WSJ: Liquidate
The Wall Street Journal has a clear and thoughtful piece about the inevitable Trump conflicts of interest. His business dealings are entangled with governments and financial institutions everywhere in the world. He is trying to get his family into the federal government even while they are running his business under a so-called "blind trust" that is not blind at all. He is promoting his business from a federal dot-gov website, holding press conferences and meetings at the hotels he owns -- there is too much already to list. It is scandal from bottom to top.
Here's WSJ's advice to him:
Yesterday Trump paid twenty five million dollars to settle a fraud case. He has been accused of sexual harassment by more than a dozen women, and was being sued for raping a thirteen-year-old girl but citing numerous threats and the certainty that her identity would become public she dropped the case. Trump has been sued an estimated 3,500 times and currently has approximately 75 outstanding suits against him. Pristine character? No, not this time. This guy is a trainwreck.
I love how the headline warns that "the left" is teeing this up as a daily target. The Wall Street Journal is so accustomed to defending Republicans from "the left" that I don't think they realize that this unethical man is everybody's nightmare. He is not a conservative and "the left" was divided in opposing him -- which helped him win. Most voters in the country voted against him. Not even the fake-news readers who voted for him agreed to let him mix his private business with the federal government for his own gain and our country's loss. I would think any citizen would question this every day. We have elected a con man and he is going to run his con as long as he can get away with it.
I sympathize this much: I am sure that Trump never expected to win this election. But he ran, and he won, and he has a choice. He can be President of the United States or he can be a private businessman. He can't be both. No, he can't give the business to his kids and then bring them in to meet with heads of state and political insiders. Remember "pay for play" face time, when Clinton Foundation donors, often heads of state themselves, met with the Secretary of State? Woo, big scandal.
Here is Ivanka Trump, an executor of the "blind trust," sitting in a meeting with her father and the Prime Minister of Japan. Unfair!
Look, nobody is surprised by this -- well, yes, we are all still surprised that he won. But America elected an unethical person President, and he is continuing to be unethical. That is not surprising.
And here is the bottom line: he is not bound by law to practice good ethics in this job. He is bound by reputation, by the reaction of his colleagues in government and the response of the citizens he represents. He is bound by political constraints, but only if he cares about having a good name, and he does not. Our Constitution did not anticipate someone like him, who just doesn't care. And so he can give the company to his kids on paper and then bring those same kids in to meet with foreign leaders and business connections, legally. If we accept this as normal then he will do it. It is not normal. It is not ethical. It is not good for the country. The people have to keep their eye on the ball. You can accept this or you can fight it. Your choice.
Here's WSJ's advice to him:
Mr. Trump’s best option is to liquidate his stake in the company. Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and President Obama, respectively, have laid out a plan, which involves a leveraged buyout or an initial public offering.Interestingly, and, actually, oddly, the President is the one person in government who is not bound by conflict-of-interest regulations. James Madison said it would be "vain" to suppose that leaders could always separate their self-concern from the national interest. I think that even with the wonderful skepticism of the authors of the Constitution, there was an assumption that the top office in the land would be held by a person of such high character that it wouldn't really be an issue. Give them the latitude to wheel and deal if they need to, certainly he or she will have the country's interests foremost in their decisions.
Mr. Trump could put the cash proceeds in a true blind trust. The Trump children can keep the assets in their name, and he can transfer more to them as long as he pays a hefty gift tax. Finally, Mr. Trump should stipulate that he and his children will have no communication about family business matters. The Trump Family Political Business: The left is already teeing this up as a daily target. Answer: liquidate.
Yesterday Trump paid twenty five million dollars to settle a fraud case. He has been accused of sexual harassment by more than a dozen women, and was being sued for raping a thirteen-year-old girl but citing numerous threats and the certainty that her identity would become public she dropped the case. Trump has been sued an estimated 3,500 times and currently has approximately 75 outstanding suits against him. Pristine character? No, not this time. This guy is a trainwreck.
I love how the headline warns that "the left" is teeing this up as a daily target. The Wall Street Journal is so accustomed to defending Republicans from "the left" that I don't think they realize that this unethical man is everybody's nightmare. He is not a conservative and "the left" was divided in opposing him -- which helped him win. Most voters in the country voted against him. Not even the fake-news readers who voted for him agreed to let him mix his private business with the federal government for his own gain and our country's loss. I would think any citizen would question this every day. We have elected a con man and he is going to run his con as long as he can get away with it.
The political damage to a new Administration could be extensive. If Mr. Trump doesn’t liquidate, he will be accused of a pecuniary motive any time he takes a policy position. For example, the House and Senate are eager to consider tax reform—and one sticking point will be the treatment of real estate, which will be of great interest to the Trump family business. Ditto for repealing the Dodd-Frank financial law, interest rates and so much more.The President is legally bound in two ways. He is subject to normal bribery laws, and he is bound by a provision in the Constitution known as the emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from taking money from foreign sources without the consent of Congress. He can make money off them, but if he commits an official act in exchange for a financial reward from another person or company, he can be prosecuted or impeached. The prosecution would have to prove quid pro quo... good luck with that.
The conflicts span the globe, including a loan from the Bank of China and likely dealings with sovereign-wealth funds. Along the way Mr. Trump could expose himself to charges, however unfair, that he is violating the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits public officials from accepting gifts or payment from foreign governments.
Mixing money and politics could undermine his pledge to “drain the swamp” in Washington. If a backlash allows Democrats to retake the House in 2018, Mr. Trump and his business colleagues would field subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee. Ranking minority member Elijah Cummings this week expressed his enthusiasm for such a project, and answering daily questions about this can’t be how Mr. Trump wants to spend his political capital.
I sympathize this much: I am sure that Trump never expected to win this election. But he ran, and he won, and he has a choice. He can be President of the United States or he can be a private businessman. He can't be both. No, he can't give the business to his kids and then bring them in to meet with heads of state and political insiders. Remember "pay for play" face time, when Clinton Foundation donors, often heads of state themselves, met with the Secretary of State? Woo, big scandal.
Look, nobody is surprised by this -- well, yes, we are all still surprised that he won. But America elected an unethical person President, and he is continuing to be unethical. That is not surprising.
And here is the bottom line: he is not bound by law to practice good ethics in this job. He is bound by reputation, by the reaction of his colleagues in government and the response of the citizens he represents. He is bound by political constraints, but only if he cares about having a good name, and he does not. Our Constitution did not anticipate someone like him, who just doesn't care. And so he can give the company to his kids on paper and then bring those same kids in to meet with foreign leaders and business connections, legally. If we accept this as normal then he will do it. It is not normal. It is not ethical. It is not good for the country. The people have to keep their eye on the ball. You can accept this or you can fight it. Your choice.
posted by JimK at 10:56 AM
20 Comments:
Sign the petition: Trump Must Divest from All Business Interests Before Taking Office
The liberal meltdown continues.
It is really quite amusing.
A Government Of, By, and For the Deplorables
"A frightening array of Islamophobes, xenophobes, homophobes, racists, and misogynists is assembling around President-elect Trump, normalizing the language and actions of hatred.
The joke had long been that if Donald Trump won the presidency, the White House would be reappointed with the gold-plated kitsch so prevalent in his real-estate holdings. A better choice, it seems, would be wicker, for if there ever was a basket of deplorables, it’s taking shape in the West Wing.
Most notable among them is Stephen K. Bannon, the former Breitbart News chief executive who will serve as Trump’s chief strategist. As Breitbart’s head honcho, Bannon told journalist Sarah Posner that he fashioned the website as “the platform for the alt-right,” the once-fringy movement that encompasses white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and hate-mongering conspiracy theorists. Bannon’s appointment won applause, according to The Washington Post’s David Weigel, from white nationalist leader Richard Spencer, who is convening a conference in Washington, D.C., this weekend at the Ronald Reagan building. But Bannon is but one of a number of appointees, advisers, and potential cabinet members who have been tagged by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate-mongers.
Friday morning brought word of Trump’s appointment for attorney general: Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who, during the campaign, said that he didn’t think the act described by Trump as his right in that leaked Access Hollywood video—the nonconsensual grabbing of women’s genitals—amounted to sexual assault. Sessions was denied Senate confirmation for a federal judgeship in 1986 because of allegations that he addressed a black attorney as “boy,” and said he was OK with the Ku Klux Klan except for the fact that its members smoked marijuana.
In response to the election of Donald Trump to the White House, one of the largest chapters of the Ku Klux Klan announced it would have a victory parade in North Carolina. And Trump was famously endorsed by David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan..."
"...The night before the Sessions appointment was announced, Trump appointed retired General Michael Flynn to be his national security adviser, a post that does not require confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Flynn, according to The New York Times, has advanced the false narrative that Sharia law—a religious code adhered to by Muslims—is being written into U.S. law. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes Flynn as an adviser to ACT for America, an anti-Islam group that SPLC describes as convening and annual “racist gathering.”
In February, Flynn tweeted, “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL.” The new national security adviser is said to be considering a plan that would require all Muslims in the United States to register with the government—an idea also pushed by Trump adviser Kris Kobach, who currently serves as the Kansas secretary of state. (On Thursday, Carl Higbie, who runs a pro-Trump super PAC, told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II provided legal precedent for such a registry.) It was Kobach who fashioned the language used by Trump during the campaign for building a wall on the southern border, and making Mexico pay for it. Kobach was also the mastermind of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, the law that empowers police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone, anytime.
As the point person for domestic policy on his transition team, Trump chose Ken Blackwell, the senior fellow for human rights and constitutional governance at the Family Research Council, which is designated by SPLC as an anti-LGBT hate group.
And let’s not forget Trump’s own anti-Semitic coding about alleged secret meetings between rival Hillary Clinton and “international banks” and “global financial powers” to plot “the destruction of U.S. sovereignty.”
The FBI just released its annual compendium of hate-crime incidents for the year 2015, finding a marked uptick—a 67 percent increase—in hate crimes against Muslims. While not all are attributable to the environment created by the Republican presidential campaign, Trump and the people around him have been loudly banging the war drums against Muslims and non-white immigrants for years. And just since the election, SPLC has collected anecdotes of some 400 incidents of hate directed against people for some aspect of their identity, be it religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
On November 12 in East Windsor, Connecticut, Trump acolytes gathered around a bonfire, joined by a man dressed in the white robes of the KKK, according to police. The next day, at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, anonymously authored flyers titled “Why White Women Shouldn’t Date Black Men” were distributed on campus. Two days later, the university condemned the screed—which said that black men were more likely to abuse women, give them sexually transmitted diseases and produce stupid children—and its appearance on campus. Then there was my own Election Day experience in Manhattan, when a normal-looking young man, accusing me of stepping in front of him as I walked to a cab as directed by a taxi-line dispatcher, called me a c**t and screamed he hoped Trump would win. Looks like he got his wish."
If they start making registries for people - Muslims, immigrants, or whatever, I recommend we all sign up for as many as possible.
If you get enough liberal people standing in solidarity with our fellow Americans, it will render their attempts to divide everyone useless. It will become pretty damn expensive to try and sort everyone out and put them into "camps." It will also be an opportunity to meet new and interesting people!
Cynthia
According to a preliminary study of exit poll data by Pew Research Group, Trump won 52 percent of the Catholic vote, 58 percent of the Protestant vote, and, broken down further by race, a whopping 81 percent of the white evangelical Christian vote.
If you’re a Christian who voted for Trump, I understand your concerns — jobs, the economy, health care, national security, frustration with the political status quo. What I don’t understand is your heart. All factors considered, were Trump’s calls for massive deportation of immigrants, along with his anti-Semitic dog whistling, racist commentary, documented history of misogyny and his mocking of the vulnerable, worth overlooking in favor of his shaky promises to make things better in your world? If, as Christians, we’re supposed to love our neighbor, a vote for Trump seems a little suspect. Am I wrong? If so, tell me how.
When asked whether he thought his incendiary campaign rhetoric had gone too far, Trump responded, “No. I won.” What a guy. Now he’s staffing up with his own (unqualified) family and a website publisher who’s been accused of beating his wife and channeling white-supremacist ideology. In the space of two weeks, it feels as if we’ve shifted from a democracy to a triage center. Jesus wept.
===
In The Washington Post, Sarah Pulliam Bailey reported on a deepening divide within the evangelical Christian community, exacerbated by the election. She quoted Eugene Cho, the pastor of an evangelical church in Seattle: “The election has made things more hostile or given permission to people to be more aggressive on both sides.”
She also reported that Cho, who pledged to never endorse a candidate from the pulpit, joined a group of evangelicals who condemning Trump, arguing that his campaign “affirms racist elements in white culture.” The letter, which was also backed by about 80 other pastors and faith leaders, Pulliam wrote, “decried Trump’s comments on women, Muslims, immigrants, refugees and the disabled.”
Some evangelicals, disheartened by the strong turnout for Trump among their purported fellow believers, are prepared to jump ship entirely. Writer and activist Preston Yancey tweeted on election night: “So I guess I’m not an evangelical. Because I’m not whatever the hell this is.”
If it reassures me, perhaps it’s similarly comforting to nonreligious folk to know that while some Christians see Trump as America’s Great White Hope, the rest of us see an Anglo-Saxon pharisee with a spray tan. The fantastic tweet stream of the Rev. Broderick Greer, an Episcopalian priest, is a glorious model of righteous fire: “If it’s not good news for refugees, LGBTQ folks, and women — and people living at all of those intersections — it’s not the gospel of Jesus,” reads one tweet. Another declares, “To plaster ‘Jesus’ on heterosexism, sexism, racism, classism, militarism, or transantagonism is to betray all that he did and is.”
“Our marching orders are the same. We are still about the same things we’ve always been about, Christian(s). We will still love our neighbors and resist fear. We will stick up for the marginalized and protect the vulnerable. ”
“We will show up for the hard work of good citizenship and remain faithful to God and each other. We will insist on bringing hope and grace and strength and love to this busted up world. We will not malign people out of fear or confusion. We will love God and love people and that is the same basic plan it has always been.”
If you want to help a man, don't give him a fish - TEACH him to fish.
Trump will do that. He will also insist that people GO BACK TO WORK.
You do a person no favors by handing them money they have not earned. You take from them their pride, they begin to feel they are entitled to that unearned money, and will lash out quickly at anyone who would insist that they work for a living. Or who would insist that they or others like them really aren't entitled to other peoples money. One has to look no further than Priya.
Immigrants who came here illegally and are asked to return home have no-one to blame but Obama, who overstepped his authority in signing illegal executive orders. Canada enforces its borders and so does Mexico.
The election can be summed up quite simply - those of us who work for a living were tired of paying for those of you who don't.
And it didn't help that you were calling all of us still pulling this economy along bigots and racists.
But keep it up guys, I invite you to keep it up. It worked so well this last election.
If you still don't get it, listen to this, it might help you understand :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VREa-8-UK3A
and keep telling us we are cruel, because we are not.
or you could try reading this :
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/140986
I see, you were so upset because some immigrants mistakenly thought America was a land of opportunity that you decided to put a low-life gangster and con man in charge of the country. That was a great way to express your superiority. Very smart -- that'll show them!
OK, your government is now just another arm of the Trump business. He is looking out for himself and his family. Call me in four years and let me know how well that worked for you.
I have no issue with immigrants as long as they come here legally.
And we will see how it plays out.
With 94 million people not working, and 47 million on food stamps, and a higher level of poverty than anytime since the Great Depression...... no where to go but up !
It makes perfect sense. Some people are poor and need help. Therefore we should pick the most vulgar, unprincipled, thin-skinned fraud we can find and put him in charge of the country. This is really going to work. It's brilliant.
Yeah Theresa, we've seen that kind of over-simplified caricature of liberals before. It's nit anything new, and the whole premise it operates under is simply false. Here is some more reading for you:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/
"Or who would insist that they or others like them really aren't entitled to other peoples money. One has to look no further than Priya."
Priya is in Canada hon. Could you find anyone closer?
I happen to know teens that were kicked out of ther homes and adult workers that were kicked out of their jobs when they came out as trans. I used to think we had government programs to help these folks out. But that doesn't seem to really be the case. Once they ran out of rent money, they went to their cars, a homeless shelter, a tent in the woods, or depended on the good graces of friends. I have not seen ANY of them get ANY housing assistance.
Food assistance was only slightly better. I know of one who got some for a short time after months of fighting back and forth over paperwork. I have not heard of any others actually receiving any aid.
Keep in mind, these were people that WANTED to work.
Most of them are finally working again, but it typically takes a couple of years for them to get back into the workplace, and it is typically at places that don't pay nearly as much, nor are they utilizing all of their skills.
Meanwhile, you and your CRG cronies do everything you can to publicly demonize LGBT people, and make it difficult for them to find work, and them harass them when they can't find a job in the toxic environment you helped create. So yeah, you are cruel. Be honest about it at least.
Imagine if we turned the whole paedophile Catholic priest thing into a movement to get Catholics out of their jobs because apparently, Catholics are creating an atmosphere that is conducive to paedophilia, and soppose you lost your job because your boss knows you're a Catholic. Now I'm going to sit here and harass you for being jobless. Does that sound cruel to you? Think about it for a while. Think about what it would be like if it actually happened to YOU.
We had something called "The Welfare Reform Act of 1996.". It put in work requirements and time limits for federal aid. Some places also include drug testing.
I don't know who is getting federal aid, but as far as I can tell, it's not a lot of people - even ones who can show the need.
As for Trump, his business record is the best indicator of what might happen in the future. Get ready for some major bankruptcies, and him and his rich cronies coming out on top when the dust settles.
Cynthia
Cynthia.
The Washington Post is not a factual source.
I like this site since it takes it's numbers right from the CBO site, but makes them more readable :
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2015USbn_18bs2n_10408012#usgs302
if you add 361.9 (welfare) to 446.4 (under health so medicaid) to 154.1 (ss disability) you get 962.4 Trillion dollars on govt assistance versus a total of 3.7 T in spending. 26%. And I didn't even explode the rest of the groups to see if there were more categories that really should be placed under welfare. Note, Government spending was running about 2.8 trillion or so when Obama took office.
Priya spends hours on line criticizing folks who spend their days working. Calling them greedy and selfish, etc,etc.
And Obama took the work requirement out of the Welfare reform act of 1996.... Also a violation of his executive powers.
In case you didn't know....
And obama extended welfare to able bodied single americans.
which of course, is part of the reason we have 94 million people out of the work force.
Politifact: ‘We have 93 million people out of work’:
"It includes every American of retirement age -- 65 and older. It includes every high-school student at least 16 years of age. It includes every college and many graduate or professional-school students. It includes every person who has a disability that makes it impossible for them to work. It includes parents who are choosing to stay home to take care of their kids. It includes every adult who’s gone back to school full-time. It even includes trust-fund kids who are living off investments."
"Most of Trump’s 93 million "don’t want to work and are not in the job market," said Tara Sinclair, chief economist at Indeed and associate professor at George Washington University."
"'The fact that these adults are jobless is not a marker of economic failure -- it is an indicator of a very prosperous society that can afford to permit the old and disabled to retire, that can invest in young adults so they can improve their skills, and that can keep some adults in the home where they can care for children or attend to other non-paying pursuits,' [a Brookings researcher] said."
Follow the link.
On Feb. 28, 2011, the president broadly directed his administration to work with state, local and tribal officials to find ways to provide more flexibility in complying with federal regulations. As a result, the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services solicited recommendations from state officials on how to improve its programs.
One of the responses ACF received was from Kristen Cox, executive director of the Utah Department of Workforce Services. “Utah is especially interested in the development of a waiver authority in the TANF grant,” the Aug. 1, 2011, letter said.
The Utah letter said the federal work-participation rules focused too much on process and not enough on outcome. “The lack of focus on outcomes makes the program less about the need to help parents find and retain work and more about the need to assure that parents are active in prescribed [work] activities,” the letter said.
Utah expressly said it would not use a federal waiver to avoid work requirements. “The expectation to participate fully in specific [work] activities leading to employment is not the issue,” the letter stated. Instead, Utah was seeking the flexibility to overcome the “narrow definitions of what counts [toward work participation] and the burdensome documentation and verification process.”
The Obama administration cited the Utah letter when it announced its new policy on July 12. The policy provides exactly the kind of flexibility Utah was seeking.
Under the new policy, states may receive a waiver if they submit plans for a “demonstration project” (not to exceed five years) that provides a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment.” States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes a “set of performance measures that states will track to monitor ongoing performance and outcomes.” States also must set up “interim performance targets” and, if states fail to meet those, they will be “required to develop improvement plans.”
“Repeated failure to meet performance benchmarks may lead to the termination of the waiver demonstration pilot,” the rules state.
Is Obama “dropping work requirements,” as Romney’s ad claims? No. He is allowing states to change the work requirements, but he is not dropping them. The changes could be made to a variety of federal requirements, including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”
A lot will depend on what a state proposes and how it is implemented. There is nothing inherent in the waivers that guts work requirements.
"Priya spends hours on line criticizing folks who spend their days working. Calling them greedy and selfish, etc,etc."
Funny, I don't recall you complaining when "Christians" here were calling hard working trans people "sexual deviants," "brow skirts," "mentally ill," and "confused guys in dresses that will invade our privacy!" Etc, etc.
It has been about 8 years since 23-07, Theresa. How many instances of rape or privacy invasion have occurred in Montgomery County because of this "bad law?"
I find it hilarious that you guys think that you are so holy and morally superior that you can get away with denigrating and harassing a medical minority for years and expect those same people to treat you with some kind of deference and respect. Humans don't work that way. If you throw crap on someone long enough, eventually they are bound to throw some back.
Don't blame them when it happens - you are the ones that started it.
If you want people to treat you decently, you have to make an effort to treat them that way first. Most people started figuring that out in second grade.
It was only in the last couple of years that one of you grudgingly admitted I might actually be an "uh, person."
When you treat people like crap, expect them to treat you the same way.
Cynthia
Job participation rate over the past 10 years...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Adjust it to look at the data since 1948. (top of the page and hit go) take a look at the Obama years and compare them to the Reagan years.
Pretty enlightening.
Government website.
And I group Politfact right there with the Washington Post.
Better to go to the source whenever possible.
It is not just me that Priya calls names, it is anyone that the left disagrees with ....
They have made it a habit. Racist, bigot, homophobe, ... etc.
As I said, keep it up it is working SO WELL for you.
Don't discuss policy, call names.
"And I group Politfact right there with the Washington Post."
Obviously, anything that doesn't conform to your preconceived notions must be a lie. Why bother listening to scientists when you can make up conspiracy theories to fit your agenda? It's a whole lot easier than adjusting your world view to fit new evidence.
"Adjust it to look at the data since 1948. (top of the page and hit go) take a look at the Obama years and compare them to the Reagan years."
Sure, I'll bite. There's something you have to keep in mind here, and it's called the Baby Boom." Perhaps you heard of it. It roughly runs from 1946 to 1965, and about 82 million babies were popped out by randy heterosexuals during that time. By 1981, when Regan took office, they ranged in age from 16 to 35. Conveniently, the BLS statistics start at age 16. So Regan got into office just as the full load of baby boomers hit working age. Good for him.
Now hold on tight here, because I'm going to do some math.
Those first baby boomers, born in 1946, started turning 64 (average of 62 and 66 for partial and full benefit retirees) and retiring in 2010 - one year after Obama took office in January 2009, and shortly after the start of the Bush recession in late 2008.
Boomers are retiring at the rate of about 10,000 per day, and will continue to do so until 2032, as the full retirement age increased to 67 for the later boomers. That's about 3.65 million more retirees each year, and being the "sex, drugs, and rock and roll generation," they have some health issues, so expect those costs to go up.
This is not a surprise. You may recall All Gore saying we needed to put our Social Security surplus of the time into a "lock box" so money would be there waiting for them when they started retirng in 2010. He got laughed off the stage.
We have been giving corporations tax breaks and reduced regulations since Regan took office. They were supposed to "create new jobs" with all that money. Instead they gave us a bunch of investment bubbles and jobs for pennies a day in other countries.
How come they didn't create new jobs for all these retirees? Why doesn't my grocery store have "greeters" like Walmart does? Surely there must be something those old farts can be useful for now.
The job participation rate is down 5 points from the peak during the Clinton years. I expect it to go even lower during the Trump years. Not entirely due to Trump, but he certainly won't do anything to help the situation. He simply can't do anything to change the age demographic, unless he decides to deport them all. That would certainly make the the job participation rate improve.
So go ahead and blindly compare the Reagan years to the Obama years and ignore the hugr fundamental problem lying underneath. As long as you can make Obama look bad, you can avoid real policy issues.
Cynthia
you know what Cynthia, that's a completely valid point that I did not consider.
You would have to adjust this data for the average retirement age and only look at the percent of the population that is truly working age.
If the graph considers all folks, and there are more seniors over 62-62, you are correct that percent of folks in the work force will go down. That is valid if the baby boom indeed produced babies at a much higher percentage of the population than regular. I will assume your assertion is correct that it did. Then of course we will have a lower percentage in the work force than during the Reagan years.
So a valid number is only the percent of people working that are of working age.
I will look for that statistic over the T-day holiday.
you did not address the 26% percent of spending headed towards govt. assistance.
any thoughts ?
“Welcome to Washington! Please be advised that Sexual Assault is a crime according to local and federal statutes. Enjoy your stay!”
Post a Comment
<< Home