https://www.mail.com/int/business/markets/9579982-france-shuts-down-mass-strike-hits-trains-eiffel-t.html#.1258-stage-hero1-1

Appears France is in more trouble than usual, and it is about money. Surprise, surprise, you cannot take away benefits in a socialist economy without the masses rising and yet they don't actually know what the proposed changes might be. Just the thought is enough, and yet in other places reform can happen when approached in a reasoned way

Perhaps France should be spelled G-R-E-E-C-E.

Not a very good rollout of proposed reforms for sure but what did they expect? They had to see that coming.

France takes no hard lines on anything....they flex at whims...expect them to give into the anarchist....They have a jellified backbone on all issues EXCEPT hating Dnald Trump where the little wuss Macron become a HE MAN and tries to blow his chest out and act tough: Macron, if you haven't noticed is a real slimy bastard.

France can only be saved if the Rightist/Nationalist come to power to drag their bacon out of the fire.

Reminds me of the Tea Party protests about social security during the Obama Care debates.

France takes no hard lines on anything....they flex at whims...expect them to give into the anarchist....They have a jellified backbone on all issues EXCEPT hating Dnald Trump where the little wuss Macron become a HE MAN and tries to blow his chest out and act tough: Macron, if you haven't noticed is a real slimy bastard.

France can only be saved if the Rightist/Nationalist come to power to drag their bacon out of the fire.

The nationalists did not succeed, Macron defeated them, and now he thinks he has the power to reform the state. perhaps he is taking a leaf out of Trump's book

It's no wonder the French would be so up in arms if Macron thinks like the dufus does, that his win entitles him to do whatever he wants, the way he wants. The dufus is a poor example to follow if indeed Macron is channeling him.

Talaniman: I'm no Tea Party fan but the Tea Party didn't get into the street and start tearing and burning things up like the French are doing.

I doubt Macron is channeling Trump: Remember, he's the guy who squeezed the hell out of Trump's small hands: I have worked with some Pipe Fitters in my time who took extreme pleasure in punishing you with brutal, vise-grip handshakes that could almost put you on your knees: NOT FUN!

When the French economy is humming along like ours, then I would compare Macron to Trump. Right now he is a midget compared to Trump. He is a much slicker politician. I will give him that, but virtually everyone is a better politician than Trump.

Point taken Vac, but the two civic movements/protests mirror each other with the fear of gubment taking away a cherished and important benefit to them. Maybe the French have a wild group embeddeded in the protestors and strikers more prone to more violence, as most protests here are known to have, but it's the same dynamic and lets face it as I tried to point out above Macron could and should have taken a greater care in his rollout of his reforms he wanted. Whether he channeled the dufus or not he bears some responsibility for the confusion, as does the dufus when he rolls out his plans to deal with our issues, most notably his treatment of migrants "caravans', dreamers, kids, his wall, budgets, vets, or a multitude of brash words and the actions that follow.

Seems that a more thoughtful care to the feelings of springing uncertainty on affected constituents would have mitigated the chaos and confusion is all I'm saying. Obviously the dufus doesn't care how his words and actions are perceived or reacted to, and it appears Macron doesn't either in this case at least.

Will Macron take responsibility for this confusion? If not that is right out of the dufus playbook in my view. What do I know since I never took pleasure in inflicting pain on anyone.


When the French economy is humming along like ours, then I would compare Macron to Trump. Right now he is a midget compared to Trump. He is a much slicker politician. I will give him that, but virtually everyone is a better politician than Trump.

True that especially given the protests that have been going on all year in France. Hard to NOT have seen this coming and taken steps to prevent such confusion in an already volatile atmosphere. Like throwing a lit cigarette out the window during the dry season.

CARELESS!

True that especially given the protests that have been going on all year in France. Hard to NOT have seen this coming and taken steps to prevent such confusion in an already volatile atmosphere. Like throwing a lit cigarette out the window during the dry season.

CARELESS!

Pretty well said. You see! We agree again.

It's almost a no brainer for any reasonably responsible person. You would expect that from a leader.

France does parallel the U.S. in many ways.....I think it is forgotten that France assisted the birthing of the U.S. when they helped the Colonials in battling the British: We owe them a debt of gratitude and its a connection that is etched in the granite of time. But France is a country that is often hard to "like" and I say this after hearing so many foreigners I've know, most of them other Europeans, speak poorly of the "French attitude". France also has problems with aliens and immigrants, too, just like the U.S. and there are political fights over that subject there, as well. But when it comes to Macron, he just comes across as an arrogant arse.

I didn't particularly care for the spectacle of the dufus and Macron slobbing and pawing each other when they first met. YUCK!

I understand that. I felt the same way when Obama went over to some Arab country and bowed to their King or whatever he was. YUCK!

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/1393/images/OBAMA%20BOWS%20TO%20SAUDI%20KING(1).jpg

I didn't particularly care for the spectacle of the dufus and Macron slobbing and pawing each other when they first met. YUCK!

Yes that bromance was quickly over, is it the Trump personality or are Macron and Trudeau just arseholes?

Or is Vlad just passing the dufus around to the rest of the boys? Like Kim, Chi, Eroogan, Assad and the Saudi's.

Or is Vlad just passing the dufus around to the rest of the boys? Like Kim, Chi, Eroogan, Assad and the Saudi's.

No you can't blame Vlad for this and we can be assured Vlad would not conduct himself this way

And you know Vlad isn't the dufus pimpmaster how?

And you know Vlad isn't the dufus pimpmaster how?

Is the US in Russian hands?

You have to understand something here, Clete. To Tal, Trump and Putin are the sources of everything that's wrong in the world. That's a little hard to understand since Putin's Russia has very little global influence and Trump's major "crime" seems to have been being President during one of the best periods of economic growth for the U.S. in the past hundred years. A quarter of a million new jobs were added just in November. Yeah, that ole Trump is a really bad guy.

Is the US in Russian hands?

Seems like it. Vlad benefits from the dufus being in the WH for sure. We haven't changed the name to Vladland or made Russian the official language yet, but he seems to pick our politicians like he was a citizen.


You have to understand something here, Clete. To Tal, Trump and Putin are the sources of everything that's wrong in the world. That's a little hard to understand since Putin's Russia has very little global influence and Trump's major "crime" seems to have been being President during one of the best periods of economic growth for the U.S. in the past hundred years. A quarter of a million new jobs were added just in November. Yeah, that ole Trump is a really bad guy.

Except in some states and some regions where the great economy hasn't trickled down to yet. Haven't talked to a midwestern farmer lately have you?

Except in some states and some regions where the great economy hasn't trickled down to yet. Haven't talked to a midwestern farmer lately have you?

I say the glass is 9/10th full. You say the glass is 1/10th empty. Have you talked to the recipients of the quarter of a million new jobs just from the month of November?

I understand that. I felt the same way when Obama went over to some Arab country and bowed to their King or whatever he was. YUCK!

Did you feel the same way when your boy Trump held hands and danced with all the white-sheeted princes in Saudi Arabia? YUCK!

Did you feel the same way when your boy Trump held hands and danced with all the white-sheeted princes in Saudi Arabia? YUCK!

First of all he is not "my boy". He got my vote because the dems ran the most unqualified candidate in my lifetime who was a major supporter of abortion, gay marriage, endless welfare programs, and worst of all, maintaining the status quo. But Trump has done a lot of things I have said "yuck" to. Chief amongst them is his imitation of Obama is forming an unholy alliance with the House and running up ridiculous budget deficits. Most of this other stuff is just camera candy.

I say the glass is 9/10th full. You say the glass is 1/10th empty. Have you talked to the recipients of the quarter of a million new jobs just from the month of November?

266,000 new jobs not bad for the season, while 700,000 get kicked off snap benefits. Sounds like your math is missing the mark.


First of all he is not "my boy". He got my vote because the dems ran the most unqualified candidate in my lifetime who was a major supporter of abortion, gay marriage, endless welfare programs, and worst of all, maintaining the status quo. But Trump has done a lot of things I have said "yuck" to. Chief amongst them is his imitation of Obama is forming an unholy alliance with the House and running up ridiculous budget deficits. Most of this other stuff is just camera candy.

Okay to impeach Clinton for lying about his adultery, during a good economy I might add, but not okay to impeach the dufus for high crimes and misdemeanors? That's prejudicial.

impeach Clinton for lying about his adultery

That's not why he was impeached. He was impeached for perjury in that he lied to a fed grand jury. He was clearly and plainly guilty and the evidence was abundant, unlike the current situation in which the evidence is slim.

No one has been kicked off of food stamps, so you're the one missing the mark. There is a proposal put forward that would result in people actually having to get a job rather than sit on their arse and take money from taxpayers. "The proposal to reauthorize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would subject more enrollees to “work requirements,” and would require states to set up training programs for 3 to 5 million people who might be unable to find suitable private sector work."

My objection to that would be what constitutes "suitable private sector work". I always felt that if they would pay me money, then it was quite suitable.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-food-stamp-plan_n_5abaaca4e4b03e2a5c770ce0

That's not why he was impeached. He was impeached for perjury in that he lied to a fed grand jury. He was clearly and plainly guilty and the evidence was abundant, unlike the current situation in which the evidence is slim.

How did Clinton perjurer himself? Of course that little detail is always left out of your narrative. While the dufus will NEVER testify under oath about his many lies nor let anyone else testify against him. Yet despite righties claiming their is no evidence against him, or that it isn't enough to impeach him, he will be impeached and the senate will have to do it's job whatever that outcome is or whether they are afraid or not of crossing the boss.


No one has been kicked off of food stamps, so you're the one missing the mark. There is a proposal put forward that would result in people actually having to get a job rather than sit on their arse and take money from taxpayers. "The proposal to reauthorize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would subject more enrollees to “work requirements,” and would require states to set up training programs for 3 to 5 million people who might be unable to find suitable private sector work."

My objection to that would be what constitutes "suitable private sector work". I always felt that if they would pay me money, then it was quite suitable.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-food-stamp-plan_n_5abaaca4e4b03e2a5c770ce0

That's an old link so let me update you to the CURRENT EVENTS (https://qz.com/1707804/trumps-cuts-to-snap-concerns-republicans-too/)

How did Clinton commit perjury? Would you take his word for it?

"WASHINGTON - President Clinton escaped indictment yesterday by surrendering his Arkansas law license for five years and admitting that he made false statements under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky."

https://qz.com/1707804/trumps-cuts-to-snap-concerns-republicans-too/


As the the food stamps issue, I read your article, and unless I missed it, even your article was about how the changes are proposed but not yet in effect? Correct?

Clinton is a proven liar: You don't remember him getting on the boob tube and shaking his finger into the camera and telling the AMERICAN PEOPLE (HIS BOSSES) that "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"? Clinton is a liar.....and I mean a BIG ARSE LIAR.

Clinton was a politician. As a general rule, they seem to lie without hesitation, and that includes Trump and Obama.

How did Clinton commit perjury? Would you take his word for it?

"WASHINGTON - President Clinton escaped indictment yesterday by surrendering his Arkansas law license for five years and admitting that he made false statements under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky."

https://qz.com/1707804/trumps-cuts-to-snap-concerns-republicans-too/


As the the food stamps issue, I read your article, and unless I missed it, even your article was about how the changes are proposed but not yet in effect? Correct?

Yep that's true, and like his previous attempts to screw the poor people he likely will fail this time too, not from lack of effort though. Just bolsters my claim that the great economy has a few holes in it. Not blaming the dufus for that but certainly stamping uncaring and callous on his resume is entirely appropriate.

Yep that's true, and like his previous attempts to screw the poor people he likely will fail this time too, not from lack of effort though. Just bolsters my claim that the great economy has a few holes in it.

So you think that having an economy that provides a job for everyone who actually wants one equates to screwing the poor people? Every economy has holes in it, but this "I hate Trump" attitude leads people to whine and complain during the greatest period of economic progress we have had in over fifty years.

Thats NOT what we have. Not every job is a great job, or else there would be no working poor, so patting the dufus on the back and celebrating his GREAT economy is a bit premature in the face of obviously having much more work to do to build on what we have already done. What a disgusting LIE to holler and credit the dufus with a saving the world while treating those that fall between the cracks with such disdain through cruel and unthoughtful policies as to lay blame on those same individuals who are the lest of us. The old, disabled, the sick, and the poor, the young or the helpless. The dufus does these things in his proposals and you rabidly support it. That's disgusting while you swell your chest in pride and get unqualified judges and give rich guy windfall profits.

The hate and distrust of the dufus by half the country has nothing to do with the economy at all, but presidents have traditionally gotten the credit or blame for whatever shape the economy is in whether that's fair or accurate or not. Adding to my disgust of the dufus and you fundie wingers is how much credit you do give yourself and this dufus for things that were going quite good before he got here, leaving no room for anyone but yourselves and the lies you tell each other.

Just can't rap your head around the disgusting words, antics and behavior of this dufus and think conditions excuse them? That is one irrational notion to begin with. Clinton's great economy didn't save him from being impeached or convicted of lying about his sexscapades, yet the dufus gets a free pass by you loonies for his? Of course then you cannot grasp the disgust for the dufus extends to his supporters and sycophants too, especially those that have long held the words antics and behavior of some of citizens have been disgusting also, yet support him for those same things.

No JL, there is no excuse for the disgusting behavior of dufus, or YOU lauding him for it, while he pees on the counties head and swear its raining. Spare me your hypocrisy.

Thats NOT what we have. Not every job is a great job, or else there would be no working poor, so patting the dufus on the back and celebrating his GREAT economy is a bit premature in the face of obviously having much more work to do to build on what we have already done.

No one said every job is a great job. Stop making things up. If a person wants a job, then he can get one. For that matter, he can get two. I don't believe in welfare for those who are healthy in mind and body. If a person is working seventy hours a week then he can make it. It's what my father did. Why should I not expect others to do what he did?


What a disgusting LIE to holler and credit the dufus with a saving the world while treating those that fall between the cracks with such disdain through cruel and unthoughtful policies as to lay blame on those same individuals who are the lest of us.

If you are saying I have said that, then you are the one who is lying.


Adding to my disgust of the dufus and you fundie wingers is how much credit you do give yourself and this dufus for things that were going quite good before he got here, leaving no room for anyone but yourselves and the lies you tell each other.

Once again, your fantasies are at work. No one has suggested that Trump did not inherit a fair economy. It is just as true that, under his leadership, it has taken off and is setting low unemployment records.

As to the rest of your rant, you can't just make things up and then accuse me of believing them. No one is giving Trump a free pass. If he is guilty then he should be brought to justice. BC was guilty and there was no doubt about it. He even admitted it. Trump has not been proven guilty or anything even close to it. I think one of your problems is that you are convinced that anger, hatred, and name calling can establish guilt. Well thank goodness we are still in the United States where evidence counts for something.

The only thing in your ludicrous defense of your position and the dufus that comes close to truth, is he has not been proved guilty YET! He has been accused of bad behavior for years and has settled and paid consequences many times, but he hasn't been convicted YET! He is still being accused and still facing account currently. That's what the inquiry was about, and the impending impeachment charges to be filed and sent to the senate. That repubs are circling the wagons defending the dufus already is just an example of their already prejudicial stance as to a favorable outcome that's rigged to obstruct any semblance of being fair, but that's just my opinion, about the fix being in already, but that's for repubs to answer for. Like the dufus many of those senators are up for re election too, as are some dems, and it will be up to the people to decide in what is a clearly polarized electorate.

Far as I'm concerned the dems are doing their job so far, and I'm comfortable with that for now. As far as your daddy working so many jobs guy, I can tell you as one who has done the same it's not as easy as he made it look to you and I don't think it's even a fair thing to expect others to duplicate such a standard without much help and support.

Can't you just be grateful for such an example as your father set without denigrating others who cannot? That's like saying because Rockefeller got rich why can't everybody be rich?

I think one of your problems is that you are convinced that anger, hatred, and name calling can establish guilt. Well thank goodness we are still in the United States where evidence counts for something.

I hate no one so your analysis of MY problem is seriously flawed. I have to many responsibilities to be angry at the less informed and flawed, and I have said that if it's true, it's not name calling despite what your position about it is. I understand your position and accept your flaws as yours and take very little you say personally.

Matters little if you feel the same, or differently.

The only thing in your ludicrous defense of your position and the dufus that comes close to truth, is he has not been proved guilty YET!

Oh really? You missed a few things that are unquestionably true to everyone other than the Trump-hating crowd.

1. under his leadership, it (the economy) has taken off and is setting low unemployment records.

That is very plainly true.

2. BC was guilty and there was no doubt about it. He even admitted it.

As the article I linked earlier clearly showed, that is also true.

3. Well thank goodness we are still in the United States where evidence counts for something.

Absolutely true as well.


As far as your daddy working so many jobs guy, I can tell you as one who has done the same it's not as easy as he made it look to you and I don't think it's even a fair thing to expect others to duplicate such a standard without much help and support.

Can't you just be grateful for such an example as your father set without denigrating others who cannot? That's like saying because Rockefeller got rich why can't everybody be rich?

You are completely wrong. My father did what he did because he had to. This was before I was born, but he lived in a generation that didn't believe a liberal democrat had to come alongside and hold his hand in order for him to be successful. Why would it not be fair to expect other people to get off their arses and get on with the business of life? My father was not Rockefeller and he never got rich, but he did manage to reach a place in life that his parents could only have dreamed of, and he and my mother did it by hard work and not by expecting some liberal to take money from a successful person to give to them. It is not denigration. It is pointing people to the only available avenue of success which is to work hard and work smart as opposed to looking for some fake charity from liberal dems.

I've already dismissed you as a right wing loon so I guess it doesn't matter about whatever excuse you use for your hypocrisy. I understand your desperation to be totally right. I don't agree with it at all, but understand it. No reason to get excited about it even, for surely more will be revealed.

I've already dismissed you as a right wing loon so I guess it doesn't matter about whatever excuse you use for your hypocrisy. I understand your desperation to be totally right. I don't agree with it at all, but understand it. No reason to get excited about it even, for surely more will be revealed.

As usual, when you are out of truth, out of reason, out of arguments, and out of data, then you resort to name calling and fantasy. At least you're consistent.

So don't be surprised if you get more of it!

It will not surprise me in the least.

You knew I threw rocks when you got here, you throw them too, so drop the you're always right crap, like you're an innocent victim of the liberal agenda. You are NOT. You have an agenda too! In that you have been consistent in insisting your way is the only way, and while I admit to liking Kool Aid, I have been quite clear in not liking your flavor of Kool Aid. Too much Fire and Brimstone for me. Not enough sugar to make the medicine go down. Only takes a small spoonful for mine, but no amount can take the bad taste and torture of what you are serving away.

have you noticed? Yemen is no longer news? Turkey invaded Syria and Yemen is no longer news and suddenly Syria is no longer news. I know the answer, the US has abandoned the fight and it is no longer news

Paraclete: Saudi Arabia was attacking Yemen and butchering civilians while Obama was in office, same kind of thing that was going on in Syria with John McCain's "Moderate" Rebels (who were actually fundamentalist radicals)…..but the Saudis are horrible military men and are getting their arse's handed to them by a bunch of ragtag guerillas.....Then Saudi Arabia had it Oil Refinery hit by drones: They backed off. The U.S. is trying to back away from the M.E.: It just doesn't have the same attractiveness to us now that we are Oil Independent that it did when we were Oil Dependent. The troops recently sent there are a show but, I think, not much else in terms of combat intentions.

the US has abandoned the fight and it is no longer news

I view it as we are finally learning to mind our own business. We spend an unsustainable amount on defense trying to defend countries who spend far less of their GDP on their own defense ((such as Australia and the European countries) than we do. I'm all for it. Along with all fed spending, our defense budget must be cut and by more than a little bit. So the rest of the world needs to step up to the plate or plan on losing their own freedom at some point.

Absolutely nothing has changed in Yemen, there is just other stuff taking up the news. Like impeaching the dufus, The IG report, saying no spying of the dufus just getting his rogue sycophants, and passing the NAFTA II trade deal with more worker protections with little else changing.

No, nothing changing in the Yemen: Yemen was a victim of Obama's Arab Spring initiative, which is responsible for killing over a million people at this point....only thing happening in Yemen is that Saudi Arabia, a supposed U.S. ally that keeps sending people over to the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens, is getting the hell beat out of its troops by some sandal wearing guerillas.

I view it as we are finally learning to mind our own business. We spend an unsustainable amount on defense trying to defend countries who spend far less of their GDP on their own defense ((such as Australia and the European countries) than we do. I'm all for it. Along with all fed spending, our defense budget must be cut and by more than a little bit. So the rest of the world needs to step up to the plate or plan on losing their own freedom at some point.

And some people have big mouths, don't include us in your Trump based rant. I didn't see any americans when Timor Leste needed support for freedom. Australia does a lot more than your so called allies and our expenditure is appropriate and we have big defense contracts, Australia's military expenditure is ranked twelfth in the world which matches its economic status

Now Clete let the loonies enjoy themselves while they can with their delusions of superiority and granduer.

And some people have big mouths, don't include us in your Trump based rant. I didn't see any americans when Timor Leste needed support for freedom. Australia does a lot more than your so called allies and our expenditure is appropriate and we have big defense contracts, Australia's military expenditure is ranked twelfth in the world which matches its economic status

My comment was not intended to be a knock against Australia. I, like most other Americans, consider them to be a valued ally. But when you say, "Our expenditure is appropriate," that's what everyone wants to say. Well, that's fine with me. You spend 1.9% of GDP on defense. We spend 3.2%. That's OK with me as well. I just want to see us cut our defense spending substantially and just tell everyone else, including the Aussies, that they better get ready to defend themselves if need be because we are finished with being the world's policeman.

Trump based rant? I never mentioned Trump. If you knew what you are talking about, and you don't, then you would know that Trump has increased defense spending substantially, just the opposite of what I'd prefer.

And yes, perhaps you can, by yourselves, undertake the rigorous and demanding task of doing whatever needs to be done to support the vast territory of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste with its population of ONE million. If you can take care of that by yourself, I guess we'll try to continue to help take care of the remaining 99.999% of the world.

Tal, your "loonies" comment gets old. As I often say, it's the last desperate strategy of someone with nothing useful or informative to say. In fact, coming from you, it's a real compliment. Anytime a Trump-hating lib thinks I'm loony, then I know I'm on the right course.

My comment was not intended to be a knock against Australia. I, like most other Americans, consider them to be a valued ally. But when you say, "Our expenditure is appropriate," that's what everyone wants to say. Well, that's fine with me. You spend 1.9% of GDP on defense. We spend 3.2%. That's OK with me as well. I just want to see us cut our defense spending substantially and just tell everyone else, including the Aussies, that they better get ready to defend themselves if need be because we are finished with being the world's policeman.

Trump based rant? I never mentioned Trump. If you knew what you are talking about, and you don't, then you would know that Trump has increased defense spending substantially, just the opposite of what I'd prefer.

And yes, perhaps you can, by yourselves, undertake the rigorous and demanding task of doing whatever needs to be done to support the vast territory of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste with its population of ONE million. If you can take care of that by yourself, I guess we'll try to continue to help take care of the remaining 99.999% of the world.

Tal, your "loonies" comment gets old. As I often say, it's the last desperate strategy of someone with nothing useful or informative to say. In fact, coming from you, it's a real compliment. Anytime a Trump-hating lib thinks I'm loony, then I know I'm on the right course.

Trump based rant, let me put it to you this way, in demanding we spend more you are channeling your inner Trump, our industries have been decimated by the multinational, read american, withdrawal of manufacturing capacity from my nation. You now disingenuously demand we spend more, and who would benefit, our industries or yours? We cannot afford a fleet of aircraft carriers, which China is ramping up its defense to protect itself from. But what we also know is that such fleets are as much dinosaurs in the twenty-first century as the battleships were in the twentieth. If we had an army of hundreds of thousands our expenditure would reflect yours but what would we do with them as waging war is not our primary policy?


Nations in our part of the world don't tend to be over populated, but we would just as much move to defend larger nations as we have done in the past, we lost many in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, so don't denigrate what we do. You speak of me not knowing what I am talking about, but actually, it is you who are talking out of that place where the sun don't shine. Googling statistics doesn't tell you anything about what we do and our capability

We helped to free Timor-Leste from the tyranny of Indonesia, what did you do? We may yet have to free west Papua from that same tyranny. Why don't you tell the tribesmen of that part of the world to defend themselves. I doubt you know they exist. McArthur certainly didn't in WWII

in demanding we spend more you are channeling your inner Trump,

I've already said I don't care what you spend. My concern is for the United States. We are stupidly borrowing money by the boatload. Something has to give. You have the right to spend whatever amount you want, but you don't have the right to count on us making up the difference.


we lost many in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Australia has a history of valor. No one is questioning that, but when you bring up East Timor like it was some kind of historic military intervention, you are exaggerating greatly.


it is you who are talking out of that place where the sun don't shine. Googling statistics doesn't tell you anything about what we do and our capability Kind of like you did when you said your defense spending was 12th in the world? When people don't like the truth, they start the old, tired strategy of name calling. You can compare notes with Tal.


We helped to free Timor-Leste from the tyranny of Indonesia, what did you do? What did we do? Really??? Well, let's see. We led the coalition that reclaimed the independence of Kuwait. We destroyed Hussein's regime in Iraq. We have almost single-handedly restrained the madness of N. Korea and Iran. We have, again almost single-handedly, preserved the existence of Israel. We are currently preserving the liberty of The Ukraine against the aggression of Russia. We have destroyed much of the extreme Muslim terrorist elements.

I've already said I don't care what you spend. My concern is for the United States. We are stupidly borrowing money by the boatload. Something has to give. You have the right to spend whatever amount you want, but you don't have the right to count on us making up the difference.

Let be ask you, how did that start? When did we ask you to borrow money to defend us. When did we ask you to create bases in Australia? to bring your troops here? In WWII we were a convenient staging area, in the Vietnam area a convenient R&R destination, right now we are a convenient place for listening stations. We are aware that we cannot take on China alone, but we don't need to, since we haven't picked a fight with them, so that difference you speak of is only necessary because of your foreign policy.

Australia has a history of valor. No one is questioning that, but when you bring up East Timor like it was some kind of historic military intervention, you are exaggerating greatly.
our intervention was belated we should have been there in 1975, but again I ask you, what did you do when the Indonesians marched in



What did we do? Really??? Well, let's see. We led the coalition that reclaimed the independence of Kuwait. We destroyed Hussein's regime in Iraq. We have almost single-handedly restrained the madness of N. Korea and Iran. We have, again almost single-handedly, preserved the existence of Israel. We are currently preserving the liberty of The Ukraine against the aggression of Russia. We have destroyed much of the extreme Muslim terrorist elements.

That has nothing to do with the question I asked. You really should look behind some of the history in those conflicts

Leave it to the wingers to tell you how great they are and how much they have done for you and wonder why you aren't more gratefull for their generosity. The truth is an insult and how dare you question their version of ...anything. That's why they love the dufus! He does that crazy stuff they like as no other can and can spin yarns like nobody else ever will.

I've never seen them so happy!

Let be ask you, how did that start? When did we ask you to borrow money to defend us. When did we ask you to create bases in Australia? to bring your troops here? In WWII we were a convenient staging area, in the Vietnam area a convenient R&R destination, right now we are a convenient place for listening stations. We are aware that we cannot take on China alone, but we don't need to, since we haven't picked a fight with them, so that difference you speak of is only necessary because of your foreign policy. And I'll say it again. I don't care how much you do/don't spend on your own security. I want a balanced budget here. To do that, spending must be cut in every area.



our intervention was belated we should have been there in 1975, but again I ask you, what did you do when the Indonesians marched in

We did what we should have done. We let someone else handle it, and that someone else seems largely to have been the U.N.


That has nothing to do with the question I asked. Oh? This was your question. "We helped to free Timor-Leste from the tyranny of Indonesia, what did you do?" I was telling you what we did.

Is this the Australian assistance you were referring to? "It was revealed in 2013 that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) planted listening devices to listen to the East Timorese government during negotiations over the Greater Sunrise oil and gasfields. This is known as the Australia–East Timor spying scandal." Perhaps your motives were not quite so pure as you portrayed them???

And I'll say it again. I don't care how much you do/don't spend on your own security. I want a balanced budget here. To do that, spending must be cut in every area.

Then you should look at our methods, our budget is balanced with a 2% military spend





We did what we should have done. We let someone else handle it, and that someone else seems largely to have been the U.N.

don't talk to me about toothless tigers, they need enforcers you know




Is this the Australian assistance you were referring to? "It was revealed in 2013 that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) planted listening devices to listen to the East Timorese government during negotiations over the Greater Sunrise oil and gasfields. This is known as the Australia–East Timor spying scandal." Perhaps your motives were not quite so pure as you portrayed them???

when we use US business methods you berate us for it, where did we learn duplicity, do you think?

You probably don't have business practices (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/)like this. That's just a few companies of the thousands in America. LEGAL stealing (https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/talking-tax-breaks-for-offshoring/)is the term that fits. I think those cuts start with the tax code to be honest.

You probably don't have business practices (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/)like this. That's just a few companies of the thousands in America. LEGAL stealing (https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/talking-tax-breaks-for-offshoring/)is the term that fits. I think those cuts start with the tax code to be honest.

We have them here, the same companies being prosecuted for tax evasion

Then you should look at our methods, our budget is balanced with a 2% military spend I applaud you for that. I want us to do the same thing, which means many other countries will have to spend more or prepare to be at risk.



when we use US business methods you berate us for it, where did we learn duplicity, do you think? It must be wonderful in your fantasy world where nothing is ever your responsibility

I applaud you for that. I want us to do the same thing, which means many other countries will have to spend more or prepare to be at risk.

It must be wonderful in your fantasy world where nothing is ever your responsibility

Didn't you know this land is called OZ. When you take the blame for climate change we will look to our responsibility

When you take the blame for climate change we will look to our responsibility

You mean the climate change you claim that CO2 is not responsible for?

You mean the climate change you claim that CO2 is not responsible for?

I was just pointing out the idiocy of your position

You point out the idiocy of my position by making an appeal to climate change which you say in not man-made, and which I have commented very little about? Sounds to me like you need to look to yourself first.

You point out the idiocy of my position by making an appeal to climate change which you say in not man-made, and which I have commented very little about? Sounds to me like you need to look to yourself first.

I make as much sense as you do

I make as much sense as you do

Since you consider my position "idiotic", then is this an admission that yours is likewise???

I admit nothing, I comment

I don't see where haggling over a few bucks solves anything at all when the whole point is cooperation whether you can afford it or not at the time. The dufus comes in like a slum lord and hollers mo'money, without saying how he is going to fix stuff, or make it better while busting treaties and raising a stink, as he makes up stuff to take credit for.

Accomplishments NADA!

Accomplishments NADA!

I think the problem is belief Tal, you didn't believe him when he said

Build a Wall
Reduce Taxes
Repeal Obamacare
Withdraw from unfair treaties
Bring the troops home
Put America first

and what has he done?

well politics is the art of the possible;

So more wall has been built
The draconian tax of Obamacare is no more
Taxes have been reduced
Treaties have been torn up
Troops have been withdrawn
Tariffs have been imposed on China


I think you should take off your rose coloured glasses, only a Syth deals in absolutes

So more wall has been built-A LIE, he has built no wall just repaired what existed.
The draconian tax of Obamacare is no more-Another LIE repubs have failed repeatedly at repealing it, or dismantling it.
Taxes have been reduced- Every repub president does that. EASY PEASY.
Treaties have been torn up-Which has accomplished exactly what?
Troops have been withdrawn-How many where and what for?
Tariffs have been imposed on China-Putting farmers on welfare was a brilliant move and I'm sure as they lose those farms they will be grateful.

Like I said NADA, unless you count chaos, deceit, and misery as an accomplishment. Whose wearing those rose colored glasses?

So more wall has been built-A LIE, he has built no wall just repaired what existed.
The draconian tax of Obamacare is no more-Another LIE repubs have failed repeatedly at repealing it, or dismantling it.
Taxes have been reduced- Every repub president does that. EASY PEASY.
Treaties have been torn up-Which has accomplished exactly what?
Troops have been withdrawn-How many where and what for?
Tariffs have been imposed on China-Putting farmers on welfare was a brilliant move and I'm sure as they lose those farms they will be grateful.

Like I said NADA, unless you count chaos, deceit, and misery as an accomplishment. Whose wearing those rose colored glasses?


Y

Youu believe what you want, but things are different, and only history can tell you what has actually been accomplished.

You know my position on tariffs and the rest of it, well you should try bi-partisanship some time. One thing we learned years ago, consensus can be a powerful tool

Things would work better for us if we did work together, but this is as polarized as I've ever seen. Maybe that's what we have now is another CIVIL(?) war. In that case hold your hats folks.

this is as polarized as I've ever seen.

I would agree with that.

Talaniman: NEWS FLASH: American Farmers have been on Welfare for decades! It was called the Allotment System. Farmers were told HOW MUCH OF WHAT THEY COULD PLANT and THEY WERE PAID TO LET LAND LIE FALLOW. Government took control of Farming a long time ago, and they are very AUTHORITARIAN about it.....In effect, the Government set out to take control of Farming years ago and they have accomplished that end.

Only a rightie could conflate crop rotation and agricultural policies in place for decades with the welfare they endure today because of trade policies.

As I understand it, any farmer can simply opt out of the program by not accepting the subsidies.

I have not checked and you may be correct and if so is that a good business practice? That there are few who opt out to my knowledge can lead you to believe they don't mind accepting the subsidies and the conditions that go with it. Is that also what you have found?

I really don't know how "invasive" that program currently is. It was started during the Great Depression when the prices of cotton and wheat had fallen into the basement.

Talaniman & jlisenbe: This farm subsidy stuff is akin to CRACK and once a farmer takes a hit, he's hooked! Like I said: Its Farmer Welfare, really no other word can make it smell any better: its like putting lipstick on a pig! SOCIALISM FOR FARMERS.....When they started enforcing the allotment programs on our farm, based off a bad drought year, no less, which meant we could not produce ANY MORE TONNAGE than we did in that poor growing year, Daddy told them to go to hell and sold his allotments to neighbor farmers and we went full-tilt into beef cattle, exclusively.

Maybe your dad was right, I don't know but farmers are going bankrupt and may be forced to sell and do something else for a living. No doubt some rich guys will eventually acquire the abandoned lands at a cut rate discount in the near future. The banks will lose nothing. Never do.

Talaniman: Now, we agree on this completely: Small Farms have been a target of a "cabal" (lack of a better word, and I don't know who all is in it) that has sought to put them out of business so that larger, no, massive Corporate Farms could take over the production......kind of the same thing that happens when your "Friendly Walmart" comes to town: soon all the smaller stores dry up and blow away.

Like I said, I don't know who all is involved with this plot (don't call me a conspiracy theorist because at this point I think you know its not a theory, its real) but they do have the backing of the Federal Government: and political parties are irrelevant in this because Repubs, Demos, even Libertarian politicians are all on board and complicit in this.

Daddy smelled something bad when the Government started with the aerial surveys of crops and sending Agriculture Agents out to your place to "confirm" your planting.

Food is a God provided resource and, truthfully, it is a very, very STRATEGIC resource that can be used for GOOD or BAD: The fact that food has been weaponized is a sin.....but, I am afraid we have only begun to see how it can be used as a tool of geopolitical leverage...….using food as a means to dominate others is simply wrong......hell, its wrong Biblically.

So what do we take from this capitalism is bad?

Capitalism isn't bad, people are bad. Capitalism is but a tool, not a god.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBY29wS.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

The big secret is that the left doesn't believe in socialism (unless someone else is paying for it ) . What they really believe is in Freebeeism . They have a perverse view sorta anti-Kennedy ……. "Ask what your country can do for you.....not what you can do for your country or yourself. " The US is getting there . The Federal Government grown steadily post WWII for over 70 years . Not one agency has been deemed worthy of elimination or even consolidation
even though most of them are still run as conceived even though we don't live in the world of 70 years ago
.
Trump wanted to shrink the size of government .One of his ideas was to eliminate the Office of Personal Management ...a useless bureaucracy of 5,500 pay checks that easily could be absorbed by agencies like the GSA or even the White House .
But bi-partisan pressure from Congress has taken it's toll . Congress has moved the proposal to an "independent " study group where the proposal will wither on the vine, This is no longer a Trump priority
It is completely unbelievable and frustrating that even a committed swamp drainer cannot beat the entrenched beltway . I'll say it again , The nations issues will not be fixed by those we send to the swamp .
The states have to take the bull by the horn and force the issue the way the Constitution allows them to
https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/12/congress-moves-block-opm-gsa-merger/161796/

I love it when conservatives try to brand liberals as bleeding hearts who want to give away other people's money, while they steal the money for themselves. Legally of course. Stop and think what Grover and the boys really wanted. Control of the money and a smaller government gives them that. They screwed up by getting and even greedier capitalist in the WH who wants a smaller government that HE could control. (Read-steal the money)

His businesses get paid when he takes a break from Washington and goes home to relax at his properties. Government never was the problem, just the people who run it like an ATM machine.

I love it when conservatives try to brand liberals as bleeding hearts who want to give away other people's money, while they steal the money for themselves.

Amazing how trying to keep your own money instead of paying it into the fed coffers is now considered by some to be "stealing". The reason we try to brand liberals as bleeding hearts who want to give away other people's money is because liberals are bleeding hearts who want to give away other people's money. The motto is, "I feel so strongly about meeting your need that I am willing to force someone else to meet it."



I'll say it again , The nations issues will not be fixed by those we send to the swamp .
The states have to take the bull by the horn and force the issue the way the Constitution allows them to
https://www.govexec.com/management/2...merger/161796/

Glad to see you back, Tom. Your observation is quite accurate. The federal government is far, far too large.

Amazing how trying to keep your own money instead of paying it into the fed coffers is now considered by some to be "stealing". The reason we try to brand liberals as bleeding hearts who want to give away other people's money is because liberals are bleeding hearts who want to give away other people's money. The motto is, "I feel so strongly about meeting your need that I am willing to force someone else to meet it."

Says the guy who lives in a state that takes more money from the gubment that it gives.

Says the guy who lives in a state that takes more money from the gubment that it gives.

Our state doesn't "take" anything. The loonies in the federal government are dumb enough to pass it out like candy, so we have people here happy to cooperate. As far as I'm concerned, they can't stop those programs fast enough.

Who are you referring to that cooperates with the feds in this plot to RECEIVE somebody elses money? Surely you don't mean the state government who requests it. Stop what programs your state has running that counts on somebody elses money?

Who are you referring to that cooperates with the feds in this plot to RECEIVE somebody elses money? Surely you don't mean the state government who requests it. Stop what programs your state has running that counts on somebody elses money?

I'm referring to welfare programs with direct payments to individuals. We have a lot of that. It's your dem friends in past congresses that came up with these programs so I really don't see why you want to complain about it.

As far as that which counts on someone else's money, as I have pointed out to you many times, the wealthy people in this country pay the vast amount of income taxes. It is some of that money that is redirected to welfare programs.

I really don't see why, in a country with an incredibly low unemployment rate of 3.5%, why any person who is healthy in mind and body needs a check from the government.

They're called working poor, or disabled, or old and some are able bodied but have been laid off, divorced, sick or kids of those unfortunate folks. I have said not every town or region has 3.5% unemployment, or good paying jobs either. Some of THOSE places with repub governors have waivers for job requirements and many have job training programs but no jobs. I often wonder how welfare can be greater than some of those jobs that's available but yet that does exist.

Talaniman: There has never been a BIGGER MONEY GRAB IN U.S. HISTORY THAN IS OBAMA CARE.....that is a fact: Remember, its a TAX and that makes it "legal".....a legal theft.

Tomder55: Watch out when you talk about the "Rights Of States" because the left has labeled the term "States Rights" as being, get this: Racist! I know, its ridiculous but they have tried to draw that parallel.....I say to hell with them: States have some rights to self-determination.

What I don't understand and maybe you economic experts can explain it. The unemployment rate improves but the participation rate fell


The labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent from 63.3 percent in October.

By my reading the improvement is only an illusion caused by people leaving the work force not by more people being in employment. Maybe all these good statistics are an illusion. I wonder if there are a lot of low hours and temporary jobs

LPR fell like a rock under you know who. It has started to edge back up the past few years but is still not close to the 2007 levels.


https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

I'll say it again , The nations issues will not be fixed by those we send to the swamp .
The states have to take the bull by the horn and force the issue the way the Constitution allows them to
https://www.govexec.com/management/2...merger/161796/


Glad to see you back, Tom. Your observation is quite accurate. The federal government is far, far too large.


The fewer things that politicians control, the less it matters who is in control

LPR fell like a rock under you know who. It has started to edge back up the past few years but is still not close to the 2007 levels.


https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

So the participation rate has limped back a little but it doesn't answer the question, low hours and temporary jobs or maybe the idle rich

So the participation rate has limped back a little but it doesn't answer the question, low hours and temporary jobs or maybe the idle rich

Anyone who wants a job can get one, and probably two for that matter. Low unemployment and low inflation, yet people whine and complain. Amazing how human nature works. "Let me look for something to complain about."

The fewer things that politicians control, the less it matters who is in control

Of course I can't agree because when government steps back, rich guys and corporations controls everything and can make the current system of legalized stealing and extraction of wealth even more unequal. As long as you have money in politics then the government will be corrupted.


Anyone who wants a job can get one, and probably two for that matter. Low unemployment and low inflation, yet people whine and complain. Amazing how human nature works. "Let me look for something to complain about."

It's a matter of NEEDING TWO or THREE jobs just to eat and pay rent and keep the lights on and that's something to look at. Amazing how we ignore the working poor in great economic times of a great country.

It's a matter of NEEDING TWO or THREE jobs just to eat and pay rent and keep the lights on and that's something to look at. Amazing how we ignore the working poor in great economic times of a great country.

Did you ever work two jobs? I have. I didn't see it as being any great burden, and I don't see why anyone else would look at it that way. Go back and study the Great Depression years. People were happy to have practically anything. The last thing the working poor need is your pity.

Did you ever work two jobs? I have. I didn't see it as being any great burden, and I don't see why anyone else would look at it that way. Go back and study the Great Depression years. People were happy to have practically anything. The last thing the working poor need is your pity.

Many times, and it's not easy, and it's not pity either but empathy, and huge respect.

Many times, and it's not easy, and it's not pity either but empathy, and huge respect.

Respect is a good word for it. It's also true that we should expect and encourage people to do such things since it is the only path to economic freedom and success.

Start with a living wage.

Start with a living wage.

Yes, that is a worthwhile objective, but it has to go hand in hand with controlling profits and removing high end executive salaries and compensation packages

Start with a living wage.

Very few people, less than 5%, work for minimum wage. We should be telling people to become valuable and reach the place where you are in demand.



Yes, that is a worthwhile objective, but it has to go hand in hand with controlling profits and removing high end executive salaries and compensation packages

Socialism. What is needed is simply free enterprise. If anyone is jealous of the salaries of high end execs, then they need to become a high end exec. Controlling profits? Are you kidding? We would need an even larger fed gov than we have now. It's a terrible idea.

Very few people, less than 5%, work for minimum wage. We should be telling people to become valuable and reach the place where you are in demand.


Socialism. What is needed is simply free enterprise. If anyone is jealous of the salaries of high end execs, then they need to become a high end exec. Controlling profits? Are you kidding? We would need an even larger fed gov than we have now. It's a terrible idea.

I don't think, jl, that you have ever heard of fairness, this "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" crap, is just that, crap. Every citizen should have the right to a fair share of the wealth of the nation, it should not be reserved for a privileged few who happen to have some money and that the poorest should be able to "work" for a fair wage is not an outlandish proposal. You see everything as an increase in government, but enact fair laws and create courts to enforce them

I don't think, jl, that you have ever heard of fairness, this "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" crap, is just that, crap. Every citizen should have the right to a fair share of the wealth of the nation, it should not be reserved for a privileged few who happen to have some money and that the poorest should be able to "work" for a fair wage is not an outlandish proposal. You see everything as an increase in government, but enact fair laws and create courts to enforce them

So how much of your paycheck do you voluntarily give away to others in the name of "fairness"?

Honestly, I don't know of anything that should scare us more than a governement agency in charge of determining what is fair. It will just become a vote gathering machine based upon liberals giving away money that belongs to others. When the government gets to decide what kinds of profits are acceptable, or what kinds of salaries are "fair", then you have just received your introduction to socialism.

As I said earlier, my only concern about wages is giving everyone the freedom to work hard and make something out of themselves. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is crap? Man, you are frightfully ignorant of American history. It's been the story of the United States.

So how much of your paycheck do you voluntarily give away to others in the name of "fairness"?

I'm not talking about reducing anyone's paycheque but properly valuing labour, I don't believe that anyone should need more than one job for basic necessities, but I oppose the corporate leeches who take millions in salary by keeping the wages of others low

Socialism is too close to communism: Don't need that here in the U.S.

U.S. is all about pulling yourself up by you boot straps.

Wages should not be controlled: This is poison to innovative ideas.

Any Government "control" is too much Government control.

Having the "Government" determine or set the standards for fairness is the way of destroying the nation.

Socialism is too close to communism: Don't need that here in the U.S.

U.S. is all about pulling yourself up by you boot straps.

Wages should not be controlled: This is poison to innovative ideas.

Any Government "control" is too much Government control.

Having the "Government" determine or set the standards for fairness is the way of destroying the nation.

From my perspective the US is all about self and selfish bullcrap.


My nation has not been destroyed by having the government determine or set the standards for fairness. In this nation wages are controlled so is outlandish corporate behaviour and gouging. This is considered against the public interest and this is one of the greatest economies in the world with high living standards, maybe even higher generally than you own

You fear socialism, but what we do isn't socialism, it is regulation. This reduces the welfare burden. You see it is all about ethos and this nation has always had an ethos of fairness. You force employers to pick up the health cheque, we don't do that, the tax system picks up the health cheque and obviously wages are part of the equation

What you call "self and selfish", we call freedom. Freedom from an oppressive, "big brother" government, and freedom from people who want to control the lives of others with some sense of "fairness".

As to the government setting wage controls and profit controls, of course that's socialism. The government must control businesses to do that, and that is certainly a form of socialism. You claimed, "I'm not talking about reducing anyone's paycheque," but that's exactly what you are talking about. You want the government to be able to come into a person's business and say, "Your profit is excessive, and your manager's salary is excessive, but no problem! We'll just solve that problem by forcing you to do what we want with your money." Thanks, but no thanks. I'll let you keep what you have. You say you don't "believe" a person should have to work more than one job. That's fine for you to believe that, but I have no idea why you think you should be able to force that belief on others. You seem to view others as weak individuals that need the government to come alongside and prop up their lives by controlling them and the companies for which they work. I much prefer allowing people to live in a free society where that person can accomplish as much, or as little, as he or she is willing to work for.

What you call "self and selfish", we call freedom. Freedom from an oppressive, "big brother" government, and freedom from people who want to control the lives of others with some sense of "fairness".

As to the government setting wage controls and profit controls, of (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692)course (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692) that's socialism. The government must control businesses to do that, and that is certainly a form of socialism. You claimed, "I'm not talking about reducing anyone's paycheque," but that's exactly what you are talking about. You want the government to be able to come into a person's business and say, "Your profit is excessive, and your manager's salary is excessive, but no problem! We'll just solve that problem by forcing you to do what we want with your money." Thanks, but no thanks. I'll let you keep what you have. You say you don't "believe" a person should have to work more than one job. That's fine for you to believe that, but I have no idea why you think you should be able to force that belief on others. You seem to view others as weak individuals that need the government to come alongside and prop up their lives by controlling them and the companies for which they work. I much prefer allowing people to live in a free society where that person can accomplish as much, or as little, as he or she is willing to work for.

Give the people the power and they will take it., The shareholders of our (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692)second largest (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692) bank just voted against the Board's (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692)renumeration (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692) recommendations for the second year running, they too are sick of these leeches taking money under false pretences you see they know when enough is enough.

I would rather live here where I know fairness exists than live there in poverty, you should give your people the opportunity to leave since you need a steady stream of poor to fill those low wage jobs.

I doubt this would happen in the US (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/woolworths-agm-underpaid-staff-backpayments-have-begun/11804692

We don't need a strong "Central" Government in the U.S.....that is akin to Soviet style configurations....don't need it.

We need a central government strong enough to protect it's ever growing economically diverse population from those that would prey on it's people. We need a central government strong enough to manage the diverse interests of 50 nation states into one country, one society, one law. We already have enough rich guys who exploit cheap foreign labor and sell their stuff here at reduced rates for profits while our own workers get crumbs and reduced wages, and closed factories that destroy whole towns and counties.

Remember the deal the dufus and Pence cut with those Indiana factory workers? Let's just go ask them how well that worked out for THEM. Yeah that's the guy in the WH now!

Give the people the power and they will take it., The shareholders of our second largest bank just voted against the Board's renumeration recommendations for the second year running, they too are sick of these leeches taking money under false pretences you see they know when enough is enough.

I have no problem with that. It's free enterprise at work. It's when the governement gets to decide what is "fair" that problems begin. Besides, average wages in the United States are above Australia, so your "fairness" scheme does not seem to be accomplishing a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

I agree with your posts Clete and it scares me to think we share the same ideas about economic/social matters so closely!

@JL

Bad idea to compare the USA to any other country, and most disturbing you would support rich guys making laws and regulations that profit them through the elected officials the people choose. It's no wonder we still have poverty in the greatest nation on Earth. Even a blind man can see through the sham of corporate governess and profits that has suppressed wages and the freedoms of average citizens for many decades. Your assault on the working poor, aged, and disabled continues.

Better to compare the economic health of OUR states to each other for a much clearer picture of the FACTS.

most disturbing you would support rich guys making laws and regulations that profit them through the elected officials the people choose.

Only in your continuing fantasy world. You really need to get therapy for that. What a strange world you live in. If those rich guys are making laws that profit them, then how do you explain the fact that those same rich guys are paying more than 80% of income taxes? They sure are doing a terrible job of "making laws and regulations that profit them."


It's no wonder we still have poverty in the greatest nation on Earth. Even a blind man can see through the sham of corporate governess and profits that has suppressed wages and the freedoms of average citizens for many decades. Your assault on the working poor, aged, and disabled continues.

Yeah. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with drug abuse, out of wedlock births, some abysmally poor public education systems, the violence and threats of gangs in our inner cities, the absence of fathers, and a generational addiction to a welfare system which keeps people in poverty. I'm sure those things have no influence. Yeah, you're bound to be right. It's those mean ole rich people who are to blame!!

Suppressed wages? As usual, you completely ignore the facts. If all these rich guys are conspiring to suppress wages, then they sure are doing a lousy job of it. We have the fourth highest average wages in the world behind only the very small nations of Luxembourg, Iceland, and Switzerland. So you really think we are suppressing wages? Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

It's such an amazing thing. We live, right now, in one of the greatest economic periods of time in the history of the earth, and yet people still want to complain about...the economy!! Low inflation and low unemployment do not normally go together. Enjoy it while we have it. The liberal dems will mess it up sooner or later.

Only in your continuing fantasy world. You really need to get therapy for that. What a strange world you live in. If those rich guys are making laws that profit them, then how do you explain the fact that those same rich guys are paying more than 80% of income taxes? They sure are doing a terrible job of "making laws and regulations that profit them."

They are rich so whatever they are doing is working very well and has been for a long time. They can employ many lawyers accountants and LOBBYIEST where you cannot so who speaks to your congress person on your behalf? Who do you think they listen too? It's probably you who is in the fantasy world if you think you influence them more than your local and state businessmen.


Yeah. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with drug abuse, out of wedlock births, some abysmally poor public education systems, the violence and threats of gangs in our inner cities, the absence of fathers, and a generational addiction to a welfare system which keeps people in poverty. I'm sure those things have no influence. Yeah, you're bound to be right. It's those mean ole rich people who are to blame!!

Poor people cannot bring in the boatload of drugs, or even fund their schools, or send those fathers to jail, and the second economy is all they have to get a buck. they don't decide where the money goes or who administers to it so stop blaming them for the ills of society. Somebody profits enormously from keeping people poor, uneducated, and unorganized. Follow the money let me know what YOU find.


Suppressed wages? As usual, you completely ignore the facts. If all these rich guys are conspiring to suppress wages, then they sure are doing a lousy job of it. We have the fourth highest average wages in the world behind only the very small nations of Luxembourg, Iceland, and Switzerland. So you really think we are suppressing wages? Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

See how you talk past yourself? The FACT they are rich and hold so much wealth despite your claim and theirs they pay SO MUCH in taxes is the evidence they are doing a GREAT job on their own behalf. Not the other way around. How dare you think of yourself as being on the same level with those rich guys just because you work for them! That a dellusion we do NOT share!

That's the problem dude!


It's such an amazing thing. We live, right now, in one of the greatest economic periods of time in the history of the earth, and yet people still want to complain about...the economy!! Low inflation and low unemployment do not normally go together. Enjoy it while we have it. The liberal dems will mess it up sooner or later.

It's not like it can't be better for more people. Even if that means helping you crazy talking misinformed wingers. That's the difference between me and you, I want all the boats to rise with the tide, not just the yachts and high end tubs but the handmade canoes too!

They are rich so whatever they are doing is working very well and has been for a long time

That's kind of the whole point. What they are doing, for most of them, is working smart and hard.


Poor people cannot bring in the boatload of drugs, or even fund their schools, or send those fathers to jail, and the second economy is all they have to get a buck. they don't decide where the money goes or who administers to it so stop blaming them for the ills of society. Somebody profits enormously from keeping people poor, uneducated, and unorganized. Follow the money let me know what YOU find.

They can, however, not take drugs. They can not have children until they are married. And they should have options rather than having to send their children to government schools that don't work. You want to treat these people like they are little children who need liberal dems to come alongside and spend other people's money so they can feel like paragons of virtue. I don't agree with that approach. I'm not rich, but I'm not at all jealous of rich people. As a lover of freedom, I think they should be free to spend their own money as they see fit. Now if you know of laws that unfairly benefit the wealthy, then we can talk about that. But as long as they pay very nearly all of income taxes, then your claim that they have swayed the law in their favor is simply a hollow one.


The FACT they are rich and hold so much wealth despite your claim and theirs they pay SO MUCH in taxes is the evidence they are doing a GREAT job on their own behalf. Let me get this straight. You are claiming that the fact that they pay nearly all of the income taxes is evidence that are doing a GREAT job on their own behalf? Good grief. That's completely stupid.


How dare you think of yourself as being on the same level with those rich guys just because you work for them! That a dellusion we do NOT share!

Now you're lying. I've never said that and never believed it. I don't mean to offend, but that has all the appearance of a completely ignorant statement you make since you have nothing logical to appeal to. Besides, during my career in education I did NOT work for them. So your statement is just completely, completely wrong.

That's kind of the whole point. What they are doing, for most of them, is working smart and hard.

I respectfully submit that by working hard you mean using high paid lawyers and accountants and lobbyist to get your elected officials to write them favorable tax laws and regulations then I would agree.


They can, however, not take drugs. They can not have children until they are married. And they should have options rather than having to send their children to government schools that don't work. You want to treat these people like they are little children who need liberal dems to come alongside and spend other people's money so they can feel like paragons of virtue. I don't agree with that approach. I'm not rich, but I'm not at all jealous of rich people. As a lover of freedom, I think they should be free to spend their own money as they see fit. Now if you know of laws that unfairly benefit the wealthy, then we can talk about that. But as long as they pay very nearly all of income taxes, then your claim that they have swayed the law in their favor is simply a hollow one.

I must dismiss this thinking as a personal rant that doesn't deserve comment!


Let me get this straight. You are claiming that the fact that they pay nearly all of the income taxes is evidence that are doing a GREAT job on their own behalf? Good grief. That's completely stupid.

Only stupid to the ignorant of how your country fiscally really works. (https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762) Taxes are not the totality of revenues. Just HALF so where does the rest come from and more importantly who holds the wealth and who pays the bills?


Now you're lying. I've never said that and never believed it. I don't mean to offend, but that has all the appearance of a completely ignorant statement you make since you have nothing logical to appeal to. Besides, during my career in education I did NOT work for them. So your statement is just completely, completely wrong.

I am not offended as I never take your posts personally, and sorry if my posts are taken personally by you, but that's honestly not my problem. Not to bust your bubble(?) but even you know that your whole career has depended on you doing as you're told and the results of being a small fish in a big pond that you cannot control. Whether that's willful or involuntary matters little, though I suspect it was willful even as you blame others for poor outcomes, and results, which we have discussed at length before.

I have come to accept that in our discussions and never surprised at your consistency. We seldom agree about most things, no big deal to me.

I must dismiss this thinking as a personal rant that doesn't deserve comment!
In other words, you have no answers whatsoever. That's what you always do when you can't think of anything informative to say.


I am not offended as I never take your posts personally, and sorry if my posts are taken personally by you, but that's honestly not my problem. Not to bust your bubble(?) but even you know that your whole career has depended on you doing as you're told and the results of being a small fish in a big pond that you cannot control. Whether that's willful or involuntary matters little, though I suspect it was willful even as you blame others for poor outcomes, and results, which we have discussed at length before.

I have never blamed anyone else for the performance of my schools. For one thing, there was never any need to. Thanks to the hard work of many people, we did very well. Blaming others for poor outcomes? Isn't that kind of like holding them responsible? What do you think we should, pat them on the back? As to "doing what you're told", you just revealed that you know absolutely nothing about being a school principal.

Taxes are not the totality of revenues. Just HALF so where does the rest come from and more importantly who holds the wealth and who pays the bills?

Well, it's not hard to find out. Most fed revenue for non Social Security expenses comes from personal and corporate income taxes. A much smaller amount comes from other taxes such as inheritance and excise taxes. A good chunk comes from SS taxes which we voting citizens very stupidly have allowed the crooks (dems and repubs) in the fed govt to use for non Social Security purposes with the result that the SS non-Trust Fund has nothing in it other than IOU's. Still, the wealthy pay most of the federal taxes in this country. It is just simply true.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from

If you have loopholes, deductions, and tax havens, then paying taxes isn't such a big deal since you only pay on a portion of your income. That is also simply true.

then paying taxes isn't such a big deal since you only pay on a portion of your income. That is also simply true.

You do realize that you're only supposed to pay "a portion of your income" into income tax? Do you want the feds to take all of it?

As to deductions, everyone gets deductions. Deductions for charitable donations, children and excessive med expenses, for instance. But you would be able to talk me into a flat tax with very few allowable deductions.

You do realize that you're only supposed to pay "a portion of your income" into income tax? Do you want the feds to take all of it?

That would solve the deficit lol, but the wealthy can shield half if not more of their income from ANY taxation and have deductions for the rest. You realize that such tax havens exist for them and have always existed for them and is that paying a fair share even if according to you they do pay the most on taxes? Logically those with the most income should pay the most in taxes.

You still have not articulated my other peeve about cutting taxes when the economy is so great. That is illogical to me just as a matter of fiscal policy. Logically you should be raising revenue, paying your debts, and spending less and preparing for the next recession (Refer to provided link in last post).


As to deductions, everyone gets deductions. Deductions for charitable donations, children and excessive med expenses, for instance. But you would be able to talk me into a flat tax with very few allowable deductions.

Some deductions for some people are worth a lot more than others in my humble opinion. I cannot afford a flat tax on top of my states SALES tax. What a great way to diminish my buying power. You trying to make me live on cat food? I still bristle at the thought that Mitt Romney pays less taxes than his secretary. I guess being able to afford those lawyers and accountants really pays off.

That would solve the deficit lol, but the wealthy can shield half if not more of their income from ANY taxation and have deductions for the rest. You realize that such tax havens exist for them and have always existed for them and is that paying a fair share even if according to you they do pay the most on taxes? Logically those with the most income should pay the most in taxes.

Your first statement is just laughable. To listen to you, they pay no taxes which is plainly ludicrous. As to the second statement, it is not according to me. I have given you a boatload of links so you're just being intentionally ignorant. And for the third statement, THEY ARE PAYING THE MOST NOW SO WHAT ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT???!!!


You still have not articulated my other peeve about cutting taxes when the economy is so great. That is illogical to me just as a matter of fiscal policy. Logically you should be raising revenue, paying your debts, and spending less and preparing for the next recession (Refer to provided link in last post).

When Trump cut taxes, the economy was still the tepid Obama economy. He cut taxes and the economy took off. Income tax revenue has actually increased, not decreased, and is considerably higher than during the Obama years. But I do get your point. We should have balanced the budget first, but no one is really interested in that.



I cannot afford a flat tax on top of my states SALES tax. What a great way to diminish my buying power. You trying to make me live on cat food?

The liberal battle cry. RAISE TAXES BUT RAISE THEM ON SOMEONE ELSE OTHER THAN ME!! My friend, there is not enough available tax revenue from the wealthy to take without destroying the economy. Spending will have to be cut and I don't mean a little, and you, I, and the rest of the middle class is going to be hit. Just a matter of time. Think Greece.

Just a matter of time. Think Greece.

Think Venezuela, Argentina, when the economy collapses everything goes, there isn't enough money in the world to bail you out

there isn't enough money in the world to bail you out

I heard on the news today that world-wide debt is over 200 trillion. If that's true, then no one gets out unscathed when it all goes down.

I heard on the news today that world-wide debt is over 200 trillion. If that's true, then no one gets out unscathed when it all goes down.

I didn't doubt you would take us all with you, what price utopia now?

Wonder what the dufus will do if it goes down on his watch? Of course only he can fix it, and we have nothing to lose, so what's the problem Clete? We just cut you losers loose and learn to talk Russian, or Chinese, and let the rich guys bail us out at a discount price. Or maybe we bail the world out at full price.

No biggie, the dufus has things under control right JL?

I didn't doubt you would take us all with you, what price utopia now?


We are far from being the only country carrying a ridiculous amount of debt, and that includes your beloved Australia. World wide debt is just absurd. Take a look.

https://moneyinc.com/20-countries-currently-debt/

We are not responsible for what other countries do about their affairs, just ours, but given nothing has been done about it here, and I don't see any elected officials with any good ideas, or the will to even holler about it (Except you JL 8D), then the whole discussion becomes, when the crap hits the fan, maybe we get some action. Until then I can stand a few bucks while everybody's hand is in the till too!

Until then I can stand a few bucks while everybody's hand is in the till too! I suspect you say that jokingly and I get that, but honestly, that attitude is widespread and is the source of the problem. We have come to view the feds as a giant money tree that we can just pull fruit from whenever we like. Our elected officials have no honor in acknowledging that it is the money gathered from taxpayers and should be spent responsibly. We do not care about our children, and we certainly do not care about our grandchildren. Aside from the horror of abortion, it is the great sin of our nation. It's a reflection of the stupid, selfish, and careless people we have become.


Except you JL 8D I take that as an extreme compliment.

Armies, boats and planes are expensive for sure, and as long as others have them, so must we. I see no way around that SAFELY.

Armies, boats and planes are expensive for sure, and as long as others have them, so must we. I see no way around that SAFELY.

That's a fair point, but I do think it could be cut if we learned to mind our own business. Three points to consider:

1. Defense spending is only 15% of the budget, so we can't blame our deficits on that.
2. We spend as much on defense as the next 9 nations COMBINED. Surely we could cut some.
3. Do you see the irony in this? You, the liberal, are arguing to continue defense spending. I, the conservative, am arguing to cut defense spending. The whole world is going crazy!!

That's a fair point, but I do think it could be cut if we learned to mind our own business. Three points to consider:

1. Defense spending is only 15% of the budget, so we can't blame our deficits on that.
2. We spend as much on defense as the next 9 nations COMBINED. Surely we could cut some.
3. Do you see the irony in this? You, the liberal, are arguing to continue defense spending. I, the conservative, am arguing to cut defense spending. The whole world is going crazy!!


Do you hear yourself? Defence spending is only 15%. The problem of your deficit is your thinking, what other not essential will you tell us next is only this small percentage of your budget, one non-essential is interest on the debt. What small percentage is climate change? in fact, what do you spend your borrowings on? 40% of spending is discretionary but what does that spending do, it feeds your economy so you are on the horns of a dilemma, cut spending and trash the economy. All socialist economies have this dilemma and yours is no different

That's a fair point, but I do think it could be cut if we learned to mind our own business. Three points to consider:

1. Defense spending is only 15% of the budget, so we can't blame our deficits on that.
2. We spend as much on defense as the next 9 nations COMBINED. Surely we could cut some.
3. Do you see the irony in this? You, the liberal, are arguing to continue defense spending. I, the conservative, am arguing to cut defense spending. The whole world is going crazy!!

1. Maybe you should make a list of the other 85% we spend the money on that results in a deficit and as Clete points out, the interest on that debt.

2. So why is it that 2 or 3 of those nations can spend a lot less and still have formidable enough forces to cause big problems?

3. Half the world is crazy thought you knew.


Do you hear yourself? Defence spending is only 15%. The problem of your deficit is your thinking, what other not essential will you tell us next is only this small percentage of your budget, one non-essential is interest on the debt. What small percentage is climate change? in fact, what do you spend your borrowings on? 40% of spending is discretionary but what does that spending do, it feeds your economy so you are on the horns of a dilemma, cut spending and trash the economy. All socialist economies have this dilemma and yours is no different

Sometimes you just nail it Clete. We cut military spending the people who make the war stuff lose their jobs and entire towns collapse.

Do you hear yourself? Defence spending is only 15%.

If you would bother to read, I was responding to Tal's mention of defense spending relative to the budget deficit. Defense spending by itself is not the core problem of the budget deficit.


1. Maybe you should make a list of the other 85% we spend the money on that results in a deficit and as Clete points out, the interest on that debt.

Interest on the debt is about 8% of the budget. As to why I don't list what the other 85% is spent on, it's because it makes no difference. We cannot continue to borrow a trillion dollars a year. That's just the bottom line. We would have to cut spending by more than 20% to balance the budget. If we rescinded the Trump tax cuts, it would narrow the gap by only a narrow margin.


2. So why is it that 2 or 3 of those nations can spend a lot less and still have formidable enough forces to cause big problems?

One contributing factor is they pay their troops very little, say in Russia or China. They spend much less for equipment since their labor costs are a great deal lower than ours. The biggest problem we have is this idea that money grows on trees, that we can borrow, borrow, borrow endlessly, and that reality is whatever we want to pretend it is.


We cut military spending the people who make the war stuff lose their jobs and entire towns collapse.
So we'll just continue to borrow a tril a year until we completely collapse. What a plan that is. What will those workers and towns do then?

Believe me: The towns will collapse faster if we don't keep Defense spending and the ChiComs invade.

The towns will collapse faster if we don't keep Defense spending and the ChiComs invade.

Make any spending proposal you want as long as you also propose how to pay for it. What do you suggest we do to close a one trillion dollar budget deficit? What is your plan?

Make any spending proposal you want as long as you also propose how to pay for it. What do you suggest we do to close a one trillion dollar budget deficit? What is your plan?

You need to recognise you are addicted to PORK. All this spending is to keep the politicians happy, a little boonie here, a little boonie, there and soon those boonies become essential industries. You know how they pay for it, Tax, no that's not palatable so they borrow it, use OPM afterall interest is only 6% of the budget, so keep interest rates low

You know how they pay for it, Tax, no that's not palatable so they borrow it, use OPM afterall interest is only 6% of the budget, so keep interest rates low Pretty good description. It works as long as interest rates are low, but interest on the debt is projected to begin rising steeply over the next decade.

Sounds great until a rich guy, bank, or big biz goes belly up and takes the economy with it.

jlisenbe: There is plenty of fat in the Federal Budget to cut without cutting Defense......Defense spending is like NO OTHER SPENDING, WHY? Because Defense spending is what maintains the research engines of our Defense suppliers and keeps them churning out new ideas that are the best in the world at killing the enemy.....if you take the spending down or eliminate it, altogether, the ENGINE of Weapons Systems Ingenuity will grow cold and a cold engine is hard to start up again. Defense spending is a sacred cow/untouchable. The Right should go after the left's pet appropriations and this will have a two pronged effect:

1) It takes water out the liberal money river: The left uses their favorite Departments to effectively "build" their future voter base by "buying their votes"....you know, things like cradle to grave Government Housing and other hood niceties that they raise voters in...a disgusting institutionalized design behavior that came out of Johnson's Great Society crap
2) As we deplete the left's favorite programs, and put their troops of institutionalized voters to work, those people, or at least a good percentage of them, will get weaned off the Government Cheese tit and come over the Right as a natural progression of Natural Law (all clear thinking, logical people eventually begin to gravitate towards Natural Law)

Getting the deficit reducing funds from the left's favorite PROGRAMS is a much better way of attending to this problem than is reducing Defense spending.

You mean section 8? No repubs on section 8? No repubs in housing projects? No poor people are repubs? No repubs in the HOOD? No repub waste in government to cut?

jlisenbe: There is plenty of fat in the Federal Budget to cut without cutting Defense......Defense spending is like NO OTHER SPENDING, WHY? Because Defense spending is what maintains the research engines of our Defense suppliers and keeps them churning out new ideas that are the best in the world at killing the enemy.....if you take the spending down or eliminate it, altogether, the ENGINE of Weapons Systems Ingenuity will grow cold and a cold engine is hard to start up again. Defense spending is a sacred cow/untouchable. The Right should go after the left's pet appropriations and this will have a two pronged effect:

As the link below will show you, when you look at the federal budget, you see money spent for social security, medicare, medicaid, defense, and interest on the national debt. What is left over is about 900 billion dollars. If you eliminate ALL of that, which would include transportation and veteran's benefits, you would still have a budget deficit of over 100 billion dollars. That is why you absolutely cannot balance the budget without cutting defense. In fact, we are all in for a rude awakening when it comes to fed spending. The longer we stupidly put it off, the ruder the awakening will be. I am not hopeful.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

I have to say JL I'm loving your links today, very comprehensive. Sure backs up your position to pay down the debt during good economic times, but also my position of the timing and size of tax cuts. Debt is necessary sometimes but the real key I think is responsible management of that debt.

I have to say JL I'm loving your links today, very comprehensive. Sure backs up your position to pay down the debt during good economic times, but also my position of the timing and size of tax cuts. Debt is necessary sometimes but the real key I think is responsible management of that debt.

1. The tax cuts can be criticized, but they are only a small contributor to the deficit, and if they did indeed spur the economy, then a healthier economy results in greater tax revenues.

2. Do you think that 22 tril amounts to responsible debt? Honest question.

1. I tend to take a longer view of things and actually feel that a lot of small stuff can add up pretty quick and be one big mess. I also think letting the economy feed it's own growth and refrain fron didling with what seems likea good idea at the time but has consequences forcing it to grow with tricks that wear off after a short period.

2. Not really especially with no plan to reduce it in a reasonable time, in a reasonable way.

I tend to take a longer view of things and actually feel that a lot of small stuff can add up pretty quick and be one big mess.
If small stuff adds up pretty quick, then guess what large stuff does.


Not really especially with no plan to reduce it in a reasonable time, in a reasonable way. So it's OK to go DEEEPPPLLYYYY into debt as long as you have no idea of how to handle paying it off? Interesting theory.

How come the forces of conservatism here aren't all over this, a despot being bearded in his den, a socialist nation in termoil, afterall it was the point of this OP, This is lost on you, becuase if it doesn't happen in america, it doesn't happen

If small stuff adds up pretty quick, then guess what large stuff does.

Adds up even quicker.


So it's OK to go DEEEPPPLLYYYY into debt as long as you have no idea of how to handle paying it off? Interesting theory.

I never said it was okay to go into debt and NOT have a plan.

How come the forces of conservatism here aren't all over this, a despot being bearded in his den, a socialist nation in termoil, afterall it was the point of this OP, This is lost on you, becuase if it doesn't happen in america, it doesn't happen

Calm down and tell us what you're going on about Clete, or a link or two.

Adds up even quicker.



I never said it was okay to go into debt and NOT have a plan.

Well Tal without a plan to repay it, but then you haven't borrowed from the germans and the world bank otherwise some adjustment and belt tightening would be needed

We sell savings bonds Clete, that's how we borrow.

We sell savings bonds Clete, that's how we borrow.

"savings" Bonds what are you saving for? Your next aircraft carrier? Yes, I know about government bonds, you have to have a good credit rating otherwise they are just junk

They sell like hot cakes all over the world Clete.

We just can't jeopardize the safety or, even, the existence of the nation by dumbing down Defense: There are too many foes that we face....and they continue to spend. We can change our foreign policy and dump our Defense spending into hardware and pull back from the "Global" exposure we now have to help par down the $$$s but we can't get behind technologically, that would spell the end.

Calm down and tell us what you're going on about Clete, or a link or two.

obviously CNNN has failed you

https://www.mail.com/int/business/markets/9609172-macron-under-strike-pressure-mulls-changes-to-pens.html#.1258-stage-hero1-1


We just can't jeopardize the safety or, even, the existence of the nation by dumbing down Defense: There are too many foes that we face....and they continue to spend. We can change our foreign policy and dump our Defense spending into hardware and pull back from the "Global" exposure we now have to help par down the $$$s but we can't get behind technologically, that would spell the end.

the only foes you face are ones of your own making, that fact escapes you. Yes you should dump your foreign policy and I see Trump has dumped some of the crap of previous eras however he still likes to brandish an aircraft carrier or two

We just can't jeopardize the safety or, even, the existence of the nation by dumbing down Defense: There are too many foes that we face....and they continue to spend. We can change our foreign policy and dump our Defense spending into hardware and pull back from the "Global" exposure we now have to help par down the $$$s but we can't get behind technologically, that would spell the end.

Typical. You want to keep spending money with no idea of how to pay for all of your defense needs. I guess we'll just keep that up until financial disaster strikes. What a plan.

Jlisenbe: The corollary isn't very attractive either: ChiCom troops marching in U.S. streets: You don't think that can happen? Probably couldn't given all the nuclear weapons we have but that's really dependent upon the capacity of the delivery systems it would take to get those nuclear payloads onto target and fry ChiComs…..and if we just stop improving and the ChiComs develop missile shootdown technology, well, we will be SOL. The other part of this is the NATIONAL WILL TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS: If we had that, and could depend upon the delivery systems that would allow our weapons to strike with pinpoint accuracy, we could almost stop what you might term excessive defense spending.

However, the NATIONAL WILL in the U.S. has been putrefied by leftist ingress into our education systems, particularly at institutions of higher learning: All of these individuals are potential problems in a national crisis, potential fifth column participants.....and, as we have seen with the willing participation of the State Department in coup cabal of President Trump, these leftists are deeply planted at all levels...a genuine infestation of communist sympathizers....I suspect that many of them look toward Peking as a master. Remember: It was Clinton, whose campaign accepted boat loads of money from the ChiComs, who permitted Loral Corp., under the guise of supplying the gyroscope technology to the ChiComs for cheap satellite launch rocketry systems, to assist in developing the ChiCom Nuclear Threat. Then, also remember, Obama eviscerated NASA to further deplete U.S. technological capabilities. You also see leftist tacticians attacking Boeing Corp., through various legal schemes, with the eventual goal of running them into bankruptcy.

Perhaps the best way to erase the National Debt: Tell the ChiComs to go burn their atheistic arses in hell and refuse to make any more payments on their loans to us! This would assist the U.S. and help break the ChiComs.

Perhaps the best way to erase the National Debt: Tell the ChiComs to go burn their atheistic arses in hell and refuse to make any more payments on their loans to us!

That's the worst idea you have ever come up with. Our financial standing in the world would be irrecoverably devastated.

Vac, if you want this military machine we have, then tell us how to pay for it. That's what adults do. I don't go out and buy a couple of BMW's on credit and then tell my wife, "It's no problem. I borrowed the money."

Vac, I understand your desire for a strong military and I agree with it, but we have far, far more than what we need to simply defend ourselves. Think about what you're saying. First of all, how would China get that invasion force here? It would take at least several hundred thousand men with all of their equipment, airpower, and so forth. What size fleet would that require? How many hundreds or thousands of ships? It would make the Normandy landing look like a small operation. We could cut our military by 10 or 20 percent and still have great power to defend ourselves. We need to tell the rest of the world that we are not going to go bankrupt so we can keep a military presence in every little corner of the world. They don't respect us anyway. Do you think they are grateful for what we do? Israel is, but besides them the rest of the world delights in disparaging us at every turn.

Not so fast JL, you can't buy savings bonds if there is no debt to trigger the sale of them. You trying to bankrupt us or something?

Not so fast JL, you can't buy savings bonds if there is no debt to trigger the sale of them. You trying to bankrupt us or something?

I hope you mean that as a joke.

Not really since given the history of savings bonds they can be sold in perpetuaty at variable interest rates and discounts safely with low risks. You may ENJOY (http://www.howtoinvesthq.com/bonds-vs-mutual-funds-vs-stocks/) reading these (https://budgeting.thenest.com/return-common-stocks-vs-government-bonds-31139.html) opinion pieces.

So we should spend ourselves into oblivion so people can buy savings bonds? I don't think that's a good idea. There are many great places right now to invest. Treasury bonds are returning something like 2%, aren't they?

Depends on which one you buy. (https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us)

jlisenbe: I don't have the answers I seek or the ones you seek.....I d know that we cannot fall behind TECHNOLOGICALLY, that's the line we cannot cross. Maybe we have to become more like Israel's Defense Force: Lean but strong.....but that would mean we seal our borders up and mean it...no tears, no mercy, and the leftist would go crazy because that would mean that their voter farming would begin to dry up.

Maybe we have to become more like Israel's Defense Force: Lean but strong.....but that would mean we seal our borders up and mean it...no tears, no mercy, and the leftist would go crazy because that would mean that their voter farming would begin to dry up.

I could go along with that.

Tal, you're going to invest your money at 2.3% for 30 years???

jlisenbe: I don't have the answers I seek or the ones you seek.....I d know that we cannot fall behind TECHNOLOGICALLY, that's the line we cannot cross. Maybe we have to become more like Israel's Defense Force: Lean but strong.....but that would mean we seal our borders up and mean it...no tears, no mercy, and the leftist would go crazy because that would mean that their voter farming would begin to dry up.

Judging from the dufus southern border strategy you're already there and dems ain't going nowhere but against you.


I could go along with that.

Tal, you're going to invest your money at 2.3% for 30 years???

NO! Just pointing out it's a low risk safe bet not a wealth maker. I buy them as graduation gifts honestly, not as a long-term strategy.

HA, HA: Nobody cares about Trump's Impeachment! WALL STREET IS SETTING RECORDS AGAIN TODAY! ECONOMY IS BOOMING! TRUMP WINS, EVEN WHEN YOU THINK HE'S LOST!

Yes the non-event of the century

HA, HA: Nobody cares about Trump's Impeachment! WALL STREET IS SETTING RECORDS AGAIN TODAY! ECONOMY IS BOOMING! TRUMP WINS, EVEN WHEN YOU THINK HE'S LOST!

Rich guys getting richer is news? How's YOUR paycheck boomed?

Are you wainting for that tricle down well maybe some jobs happened the money had to go somewhere

maybe some jobs happened the money had to go somewhere

Maybe? Really?

4.7 was the unemployment rate when Obama left
3.5 is the current rate after 3 years of the dufus and the tax cuts for rich guys.
1.2 is the difference between the two. Hmm, what am I missing here?

The theory; give the rich guys a break and they will create jobs, noone believed it, but maybe if you give them enough.......look at that, a tax led recovery, or just maybe when you take the brakes off....

4.7 was the unemployment rate when Obama left
3.5 is the current rate after 3 years of the dufus and the tax cuts for rich guys.
1.2 is the difference between the two. Hmm, what am I missing here?

You failed to mention that the UE figures are historically low.


The theory; give the rich guys a break The same ones who pay 86% of the income taxes?

Repubs have always believed in supply side economics, AKA Reagonomics, trickledown economics. The recovery was over years ago, and as the tax cuts wind through the economy it did bolster Big Biz as they bought all their outstanding stocks back and are flush with cash, while wages barely keep pace with inflation and prices are steadily rising. Unemployment is low and has been so why are wages sluggish even as states have raised their minumum wages?

As I have been telling JL, Corporate tax rates are nearly zero after lowering the official rate to 21%, and few pay more than 10%, so exactly what is trickling down to workers? A very discriminating economics for a consumer driven economy, and those factories haven't comeback. So you ask Big Biz about the wage gains. They surely can't use taxes are to high as an excuse, nor the cost of labor.

You want to take the brakes off? Circulate the capital to more people.


You failed to mention that the UE figures are historically low.

The same ones who pay 86% of the income taxes?

Which for some reason hasn't translated to better wages...WHY? And the deficit is out of control.

Which for some reason hasn't translated to better wages...WHY? And the deficit is out of control.

Wages have been steadily rising since 2010. The deficit was out of control from the beginning of Obama's years and every since then.

You are factually correct but the size of that wage growth (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awidevelop.html) as compared to prices (https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_us_table.htm)is what we are talking about. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)

From 3rd link


"But despite the strong labor market, wage growth (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/business/economy/wages-workers-profits.html) has lagged economists’ expectations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-the-biggest-group-of-american-workers-wages-arent-just-flat-theyre-falling/?utm_term=.4ad4be276d46)*. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers."


*"The average hourly wage paid to a key group of American workers has fallen from last year when accounting for inflation, as an economy that appears strong by several measures continues to fail to create bigger paychecks, the federal government said Tuesday (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm)."

You are factually correct but the size of that wage growth (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awidevelop.html) as compared to prices (https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_us_table.htm)is what we are talking about. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)

From 3rd link


"But despite the strong labor market, wage growth (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/business/economy/wages-workers-profits.html) has lagged economists’ expectations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-the-biggest-group-of-american-workers-wages-arent-just-flat-theyre-falling/?utm_term=.4ad4be276d46)*. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers."


*"The average hourly wage paid to a key group of American workers has fallen from last year when accounting for inflation, as an economy that appears strong by several measures continues to fail to create bigger paychecks, the federal government said Tuesday (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm)."

ah the fabled paycheck, and every unionist dream of getting a true raise

Going from 20.25 to 22.65 sounds like higher wages to me. And that article has data that is 18 months old. I wonder what the last 18 months have done to change the picture.

When you get it post it and so will I, as well as the corresponding CPI.


ah the fabled paycheck, and every unionist dream of getting a true raise

To not be concerned with rising prices and cost of living is insane and a raise is the honest way to keep up, or have a chance to.

When you get it post it and so will I, as well as the corresponding CPI.



To not be concerned with rising prices and cost of living is insane and a raise is the honest way to keep up, or have a chance to.

just more OPM

No this is MY money we're talking about of which steadily rising prices has always been an issue.

Funny how you consider your money to be YOURS, but the money of the wealthy somehow belongs to everyone.

Says the guy who is always hollering about HIS money being taken and given to someone else. No beetch about the rich getting it, but don't give it to a poor person! I'll just add that to the more riducules things you say, and I suppose the fuzzy math of hard working rich guys paying too much taxes will follow that allegation.

Says the guy who is always hollering about HIS money being taken and given to someone else. You are wrong as usual. My beef is with people who want to brag about their wonderful charity because they are willing to take someone else's money to give to a third party.


No beetch about the rich getting it, but don't give it to a poor person! I have no problem with people making a lot of money as long as they do it honestly. I object to people like you who want to give away the money of the wealthy but want to hold on to your own.


I'll just add that to the more riducules things you say, and I suppose the fuzzy math of hard working rich guys paying too much taxes will follow that allegation. Right. The top 20% still pay about 85% of income taxes. Plug that into your fuzzy math.

Right. The top 20% still pay about 85% of income taxes. Plug that into your fuzzy math

.

Are we going down this tired old road again, find a new argument? The rich will always pay more they have more, more income, more money, there is a price to success and it is taxation do you honestly think the top 20% should pay only 20%, that would tax the rest into extinction. Ah at last I see your plan

JL loves to cherry pick his data as evidence to justify whatever is done he likes. It's not the rich guys fault that the crumbs from a rich guys table isn't enough to keep make the rest of the economy florish as fast as those wealthy folks, Yeah they pay big taxes because they have big money and even BIGGER wealth.

You get crickets though if you ask why Big Biz pays NO taxes though. LOL, you think wages would show any gains at all if states had not stepped in, JL? Rich guys have been raising their own "wages" for decades (RE; FOREVER) no matter what's going on in the world, while you get sent the bill, and NO raise, or so little you get excited about 50 cents.

Yet my math is fuzzy? It's like sailing off the edge of the earth, and explaining how you got back on again when you got back.

No Tal you can't win an argument that business should pay more tax

Are we going down this tired old road again, find a new argument? The rich will always pay more they have more, more income, more money, there is a price to success and it is taxation do you honestly think the top 20% should pay only 20% Actually they pay 86% percent of the taxes but don't even come close to making 86% of the income, so your reasoning is completely faulty.


JL loves to cherry pick his data as evidence to justify whatever is done he likes. It's not the rich guys fault that the crumbs from a rich guys table isn't enough to keep make the rest of the economy florish as fast as those wealthy folks, Yeah they pay big taxes because they have big money and even BIGGER wealth. Definition of "cherry picking" data is when someone presents data for which you have no answer whatsoever, and data which completely disproves your ridiculous contention that the wealthy do not pay their fair share.


You get crickets though if you ask why Big Biz pays NO taxes though. LOL, you think wages would show any gains at all if states had not stepped in, JL? Rich guys have been raising their own "wages" for decades (RE; FOREVER) no matter what's going on in the world, while you get sent the bill, and NO raise, or so little you get excited about 50 cents. "Big Biz" pays no taxes? Really? Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Corporate taxes amounted to over 250 billion dollars last year. I guess that is the fantasy world for liberal dems in which it somehow equates to "NO taxes". LOL.

"you get excited about 50 cents." No one said anything about a 50 cent raise. Your fantasy world is kicking in again.

Corporate taxes amounted to over 250 billion dollars last year.

fancy that, a whole 250 billion dollars, what percentage of their net profit was that I wonder?

A person can argue it is not enough, but to say they pay "nothing" is ridiculous. Besides, corporate profits are taxed when they are passed out as dividends so it all comes out in the wash.

No it doesn't and you know it. You act like they have all those lawyers and accountants just to be fair, and would never think up ways to exploit the law for their own profits. Pretty niave of you. At least the dufus admitted he pays as small a tax amount as possible and we know he is a crrook who has all kinds of schemes he uses to make it so.

At least the dufus admitted he pays as small a tax amount as possible Just like you.

I got no tax lawyers, accountants, or control over the tax law nor the resources or time to exploit it. I am just an ordinary citizen subject to the law. Just like you. I like the way you cherry pick a post and comment and iignore dismiss the rest.



At least the dufus admitted he pays as small a tax amount as possible and we know he is a crook who has all kinds of schemes he uses to make it so.

No he ain't just like me!

No he ain't just like me!

Of course he is. You both have the same goal which is to pay as little in taxes as possible. You claim he uses illegal schemes and yet you have no evidence of that at all. When I propose a flat tax, which would do away with the opportunities for those armies of lawyers you refer to, you have a fit and nearly pass out because you realize your taxes might go up. You are the typical liberal. You want to raise taxes on everyone but yourself.


I got no tax lawyers, accountants, or control over the tax law nor the resources or time to exploit it. You have as much control over the tax laws as the wealthy. It's called "voting". One man, one vote.

Of course he is. You both have the same goal which is to pay as little in taxes as possible. You claim he uses illegal schemes and yet you have no evidence of that at all. When I propose a flat tax, which would do away with the opportunities for those armies of lawyers you refer to, you have a fit and nearly pass out because you realize your taxes might go up. You are the typical liberal. You want to raise taxes on everyone but yourself.

You love to exaggerate my positions and that's not okay, as paying less taxes is hardly a realistic priority in my life simply given my simple income and life style, but I can bet you the dufus also has schemes to hide any evidence of whatever he is doing, IE don't release your tax returns, and don't let certain witnesses testify. You know scrutiny rather than take his word for it or even accept his word he isn't willing to VERIFY. No never passed out over any of your posts but do get mildly amused. Yeah I would raise taxes on everybody even myself and not just pay down the debt but raise people out of poverty, for REAL! That's what liberals think. A simple task of circulating the money better as opposed to leaving it to the rich guys to trickle down.


You have as much control over the tax laws as the wealthy. It's called "voting". One man, one vote.

How naive of you. You don't even know what a congressman senator or president you elect costs now a days. Rich guys do and can afford to pay them whatever they want to get whatever they want at a profit. Vote away that's all you can do, but ordinary folks don't have the money to corrupt your elected official.

Next you'll tell me rich guys don't do that. Don't pass out when you find out the truth! I should have added politicians to that army of lawyers and accountants that rich guys employ to get what they want...MO'MONEY! Not saying all rich guys are nefarious, but the tax law is written so they can be if they want to be, and no doubt the all legally can.

You love to exaggerate my positions and that's not okay, as paying less taxes is hardly a realistic priority in my life simply given my simple income and life style, but I can bet you the dufus also has schemes to hide any evidence of whatever he is doing, IE don't release your tax returns, and don't let certain witnesses testify. You know scrutiny rather than take his word for it or even accept his word he isn't willing to VERIFY. No never passed out over any of your posts but do get mildly amused. Yeah I would raise taxes on everybody even myself and not just pay down the debt but raise people out of poverty, for REAL! That's what liberals think. A simple task of circulating the money better as opposed to leaving it to the rich guys to trickle down. I didn't exagerrate your position. Go back and read what you posted. Why should Trump release his tax returns? It's his private business. The IRS has reviewed all of them and found nothing illegal. As for raising people out of poverty, after several decades of the Great Society programs and trilions of dollars spent, we have learned by now, I hope, that you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.


Next you'll tell me rich guys don't do that. Don't pass out when you find out the truth! I should have added politicians to that army of lawyers and accountants that rich guys employ to get what they want...MO'MONEY! Not saying all rich guys are nefarious, but the tax law is written so they can be if they want to be, and no doubt the all legally can. Most of the wealthy now are liberal democrats, so your theory does not hold water.

I didn't exagerrate your position. Go back and read what you posted. Why should Trump release his tax returns? It's his private business. The IRS has reviewed all of them and found nothing illegal. As for raising people out of poverty, after several decades of the Great Society programs and trilions of dollars spent, we have learned by now, I hope, that you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.

Most of the wealthy now are liberal democrats, so your theory does not hold water.

This is what it looks like when you have life and BS all screwed up, and the right to vote.

This is what it looks like when you have life and BS all screwed up, and the right to vote. That's what someone says when they have no answers.

You have a better explanation for your bizarre notions of liberals? It's either you're screwed up about the basic facts of life, or you're a loon. Be happy to entertain your suggestion to explain YOURSELF.



you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.

That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor, and defending that trickle down crap. it's a tired old distraction.

You have a better explanation for your bizarre notions of liberals? It's either you're screwed up about the basic facts of life, or you're a loon. Be happy to entertain your suggestion to explain YOURSELF. And again, a rant but no answers. Pathetic. Why don't you try posting something that makes sense?



you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.
That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor, and defending that trickle down crap. it's a tired old distraction. Yeah, when you're an unmarried woman and decide to have three children out of wedlock with no support and think the government will take care of you, then that's pretty much a poverty of your own doing. Now Tal thinks that taking someone else's money and just handing it out to poor people is the answer. If it is, then how do you explain the utter failure of the Great Society to reduce the poverty levels? We'd do better to make sure they have good schools for their kids and, as a nation, to discourage out of wedlock births which are generally a disaster for the children. If we really cared about children, we'd have a national campaign against out of wedlock births. And please don't come back with you tired assertions of conservatives don't care about what's happening at the southern border, blah, blah, blah. Address the point. Absent fathers and lousy schools are the two biggest problems poor kids face.

Talk about rants, that was nothing but JL, since in reality there is no law against having children out of wedlock, or prohibiting people from getting assistance IF they qualify under the law. There is even a process to make law, or change the law. You passing a petition or something?

If you would trouble yourself to read and think a little, you would see that I have not suggested any laws. You have made the claim that poor people have no responsibility for their own poverty ("That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor"). I have shown you how silly that claim is. Never suggested any new laws. Never suggested changing any laws. Just plain ole truth. And when I suggest a national campaign against out of wedlock births, I am speaking of the same kind of thing we do about smoking or about, of all things, cruel treatment of animals. We could pass laws, however, assuring poor people of access to a good school. I would think that you would be on board with that.

If you would read better and think more yourself you would remember I was on board with EVERY child having access to a good school, it's just our disagreement is with the poor having as much control over their own economic situation as you say they do, and you go further as to completely blame them for it. That's the problem with you and conservative thinking, you want to bash anybody who doesn't agree completely with your bullying tactics and your one size fits all solutions because that's what you did.

Thank God even some repubs in those places where you can't get one job, let alone 3, recognize that those who do fall between the cracks need more specialized help than you are willing to give, and do the right thing by them. It's a simple acknowledgment that the great economy hasn't reached everybody as it has others and more needs to be done besides criticizing the least fortunate among us.

So count me out of the finger pointing, bashing, national campaign for those who have made a mistake or two, or three, and gotten lost along the way. Now go get that poor woman with 3 kids a babysitter and a bus token so she can earn her own way without taking YOUR money. I see little gained in hammering people for mistakes rather than helping overcome them. You just have to be right and want everybody to know it, which is why everybody else has to be wrong.

So count me out of the finger pointing, bashing, national campaign for those who have made a mistake or two, or three, and gotten lost along the way. Now go get that poor woman with 3 kids a babysitter and a bus token so she can earn her own way without taking YOUR money.So how many single moms have you hired a babysitter for? Are you doing that yourself, or do you just want to sound noble because you are in favor of forcing other people to do it?

I haven't suggested we bash anyone or point fingers at anyone. I don't think we ought to bash people who have lung cancer due to smoking, but it would be completely stupid of us not to warn other people against smoking. The same is true of this casual attitude we have developed towards single motherhood. It is a disaster for both the mom and the children. Sadly, you don't care about that. Your liberal political views force you to just cheer for them and hope, I guess, that they continue that destructive practice.

Just laying out the obstacles to working women that are single divorced or unsupported for whatever reasons. If acknowledging those realities is a casual attitude then maybe you adjust yours and tackle the problem of what's already been done. I get you want people to stop doing such things but it remains that the deed has been done so NOW WHAT?

Waiting for the conservative solution to what must be done AFTER mistakes have been made.

Waiting for the conservative solution to what must be done AFTER mistakes have been made.

I'll make a deal with you. I will happily join in that conversation if you will agree that we should aggressively discourage out of wedlock pregnancies.

No deal, just answer the question or at least have the balls to admit you got no solution. I got no solution either dude, but when the deed has been done we should help as best we can. If agressively discourage is beating people upside the head with a bible or bat then forget it. Just assumming of course that's what you meant, if not correct me.

we should aggressively discourage out of wedlock pregnancies.
Please list three ways that can be successfully accomplished.

we should help as best we can. If agressively discourage is beating people upside the head with a bible or bat then forget it. Just assumming of course that's what you meant, if not correct me. Your "we", of course, is meaningless. What you mean is that "we" should borrow even more money to pay people to have children out of wedlock. And I already said that we shouldn't point fingers or beat people up about it, so you can "assume" that your "assuming" is completely ridiculous.




Please list three ways that can be successfully accomplished. How do we campaign, with some marginal success, against other harmful practices? We have ad campaigns that people shouldn't smoke, or that they should have their houses tested for radon gas, or that drinking and driving are dangerous, so we could do the same for out of wedlock births. We could also change the welfare system so that women, from this day forward, who have a second child out of wedlock will get no additional benefits. First one was possibly a mistake. Second one is intentional.

Your "we", of course, is meaningless. What you mean is that "we" should borrow even more money to pay people to have children out of wedlock. And I already said that we shouldn't point fingers or beat people up about it, so you can "assume" that your "assuming" is completely ridiculous.



How do we campaign, with some marginal success, against other harmful practices? We have ad campaigns that people shouldn't smoke, or that they should have their houses tested for radon gas, or that drinking and driving are dangerous, so we could do the same for out of wedlock births. We could also change the welfare system so that women, from this day forward, who have a second child out of wedlock will get no additional benefits. First one was possibly a mistake. Second one is intentional.
Now jl you know some women dont know what causes it since they dont own a gabbage bush

Starving kids is your great solution? I'd rather take your money and give it to them and watch your head explode.

I'd rather take your money and give it to themThe motto of the liberals. "Tax the other guy! Spend someone else's money and then act noble for having done so!"

Children are not going to starve. If a woman can't feed her child, then the state comes in and places him/her in foster care.

Either way WE pay for it so let's understand it's not just YOU, it's ALL of us. The difference is you don't like it. So we can end this notion of just YOUR money can't we? That's just not accurate like most things conservatives post.

Either way WE pay for it so let's understand it's not just YOU, it's ALL of us. The difference is you don't like it. So we can end this notion of just YOUR money can't we? That's just not accurate like most things conservatives post.

Your quote was, "I'd rather take your money and give it to them." Now you're changing your tune.

What you got your fingers in your ears and holding your nose? How do you do that, or are you tone deaf as well?
I got no problem with bread, milk, and shelter for poor kids, but the idea makes your head explode which is amusing for a bible thumping deficit hawk. Makes no sense to deny anyone help to feed kids while hollering they should have them no matter what.

As I've already told you a thousand times that I am all for individuals helping the poor. I do so and encourage others to do so. But when you advocate for taking money from other people to help the poor, then you are much closer to theft than you are to charity. Use your money to help the poor and then you will have some reason to regard it as a sign of character.

I pay the same thing you do for the poor, and don't judge character by how much they have and never would. That's blaming the poor for being poor and par for the course for some conservatives. Losing a job or not having the skills for a well paying one or not having the resources to relocate to one is not a sign of character but aptitude. I guess low skilled workers have low character? I guess in a small town when plants close those workers are of low character? How about the 50 year old guy who got phased out by automation, or overseas imports? They have low characters?


As I've already told you a thousand times that I am all for individuals helping the poor. I do so and encourage others to do so. But when you advocate for taking money from other people to help the poor, then you are much closer to theft than you are to charity. Use your money to help the poor and then you will have some reason to regard it as a sign of character.

What if personal charity giving is inadequate and more help is needed?

I pay the same thing you do for the poor, and don't judge character by how much they have and never would.You have no idea how much I give to the poor. No idea at all.


That's blaming the poor for being poorOf course there are many poor people who are responsible for their own poverty. A woman, for instance, who gets pregnant multiple times with no marriage is very reponsible for her own poverty and the poverty of her children. Lazy men who won't work are likewise responsible. It is certainly not all poor people, but it is many.


Losing a job or not having the skills for a well paying one or not having the resources to relocate to one is not a sign of character but aptitude. I guess low skilled workers have low character? I guess in a small town when plants close those workers are of low character? How about the 50 year old guy who got phased out by automation, or overseas imports? They have low characters?I was not referring to the character of poor people. I was saying that you liberals who pat yourselves endlessly on the back because you care so much for poor people that you are willing to force others to give money to them have no claim to character.

Be nice if you had the capacity to seperate the REAL poor people from the lazy ones, but that's what the guidelines are for and every state administers their own programs. So don't blame liberals for taking your money and patting themselves on the back since conservatives run Mississippi last I checked and are the ones taking your money and giving it to the poor. Hey the dufus and repubs have had the congress since 2016 so why are you still blaming liberals any way?

I think you are a bit carried away by your own right wing spin BRUDDER!

So don't blame liberals for taking your money and patting themselves on the back since conservatives run Mississippi last I checked and are the ones taking your money and giving it to the poor. Hey the dufus and repubs have had the congress since 2016 so why are you still blaming liberals any way?

1. Welfare programs are federally funded and federally controlled.
2. Repubs have not had the Congress since 2016. The dems took over the House in 2018.

Noticed in this morning's news that Joe Biden says he will not honor a Senate subpoena to appear for the impeachment trial. I just wonder how all of the liberal dems will handle that after giving Trump so much noise about not allowing several executive branch employees to appear. Are they now going to say that Biden is clearly attempting to cover up his own guilt???

1. Welfare programs are federally funded and federally controlled.

And locally administered. They decide who gets what and how much, so if the lazy workers get money it's because someone from your state or county, or city said so. The Governor and state legislatures makes those rules for your state even if they are federal funded by the nations taxpayers and federally REGULATED. Now you may have your opinions of right and wrong and who does what for how much, but that is totally the control of your own locals, so stop whining and complaining about what the feds taking your money and giving it to someone else. Providing such services to YOUR fellow statesmen is a part of the functions of local government. take it up with them.

Or call the dufus and beetch and see where that gets you.

2. Repubs have not had the Congress since 2016. The dems took over the House in 2018.

Repubs still have 2/3rds of the congress even with the dems taking the house so lets be accurate if you cannot be honest. They took the congress back in 2012 and added the WH in 2016, so if things aren't the way you like them don't blame the guys who just got there in January. See how you wingers love to cry and whine and complain about liberals who have been completely out of power for years?

I suppose though facing your own incompetence ain't that easy for you after decades of lies and smears against everybody and their mama. If that's what you rally around then have at it but don't pee on my leg and blame the rain dude like the dufus is doing YOU. Now get your hand off your nose and go wash your hands because you look downright GOOFY making up excuses to be stupid.

YOUR WELCOME FOR THE HEADS UP!

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBYhgp3.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBYoIR5.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

And locally administered. They decide who gets what and how much, so if the lazy workers get money it's because someone from your state or county, or city said so. The Governor and state legislatures makes those rules for your state even if they are federal funded by the nations taxpayers and federally REGULATED.No, they don't. The feds control the groundrules.



Repubs still have 2/3rds of the congress even with the dems taking the house so lets be accurate if you cannot be honest.There are two houses of congress, so in what world does controlling one of them constitute two thirds?
See how you wingers love to cry and whine and complain about liberals who have been completely out of power for years?If pointing out the many, many errors and inconsistencies of your statements is whining, then I guess I'm guilty.


I suppose though facing your own incompetence ain't that easy for you after decades of lies and smears against everybody and their mama. If that's what you rally around then have at it but don't pee on my leg and blame the rain dude like the dufus is doing YOU. Now get your hand off your nose and go wash your hands because you look downright GOOFY making up excuses to be stupid.No bigger group of liars than the two Clintons and Obama.

No, they don't. The feds control the groundrules.{/QUOTE]

The feds are the president and the congress and the prez appoints all the heads of departments so that's the dufus. You had the whole government at one time so what's the squaking about?

[QUOTE]There are two houses of congress, so in what world does controlling one of them constitute two thirds? If pointing out the many, many errors and inconsistencies of your statements is whining, then I guess I'm guilty.


My bad, I should have said government not congress, but you knew what I meant, and we agree your guilty of whining.


No bigger group of liars than the two Clintons and Obama.

Sorry you were not competent to prove what you say after so many investigations in 8 years, and I hope we are not as incompetent as you guys were in our ONE year. Impeachment was avoidable if you had used a muzzle, leash, or cage on the dufus. Now be quiet we have a public service to perform.

and we agree your guilty of whiningYes, about the many, many errors and inconsistencies of your statements.


Sorry you were not competent to prove what you say after so many investigations in 8 years,The many lies of those three are a matter of record. I didn't suggest they were guilty of crimes, but it is worth noting that Bill Clinton had to give up his law license for five years after he left the White House.

And the dufus family is banned from charity work and government housing contracts and is facing all kinds of investigations by STATE governments. That's a matter of record too if you don't count the campaign workers found guilty of CRIMES already. That's a lot for a first term president.

Donald Trump's family is not banned from charity work or government housing contracts. He is not facing "all kinds of investigations" from state governments. Be honest.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-will-be-banned-non-profits-10-years-if-new-york-attorney-general-1154417

https://time.com/4508889/presidential-debate-1970s-bias-donald-trump/

https://time.com/5557644/donald-trump-other-investigations-mueller/

Still fact checking the second link to verify the accuracy of my statement.

The first link is speculation. "New York state Attorney General Barbara Underwood has asked a judge to ban President Donald Trump from working with any nonprofit organization for 10 years from when he leaves office, alleging his foundation regularly broke federal and state law." Garbage from 14 months ago.

Second link: More garbage. "It is true that there was no legal decision about whether or not the Trump Management Corporation did engage in discriminatory practices."

And, unsurprisingly, the third link just listed a litany of tired old accusations.

This is why I always ask you to document your allegations. This is where we always end up.

Not unlike your allegations against liberals and dems, specifically the Clintons and Obama. You ignoring the 6 convictions of the dufus campaign cronies? Of course you are. Just like you brush away the other active investigations by the states and ignore his charities were disbanded and made to pay retributions to other charities. That wasn't even good selective spin, but go ahead and keep spinning away. Doesn't change the facts, just shows you have no answers, and yes the dufus may well be kept from any tax exempt charity activities for 10 years after he leaves office, so that particular case isn't over yet.

Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations. Pure politics.

Not unlike your allegations against liberals and dems, specifically the Clintons and Obama.The misdeeds of the Clintons and Obama are plainly true. BC, for instance, had to give up his law license for five years after he left the WH. He definitely lied to a fed grand jury. Those facts are not in dispute anywhere except, I guess, in your own mind. Obama said one thing about Benghazi, and two weeks later sent Susan Rice out to say something entirely different. He said Obamacare would allow us to keep our doctors and our policies, and that turned out not to be the case. Those are simply true and accepted by everyone who knows anything about what they're talking about. As to Trump, yes, he has had allegations of wrongdoing. He has made some questionable business decisions, but I don't know of anything illegal he has been proven to have done.


Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations. Pure politics.Really? Take a look at this, and then take out your own garbage. You find anything I have alleged to be true to not be the case, then we can talk about it.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joe+biden+says+he+withheld+funds+from+ukr aine&view=detail&mid=D028B587C0404AB35A77D028B587C0404AB35A77&FORM=VIRE

I prefer to talk about something more current (https://www.newsweek.com/lisa-murkowski-split-mcconnell-impeachment-trial-1479327) as we have beat that Biden distraction to death. Obama sent Biden to the Ukraine, and he wasn't acting alone as the international community called for the Ukraine prosecutor to be fired. I guess we ignore that part huh? Don't answer because you have so far with your half truth argument parroting your dufus.

Obama sent Biden to the Ukraine, and he wasn't acting alone as the international community called for the Ukraine prosecutor to be fired. I guess we ignore that part huh?I'm glad you become honest enough to admit that the allegations against Biden are true. That's progress. It was money approved by Congress and you have stated that it is illegal to not give it. Oh well.

Nobody argued that Biden didn't do it, but it wasn't for personal gain, and was part of an international movement. How do you ignore those little FACTS? Oh wait I get it, it's not a fact unless the dufus says it is.

it's not a fact unless the dufus says it is.

no it's fake news you haven't been listening

Nobody argued that Biden didn't do it, Oh yes you did. You posted, "Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations."


but it wasn't for personal gain, and was part of an international movement. How do you ignore those little FACTS?How do you know it wasn't for personal gain? How do you know it was only part of an international movement? How do you know those are facts? Is it because Biden said so?

Oh yes you did. You posted, "Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations."

You ifnore so many facts hard to figure which one you mean this time. Enlighten me please.


How do you know it wasn't for personal gain? How do you know it was only part of an international movement? How do you know those are facts? Is it because Biden said so?

Not because Biden says so, but fact is I know the dufus lies and you believe him, so I know better than to believe either of you. Plus I posted the links to the real story a while back.

Your post was, "Nobody argued that Biden didn't do it" My reply was, "Oh yes you did," and I then reminded you of your previous post. "Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations."


Not because Biden says so, but fact is I know the dufus lies and you believe him, so I know better than to believe either of you. Plus I posted the links to the real story a while back.Once again, a non-answer due to lack of knowledge.

I might add that I scarcely ever listen to Trump, so I generally do not know, nor care, what he has said. I did listen to Biden's video, so I do know what he said. I also know that he said a day or two ago that he would not testify before the Senate, and that he is now backpedaling on that.

"Plus I posted the links to the real story a while back!"

I've already had to deal with your links. No thanks on the rest of them.

Hey guys, it is new year how about we cut out the argy, bargy, in the interests of good will and a fresh start

here is a link you might like, you just have to wonder about some people, don't you

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/the_democrats_bleak_midwinter_as_their_coup_attemp t_is_unraveling.html

Interesting article.

Tal and I might snipe at each other some, but we have plenty of good will. I have long appreciated his willingness to simply state what he believes.

I fail to see how a loony right wing rag rant will bring us good cheer and peace on earth Clete, unless you are a loony right winger. Placating JL leaves ME out and I have a fresh supply of rocks ready for chunkin'!

I fail to see how a loony right wing rag rant will bring us good cheer and peace on earth Clete, unless you are a loony right winger. Placating JL leaves ME out and I have a fresh supply of rocks ready for chunkin'!See what I mean? Good luck, Clete.

Tal, just make sure your rocks don't have "left-wing propaganda" written on them.

They won't since I consider myself rather moderate on most things JL. Extremes either way tend to give me extra pause, but I've been willing to live and let live for the most part all my life. Not like I'm perfect or always correct, so I keep an open mind to learning stuff I didn't know. I figure humans have TWO ears and ONE mouth for a good reason.

Amen.