The worker then ends up doing more for less. That's not a raise.
President Trump
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
newfie
Well-Known Member
we did . enjoy the ride
newfie
Well-Known Member
it appears you cut out the good part where trump takes it down to a good result?
I did nothing of the sort. I'm showing you the trend. Do you see the trend?
Jkloc420
Do you need an air compressor or tire gauge
fedex will give you a raise
I highly doubt it.
newfie
Well-Known Member
this conversation highlights the obama excuses. when we would say the number suck your apologist would say but look at the trend. its getting marginally better.
In this case we were talking about the all time lows that are taking place under trump and you seem to have excluded that from your trend?
newfie
Well-Known Member
the worker has always been expected to do more for more money. it was especially true under Obama but ignored in your logic then.
I highly doubt it.
Ummmm. Economics is all about trends.
newfie
Well-Known Member
as a small business man he will see significant tax cuts but will still be on here biting the hand that has done this for him?
why? because the race baiters tell him he should hate the old white guy president.
newfie
Well-Known Member
umm show the complete trend then.
You were crowing about the final year and a half. I pointed out the previous 15.
newfie
Well-Known Member
which you omitted for arguments sake.
I could say the same about you.
But you had no idea about the trend, did you?
Oh. I see the problem. From the last year of the Obama administration to the end of the first year of the Trump administration the Hispanic unemployment rate dropped from 4.8% to 4.7%. No wonder you just wanna talk about "lowest in history" and ignore the previous 15 years. What a tool.
newfie
Well-Known Member
it was sad seeing minorities suffer under Obama's misguided economic policies. Its sad seeing you try to distract and apologize for those poor results.
floridays
Well-Known Member
The tax reform bill they are pushing through the Senate will live and die by a complicated rule — known as the “Byrd Rule,” a condition of the “budget reconciliation” process that allows Republicans to pass legislation with only 51 votes in the Senate. Because of how they set it up, Republicans’ tax bill can only increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion in the first 10 years, with no increase outside that window.
The Byrd Rule is the price of partisan politics
At the beginning of this year, with a bare 52-vote majority, far short of the 60-vote filibuster threshold, Republican leadership devised a plan to bypass Democrats altogether on major legislation: They would tie their major agenda items to the budget through “budget reconciliation,” a bill that can impact spending, revenue, or the debt ceiling with only a party-line vote in the Senate.
It’s a process President Bill Clinton used to pass welfare reform in 1996 and President George W. Bush used to pass tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. It’s how President Barack Obama got several budgetary amendments to the Affordable Care Act passed. Republicans also attempted to use budget reconciliation to try to pass an Obamacare repeal bill in the Senate
As Vox’s Dylan Scott explained, any bill being passed under reconciliation has to comply with every section of the six-part Byrd Rule. “If it fails any one of those tests, it must be stripped out”:
1. The provision must change federal spending or revenue.
2. If the bill does not meet the budget resolution’s instructions to reduce the federal deficit, any provision that results in either increased spending or decreased revenue is removed until it does meet those targets.
3. The provision must only affect policies that fall under the jurisdiction of the specific committees that were instructed in the budget resolution.
4, The provision’s effect on spending or revenues must be more than incidental to its policy impact.
5. The provision cannot increase the federal deficit at some point in the future, beyond the typical 10-year “budget window” that is used to evaluate legislation.
6. The provision cannot change Social Security.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Would take 60 votes to do that.
