• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Presidential & VP Debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Democrats want them as a permeant underclass that will vote democrat to keep the handouts. Republicans want them as cheap labor, well democrats want them as cheap labor to, but neither give a rats anus on Sex trafficking's, slavery, etc. that goes with it. B.S. on both sides. A good chunk of illegals don't wan citizenship, they just want a job to make money and send it back home to there family.
should expand the green card program to get those who just want to make money to come in, make money, and then go back. And those who want in give them a path. But neither party wants any of that..

As for wage parity, that was being addressed under Trump, wages were going up, mainly because unemployment was so low they HAD to pay more for people.
 
As for wage parity, that was being addressed under Trump, wages were going up, mainly because unemployment was so low they HAD to pay more for people.

That wouldn't be Trump, but market place dynamics. Regardless of who is in office, most presidents have limited impact on employment.
 
Huh? Trump being in and lowering taxes and eliminating regulations made that happen. Trump had the best unemployment numbers in generations? While Obama and Biden "managed the decline" and Obama saying "where is he going to get those jobs" Presidents Do have an impact.
@Coronacopia
Don't care if you believe me. I could say the sky is blue and you'd say im lying.
 
Trying to lighten the mood here a bit (though certainly not letting up on Herr Drump's idiocy). Here's a lovely little report from the AP about why Trump is hurting for cash for his campaign:

https://apnews.com/article/election...impeachments-8ac355b6ebd62b19d8a44fedcbf5b128

And a rather funny outtake from a Republican campaign manager:

“They spent their money on unnecessary overhead, lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous activity by the campaign staff and vanity ads,” said Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican consultant who advised John McCain and Jeb Bush and is an outspoken Trump critic. “You could literally have 10 monkeys with flamethrowers go after the money, and they wouldn’t have burned through it as stupidly.”
 
Huh? Trump being in and lowering taxes and eliminating regulations made that happen. Trump had the best unemployment numbers in generations? While Obama and Biden "managed the decline" and Obama saying "where is he going to get those jobs" Presidents Do have an impact.
@Coronacopia
Don't care if you believe me. I could say the sky is blue and you'd say im lying.
Trump's lowering taxes just made the rich richer and the deficit even worse. The regulations his eliminated are destroying the environment and putting workers at greater risk.

As for which president actually saw the most jobs increased during their, it wasn't Trump.

Bill Clinton had the greatest total of jobs during his two terms at 18.7 million or 15.7% increase.
Franklin D. Roosevelt created the most percentage-wise with 35.8%, but that was coming out of the Great Depression and he served more than two terms. Ronald Reagan had the highest percent for two terms at 16.6%.

Clinton's term also created a surplus. He raised the top tax rate from 28% to 36% for high-income earners and increased the top corporate tax rate from 34% to 35%. So much for cutting taxes to increase the number of employed.

While Reagan had the second highest increase in jobs and percent increase, his cutting the top tax rates nearly tripled the national debt.

Jimmy Carter's term had the fourth-largest percent increase but also added $7.4 billion to the debt.

Lyndon Johnson's term saw a 12.6% increase, but his spending on social programs increased the debt by 15.6% although the economy grew at 4.9% as well as an inflation rate of 4.7%.

Richard Nixon's term saw a 12.2% increase how ever his actions during his term resulted in the 1973-75 recession along with double-digit inflation.

Dwight Eisenhower's term had two recessions caused by the end of the Korean War (ok, cessation of hostilities) and higher interest rates. There was an increase of jobs by 7.9%, some by his creation of the Interstate Highway System.
Note: An University of Massachusetts/Amherst study found that $1B spent on clean energy creates 16,800 jobs vs. tax cuts for personal consumption which creates 15,100 jobs for the same price.

Barack Obama's term saw a 6.2% increase through the end of December 2016. However, since the Great Recession saw 8.7 million jobs lost, there was an 8.7% increase from June 2009 to December 2016 which would make it the third highest number of jobs. To combat the losses, there were a large number of public work programs (which the president can directly influence, but it is still up to Congress to fund the programs) which increased the national debt by 73%. Due to the sequestration required by Congress, the government shed 700,000 jobs in four years. As an example, the 2001 recession recovery added 600,000 jobs.

After the last few recessions, jobs created have led to greater income inequality as people are desperate for jobs and willing to make less. This has led to greater long-term unemployment and underemployment.

George W. Bush's term had two recessions and saw a 4.2% increase in jobs, although 3 million jobs were lost during his last year in office (2008).

John Kennedy's term saw a jobs increase of 3.9%. He increased the national debt by 8.6%, raised the minimum wage, improved Social Security benefits, and passed a urban renewal package, all which help ended an inherited recession from Eisenhower.

As for Trump, his term saw 6.6 million jobs in the first three years for an increase of 4.4%. Had the pandemic been handled quite differently, its negative impact could have been mitigated.
 
Oddish - lots of people are actually a combination of ideologies. There are very few all-out "Liberals" (what people seem to think are "Commie-Pinkos") and relatively few all-out "Conservatives" (many people think that means "Right-Wingnuts").
THANK YOU.

But you do know that anyone who isn't in lockstep with Trump is a radical leftist bent on destroying the country, "hurting God" (that's a quote from him--he actually said that!), turning everyone gay and/or trans, and protecting the Democrats who worship Satan and participate in child trafficking, right?

The actual wingnuts pushed everyone else out.
 
Are you implying that he's Harry Mudd?!?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
No, I'm not going full Epimenides. In fact, I'm stating something roughly to the contrary. I'm simply saying that it is a lie that I would call anything they might say a lie. For one thing, I was quite selective in what I quoted.
 
Did you even WATCH the video? Or are you just blowing up at me because I refuse to be a liberal?

Perhaps you could post the points you would like to discuss yourself?

Huh? Trump being in and lowering taxes and eliminating regulations made that happen. Trump had the best unemployment numbers in generations? While Obama and Biden "managed the decline" and Obama saying "where is he going to get those jobs" Presidents Do have an impact.

Unemployment was indeed low during the first three years of the Trump administration, but that can't be disconnected from job growth rates under Obama. No year of the Trump presidency saw job gains as large as those of 2013-2016.

job_numbers.png
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/

There is very little evidence of tax cuts stimulating employment significantly. Corporations are more likely to put the money into stock buy-backs and executive compensation, and wealthy individuals just save it. Opening new jobs is an expense to business that is overwhelmingly driven by demand, not cash on hand.

What is unquestionably false is the claim by the Trump administration that the 2017 tax cuts would pay for themselves.
https://www.brookings.edu/policy202...cut-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-for-itself/
 
Last edited:
While Cesar Shavez was opposed to illegal immigration, it was because the growers were using illegals as strike-breakers.

And agri- and other businesses do not still use illegal immigrants now to try to pay the lowest wages?

I hope the next debate does cover immigration, Trump's and Biden's records and what they would do and why they would be able to do it when they haven't before. Also tariffs vs. free trade vs. fair trade (it would be funny if they both say they're for fair trade but completely differ on using tariffs to try to get it), Biden's approach to China in general and whether Trump's call to the Ukraine president to investigate Biden or impeachment for it was appropriate.
 
If you look at the GDP, Trump only had slightly more average growth from 2017-2019 than Obama did from 2010-2016. 2.3% vs 2.5%. The the only reason he even has that extra 0.2% is all the deregulation that had far more negative side effects.

Basically trading the lives of millions of poor people and the long term habitability of our planet for that 0.2%.
 
This is a long post - and it may be considered somewhat off topic but - this is what has been pulling me away from the current "Main Stream Republican" party.

This is a copy/paste from an Atlantic article from June 2016:

The Problem With Inequality, According to Adam Smith
The allure of extreme wealth can contort human sympathies, causing the public to admire the wealthy and shun the poor.

DENNIS C. RASMUSSEN
JUNE 9, 2016

One of the more memorable statements of Barack Obama’s presidency thus far has been his claim, in a high-profile December 2013 speech, that great and growing economic inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.” In making his case Obama appealed to the authority of a seemingly unlikely ally: Adam Smith, the purported founding father of laissez-faire capitalism, who is widely thought to have advocated unbridled greed and selfishness in the name of allowing the invisible hand of the market to work its magic.

Many a scholar has made a career, in recent decades, by pointing out that this view of Smith is a gross caricature. It has often been noted, for instance, that Smith never once used the term “laissez-faire” or even the term “capitalism,” and that his two books—The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and The Wealth of Nations (1776)—are full of passages lamenting the potential moral, social, and political ills of what he called “commercial society.”


And here is the direct link, if you can read it there:

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...th-inequality-according-to-adam-smith/486071/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, @StarCruiser , we can't just copy/paste entire articles due to copyright concerns. The rule of thumb is that you're allowed to include a paragraph or two, then link to the article (which you have done) if anyone wants to read the whole thing. As such, I have edited your post to remove everything after the second paragraph to the end of the article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top