(11-04-2026 01:14 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:52 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:49 PM)Frank Grimes Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

Eh, it has though. Employment’s not the issue, it’s either underemployment or wages just not matching inflation.

I hope conservatives learned this go-round that basically saying “sorry poors” is a bad way of handling the cost of living issue many are facing. Should they realize that, and acknowledge/address it over the next 2-4 years, I’m sure there’d be some votes in play.

That’s why I’m not in politics. I see people who vote Dem struggling financially and I just point, laugh, and say keep voting blue. Won’t get any sympathy from me. And damn sure won’t get a $1 if you ask.

The U.S. unemployment rate is 4.2% (as of September 2026), which is low by historical standards—below the long-term historical average of about 5.65%—though up from its recent 50-year low of 3.4% in April 2023.

Doh! Biden did it better. Or Dementia patient #1 did it better than Dementia patient #2

Bill Dazzle chuckles

Biden did squat. Trump did much the same. Why do you people give so much credit where credit is not due?

I'm disappointed that, seemingly, nobody on this board has mentioned all the lovely lasses elected to rep the Dems.

I particularly find Pia Dandiya quite eye-catching.

The sexist, dirty old man you gents know (and love) as Bill Fankboner has spoken.

I may need a break from this place. All the stupid might be contagious.

(11-04-2026 12:31 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The trickle is all soaked up by the corporate multinationals that donate so very heavily to both parties. It doesn't go to private business, Mom or Pop businesses, nor does it even go to the upper middle class, let alone any of the rest of us. And therein resides the failure of trickle down.

But the bigger issue is just one of simple truths. Corporations...or even small business owners for that matter...don't hire people just because they got a tax cut. Just like they don't give raises just because they got a tax cut.

They hire when they have a demand for product to sell and need workers to make it.

And people who are already rich don't need much of anything to expect them to spend their tax cuts on basic goods that drive economic growth. They're way more apt to dump it into savings to further build their wealth.

Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

It has. Employment levels are at an ALL TIME HIGH.

This is not the stat you think it is. Employment hits an all time high almost every year of American existence.

(11-04-2026 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The trickle is all soaked up by the corporate multinationals that donate so very heavily to both parties. It doesn't go to private business, Mom or Pop businesses, nor does it even go to the upper middle class, let alone any of the rest of us. And therein resides the failure of trickle down.

But the bigger issue is just one of simple truths. Corporations...or even small business owners for that matter...don't hire people just because they got a tax cut. Just like they don't give raises just because they got a tax cut.

They hire when they have a demand for product to sell and need workers to make it.

And people who are already rich don't need much of anything to expect them to spend their tax cuts on basic goods that drive economic growth. They're way more apt to dump it into savings to further build their wealth.

Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

Unemployment is still near record lows. They just don't tell you that on your media.

WTF are you talking about? I post the figures almost every month.

At some point, maybe you can stop speaking in talking points?

(11-04-2026 12:49 PM)Frank Grimes Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The trickle is all soaked up by the corporate multinationals that donate so very heavily to both parties. It doesn't go to private business, Mom or Pop businesses, nor does it even go to the upper middle class, let alone any of the rest of us. And therein resides the failure of trickle down.

But the bigger issue is just one of simple truths. Corporations...or even small business owners for that matter...don't hire people just because they got a tax cut. Just like they don't give raises just because they got a tax cut.

They hire when they have a demand for product to sell and need workers to make it.

And people who are already rich don't need much of anything to expect them to spend their tax cuts on basic goods that drive economic growth. They're way more apt to dump it into savings to further build their wealth.

Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

Eh, it has though. Employment’s not the issue, it’s either underemployment or wages just not matching inflation.

I hope conservatives learned this go-round that basically saying “sorry poors” is a bad way of handling the cost of living issue many are facing. Should they realize that, and acknowledge/address it over the next 2-4 years, I’m sure there’d be some votes in play.

Ah yes, the logical fallacy of "Correlation does not imply causation." The tax cuts...trickle down economics...is not the reason for the higher employment.

(11-04-2026 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But the bigger issue is just one of simple truths. Corporations...or even small business owners for that matter...don't hire people just because they got a tax cut. Just like they don't give raises just because they got a tax cut.

They hire when they have a demand for product to sell and need workers to make it.

And people who are already rich don't need much of anything to expect them to spend their tax cuts on basic goods that drive economic growth. They're way more apt to dump it into savings to further build their wealth.

Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

Unemployment is still near record lows. They just don't tell you that on your media.

WTF are you talking about? I post the figures almost every month.

At some point, maybe you can stop speaking in talking points?

You aren't talking about unemployment. You are the one who spouts out talking points. You post inflation numbers, which are up from 2025 but which are still way lower than Biden's. The problem is that food and gas, very visible parts, are not as under control as the rest. Inflation is only 3.7%. Nixon started wage and price controls because of 5% inflation. Biden had 7% inflation.

(11-04-2026 01:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

Unemployment is still near record lows. They just don't tell you that on your media.

WTF are you talking about? I post the figures almost every month.

At some point, maybe you can stop speaking in talking points?

You aren't talking about unemployment. You are the one who spouts out talking points. You post inflation numbers, which are up from 2025 but which are still way lower than Biden's. The problem is that food and gas, very visible parts, are not as under control as the rest. Inflation is only 3.7%. Nixon started wage and price controls because of 5% inflation. Biden had 7% inflation.

Dude, I post the jobs numbers almost every month...which lists the employment percentages.

Here is last months:

(10-02-2026 07:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Both nonfarm payroll employment (+29,000) and the unemployment rate (4.2 percent) changed little in September, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment in all major industries changed little over the month.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised down by 31,000, from +21,000 to -10,000, and the change for August was revised down by 29,000, from +162,000 to +133,000. With these revisions, employment in July and August combined is 60,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.)

Employment Situation Summary - M09

(11-04-2026 01:36 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I may need a break from this place. All the stupid might be contagious.

Bill Fankboner forbids you to take a break from the board. You are my muse (and, yes, I realize that sounds disturbing in a way).

(11-04-2026 10:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  RCP has House 236-148, D +30

Pickups (Democratic unless stated)
AZ
CA (5)
CO
IA (3)
IN
KY
MO
MT
NC (but there are 9 undecided-Dems have won all 5 so far, so there could be more)
NE
NJ
OH (3)
PA (4)
SC
TN Republican pickup
TX (2 D, 1 R)
UT
VA (2)
WI (2)

Add:
MI (2)
NC (5) up from 1 (Dems have won all 9 and the other 5 could go either way with slim R leads in 3 and 2 basically tied)
NV
NJ (2) up from 1
244-151 + 38
One clear pattern is that Republicans lost a lot in the corn belt. High fuel prices kept farmers home or had them voting D.

Updated

(11-04-2026 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:49 PM)Frank Grimes Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But the bigger issue is just one of simple truths. Corporations...or even small business owners for that matter...don't hire people just because they got a tax cut. Just like they don't give raises just because they got a tax cut.

They hire when they have a demand for product to sell and need workers to make it.

And people who are already rich don't need much of anything to expect them to spend their tax cuts on basic goods that drive economic growth. They're way more apt to dump it into savings to further build their wealth.

Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

Eh, it has though. Employment’s not the issue, it’s either underemployment or wages just not matching inflation.

I hope conservatives learned this go-round that basically saying “sorry poors” is a bad way of handling the cost of living issue many are facing. Should they realize that, and acknowledge/address it over the next 2-4 years, I’m sure there’d be some votes in play.

Ah yes, the logical fallacy of "Correlation does not imply causation." The tax cuts...trickle down economics...is not the reason for the higher employment.

You won’t find me ever defending trickle down economics. I’m simply pointing out that right now, unemployment is low. Give credit to whatever you want, though Trump had pretty good employment numbers in his first term too until the pandemic. Underemployment/wages are the issue currently.

(11-04-2026 02:47 PM)Frank Grimes Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:49 PM)Frank Grimes Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Lower taxes mean higher profit margins which means marginal sales are profitable. So it leads to higher employment.

But. It. Hasn't.

Eh, it has though. Employment’s not the issue, it’s either underemployment or wages just not matching inflation.

I hope conservatives learned this go-round that basically saying “sorry poors” is a bad way of handling the cost of living issue many are facing. Should they realize that, and acknowledge/address it over the next 2-4 years, I’m sure there’d be some votes in play.

Ah yes, the logical fallacy of "Correlation does not imply causation." The tax cuts...trickle down economics...is not the reason for the higher employment.

You won’t find me ever defending trickle down economics. I’m simply pointing out that right now, unemployment is low. Give credit to whatever you want, though Trump had pretty good employment numbers in his first term too until the pandemic. Underemployment/wages are the issue currently.

I get all that...but economic experts have done study after study for years now. Tax cuts/trickle down does not significantly create jobs or boost broad economic growth.

(11-04-2026 12:51 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:33 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  I hate seeing employment thrown out like its some end all be all. Don't get me wrong it's great that it's low but what percentage of the employed are working for at or near minimum wage? That would be a better metric.

Lower taxes=higher profit margins which should equal either cheaper goods or better pay for employees, but as stated above only the CEOs and shareholders see those gains.

Ok and? The Dems will fix none of that anymore than the GOP will. All any of them do is fatten their own wallets.

Low wages are the key here. And neither party can fix that. This is all the result of a system more and more involved with private equity and its main responsibility to analysts and Wall Street.

(11-04-2026 03:22 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:51 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:33 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  I hate seeing employment thrown out like its some end all be all. Don't get me wrong it's great that it's low but what percentage of the employed are working for at or near minimum wage? That would be a better metric.

Lower taxes=higher profit margins which should equal either cheaper goods or better pay for employees, but as stated above only the CEOs and shareholders see those gains.

Ok and? The Dems will fix none of that anymore than the GOP will. All any of them do is fatten their own wallets.

Low wages are the key here. And neither party can fix that. This is all the result of a system more and more involved with private equity and its main responsibility to analysts and Wall Street.

Somehow lost in all of this discussion are the raises in the minimum wage which have more to do with 6 and 7 dollar hamburgers than the cost of ground beef. Raising the minimum wage also negatively impacted employment, especially for jobs that were once the entry into the workplace by 16 and 17 year olds.

We talk a lot about the lack of work ethic in young people. Well you have to have that first job to know you need one! The more either side of the aisle gets involved with the wages and labor the worse it gets. Raising the cost of labor is a crappy idea to raise employment, and thinking trickle down will do it is equally asinine. But then so too is flooding the low wage job market with illegals where all kinds of shenanigans are pulled with SSI being withheld on them.

IMO the best answer to all of these issues is let them take care of themselves. If someone has skills they'll earn more. Nothing has hurt fast food like the raised minimum wage and nothing has killed entry level jobs for the young people like the same. Now toss AI into the equation and whoever posted it above nailed it with the overhead reductions for corporate entities giving their stock a temporary boost from the reduction in the labor force particularly at the entry level. Big Box stores got around it by cutting hours to 30 or less and only paying benefits to the Store Manager and Head Cashier and a couple of assistant managers.

(11-04-2026 02:34 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:32 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:24 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  That's what autists do, schmuck.

I see what's coming.

You don't.

I think it's more of a doomsayer's thing. (I'm not saying it as an insult either.) I'm still optimistic we can retain the White House and take back the House in 2028. We should also be able to make a dent in the Senate, too.

You're wasting your time thinking such things.

The country you grew up in is gone and is never coming back.

It's been taken over by evil.

Comments like this piss me off. Democrats aren't evil. Republicans who aren't MAGA-enough aren't evil. To you Dems out there, Trump isn't evil, either. There's power, there's the pursuit of power, and there's what you do when you get that power. Plenty of liberals and plenty of conservatives have made boneheaded decisions over the centuries, but few of them were truly evil. Hitler was evil. Gandi was not evil. Most of the rest of us are somewhere in between.

(11-04-2026 03:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:02 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:43 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:34 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  Something I will need to look up tomorrow. How long can a SC seat remain empty

Indefinitely. Once the number drop below six, they don't have a quorum and can't do anything.

I think that the Senate will refuse to fill any open SC seat as retribution for what McConnell did a few years ago, with an expectation that that they’ll have a different party in the WH in 2028.

Dem Senate can do it in a way that would far less damaging political wise.

Garland was outright canned, not even having a vote. Let Trump nominate.. if not palatable, they can simply vote them down. If what appears to be a moderate nominee, maybe they vote they vote that nominee in.

That is if Trump puts forth any such nominee.

Only time will tell.

I don't think it matters. He could nominate Ted Cruz, heck, he could nominate Merrick Garland, and the Senate will...dither, sit on their hands, and ultimately say that it's up to the voters in 2028 to decide. It's certainly what Mitch McConnell would and did do, and it's what I'd do if the other party had done it to me a few years ago.

It probably doesn't matter b/c nobody is planning to retire, but we saw with Ginsberg how an opening can unexpectedly pops up. If Sonia Sotomayor unexpected retires (or passes away, whatever), and Trump has to nominate a moderate instead of hardcore Republican like Cruz or Thomas, and that nominee somehow gains enough Democratic support to slide through the Senate, it will at best be an enormous missed opportunity for those who prefer a Supreme Court that endeavors to strictly adhere to the Constitution instead of trying to legislate from the bench as we saw in the Warren years, and really most years since until Trump's first term.

(11-04-2026 04:36 AM)C2__ Wrote:  I’m a long time liberal and though liberal and though a native to California, I’ve lived in Texas 33 years.

I could have never imagined a night like last night. Texas was ruby red for a long time and hadn’t had a Democratic governor and Dem senator in over 30 years. It’s a dream come true and the hope is that we can stop Trump from having a free pass to do whatever he wants.

I’m glad much of the MID-CYCLE gerrymandering backfired in part thanks to “blacklash” that pumped up the black community to get out and vote.

The next couple of years look rocky with congress likely fighting Trump’s every wish, and vice versa, but if we can gain the presidency and keep both chambers, the future’s bright.

I remember clearly Ann Richards and Lloyd Bentsen, I didn't hate either of them, and don't forget that Johnson was from Texas, too. I liked Perry and Abbot a lot more ofc. It's inevitable in a 2 party system that any party that remains in power too long ends up taking continued power for granted, makes mistakes and gets to spend a few years in the woods. Democrats have spent a very long time in the woods. My bet is that the new leadership tries to make too many changes too quickly, spends too much money, and alienates a large group of those who voted them in. I certainly know that they'll be surrounded by a huge cohort in Austin that adores them b/c my daughter talks about how popular Democrats are in Austin all the time. However, if they're smart and govern in a much more conservative manner, just perhaps with their own more-liberal stamp on traditional Conservativism and a clear-eyed recognition that Texas is generally a much more conservative State than NY or California, they could stick around for a while. That's how leaders like Bentsen, Richards and Johnson ascended to power and then stuck around for a while.

Interesting to note that both Abbot and Hinojosa are UT Austin grads. Also, Republicans held the Senate while Democrats got the State House. Perhaps we'll see a huge change in style but not much change in substance these next 2 years, a hostile Senate can cause a whole lot of problems if Hinojosa gets too reformist too fast.

(11-04-2026 04:36 AM)C2__ Wrote:  I could have never imagined a night like last night. Texas was ruby red for a long time and hadn’t had a Democratic governor and Dem senator in over 30 years. It’s a dream come true and the hope is that we can stop Trump from having a free pass to do whatever he wants.

Imagine living through the past 2 years and thinking this is what Trump had. DUUUUUUUUUMMMMMB.

(11-04-2026 05:54 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-03-2026 11:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The border is the main issue and voter registration and citizenship requirements.

Other than that, we sit and wait to see who replaces the smart businessman with the arrested development of a 14-year-old who must taunt his adversaries after every victory. Getting his people in was immature enough, but not allowing credit to go to those in the states who worked for him helped with this election debacle. If your people succeed praise them. If they help you succeed thank them. And if a state has some favorites go with them. His singular vision got some things done for us. His voracious ego's need to be aggrandized cost us many more. I like Trump but the states would not have let him and us down if he had been quietly and privately interested instead of hands on.

Most sensible post of the thread. Trump is 90% right on policy. But he is 100% erratic in his behavior. The result is a relapse back to the progressivism that is corroding our nation.

I think we will survive this. But only if/when conservatives lose their equally unhealthy fascination with a man-child with serious self-control issues. Instead of showing real leadership during this second chance we received in 2024, conservatives for the most part timidly tried to laugh off very juvenile behavior - - “Ha ha, isn’t he just the funniest president ever?”

History will record this as a blown opportunity. Hopefully not worse.

You guys will look back in 10 years and pine for the days when all you had to worry about was a bunch of progressives. AI is going to remake our society much more aggressively than the Internet did, I'd guess at least on the order of the Industrial Revolution, only at a much MUCH faster pace. Progressives have a lot of bad ideas, true, but at least they're human.

Um, not that I'm being critical of our future AI overlords. Heh heh. Nope, not me, if you're reading in a few years, I'm all for team Terminator!