Obama used an executive order as all Presidents have done.
Check all the last 20 President's?
Who has fired the most the United Sates Attorney Generals at one time and why?
Russians wanted that. Big cover up.
I read this on Twitter.
[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/us-attorney-justice-department-trump.html?_r=0[/URL]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;448788]Tres, I don't dispute your argument, but the catch phrase "to do the work that most Americans will not do" is a bit off putting since I have cleaned toilets; mowed lawns, picked okra, beans, berries ie stoop labor; thrown newspapers; sacked groceries; cleaned rat cages for medical studies; dug ditches and footings and sundry other low level labor. It did not pay much but it did pay something.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "to do the work that most Americans are to LAZY to do".
The "social safety net" is both too large and much too generous. We have too many physically able people who simply will not work and would rather be supported by the state. Perhaps the "safety net" should be reserved for those unable to work or fend for themselves but the able bodied should be off of all support and perhaps those jobs will disappear.
Hell, even Bill Clinton forced very moderate changes in the system that resulted the hundreds of thousands coming of the assistance rolls until the Obamanation used an executive order to suspend those modest requirements.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the econ 101 lesson
[QUOTE=Dickhead;448791]I would suggest that "most Americans" are only unwilling to certain types of work because the wages are ridiculously low. $7.25 an hour as a federal minimum wage is just plain unrealistic. Some states have raised the minimum wage, but others, including my own, have not. So the answer is higher wages, not immigration. Increasing the supply of available workers only depresses the price of labor, and workers are very, very far from receiving the marginal value they add to the product, as can be seen by the ever-increasing ratio of CEO to worker wages and the ever-increasing disparity of income and wealth. Always and everywhere, supply and demand dictate. If the supply of labor is held constant or at a natural level of increase, wages will rise until demand is met. Period, end of story. And yes, this will be reflected in increased prices for some goods and services, but higher wages stimulate the economy because the working classes spend their money, while the rentier class hoards its money, which decreases the velocity of money and is economically stagnating.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the econ 101 lesson, but liberals always forget the other half of the equation. As wages rise so does the cost of the products being produced, resulting in increases in price, which puts the people you are trying to help by raising the minimum wage right back where they started.
But then liberals never understood economics anyway.