Cannot fail to be good for the American worker. I know, the current POTUS is a Republican, and also a jerk, so we aren't supposed to say anything good about him...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-jobs-outnumber-the-jobless-1528212776

Nancy Pelosi, who called tax-cut-fueled bonuses and raises "crumbs", also feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen. By all means, let's give her the speaker's gavel back for round two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdl_6g8x4ns

"You're going to win so much, you're going to get tired of winning. Believe me." -candidate Donald Trump

I would give him some credit for the presenting a pro business attitude which has helped but wages are flat .. numbers dont match reality for example my daughter is a dental hygienist her pay is 39.00 an hour but can only get 26 hours a week and can not find an office who provides 32 or a 40 hrs week .. most have multiple hygienists dividing the 40 hrs with no benfits ... but enjoy more min wage jobs


but to say his policy's and the tax cuts are responsible is folly you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that she said what i said with out wage growth whats the point

Did you really just say “What’s the point?”

Serenity Now

How about people can have some self respect and earn their paycheck instead of getting a handout.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would give him some credit for the presenting a pro business attitude which has helped but wages are flat .. numbers dont match reality for example my daughter is a dental hygienist her pay is 39.00 an hour but can only get 26 hours a week and can not find an office who provides 32 or a 40 hrs week .. most have multiple hygienists dividing the 40 hrs with no benfits ... but enjoy more min wage jobs


but to say his policy's and the tax cuts are responsible is folly you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that she said what i said with out wage growth whats the point

Those evil Dentists make sure they close one day a week and keep the shifts short (they do - few are open 5 days a week)

I would give him some credit for the presenting a pro business attitude which has helped but wages are flat .. numbers dont match reality for example my daughter is a dental hygienist her pay is 39.00 an hour but can only get 26 hours a week and can not find an office who provides 32 or a 40 hrs week .. most have multiple hygienists dividing the 40 hrs with no benfits ... but enjoy more min wage jobs


but to say his policy's and the tax cuts are responsible is folly you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that she said what i said with out wage growth whats the point
Well when Obama was president, a whole lot of people were impressed with his low unemployment ( not as low as it is now), and the stock market ( not as high as it is now). Trump also lowered the effective tax rate for huge numbers of us. Obama never did that.

Let’s come up with a set of standards, and apply them uniformly, regardless of which party the sitting potus is in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you really just say “What’s the point?”

Serenity Now

How about people can have some self respect and earn their paycheck instead of getting a handout.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Serenity now, serenity now!!!

Liberals don’t really differentiate between earning a paycheck and getting a welfare check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

also lowered the effective tax rate for huge numbers of us. Obama never did that.

Let’s come up with a set of standards, and apply them uniformly, regardless of which party the sitting potus is in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You should probably get your facts straight before you make such request.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should probably get your facts straight before you make such request.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which facts did I get wrong?

You should probably back up those assertions, rather ham lobbing vague insults and scurrying off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those evil Dentists make sure they close one day a week and keep the shifts short (they do - few are open 5 days a week)
Actually what the dentists do is control the practice of dentistry and make it so a hygienist cannot practice independently
There are not enough dentists in this country to provide care to all
Hygienists in some countries can do minor procedures
There are ways it could be organized to make it more cost effective and likely not as good. Overall does “not as good” make a statistical difference in the dental health of a population compared to no care?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds to me like we need someone who can negotiate so we can have a new immigration policy. Remember who controls Congress and the Presidency
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually what the dentists do is control the practice of dentistry and make it so a hygienist cannot practice independently
There are not enough dentists in this country to provide care to all
Hygienists in some countries can do minor procedures
There are ways it could be organized to make it more cost effective and likely not as good. Overall does “not as good” make a statistical difference in the dental health of a population compared to no care?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you explain how the dentists are able to prevent hygienists from doing minor procedures?

My hygienist cleans my teeth, minor procedure....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My hygienist cleans my teeth, minor procedure....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They cannot legally work unless they work under the supervision of a dentist.
Like all professions it is partially for the protection of the public and partially for the protection of the licensees.

Actually what the dentists do is control the practice of dentistry and make it so a hygienist cannot practice independently.

Like all professions it is partially for the protection of the public and partially for the protection of the licensees.

:huh:

Cannot fail to be good for the American worker. I know, the current POTUS is a Republican, and also a jerk, so we aren't supposed to say anything good about him...

It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive. All these stats have pretty much been in a straight line since the recession.

Big items to watch will be the tax cut burn out as the bump fades, healthcare costs are expected to rise dramatically this year which will offset pay or tax benefits for most people and this idiotic trade war talk that has the potential to trigger a global recession.

Big items to watch will be the tax cut burn out as the bump fades, healthcare costs are expected to rise dramatically this year which will offset pay or tax benefits for most people and this idiotic trade war talk that has the potential to trigger a global recession.

keep hoping...:fishin:

keep hoping...:fishin:

A boat would be more appropriate for you to troll from

It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive. All these stats have pretty much been in a straight line since the recession.


How about if wages don't "grow" but there are more jobs available to employ those who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity?

They cannot legally work unless they work under the supervision of a dentist.
Like all professions it is partially for the protection of the public and partially for the protection of the licensees.

"They cannot legally work"--since when did the dentists create and enforce laws?

"They cannot legally work"--since when did the dentists create and enforce laws?

Who is on the board?
They cannot be self employed in most states
Mass rules
Massachusetts 2009
Chap. 112, Sec. 51.
Public Health Dental Hygienist:
Dental hygienist may provide services without the supervision of a dentist in public
health settings including, and not limited to, hospitals, medical facilities, schools and
community clinics. Prior to providing services, a public health dental hygienist must have
a written collaborative agreement with a local or state government agency or institution,
or licensed dentist that states the level of communication with the dental hygienist to
ensure patient health and safety. Public health dental hygienists shall provide patients
with a written referral to a dentist and an assessment of further dental needs.
Requirements: Dental hygienist must have at least 3 years of full-time clinical
experience practicing in a public health setting and any other training deemed
appropriate by the department of health.
Provider Services: Dental hygienist can provide full scope of dental hygiene practice
services allowed under general supervision in the private office, including prophylaxis,
root planing, curettage, sealants and fluoride.
Vt rules
Vermont 2008
Rule 10.2
General Supervision Agreement:
Dental hygienist may provide services in a school or institution under the supervision of
a dentist via a general supervision agreement. The agreement authorizes the dental
hygienist to provide services, agreed to between the dentist and the dental hygienist.
The agreement does not require physical presence of the dentist but it stipulates that
the supervising dentist review all patient records.
Requirements: Dental hygienist must have 3 years licensed clinical practice experience.
Provider Services: Dental hygienist can provide sealants, fluoride varnish, prophylaxis
and radiographs. Periodontal maintenance is allowable to patients with mild
periodontitis.

Mass board
Dr. Stephen DuLong, Chair Dentist 6, Faculty
Ailish M. Wilkie, CPHQ, Secretary Public 1
Dr. David Samuels Dentist 1
Dr. John Hsu Dentist 4
Dr. Paul Levy Dentist 2
Dr. Patricia (Pei-Hua) Wu Dentist 3
Dr. Cynthia M. Stevens Dentist 5
Lois Sobel, RDH Dental Hygienist 1
Jacyn Stultz, RDH Dental Hygienist 2
Kathleen Held Dental Assistant
Vacant Public 2
Vacant Dental Assistant Advisor 1
Vacant Dental Assistant Advisor 2

How about if wages don't "grow" but there are more jobs available to employ those who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity?
Well, we're technically at full employment already. Low unemployment is great but there are a lot of measures to the health of the economy.

It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive. All these stats have pretty much been in a straight line since the recession.

Big items to watch will be the tax cut burn out as the bump fades, healthcare costs are expected to rise dramatically this year which will offset pay or tax benefits for most people and this idiotic trade war talk that has the potential to trigger a global recession.

"It (low unemployment) doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth."

First, I'd bet my life in exchange for a quarter, that's not what you said when unemployment dropped when your hero was president. Second, I would contend it means a lot when someone who was looking for a job, accepts a job. Might not be their dream job, but it's better than no job, unless (like you, apparently) you don't see inherent dignity and value in a day's pay in return for a day's work.

"Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive."

Those 17 years include two terms under Obama, who couldn't manage to pull it off.

"healthcare costs are expected to rise dramatically this year "

As opposed to the way they dropped under Obama.

liberal=good, conservative=bad, we all get it.

"It (low unemployment) doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth."

First, I'd bet my life in exchange for a quarter, that's not what you said when unemployment dropped when your hero was president. Second, I would contend it means a lot when someone who was looking for a job, accepts a job. Might not be their dream job, but it's better than no job, unless (like you, apparently) you don't see inherent dignity and value in a day's pay in return for a day's work.
You're adding words to my statement to change its meaning. That's not very nice.

Those 17 years include two terms under Obama, who couldn't manage to pull it off.
Ummm, Obama inherited one of the worst recessions in US history. As for "pulling it #^&#^&#^&#^& it's kind of a novelty statistic.

As opposed to the way they dropped under Obama.
The ACA absolutely had a significant impact on slowing the rise of health care costs exactly as it was designed to do. Trump has effectively and intentionally broken the system and the markets are poised to respond against the consumer.

This is going to be a huge issue in the mid-terms.

liberal=good, conservative=bad, we all get it.

Just remember, There's a special place in Hell, if you don't lie down and take it from Trump.

Just remember, There's a special place in Hell, if you don't lie down and take it from Trump.
Just remember, we're seeing "conservatism" at its finest.

Actually I think in some peoples minds it is free market good, Obama bad.
Don't get lost in political rhetoric.
You should actually look at the change in healthcare cost over time before you say ACA was bad, it was the first step in a process.
https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878

Just remember, There's a special place in Hell, if you don't lie down and take it from Trump.

I'm highly critical of his character. But when he enacts great public policy, I give him credit. The economy is roaring, at a time when many economists feel we are past due for a recession.

This is going to be a huge issue in the mid-terms.

you are almost always wrong...:wave:

I'm highly critical of his character. But when he enacts great public policy, I give him credit. The economy is roaring, at a time when many economists feel we are past due for a recession.
If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.

As for his policy leading to a roaring economy I'm not sure where you gather that from. A key reason the economy is doing as well as it is though is the global economy has been performing very strong and lifting us with it. He inherited the positive unemployment, the tax cuts have given us a short-term jolt that is expected to start fading next year but there's not been much movement on wages as well as savings which is very weak. GDP hasn't come close to Trump predictions and is expected to fall to 2% next year.

Goosing an economy at full employment doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's just political payback. Starting trade wars with our allies where we don't even really have trade deficits doesn't make sense either. Remember all the tough talk on China? Trump tried to be a bully and got bitch slapped. Instead we're going to battle with Canada over cheese, our second biggest trading partner and a country who has stood by our side like a blood brother.

It's embarrassing.

This is going to be a huge issue in the mid-terms.

All the people saying that, are the same ones predicting that Hilary was going to win in a rout.

We'll see how it plays out. There's an old political expression that goes, "it's about the economy, stupid". Trump wins on the economy. The GOP has the democrats on record saying they will work to repeal the GOP tax cuts. Let's see how receptive Americans are to having their paychecks cut.

If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.

As for his policy leading to a roaring economy I'm not sure where you gather that from. A key reason the economy is doing as well as it is though is the global economy has been performing very strong and lifting us with it. He inherited the positive unemployment, the tax cuts have given us a short-term jolt that is expected to start fading next year but there's not been much movement on wages as well as savings which is very weak. GDP hasn't come close to Trump predictions and is expected to fall to 2% next year.

Goosing an economy at full employment doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's just political payback. Starting trade wars with our allies where we don't even really have trade deficits doesn't make sense either. Remember all the tough talk on China? Trump tried to be a bully and got bitch slapped. Instead we're going to battle with Canada over cheese, our second biggest trading partner and a country who has stood by our side like a blood brother.

It's embarrassing.

"If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama. "

I have called him a morally bankrupt reptile, and a scumbag, as many times as I criticized Obama. There is no "if".

"As for his policy leading to a roaring economy I'm not sure where you gather that from"

Low unemployment? Record low unemployment for blacks? Stock market soaring? These are the same statistics that got better under Obama, and I never heard you deny that Obama improved the economy.

"there's not been much movement on wages "

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-wages-grow-2-9-120000493.html

2.9% year over year? That's more of a raise than I got. Not as good as being in a union for sure, but not bad. You're right, wages need to increase more. If the demand for labor now exceeds the supply for the first time ever recorded ("ever" only being 17 years), why wouldn't that help increase wages? Familiar with supply and demand, and their effect on price?

If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.

As for his policy leading to a roaring economy I'm not sure where you gather that from. A key reason the economy is doing as well as it is though is the global economy has been performing very strong and lifting us with it. He inherited the positive unemployment, the tax cuts have given us a short-term jolt that is expected to start fading next year but there's not been much movement on wages as well as savings which is very weak. GDP hasn't come close to Trump predictions and is expected to fall to 2% next year.

Goosing an economy at full employment doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's just political payback. Starting trade wars with our allies where we don't even really have trade deficits doesn't make sense either. Remember all the tough talk on China? Trump tried to be a bully and got bitch slapped. Instead we're going to battle with Canada over cheese, our second biggest trading partner and a country who has stood by our side like a blood brother.

It's embarrassing.

You forgot to mention the federal debt :gorez:

You forgot to mention the federal debt :gorez:

Perfect example of the hypocrisy on both sides.

Obama added more to the debt than anyone before. Conservatives said it was terrible, liberals were not concerned.

Trump is now adding to the debt, and the roles are reversed. Conservatives say it's nothing to worry about, liberals now worry about deficits.

Here's the difference...Trump is putting money in the pockets of huge numbers of Americans. Obama never came close to doing that.

Did you really just say “What’s the point?”

Serenity Now

How about people can have some self respect and earn their paycheck instead of getting a handout.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? you worry to much about thoses who you see getting a hand out ... when the vast majority have self respect and earn their paycheck ... but they are not sharing in the profits of this recovery .. the mantra of business and the right is STFU and be thankfull you get a pay check at all

"You're going to win so much, you're going to get tired of winning. Believe me." -candidate Donald Trump

You forgot to mention the federal debt :gorez:
Don't worry about the future, we are winning today.
Believe me, I told you so
If you deny it you must be from Fake news, one of those failing news organizations, Not state news, oh i meant Faux, Fox, or the deep state, or secretly a democrat, or short or a lying, cheating adjective repeated endlessly until it is true.
Anyways it's all Obama's fault and you'll have to ask him about that, or maybe George Washington.
REPORTER: Mr. President, David Herszenhorn with Politico Europe. Just to come back to Russia for a second. Something that happened that got them kicked out of the G8 was the invasion and annexation of Crimea. Do you think that Crimea should be recognized as Russian (inaudible)?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you know, you have to ask President Obama, because he was the one that let Crimea get away. That was during his administration. And he was the one that let Russia go and spend a lot of money on Crimea, because they’ve spent a lot of money on rebuilding it. I guess they have their submarine port there and such. But Crimea was let go during the Obama administration. And, you know, Obama can say all he wants, but he allowed Russia to take Crimea. I may have had a much different attitude. So you’d really have to ask that question to President Obama — you know, why did he do that; why did he do that. But with that being said, it’s been done a long time.

whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? you worry to much about thoses who you see getting a hand out ... when the vast majority have self respect and earn their paycheck ... but they are not sharing in the profits of this recovery .. the mantra of business and the right is STFU and be thankfull you get a pay check at all

"the vast majority have self respect and earn their paycheck ... but they are not sharing in the profits of this recovery "

The 'vast majority' are not economically better off today than they were the day before Trump took the oath? How can you say that? More are working, wages are increasing (I posted a link showing that), everyone's tax rates are lower, and anyone who has money in the stock market is obviously better off?

How can you say the 'vast majority' aren't participating in the recovery?

"the mantra of business and the right is STFU and be thankfull you get a pay check at all"

I don't know any businesses or republicans who say anything like that.

whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP?

Well if you have 2 jobs available and only 1 person available to fill it, he's probably going to select the job with better pay/benefits. So the company that isn't recuiting enough people, better up their wages/benefits to attract people to their company, or risk a downturn in their business.

Well if you have 2 jobs available and only 1 person available to fill it, he's probably going to select the job with better pay/benefits. So the company that isn't recuiting enough people, better up their wages/benefits to attract people to their company, or risk a downturn in their business.

Geez, when you put it that way, it sounds like common sense and basic supply/demand.

Geez, when you put it that way, it sounds like common sense and basic supply/demand.

Every once in awhile I have a lucid moment

Obama added more to the debt than anyone before. Conservatives said it was terrible, liberals were not concerned.
Most of that was inherited from Bush and some the result of Obama tax cuts. Obama did a good job of reducing the deficit and as a percentage of debt increase was better than Bush 43 or Reagan.

Here's the difference...Trump is putting money in the pockets of huge numbers of Americans. Obama never came close to doing that.
You keep saying that but is it true? Impact of the tax cuts to average workers is pretty small and has to be offset with increases in household spending from health care, inflation etc...

All the people saying that, are the same ones predicting that Hilary was going to win in a rout.
Actually I think I was reading about Republicans lamenting the self inflicted wound.

We'll see how it plays out. There's an old political expression that goes, "it's about the economy, stupid". Trump wins on the economy. The GOP has the democrats on record saying they will work to repeal the GOP tax cuts. Let's see how receptive Americans are to having their paychecks cut.
You can repeal the tax cuts without impacting hard working Americans.

As for other news.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-the-fed-set-off-a-recession-alarm-1528714800

Most of that was inherited from Bush and some the result of Obama tax cuts. Obama did a good job of reducing the deficit and as a percentage of debt increase was better than Bush 43 or Reagan.


You keep saying that but is it true? Impact of the tax cuts to average workers is pretty small and has to be offset with increases in household spending from health care, inflation etc...

"Most of that was inherited from Bush and the democrat-controlled Congress, which writes the laws and crafts the budgets"

fixed it for you.

"and some the result of Obama tax cuts"

What tax cuts were those? How about Obamacare and the stimulus package?

"Obama did a good job of reducing the deficit and as a percentage of debt increase "

He had the highest deficits ever. He gets credit for the biggest deficits being his earliest years? Is the debt any different if his biggest deficit is in his first year or his last year?

"Impact of the tax cuts to average workers is pretty small"

True, but it's larger than the $0 tax cut we got under Obama.

"Most of that was inherited from Bush and the democrat-controlled Congress, which writes the laws and crafts the budgets"

fixed it for you.
There you go again rewriting my post.

Republicans held the House, Senate and the Presidency for most of the years leading into the recession. By the time the Dems took the house at the end of Bush's second term the lot had been cast. It wasn't Dem spending it was a lack of revenue from the Bush recession that spiked the deficit which Obama inherited.

What tax cuts were those? How about Obamacare and the stimulus package?
You weren't paying attention?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-hes-cut-taxes-middle-class-famil/

By some measures they say Obama's tax cuts could be bigger than Trump's.

He had the highest deficits ever. He gets credit for the biggest deficits being his earliest years? Is the debt any different if his biggest deficit is in his first year or his last year?
The reason the fiscal year is offset from the election year is to give the incoming president time to make adjustments from their predecessor. The first year of your term, heck maybe even the second are pretty much fixed as to ability to influence the deficit.

So yes, there's a huge difference between the first and last years.

[QUOTE]True, but it's larger than the $0 tax cut we got under Obama.
See above.

There you go again rewriting my post.

Republicans held the House, Senate and the Presidency for most of the years leading into the recession. By the time the Dems took the house at the end of Bush's second term the lot had been cast. It wasn't Dem spending it was a lack of revenue from the Bush recession that spiked the deficit which Obama inherited.


You weren't paying attention?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-hes-cut-taxes-middle-class-famil/

By some measures they say Obama's tax cuts could be bigger than Trump's.

[QUOTE]He had the highest deficits ever. He gets credit for the biggest deficits being his earliest years? Is the debt any different if his biggest deficit is in his first year or his last year?
The reason the fiscal year is offset from the election year is to give the incoming president time to make adjustments from their predecessor. The first year of your term, heck maybe even the second are pretty much fixed as to ability to influence the deficit.

So yes, there's a huge difference between the first and last years.


See above.
You got me, apparently I wasn’t paying attention, I didn’t see my cut, and apparently I received it. It wasn’t anywhere near larger than the recent gop tax cut.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You got me, apparently I wasn’t paying attention, I didn’t see my cut, and apparently I received it. It wasn’t anywhere near larger than the recent gop tax cut.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It was far bigger. You didn't "feel" it because Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent rather than let them expire which he could have easily done.

"the vast majority have self respect and earn their paycheck ... but they are not sharing in the profits of this recovery "

The 'vast majority' are not economically better off today than they were the day before Trump took the oath? How can you say that? More are working, wages are increasing (I posted a link showing that), everyone's tax rates are lower, and anyone who has money in the stock market is obviously better off?

How can you say the 'vast majority' aren't participating in the recovery?

"the mantra of business and the right is STFU and be thankfull you get a pay check at all"

I don't know any businesses or republicans who say anything like that.

How can I say ....because it's not happening crumbs don't equal a cake .. and your not paying attention to their message if you think that's not their message

Well if you have 2 jobs available and only 1 person available to fill it, he's probably going to select the job with better pay/benefits. So the company that isn't recuiting enough people, better up their wages/benefits to attract people to their company, or risk a downturn in their business.

In a perfect world.. but that hasn't been the case

I have an idea, let's call ourselves liberals and criticize something we used to praise because we don't like conservatives. It's a bad look guys. And it accomplishes nothing constructive. I understand it gives you purpose, but the smug act makes you look foolish to all but your clique.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In a perfect world.. but that hasn't been the case

Sure it has, you just weren't paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is on the board?
They cannot be self employed in most states
Mass rules
Massachusetts 2009
Chap. 112, Sec. 51.
Public Health Dental Hygienist:
Dental hygienist may provide services without the supervision of a dentist in public
health settings including, and not limited to, hospitals, medical facilities, schools and
community clinics. Prior to providing services, a public health dental hygienist must have
a written collaborative agreement with a local or state government agency or institution,
or licensed dentist that states the level of communication with the dental hygienist to
ensure patient health and safety. Public health dental hygienists shall provide patients
with a written referral to a dentist and an assessment of further dental needs.
Requirements: Dental hygienist must have at least 3 years of full-time clinical
experience practicing in a public health setting and any other training deemed
appropriate by the department of health.
Provider Services: Dental hygienist can provide full scope of dental hygiene practice
services allowed under general supervision in the private office, including prophylaxis,
root planing, curettage, sealants and fluoride.
Vt rules
Vermont 2008
Rule 10.2
General Supervision Agreement:
Dental hygienist may provide services in a school or institution under the supervision of
a dentist via a general supervision agreement. The agreement authorizes the dental
hygienist to provide services, agreed to between the dentist and the dental hygienist.
The agreement does not require physical presence of the dentist but it stipulates that
the supervising dentist review all patient records.
Requirements: Dental hygienist must have 3 years licensed clinical practice experience.
Provider Services: Dental hygienist can provide sealants, fluoride varnish, prophylaxis
and radiographs. Periodontal maintenance is allowable to patients with mild
periodontitis.

Your examples are government rules. Without government regulation and force, those rules could not exist. I've tried, time and again, to point to the connection between government and its crony private sector partners as our ultimate reason for problems of price and delivery of goods and services. You never seem to recognize government's part of the problem. Nor to understand that the government/business complex is not a free market. Yet you want to point to free market as not being viable. I gave an example of free market oriented medical service being far cheaper than the government/hospital cartel which dominates our health care. All you could do is mention some notion of vertical and horizontal generation being some benefit for business, yet such practices lead to monopolization and creation of the corporatist structure that you previously thought was responsible for high prices and the destruction of the middle class. You seem to pick and choose various contradictory notions as responses when it suits your argument.

whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? you worry to much about thoses who you see getting a hand out ... when the vast majority have self respect and earn their paycheck ... but they are not sharing in the profits of this recovery .. the mantra of business and the right is STFU and be thankfull you get a pay check at all

Have you heard of the wage-price spiral?

Sure it has, you just weren't paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who wasn't paying attention? Real data contradicts your statement. Wage growth has been and continues to be low.

"The modest increase in annual raises would seem to defy Economics 101. The unemployment rate has been below 5% since May 2016. Many companies are having a hard time filling positions, particularly for skilled workers. Typically, when the demand for workers grows, wages go up.

One possible explanation: Older workers are retiring and being replaced by younger workers who earn less, which drags down the aggregate increase. Another factor: Many employers are no longer offering equal raises. "

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T012-C000-S002-the-outlook-for-pay-raises-in-2018.html

also https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-11/a-tight-u-s-job-market-should-deliver-bigger-raises

I have an idea, let's call ourselves liberals and criticize something we used to praise because we don't like conservatives. It's a bad look guys. And it accomplishes nothing constructive. I understand it gives you purpose, but the smug act makes you look foolish to all but your clique.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You absolutely nailed it, that's all this is - liberals criticizing that which they praised for 8 years when Obama was POTUS.

From 2009 - 2016, it was awesome, and to the President's credit, when unemployment went down. From 2009 - 2016, it was awesome, and to the President's credit, when the stock market went up. And no one cared about adding to the debt. And no one cared that wages weren't increasing significantly.

Today, when unemployment is even lower, and the stock market is even higher, that's bad because now that the POTUS is a Republican, these things only help rich people and businesses. And suddenly, none of that means anything, unless wages increase meaningfully.

"the smug act makes you look foolish to all but your clique."

Bingo again. To say that there is zero, and I mean ZERO, intellectual honesty to liberalism, is an understatement. People are finally seeing this for what it is, which is why at this moment, the GOP controls everything in DC, and a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures.

We'll see what happens in the midterms, there could be a blue wave. Or maybe not. But as of right now, the democratic party is not a national party, it's a fringe group of radicals (who feel strongly that grown men should share public restrooms with 7 year-old girls), with strongholds on the two coasts, and zilch in between.

Their ideology only moves further to the left, never back towards the center. Their best hope, and it is a very realistic hope, is sufficient immigration.

Your examples are government rules. Without government regulation and force, those rules could not exist. I've tried, time and again, to point to the connection between government and its crony private sector partners as our ultimate reason for problems of price and delivery of goods and services. You never seem to recognize government's part of the problem. Nor to understand that the government/business complex is not a free market. Yet you want to point to free market as not being viable. I gave an example of free market oriented medical service being far cheaper than the government/hospital cartel which dominates our health care. All you could do is mention some notion of vertical and horizontal generation being some benefit for business, yet such practices lead to monopolization and creation of the corporatist structure that you previously thought was responsible for high prices and the destruction of the middle class. You seem to pick and choose various contradictory notions as responses when it suits your argument.
I think there was a movie about the way things work that you propose and why it failed. If I remember correctly it was titled "The Gods must be crazy"

Today, when unemployment is even lower, and the stock market is even higher, that's bad because now that the POTUS is a Republican, these things only help rich people and businesses. And suddenly, none of that means anything, unless wages increase meaningfully.

"the smug act makes you look foolish to all but your clique."

Bingo again. To say that there is zero, and I mean ZERO, intellectual honesty to liberalism, is an understatement.

You are totally, completely misinterpreting other peoples perspective because it makes you feel better about yourself.

The great irony is that the repubelicans supposedly hate deficits and complain about them until THEY are in power.

The economy, wages, the stock market, have been growing for almost a decade on a nearly even trajectory following near catastrophe, but now after 1 year of Trump policies, it is the best economy ever. How bout you have some intellectual honesty and see what the long term effects of his policies are before we puff our tail feathers.

Your examples are government rules. Without government regulation and force, those rules could not exist. I've tried, time and again, to point to the connection between government and its crony private sector partners as our ultimate reason for problems of price and delivery of goods and services. You never seem to recognize government's part of the problem.

I agree with you completely on this point, though I imagine you have a partisan slant. There is no free market. The repubelican party pretends they like free market, but the influence of big agriculture, big pharmacy, the energy sector on the republican politicians is a disaster. There are no free markets, only cronyism and the current leader may be the biggest, unapologetic crony capitalist of all time.

Who wasn't paying attention? Real data contradicts your statement. Wage growth has been and continues to be low.

"The modest increase in annual raises would seem to defy Economics 101. The unemployment rate has been below 5% since May 2016. Many companies are having a hard time filling positions, particularly for skilled workers. Typically, when the demand for workers grows, wages go up.

One possible explanation: Older workers are retiring and being replaced by younger workers who earn less, which drags down the aggregate increase. Another factor: Many employers are no longer offering equal raises. "

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T012-C000-S002-the-outlook-for-pay-raises-in-2018.html

also https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-11/a-tight-u-s-job-market-should-deliver-bigger-raises

1st raises and new job salaries are 2 different things. Once an employer hires you raises are not going to align with what new hires are going to receive as the demand increases

2nd this is from one of the articles you posted

“The first quarter of 2018 did see substantial compensation increases — an annualized rate of almost 4 percent.”

Which aligns with what we were saying about as the demand for skilled workers increases the compensation increases

3rd your post even reiterates what we said

“Typically, when the demand for workers grows, wages go up.”

And even gives a reason why it may be slow through this cycle. Inexperienced people, who do not command as high a salary, as the experienced people who are retiring did.

It also doesn’t happen immediately, the wage decrease that occurred when the dot-com bubble burst took a few years to correct itself and now developers are reaping increased compensation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are totally, completely misinterpreting other peoples perspective because it makes you feel better about yourself.

The great irony is that the repubelicans supposedly hate deficits and complain about them until THEY are in power.

The economy, wages, the stock market, have been growing for almost a decade on a nearly even trajectory following near catastrophe, but now after 1 year of Trump policies, it is the best economy ever. How bout you have some intellectual honesty and see what the long term effects of his policies are before we puff our tail feathers.

"You are totally, completely misinterpreting other peoples perspective "

I see. So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha.

"it makes you feel better about yourself. "

Wrong again. It just makes me sad, not better about myself.

"The great irony is that the repubelicans supposedly hate deficits and complain about them until THEY are in power. "

I could follow your lead and say that you are misinterpreting them, but you are right, the hypocrisy exists on both sides.

"The economy, wages, the stock market, have been growing for almost a decade "

And I have always given Obama credit for that.

"now after 1 year of Trump policies, it is the best economy ever."

Not the best ever. But using the same exact criteria that made the Obama economy a good economy (low unemployment, healthy stock returns), the Trump economy is better than what he inherited. Not the best ever, but better than Obama's. Try making that wrong - you can't, you just can't.

"How bout you have some intellectual honesty and see what the long term effects of his policies are before we puff our tail feathers"

again, hypocrisy. Liberals weren't waiting for long term impacts of Obama's policies before they declared him a great POTUS. You have very different standards for judging presidents, depending on which party they are in. I use the same standards, or at least try to.

You absolutely nailed it, that's all this is - liberals criticizing that which they praised for 8 years when Obama was POTUS.

From 2009 - 2016, it was awesome, and to the President's credit, when unemployment went down. From 2009 - 2016, it was awesome, and to the President's credit, when the stock market went up. And no one cared about adding to the debt. And no one cared that wages weren't increasing significantly.

Today, when unemployment is even lower, and the stock market is even higher, that's bad because now that the POTUS is a Republican, these things only help rich people and businesses. And suddenly, none of that means anything, unless wages increase meaningfully.

"the smug act makes you look foolish to all but your clique."

Bingo again. To say that there is zero, and I mean ZERO, intellectual honesty to liberalism, is an understatement. People are finally seeing this for what it is, which is why at this moment, the GOP controls everything in DC, and a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures.

We'll see what happens in the midterms, there could be a blue wave. Or maybe not. But as of right now, the democratic party is not a national party, it's a fringe group of radicals (who feel strongly that grown men should share public restrooms with 7 year-old girls), with strongholds on the two coasts, and zilch in between.

Their ideology only moves further to the left, never back towards the center. Their best hope, and it is a very realistic hope, is sufficient immigration.
If the claim is that everything you do is the greatest and has never been done before, yada yada yada and then expect everyone to just agree with your fake news. He has the greatest con ever going and he has you buying in.
Remember Trump is only a salesman and they never sell down.
Politicians know that markets turn for no apparent reason and no one can control them absolutely, they are pretty careful about claiming influence on them.
His absolute clown show with the G7 is a great example. His policy is We are America, bitch. He's even pissed off the Canadians and that takes a lot. He freewheels all the time, "I'll know in the first minute"
It would be great if you were right about Trump and everything comes up roses, but Time will tell, none of this internet BS will.

"You are totally, completely misinterpreting other peoples perspective "

I see. So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha.



Maybe you are right and I missed that people are deriding low employment and stock gains. Please show me where that happened and I will acquiesce. Maybe you are talking about Trump and his comments on unemployment in Nov '16 vs February '17?

This is basically what you are talking about Jim, but in reverse, right?

August 2016: Trump- Unemployment is one of the biggest hoaxs in politics. ..the “real” unemployment rate is anywhere from 18% to 42%. (reference to 4.9%)

August 2017: “We’ve fulfilled so many of our promises, everything we’ve wanted to do we’re doing. Unemployment is at a record low (4.2%), jobs are flowing back into the country.” Donald J. Trump

If the claim is that everything you do is the greatest and has never been done before, yada yada yada and then expect everyone to just agree with your fake news. He has the greatest con ever going and he has you buying in.
Remember Trump is only a salesman and they never sell down.


This is basically what you are talking about Jim, but in reverse, right?

August 2016: Trump- Unemployment is one of the biggest hoaxs in politics. ..the “real” unemployment rate is anywhere from 18% to 42%. (reference to 4.9%)

August 2017: “We’ve fulfilled so many of our promises, everything we’ve wanted to do we’re doing. Unemployment is at a record low (4.2%), jobs are flowing back into the country.” Donald J. Trump
It's all true now and no longer a hoax.
He's riding the wave and you're cheering like he invented the ocean

If the claim is that everything you do is the greatest and has never been done before, yada yada yada and then expect everyone to just agree with your fake news. He has the greatest con ever going and he has you buying in.
Remember Trump is only a salesman and they never sell down.
Politicians know that markets turn for no apparent reason and no one can control them absolutely, they are pretty careful about claiming influence on them.
His absolute clown show with the G7 is a great example. His policy is We are America, bitch. He's even pissed off the Canadians and that takes a lot. He freewheels all the time, "I'll know in the first minute"
It would be great if you were right about Trump and everything comes up roses, but Time will tell, none of this internet BS will.

"If the claim is that everything you do is the greatest and has never been done before, yada yada yada and then expect everyone to just agree with your fake news"

That's Trump, he's a world class egomaniac. It's fair to hold him accountable when he lies. What's not fair, is for the same liberals who touted the benefits of low unemployment and great stock returns, to suddenly say those things don't matter. That's the glaring hypocrisy Dangles and I are commenting on, and it's everywhere. Everywhere.

"Remember Trump is only a salesman "

Whatever he is, the economy is looking great at the moment. Of course it won't last. But many economists claim we are overdue for a recession, and so far, he's fighting that off. No one can do it forever.

"His absolute clown show with the G7 is a great example. His policy is We are America, bitch. He's even pissed off the Canadians and that takes a lot. He freewheels all the time, "I'll know in the first minute"

Again, those are valid, fair criticisms. We were pointing out naked, obvious hypocrisy, especially in not giving him credit for improving the economy.

I despised Obama in away that's hard to articulate, for his social policies and his radicalism and his personal arrogance. But he did some very productive things. I can say good things about Obama when de deserves it, the world doesn't stop spinning if you give credit where it's due. Liberals cannot do that with Trump, they are blinded and deranged by hate, and he loves it, he eats it up. Liberals fail to see, that's what got him elected. I don't know why they can't see that, the election wasn't that long ago, but they are acting in the same exact way. Deniro's "F--- Trump speech"? That helps Trump. How does the left not see that? It makes me want to donate to Trump.

Every single time Trump does something positive, the left either ignores it, or spins it into a negative. People see it, and it turns them off. It would do your side well to recognize that. You aren't going to beat Trump in the ring of fighting dirty, somehow he's better at it than everyone else.

This is basically what you are talking about Jim, but in reverse, right?

August 2016: Trump- Unemployment is one of the biggest hoaxs in politics. ..the “real” unemployment rate is anywhere from 18% to 42%. (reference to 4.9%)

August 2017: “We’ve fulfilled so many of our promises, everything we’ve wanted to do we’re doing. Unemployment is at a record low (4.2%), jobs are flowing back into the country.” Donald J. Trump

Here's the difference between me and you. I can say that hypocrisy exists on my side, I have said it again and again and again. I have said Trump is a scumbag, again, and again, and again.

When we bring up the equally obvious hypocrisy on your side, all you do, every single time, is attack republicans. Anything to avoid admitting that the other side can ever have a point. In doing so, you are proving my point for me, not refuting it.

Here's the difference between me and you. I can say that hypocrisy exists on my side, I have said it again and again and again. I have said Trump is a scumbag, again, and again, and again.

When we bring up the equally obvious hypocrisy on your side, all you do, every single time, is attack republicans. Anything to avoid admitting that the other side can ever have a point. In doing so, you are proving my point for me, not refuting it.

Again the irony. It s unnecessary to point out the difference between you and me. I asked you to point out where people are deriding low employment and stock gains. "Please show me where that happened and I will acquiesce." I guess that is hypocrisy on my part?

Again the irony. It s unnecessary to point out the difference between you and me. I asked you to point out where people are deriding low employment and stock gains. "Please show me where that happened and I will acquiesce." I guess that is hypocrisy on my part?

"I asked you to point out where people are deriding low employment and stock gains"

Is that a joke? Read the posts on this thread. As soon as Trump took the oath, unemployment became meaningless, and all that matters is wage gains.

Proof that ignorance knows no bounds. I am actually starting to think he doesn't understand your point Jim. It is this smug, blame the other side mentality that will have Trump reelected. No wonder that party is a mess
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Proof that ignorance knows no bounds. I am actually starting to think he doesn't understand your point Jim. It is this smug, blame the other side mentality that will have Trump reelected. No wonder that party is a mess
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your last post nailed the hypocrisy, it really did. The democrats have literally learned nothing from the 2016 election, not a thing.

"I asked you to point out where people are deriding low employment and stock gains"

Is that a joke? Read the posts on this thread. As soon as Trump took the oath, unemployment became meaningless, and all that matters is wage gains.

Find one please. I went back over every post in this thread.

Proof that ignorance knows no bounds. I am actually starting to think he doesn't understand your point Jim. It is this smug, blame the other side mentality that will have Trump reelected. No wonder that party is a mess
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are right, I don't understand Jim's point. He has made several. Some are irrefutably incorrect. The others he hasn't backed up. It is smug, blame the other side mentality to ask him to back up a point that I don't find evidence for? I think you guys have trouble with word meanings. Now that was smug.

You are right, I don't understand Jim's point. He has made several. Some are irrefutably incorrect. The others he hasn't backed up. It is smug, blame the other side mentality to ask him to back up a point that I don't find evidence for? I think you guys have trouble with word meanings. Now that was smug.

Posts #3, 16, 31, 34, 36, 37.

Nothing but deflection away from the positive, and a stubborn (and newfound!) focus on debt and wage growth.

Before he is elected
August 2016: Trump- Unemployment is one of the biggest hoaxs in politics. ..the “real” unemployment rate is anywhere from 18% to 42%.
After he was elected they became real numbers but he says it is all ME, there is BS on one of those statements, either he lied before (it was not a hoax) or he is lying now and it is a hoax. Pick one

Pete, you are petty. Just like Trump.
If it was good enough then,why isn't it now? Trump is a low life and you are stooping to his level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posts #3, 16, 31, 34, 36, 37.

Nothing but deflection away from the positive, and a stubborn (and newfound!) focus on debt and wage growth.

#3- you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that
Derisive about unemployment and the stock market?

#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive.
Derisive? Not by the definition of derisive.

#31- absolutely nothing derisive

#34-
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.
I posted "You forgot to mention the federal debt," as something YOU would be razing the forum with hyped up posts about. Had nothing to do with my thoughts on unemployment and the stock market or the debt.

#36 whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? yes that is a bit derisive. But the platform of the 2nd place finisher in the democratic primary had it central to his platform. doesn't seem too hypocritical of wdmso to bring it up

#37 nothing derisive about low unemployment and stock gains in that post

One guy is saying wages are what matter. For all I know he is a Bernie guy and was saying that for the past 3 years. You make a big leap to "So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha' and "nothing but deflection away from the positive."

#3- you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that
Derisive about unemployment and the stock market?

#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive.
Derisive? Not by the definition of derisive.

#31- absolutely nothing derisive

#34-
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.
I posted "You forgot to mention the federal debt," as something YOU would be razing the forum with hyped up posts about. Had nothing to do with my thoughts on unemployment and the stock market.

#36 whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? yes that is a bit derisive. But the platform of the 2nd place finisher in the democratic primary had it central to his platform. doesn't seem too hypocritical of wdmso to bring it up

#37 nothing derisive about low unemployment and stock gains

One guy is saying wages are what matter. For all I know he is a Bernie guy and was saying that for the past 3 years. You make a big leap to "So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha' and "nothing but deflection away from the positive."

Here, Pelosi said "“Hip, hip, hooray, unemployment is down. What does that mean to me and my life?” You tell me, did she say that during the Obama years?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/08/nancy-pelosi-badmouths-economy/

"#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth."

Yes, it does. It means a lot to the person who chose to take the job.

Spin it all you want. For 8 years, I heard Obama get patted on the back for low unemployment and stock market gains (I was one of those patting him on the back). Now all of a sudden those are not praise-worthy accomplishments.

Here, Pelosi said "“Hip, hip, hooray, unemployment is down. What does that mean to me and my life?” You tell me, did she say that during the Obama years?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/08/nancy-pelosi-badmouths-economy/

"#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth."

Yes, it does. It means a lot to the person who chose to take the job.

.

:wall::usd:: I didn't say those words in #16, or agree with them, or ask your opinion of them. That was what was in the post. I was pointing out that those words,"it doesn't mean that much," aren't derisive.

I was pointing out that those words,"it doesn't mean that much," aren't derisive.

Saying that something "doesn't mean that much", isn't derisive. Got it.

You didn't comment on Pelosi's statement I see. Once again, anything to avoid admitting that your side was wrong, anything to avoid admitting the other side has a point.

#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth."

Yes, it does. It means a lot to the person who chose to take the job.
Sometimes it's valuable to put a remark in context of the thread. I wasn't saying that low unemployment didn't matter, but that the ratio of job openings to unemployed doesn't mean much unless it pushes employers to raise wages.

Don't know anyone here bashing unemployment Jim.

the ratio of job openings to unemployed doesn't mean much unless it pushes employers to raise wages.



that is stupid

I think there was a movie about the way things work that you propose and why it failed. If I remember correctly it was titled "The Gods must be crazy"

From all of your posts that I've read, it doesn't seem to me that you understand what I propose. And it seems that your vision is thoroughly embedded in the Progressive assumption that, without big "G" government direction and/or control, societal intercourse will somehow fail, or be dysfunctional.

I searched your movie title and found a comedy by that title and another sequel to it titled "The Gods Must be Crazy 2". The synopsis for neither one of them was about the failure of the free market, nor about the free market at all.

At any rate, I don't look to fictional movies, especially not to comedies, for an answer on how things fundamentally work. Comedies, fictional movies in general, can be very entertaining. But not so useful as a guide to what works or doesn't. Authors of fiction can make anything "work" or "fail" as they wish in the story they write.

I gave you a real world example of a free market oriented medical clinic that charged far less (that worked not failed) than the price for the same procedure done by our Hospital/government cartel system--even less than some of the best government controlled systems outside the US, including Switzerland.

But if you prefer fiction to reality, then I can see why you approach philosophical, political, and economic discussions the way you do--especially how the same thing is good or how it is bad (e.g., how corporatism is bad and destructive of the middle class, but can be a good thing if it can be used to belittle a free market enterprise) depending on the slant you wish to impose.

that is stupid

:uhuh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that is stupid
If you're trying to challenge Dangles for irrelevancy you are giving him a run for his money.

Sometimes it's valuable to put a remark in context of the thread. I wasn't saying that low unemployment didn't matter, but that the ratio of job openings to unemployed doesn't mean much unless it pushes employers to raise wages.

Don't know anyone here bashing unemployment Jim.

(1) wages are rising. Google it. Not as fast as we'd like, but they are rising.

(2) it takes time for a shift in supply/demand, to effect the price of something (wages in this case). It doesn't happen immediately, and I'd bet you know this, but you're pretending you don't know it to serve your personal agenda.

(3) when the demand is greater than the supply, the workers are in a much better position than when there's no demand and a ton of supply. You also know this. If not, go take economics 101 at an online college.

"Don't know anyone here bashing unemployment Jim"

Pelosi said "hip hip hooray, unemployment is low". I posted a link. Do you want to recant your statement?

Saying that something "doesn't mean that much", isn't derisive. Got it.

You didn't comment on Pelosi's statement I see. Once again, anything to avoid admitting that your side was wrong, anything to avoid admitting the other side has a point.

You are right. I was busy doing other things than taking the time to comment on the 4 billionth thing you have said in here. You probably should take a breath once in awhile. She had been beating the drum for higher wages way back into the Obama administration. She is a nut, but that isn't hypocritical for her. You need me to look that up for you too or can you do that when you find the definition of derisive?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Don't know anyone here bashing unemployment Jim"

Pelosi said "hip hip hooray, unemployment is low". I posted a link. Do you want to recant your statement?

Did Nancy join the forum? I hope everyone welcomed her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you're trying to challenge Dangles for irrelevancy you are giving him a run for his money.

that means a lot coming from Spence Jung Un

From all of your posts that I've read, it doesn't seem to me that you understand what I propose. And it seems that your vision is thoroughly embedded in the Progressive assumption that, without big "G" government direction and/or control, societal intercourse will somehow fail, or be dysfunctional.

I searched your movie title and found a comedy by that title and another sequel to it titled "The Gods Must be Crazy 2". The synopsis for neither one of them was about the failure of the free market, nor about the free market at all.

At any rate, I don't look to fictional movies, especially not to comedies, for an answer on how things fundamentally work. Comedies, fictional movies in general, can be very entertaining. But not so useful as a guide to what works or doesn't. Authors of fiction can make anything "work" or "fail" as they wish in the story they write.

I gave you a real world example of a free market oriented medical clinic that charged far less (that worked not failed) than the price for the same procedure done by our Hospital/government cartel system--even less than some of the best government controlled systems outside the US, including Switzerland.

But if you prefer fiction to reality, then I can see why you approach philosophical, political, and economic discussions the way you do--especially how the same thing is good or how it is bad (e.g., how corporatism is bad and destructive of the middle class, but can be a good thing if it can be used to belittle a free market enterprise) depending on the slant you wish to impose.

But i do understand what you propose, I just believe that some people have and will always want Wealth and Power over others. That is why I referred you to that movie. The Bushmen had an absolute free market.
Shakespeare also wrote comedies. Art is important in society as more than just pretty pictures.
Here is a more in depth look at that movie, take with a grain of salt like all things.
https://grahambaden.com/2014/04/04/the-gods-must-be-crazy/
Hey, it could also be a view in part of what the world will be like after the next world War.

(1) wages are rising. Google it. Not as fast as we'd like, but they are rising.

Ok. I'll make sure I choose a right leaning source just to be safe.

Inflation rises at fastest pace in six years...average wages did not rise over the last 12 months, while real average hourly earnings fell 0.1 percent from last year.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/392029-inflation-goes-up-at-fastest-pace-in-six-years

But i do understand what you propose, I just believe that some people have and will always want Wealth and Power over others.

What is the connection between what I supposedly propose and your belief that some people have and will always want wealth and power over others? Should those people be eliminated? Are they bad? Do they do anything good? Does getting rid of free market, or controlling the market, or abolish the market altogether, neutralize or do away with those people? Do those people inherently exist in any sizable community of people no matter what the political structure of those communities is?

That is why I referred you to that movie. The Bushmen had an absolute free market.

I guess I'd have to see the movie to discover what you mean by the Bushmen having an absolute free market. The articles that you posted don't mention or imply any market activity of the Bushmen. Actually, I will try to see the movie. It sounds interesting. Thanks for the referral.

Shakespeare also wrote comedies. Art is important in society as more than just pretty pictures.

Of course! I love the Arts. Shakespeare, and Homer, and the Bible, even in translation, are for me the summum bonum of language artistry. You can throw in Dostoevsky and Hemingway and a whole lot of poets. Twain is pretty good too. And on and on. Art speaks to what some call the soul--that which cannot be defined--that which stirs up powers of truth and beauty beyond logic or mechanical precision.

But, for me, they are not sources on how to form a government or fix a car.

Here is a more in depth look at that movie, take with a grain of salt like all things.
https://grahambaden.com/2014/04/04/the-gods-must-be-crazy/

You're right. I need the grain of salt to digest what your article is trying to say. I starts off OK then drifts into a Post Modern, Cultural Marxist critique of power conflicts, race and class struggle stuff which, to me, is biased and off the mark. The noble savage being superior to the technocrat is a shallow perspective that touches on the surface of humanity but doesn't reach the universal depth of human nature.

But I do agree with the movie's theme of technology separating us from nature. But it is not the technology that does it. Rather it is our use of technology that results in making us an observer and master of nature rather than an integral participant. And that is not all bad. I may be wrong, but I'd guess that you would prefer to live in our techno world than as a pre-modern Bushman.

Still, we tend to become more abstract beings as we immerse into the electric, touch screen mode of living. But we still have the choice, in our leisure time to be in contact with actual people and actual places and actual nature.

Hey, it could also be a view in part of what the world will be like after the next world War.

Don't know about any of that, but I don't think Trump would start that war. If you want to be cynical about it, he has too many properties that would be destroyed. But I, personally, don't see any evidence of him being a warmonger. And that certainly is not in the nature of one who considers himself a deal maker.

Ok. I'll make sure I choose a right leaning source just to be safe.

Inflation rises at fastest pace in six years...average wages did not rise over the last 12 months, while real average hourly earnings fell 0.1 percent from last year.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/392029-inflation-goes-up-at-fastest-pace-in-six-years

I can cite as many sources as you can, to say that wages are up. Neither of us knows, I guess.

What we do know, is that take home wages are up, thanks to the tax cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What we do know, is that take home wages are up, thanks to the tax cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe take home wages are up, a tiny bit... That doesn't necessarily equate to people having a net positive in wealth. If everything costs more as a result of the tax cuts, well you can figure out the rest...


"Inflationary pressures from the tax overhaul and fiscal stimulus will be the surprise result in 2018, says Brent Schutte, the chief investment strategist for Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company."
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-reform-surprise-effect-inflation-2018-1

If everything costs more as a result of the tax cuts, well you can figure out the rest...


"Inflationary pressures from the tax overhaul and fiscal stimulus will be the surprise result in 2018, says Brent Schutte, the chief investment strategist for Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company."
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-reform-surprise-effect-inflation-2018-1

but he goes on to say that the inflation we're seeing is lagging from 12-18 months ago....

"Inflation is a lagging indicator," he said about the current inflation levels, which he added are a reflection of 12 to 18 months ago when the global economy was recovering from a weak period of growth caused by a supply-drive oil war"

....the tax cuts just went into effect recently....how are they(tax cuts) causing everything to cost more if things are costing more due to lagging inflation cause by something 12-18 months ago?

but he goes on to say that the inflation we're seeing is lagging from 12-18 months ago....

"Inflation is a lagging indicator," he said about the current inflation levels, which he added are a reflection of 12 to 18 months ago when the global economy was recovering from a weak period of growth caused by a supply-drive oil war"

....the tax cuts just went into effect recently....how are they(tax cuts) causing everything to cost more if things are costing more due to lagging inflation cause by something 12-18 months ago?

You are right, he probably should have said 2019. Though he doesn't claim it is causing inflation now, as you state. In any case, Jim is talking about people have more money now (he use words like "in their pocket; take home wages.") The point is that the tax cuts may cause wage increases immediately (though they haven't very much) and then they may lead to inflation. The result might be everything costs more and people haven't made enough to off set the cost.

Sounds like a bunch of economic prognostication about what we don't actually know will happen. In the meantime, we do know that a significant number of jobs have been created. And if the wage-price spiral continues, when inflation creates higher prices, wage hikes will later follow. Price and wage hikes (or drops) don't both happen at the same time. One follows, later, the occurrence of the other.

But who knows? Supporters of Trump paint a rosy picture. Detractors predict gloom and doom.

Sounds like a bunch of economic prognostication about what we don't actually know will happen..

yup...just a prediction...probably predicted trump would never be president too :hee:

You are right, he probably should have said 2019. Though he doesn't claim it is causing inflation now, as you state. In any case, Jim is talking about people have more money now (he use words like "in their pocket; take home wages.") The point is that the tax cuts may cause wage increases immediately (though they haven't very much) and then they may lead to inflation. The result might be everything costs more and people haven't made enough to off set the cost.

"probably, may, might".....

are you assuming wages will never increase?
with all those jobs out there it's a great time to get a second job like we used to do in the old days

Getting a job is great, but if it's paying minimum wage, I guess you need to live with your parents a bit longer.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/06/13/report-says-minimum-wage-workers-can-afford-two-bedroom-apartments-anywhere/CmbuwNaoQ19P33y2TF2zOL/story.html

Getting a job is great, but if it's paying minimum wage, I guess you need to live with your parents a bit longer.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/06/13/report-says-minimum-wage-workers-can-afford-two-bedroom-apartments-anywhere/CmbuwNaoQ19P33y2TF2zOL/story.html


preface of the report is by Bernie Sanders :hihi:

seems the situation is the worst in the most liberal states :huh:

overtime and a second job would help....

"probably, may, might".....



What the h else could accurately be said about something that hasn't happened yet? They are auxiliary verbs and unless you are the moron running things these days you would allow for uncertainty. He just says things like

"I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey I was wrong, I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse."

Of course it is prognostication. It is based on what has happened in the past under similar conditions.

What the h else could accurately be said about something that hasn't happened yet?

you wrote ...."Maybe take home wages are up, a tiny bit... That doesn't necessarily equate to people having a net positive in wealth. If everything costs more as a result of the tax cuts, well you can figure out the rest..."


reads like present not future....

you wrote ...."Maybe take home wages are up, a tiny bit... That doesn't necessarily equate to people having a net positive in wealth. If everything costs more as a result of the tax cuts, well you can figure out the rest..."


reads like present not future....

Right. At times, Jim has poo poo'd people's suggestions that we kinda need to wait and see what happens a bit longer before we start lauding Trump for the "great things he has done for the economy." That discussion involves present and future. If you think the tax cuts were a great decision, you might side with Jim. If you think they weren't, as employed, the best decision you probably have to give it some time before putting up the mission accomplished banner.

Right. At times, Jim has poo poo'd people's suggestions that we kinda need to wait and see what happens a bit longer before we start lauding Trump for the "great things he has done for the economy." That discussion involves present and future. If you think the tax cuts were a great decision, you might side with Jim. If you think they weren't, as employed, the best decision you probably have to give it some time before putting up the mission accomplished banner.

that makes less sense than Spence suggesting the media was rough on Obama...and not nearly as funny

Minimum Wage Workers in Washington Must Work 93 Hours a Week to Afford a Two-Bedroom Apartment


even in Arkansas, the state with the cheapest housing in the country. One would need to earn $13.84 an hour — about $29,000 a year — to afford a two-bedroom apartment there. The minimum wage in Arkansas is $8.50 an hour.


Massachusetts, where the minimum wage is $11 an hour, ranks as the sixth most expensive state, with a wage of $28.64 needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment ($59,571 a year). And in the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy metropolitan area, nearly five dollars an hour more is needed than the state figure, at $33.46 ($69,600 a year).





Downsizing to a one-bedroom apartment will only help so much.

According to the report, a one-bedroom is affordable for minimum-wage workers in only 22 counties in five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Those states all set their minimum wages higher than the federal minimum of $7.25.

In Massachusetts, renters would need to make $23.15 an hour to afford a one-bedroom, the report said. In the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy metropolitan area, that rises to $27.33.

Nationally, one would have to earn $17.90 an hour to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment or $22.10 an hour for a two-bedroom rental. That’s based on the common budgeting standard of spending a maximum of 30 percent of income on housing.

The report estimates that renters nationally make an average of $16.88 an hour. That means even those making above minimum wage struggle to afford rent.




The low-wage workforce is projected to grow over the next decade, particularly in service-sector jobs such as personal-care aides and food-preparation workers.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has tried cutting federal housing subsidies for the lowest-income Americans. As it stands, only 1 in 4 households eligible for federal rent assistance gets any help, the report said. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson recently proposed tripling rent for the poorest households and making it easier for housing authorities to impose work requirements on those receiving rent subsidies.

And these are the jobs that are being created Min wage jobs .. it is also where the shortage of workers are ,, shocking

And these are the jobs that are being created Min wage jobs .. it is also where the shortage of workers are ,, shocking

These don't look like minimum wage jobs to me

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/04/news/economy/health-care-workers-shortage/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/28/2018s-challenge-too-many-jobs-not-enough-workers/?utm_term=.368b740fd52e

http://www.mhlnews.com/labor-management/skilled-workers-shortage-top-challenge-2018

Don't know about any of that, but I don't think Trump would start that war. If you want to be cynical about it, he has too many properties that would be destroyed. But I, personally, don't see any evidence of him being a warmonger. And that certainly is not in the nature of one who considers himself a deal maker.
It actually was not a reference to Trump, more of one attributed to Einstein
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
What is the connection between what I supposedly propose and your belief that some people have and will always want wealth and power over others?Do you propose an absolute anarchy? or some controls? Should those people be eliminated?No Are they bad? Some are Do they do anything good? Some do Does getting rid of free market, or controlling the market, or abolish the market altogether, neutralize or do away with those people? Government can attempt to control them or be them. Do those people inherently exist in any sizable community of people no matter what the political structure of those communities is? Absolutely

These don't look like minimum wage jobs to me

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/04/news/economy/health-care-workers-shortage/index.html

Manufacturing jobs have been a problem for years now. The issue is having workers with the right skills in the right places.

Manufacturing jobs have been a problem for years now. The issue is having workers with the right skills in the right places.

Point is that these are skilled jobs, not minimum wage jobs, and there is a shortage of workers for them.

So why aren't people getting the skills to get these jobs?

These don't look like minimum wage jobs to me

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/04/news/economy/health-care-workers-shortage/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/28/2018s-challenge-too-many-jobs-not-enough-workers/?utm_term=.368b740fd52e

http://www.mhlnews.com/labor-management/skilled-workers-shortage-top-challenge-2018


largest number of new job openings -- about 423,200 -- will be for home health aides, the report found. Guess what they get paid

Firms that save money from the tax cuts may simply be unable to find more workers to hire at the price they are willing to pay.

thats the key phrase willing to pay ....

Point is that these are skilled jobs, not minimum wage jobs, and there is a shortage of workers for them.

So why aren't people getting the skills to get these jobs?

thay maybe skilled but the vast majority of new jobs pay min wage and even with the schooling companys do not want to pay

wife's been a nurse same place for 20 years the company gave 3.00 hr raise to all the nurses except her and 3 others 20 plus year nurses when ask why they didn't get a raise they were told the raises were incentive to keep new nurses so now an inexperienced nurse makes 1dollar less 20 year experienced Nurse basic answer be happy you have a job

My Daughter Is a skilled worker makes a great hourly rate but only can piece together 23 hours a week all hours of the day

landscaper canceled spring clean up because he had no help.. why bust your ass for 12 bucks an hour for 40 hrs when you work inside at amazon in AC and make the same money.... yes the economy is great ... but with out wage growth its like running on a treadmill sure it will improve your health make you feel good ... but when you get off your in the same place as you started

the vast majority of new jobs pay min wage

?

the number of workers earning minimum wage is statistically very small compared to the total number of hourly workers and a good percentage of those are teenagers....not people trying to rent two bedroom apartments in Cambridge and San Francisco

?

the number of workers earning minimum wage is statistically very small compared to the total number of hourly workers and a good percentage of those are teenagers....not people trying to rent two bedroom apartments in Cambridge and San Francisco
That's extremely deceptive and only the case if you look at hourly workers earning exactly the federal minimum wage. Many states have higher minimums that wouldn't be counted that way. Also nearly half of hourly workers earn less than 15 dollars an hour.

Adults earning just above minimum wage are the bigger issue.

That's extremely deceptive and only the case if you look at hourly workers earning exactly the federal minimum wage. Many states have higher minimums that wouldn't be counted that way. Also nearly half of hourly workers earn less than 15 dollars an hour.

Adults earning just above minimum wage are the bigger issue.

it was actually pretty straight forward and common sense..

largest number of new job openings -- about 423,200 -- will be for home health aides, the report found. Guess what they get paid
....

Funny, it says here that the average for a home health aide is $19 an hour and can be up to $30 an hour depending on location
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny, it says here that the average for a home health aide is $19 an hour and can be up to $30 an hour depending on location
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's likely factoring in management or director level people running the programs. I'd wager most home health aids and hospice workers are under 15 an hour. I have a family member who relies on them and they can barely survive.

that makes less sense than Spence suggesting the media was rough on Obama...and not nearly as funny

I understand, but I feel like we have gone through this with you before. It is like me blaming Feinstein because I have a hard time with quantum mechanics, and this ain't rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's likely factoring in management or director level people running the programs. I'd wager most home health aids and hospice workers are under 15 an hour. I have a family member who relies on them and they can barely survive.

"the average for a home health aide is $19 an hour and can be up to $30"

they didn't say management or director they said "home health aid"

you do understand that workers generally start at one pay level and then get things called raises for performance and longevity

It is like me blaming Feinstein because I have a hard time with quantum mechanics,

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about

Volume 30: Pages 57-59, 2017

Why do we live in a quantum world?

Craig Alan Feinstein
Anybody who has ever studied quantum mechanics knows that it is a very counterintuitive theory, even though it has been an incredibly successful theory. This paper aims to remove this counter intuitiveness by showing that the laws of quantum mechanics are a natural consequence of classical Newtonian mechanics combined with the digital universe hypothesis of Konrad Zuse and Edward Fredkin. We also present a possible way to test the digital universe hypothesis...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's likely factoring in management or director level people running the programs. I'd wager most home health aids and hospice workers are under 15 an hour. I have a family member who relies on them and they can barely survive.

Is that minimum wage?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It actually was not a reference to Trump, more of one attributed to Einstein
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Absolutely

So you admit that the people you referred to (some people have and will always want wealth and power over others) exist, in all societies. So that is an omnipresent problem. Can you name a country or political system where these people are not a problem? Is there something about what I refer to as a free market that makes these people a greater problem than in a government controlled market?

went from minimum wage to Einstein, Feinstein, World War 4 and quantum mechanics...don't know if I can hang with these geniuses :laugha:

"the average for a home health aide is $19 an hour and can be up to $30"

they didn't say management or director they said "home health aid"

you do understand that workers generally start at one pay level and then get things called raises for performance and longevity


Home Health Aide Salary. Home Health Aides in the United States are largely women. The group as a whole has a nationwide average of $10.33 per hour for pay. the agency might get paid 19-30 bucks an hour who provide's the home health aid worker


were do you guys get you info from??

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Home_Health_Aide/Hourly_Rate

Home Health Aide Salary. Home Health Aides in the United States are largely women. The group as a whole has a nationwide average of $10.33 per hour for pay. the agency might get paid 19-30 bucks an hour who provide's the home health aid worker


were do you guys get you info from??

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Home_Health_Aide/Hourly_Rate

you left these quotes out

"Job satisfaction for Home Health Aides is high."

"Earning a certificate from a recognized program can be done in as little and one and one-half semesters at any community college. This certificate qualifies graduates to work in entry-level positions as aides. "

"Home Health Aides who transition into a Registered Nurse role may receive large pay increases as the latter position pays an average $56K per year. Certified Nurse Assistants or Licensed Practical Nurses are common next-step roles for Home Health Aides moving up in their careers"

Point is that these are skilled jobs, not minimum wage jobs, and there is a shortage of workers for them.

So why aren't people getting the skills to get these jobs?

Now don't go around making logical points while Trump is the President, what you should be doing, is engaging in attacks.

There are a huge number of openings for skilled workers, these are not minimum wage jobs, these are jobs that won't let you buy a McMansion in Greenwich, but will let you buy a raised ranch in the Hartford suburbs.

"So why aren't people getting the skills to get these jobs"

Great question. Maybe getting those skills is something to consider, rather than amassing $200,000 in debt getting a useless liberal arts degree from a third tier private college.

you left these quotes out

"Job satisfaction for Home Health Aides is high."

"Earning a certificate from a recognized program can be done in as little and one and one-half semesters at any community college. This certificate qualifies graduates to work in entry-level positions as aides. "

"Home Health Aides who transition into a Registered Nurse role may receive large pay increases as the latter position pays an average $56K per year. Certified Nurse Assistants or Licensed Practical Nurses are common next-step roles for Home Health Aides moving up in their careers"

you conveniently left out how they are going to pay for this Transition on min wage Some can most can't but thats the illusion Facts on the ground do not support this Transition idea sure it happens but not in the feel good numbers they suggest

you conveniently left out how they are going to pay for this Transition on min wage Some can most can't but thats the illusion Facts on the ground do not support this Transition idea sure it happens but not in the feel good numbers they suggest

If you can't live on a home health aide salary (not sure how this became THE focal point), then keep going, enroll at a community college, and get a degree in nursing.

I can only imagine how different the spin on low unemployment would be., from Zimmy and WDMSO, if Hilary had won and if the democrats controlled congress.

If everyone is making barely above minimum wage, why is consumer confidence so high?

So you admit that the people you referred to (some people have and will always want wealth and power over others) exist, in all societies. So that is an omnipresent problem. Can you name a country or political system where these people are not a problem? Is there something about what I refer to as a free market that makes these people a greater problem than in a government controlled market?
The Bushmen and that is why I pointed you in the direction of that movie, but their society was disrupted by a coke bottle.
Societies way to manage "these People" has been government and control of markets.
As I understand what you propose, no controls are needed, the market will work as it works and life will be free of interference in any form. Is that correct?

I can only imagine how different the spin on low unemployment would be., from Zimmy and WDMSO, if Hilary had won and if the democrats controlled congress.


The irony of the "stuff" you say. Also, what is my spin? That low unemployment is good, but I am suspicious that Trumps policies are going to have a negative effect on the economy in coming years? If that is spin, you are a world class ballerina.

The irony of the "stuff" you say. Also, what is my spin? That low unemployment is good, but I am suspicious that Trumps policies are going to have a negative effect on the economy in coming years? If that is spin, you are a world class ballerina.

"Also, what is my spin?"

That in a macro sense, the economy isn't meaningfully healthier than it was on Obama's last day.

Sure, we need to talk about the debt and other potential pain points like inflatipn, but you, Spence and WDMSO, seem to be unable to consider the positives.

The Bushmen and that is why I pointed you in the direction of that movie, but their society was disrupted by a coke bottle.
Societies way to manage "these People" has been government and control of markets.

Who are you referring to by "these people," the Bushmen or the people who made the coke bottle, or the people who dropped it?

But, then, various degrees of authoritarian society manages all those people by various kinds of government control.

As I understand what you propose, no controls are needed, the market will work as it works and life will be free of interference in any form. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct. This is why I said you don't understand what I propose.

In order to have intelligent, fruitful, discussions, key words have to be defined, or, at least, correctly understood by all parties in the discussion. I have defined what I mean by free market and by freedom in various past posts. Perhaps you missed those posts. Perhaps you disagreed with them--but never rebutted them.

I'll try again. My concept of being "free" in relation to other people is that a free person does not coerce, or is not coerced by, other people. Many would consider that coercing others would be a mark of "freedom." But coercion of another results from needing something from whom you coerce. Ergo you are not free. Your coercion bonds you to those you coerce. Is Kim Jung Un free because he has near total power over his populace? No, he is trapped into depending on those who submit to his coercion.

What do I mean by a free market? A market in which neither party to a transaction coerces the other. If your objection to the viability of such a proposition is that there are always people who want power over others, therefor their will always be those who make the market unfree unless there is something to control them from doing so, I have on more than one occasion said that, concerning a free market, government control is not of the market, but of those who impose on market freedom. The role of government in a society based on freedom, is the protection of freedom. It is not the role of government to regulate "free" people, but to regulate (punish, etc.) those who coerce. It is not the role of government to regulate free behavior (that would be a contradiction), but to protect free behavior.

you conveniently left out how they are going to pay for this Transition on min wage Some can most can't but thats the illusion Facts on the ground do not support this Transition idea sure it happens but not in the feel good numbers they suggest

you just make it up as you go along...

No, that is not correct. This is why I said you don't understand what I propose.

In order to have intelligent, fruitful, discussions, key words have to be defined, or, at least, correctly understood by all parties in the discussion. I have defined what I mean by free market and by freedom in various past posts. Perhaps you missed those posts. Perhaps you disagreed with them--but never rebutted them.

I'll try again. My concept of being "free" in relation to other people is that a free person does not coerce, or is not coerced by, other people. Many would consider that coercing others would be a mark of "freedom." But coercion of another results from needing something from whom you coerce. Ergo you are not free. Your coercion bonds you to those you coerce. Is Kim Jung Un free because he has near total power over his populace? No, he is trapped into depending on those who submit to his coercion.

What do I mean by a free market? A market in which neither party to a transaction coerces the other. If your objection to the viability of such a proposition is that there are always people who want power over others, therefor their will always be those who make the market unfree unless there is something to control them from doing so, I have on more than one occasion said that, concerning a free market, government control is not of the market, but of those who impose on market freedom. The role of government in a society based on freedom, is the protection of freedom. It is not the role of government to regulate "free" people, but to regulate (punish, etc.) those who coerce. It is not the role of government to regulate free behavior (that would be a contradiction), but to protect free behavior.
It sounds so rational, even commonsensical, but I think perhaps innocent and could so easily be sidetracked by darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity.

"Also, what is my spin?"

That in a macro sense, the economy isn't meaningfully healthier than it was on Obama's last day.

Sure, we need to talk about the debt and other potential pain points like inflatipn, but you, Spence and WDMSO, seem to be unable to consider the positives.

You are either projecting or off your rocker.

You are either projecting or off your rocker.

Stock market is way up, unemployment is way down. Those were the same metrics used by many to conclude that Obama did a great job with the economy. If improving unemployment and the economy make Obama a good economic leader, why don't they make Trump a good economic leader?

I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.

Stock market is way up, unemployment is way down. Those were the same metrics used by many to conclude that Obama did a great job with the economy. If improving unemployment and the economy make Obama a good economic leader, why don't they make Trump a good economic leader?

I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.
For about the millionth time, because he didn't make the soup, he's just ladling it out. Look at the Dow and the other indexes and the unemployment rate and show me a Trump Jump. I don't see it.
I think you have all the cards that are left, if you check carefully you might find that they are Jokers and the Queen of Hearts.

I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.

Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck. I already did consider the positive and that is what I was referring to when I said you are projecting. Your must sit there hearing our voices in your head or something as you make stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.




Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was awesome :rotf2:

It sounds so rational, even commonsensical, but I think perhaps innocent and could so easily be sidetracked by darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity.

You seem to have a hard time answering a very direct, specific, rational, and commonsensical proposition with a direct answer. Trying to answer back to your vague, content empty responses just leads into rabbit holes heading to nowhere.

What do YOU propose to overcome what you claim is the ever present problem of those who want power over others. You seemed to imply that "control" is needed. Power over others is needed to control those who want power over others. Who do you propose should have such power?

And is that not what I said was the function of government in a free society--to "control" those who coerce, that is, punish those who wield unconsented power over others so that they don't continue to do so?

So, if that is too innocent, or too rational, or too commonsensical for you, then what brilliant, secret, unrevealed and undisclosed by you method do YOU propose? Or are you saying that it is futile to even try?

Should we just succumb to what you call the "darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity."

For about the millionth time, because he didn't make the soup, he's just ladling it out. Look at the Dow and the other indexes and the unemployment rate and show me a Trump Jump. I don't see it.
I think you have all the cards that are left, if you check carefully you might find that they are Jokers and the Queen of Hearts.

"he didn't make the soup, he's just ladling it out"

OK. So the fact that his background is in business and not community activism, that didn't instill a confidence in business that wasn't there before? Confidence has a big impact on the economy.

All the regulations he did away with, that didn't unleash any more potential of the markets?

The GOP tax cuts, which cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, instantly making every company more profitable and more valuable, that had zero effect? And the overseas cash that's coming back, that does nothing? Apple alone is paying a one-time tax of $38 billion to the feds, to bring back $250 billion in cash. That's $38 billion the feds have to help people, which they didn't have before.

The GOP tax cuts on individuals, which will obviously increase consumer spending, that had zero effect?

"show me a Trump Jump. I don't see it."

The slope of the line doesn't need to change. What matters, is that the Dow and unemployment are both continuing to head in favorable directions.

You refuse to concede that which doesn't serve your agenda. When my beliefs cannot stand up to irrefutable facts and common sense, that's the day I'll change my beliefs.

Obama helped the economy (see? I can say that even though I despise the man, and my head didn't explode). Trump is doing things to continue to help the economy.

Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck. I already did consider the positive and that is what I was referring to when I said you are projecting. Your must sit there hearing our voices in your head or something as you make stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck."

That was pretty funny, good comeback.

"I already did consider the positive"

Did you mention any of the positives in any of your posts on this thread? I may have missed that, all I saw from the lefties was negatives.

"I said you are projecting"

No, I'm not. As of right now, at this moment, unemployment is low, black unemployment is extremely low, the markets are up, consumer confidence is up, and most of us got a small bump in take home pay thanks to the tax cuts. Right now, at this very second, all of those things are irrefutably true, and all of those things are good. True or false? Please tell us, is that true or false?

Yes, we need to look forward, and consider potential pitfalls like debt and inflation and trade wars, etc.

Labor dept. should have released report on last quarter's wages. Anyone see them?

Labor dept. should have released report on last quarter's wages. Anyone see them?
My understanding is that real wages have dropped since the tax cuts.

Wait until our farmers start dumping crops they can't sell.

#tiredofwinning

Labor dept. should have released report on last quarter's wages. Anyone see them?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Some "fake" news

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wages-arent-growing-when-adjusted-for-inflation-new-data-finds-2018-07-17
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/07/18/why-wages-wont-rise-when-unemployment-falls/#6570b2ba5d9d
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/06/30/the-rich-world-needs-higher-real-wage-growth
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/397384-trumpism-wont-vanish-with-trump-unless-people-feel-better-off

Some "fake" news

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wages-arent-growing-when-adjusted-for-inflation-new-data-finds-2018-07-17
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/07/18/why-wages-wont-rise-when-unemployment-falls/#6570b2ba5d9d
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/06/30/the-rich-world-needs-higher-real-wage-growth
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/397384-trumpism-wont-vanish-with-trump-unless-people-feel-better-off

GOP answer Be thankful you even have a job ...or typical liberal thinking that some how they should get more money for free ... or if you want Higher wages find another job...

Wait thill the next Health Insurance increases kick in... who will Trump Blame for that???