Go back and read my post again because you clearly missed the entire point. I'm saying that giving weapons to a country leaves much more of an impact than a damn phone call. North Korea still uses weapons gifted to it over 50 years ago, and it still works. How long do you think the cutting edge technology we gave Taiwan will last them? A Hell of a lot longer than anyone's going to remember that Trump accepted congratulations from their president.
And you don't understand how international relations work. Weapons sales to Taiwan don't change the status quo. Recognizing them as legitimate, however, does. It's why the call was so criticized, and it's why he backtracked it.
Okay? In your article I see nothing about automation.
Automation is
why our input has increased while our jobs have fallen. I was just using that chart to show the information
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/
And it's not just manufacturing, there are loads of jobs that can be automated, from a large number of construction jobs, to fast food. We need to focus on preparing our workforce to transition, not cling to what was.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4aa2e849447_story.html?utm_term=.544683e2e50f
What I do see is this quotation: "The true cause of dwindling American competitiveness is a tax code that puts domestic firms at a clear disadvantage – not a lack of skill or innovation on the part of the American worker."
I agree. We need to lower cor prate tax rates, but raise personal on the higher brackets. Wages, not so much. We can never compete with China on wages, as their cost of living is so god damn low (by about a half compared to the US), and their minimum is too low to even think with competing with(Beijing has the highest at $2.90 an hour).
Which goes along with the theory that manufacturing jobs are leaving in such high droves not because of machinery but because companies can get huge tax breaks and cheap cheap labor in other countries such as Mexico and China.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
We aren't a manufacturing economy anymore because we've been giving it all away.
Why do we want to be a manufacturing economy? Our GDP is the highest it's ever been. Our economy is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, on earth. Fetishizing over factory jobs doesn't fix anything.
Trump is trying to bring it back. Remind me again why this is a bad thing? We used to be the top manufacturer in the world. Nowadays it's China.
https://www.mapi.net/blog/2015/09/china-solidifies-its-position-world’s-largest-manufacturer
It's a bad thing because it's papering over the cracks and not focusing on the real issues.
What you seem to be misunderstanding is the fact that this deal will bring economic growth to Indiana. 6 million in tax revenue to be precise. The man's not even in office yet as it is, but he's already proven he knows plenty about how to keep jobs here. Once he's actually in office I imagine the "long term problem" will be more handily addressed.
Considering his focus on manufacturing, and never mentioning high-tech manufacturing, wage stagnation, or any of the myriad actual economic issues we are facing, somehow I doubt it. And he hasn't proven shit. Unless you think bribing companies to stay is a good long term solution.
You are implying that the NYT and WoPo, two of the highest regarded newspapers in the US, are so biased in their reporting that they should be treated the same as partisan sites. That's a pretty big claim.
The fact of the matter is, it's what most of the world uses to determine how well jobs are going. Whether you think it's a bad metric or not doesn't really matter when it's what's used to judge us on a global scale (
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.ZS ),
Love to see some evidence to back that up.
And what does a world bank page have to do with anything? The world bank has loads of differnt statsitcs, including unenployment.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS
It's one of the metrics that is useful for economic planning, of course it is recorded.
and right now it's showing over 90 million eligible-to-work Americans out of a job. (
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...t-labor-force-labor-force-participation-rises )
Yes, because the baby boomers are retiring, and not everybody who is above 16 and not working is unemployed (unless you are suggesting that we should count high school students in our employment numbers). The article quotes the fed chair saying as much.
The point of your original post was that most of the people on SNAP were employed. You've yet to post proof of that claim.
Literally in the article
This comes from the article you posted however:
"Most unemployed childless adults are limited to three months of benefits, unless they are working at least 20 hours per week or participating in a qualifying workfare or job training program. States may seek temporary waivers from this time limit for areas with high unemployment, where qualifying jobs are scarce. To receive a waiver, states must provide detailed Labor Department unemployment data for the state or areas within the state that demonstrate sustained levels of high unemployment."
So why might the number of people on SNAP be falling? Well it sounds to me like it's because if you can't find a job in 3 months you're cut out of the program. That doesn't = most people being on it being employed however, it just explains why the numbers are dropping. Anecdotal evidence for a moment, but one of my friends in Maryland was on the food stamp program but was cut off once he hit 21 because he was unable to find work. Now he would be on the street if it weren't for his uncle paying him for rent and board. It's not because he isn't looking for work, it's because he can't find any, but he also can't get SNAP because he can't find work.
Although there are long-term unemployed that are being cut off, that total of long term unemployed is around 2M according to the BLS. Not particularly striking in a nation of 319M. And still doesn't go against my argument.
Also at the bottom:
"Finally, it is worth noting that the Taxes and Growth Model does not take into account the fiscal or economic effects of interest on debt. It also does not require budgets to balance over the long term. It also does not account for the potential macroeconomic effects of any spending cuts that may be required to finance the plan."
Yes, do you? Considering you only cherry-picked a single line out of that entire argument. *slow clap*
Not sure what you are trying to prove here. It's just the basic reality that we can't predict what will happen exactly. But unless he's planning to cut social secutiry, medicare, and defense (which he has stated he won't), the only way he's going to reduce the deficit is by raising taxes or slashing programs like there is no tomorrow.
And I just didn't want to deal with that badly written punditry, which linked to an empty archive page, the fact he raised less money, and a construction project opening ahead of time as some sort of indicator of his economic planning prowess, when they aren't even tangentially related. And some bullshit about our current <0.5T deficit is just as bad (somehow). There was really nothing to argue against. Where did you get it from anyway?
Meanwhile here are some things from the actual tax plan:
http://prntly.com/2016/08/14/trumps-tax-plan-is-right-most-americans-should-pay-no-income-tax/ A highlight from this would be if you make less than $25,000 a year, you don't have to pay taxes anymore.
The point being?
I'll also point out the same people who originally argued Trump's plan would cost taxpayers 10 trillion also said later on they were "clueless" and "not really experts" when it came to Bernie's tax plan:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/donald-trumps-tax-plan-primary/ (them talking about Trump)
http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/ (them talking about Bernie)
Both based off Tax Policy Center reports.
Uhh, the TPC and the Tax Foundation are two different organizations you know.
