Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5991

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Forget dramedy.  In some ways, this is the most fascinating soap I've seen since KNOTS LANDING.  All it needs, of course, are Donna Mills and her eye shadows.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^ I've wondered the same thing. I remembering hearing on one of the news shows that Trump can limit the number of refugees to 50,000 as has been announced and that we are basically at that number for the year anyway. I'm not sure what that means for the Syrians who were on track to come though. Hopefully they can get in.

 

I think it's basically a myth the the majority of the American public has ever been welcoming to new comers.  At the same time at least we do take a large number of people overall and there are a lot of good people who work hard to help people settle in.  There are plenty of countries who won't take anyone, including Japan. Abe was quoted not that long ago saying something along the lines of 'We need to get our native population growing before we can take in other people'.  Meanwhile their economy has been floundering for years in part because they have negative population growth. Pure madness and if Bannon has his way we'll be headed down the same path.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/japan-rejected-99-percent-refugees-2015-160124070011926.html

Edited by Juliajms
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wish I could find the link but I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal the other day talking about the budget plan being now tweaked by the White House. THey are changing the growth numbers increasing them to around 4% which is 1.5% higher than the Obama white house had them. Most economists and the CBO have the projections at around 2% for the next 10 years, but of course Trump doesn't believe in economists.  The Congress of course has to follow the CBO in the budget.

 

What's interesting about it was the fact that our labor market participation rate has been up while unemployment has been down, not hard to see why(baby boomers starting to leave the workforce) and the only reason we are able to maintain a decent participation rate is - lets wait - immigration and foreign workers. So the WSJ article basically is saying if the rate of immigration is reduced that there is no possible way those growth numbers are achievable and likely would not be even if we weren't kicking people out, deporting, and cutting back on immigration. And they can keep increasing H1B Visa's but that won't make up for it, as many younger people who come here on Visa's going to college end up staying and become permanent residents.

 

It's amazing the ignorance of these people. While this country may not be welcoming to many, these people help our economy thrive and grow. It's what has separated us from everyone else. There are already 3 million jobs in this country that can't be filled due to lack of skilled personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's going to be interesting to see when those first set of numbers that are truly from the Trump administration (not riding the Obama administration's coattails) come in, particularly from the agricultural sector.

 

With these travel bans issued by executive order, it will also be interesting to see how the healthcare field (which uses an enormous amount of immigrant labor, some of the foreign doctors that many practices had hoped would fill vacant family doctor/GP positions have already been affected) will be impacted.

 

Hold onto your hats.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • It's Men's Mental Health Month.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • This is (maybe) overly simplistic and nonsoapy, but Doug needs to go to Gamblers Anonymous, to deal with the addictive neurological excitement hits that gambling gives him - and which control his life. Vanessa needs to go to therapy to find ways to remain healthfully lusty and sex-positive, but to stay away from anyone who would demean her.
    • YT keeps commending GL clips to me. I discovered Kathleen Cullen was on in Christmas 1987. Was there any talk of making it permanent  or was this just a special visit? I wish they had made the visit permanent. I liked her chemistry with Grant Aleksander.  
    • I'm not sure it's as unpopular as you think.  I just think the show knew they were in a bind, and needed a proven couple for the viewers to invest in. Trying to reunite Vanessa and Ross had just failed in 87. I don't think Ed and Holly's affair was well received, as Simon and Garrett had a brother/sister chemistry. Enter Billy and Vanessa, who give you history and an out not to try and do a Josh/Reva/Billy triangle, which would've really wrecked the relationship between Josh and Billy. I'd have been ok with trying Vanessa/Ross again, and doing a Vanessa/Ross/Holly/Billy quad for a while. I hated Nadine. HATED. She had to be the most insufferable also-ran before ATWT's Julia Lindsay. This is where I wish I knew Roger's history better.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • GROSS. Michael Swan was hot back in his ATWT days. Now he's 76 and WAY past his hot years.    
    • Since she kidnapped, locked up and tried to kill her father's wife I'd say that is still a pretty big deal
    • I'm good with the gushing, too. There aren't many soap icons like John Black, and that's important to celebrate and remember. And yes, life does go on for other characters, but as they say, timing is everything. Going sky diving the day before the funeral? And during a week of shows that were so powerful emotionally? No.    
    • No. There might have been a slight pause for dramatic effect after his "death," but pretty soon after they showed him in France getting plastic surgery and getting involved with his doctor, then planning with her to bring Christina to France. (She thought he had good reason to do it; she wasn't a bad person or anything). Now that I think of it, there must have been some kind of pause before that, during the 70s. Rita was accused of killing a private patient for an inheritance when she lived in Texas. Part of the backstory was that Roger had been there, too. Not sure exactly when or how long that was.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy