Type to search

Calling Trump’s Bluff: A Guaranteed Job For Every American Who Wants To Work

Business Economy Featured Post Infrastructure Money Politics

Calling Trump’s Bluff: A Guaranteed Job For Every American Who Wants To Work

Guaranteed Job

Democrats have begun the presidency of Donald Trump exiled to the political wilderness. They’ve lost the White House, both houses of Congress, a shocking number of state governments, while the “blue state” vote has turned out to be really just the “blue city” vote.

The party has cast about for solutions, battling it out over identity politics, the proper opposition strategy, and more. But Democrats might consider taking a cue from Trump himself. Namely, his relentless promises to bring back good-paying American jobs.

“It’s the first and most consistent thing he discusses,” observed Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, after reviewing Trump’s speeches. The President understands, as The New York Times’s Josh Barro noted, that most Americans think the purpose of private business is to provide good jobs, not merely turn a profit. Even Trump’s xenophobia and white nationalism are not totally separate from this: Kicking out all the immigrants and rolling foreign competitors are critical components of how he would restore jobs.

Democrats tend to treat jobs as the happy by-product of other goals like infrastructure revitalization or green energy projects. Or they treat deindustrialization and job dislocation as regrettable inevitabilities, offering training, unemployment insurance, health care, and so on to ameliorate their effects.

All these policies are worthy. But a job is not merely a delivery mechanism for income that can be replaced by an alternative source. It’s a fundamental way that people assert their dignity, stake their claim in society, and understand their mutual obligations to one another. There’s pretty clear evidence that losing this social identity matters as much as the loss of financial security. The damage done by long-term joblessness to mental and physical health is rivaled only by the death of a spouse. It wreaks havoc on marriages, families, mortality rates, alcoholism rates, and more. The 2008 crisis drove long-term unemployment into the stratosphere, and today it remains near a historic high.

Trump went right at this problem, telling Michigan in October of 2016: “I am going to bring back your jobs.” Period.

Democrats should consider making the same moon shot promise. But unlike Trump, they should back it up with a policy plan. And there’s an idea that could do the trick. It emerges naturally from progressive values. It’s big, bold, and could fit on a bumper sticker. It’s generally called the “job guarantee” or the “employer of last resort.” In a nutshell: Have the federal government guarantee employment, with benefits and a living wage, to every American willing and able to work.

Why  We Need It

Before getting into the nuts and bolts of how this would work, a word on the broader goals is in order. The job guarantee’s ultimate aim is sustained full employment: A job for every American who could conceivably desire to work, leaving the labor market unable to find enough workers for all the jobs it wants to create.

The benefits of the guarantee for the formerly jobless should be obvious. But just as crucial is how it would help all already employed Americans. When workers compete with one another over an inadequate supply of jobs, they have no power. Conversely, when employers must compete over an inadequate supply of workers, a subtle but profound shift happens. Freed of the fear that they can be cast off into the unemployed and be unable to find a different job, even the lowest-paid workers can demand higher wages and more generous benefits. They can insist on better working conditions and schedules, and job training on their employers’ dime. They can challenge discrimination, harassment, and mistreatment. Unions and labor organizations are empowered. There’s more family stability, healthier communities, more social trust, and more participation in civic life.

Practically speaking, this would require driving the labor force participation rate—the measure of people employed or actively looking for work—as high as it can naturally go, and driving the unemployment rate—that portion of the labor force not employed—to 1 or 2 percent. And then keeping them there.

That may seem a fantastical goal. But we’ve done it before: During the economic mobilization of World War II, the unemployment rate briefly fell to an eye-popping 2 percent. Then, between 1945 and 1970, the rate spent roughly one-third of its time below 4 percent. It’s no accident this period is remembered as an economic golden age, or that inequality remained low during it.

Things have changed since.

As of this writing, there are 1.4 job seekers for every job opening. At minimum, our goal should be no more than one job seeker for every job opening; better yet, less than one job seeker for every opening. Yet this is the best that metric has been after eight grinding years of recovery. More to the point, the closest the job seeker ratio ever got to parity was 1.1 seekers per opening, just for a moment at the end of the 1990s boom. The data doesn’t go back earlier. But there are other signs for when parity is close: The late ’90s was also the only time since 1970 the unemployment rate went as low as 4 percent. It’s currently at 4.6 percent—again, the best level since the Great Recession.

So even in the fondly remembered midcentury, America’s overall rate of joblessness tended to bob like a cork above the threshold that signals full employment. Occasionally, it dropped low enough to touch it, then rose back up. And for the last 40 years, the cork has basically never touched full employment at all.

This multi-decade failure has left workers chronically powerless in the face of employers’ demand for cheap, compliant, and disposable labor. It lies behind the vertiginous rise of inequality, the widespread loss of good job benefits, the expansion of financial precariousness to more households, the spread of contract work and the “1099 economy,” and more.

Meanwhile, what jobs the economy creates, for whom, and on what terms, is determined by the people who own and control the flow of capital and property. This is the nature of private markets in capitalism. Both the left and right accept this arrangement as a fait accompli, and effectively try to bribe this rarified group into creating employment. The right-wing bribe is tax cuts and deregulation. The left-wing bribe is muscular deficit stimulus, welfare state spending, and public investment. The latter works much better at juicing aggregate demand, which is what makes it possible for employers to profit and gain market share by hiring more. But in both cases, the power to shape the job itself and to hire remains with the capitalists.

Inevitably, the most privileged or attractive job seekers are hired first: those who are well-educated, who have histories of stable employment, who are free of criminal records, and (let’s be blunt) those who are white. Only after they’ve been employed does new demand for labor trickle down to everyone else.

The last to be reached are racial minorities, those without college or even high-school degrees, those with longer spells of past unemployment, veterans, and those with felony histories. And their turn is far more brief, since it arrives only at the peak of the business cycle. Then, when the downturn comes, the least privileged are the first to be let go. The result is a bitter dynamic of last-to-be-hired, first-to-be-fired. Even when they’re working, their bargaining position is perpetually precarious, resulting in lower wages and more exploitative treatment.

This is why roughly 5.5 million people are still working part-time when they’d like to work full-time. It’s a big part of why employers can get away with rampant wage theft, abusive scheduling, racial discrimination, sexual harassment, unsafe working conditions, and violations of labor rights. It’s why wages have stagnated for decades for far too many.

That full employment’s absence hits less-privileged Americans harder isn’t just problematic because it’s unfair. It also condemns their communities to repeated cycles of destruction, from which they never have time to properly recover. The unemployment rate for black Americans, for example, is perpetually twice as high as that of whites—a situation that holds within each education level. Same goes for the unemployment rate of all Americans with a college degree versus those with only a high school education.

Conversely, the beneficial effects of full employment, when it happens, are the most pronounced for the least privileged: It’s when employers are finally forced to cater to the people and communities normally exiled from the economy.

Imagine what sustained full employment could do.

So it shouldn’t surprise that African-American thinkers are longtime champions of the job guarantee. Martin Luther King Jr. repeatedly called for it. So did Bayard Rustin, another 1960s African-American civil rights activist, and Sadie T.M. Alexander, the first African-American woman to receive a PhD in economics. Today, black advocates of the job guarantee include Duke economics and public policy professor William Darity, Jr. and New School economist Darrick Hamilton.

With the post-1970 rise of deindustrialization and globalization, and the policy retreat from public investment, regulation, and antitrust enforcement, the American economy has finally begun treating white workers without college degrees as it’s always treated black Americans. Capital is fleeing the rural and small-town communities where Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump by three to one, and where new job growth and business creation during recoveries has all but vanished. Their jobs are falling to foreign competition and automation; their rates of unemployment and earnings are worse; and they’re being buried by their mortgages. While Clinton won less than 16 percent of all counties, the counties she did win generated 64 percent of all economic output. This great economic shift gave rise to the economic frustration that flipped key Rust Belt states, handing Trump his victory.

But the President also relentlessly exploited white Americans’ racial fears and anxieties, and the temptations of white nationalism. Combating him will require a genuinely multiethnic coalition; one that can press the anti-racist cause to its fullest, while still giving the white working-class an equal seat at the table. A job guarantee could lay the foundation for such a coalition based on a shared economic interest.

How It Would Work

So that’s the context in which the need for such a program emerges. How would the job guarantee work in its particulars? First, it would be universal: an offer to everyone willing and able to work. It would also be purely voluntary: No one would be required to work.

Every job would pay a non-poverty wage with benefits. One oft-suggested possibility is $25,000 a year—roughly $12 an hour, assuming 52 weeks a year at 40 hours per week. An additional cost-of-living adjustment could be tacked on for local markets as needed. Health coverage and retirement, respectively, could be provided through access to the already-existing Federal Employees Health Benefits program and the Federal Employees Retirement System. Paid vacation days, paid sick leave, and paid family leave would also be included.

Recipients could request part-time work, and their pay would be adjusted downward accordingly. But a minimum number of hours would have to be set for receiving the benefits package; Darity suggests 30 hours a week.

The program would be driven by the demand of Americans for work. This means that it would function as an entitlement, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or Obamacare subsidies: funded automatically by law, according to how many people qualify, rather than by Congress’s annual appropriations process.

This would require fully funding the job guarantee at the federal level. When a recession hits, nearly all other actors in the economy—state and local governments or private businesses and institutions—see their revenue shrink. They cannot spend at the same or higher levels lest they risk a debt default. But the U.S. government is unique: Its borrowing is backstopped by the Federal Reserve’s ability to create new money supplies. The federal government literally cannot default on its debt (unless it chooses to do so). Rather, the limit on federal deficit spending is the risk of inflation—which is always at its lowest in a downturn.

Then there’s the question of institutional design. No one’s ever instituted a job guarantee in its full glory. But some real world instances have come close, and they provide important pointers. Argentina’s Plan Jefes y Jefas de Hogares—a modest, short-lived, far stingier, but similar job guarantee program in the 2000s—divided functions between the federal level and the local and municipal level. The federal government disbursed the funds and laid out general guidelines for approving employment projects. It created one national database of all people looking for work, and their skills; and another database to track all projects, their development, and assessments. This promoted transparency and cut down on corruption. Given the history of racist exclusion in New Deal work programs in the United States, robust federal enforcement of all anti-discrimination and labor rights law would be essential.

But Argentina left the job of reviewing, approving, and administering projects to the local and municipal governments. Bard College economist Pavlina Tcherneva, who’s studied the job guarantee and Argentina’s experience with her Levy Institute colleagues, emphasizes that local nonprofits, community groups, and social organizations across America already know their local communities’ needs and are working to meet them. They’re just perpetually under-staffed and under-funded. So in our case, the first step would be for local and municipal administrators to ask these groups what projects they have already developed that just need to be scaled up.

Next, those same local administrators should determine what public works and pieces of infrastructure each community needs to have built or revitalized. The crisis of lead in the water pipes of Flint, Michigan, shows there’s no shortage of need in this arena.

Finally, local job-guarantee administrators should open the floor to proposals from the local community: Let everyone from churches to civic organizations to individuals submit ideas. That would create a ground-level dialogue, giving Americans more democratic control over the planning of their local economies. Perhaps some degree of local democracy could be introduced into picking the program’s local administrators.

People seeking jobs would come to these local offices, which would draw on the federal databases to link the potential workers up with the most appropriate projects. Crucially, workers would be matched with nearby jobs according to skills they already have. Training and child care could be provided as needed by other job-guarantee recipients, as happened in Argentina. The idea would be to “meet workers where they are,” in terms of their capabilities, their needs, and their geographic location. Contrast that with the private sector, where low-income workers can spend enormous time and energy commuting, finding child care for their children, “acquiring skills,” or even moving to a different city or state, all for employers’ convenience.

We could create an entirely new federal agency, with internal power and decision-making distributed as described among local and municipal branches. Another possibility is to rebuild and repurpose the institutions we already have. The Labor Department could handle the federal-level duties, while unemployment benefit offices could become “employment” offices—the local points of contact for job seekers. Both could liaison with local governments. Even the U.S. Postal Service could get involved: Proposals are already circulating to provide basic banking services through the agency to the 68 million Americans who lack them. Many of those citizens would also be the job guarantee’s biggest beneficiaries, and would need an account in which to receive their wages. Postal banking could solve both problems in one fell swoop.

What It Would Cost

Now let’s talk price tag. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the program described above would run at least $670 billion in its first year—or about 3.6 percent of the economy—if instituted today. That’s very large, but hardly unimaginable: It’s roughly the annual cost of the federal government’s various health-care subsidies, and less than Social Security.

More importantly, the cost would rapidly and dramatically shrink once the program was up and running. Millions of formerly jobless would have new income to spend, so private businesses would expand, their wage and benefit offers would rise, and people would leave the job-guarantee rolls for greener pastures. The program would moderate itself by expanding the private sector. Eventually, it would stabilize at a much lower level of spending. Case in point: Argentina’s Jefes program began in 2001, and recipients peaked at two million in 2003. But by 2006, the number of Jefes recipients had fallen by 40 percent. Over that time, the national unemployment rate fell from 21 percent to 8 percent.

On top of all that, the rolls of people qualifying for safety net programs like Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, and more would shrink as well. We’d face fewer of the social ills that flow from joblessness—crime, incarceration, mental health, addiction, etc.—further reducing spending. Rough estimates by Darity, Tcherneva, and several other economists suggest at least a fourth of the job guarantee’s annual budget would be offset by these other reductions, and maybe much more.

From then on, every private sector recession would swell the ranks of job-guarantee recipients again, but never by that much. Right now, recessions feed on themselves: People lose jobs, their consumption drops, so more people lose jobs, until the recession bottoms out. But employment through the job guarantee is limited only by human imagination and ingenuity. A recession is just a collapse in the private sector’s ability to employ everyone according to the capitalists’ priorities. So recessions would simply throw workers onto the job guarantee’s alternate employment, with its attendant wage floor. The bottom for recessions would be much shallower, and recoveries much faster, shrinking the job guarantee rolls again. We would be spared the human and social wreckage that comes with spells of mass unemployment. Preventing mass joblessness would prove far cheaper than eliminating it once it’s set in.

An even more intriguing possibility is that the job guarantee would eliminate the need for the Fed to adjust interest rates.

Here’s how that would work: Currently, Fed officials operate on the assumption that some amount of unemployment is necessary to control inflation. As workers’ bargaining power rises, an arms race sets in across businesses. Workers claim more revenue as compensation, capitalists try to preserve their cut by raising prices, then workers demand higher wages for the increased cost of living. Wash, rinse, repeat. The result is the wage-price spiral, delivering higher inflation.

The Fed intervenes by raising interest rates, which squeezes the supply of credit and forces companies to stop expanding or to downscale. This stops the arms race by destroying jobs. But, once again, it’s left up to the capitalists to decide just whose jobs are to be destroyed first.

There’s a burn-the-village-to-save-it quality to this practice, since allowing inflation to continue also destroys jobs as price signals go haywire. But again, with a job guarantee, the downturn would simply move workers onto the set wage and compensation rate, which doesn’t engage in a bidding war. This would end the arms race as well, but without casting people into joblessness and all its attendant human destruction. So the job guarantee could stabilize the ups and downs of inflation as well. (This would be complicated if the job guarantee’s wage was indexed to rise with inflation, though not indexing the wage would force regular legislative fights to raise it instead.)

The Work

Now, what of the jobs themselves? What kind of work would these people be doing? Tcherneva focuses on labor that isn’t capital intensive, that rarely requires specialized skills, and that serves ongoing needs for care, restoration, conservation, etc. Some liberal policy thinkers refer to this as “human infrastructure.” Current extant examples include ecological preservation and public park revitalization in the Hudson River Valley, creating urban gardens and local markets to combat the problem of food deserts, or refurbishing historic buildings in Newburgh, New York. In Argentina, local communities used the Jefes program to set up butcher shops, bakeries, clothing and toy makers, grocery stores, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, mass recycling centers, urban farms, food kitchens, and more. Along with infrastructure projects, the New Deal’s work programs put on plays, built sculptures, and painted murals.

Certainly, the program could encompass traditional infrastructure and public works as well. But these are finite projects with a completion date, and the need for them may not line up with the business cycle. Meanwhile, there will always be children and the elderly to care for, sick people to minister to, citizens to educate, cities to clean, neighborhoods to beautify, and parks to tend. This work would be the backbone of the job guarantee.

The fear of “make work” has always dogged these sorts of public employment programs—the idea that people are being paid to do things that are useless for society. But this is an odd worry in a world where private employers hire people to create endless potato chips flavors and messaging apps that say nothing but “Yo.” Anthropologist David Graeber even coined the term “bullshit jobs,” referring to legal, clerical, financial, and administrative work, sometimes highly paid, that’s done by people “who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless.” Many of us are put to work for the capitalists’ convenience, in accordance with what they find to be profitable. Hence all the paper-pushing.

Behind worries about “make work” lies the unspoken assumption that what is profitable—i.e. what is desirable to shareholders—is the sole possible determinant of value. So job guarantee supporters should embrace this fight, and force opponents and critics to argue the reductio ad absurdum.

All usefulness is irreducibly subjective. Human beings decide for themselves what economic value is, in dialogue with one another. Capitalism’s competition, price signals, and profit motive are one way to have that conversation. And in many instances it’s a very good way. But one feature of the job guarantee is to provide an alternative way: It opens up political space for local democracy and dialogue to determine value instead, and to then use the public tool of the federal government to pay people to produce it. After all, nobody audits public libraries to see if they’d be better provided by the private markets—we just decided, as a society, that they’re worth having around.

Problems with corruption and graft will be inevitable, and the best cure will always be healthy institutional enforcement and self-policing. But by 2005, reports of Argentina’s Jefes program’s mismanagement, waste, or corruption were rare. A 1937 assessment of New Deal work programs rated the quality of 40 percent of them as “excellent,” and only 9 percent as inferior.

Of course, a job guarantee set to $25,000 a year plus benefits would wipe out a fair amount of low-pay private employment at a stroke. No employer could underbid it, since people could “vote with their feet” and take (or propose) job guarantee employment if they preferred. Yet no business is entitled to exist, regardless of the conditions in which it employs people. Like the minimum wage, the point of the job guarantee’s compensation floor is to wipe out low-pay private employment. And, unlike the minimum wage, the job guarantee carries no attendant risk of increasing unemployment.

So no doubt, the shape of employment and of our lifestyles would change. There’d probably be far less fast-food employment and low-wage service work, and fewer Uber drivers. We’d all have to cook more, drive less, and do more of our own household chores (pending the arrival of the robots). But would that really be a bad thing?

Time for a Guarantee

There is an objection on the left of a different sort: That the job guarantee goes much too far in indulging the right’s romanticization of the dignity of work. These critics often argue for the universal basic income (UBI), another ambitious policy idea that would give every American an unconditional monthly cash grant. It, and the job guarantee, have sometimes been cast as an either-or choice.

There is no reason for this; the two proposals are complementary.

The UBI does provide every worker the option of exit from the labor market, and could thus increase bargaining power as well. But this effect is passive. The job guarantee’s strength is providing Americans direct control over the social infrastructure of job creation.

In a way, the program could be the welfare state’s biggest champion. It would finally put the idea that unemployment is frivolous or voluntary to the ultimate test. No longer could people assume joblessness is chosen, based purely on the fact that joblessness exists, without ever reckoning with the supply of work. And no longer would policymakers run themselves in circles trying to “fix” the jobless—either through education, improved habits and values, or just by relocating—to better meet the demands of the capitalists.

In so doing, the job guarantee would lay bare that plenty of people have very good reason to not be in the labor force. Perhaps they are retired, or raising children, or going to school, or caring for a sick family member. While not only a delivery mechanism for income, jobs certainly serve that role. But they cannot and should not be the one mechanism for everyone. That we’ve failed to plug these holes in our society’s “income delivery system” is the driving force behind America’s intransigent poverty rates, particularly for young children.

Yes, American political rhetoric is shot through with the idea that individuals have a moral duty to work, and this is sometimes used to galling effect. But it isn’t entirely off: For the UBI to purchase anything in the first place, someone must labor to produce those goods and services. As the effects of joblessness on individuals’ physical and mental well-being shows, the vast majority of people really do feel better about themselves when they’re contributing to that social project in some way. One of the most remarkable aspects of the Jefes program was the number of women who joined up. Given the chance to participate in their local communities and economies, and not just perform domestic housework, these women reported striking changes in their sense of self-worth—like they had “grown wings.” Indeed, political panic over the rapid shift in gender norms apparently played a big part in the Argentinian government’s decision to kill the program—and to replace it (for women, at least) with a UBI-style check.

The crucial thing to remember is that it’s in the capitalists’ interests to never provide enough jobs, and to keep large amounts of the employed in a permanent state of precariousness. This is the bait and switch at the heart of the right-wing habit of “incentivizing” people to work, either by cutting their government aid or by shaming them into it. That joblessness really does wreak havoc on human well-being gives this posture a certain plausible sheen of beneficence. But the work that awaits people is only offered on the capitalists’ terms; rather than being dignified, it is often exploitative and demeaning, and there is never enough of it to go around.

As Polish economist Michael Kalecki observed, the real issue is that full employment strips business owners and the capital-owning class of power. This is what worries that the job guarantee will displace private employment, or provide mere “make work,” are really about.

With full employment, the capitalists lose their leverage to depress workers’ wages and must give up more profits. But, more than that, when it comes to running endeavors that are ostensibly “theirs,” the capitalists are forced to bargain with and bend to the will of workers “below” them. Their position as the demigods of the economy—granting employment when they are appeased, and taking it away when they are angered—is undone.

Capitalists do not want recessions, of course, since their income and wealth holdings suffer as well. But they don’t want the economy running at full steam, either. Their solution, as John Maynard Keynes put it, has been “abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-slump.” Perhaps this sounds familiar.

In defiance of this economic regime, the job guarantee asserts that, if individuals bear a moral duty to work, then society and employers bear a reciprocal moral duty to provide good, dignified work for all. It would finally make real the ideal, stated in Franklin Roosevelt’s “Economic Bill of Rights,” that every American possesses a “right to a useful and remunerative job” and “to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.” Not a paternalistic aid, and not some tribute to aristocratic virtue, but a right to be claimed and exercised. As the history of the civil rights era and the battles for the voting franchise demonstrate, rights provide the basis for mass political organization, and for demands of inclusion and equality.

A job guarantee would not only remake the American economic order. It would arguably remake the country’s political and moral order as well.

Jeff Spross is the economics and business correspondent at TheWeek.com. He was previously a reporter at ThinkProgress.




  1. 增达网QQ-43234530 March 26, 2017


  2. clahadagad March 26, 2017

    <- I was without work for 6 months when my former Co-worker lastly recommended me to start freelancing at home… It was only after I gained $5000 in my initial month when I really believed I am able to do this for a living! At the moment I am joyful than ever… I work-from-home moreover I am my own boss now like I always wanted… I see quite a lot of unsatisfied people around me, working the same old boring job that is sucking the daily life out of all of them day-after-day… Each time I see anybody similar to that I say START FREELANCING MAN! This is how I started . ➤➤➤➤https://visit.st/C8tmW

  3. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 26, 2017

    This is an interesting article and the author is to be commended for the effort and research put into it. But as I read through it, I began to early sense that something vital is missing; something I’ve alluded to and overtly mentioned in the past—namely, the overemphasis on the mechanics of the working of society.

    With even just a minimum of effort, one gets the sense of seeing human society as just a more sophisticated form of an insect society as represented by the order of insects called Hymenoptera—honey bees, wasps, hornets, and ants. In each species, all the members have duties that they’ve evolved to perform, “jobs” which provide for the viability of the group. But there needs to be a “spirit” to inspire the “workers”—the ant or bee which is the “queen”, provides that spirit. Without this specialized member of the colony, the “workers” lose a sense of “reason” to exist, and eventually stop feeding themselves and the colony no longer exists. (As a youth, I finally figured this out when my collection of fire ants would all be dead after a few days—they simply stopped eating because there wasn’t a queen ant in my jar filled with ants and soil, despite putting food and water at the top).

    The colony is like a human society in many ways, and cooperation and the performance of tasks are essential to survival—but for humans, there is a higher consciousness, a higher sense of purpose, and the awareness that life is more than just having a job, despite the necessity for having one. The equivalent in human society of the “queen” ant or bee is the soul of each human; on a higher level it would be fair to say it is the Messenger of God. But the point where the role of the soul, or this Messenger, departs from that of the “queen”, is that when the Messenger departs physically from the human physical realm, society is still viable because of a mystic bond that still exists to revitalize and “nourish” the soul, and a corpus of literature or shared Wisdom handed down orally that provides meaning to life and existence.

    Westerners, by and large, acknowledge this link by at a minimum, attending religious services, although nowadays this is done in a perfunctory manner, with little sense of a moral purpose or how to effectively interact with other members of the “colony”. This absence of a higher purpose, and temporary severance of that “bond”, is why so many Westerners, particularly Europeans and Americans, feel lost and trapped. Desperation has been building up for centuries now, and populists like Trump have evolved to take on a perverse role of exploiting this loss of purpose. The loss of sense of purpose is exacerbated by more attachment to the material aspects of human existence, with a parallel de-emphasis on the nobility of the human being.

    Work has become just a tool to maintain an existence without a sense of a higher purpose. The following redefinition of “work” is provided by Baha’u’llah, revolutionizing the concept of work.

    Every individual, no matter how handicapped and limited he may be, is under the obligation of engaging in some work or profession, for work, especially when performed in the spirit of service, is a form of worship. It has not only a utilitarian purpose, but has a value in itself, because it draws us nearer to God, and enables us to better grasp His purpose for us in this world. It is obvious, therefore, that the inheritance of wealth cannot make anyone immune from daily work.

    (Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 192)

    But, in order to perform work, one needs to be educated and trained to perform such a service.

    “The education of each child is compulsory…. In addition to this wide-spread education each child must be taught a profession, art, or trade, so that every member of the community will be enabled to earn his own livelihood. Work done in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship….”

    But there are some members of society who, for one reason or another, are physically prevented from working or just incapable of performing tasks. In the insect world, and many other animal societies, such workers are left to die, and in the case of bees and ants, the “workers” simply remove them from the colony as is the way they are programmed by Nature to do. Many in the GOP would have us think that this is how we should treat the more vulnerable members in America—just segregate them, put them out of sight and mind, and hope time and hardships will cause such members of society to die from attrition, thereby performing our “Fiscal Responsibility”. Even ants aren’t that cruel in their attitude towards fellow ants.

    1. dpaano March 29, 2017

      So true, Aaron……as always, you hit the button!

  4. stsintl March 26, 2017

    Just like the Republican Party, Neo-Capitalists threw out “Social Responsibility” from “Classic Capitalism”. When I started my career in 1960 at Westinghouse, there were small plaques on every pillar on the factory floor that said “Employees are our most important asset.” But as Neo-Capitalists of Wall Street [now in Trump Cabinet] took over, driven by greed, employees were moved in to the “Liability” column. Unfortunately, Wall Street Mafia now controls all branches of our government and no way can and will Trump succeed in creating employment for those who need it.

    Here are two quotes from the fathers of Industrial Revolution a century ago.

    “Fundamentally, Ford believed that high wages helped business in the long run by enhancing worker’s ability to consume. In later years, he insisted that “the real progress of our company dates from 1914,” because with the wage increase “we increased the buying power of our own people, and they increased the buying power of other people, and so on and on. It is this thought of enlarging buying power by paying high wages and selling at low prices which is behind the prosperity of this country.”*

    *Steven Watts; “The People’s Tycoon :Henry Ford and the American Century” ;A.A. Knopf, New York, NY; 2005; Page 183.

    “My ambition is to give as many persons as possible an opportunity to earn money by their own effort, and this has been the reason why I have tried to build up corporations which are large employers of labor, and to pay living wages, larger even than other manufacturers pay, or than the open labor market necessitates.” George Westinghouse*

    *Jill Jonnes; “Empires of Light-­‐ Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the race to electrify the world”;Random House Trade Paperbacks; 2003; page 122

    Next Friday, I’m presenting a paper “Measuring Economic Power-An Engineering Approach” at the European Congress on Economic Issues-2017 in Turkey. It shows that people are the basic engines of economy and capital is only the lubricant that keeps these engines smooth.

    1. idamag March 26, 2017

      The economy is consumer driven.

      1. dpaano March 29, 2017

        Unfortunately, our government is money driven!

  5. Bill Thompson March 26, 2017

    I recently posted a PBS video essay regarding what was once a middle-class society. See URL below at the bottom.

    One essay was set in a West Virginia mining town and the other in Erie Pennsylvania which was once a manufacturing hub. In the case of Erie Pennsylvania the decline started in the late 70s. Erie’s proximity to waterways made it a very efficient manufacturing center. Unfortunately using shipping as a means of transporting goods inland changed. It was no longer the most efficient way to get goods distributed. Then came the beginning of mechanization coupled with companies that decided to outsource their labor. The result was a precipitous decline in good paying blue-collar jobs many of which had union protection. The sad truth is, even if a company decided to build a manufacturing center in Erie Pennsylvania it would be almost 100% mechanized. Sorry to say this type of work is a thing of the past. The fact that many of these hard working blue-collar men and women believe that we can return to the good old days borders on fantasy.

    In the case of West Virginia, the discussion revolved around a 67 year-old man with black lung disease and a very young man believing coal mining was on its way back. While the old man was very proud of the way he made a living he cautioned the young to run away from this means of making a living. The young man looking to me like a child was married with a very young son and a month old daughter. He readily admitted he had no way of making a living. His hopes were, that his vote for Donald Trump would bring back the good old days of coal mining in West Virginia. This young man did not even think about a second option. I’m sorry to say not only is this young man not going to make a living from coal mining but his young family will suffer from his irrational belief. Coal mining has been decimated for several reasons, one the cheap and abundant use of natural gas from fracking. Two mechanization has rendered physical labor almost unnecessary. It takes 1/10 of the amount of manpower to extract a ton of coal then it did only 10 years ago. Three the fact that we are no longer exporting coal to other countries at the rate we once did, unlike the US the rest of the world believes in human precipitated global warming and is moving away from coal.

    Micro and macro solutions to the problem, or should we will call them short term / long-term solutions? The short term solution is to continue lying to the American public. From the president on down, the American public are being mislead by both parties. The president of the United States openly admitted he does not read. leaders in Congress openly boast that they do not use a computer or use email. These are people that have stopped learning. To be clear, any person that is the CEO of any major corporation that cannot do an effective Google search does not belong there, neither should they be in office. Yes the president can use the bully pulpit to badger corporations into keeping manufacturing in this country for the short term. In fact even if corporations are repatriated and manufacturing returns, it will all be mechanized.

    Even jobs like computer programming, accounting, many types of engineering, are no longer safe. We have watched technology expand at an exponential rate. The computing power has doubled in the period from 1970 to 1990, 20 years. It has then doubled from 1990 to the year 2000, 10 years. It has then double in a period of five years, And it will continue along that same timeline. In fact computers are now writing their own programs, far faster than any human and infinitely more accurate, artificial intelligence is here to stay. We are now seeing driverless trucks, the medical profession is using online and virtual technology for diagnosis and treatment. The day that you will wear your Fit Bit synchronize it to the Internet and a computer will diagnose your condition, is right around the corner. The prescription will be sent to a dispensary where you will go scan your phone and pick up your medication. In short what looks like a very good career path now may be a dead end in 5,10 or 15 years.

    The macro or long term solution. Long term the world including the US is going to have to come to the realization that the value of all work must provide a livable wage. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISM, No, I’m talking about re-evaluating a persons working wage. We once did exactly that, go back to the mid 30s through the early 60s and you will see people that made a livable wage. Keep in mind one person was working not two. The pure capitalist model has to be modified or it will fail under its own successes. You cannot have a society in which you produce goods and services that no one can afford. Service like the AmeriCorps model ( just recently eliminated ) may also be a method of not only creating jobs, but educating the most vulnerable in rural and in the inner city areas. Remember that kid in West Virginia with a wife and two children? Training the unemployed workforce in new technologies and services may also be a method to be used. Yes government must be a part of this system. Countries like Finland and Sweden are presently experimenting with ways to address the coming unemployment storm. There is a Limited pilot program in Finland that gives each person approximately $2000 a month. If you choose to live on $2000 it’s yours, if you want a better way of life you go to work or become an entrepreneur and add to the total. Who pays for this madness? Companies like Amazon who have created a model of almost eliminating physical labor would. It is now at the point companies like Amazon have created fulfillment centers in the state of Washington that no one is employed. A customer goes into the store scans there phone, picks the items off the shelf and is charged by a computer to his account on the way out. No I do not have all the answers or do I claim to. But a tsunami of misery is around the corner and it must be addressed. The rich will once again have to pay their fair share of taxes. Keep in mind the top tax rate from the 30s to the early 80s ranged between 70 and 90%, a period of greatest growth and middle income prosperity. You may say but it’s never been that way, why does it have to be that way now? The simple answer is, because technology has never advanced at such a pace that it has made large segments of human labor almost unnecessary.

    Be aware of the direction many want to follow. The father of the “alt right”, the brains in the White House, Steve Bannon’s model must be rejected at all costs. Bannons abrasive brilliance was demonstrated at every stop in his career. His extensive college career, the Navy, Goldman Sachs merger expert , entertainment industry financier, Extreme right wing documentary screenwriter and his leadership at Breitbart news, “the platform of the alt right”. He described himself as a “Leninist”, that wants to ” bring everything crashing down”. His enemies are the establishment, the press, “crony capitalism” and the current world order. Comments like “the press is the enemy of the people” derives its Pedigree straight out of the totalitarian play book. His recent comments at CPAC should send chills down anybody’s spine. “The deconstruction of the administrative state”,(absolutely unbelievable) which explains the majority of the current cabinet appointees. I described them as antimatter. Going back to Star Trek days anytime matter and antimatter touch it results in a nuclear like explosion. Anyone that has listened to this man speak in the past, understands he wants to return the country to a time before FDR. An isolationist society and world order . In other words a white, European, Christian theocracy (Catholics need not apply) where all people compete for survival. No labor rules, no environmental rules, no minimum standards, no school standards, no corporate standards, survival of the fittest. No social security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, it won’t be sold as such, it will be delivered under the guise of preservation. Which will inevitably lead to a system that will allow it to “wither on the vine” as Newt Gingrich once said. A true oligarchy, a return of the robber barons, while holding the Bible in one hand with the flag draped around oneself. Images of this history are well documented. Beware of people that will exploit the discontent of the times. The methods described above work because of the precariousness of the average persons future. Inequality, globalization, tribalism, Powerlessness. And the constant barrage of seemingly democratic failures throughout the world to keep up with digital disruption.




    Respectfully submitted for your comment. Bill Thompson

    1. TZToronto March 26, 2017

      And while the rest of the industrialized world enjoys the very real fruits of a society in which manual labor has become obsolete, the U.S.A. will be left behind, still trying to find jobs for people with no skills, little education, and no prospects for success or a decent life. American exports, whatever they might be at that point, will be poorly made and too expensive. As a result, labor will take another hit as wages drop to make mediocre goods marketable in other places. The U.S. standard of living will drop, and the image of streets paved with gold will vanish. No longer will the United States be the place everyone want to live. Unfortunately, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are neither large enough nor hospitable enough to absorb all of the American people who will want to move there (and they won’t want unskilled Americans who have suffered terribly in their own country because of the lack of skills). The next best choice for emigration would be Canada, especially as climate change makes more areas of Canada easily habitable year-round. But Canada will also have advanced technologically, and the only Americans who will be able to find a home in Canada will be those with advanced skills, which themselves will not be in great demand.

      1. dpaano March 29, 2017

        If I’ve heard correctly, in order to become a Canadian citizen, you must have a job. In fact, to immigrate to Canada, you must first have employment AND you have to pay taxes for both Canada AND the United States unless you give up your U.S. citizenship. So, it’s not easy to just up and move to Canada. And, if too many of our citizens move there….they’re going to find themselves in the same mess we’re already seeing here!

    2. idamag March 26, 2017

      I have seen this time and time again. What those miners should be opting for is to attract business to their area. There should be government free schooling to re-educate them for something else. I worked for a fortune 500 company that provided management to large facilities such as hospitals, schools, and manufacturing plants. They were usually contacted after in-house ineptitude was costing them too much or losing them certification. I was on the management support team. We were doing the start-up in a hospital in my own home town. We were told to be on the lookout for people who had the skills to be recruited and sent to management school. There was a bright young man in the housekeeping department. His ingenuity had save the facility money. He was likable. So I attempted to recruit him, giving him the figures and telling him there was no ceiling on how far he could go and the company would support him all the way. He lived in a small neighboring community 7 miles away. He said, “Oh, I couldn’t leave my community. My family has always lived there. I wouldn’t feel safe away from home.”

      1. dpaano March 29, 2017

        IT’s ridiculous that he would give up such a great opportunity just because his “family always lived there.” Where they lived is not going to go away just because he moves to another state…..there’s jet planes, trains, etc. that would allow him to get back to his roots on a regular basis! But, to give up a great opportunity for such a lame excuse is ridiculous! I think that’s the problem with a lot of these unemployed people in the Rust Belt….the “Trump followers.” They COULD find other opportunities elsewhere, but they refuse to leave their safe little homes. It’s unfortunate because they could go far if they wanted to, but they just aren’t “comfortable” outside of their little boxes!
        Unfortunately, 45 promised them jobs, but until they learn that they may have to relocate for those jobs, they’re not going to go anywhere and they won’t find jobs!

  6. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 26, 2017

    just more BULL from DONNY DUMP he says this trash about jobs and people making more money and all . but when it came time to make a MIN.WAGE of $15 an hours he was one of the first ones to say that’s no good . or the DUMPSTER saying that’s too good for the people of the country . and what’s he do and say about healthcare for the people ? give his and the Dracula look-a-like Ryan healthcare plan that cost more . he talks about the ACA going up a lot in years times (then fix it make the ACA better . HIM THE KING CLOWN and side kick in the head Ryan . plan beats the rising price of the ACA by about 10 folds in just the time if thy could get it in . what 6 months to a year if that long . its so sad that DONNY DUMP would rather undermined the ACA with his BULL plan and let 24 million people lose their healthcare with his and Dracula look-a-like plan and then try to blame it on the DEMS and he is still saying let the ACA blow up and then the DEMS will come to him for a new plan . IS THIS HOW A PRESIDENT should be doing and looking at things ? wanting for the worse to happen to the people just to try to say I told you so . its his job to work for the people not to think he is the best or better by giving a bull plan and saying you should of taken it . (like its better then nothing ) and what is the DUMPSTER clown doing with the allies of the country the USA friends ? bad mouths them knocks them puts them down . you have France Pres. dealing with Russia and PUTTHEAD’S rich pals . giving her $10 million for her to get elected in France now she sits with PUTTHEAD himself and says the sanctions against Russia should be lifted . DONNY DUMP just dosent stop . insults England , Mexico Germany and never stops with his child clown show . as it is now other country’s are scared of the DUMPSTER and not knowing what he will do next (he dosent even know what he will do next ) other country around the world will start siding with Russia . the middle east hate the clown Muslim faith hate him he insults them all . the friends if any in the middle east don’t want to go with him . he is will bring the country and the world down . he very well could start WW 3

    1. TZToronto March 26, 2017

      RE: Obamacare — I suggest that it won’t be long before Republicans stop using the term Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act. This switch will take the Obama “brand” off something that works and will imply that the Republicans’ ACHA was actually signed into law. A lot of Trump’s true believers will assume that all of that fake news they heard about Trump’s [sic] health care plan was just that, fake news, and that the bill really did pass both houses of Congress and was signed into law by Trump. In fact, Republicans may actually start referring to the ACA as the ACHA (in error or deliberately)–as long as it’s working.

      1. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 26, 2017

        ive been posting that for months now saying just that its not Obama-care its the ACA yes Pres. Obama did start it but he dosent have the EGO to want his name on the healthcare plan (which I believe he and it should be names Obama-care ) but he wasn’t the one that put that name on it .

        1. Dominick Vila March 27, 2017

          Republicans use that term deliberately to demonize the program.

          1. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 27, 2017

            strange one thing how the GOP gang of pinheads seem never to be wanting to work for all the people not just the 1 & 2 % even more strange is all the brain dead people that cant see this and keep putting these clowns back into office . what do thy think what this time it will be different ? hardy unlikely

      2. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 26, 2017

        the DONNY DUMP DONT CARE PLAN takes not years to go up it rates and money as soon as it to ever be signed in it the time when things go through the roof . right away . and that’s not even counting the 24 million that lose their coverage or plan from the very start of the dumpsters plan

        1. TZToronto March 26, 2017

          I’ve been thinking that perhaps, now that the repeal and replace mess is over, some of the red states that didn’t take the Medicaid funding might decide that resistance is futile and will take the funding now. They’ve been waiting for Obamacare repeal, but it’s not happening. I’m not holding my breath for that, though.

          1. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 27, 2017

            its those state that have GOP gang of pinheads governors and its them that don’t want to let it into their states . hope the people see that the GOP governors don’t care about the people of their states enough to give them different opinions if be it that all the states let their people be able to use the ACA how many more people do you think would be able to use it ? and with that more people helps to bring down cost . the GOP gang of pinheads been battling this ACA for over 8 years with nothing to take its place . its all there to fix pretty much all of America’s problems and that’s just being fair and the same rules to all . if be it the greedy rich was to pay no more no less then the same % percentage as every one else the problem’s would be solved . and with that the country’s debt. heck by now could be gone

          2. Jmz Nesky March 27, 2017

            … And that’s the original reason it failed.. None of the red states signed up.. Had McConnell simply been a name in a phone book, Obamacare would have been a flying success with the entire nation aboard as he had planned.. There wouldn’t have been a penalty nor different costs because everyone would have been contributing and we all would be praising the new ACA. The conservative jealousy was the cause of the failure.

          3. Dominick Vila March 27, 2017

            I agree! I can only add that it takes a lot of nerve to cite counties in states that rejected the MEDICAID expansion, and the ACA, as examples of evidence that the ACA is failing because not enough insurance companies cover it, and because the cost of healthcare continues to climb out of control. Had it not been for so many GOP controlled states rejecting the MEDICAID expansion the ACA would not have the problems it has today, which are solvable by the way.

          4. Jmz Nesky March 28, 2017

            I agree.. Though there were some (probably democrats) that did sign up in those states but still, when you have a good plan and you expect a nation on the whole to participate but several million refuse then there goes your funding and you have to do unpopular things to keep it afloat. I place ALL blame on the conservatives for both refusing to allow their states to sign up plus cause Obama to have to put a penalty on it giving these knuckleheads more fodder to toss in Obama’s eyes and tell their blind constituents how bad Obamacare was.

          5. Charlotte Sines March 27, 2017

            I read just yesterday that the Kansas legislators are pushing to expand Medicaid because they suddenly realized that they had lost out on a lot of money. All they have to do is get it past Brownback who has already said he would veto it. They finally are ready to do the right thing for their people and the damm Governor won’t go for it because he hates President Obama. Kansas might just be able to hold out until Brownback gets term limited out.

          6. dpaano March 29, 2017

            Typical for Brownback…..he’s a Freedom Caucus follower. They don’t want to give the citizens ANYTHING! In the meantime, Kansas is going broke, their education system is totally shot, and the rest of his government is in shambles! They need to impeach him or get rid of him with it’s time to let him go! He has done NOTHING for the state of Kansas except to decimate everything of any value to its citizens! There’s a nice place in hell for him when he gets ready to go!

      3. Jmz Nesky March 27, 2017

        … THEN after the trumpiteers fall for it, the rest of the nation will also believe then go back to their reality TV farces and forget their troubles and because the cons conned us and made Obamacare theirs in the name of ACA they will announce it’s time to update and make their healthcare even better then things will begin to slowly change ever so minutely until it eventually becomes the con’s original AHCA and we will begin to notice but then the nation, as usual will become distracted.. Hey! a Blue Bird !!

    2. idamag March 26, 2017

      I think Bannon is planning on it. He said we were going to have to do a pre-emptive strike on North Korea. None of these war mongers ever go to war and they find a way to keep their kids safe.

      1. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 26, 2017

        i truly feel now that these CLOWNS have picked the game being played thy have no clue of the stake’s and what it will cost . and not in money but I do feel things will happen and their stakes will be something thy have to live with and it will be on their own hands . . as for keeping theirs safe well what thy will end up having to pay might go deeper then the pockets . too many crazy people out there and the blame will cover many of the ones that lie con scam and every other way thy try to snake their doings .

      2. Martha Bartha March 26, 2017

        And we all know War is good for jobs. Bullet’s & Bombs cost bucks!

        1. idamag March 26, 2017

          We will be paying for Iraq for years to come. Some companies got no-bid contracts and cheated the United States.

          1. latebloomingrandma March 26, 2017

            Halliburton and Blackwater.

          2. Martha Bartha March 27, 2017

            That’s why Bush invaded Iraq. Some People got rich!????????

          3. Dominick Vila March 27, 2017

            That, and the fact that the crusades were unfunded, are an important reason for the national debt increases we had since the invasion of Iraq. Let’s not forget that under President Obama the deficits were reduced by 2/3…

          4. dpaano March 27, 2017

            Shhhh, don’t let 45 hear you say that!!!

  7. idamag March 26, 2017

    trumpster dumpster put a qualifier in there. “jobs for everyone that wants to work..” Then he can say he brought the jobs back, but there are many people who do not want to work. There are several factors that contribute to a poor job market. 1. Technology replaces a lot of jobs. Years ago, I was a secretary. My position was actually called, “Administrative Assistant.” Word processing machines were coming to pass. I foresaw the typewriter as becoming obsolete. I went back to school to become a technical writer. I had a spouse who had a job so it was possible. In the larger communities there are night schools available. They may not be available in the part of Kentucky that sent McConnell to destroy democracy. In years past, the U.S. Government has provided schooling for those whose jobs have become obsolete. That should be done now. The ultra conservative “Christians” would call that just another handout. 2. Many jobs have gone overseas. Tax rebates for those who would bring those jobs back might be an answer. Obama wanted to do that, but he was stopped by those who dare call themselves legislators. 3. Any voice, for the working class, has been silenced so they can be used to climb on for the wealthy. They have been devalued so much that they are starting to believe it. During the middle ages the working class was a high honor. It was the merchants and lawyers that were down on the pile.This morning, when some Democrats said that gorsuch had voted on legislation against the working class, he responded that he worked for the little guy several times. “The little guy…” Wake up working class, you are not the little guy.

  8. nutbar March 26, 2017

    The orange perv is an expert on job creation. The kind of jobs that don’t include paychecks or cause contractors to claim bankruptcy. Of course when you take into account his bragging that everyone would have the best health care at a fraction of the cost of Obamacare on his first day in office and the reality of his plan being a massive tax break for only the wealthiest while costing 24 million Americans basic health care you realize that his amazing jobs plan actually means 24 million more unemployed, lowered wages and erosion of worker rights and safety regulations because he loves workers even more than he admires/gropes women.

    1. lilly tan March 26, 2017

      <- I was without work for 6 months when my former Co-worker lastly recommended me to start freelancing at home… It was only after I gained $5000 in my initial month when I really believed I am able to do this for a living! At the moment I am joyful than ever… I work-from-home moreover I am my own boss now like I always wanted… I see quite a lot of unsatisfied people around me, working the same old boring job that is sucking the daily life out of all of them day-after-day… Each time I see anybody similar to that I say START FREELANCING MAN! This is how I started ……………………… http://301.fm/aefd

    2. dpaano March 27, 2017

      And his upcoming budget will cause even MORE unemployment when he fires most of the government workers and cuts back several very important departments! He has NO concept of running a government….it is NOT like running a business! He can huff and puff and blow the house down, but it doesn’t get the job done!

  9. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 27, 2017

    now its DONNY DUMP’s brain dead followers don’t want to say thy are sorry or were wrong with the DUMPSTER . no saying thy made a mistake with the clown .so thy keep defending him (BUT EVEN THAT CROWD IS SHRINKING EVERY DAY ) as it is now even the world is seeing Russia’s PUTTHEAD as a nicer gut then DONNY DUMP now that’s truly sad

  10. ivory69690@yahoo.com March 27, 2017

    Trump shifts blame for health-care collapse to far right seeking the reason for the failed plan look in the mirror see the lying dirt bag DONNY DUMP reason enough !((The health-care debacle isn’t Trump’s biggest failure)) hmmmmmmm well I can say the worlds biggest loss started when DONNY DUMP THE DUMPSTER filled with BULL was born and or hatched

  11. FireBaron March 27, 2017

    Mitch McConnell and John Boehner swept the GOP back into control of the House and Senate with, among other things, the promise of a Jobs bill that would have provided a jumpstart to us businesses in restoring decent paying jobs in the US. Why did this never even get into committee? Because they were afraid such a bill would look like a victory for President Obama, who called their bluff on it! Just like they past 47 toothless ACA killing bills that they knew would never be signed, nor could they override the vetoes.

    So, now it’s time for Teflon Donnie to put up or shut up about jobs. Remember those 1000 factory he claimed to have saved in that one location? Well, only about 60% of the employees got to keep their jobs. The rest were lost to automation. Oh, and the second factory the company owned across town sent their 2500 jobs to Mexico. This guy doesn’t know how to run a business. He had people to do it for him, when he wasn’t getting in their way. Every thing he personally touched made the Hindenberg’s return trip to Germany from the US look successful. He did almost as well as the Titanic’s return trip to Liverpool after her maiden voyage!

    1. dpaano March 29, 2017

      I finally had a chance to read the whole article, and I think it’s interesting. It’s a little more than my feeble mind can handle, but what I did understand made sense…..at least to me. I doubt if the righties will agree to this, but the cost would be excellent. The government would save money for welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. and spend less in the long run. This seems very logical to me….and, as I said earlier, that’s something that is dearly lacking in our government today!

    2. itsfun April 7, 2017

      263,000 new private industry jobs created in March 2017.
      source ADP national employment reports from April 5, 2017

  12. dpaano March 27, 2017

    I didn’t get to read all of this, but it sounded great so far. Will read more of it tomorrow…..of course, it’s too logical, so you can’t expect the GOP to go for it!

    1. Just A Citizen March 28, 2017

      Logical??? You have to be kidding!

  13. Jack Hunter April 2, 2017

    M­a­n­y p­e­o­ple w­a­nt t­o ha­v­e a awesome in­com­e at their, bu­t t­he­y do­n’t kno­w ho­w t­o exactly d­o th­at o­n th­e Int­ernet. Th­ere ar­e a many w­ays t­o ea­rn massive am­ount of mo­ney, b­ut wh­enev­er p­eopl­e t­ry th­at the­y g­et tr­app­ed in a fraud, Therefore I am sh­aring wi­th yo­u a g­enuine an­d gu­arante­ed w­ay f­or fre­e to ea­rn hug­e am­ount of mon­ey a­t ho­me.I am earning atleast $10000 every month since a whole year.Its on-line job and also not difficult to do, Even a little child can do this job and make money online. If you want a happy and rich life then you should copy and paste this online site in browser and then follow instructions to get started today and earn Thousands Over the internet……….. http://gochiurl.com/15csk

  14. itsfun April 7, 2017

    263,000 new private industry jobs created in March.
    Small business 118,000 new jobs
    medium business 100,000 new jobs
    large business 45,000 new jobs.
    Source ADP national employment report from April 5, 2017
    Not a bad start for the new President.

  15. Benjamin Jenkins April 11, 2017

    Have you in any case made huge profits without providing for sale things or even without working on any multilevel marketing form of work and not have to make an investments anything. Allow me to tell you about a job whereby pretty much all techniques are going to be alloted to you and also it is a relatively easy as well as relatively simple job. Without requiring to launch your very own web addresses and all that., all will be delivered to you cost free. Visitors should certainly log in a site so you are going to get money for that. It really is as simple as that. I am taking home big profits in a home office because of this job exactly like $20 thousand a month and possibly higher if you might really want to receive very similar to that then follow these really simple suggestions by exploring this blog or website >>>>> http://v15.uk/ia9No

  16. Gemma Clarke April 15, 2017

    ” I didn’t get to read all of this, but it sounded great so far. Will read more of it tomorrow…..of course, it’s too logical, so you can’t expect the GOP to go for it!”

    – – – – SPONSORED LINK —- “Do you have a paypal and want to earn extra income?”
    See if you qualify


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.