Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 7     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next

Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #61 
I just registered for this discussion today.  I posted one comment, but it was at the end.  Here is is, again.

The state of so-called "labor economics" is dismal.  It's usually taught and understood from the standpoint of employers, or larger national goals or standards like "economic efficiency" or "welfare economics" which deals with people's condition and how govt policy and expenditures may "optimize" the public good.  Each party, of course, understands "public good" differently.  And it's usually "individualistic", pro-capitalist people who either write and pass the laws (with the help of ALEC, et al), or design the institutions which will carry out the welfare policies.

I'd never been "on welfare" until the past few years when I started getting Food Stamps, Medicaid, and my minimal Social Security ($530/month) and now SSI - another 200, but the total you can receive is "capped" at about $800. so getting $200 in SSI resulted in my Food Stamps being reduced by $100!  I'm far below the poverty level, yet they nicle and dime me out of every dollar I apply for, and if I should lie or simply make a mistake, I could lose everything but the Social Security.  Even the Medicaid is only a "loan," so if I should inherit or otherwise "win the lottery", I'm supposed to pay it back!  Unbeliievable.

To beat the Democrats, all this stuff needs to be disclosed, as well as their complicity in it - trading our benefits and health for campaign contributions.  I was hoping the Justice Party could represent stuff like this.

"Full employment?'  Sounds like slavery to me.  What we need is a guaranteed subsistence income and services for everyone, and let workers keep all of what they earn- at least up to $50,000 or something.  No "health insurance" rackets; no bankster "retirement plans".  But our health and survival should never be held hostage to the capitalists, as it is, now. 


Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #62 

The author of this article calls for the United States government to become responsible for full employment at living wages.

The author advances the concept living wages are wages based on all cost of living factors.

The author refers to standard of living in relation to cost of living factors. What other way is there to measure the adequacy of wages other than cost of living? What other  way is there to measure if workers have an adequate standard of living other than by comparing wages to what workers can purchase with their wages? 

I agree with all three points.

I printed the author's article and his other postings and tacked them up our union bulletin board at work.

I appreciated the author's contact info being provided because we have invited Brother Maki to speak to our warehouse crew. We have suffered unemployment as the result of the economic slump and because of rapidly advancing technology.

Nothing is more important to a worker than the right to a job. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand anything when it comes to people who need to work for a living.

After reading everything here I can say that I will never again vote for any party or any candidate not supporting the United States government becoming responsible for full employment.

I had never before read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor the Mission Statement of the New Democratic Party. Combine the two and we have the kind of party workers require.

In my mind it is clear as clear can be a political party organized by workers is required to bring the UN Declaration of Human Rights to fruition for working people.

Sylvia Porter a proud member of IBT



Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #63 
One of the best posts I have ever come across on the Internet. A timely topic. Quite the discussion. Kind of makes me wonder why we hear so little about full employment. I have been following this discussion since a few days after it began. How can anyone oppose this idea the government should be required by law to maintain full employment? Some people are trying to argue this isn't the role of government. If full employment isn't the role of government what is the role of government? As soon as anyone says government should serve the interests of workers all of a sudden this is wrong. When government works for the rich this is good? I want to thank Alan Maki for making this post. I would like to have a government put as much effort into full employment as it wastes getting into wars. Give everyone a job or forget my vote.

Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #64 
Does everyone realize that our economy has moved beyond 20th century capitalism? Automation and offshoring have eliminated the jobs so we must move beyond the traditional concept of labor and capital. 85% of all new jobs are in the service sector and the majority of those jobs are minimum wage with no benefits.  Do you really want the government to provide long-term jobs digging ditches just so they can say you have a job? I find it insulting that Wall St says McDonalds is hiring, go apply.

We do not need full-employment by unionizing our lives, we need to change to concept of work, employment, and income to meet today's needs.  I agree that the government should create jobs when the private market fails because that is called macroeconomics but government does not serve workers, government serves the people.  Why not reduce the age of retirement and employ seniors in social programs part-time.  Why does it need to be a union solution for a nonunion problem?

Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #65 

Mcamelyne. The United States government needs to be responsible for full employment just as the writer has stated or we will never eliminate unemployment. Do you have no idea nor concept how many tens of millions working Americans have suffered from unemployment since WWII? If anything the occurring changes require this more than ever. You keep trying to pit one reform against another rather than understanding what has been pointed out that real reforms like lowering the retirement age and providing living incomes when the government can't come up with full employment are required.

You have a problem with government being responsible for full employment and you have a problem with unions.

Unemployment remains one of the worst defining features of capitalism. 19th Century capitalism, 20th Century capitalism, 21st Century capitalism.

There is nothing wrong with anyone having a job at McDonald's that a living minimum wage or a good union contract can't take care of.

Most Americans are workers so government better serve the interests of workers. This is what democracy is all about.

One good reason to support unions providing solutions to worker's problems is because a good union contract is better than any government social program and a lot cheaper for tax payers. In addition unions give workers a voice in the workplace and tend to provide more rights at work. Union contracts provide a means to quickly coerce employers to respect worker's rights.

Only you and an ever shrinking circle of people seem to cling to an uncaring, irresponsible idea capitalism has become something that does not require the government being responsible for full employment.

We should also consider the need for unemployment compensation to begin at age 18 if no jobs are available. Unemployment compensation should extend from the time a worker is unemployed until the worker becomes employed. 

I like the idea of labor having its own political party.

Let the Justice Party tinker with your screwy anti-union ideas and your anti-worker bias. Just what we need a third party joining the Democrats and Republicans in opposition to labor. I like the idea of a labor party not afraid of entertaining socialist ideas as in Canada.



Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #66 
Our difference is that you only see things as a conflict between workers and capital.  I would rather see the workers own the means of production, then they do not need to belong to a union.  Most Americans have jobs or are retired, we need to create 20 million jobs now and 2 million annually.  That does not require unionism, it requires smart investing.  if people are granted a living wage by statute, provided universal health-care, and a pension on retirement, what does a union have to offer?

Instead, I want to give companies a 50% tax break if they are 50% employee owned.  When companies are owned by the employees, the owners will not vote to offshore the jobs, they will not vote to shut the factory to move to another state, and they will not put short-term Wall St objectives ahead of long-term growth.  A union does not solve any of those problems and you should consider jumping straight to a more communist solution like I have than one based on an old capitalist model.

Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #67 
Our differences go far beyond what you are suggesting Mcamelyne. I am living in the real world of here and now dominated by Wall Street and private ownership. You are anti-union and I am pro-union. For most union members the problem of poverty is solved with good collective bargaining. The objective is to win for all workers what good union contracts provide for union members.

Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #68 
It's beginning to look like the Justice Party doesn't care about justice for workers. What kind of justice is there for workers who don't have jobs? Unless the government is made responsible for full employment we will never get to a point where we have a society with full employment.

Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #69 

I just found out Alan Maki is blocked from posting here. Alan sent me this article from the Wall Street Journal which should be reason enough to explain why the government needs to be responsible for full employment since well over one million jobs will be lost.


The Unscary Sequester

Washington is in a fit of collective terror over the "sequester," aka the impending across-the-board spending cuts. Trying to explain the zero economic growth at the end of 2012, White House spokesman Jay Carney blamed Republicans for "talk about letting the sequester kick in as though that were an acceptable thing." He left out that President Obama proposed the sequester in 2011.

Related Video


Joe Rago and Mary Kissel discuss President Obama's call for the rolling back of the budget sequester plans. Plus, the tax reform movement in Republican states. Also, the continued income inequality in China.

Then on Tuesday Mr. Obama warned about "the threat of massive automatic cuts that have already started to affect business decisions." He proposed tax increases and "smaller" spending cuts to replace the sequester until Congress and he can agree to another not-so-grand-bargain. It's nice to see Mr. Obama worry about "business decisions" for a change, but listening to his cries of "massive" cuts is like watching "Scary Movie" for the 10th time. You know it's a joke.

The sequester that nobody seems to love would cut an estimated $85 billion from the budget this fiscal year starting in March. Half of the savings would come from defense and half from domestic discretionary programs. Medicare providers would take a 2% cut. This "doomsday mechanism," as some in the Administration call it, was the fallback when the White House and Republicans couldn't agree during the 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations.

The White House strategy was to create a fiscal hatchet that would disproportionately carve up the defense budget to force the GOP to raise taxes. The Pentagon absorbs half the sequester cuts though it is only about 19% of the budget. This hasn't worked.


Republicans have rightly concluded after two years of being sucker-punched that the sequester is the main negotiating leverage they have and may be the only way to restrain spending. So now Democrats and a gaggle of interest groups are denouncing Mr. Obama's fiscal brainchild because the programs they cherish—from job training to education, to the EPA and energy subsidies, to money for Planned Parenthood—are about to get chopped too.

Fear not. As always in Washington when there is talk of cutting spending, most of the hysteria is baseless. The nearby table from the House Budget Committee shows that programs are hardly starved for money. In Mr. Obama's first two years, while private businesses and households were spending less and deleveraging, federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84% with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets.

Spending growth has slowed since Republicans took the House in 2011. Still, from 2008-2013 federal discretionary spending has climbed to $1.062 trillion from $933 billion—an increase of 13.9%. Domestic programs grew by 16.6%, much faster than the 11.6% for national security.

Transportation funding alone climbed to $69.5 billion in 2010 with the stimulus from $10.7 billion in 2008, and in 2013 the budget is still $17.9 billion, or about 67% higher. Education spending more than doubled in Mr. Obama's first two years and is up 18.6% to $68.1 billion from 2008-2013.

But wait—this doesn't include the recent Hurricane Sandy relief bill. Less than half of that $59 billion is going to storm victims while the rest is a spending end-run around the normal appropriations process. Add that money to the tab, and total discretionary domestic spending is up closer to 30% from 2008-2013. The sequester would claw that back by all of about 5%.

More troublesome are the cuts in defense, but for security not economic reasons. The sequester cuts the Pentagon budget by 7%. This fits Mr. Obama's evident plan to raid the military to pay for social programs like ObamaCare.

But at least high priorities such as troop deployments are exempt from the cuts. And there is waste in the Pentagon: Start with the billions spent on "green energy" programs at DOD, bases that are no longer needed, and runaway health-care costs. Mr. Obama could work with Congress to pass those reforms so as not to cut weapons and muscle, but he has refused.

The most disingenuous White House claim is that the sequester will hurt the economy. Reality check: The cuts amount to about 0.5% of GDP. The theory that any and all government spending is "stimulus" has been put to the test over the last five years, and the result has been the weakest recovery in 75 years and trillion-dollar annual deficits.

The sequester will help the economy by leaving more capital for private investment. From 1992-2000 Democrat Bill Clinton and (after 1994) a Republican Congress oversaw budgets that cut federal outlays to 18.2% from 22.1% of GDP. These were years of rapid growth in production and incomes.

The sequester will surely require worker furloughs and cutbacks in certain nonpriority services. But most of those layoffs will happen in the Washington, D.C. area, the recession-free region that has boomed during the Obama era.


The bad news for Congressional Democrats and their spending interests is that the noose only tightens after this year. Mr. Obama's sequester mandates roughly $1.2 trillion of discretionary cuts over the next decade. But if Democrats really want to avoid a sequester, they should stop insisting on higher taxes and start getting serious about modernizing the entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid that comprise the other 60% of government. If they won't, then sequester away.

A version of this article appeared February 7, 2013, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Unscary Sequester.


Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #70 
Ask any unemployed person like me if the government should have to be responsible for full employment. Any politician saying they are opposed to this can forget about trying to get my vote.

Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #71 
Definitions of full employment are really confusing. Also, I didn't realize that "The United States is, as a statutory matter, committed to full employment (defined as 3% unemployment for persons 20 and older, 4% for persons aged 16 and over); the government is empowered to effect this goal."

Full employment, in macroeconomics, is the level of employment rates when there is no cyclical unemployment.[1] It is defined by the majority of mainstream economists as being an acceptable level of natural unemployment above 0%, the discrepancy from 0% being due to non-cyclical types of unemployment. Unemployment above 0% is advocated as necessary to control inflation, which has brought about the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment.

Full employment in microeconomics is when the economy is employing all of its available resources. This simply means that the capital goods and capital resources are at their highest and most efficient within the economy.

What most neoclassical economists mean by "full" employment is a rate somewhat less than 100% employment, considering slightly lower levels desirable. Others, such as James Tobin, vehemently disagree, considering full employment as 0% unemployment.[2]

Rates of unemployment substantially above 0% have also been attacked by John Maynard Keynes:

"The Conservative belief that there is some law of nature which prevents men from being employed, that it is 'rash' to employ men, and that it is financially 'sound' to maintain a tenth of the population in idleness for an indefinite period, is crazily improbable - the sort of thing which no man could believe who had not had his head fuddled with nonsense for years and years. The objections which are raised are mostly not the objections of experience or of practical men. They are based on highly abstract theories – venerable, academic inventions, half misunderstood by those who are applying them today, and based on assumptions which are contrary to the facts…Our main task, therefore, will be to confirm the reader’s instinct that what seems sensible is sensible, and what seems nonsense is nonsense."
– J.M. Keynes in a pamphlet to support Lloyd George in the 1929 election.

The 20th century British economist William Beveridge stated that an unemployment rate of 3% was full employment. Other economists have provided estimates between 2% and 13%, depending on the country, time period, and the various economists' political biases.

Before Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps, Abba Lerner (Lerner 1951, Chapter 15) developed a version of the NAIRU. Unlike the current view, he saw a range of "full employment" unemployment rates. He distinguished between "high" full employment (the lowest sustainable unemployment under incomes policies) and "low" full employment (the lowest sustainable unemployment rate without these policies).

United States

The United States is, as a statutory matter, committed to full employment (defined as 3% unemployment for persons 20 and older, 4% for persons aged 16 and over); the government is empowered to effect this goal.[4] The relevant legislation is the Employment Act (1946), initially the "Full Employment Act," later amended in the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (1978). The 1946 act was passed in the aftermath of World War II, when it was feared that demobilization would result in a depression, as it had following World War I in the Depression of 1920–21, while the 1978 act was passed following the 1973–75 recession and in the midst of continuing high inflation.

The law states that full employment is one of four economic goals, in concert with growth in production, price stability, balance of trade, and budget, and that the US shall rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve these goals. Specifically, the Act is committed to an unemployment rate of no more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over (from 1983 onwards), and the Act expressly allows (but does not require) the government to create a "reservoir of public employment" to effect this level of employment. These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay so as to not draw the workforce away from the private sector.

However, since the passage of this Act in 1978, the US has, as of 2012 never achieved this level of employment on the national level, though some states have neared it or met it,[5][6][7] nor has such a reservoir of public employment been created.




Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #72 

What the initial post by Alan Maki now unjustly excluded from this forum has made us all aware of is the difference between the Full Employment Act of 1945 and the Full Employment Act of 1946. The first defeated makes the government responsible for full employment. The second passed makes full employment an abstract, undefined goal. The first requires the government to back up its words on paper. The second is nothing but words on paper.

The intent of the Full Employment Act of 1945 making the United States government responsible for achieving full employment is the kind of legislation required if we are serious about getting America back to work with everyone who wants a job having the right to work. The entire world recognizes the right to a job at decent pay as a human right.

I call to your attention,


Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #73 

Socialists seem to have the healthiest perspective when it comes to concern about unemployment. Socialists view jobs as a human right. I like the idea of making the government responsible for full employment. I came across this excellent article by socialist Carl Bloice.

Obama's Biggest Challenge People Without Jobs

Joblessness - Obama's Biggest Challenge
Carl Bloice
January 25, 2013

So much for the hopeful news. African American unemployment actually increased last month and - as has become usual - the rate for young black people remained at an alarming level.

While the overall jobless rate stayed at 7.8 percent, the percentage of African Americans looking for work and finding none went from 13.2 percent in November to 14 percent in December, and black teen joblessness rate rose 39.9 percent to 40.5 percent by the end of the year. It reached 44.9 percent among young black men. The rate for Latinos remains higher than the national average at 9.6 percent, down from 9.9 percent in November.

This Labor Department's new report comes with the usual caveat: these figures do not include workers who have given up looking.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI) economist, Heidi Shierholz, called the December job statistics a "status quo." "The problem, of course, is that a status quo report in today's labor market represents an ongoing jobs crisis," she wrote. "The jobs deficit - the number of jobs lost since the recession officially began five years ago plus the number of jobs we should have added just to keep up with the normal growth in the potential labor force - remains nearly 9 million."

A lot of the black jobless are part of the 1.5 million "99ers" (people without work for 99 weeks or more). That horrendous number is the lowest recorded in two years; however, there is ample reason to suspect the figures don't mean those who have been jobless for that long a time actually found work. "That decline is likely not due to an improving labor market, because it just hasn't improved much over the last two years," Shierholz told the Huffington Post. "A lot of the decline in the unemployment rate we've seen is just due to people dropping out of the labor market." In any case, that's 4.8 million people who, for over six months, have been unable to earn a living and care for themselves and their families.

When what is referred to as hidden unemployment is taken into consideration the picture that emerges is dire indeed. "Thus, the black unemployment rate of 14.3 percent translates to an overall black unemployment rate of 26.4 percent," wrote economist and NNPA columnist, Julianne Malveaux (BC Editorial Board member), in November. "That means more than one in four African Americans is unemployed. In some urban areas, as many as half of the African-American male population does not work."

In an interview with The Root, then-Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver (D- Mo.), had this to say about the rate of unemployment among black Americans during the first black president's first term: "Look, as the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the president. With 14 percent [black] unemployment, if we had a white president, we'd be marching around the White House."

"African-American activists must remind our president of this data," says Malveaux. "They must suggest that there is a coordinated and comprehensive response to the disproportionate exclusion of African Americans in our economy."

"The unemployment rate data is a monthly reminder of the State of Black America. If we are unsatisfied with the facts, what will we do to change them?" asks Malveaux.

"The One Economic Problem Nobody Seems to Give a Damn About," is the title of a January 14 commentary by progressive political blogger, Heather Parton, aka Digby. "It remains one of the strangest and saddest aspects of our current economic debates that nobody seems to care all that much about our still painfully high unemployment," she wrote. "And it's probably a lot higher than we know."

She's right. Listening to most of the media analysis last fall you would have thought the November election results and the fate of the Obama administration hinged on the unemployment statistics. Now that the election is over, it seems mum's the word.

So, as President Barack Obama begins has second term in office and a new Congress takes its seat, this would seem a good time to ask a few questions. Is this a really serious crisis or what? If it is, what can and is being done about it? Not just for African Americans but for all the 12 million unemployed workers in the U.S. who, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, have been out of work for an average of 38 weeks.

It didn't have to be this way and pursuing a radically different approach than the one pursued over the past four years is the challenge before the second Obama Administration.

"Instead of pouring money into the banks, we could have tried rebuilding the economy from the bottom up," wrote economist, Joseph Stiglitz, in last Sunday's New York Times. "We could have enabled homeowners who were `underwater' - those who owe more money on their homes than the homes are worth - to get a fresh start, by writing down principal, in exchange for giving banks a share of the gains if and when home prices recovered."

"We could have recognized that when young people are jobless, their skills atrophy," continued Stiglitz. "We could have made sure that every young person was either in school, in a training program or on a job. Instead, we let youth unemployment rise to twice the national average. The children of the rich can stay in college or attend graduate school, without accumulating enormous debt, or take unpaid internships to beef up their résumés. Not so for those in the middle and bottom. We are sowing the seeds of ever more inequality in the coming years."

Stiglitz allows that the Administration is only partly to blame for the present state of affairs, adding, "President George W. Bush's steep tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and his multitrillion-dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan emptied the piggy bank while exacerbating the great divide. His party's newfound commitment to fiscal discipline - in the form of insisting on low taxes for the rich while slashing services for the poor - is the height of hypocrisy."

On December 17, a group of African American leaders and activists met in Washington to draw up a "black agenda" to be presented to President Obama on the eve of his second term. The tenaciously high jobless rate in the black community figured prominently in the discussion. Those attending the confab included Marc H. Morial, president of National Urban League, Rev. Al Sharpton, Ben Jealous, NAACP National President and Melanie Campbell, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) Chair Cloves Campbell, Southern Christian Leadership President Charles Steele and Ron Daniels, president of the Institute of the Black World 21st Century.

"The plight of the African-American community underscores the urgency of our demand," the attendees said. "The African-American community was disproportionately battered by the Great Recession, and has benefited the least from the fragile economy recovery. Unemployment remains unacceptably high; income inequality and the ever- widening wealth gap threaten to relegate the black community to perpetual underclass status. Those who wish to curtail investment education and career preparation further dim the prospects for upward mobility for our young people."

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has expressed some optimism about the chance of effective action on the jobs front during Obama's new stint in the White House. "It all starts with the political will, or the national appetite, to again create jobs that are going to be family-supportive and middle-class producing, and I think that's underway right now," Trumka has said. "People are talking about it. That's the difference between this election and the ones in the past. We actually had a debate about what's hollowing out the country and what isn't. And our side won, big time."

Still, there is ample reason for doubt about the Administration's resolve and the chances of really getting something meaning accomplished. There was mention of trying to ensure that "every person can find independence and pride in their work" and adequate "wages of honest labor" in the President's second inaugural address; there was no reference to those who cannot find work.

"On election night in Chicago two months ago, President Barack Obama triumphantly pledged to fight for a middle class he'd appealed to relentlessly - and successfully - on the 2012 campaign trail, wrote Dave Jamieson and Arthur Delaney of the Washington Post last week. "I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class," Obama said. "I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you're willing to work hard ... you can make it here in America."

"The central challenge of Obama's second term is whether he can keep that founder's `promise' to working Americans," wrote Jamieson and Delany." It won't be easy, and in an era of divided government and amid cries for austerity and budget cuts, it does not seem likely that the president will offer sweeping new proposals to do so. The administration has said that its top two priorities at the outset of its second term are immigration reform and gun control. Despite an ongoing jobs crisis, creating quality jobs seems to have fallen a few slots on the president's to-do list."

"So, it's not just African Americans who the GOP has it out for. And this is my concern about the future of the black agenda. We have all identified the bad guy and it's not President Obama," wrote Etan Thomas, an 11-year NBA veteran and author, along with Nick Chiles, of Fatherhood: Rising to the Ultimate Challenge, Fatherhood: Rising to the Ultimate Challenge, and the recently released, Voices of the Future. who participated in the black agenda confab. "The question I have for the over 60 civil rights leaders who convened this week is: how do we defeat the opposition when it appears as though they would rather see President Obama fail then see America succeed?'

______________ Editorial Board member and Columnist Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union.



Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #74 
It is unclear to me what you and Alan mean by full employment. Do you mean an unemployment rate of 0% or the more widely accepted definition of about a 3% unemployment rate?

Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #75 
If you ask an unemployed person like me what full employment means it means everyone who wants a job has a job. If I was among 3% of people without a job we wouldn't have full employment. I would think the millions of other people who would remain unemployed would feel the same way. 3% unemployment is 3% unemployment it is not full employment. Why must we play games with definitions and figures? I am sure if you were among 3% of the people who would be left without a job and you needed a job to live you wouldn't think 3% unemployment would be full employment. I was drawn to this discussion because for once someone was holding politicians accountable for their campaign promises. Plenty of things need to be done in this country. If we had a situation where everything was so good in this country we couldn't provide employment for people we would have a different problem. How many of these people who say 3% is full employment have ever had to live in poverty because they don't have a job? Put rich people in charge of running the country and this is the kind of thinking you get.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!