Who didn’t know the Sun would bite for this two-day-old story from The New York Times?
The piece reports “the economy is following the upward trajectory begun under President Barack Obama” — even though the U.S. GDP shrunk in the third and fourth quarters of 2016, dropping from 0.57 in the second quarter to 0.48 in the third and 0.44 in the fourth.
In fact, Investor’s Business Daily points out the same NY Times predicted in January 2017, after the government reported that GDP growth for all 2016 was a mere 1.6 percent, that “President Trump’s target for economic growth just got a little more distant.”
That story further stated:
But however solid, the recovery under President Barack Obama never reached exuberance. It is the second longest recovery in American history but the first in the postwar era in which growth for a full year did not hit 3 percent. …
Come on, it’s the SUN, Nevada’s Fake News Leader!
So, this is the reason for that NYT story:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe the improving economy is due more to Trump than Obama, while 40% think it is more the result of the policies Obama put in place before he left office.
4th or 5th time I’ve seen this Obama economy ruse come around lately. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
“From July 2017 through July 2018, average hourly earnings decreased by .4%.”
Click to access realer.pdf
Working harder, for less money. Inflation rising at 2.9% for the highest increase in inflation in 10 years. Trumps American economy.
The same report shows weekly earnings up $27.10 or 2.9 percent (Table 1-A). Inflation up 2.9 percent.
A strong economy is always good for a sitting President and the associated party no matter how much FUD/hype gets thrown at the public.
These number I cited are after inflation. Real incomes are down .3% Year over Year.
That’s Trumps America; work harder, earn less.
Another trend that Trump is reversing nd gets credit for:
The National Debt, as a percentage of GDP is growing AND the absolute amount of the budget deficit (in a free fall during Obama’s terms) is now rising and expected to be over 1 TRILLION dollars per year over the next decade.
Luckily, billionaires are getting richer. So there’s that.
That’s hourly, not weekly. More hours worked, more pay.
Tax revenue is up, but so is spending.
“Look at it this way. Tax revenues are up by $31 billion so far this fiscal year compared with last year. But spending is up $115 billion.
In other words, the entire increase in the deficit so far this year has been due to spending hikes, not tax cuts.”
“Because while it cut taxes for the relatively few rich in the country, the law also cuts taxes for the vast middle class — through lower rates, a much larger standard deduction, and doubled per-child tax credit.
The law also kicks many families off the tax code entirely. According to the Tax Policy Center, 45.8% “tax units” will owe nothing in federal income taxes this year, or will get a net refund thanks to tax credits. That’s up from 43.4% under the old law.
So, thanks to the GOP tax cuts, the rich will pay either the same or a greater share of the nation’s income tax bill and millions more will pay zero income taxes. How exactly is this a “giveaway” to the rich?
Indeed, by the Democrats’ own definition, the Republican tax reform — which zero Democrats voted for — has made the tax code more fair, not less.”
Talk about hook, line, and sinker, why select only 2 quarters out of an 8 year term? Let’s look at the real figures. The GDP increased by an average of 2.17% per year from 2010 through 2016, and 2.2% during Trump’s first year – essentially the same. The last Obama years weren’t off that average: the GDP increased 2.5% in 2014, 2,9% in 2015, 1.6% in 2016, and then in Trump’s first year, 2017, it went up 2.2%. https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 We could include 2008 and 2009 (-0.1 and -2.5%), but since the greatest recession in the last 100 years began under George W., who inherited a sound economy and a balanced budget from Clinton, is it realistic to blame Obama? Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.
The deficits in billions: 2013 – 679, 2014 – 485, 2015 – 438, 2016 – 585, 2017 – 665, est. 2018 – 833. The estimates for 2019 and 2020 are even higher. Weren’t the Republicans complaining about those awful deficits under Obama? Why did they change their minds? https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
I checked the article in your link, Steve, and they disagree with NPR, https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class, so I looked deeper. Interestingly, both the NPR article and the Investor’s Business Daily claim to have gotten their information from the same source: The Tax Policy Center, so I went to it’s Web site. They agreed with NPR, but not with Investor’s Business Daily.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/feature/analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act As a caution, this was an analysis of the bill as it was awaiting final passage. Please let me know if you can find a more recent analysis.
I then checked Mediabiasfactcheck.com. NPR shows a left-center bias with highly rated factual reporting. Investor’s Business Daily shows a right-center bias, but their factual reporting was rated mixed. According to the key, mixed means, “the source does not always use proper sourcing or sources to other biased/mixed sources. They may also report well sourced information as well. Mixed sources will have failed one or more fact checks and does not immediately correct false or misleading information.”
For now, I have to go with NPR, but my mind is not made up. Please let me know if you find other pertinent information about this.
Also, IBD articles are editorials, not news. So they are opinion.
Nevertheless, the NPR link is from Dec 2017 and the IBD link is from April 2018.
I used these links because they seem to be the latest available. It’s not even one year in and the left is screaming how bad things are but signs are pointing to economic improvements.
This seems to be the main data point IBD used in the “tax fairness” issue.
I was reading the same link from the balance earlier today.
We aren’t at 77% and it appears likely we will not get there. Even when we consider the coming Social Security challenge. The Balance has something on that too, they say it’s 20 years out.
When you consider that 70% to 80% of US national debt is owed to ourselves, not other countries, it gets a lot less worrisome too.
So, we can expect people to continue buying US bonds and funding our debt for a long time to come.
Update from Congressional Budget Office:
“The U.S. economy will grow at 3.1 percent in 2018, according to updated projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), down from its April estimate of 3.3 percent.
The updated estimate projects that 4.1 percent second quarter spike of real GDP will come back down in the third and fourth quarters.
“Such moderation occurs because several factors that boosted second-quarter growth— including a rebound in the growth of consumer spending from a weak first quarter and a surge in agricultural exports—are expected to either fade or reverse,” the CBO report said.
As in April, the updated estimate sees the economy growing at 2.4 percent in 2019, below its 2017 levels of 2.6 percent.”
Revising estimates down is nothing new of course, but I doubt that the same guys that pumped the economies single quarter are going to make much noise about it.
“When you consider that 70% to 80% of US national debt is owed to ourselves, not other countries, it gets a lot less worrisome too.”
Oh, so unlike when Obama was being vilified by Conservatives for deficit spending in hard times, suddenly, it’s not such a bad thing after all. How nice. Of course, this leaves no wiggle room in case the economy goes south…which it always does eventually, but maybe by then, a Democrat will be President and they can all blame him like they did with Obama.
Maybe I’m tone deaf, but I don’t hear the left screaming that the economy is going south. What I do hear is them saying it’s stoopid (with 2 o’s) to add ever more to our deficit by goosing the economy when it’s been sailing along for years with no sign of letup. BTW, when we say the economy is doing well, we’re primarily talking about corporate profits. Yes, most of us have jobs now, and pay is just beginning to crawl up, but the 40 year middle class recession is still going strong.
In the face of reality, LIE!
Trump has taught you well.
If you say so. I don’t argue with people who make no argument. Accusing me of lying without specifying the lie is akin to calling me an idiot. You may feel that it’s true, but you’ll never persuade anyone with sophomoric drivel like that.
“BTW, when we say the economy is doing well, we’re primarily talking about corporate profits. Yes, most of us have jobs now, and pay is just beginning to crawl up, but the 40 year middle class recession is still going strong.”
Are you claiming that this is the “lie”?
Citation, if you have any, will be biased and political.
If you call it a lie, then you’ve been watching too much Fox News. Any sources I give will be termed biased because they disagree with you. Got it. No hope for you, I’m afraid. I see you present no countering information of your own. No requirement for you to do so, but your decree somehow isn’t persuasive.
Told you plenty of times, I don’t subscribe to cable TV.
No FOX or MSNBC in my home.
Taking a page from your playbook, since you refuse to cite, I conclude you agree your claim is based on lies. Most likely from MSNBC.
Conclude what you like. We’ve been over this ground before. Anyone that dismisses today’s income disparity as nonexistent is willfully ignorant or blinded by ideology.
BTW, I just ran across this in today’s news: http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/ceo-pay-ratio-2016/
Read the graph. Here are your multiple choice responses:
A) The pay ratio forty years ago was unfair to CEO’s
B) That doesn’t prove anything.
C) Rincon’s mother wears army boots
D) Fortune is biased.
You’ve been abundantly clear how much you dislike CEO’s. Heaven forbid people who can make money do so.
For someone who doesn’t like having words put in his mouth, you’re pretty liberal (no insult intended) about putting words into my mouth. Besides, you didn’t pick one of my multiple choice answers (all that work for nothing?), preferring a tasteless insult containing no pertinent information instead. My complaint is not that CEO’s make too much, but that the little guy makes too little, unless one argues that the CEO’s of the ’60’s were being cheated.
It’s obvious that quantification is crucial. Looking at the logical extremes, having a CEO make the same as the average employee is ridiculous, even to liberals, yet even a flaming Conservative would agree that if CEO’s made 95% of the income in the nation, leaving only 5% for the rest of us to share, it would be a bit much. Somewhere, a reasonable profit can become unreasonable if it grows uncontrollably. You’re implicitly stating that any amount of profit is kosher if an executive can keep it out of the hands of his employees, whether by hook or crook. This suggests blind adherence to a principle with no regard to real world consequences.
An example of the shallowness of this supposition: I know a woman who makes $9.50 an hour as a supervisor serving food to hungry people. Contrast that to a Vice President of Marketing for a tobacco company, who makes an insane amount, whose job is to convince people to smoke more. Income and worth to society correlate poorly.
One more tidbit: Conservatives seem to feel that potentially, money is limitless. A rising tide lifting all boats, etc. Since money converts only to human labor or property rights, the limits are profound. Thinking that making an obscene amount of money harms no one is not only wrongheaded, it does an incredible amount of damage.
“Here are your multiple choice responses:”
“For someone who doesn’t like having words put in his mouth”
No sense of humor, I see. Feel free to answer in any format, but your failure to answer suggests a lack of confidence. Please show me that it’s not the case.
Whatever you think, I never spoke for you. I took a page from your playbook and handed it to you.
You insisted “Anyone that dismisses today’s income disparity as nonexistent” is something I said.
What I said is very different and not aimed at one part of the employment picture. You inserted the rest of your own feelings and attributed that to me. By your statement, pro football players are underpaid because team owners make more than the players.
I never said CEO’s should only make what their employees make so your football analogy does not apply. I feel that 30 times is probably reasonable. I do assert though, that your allowing for no limits of any kind is blindly following a principle without regard to consequences. Since principles result from observation of consequences, this assures that principles will continue to be blindly followed even when unintended consequences occur or situations change. This situation has changed radically. Other radical changes are likely if the trend continues unabated.
“I feel that 30 times is probably reasonable.”
Gov limits on pay were what caused the health insurance system we have today.
I’m not advocating government limits on pay.
right…..keep telling yourself that.
CEO pay is a symptom, not a root cause.
Then, by all means, detail the “root cause” Stop singling out CEO pay.
The root cause is that we live in a meritocracy. This is good, except for a major side effect. Those that are the smartest and most talented have become very adept at chasing and maintaining the American dream, which is to become filthy rich. They have become so adept that over the last 40 years or so, they have hoovered up a greater and greater percentage of the available money, to the detriment of others.
This also occurred in the Gilded Age. Our rescuers back then were trust busters like Teddy Roosevelt, labor unions, and great men like Henry Ford, who doubled his workers’ pay over a single weekend, shaming other wealthy industrialists to emulate. Today, the problem is similar, but labor unions are on their way out, the trusts are back and supported by most of our politicians, and I wouldn’t bet on another Henry Ford, given the somewhat recent slide in our moral values.
You describe an economic cycle.
Might as well complain about the rain.
That too comes and goes.
Meanwhile, manage your money and make sure you got enough to live out retirement.
And remember, the last bill you pay should be to the undertaker and that check should bounce.
How can you call it an economic cycle when it has happened only twice in over 100 years? Mao Zedong, Lenin, Marx, and Stalin decided to do something to the last “economic cycle” you describe. I don’t want something similar to happen here, but Conservatives are as tone deaf as the tsars.
The four causes of the 1905 Russian revolution given in Wikipedia: “Newly emancipated peasants earned too little and were not allowed to sell or mortgage their allotted land. Ethnic minorities resented the government because of its “Russification”, discrimination and repression, such as banning them from voting and serving in the Imperial Guard or Navy and limited attendance in schools. A nascent industrial working class resented the government for doing too little to protect them, banning strikes and labor unions. Finally, radical ideas fomented and spread after a relaxing of discipline in universities allowed a new consciousness to grow among students.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution
Not so far from today’s America.
Wow, you really have a politically driven, twisted view, of our country.
What you choose to take from that link describes the current situation in Venezuela.
Let’s see, peasants earning too little – check. Ethnic minorities resenting government – check. Government doing too little to protect working class by banning labor unions – check. Radical ideas fermenting in universities – check. So tell me, why is my view twisted?
“peasants” what a twisted view of people.
Minorities are controlling whole swaths of this government. Do some checking, it started with Robert Smalls, who also bought the big house his former “master” owned.
Labor unions are not banned. About time public employees aren’t forced to pay into an organization they do not support. Private sector unions are not banned at all, they just keep screwing their members. And the ones that aren’t screwing their members are stable, if not growing. IE: Las Vegas Carpenters. Growing and strong.
“radicals idea fermenting in universities”….not if you are a liberal. Liberals are today’s universities. Conservatives in college have to keep their political mouths shut for fear of reprisals. If anything, todays universities have become intolerant to any ideas outside those approved by liberal powers.
You continue to allow politicians to tell you what to think.
Minorities control whole swaths of our government? Unless you consider the rich to be one of those minorities, that statement needs some sort of support to be believed.
As for banning labor unions, Conservatives just don’t want to acknowledge the writing on the wall. Union membership has declined by about 2/3 since its peak in the 1950’s. Laws can favor or disfavor unions. They obviously don’t favor them at this time. Most of the damage is scattered, but for an example:
“To be effective, however, unions usually need some way to enforce or strongly encourage membership and loyalty. The classic mechanism is the “closed” or “union” shop… “Right-to-Work” laws in about half the states make such union-employer contracts illegal.” http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/09/why-has-union-membership-declined.html
How do we know that this affects union strength? There are many examples, but the most recent one was in Wisconsin: “Union membership has cratered in Wisconsin since Gov. Scott Walker moved to reduce collective bargaining rights and won legislative approval for right-to-work rules.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-union-membership-after-janus-htmlstory.html I take it that by your guess, Wisconsin unions coincidentally started “screwing their members” at just about the time Walker made these changes?
Now, the Supreme Court has dictated that for all 50 states, union shops are not allowed. The final nail in the coffin. You don’t think government has any influence over union survival?
Rincon there is a direct correlation between real wages falling since the 1970’s and the far rights efforts to destroy unions in this country.
I didn’t realize they had actually fallen. I thought they had risen marginally. Since no one here objected, I’m sure you’re right.
Let me see if I have it right. Our productivity doubles, but the people working to produce that money see none of the extra. Only the rich deserve that, but by making union shops illegal, we’re protecting workers, just as with so many policies over the past 40 years such as tax cuts. Got it. Think how much worse off our middle class would have been if we HADN’T given the rich all of those deductions and exemptions.
That Supreme Court ruling applied only to public employees.
As usual and par for the course, Rincon only reads what Rincon desires to read and reads into everything else.
Thanks, Mitch but he won’t even see that. It just doesn’t fit his twisted view of the USA.
“That” Supreme Court ruling? Which means what exactly other than that it is but one example of the rights effort to destroy unions in this country which, as I said, has resulted in real wages falling for everyone but the wealthiest of the wealthy.
What a devastating set of replies, Steve, especially from someone who appears not to have known what Thomas pointed out. What’s next, are you going to insult our mothers? Bring it on. Us adults tend to tolerate childish talk reasonably well, although we have our limits. Since you provide no new information on this, we assume that you’re now a dry well.
In reply to Thomas:
1) The Court decided that requiring employees of a public employees’ union violated their right to free speech. Can anyone explain to me why, with this logic, the same arrangement with a private employer does not also violate the right to free speech? Am I incorrect in believing that employers will find this “logic” from the Court applies to the private sector as well, and are likely to start busting unions – especially with yet another Conservative justice in place who will dependably side with business over unions?
2) “In 2017, 7.2 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared
with 7.6 million workers in the private sector.” https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm This means that at the least, almost half of all union members are affected. Not a bad day’s work for a government trying to ban unions.
3) Even if only half of all union employees are affected by this decision, this decision demonstrates that the government is working mightily in the direction of banning unions, which is the only claim I made.
“especially from someone who appears not to have known what Thomas pointed out”
1) Private unions are not allowed to charge non members a fee for services like public unions did.
2) public sector was smaller than private, until private started screwing their members….(babe)
3) this bans ZERO private sector unions, mister spin. (kid)
Chew on that, lamb fry.
I’m glad you properly labeled your sentences. Your words indeed do sound remarkably childlike, especially in their lack of logic and their evidence of a very active imagination.
The issue was not about fees. It was about the union shop. But while we’re at it, who decided that it should be illegal for a union to charge for services rendered? Sounds like government interference to me.
Since union workers have pretty much always made more money and enjoyed a safer work environment than their nonunion counterparts, I suspect they just about all of them gained far more from their union membership than they lost by any “screwing”, which I suspect is mostly of the imaginary kind in Steve’s belfry. On average, any “screwing” by unions is miniscule compared to the screwing routinely administered to employees by management in nonunion work places.
It’s obvious that you either didn’t read or perhaps read and then completely ignored the bit about Wisconsin’s Scott Walker. If the former, then you don’t bother to examine the evidence. If the latter, you assiduously avoided information that conflicts with your biased world view. We’ll start calling you Ostrich. Brainiac might be a good ironic title too. Hard to choose.
It also doesn’t seem to occur to Braniac that things are often banned without directly banning them. Indirect banning is usually much more palatable to the voters. I know, it’s very confusing.
You’re once again on thin ice with the insults. If you stop, so will I. If not, I’ll stop anyway, but in a slightly different way.
“The issue was not about fees.” YES IT IS! That was the very core of the case! Charging non members fees for union benefits is now illegal and this ONLY affected public employees. You again try to change the discussion to something YOU can argue.
Egads….Ice is NICE!
“”Wisconsin unions coincidentally started “screwing their members” “”
IS SAID PRIVATE unions screwed their members….you need to READ and comprehend instead of reading only that what you wish others to say so you can argue only that which you WANT to argue.
OK, fine. If you say this is not primarily a freedom of spech judgement, I’ll not split hairs about what is primary and secondary. “Charging non members fees for union benefits is now illegal” Other service providers are allowed to charge for their services and with only the rarest of exceptions are not required to provide services to those who refuse to pay. Why are public unions different in this regard?
“A Wisconsin appeals court on Tuesday upheld the state’s “right-to-work” law, which bars mandatory union membership and prohibits unions or employers from requiring non-members to pay dues.” https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-wisconsin-labor/wisconsin-appeals-court-upholds-states-right-to-work-law-idUSKCN1BU2FE
Doesn’t say anything about public unions only. If it’s wrong, don’t blame me, blame Reuters.
SCOTUS RULING….nothing about states….you continue to move the goalposts.
My comment was that the changes in Wisconsin state law coincided with a significant decline in union membership, thereby demonstrating that passage of such laws (or “interpreting” the Constitution as to have the same effect, could be devastating to unions. Your claim that union membership is declining because the members resent being “screwed” by the same unions that got them greater pay and benefits is exactly that – only a claim, with no support.
Started way before Wisconsin. And npr notes how much influence public sector unions have on the statistics in HI, AK and NY. Privates have been shrinking for 50 years…again, I say, because they screwed their members. How? By chasing the jobs overseas with ever higher demands only public sector unions could get away with.
Let’s see what others have to say about this. I’ve perused the slightly left biased Pacific Standard magazine and the extreme right biased Heritage Foundation (according to Media Bias Fact Check). I assumed that you would dismiss all claims from a more than slightly left biased source, Here’s my summary of their important points:
1) Unions generally negotiate for pay scales based on seniority, which is far less well suited for today’s automated jobs than it was when most covered members worked on assembly lines doing rote work (H)
2) The Pacific Standard article notes that declines in union membership have been far less around the world than here, suggesting that the above cause is perhaps only a small part of the explanation. They say the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 had a slow, but inexorable effect on union power. “It prohibited secondary boycotts and “sympathy” boycotts and opened the door to the right-to-work laws—which prohibit employers from hiring only union employees—that now exist in 27 states around the country.” I expect that one can safely assume that the right-to -work laws came into effect gradually, explaining the delay in membership decline after passage of the act. (P)
3) Unions were unable to effectively organize the south. When air conditioned work places became the norm, companies found it profitable to move many operations to this region of lower wages. Other OECD countries did not have this dynamic. (P)
4) Many of the benefits that unions worked long and hard for, such as overtime rates and safety standards, are now guaranteed by law. These laws also put employers on notice that treating employees poorly would likely result in further regulation, making the differences between union and nonunion businesses smaller in the eyes of potential employees. (H)
5) Economic conditions of the early 1980’s were devastating to unions as well. “Layoffs were common—21.2 percent of blue-collar workers experienced an involuntary job loss between 1981 and 1983. In the face of such instability, companies found that workers in the manufacturing sector were both more willing to accept lower wages than they might have previously been, and more receptive to warnings that unionization campaigns could jeopardize their job security.” (P)
6) There is one more major factor which weakens unions – the globalization of trade, Not so long ago, when competing businesses were in the same country, a nonunion company could not easily pay a great deal less to employees than their union competitor without risking unionization of their own business. When companies can easily move production overseas, this risk is negligible.
Long winded way of saying you finally get it.
And I posted 2 links to National Public Radio….how you can claim I don’t read from the left is just silly.
Must have something to do wit NPR proving what you just (reluctantly) admitted I am correct about.
It didn’t just start happening with Wisconsin, private sector unions have been screwing their members for decades and public sector unions are finally getting their “comeuppance”. (they brought it on themselves and we are seeing what it takes to make them back off)
WHO finally gets it? Wasn’t it you that said declining union membership was from unions screwing their members? Numbers 2 through 6 have absolutely nothing to do with that. You do have a possible fig leaf in #1, although it’s a little one – and hardly the likely idea behind your “screwing the members” comment.
While paying by seniority is far from perfect, the problem is, what is the alternative? The answers are more complex than one might think at first blush. For a good discussion on this: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/why_do_unions_o.html
If the alternative is some sort of performance based pay, that’s fine only if total performance can be accurately measured in an objective way – an unlikely possibility for most jobs. Although pay by seniority is not a particularly good system, it is only being foisted upon businesses (and government) that received a failing grade from their employees when the businesses had the chance to pay in a fair manner. Once a business shows that it cannot be trusted to treat its employees well, only imperfect solutions are workable; hence, the unions.
Unions came about because of rampant employer abuses of employees. Although they are no longer as effective as they once were, merely eliminating them will likely just bring back rampant employer abuse. They either deserve some support or we have to find a better alternative.
At the risk of repeating myself, Rincon. (once again you show a total lack of reading skill)
“Privates have been shrinking for 50 years…again, I say, because they screwed their members. How? By chasing the jobs overseas with ever higher demands only public sector unions could get away with.
And every bit of your retort is precely in line with US private sector unions screwing their members. Just as I repeated in this post.
and you double down with your current bit….nice to you coming around, even if you don’t recognize it…yet.
I need a copy editor.
“precisely”, not “precely”
Your privates have been shrinking for 50 years? You need to see a doctor. Oops, there you go. Just shows my total lack of reading skill.
Let’s see…the elite upper class has seen its income rise tremendously over the past 40 or so years, while that of workers has stagnated, but the unions are the ones driving jobs away to other lands. The only alternative for them was to accept the wages dictated to employees by businesses that skimp on paying workers in order to pay princely incomes to the elites. This kind of acquiescence would negate the very purpose of unions, so they have been between a rock and a hard place.
Seems to me that the real culprit is one percenters who are happy to put fellow Americans out of work or pay them stingy wages so they can add to their millions and billions. There was never any real need to send large numbers of jobs overseas. Just the need of greed.
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
Yep, their behavior fits the definition.
Changing the subject is clear acknowledgement you got nothin.
Have it your way, but your link says little of any significance about the causes of declining union membership. Apparently, you got nothin yourself.
Read it again, it certainly does cover those causes.
You NPR hater, you.
Good night Steve.
I remember when it was all the rage round these parts to mock President Obama for failing to get the nations GDP past 3% and how surely, trump and his far right wing lunatic policies of cutting every regulation known to man and lowering all those economy sir pressing taxes on those poor old rich folks and corporations, would move the economic needle like it’s never moved before.
Shoot, was it 4% or 5%? Or even 6% he said we’d surely get to? With the far right wing cheering on his destructive practices the entire way?
Well, maybe not. The Commerce Department not only revised last years GDP DOWN TO a recession era 2.5%, it announced (go figure on a Friday, at the same time they announced the downward revision) last quarters GDP as 2.1% higher (and guess how much THAT figure will go down in the future)
For some reason though, I’m betting this don’t get too much attention round these parts.
2.3%? And that only because of increased government spending?
You guys man….