You can ignore authors, whether they are producing too much noise or being needlessly provocative, by clicking the yellow unhappy when reading their post.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 12
The Biden administration added a whopping 272,000 jobs to the economy in May. Once again, a jobs report number that has blown up all expectations for the month. The unemployment rate has been at or below 4.0% for 30 months running. And wages outpaced inflation.
But if you're thinking let's rehire that convicted felon who lost 2.7 million jobs in four years and added nearly 8 trillion dollars to the debt, you're in a cult.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yep.
White 401K Corporatist Fascist Bush-Cheney-Trumpy Liberals got more people to work to generate profits, in exchange for shitty purchasing power.
Good job.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yeah, let's look at the jobs report.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf?ut...Both the unemployment rate, at 4.0 percent, and the number of unemployed people, at 6.6 million,
changed little in May. A year earlier, the jobless rate was 3.7 percent, and the number of unemployed
people was 6.1 million. (See table A-1.)To determine the significance of the added 500k unemployed we would need to dive into population numbers.
When you read the actual report, you see the phrasing "little changed" a lot. Meaning, not much movement in either direction. Hardly a "monster" anything.
What about wages?
In May, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 14 cents,
or 0.4 percent, to $34.91. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 4.1
percent. In May, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees
increased by 14 cents, or 0.5 percent, to $29.99. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)This would be good to compare to inflation rates.
No. of Recommendations: 11
What about wages?
In May, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 14 cents,
or 0.4 percent, to $34.91. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 4.1
percent. In May, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees
increased by 14 cents, or 0.5 percent, to $29.99. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
This would be good to compare to inflation rates.
Basic Info. US Core Inflation Rate is at 3.61%, compared to 3.80% last month and 5.52% last year. This is lower than the long term average of 3.68%. The Core US Inflation Rate is one of the most important metrics for the US Economy.
So they gained some in wages on inflation, and we have good jobs numbers. Much better than Trumpolinas job numbers, so Biden is doing a better job, as expected.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Biden administration added a whopping 272,000 jobs to the economy in MaySNIP
“Despite President Joe Biden touting his economic “accomplishments,” a new report reveals that there are more foreign born workers in the United States than American workers.
New Bureau of Labor Statistics data released this week found that there are 637,000 non-American citizen workers in the country. On the contrary, nearly 300,000 native-born Americans lost their jobs.
Economist E.J. Antoni told The Federalist that the government has added a significant amount of jobs that are primarily only held by foreign born workers, leaving Americans struggling to look for jobs.
“No wonder Americans view economy so terribly: they aren’t the ones [with] the jobs; native-born employment is not only millions below pre-pandemic trend, but even below pre-pandemic level, while millions more foreign workers are employed today than Feb ’20, and back to trend,” Antoni wrote on X.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2024/06/...KremlinJoe is a sick feeble old man and his phony baloney new border rules will not stop the flow of robbers, murders, sex traffic scum, drug runners, cartel gangs members, free loaders from entering America.
No. of Recommendations: 19
LurkerMom:
SNIP
“Despite President Joe Biden touting his economic “accomplishments,” a new report reveals that there are more foreign born workers in the United States than American workers.Say what, now?
The Heritage Foundation's economist thinks there are more foreign born workers in the United States than American workers?
From your link, the data in Antoni's link shows (numbers in thousands):
Native Born Civilian labor force (age 16 and older)....... 135,453
Foreign Born Civilian labor force (age 16 and older)........31,249
LurkerMom:
Economist E.J. Antoni told The Federalist that the government has added a significant amount of jobs that are primarily only held by foreign born workers, leaving Americans struggling to look for jobs.Again, what now?
The government? The government didn't add 272,000 jobs in May. In fact, government jobs declined from April to May.
And "significant"? Well, sure, that's what you expect to hear from a numbers-driven economist.
Finally,
primarily only held by foreign born workers?
Primarily? And exactly what kinds of jobs are only held by foreign born workers, anyway?
But, hey, this comes from Townhall and an economist on Xhitter, so it must all be accurate and true.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf?ut...
No. of Recommendations: 12
his phony baloney new border rules
You all had a shot at much better border rules. The bill was all set to pass Congress and Biden was going to sign it. Then felon Trump told his minions to shoot the bill down so he could run on border policy.
Don't complain about border policies when you don't take advantage of your opportunity to improve them. You left President Biden no option but to try to do something less effective via executive orders.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 3
You all had a shot at much better border rules. The bill was all set to pass Congress and Biden was going to sign it.
I realize this is a great talking point at cocktail parties but the reality is that Johnson said it was DOA in the House way before Trump said anything.
That bill sucked, as we covered here.
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 5
Dope:
I realize this is a great talking point at cocktail parties but the reality is that Johnson said it was DOA in the House way before Trump said anything.
Oohh? What's this?
SNIP Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team gave the clearest signal yet that the emerging Senate deal on border security and immigration is DOA in the House.
On a House GOP conference call Sunday night, Johnson said Congress can’t solve the crisis at the border until Donald Trump or another Republican is in the White House. And Johnson reiterated that his position is that H.R. 2 — the hardline House GOP border-security bill — is the House Republicans’ negotiating position.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise also said the Senate border deal goes in a different direction than H.R. 2 and is a non-starter in the House.
Let’s unpack this. For starters, it puts Johnson and Scalise — the top two House Republicans — on a completely different wavelength than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. As we scooped Thursday, McConnell told GOP senators during a closed-door meeting that they need to “take the deal” that Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) is negotiating with Democrats.
McConnell also explicitly said there’s no way a border deal materializes with Trump in the White House. The time for action is now, with Democrats at the negotiating table and willing to accept serious border restrictions in exchange for foreign aid.
So when it comes to the legislative strategy, Johnson and McConnell are diametrically opposed to one another SNIP
It sure looks like Johnson got advised by Trump because his position is that it can't be solved unless Trump, etc., is in the White House.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That bill was DOA even if Trump said he would support it.
Why?
Because it was terrible.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Dope1: I realize this is a great talking point at cocktail parties but the reality is that Johnson said it was DOA in the House way before Trump said anything.
Nope.
Convicted felon Trump, January 18 on Truth Social: “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions & Millions of people, many from parts unknown, into our once great, but soon to be great again, Country!”
Speaker Johnson in a January 26 letter to colleagues: “I wanted to provide a brief update regarding the supplemental and the border, since the Senate appears unable to reach any agreement. If rumors about the contents of the draft proposal are true, it would have been dead on arrival in the House anyway.”
You're in a cult.
No. of Recommendations: 4
That bill was DOA even if Trump said he would support it.
Why?
Because it was terrible
BS. Y'all had to wait a bit before you were told what to say. That BS line was the best way to cover your tracks after you killed it.
No. of Recommendations: 7
"KremlinJoe is a sick feeble old man and his phony baloney new border rules will not stop the flow of robbers, murders, sex traffic scum, drug runners, cartel gangs members, free loaders from entering America."
Cultists are the ones who prefer the current status quo on the border than trying to do something to improve it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4412413-border...Senate Republicans forge ahead on border bill over Speaker Johnson’s opposition
BY AL WEAVER - 01/17/24 6:00 AM ETSpeaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) signals that a potential border bill would likely be a no-go for House Republicans are being disregarded among many in the Senate GOP.
Johnson reportedly told his members on a conference call over the weekend that the border cannot be secured without a Republican in the White House, and Saturday circulated a Fox News display laying out what it believed to be in the bill and said he would “absolutely not” accept that package.When you wake up one day and you meet an idiot, at the end of a day you've met an idiot.
When you wake up every day and all you meet are idiots, and the end of the day...you're the idiot.
Embrace your identity, ChatNPC.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nope.
Senate Republicans forge ahead on border bill over Speaker Johnson’s opposition
BY AL WEAVER - 01/17/24 6:00 AM ET
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4412413-border...Johnson reportedly told his members on a conference call over the weekend that the border cannot be secured without a Republican in the White House, and Saturday circulated a Fox News display laying out what it believed to be in the bill and said he would “absolutely not” accept that package.That Saturday was 1/13.
The bill was a bad one, as we discussed here. Here's the kicker:
Border state democrats in the House would have voted against it also.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Dope:Nope.
Senate Republicans forge ahead on border bill over Speaker Johnson’s opposition
BY AL WEAVER - 01/17/24 6:00 AM ET>/i>
Yep. Mine was 1-15 - see below and
January 15, 2024
On a border deal, it’s Johnson vs. McConnell
And the call was SNIP On a House GOP conference call Sunday night, Johnson said Congress can’t solve the crisis at the border until Donald Trump or another Republican is in the White House. And Johnson reiterated that his position is that H.R. 2 — the hardline House GOP border-security bill — is the House Republicans’ negotiating position.SNIP
So that call was 1-14, not 1-13, and it is obvious that Johnson was talking to Trump because he said passing anything required Trump, etc., in the White House. :) Dope loses again.
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. of Recommendations: 4
Perhaps. We'll never know because Trump decreed it die, and Johnson said "yessir".
As BHM lamented at the time, it's a shame it wasn't debated and voted on. Then if it failed, so be it.
It was the best bill you will ever get for another generation or more. The circumstances have now changed, and even that bill likely wouldn't pass today because it was mostly stick, very little carrot. If allowances aren't made for DREAMERs, it is almost certainly dead before it is even proposed.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Perhaps. We'll never know because Trump decreed it die, and Johnson said "yessir".
Again, you guys can chant this, but literally nobody in the conservosphere was going "Yay! A bipartisan border bill! Wow! How cool!" and certainly no one on the GOP side in the House of Representatives was.
The root issue here is that you guys really do believe that this bill was a great thing, don't you? I get that you guys like to tout the fact that for the first time in decades the democrats actually negotiated something, but that says a lot more about the d's than the R's.
It was the best bill you will ever get for another generation or more. The circumstances have now changed, and even that bill likely wouldn't pass today because it was mostly stick, very little carrot. If allowances aren't made for DREAMERs, it is almost certainly dead before it is even proposed.
Think so, eh?
Why did Biden take executive action - that this board except for yours truly said was impossible - to stem the tide?
No. of Recommendations: 6
The root issue here is that you guys really do believe that this bill was a great thing, don't you?
Not really. That's the nature of compromise. If neither side is really happy with it, then it's probably a reasonable compromise. If one side loves it, it almost certainly won't pass because the other side will hate it. All I said was that it was the best bill you (the right) were going to get for the next generation or more. I didn't say you would be doing handsprings. The Dem caucus was only grudgingly accepting of it because it had Ukraine aid. Remove that, and they hated it.
As for Biden's EO, it will likely fail in the courts. Just like his last one did, and Trump's before that.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Dope1: Again, you guys can chant this, but literally nobody in the conservosphere was going "Yay! A bipartisan border bill! Wow! How cool!"
Not when the leader of the republican party, now a convicted felon, told republicans to kill it before even reading the bill.
Dope1: The root issue here is that you guys really do believe that this bill was a great thing, don't you?
You have a habit of incorrectly telling people what they think or believe.
Many democrats were unenthused about a bill that did not address the status of Dreamers but were willing to accept considerably less than they would otherwise for a few reasons: 1.) the bill would implement necessary changes to address a chaotic border crisis; 2.) the bill ended the practice of 'catch and release,' a perpetual thorn in their side -- migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews; and 3.) migrants who come to the U.S. border at official ports of entry would be diverted to a new "removal authority program" in which they would have 90 days to make their initial asylum interviews. Those migrants would not be released into the interior of the U.S., either; they would either be detained or kept under government supervision.
In short, the bill would have made significant improvements at the border, changes endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.
But the convicted felon Donald Trump wants as much chaos at the border as possible. Like he said at his rally in Las Vegas: "I don't care about you. I just want your vote."
And to stay out of prison.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not when the leader of the republican party, now a convicted felon, told republicans to kill it before even reading the bill.
You've been proven wrong on this. You've convinced yourselves that everyone was in love with this bill - just read this thread - and that changed when Trump showed up and told "his cult" to oppose it.
But your problem is this: This bill sucks. We talked about it here; it was terrible. As such, it was going to fail the second it hit the House floor.
I'll put it to you this way: That bill was going to have bipartisan opposition in the House. A lot of border democrats were likely to vote against it.
No. of Recommendations: 6
DoperstanThe root issue here is that you guys really do believe that this bill was a great thing, don't you?
Flimsy and inexcusable lie. The truth is that we, along with RWers here had to go through an education provided by Albaby to understand the bill and why it was the way it was. This education went all the way back to the Geneva Convention of 1954-1(?). And we understood that we meet back again in three years for a reckoning and a redo of parts. It was sobering and difficult.
In the middle of it the right started criticizing it for only shutdown power for 6 months, then shorter periods, allowable limits, etc. I adjusted. The world doesn't have to adjust to me, I have to adjust to the world or I'm not doing my job. I finally decide we were going to have to come to a different understanding or renegotiate the Geneva Convention. We simply can't accommodate all refugees and we need cooperation among countries, airlines, etc.
That was our best chance in ages and no matter how insistent MAGA is, they killed it and we need them to turn around and tell their people to deal.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Dope:You've been proven wrong on this.
You did not prove him wrong Dope. You never countered my claim(s). I'm happy with you not talking to me, as I need a decoder half the time and I am perfectly happy not dealing with that and your other obscure-speak/version of events.
No. of Recommendations: 14
Me: Not when the leader of the republican party, now a convicted felon, told republicans to kill it before even reading the bill.
Dope1: You've been proven wrong on this.
No, just the opposite. Let me show you yet again:
Convicted felon Trump, January 18 on Truth Social: “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions & Millions of people, many from parts unknown, into our once great, but soon to be great again, Country!”
Speaker Johnson's January 26 letter to colleagues: “I wanted to provide a brief update regarding the supplemental and the border, since the Senate appears unable to reach any agreement. If rumors about the contents of the draft proposal are true, it would have been dead on arrival in the House anyway.”
The bipartisan border bill was unveiled on February 4.
Dope1: I'll put it to you this way: That bill was going to have bipartisan opposition in the House.
If the republicans had felt they would have had overwhelming bipartisan opposition to that bill, they would have brought it to the floor in a heartbeat because that kind of lack of support for president Biden by his own party would have been an enormous embarrassment for him in an election year.
On the contrary, republicans -- who frequently don't know how to count votes -- were afraid of going on record voting "no" on a bill endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and supported by 66% of Americans.
No. of Recommendations: 1
You've been proven
wrong on this.
Speaker Johnson told his caucus on January 13th the bill was a nonstarter. Here's the link again:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4412413-border...Johnson reportedly told his members on a conference call over the weekend that the border cannot be secured without a Republican in the White House, and Saturday circulated a Fox News display laying out what it believed to be in the bill and said he would “absolutely not” accept that package.This article was dated
January 17, a Wednesday. The Saturday mentioned in the article refers to
January 13.
If the republicans had felt they would have had overwhelming bipartisan opposition to that bill, they would have brought it to the floor in a heartbeat because that kind of lack of support for president Biden by his own party would have been an enormous embarrassment for him in an election year.No, just the opposite. By bringing the bill the to the floor Johnson indicates a willingness to accept the premise the Senate democrats put forth and by doing so opens the door to negotiating things like how many illegals do we let in a day between Ports of Entry. Since he wasn't going to accept the baseline premises of the bill on their face, he wasn't going to bother with it.
On the contrary, republicans -- who frequently don't know how to count votes -- were afraid of going on record voting "no" on a bill endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and supported by 66% of Americans.That bill was going to fail in the Senate anyway, and it did. More than once:
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/23/c...The border policy package was the product of bipartisan negotiations between Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) last winter. It was originally tied to aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, but foreign aid passed independent of border provisions after the first vote on the deal failed. Murphy reintroduced the border package as a standalone bill this month.
Several senators flipped to vote against the legislation this time around, including Sinema, Lankford and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.).This bill was never popular, not at any point in its life.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Didn't you read his reply? The reply you were replying to? He just said that they weren't "enthused". And you come back with "you've convinced yourselves that everyone was in love with this bill". Which is exactly the opposite of what he had just said.
No. of Recommendations: 2
He just said that they weren't "enthused". And you come back with "you've convinced yourselves that everyone was in love with this bill". Which is exactly the opposite of what he had just said.
From him:On the contrary, republicans -- who frequently don't know how to count votes -- were afraid of going on record voting "no" on a bill endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and supported by 66% of Americans.
No. of Recommendations: 3
One more time:
1. The bill was terrible, we debated that here.
2. Johnson told his caucus on January 13th that bill was a non-starter.
3. Trump didn't weigh in until after that, and when he did, he basically just echoed where the House Republicans already were on this bill - that it was terrible.
After all that, the Senate border bill had 5 democrats vote against it on February 7.
https://www.aol.com/news/chuck-schumer-push-stripp...When the bill was re-introduced by Schumer, it failed again in May by an even larger margin.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/23/c...Chuck Schumer’s second attempt to advance a sweeping border package failed by a wider margin than the first time, with increased opposition among both Republicans and Democrats.
No. of Recommendations: 7
That is NOT saying "everyone was in love with this bill", nor anything similar. That IS saying that Reps were afraid it might have a chance, so they preemptively killed it without a debate or vote. Otherwise, let Biden and the Dems suffer a loss in a vote, and rub their noses in it until November. But they couldn't risk it passing, and depriving the Reps of an issue in November.
The later vote (in May) was destined to fail because the Ukraine portion wasn't in it ("standalone"). Without provisions about the DREAMERs (which also wasn't in the bill), it lost a lot of Dem votes. That wouldn't have happened a few months ago. May have lost some, but the Ukraine aid would have limited the loss of Dem votes.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That is NOT saying "everyone was in love with this bill", nor anything similar.
He's claiming the bill had 66% support. That's a lot of support.
Or maybe his number had more to do with the aid packages buried in there? Hmm.
That IS saying that Reps were afraid it might have a chance, so they preemptively killed it without a debate or vote.
Yeah, no. democrats helped kill it twice in the Senate. It had a less than zero chance of ever passing the House.
But they couldn't risk it passing, and depriving the Reps of an issue in November.
LOL. You guys *really* think that bill would have solved something.
Spoiler alert: It wouldn't have. Neither will Biden's EO, btw.
The later vote (in May) was destined to fail because the Ukraine portion wasn't in it ("standalone"). Without provisions about the DREAMERs (which also wasn't in the bill), it lost a lot of Dem votes. That wouldn't have happened a few months ago. May have lost some, but the Ukraine aid would have limited the loss of Dem votes.
So in other words, the only reason some democrats were for the bill was to get the Ukraine dollars.
No. of Recommendations: 16
co: "On the contrary, republicans -- who frequently don't know how to count votes -- were afraid of going on record voting "no" on a bill endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and supported by 66% of Americans."
Yes this.
Trump said, "the Senate is better off not making a deal, even if it means the country will close up for a while."
Life long Republican Mitt Romney summed up the situation nicely...
"The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump, and the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that
he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Joe Biden for it is really appalling."
Really appalling.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Or maybe his number had more to do with the aid packages buried in there? Hmm.
Probably. There were a lot of Dems willing to hold their noses to get Ukraine aid to further confound Russia.
So in other words, the only reason some democrats were for the bill was to get the Ukraine dollars.
At last, an accurate statement. Yes. Without language about the DREAMERs, which is a big Dem issue, it would have been a hard sell without Ukraine aid.
I think it would have improved some things. "Solved" is a bit strong. But "improved" would be accurate. However, the Border Patrol were behind the bill because it gave them more resources to deal with this problem, more money for asylum courts, etc. Neither side of this debate would have regarded it as a panacea. But a definite improvement over what we current have (which, perhaps, is a low bar to clear).
No. of Recommendations: 3
At last, an accurate statement. Actually, I've been 100% right on this the entire time.
Without language about the DREAMERs, which is a big Dem issue, it would have been a hard sell without Ukraine aid.So why wasn't this in the bill?
Before you answer, you should consider this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/24/tr...
No. of Recommendations: 4
You'd have to ask the people in that room. I wasn't part of the bipartisan team trying to reach a compromise. First guess, the Reps in the room didn't want it. But that's just a guess. I haven't read anything about why DREAMERs weren't part of the bill. Also, your link is from 2018. That was 6 years ago. Not that I believe a word he says, but where is he on DREAMERs now?
And, no, I've pointed out (along with others) where you have been wrong both in your timelines and details. You were even wrong characterizing the popularity of this bill in a response to a post saying that it wasn't really very popular (which tells me that you probably didn't really read the post you replied to). Not trying to pick on you, but your posts are there for all to read to verify what I'm saying.
No. of Recommendations: 8
So in other words, the only reason some democrats were for the bill was to get the Ukraine dollars.
Dope, the Republicans made the border a prerequisite for any Ukraine aid, remember? So the Dems made compromises to get the bill to the starting gate, that's why no dreamers. And some think tanks helped craft portions so it didn't violate the Convention. The bill never got out of the starting gate because Trump didn't want to lose his best issue to run on. Remember when you came out on this board and stated - they are taking away his (Trump's) best issue to run on? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
