Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Ford cancels Mexico plant, expands U.S. factory and adds 700 jobs
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ijPJcxnwAOZR-M

And? Ford overall is shedding 35,000 job so 700 back isn't exactly helping Ford workers.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/1000...5000-jobs.html. GM is cutting 14,000 https://www.thestreet.com/story/1000...5000-jobs.html

Many other companies, big and small are negatively impacted. The tarriffs are also resulting in higher manufacturing prices which in the long run costs consumers more. So much winning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/b...gtype=Homepage
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta.../#13ee6feb7b26
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...urting-america

As the shutdown drags on that will put a drag on the economy too. Workers who aren't getting paid can't pay bills, rent, mortgages, loans, anything beyond staples. As they cut back on entertainment, buying a new car, eating out, that has a ripple effect on other businesses. It also impacts companies that do business with the US government.

[Unregistered]

This has to be Klugman, the guy that said a housing bubble was a good thing. The guy who said the impact the internet would have on the economy would be no greater than that of a fax machine. The guy who most recently predicted the stock market would plunge if Trump were elected.

How does that guy still have a job?

Wrong. Krugman agrees but it wasn’t him. That would mean you got it wrong again dummie.

Thomas Piketty has advocated 80%.

Edward Wolff, a tax expert at New York University, put it this way to the Post: "You can get a hell of a lot of a money from taxing the 1 percent."

After talking with several economic experts from across the political spectrum, Stein's reporting found that the 70 percent rate—if applied to the top .05 percent of income earners in the U.S. today—could generate an estimated $72 billion a year, or $720 over ten years. From the reporting:

This $720 billion in a decade is not nearly enough to fund Medicare for all, which has been estimated to increase government outlays by about $30 trillion over a decade (while also zeroing out premiums and deductibles paid by Americans).

Still, it could fund a number of other measures. It could come close to funding the entirety of Sanders’s free college tuition plan ($800 billion), fund President Barack Obama's plan to get close to universal prekindergarten ($75 billion over a decade), forgive more than half the student debt in America ($1.4 trillion), cover Democratic leaders' plan for boosting teacher pay and school funding ($100 billion), or come close to funding a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

[Unregistered]

Wrong. Krugman agrees but it wasn’t him. That would mean you got it wrong again dummie.

Thomas Piketty has advocated 80%.

Edward Wolff, a tax expert at New York University, put it this way to the Post: "You can get a hell of a lot of a money from taxing the 1 percent."

After talking with several economic experts from across the political spectrum, Stein's reporting found that the 70 percent rate—if applied to the top .05 percent of income earners in the U.S. today—could generate an estimated $72 billion a year, or $720 over ten years. From the reporting:

This $720 billion in a decade is not nearly enough to fund Medicare for all, which has been estimated to increase government outlays by about $30 trillion over a decade (while also zeroing out premiums and deductibles paid by Americans).

Still, it could fund a number of other measures. It could come close to funding the entirety of Sanders’s free college tuition plan ($800 billion), fund President Barack Obama's plan to get close to universal prekindergarten ($75 billion over a decade), forgive more than half the student debt in America ($1.4 trillion), cover Democratic leaders' plan for boosting teacher pay and school funding ($100 billion), or come close to funding a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

Tax the rich and MAGA will follow just like in America’s heyday!

[Unregistered]

Ford cancels Mexico plant, expands U.S. factory and adds 700 jobs
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ijPJcxnwAOZR-M

Did you seriously just throw an article dated January 4, 2017 out there con? We’re you aware of that or just ignorant ?

Let’s start with that 😂🍿 then talk more

[Unregistered]

A Michigan electronics company chairman, who voted for*Donald Trump in 2016, now says he feels betrayed and his factory may have to move to Mexico because of the president’s*tariffs.

Pat LeBlanc, the chairman of EBW Electronics, told The New York Times that Trump’s tariffs were “killing” the company, which makes lights for the auto industry.

“I just feel so betrayed,” LeBlanc told the newspaper. “If we fail because the company is being harmed by the government, that just makes me sick.”

LeBlanc, a Republican, said he expects 2019 profits will be cut in half.

Cory Steeby, EBW’s president, told the Times the tariffs that make steel and aluminum more expensive to import were “a tax that comes right off the bottom line,” and the company might not have a choice but to move production to avoid them.

“It totally incentivizes you to move out of the United States and build either in Canada or Mexico,” Steeby said. “These are active conversations right now.”

LeBlanc’s latest comments were a far cry from the optimism he expressed just a few years ago when EBW was ranked as one of the fastest-growing companies in the region.

“Yeah, we’re adding jobs and we’re growing faster than anyone else,” LeBlanc boasted in a 2013 interview with the Holland Sentinel. “Getting into LEDs is what really propelled us. And we’re not moving to Mexico.”

[Unregistered]

Wrong. Krugman agrees but it wasn’t him. That would mean you got it wrong again dummie.

Thomas Piketty has advocated 80%.

Edward Wolff, a tax expert at New York University, put it this way to the Post: "You can get a hell of a lot of a money from taxing the 1 percent."

After talking with several economic experts from across the political spectrum, Stein's reporting found that the 70 percent rate—if applied to the top .05 percent of income earners in the U.S. today—could generate an estimated $72 billion a year, or $720 over ten years. From the reporting:

This $720 billion in a decade is not nearly enough to fund Medicare for all, which has been estimated to increase government outlays by about $30 trillion over a decade (while also zeroing out premiums and deductibles paid by Americans).

Still, it could fund a number of other measures. It could come close to funding the entirety of Sanders’s free college tuition plan ($800 billion), fund President Barack Obama's plan to get close to universal prekindergarten ($75 billion over a decade), forgive more than half the student debt in America ($1.4 trillion), cover Democratic leaders' plan for boosting teacher pay and school funding ($100 billion), or come close to funding a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

There are plenty who challenge the veracity of Piketty’s data and the validity of his conclusions. You might want to familiarize yourself with them.

https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Piketty-...32524647&psc=1

[Unregistered]

We don't necessarily have to have medicare for all but an efficient, affordable public option - basically what ACA was supposed to be. Many would still get insurance through their employer as an employer benefit. But we have to get private for profit insurance companies out of that market completely as that was the biggest flaw with ACA. Have one government agency in charge of a national plan means tremendous bargaining power to get prices way down. Continue to offer subsidies for those making below x amount. Economies of scale matter as does doing a better job spreading risk with a bigger pool of healthy and non healthy people. So does competition. When we moved to CT from NY our premiums went up nearly 30% because NY has more insurance companies competing for business. Slowly over time it could morph into a national plan because if a public option is cheaper than your employer plan you're more likely to move over, adding more people and adding yet more economies of scale.

[Unregistered]

Another blue state going down the toilet- Illinois.

Nearly $15 billion in overdue bills (including $800 million in interest). A $7 billion budget deficit.And an eye-watering $250 billion bottomless pit of unfunded pension obligations. Illinois spends $600 million more than it takes in. It’s now $15 billion behind on its bills and counting. The state just passed a*32% income tax hike.Taxpayers can vote with their feet.*Illinois is the second-most moved-out state in 2018.*U.S. Census report last month also revealed Illinois had the second-largest population decrease among U.S. states.*Over 100,000 people left the state in 2018. Since 2010, Illinois has had the worst population loss in the nation. 47% of people in Illinois said they want to leave the state. Over the last decade, more than half a million people have done just that. The people who leave are generally better educated, more skilled, and earn more money than those who stay.

[Unregistered]

There are plenty who challenge the veracity of Piketty’s data and the validity of his conclusions. You might want to familiarize yourself with them.

https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Piketty-...32524647&psc=1

Hilarious ....

That volume collects essays from twenty authors ....different countries and backgrounds ....but NOTHING specific on point .....

Given that you are the guy citing 2 yr old links like they are fresh off presses ....do better ...discuss on merits ....

15,000 highest earners (over 10 million income annually can easily take this haircut

So suck it !!! Lots of $$$$$$ there .

Sovereign nations always do it so ....suck it

[Unregistered]

Did you seriously just throw an article dated January 4, 2017 out there con? We’re you aware of that or just ignorant ?

Let’s start with that 😂🍿 then talk more

Gonna bump this . Informative as to how Cons fo it ....

The author hasn’t stepped forward to claim I see ....

[Unregistered]

There are plenty who challenge the veracity of Piketty’s data and the validity of his conclusions. You might want to familiarize yourself with them.

https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Piketty-...32524647&psc=1

Why don’t YOU give us a quick summary since you imply you know .

Or qualify the 20’authors as thought leaders in their field and I’ll read it

Go ahead hack away on that

Bwa hahah

[Unregistered]

Hilarious ....

That volume collects essays from twenty authors ....different countries and backgrounds ....but NOTHING specific on point .....

Given that you are the guy citing 2 yr old links like they are fresh off presses ....do better ...discuss on merits ....

15,000 highest earners (over 10 million income annually can easily take this haircut

So suck it !!! Lots of $$$$$$ there .

Sovereign nations always do it so ....suck it

Tee Hee just playing his role here as the obnoxious, nose picking, playground irritant.

Go ahead and run on your progressive agenda. Please!

[Unregistered]

Wrong. Krugman agrees but it wasn’t him. That would mean you got it wrong again dummie.

Thomas Piketty has advocated 80%.

Edward Wolff, a tax expert at New York University, put it this way to the Post: "You can get a hell of a lot of a money from taxing the 1 percent."

After talking with several economic experts from across the political spectrum, Stein's reporting found that the 70 percent rate—if applied to the top .05 percent of income earners in the U.S. today—could generate an estimated $72 billion a year, or $720 over ten years. From the reporting:

This $720 billion in a decade is not nearly enough to fund Medicare for all, which has been estimated to increase government outlays by about $30 trillion over a decade (while also zeroing out premiums and deductibles paid by Americans).

Still, it could fund a number of other measures. It could come close to funding the entirety of Sanders’s free college tuition plan ($800 billion), fund President Barack Obama's plan to get close to universal prekindergarten ($75 billion over a decade), forgive more than half the student debt in America ($1.4 trillion), cover Democratic leaders' plan for boosting teacher pay and school funding ($100 billion), or come close to funding a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

Here's reality of her plan.

#1

https://files.taxfoundation.org/2017...Households.png


#2 The greatest costs would not ultimately be borne by wealthy people, but by poor people, who already struggle with energy bills and transportation costs.


We should look for creative solutions that don't burden Americans with high energy costs or counter-productive tax rates. We need to find more people like this guy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marshal...BwUHIxyi-Ak57s

[Unregistered]

And yet, the Washington Post declares the situation at the border as a “ humanitarian crisis “ they mention the two children that died after their parents smuggled them in . As tragic and unfortunate that is, are not the children of Chicago and other Democratic controlled areas in America that are suffering on a daily basis, being killed on their front steps of their home from violence and those children having drank tainted water for years a ‘ humanitarian crisis ? This is the disconnect of the Progressives on display.

Good point. People like TMan prefer to look the other way on these issues.

[Unregistered]

Only 43% approve of his job performance so you can't even say he deserves to stay based on performance. Besides, the law takes priority.

Amazing isn't it? Despite all the bad press, his number continue to hold.