Amerika, zemlja velika

[Аврам Гојић]

Vidi kako se preziva pa razmisli 

[Dr Arslanagić]

Sta PPP ameri kazu na kandidaturu Jeba? Ja se zaljubio ko mala devojcica, klasicni americki dobrocudni dekica :D  Lepo je zvucala i njegova prica da ce se boriti protiv lobista, ne znam koliko u tome ima istine...

 

sti lud? govno najobičnije.

 

Kristi do pobjede!

[Shan Jan]

Crispy Christie? Vi ste totalno ludi. Jeb je car, secam se ja njegovog slogana dok sam jos mleko pio.

[Prospero]

 

 

 

U biti - svako osim HRC, šije i Jeba po Beltway establišmentosti™

[Shan Jan]

Matori Rand da, ovaj mali deluje kao tipicni pragmatik i realista™ koji jase na tatinom talasu. Da mu je tata GWB bio bi redneck. 

[theanswer]

Jebga, da je baba đedo imala bi mudo. 

[ObiW]

Sta PPP ameri kazu na kandidaturu Jeba? 

 

Jeb jedini ima sanse da pobedi Hilari. Dal ce prodje primary, e to je pitanje. 

[marv]

Vidi kako se preziva pa razmisli 

 

sta mu uradise ona ameba da je jeb primoran da skriva prezime

[Prospero]

Sa ovakvim obećanjima Jeb možda i pobedi: 
 

“There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of 4% a year,” Mr. Bush said. “And that will be my goal as president—4% growth, and the 19 million new jobs that come with it.”

 
-_-  

ceo tekst:
 

Whatever Happened to 4% Growth? And Could Jeb Bush Bring It Back?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/15/what-ever-happened-to-4-growth-and-could-jeb-bush-bring-it-back/
JOSH ZUMBRUN Jun 15, 2015 WSJ
 
As he announced his presidential campaign, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush again laid down his promise, if elected, of growing the U.S. economy by 4% a year.“There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of 4% a year,” Mr. Bush said. “And that will be my goal as president—4% growth, and the 19 million new jobs that come with it.”
 
Making that happen will require some real wizardry, reversing long-running trends in population, job participation and worker productivity.
 
Prior to 2000, 4% growth  in real gross domestic product (that is, overall economic growth, adjusted for inflation) was common. In the half century from 1950 to 2000, growth was above 4% almost exactly half the time. But since the turn of the millennium, the economy’s annual growth climbed above 4% only once, for a very brief period in 2003 and 2004.
  
Why did the economy stop growing above 4%? And could better policies from the president (and Congress) push it back up to 4%? Is it mathematically possible?
 
The economy’s ability to grow ultimately depends on its inputs–the number of workers and how much work they’re able to get done.
 
One reason that growth has been slower over the past 15 years is simply that the growth of the population in their prime working years has slumped. From the 1970s to 1990s, the number of people ages 25 to 54 grew rapidly as the massive baby-boom generation entered the workforce. The number of workers was growing even faster as women increasingly entered the labor force, too. But those trends have since lost their momentum.
 
Over the next decade, the Census Bureau projects that the population ages 25 to 54 will grow from about 127.8 million to 134.1 million, a growth of about 6.3 million people. Currently, about 77% of people those ages have jobs. So that works out to about 4.9 million people. Add in teenagers and people in the twilight of their careers boosts the number, but leaves the economy well shy of 19 million new jobs. The Labor Department projects that from 2015 to 2025, the total labor force–including teenagers and working seniors–will grow by nine million workers. That’s still 10 million shy of Mr. Bush’s goal.
 
But, wait a second, hasn’t labor-force participation (the share of the population working or looking for work) slumped?
 
Indeed it has, and one place that policy might be able to boost growth would be boosting the rate to its prerecession levels. Labor-force participation was gradually dwindling even before the recession hit (which makes some economists think it will be particularly difficult to reverse). Were the rate to return to its prerecession level of 80%, due to some wise new policy measures or other forces, that’s good for an extra four million jobs. This still only gets jobs growth to about 13 million jobs–about six million short.
 
This purpose of this post isn’t to handicap Mr. Bush’s specific policies, but merely to analyze the demographic math. Getting to 19 million jobs would require some combination of three things–first, dramatically reversing the decline of prime-age participation, or, second, boosting the employment levels of teenagers and seniors (the latter of which is already climbing, although that partially reflects the economic insecurity of people who would prefer to be retirees). Absent that, the third way to boost the size of the U.S. population and its workforce is with significantly more immigrants. In order to add 19 million people, you’d probably need all three things–lots more teen jobs, lots more participation of prime-age workers and lots more immigrants.
 
Even if everything goes right and the economy adds 19 million jobs, that’s only employment growth of about 1.3% per year. In order to get 4% GDP growth, you’re going to need the economy’s productivity to climb swiftly. Productivity’s last major surge lasted from the late 1990s to the the mid-2000s. Presidential policies may play some role in productivity growth, but most economists would attribute the 1990s boom to the information-technology revolution. That probably had more to do with engineers in San Francisco than politicians in Washington, and even so it didn’t last for an entire decade.
 
Currently, the U.S. is actually mired in something of a productivity slump.
 
The Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office both peg the economy’s long-run potential growth at around 2% to 2.3%. Without different demographics, a massive influx of immigrants, or a technological miracle, an entire decade of 4% GDP growth–just mathematically–is a very high goal.

 

[pacey defender]

it's the economy, stupid

 

 

[Weenie Pooh]

Ali gde je naveo da će rasti 4%godišnje "for an entire decade"? Zar ne bi par godina daljeg pada, a onda jedna godina rasta od 4% u odnosu na prethodnu mogla da se računa kao ispunjeno obećanje? Sad, ako bi ga neko stvarno prozivao za to što tako ne izađe na 19 miliona...

 

Missim, čak je i 1 Frank Underwood ponudio samo 10 miliona novih radnih mesta, uz sve ukidanje zdravstvenih i penzionih i disaster fondova.

[theanswer]

Mislim da Jeb nema šanse u Iowi, da mu je play na NH i onda na keš koji ima kod sebe. 

[WTF]

Jeb jedini ima sanse da pobedi Hilari. Dal ce prodje primary, e to je pitanje. 

 

+1.  A za primary ce da bude mnogo tesko.  Uopste mu ne ide na ruku ta cela clown car atmosfera. Cak i ako sklope neki zakulisni pakt da smanje napade jedni na druge i se sve svede na to ko ce bolje i efikasnije da se pokenja na Hillary, on tu ima najmanje municije.

 

Mislim da Jeb nema šanse u Iowi, da mu je play na NH i onda na keš koji ima kod sebe. 

Pobeda u IA nista ne znaci u velikoj slici, to je samo za lozenje medija.  Mene ne bi cudilo da posle recimo prvih 10 primaries Jeb ima ukupno najveci broj glasova a da pobedi na 1 ili 2 od njih. 

[Shan Jan]

Donal Tramp se kandidovao  Nema dalje, ovi prajmarisi mora da se gledaju!  :ziga:

[Weenie Pooh]

Odmah obećanje da će povoljno da sagradi zid preko južne granice, i da ga naplati Meksiku :D Pa kad otvori elitni odred stražara koji se zaklinju na doživotnu službu da brane Zid. Ako ne bude dosta zainteresovanih, bar su zatvori prepuni...