eating 1 meal a day instead of two.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think either one of them is interested in getting us out of debt

 

[whitehall]

Obama thumbed his nose at the American people when he sent 500 million to a billion in freaking cash, euros and Swiss bonds to a country that promotes terrorism and Hillary didn't care. Hillary is Barry's lap dog and if you liked Barry's spending binge you would love Hillary.