Thoughts
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238506"><em>In reply to lvthunder:</em></a></blockquote><p>There was a time when being employed meant full-time, with so much forced part-time employment today the official unemployment rate is misleading. The numbers should be weighted by the hours worked to give a more accurate measurement.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238701"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>The U6 measurement isn't the official unemployment rate (and it doesn't measure relative work hours either). So you're never going to hear that number mentioned in a conventional news report. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238791"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>I don't know if your point about sample size is valid, but I can understand the difficulty in obtaining more detailed information. Data that doesn't really enter into public or policy discussions, might just as well not exist. The problem is that decisions are made based on a flawed model. Thus we have "experts" scratching their heads about why pay isn't rising much when unemployment is low.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238850"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>Did Democrats really talk a lot about U6 under Bush or talking about U6 now? Yes, politicians like to quote data that supports their case while ignoring data that doesn't, but there's no particular reason to believe every party does it to the same degree. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238924"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>With a Republican President and Republican-controlled Congress, the only opportunity for leadership to fix things lies with Republicans. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238954"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>The Democratic "grass roots" are even less able to change things than Democratic members of Congress unless you are referring to the long term. All the Democratic legislators could do to change the status quo is abandon their values and vote with Republicans. On the other hand moderate Republicans (if there are any) could show leadership by standing up to their more conservative colleagues and not allow some of the more extreme bills to get through. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238970"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>There was very wide public opinion against repealing the ACA, yet only a very few Republicans in very specific situations voted against the repeal. Except for one, all of those Republicans who voted against the repeal had no problem voting to weaken it later. Had a strong grass roots effort really influenced the results we would have seen a much broader defection and a sustained effort to maintain it on the part of Republicans. </p><p><br></p><p>I'm not sure what you think "rallying public support" would mean beyond what Democrats in Congress actually did to protect the ACA. </p><p><br></p><p>The first real opportunity for grass roots efforts to protect the ACA will come in the 2018 election because the outcome of elections count while public opinion often doesn't.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#239026"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>So which Republicans do you claim were flipped via a grass-roots movement and which grass-roots organizations did the flipping? It might be satisfying to believe that grass-roots efforts made the difference, but that doesn't mean they did.</p><p><br></p><p>It's not unusual at all for the party not occupying the WH to increase their numbers in the midterms. </p><p><br></p><p>Democratic "Voter outreach" would have been of little value in 2017 since there were no elections (except for special ones). </p><p><br></p><p>I disagree that Democrats have no message. The danger is in letting the Presidential loss lead to a fracture in the party. </p>
skane2600
<p>I Pledge $30 to the US Economy this week by buying coffee from my favorite coffee vendor. Apple is investing its money in its business, its not a charitable donation.</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><a href="#238509"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>Nobody said it was a charitable donation.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238510"><em>In reply to shameermulji:</em></a></blockquote><p>The word "Pledges" is not usually associated with a company's intention to invest in themselves. This is being presented by Apple as if they are doing somebody a favor whether they mention the word "charity" or not.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238680"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>Obviously the press release was intended to suggest Apple was going to help the economy. There would be no point making this public other than trying to self-promote. They could invest in themselves without making a big deal about it.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238725"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>"Yes, company press releases tend to paint a company in a positive light that isn't exactly a news flash. "</p><p><br></p><p>Obviously, but the frequency with which companies pat themselves on the back, doesn't render the self-serving aspect immune to criticism or render critics disingenuous.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238788"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>The phrase "it's not a charitable donation" isn't a claim that anyone said it was, just an acknowledgement that they pitched it as a benefit to the country. In recent years there's been a pattern to treat the addition of new jobs by a company as doing people a favor and this is consistent with that view IMO.</p><p><br></p><p>I put quotes around the word "pledges" because that's proper usage. Apparently I mistook the characterization of the author with what Apple actually said in their release. That was a mistake on my part, but doesn't change the fact that they are suggesting their are helping the country.</p><p><br></p><p>Here's a headline direct from Apple's newsroom: "$350 Billion Contribution to US Economy Over Next Five Years" Note the word "contribution". </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238847"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>Not moving the goalposts at all. My consistent point was that Apple was characterizing this as beneficial to the country and my quote illustrates that's exactly what they did. </p><p><br></p><p>I would make the exact same claim if it was Microsoft, Google, Amazon or any other company. </p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><a href="#238524"><em>In reply to rehooks47:</em></a></blockquote><p>This should help answer your question</p><p><br></p><p>https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/it-looks-like-apple-is-bringing-back-home-nearly-all-of-its-250-billion-foreign-cash.html</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238557"><em>In reply to Usman:</em></a></blockquote><p>Only corporations are considered to be doing us a favor when they pay their taxes at a reduced rate. US based corporations should have been paying taxes based on all their income regardless of where it's earned from the beginning. The fact that there's this loophole is just another example of corporate welfare.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238763"><em>In reply to offTheRecord:</em></a></blockquote><p>As is well known, most US companies pay less than what corporate tax rates would indicate. Yes, they took steps to lower their taxes which under current law is legal but that doesn't make it any less of a loophole (no quotes required).</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#238820"><em>In reply to offTheRecord:</em></a></blockquote><p>If you are going to make an argument that companies are keeping their profits overseas because of high US taxes you have to talk about the taxes they actually pay not the taxes they would theoretically pay. As a practical matter "effective" tax rates are the only ones that matter.</p>
Bats
<blockquote><a href="#238572"><em>In reply to Roger Ramjet:</em></a></blockquote><p>LOL…why don't YOU tell us what the fine print is. </p><p><br></p><p>All in all, I think you're scared that the economy will boom, because of this.</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><a href="#238707"><em>In reply to PincasX:</em></a></blockquote><p>Of course Apple's initiatives alone won't cause a domestic boom but if it can provide an incentive for others to do the same then it's possible.</p>