What does everyone think?

To me, Warren is basically gone and Biden looks to be on the way out. PB is just a sideshow. Sanders is strong but I don't think he has a ghost of a chance to beat Trump and I imagine people know that. Klobuchar? Maybe. My money is on Bloomberg, but I doubt that he can win either.

Part of me hopes a dem manages to win. The wheels are going to fall off this cart at some point and if we have a dem pres, then he/she will have to eat the consequences. From that point of view, either Sanders or Warren would certainly hasten the event.

Bernie for sure, but it doesn't matter, this one will go to the stronger candidate Trump, he has the runs on the board economically and he would have to shoot himself in the foot to lose

There is no way the undemocratic Democratic Party will select Bolshevik Bernie as their standard bearer . If Sanders doesnt have enough delegates to win on the first ballot then the rules states that the so called "Super Delegates "(the Dem politboro)have a vote in the remaining ballots .There is no way the elders are going to allow Sanders to represent their party . With a mainstream candidate (if they can find one ) they have a chance of retaining the House and maybe picking off enough Senate Seats to get a majority in Congress. But with Bernie I see them having an electoral defeat the likes they haven't seen since 1972 . If they don't get the Senate then it is likely that Trump picks a couple more SCOTUS justices . The stakes are too high for them to rely on idiots like Sanders ,or radicals like Warren .

They already knee capped their best chance ;quid pro Joe . Nanny Bloomy is interesting . While the Dems decry and condemn big money in politics and the influence of billionaires ;Bloomy is proving that the nomination is for sale. NO ? Then how is it that days after the audio comes out with Bloomy bragging about 'stop and frisk 'and old interviews with him praising red lining ,that he got the support of 3 members of the Black Caucus ? I'm telling you right now that Bloomy carries way too much baggage that has not been delved into by the compliant press yet . If he starts to show traction it will be revealed .

The Mayor of South Bend who never ceases to mention that he drove the car pool in Afghanistan for a couple months is probably their best hope of the current crop of candidates . The man who was described as something resembling 'a corporate hologram designed by the HR Department at Google for instructional purposes' ,can be and will be anything the party elders wish him to be . He checks the boxes ;he's JFK like young . He got himself a commission without even having to go to a military academy ;ROTC ,or even boot camp. He's gay and shows it proudly .Hes Bubba and the emperor Harvard graduate, Rhodes scholar, musician and he's JFKerry ,Afghanistan War veteran, fluent in 7 languages. He's more than a bit of a chameleon .I've seen the Dem debates and he has a knack of never directly answering an question . He has gotten away without revealing his true positions that he got from the father he worships . His father Joseph was a Marxist professor at Notre Dame ;who admired Italian communist Antonio Gramsci . Gramsci's believed that for communism to succeed, culture first had to be corrupted and to do that institutions of a country had to be subverted from the inside out. It was he that convinced commies around the country to infiltrate education ,the government while doing a decent job hiding their beliefs and intentions .
And that brings us back to Mayor Pete . He is good at the art of evasion .That may be his biggest strength . He and Bernie are neck and neck in delegate count and popular vote so far . He may be just what the party elders ordered

To early to call, let the games continue! LOL, love it though how two small states have such influence. I think we are still in the feeling out process and find it interesting the big money guys spent bookoo bucks to skip the small states and get commercials in down the line bigger ones. Bloomy's apology may well work with minorities but it won't shield him from other nominee attacks in a debate setting and no doubt the chomp at the bit. I'm not counting any of the remaining folks out though, because you never know as more people get to cast their votes.

love it though how two small states have such influence.

Dems always say that when they are unsatisfied with the results . They did not complain when Iowa was the springboard for the emperor's campaign.


I've seen Nanny Bloomy in action his only game is $$ . He is a terrible debater and won't do it unless he has to .

jlisenbe: If you protract any economy out long enough into the future, then the wheel will fall off of it....but that is by no means a certainty....If you listen to the naysayers and Demos and all the talking head economists, then all of them have said it was impossible for Trump to have done what he has done, so far: Remember Obama saying that we could never have the kind of growth rate Trump has given us? Hoping a Demo get the POTUS right now is suicide for the country: The momentum will be stymied and all of the progress henceforth, will be wrecked.

tomder55: The U.S. is not ready to place a flaming homosexual into the highest Office in the land. Our Commander In Chief would be a homosexual? Not happening. There is less chance of Booty Boy getting to be POTUS than it is a woman, which isn't happening any time soon, either.

Dems always say that when they are unsatisfied with the results . They did not complain when Iowa was the springboard for the emperor's campaign.


I've seen Nanny Bloomy in action his only game is $$ . He is a terrible debater and won't do it unless he has to .

Human nature to cheer for the home team as NY'ers well know. Bloomy's interviews are dubious too. He has money and knows what to do with it.



jlisenbe: If you protract any economy out long enough into the future, then the wheel will fall off of it....but that is by no means a certainty....If you listen to the naysayers and Demos and all the talking head economists, then all of them have said it was impossible for Trump to have done what he has done, so far: Remember Obama saying that we could never have the kind of growth rate Trump has given us? Hoping a Demo get the POTUS right now is suicide for the country: The momentum will be stymied and all of the progress henceforth, will be wrecked.

He promised 5 or 6, you tell me what it is.

Vac, you're right about the economy. My concern is based on our continuing addiction to deficit spending and fed borrowing. One of these days that's all going to stop, and then we'll have to do what we should have done all along and pay our own way, but we'll also be saddled with servicing the debt. Want to see what that's like? Call Greece.

You're also right that a dem pres would be a disaster. I agree completely, especially looking at the group of losers they have to choose from. No one has mention Tulsi. She does at least have a backbone and seems to exhibit some common sense.

I'd be happy with keeping the House, winning the Senate, and impeaching the dufus again. 8)

tomder55: The U.S. is not ready to place a flaming homosexual into the highest Office in the land. Our Commander In Chief would be a homosexual? Not happening. There is less chance of Booty Boy getting to be POTUS than it is a woman, which isn't happening any time soon, either.

I never said he had a chance to win. What are the Dems options ? Warren just cancelled $1.2 million in Nevada a SC . a prelude for her "suspension" of her campaign .( gotta preserve what remains from those small donations she's collected after she initially funded the campaign with big donor bucks ). You have to remember the name of the game . They want to retain the House and pick off the Senate . Then they can play the impeachment game again in Trump's 2nd term .They also want to ensure that Trump gets no more SCOTUS ;or other judicial nominees confirmed . Having majorities in both Houses they believe Trump can be contained .

Winning the Senate will do them no good. It takes 67 votes to convict, not 51.

Winning the Senate will do them no good. It takes 67 votes to convict, not 51.
They plan to keep the House, too.

"The best laid plans of mice and men.." In that case, it would be the mice.

Probably doesn't matter who dems pick because turnout is the biggest factor and I'm starting to see for the first time it may not matter so much about a good economy or being an incumbent with big bucks. Frankly though the dufus will be on his game for the greatest show on earth and all the loonies and they mama will show up for that. In many ways a business man and a right winger supporter was inevitable, that's what conservatives have always wanted, and small government run by oligarchs behind the scenes with enough pliant states behind them. Well they got it. You think they even care if the dufus has his show plays god and has his fun? Heck no! Power and control was always the goal, and they got it. Hook or crook they ain't giving that up.

So if the stupid dems don't turn 'em out, no matter who the nominee is, they win, just that simple.

We have small government? Where? In your fantasy world?

You may be right, but you have certainly made it less efficient and less responsive so smaller in that way. 4 more years of the dufus and his sycophants ought to do it.

Trump wins in 2020: I give it to you that, generally speaking, the American People THINK they are at the 95% intelligence level when their real level is 65%...in the 50's it was directly reversed, they were smarter than they thought they were, just a whole lot more humble and because they hadn't been fed the "SELF-ESTEEM" diet of B.S. that Public Education has been dishing out the last 50 years....but, at the end of the day, Americans STILL know how to count $$$ and keeping TRUMP in as POTUS = MORE $$$ in American pockets.

Now be a good time to buy some votes so turn them spigots up a notch why doncha.

Hey if you didn't like Trump's sexism you'll love nanny Bloomy's

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/mike-bloomberg-for-years-has-battled-womens-allegations-of-profane-sexist-comments/ar-BB101ZuU?ocid=spartanntp

Winning the Senate will do them no good. It takes 67 votes to convict, not 51.

of course it would and it has nothing to with getting a conviction . It is the resources that the President has to use fighting impeachment charges . If they had 51 votes secured in the Senate they could've dragged the impeachment Kavanaugh style ad infinitum ….a virtual conga line of witnesses to depose .
But the real reason that they want the Senate is to block any judicial appointment in Trump's second term they choose to block . The nuclear option has already been used for judicial appointments so the super majority is no longer required .
With the Senate they can also pick and choose which bill makes it to the President's desk . Currently the turtle acts as the firewall so Trump doesn't have to go on record vetoing the garbage the House passes .

Ever notice that the real Flamer of Booty Boy seems more macho than the Bloomturd? If I didn't know better, I would swear Bloomturd was the Flamer!

tomder55: The Demos won't win the Senate, won't even pick up seats.....and, they will most likely lose the House, too.

tomder55: The Demos won't win the Senate, won't even pick up seats.....and, they will most likely lose the House, too.

Confidence is everything therefore you can forgo the inflammatory rhetoric,

Paraclete: Your "Selective Outrage" is on display again! Never heard you utter a word before about "INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC" when other candidates for Office, or Office holder, have been savaged with verbal insults. I take it you don't like the word "Flamer": Flamer simply means "Flamboyant"....so how is that "Inflammatory" and how is it "Rhetoric"? Rhetoric connotes a falsehood: What part of what I said was false?

Paraclete: Your "Selective Outrage" is on display again! Never heard you utter a word before about "INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC" when other candidates for Office, or Office holder, have been savaged with verbal insults. I take it you don't like the word "Flamer": Flamer simply means "Flamboyant"....so how is that "Inflammatory" and how is it "Rhetoric"? Rhetoric connotes a falsehood: What part of what I said was false?

Let's keep this civil, shall we?

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/84177817_1054999034870249_7835574305726398464_o.jp g?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=Qd4-fn8uj3oAX_FXa4K&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&_nc_tp=7&oh=89acd8292a9a74a7ba41c1d4383e4679&oe=5EC1A7AFhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EORGf9eXkAE4MXZ.jpg:large?fbclid=IwAR16jFOER172csW GtyBOMf2ICSdzdCDv9W35cItl4wf7pZBstqfFt6wVf5s

For your Sunday morning entertainment! Have a great day, everyone.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b7/14/71/b714710d18af0da0911c382555f468a0.jpg

When the "wolves" come a trying to harm you and your family, the Police just can't ever seem to get there in time: You aren't doing yourself or your family any favors by not being able to protect them....in fact, you are consciously abdicating your responsibility to defend what is yours and the well being of your family.

How do you protect your family at the mall, the movies, or at church, or school?

Talaniman: Concealed Carry or Carry In Plain Sight: It you step into the "WORLD", anywhere in this world, you are putting yourself at SOME level of risk....but your home should not be a danger zone, it should be where you are protected. What is for certain is that Law Enforcement is going to be an hour late and a dollar short...so, if you're waiting on BLUE, you are backing up.

Talaniman: Concealed Carry or Carry In Plain Sight: It you step into the "WORLD", anywhere in this world, you are putting yourself at SOME level of risk....but your home should not be a danger zone, it should be where you are protected. What is for certain is that Law Enforcement is going to be an hour late and a dollar short...so, if you're waiting on BLUE, you are backing up.
And how many innocent people will you shoot in the chaotic crowd that results? The bad guys aren't going to stand around, waving their arms in the air, and wait while you unpack your heat.

And how many innocent people will you shoot in the chaotic crowd that results? The bad guys aren't going to stand around, waving their arms in the air, and wait while you unpack your heat.They are usually quite noticeable, even to liberal women.

They are usually quite noticeable, even to liberal women.
Surely you joke! Have you ever seen videos of a shooting? Total chaos! Which guy brandishing a gun is the bad guy?

Here's one video for you --
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XPyokEbhR08

I'm still stuck on what lions and tigers ate when their was no death.

Surely you joke! Have you ever seen videos of a shooting? Total chaos! Which guy brandishing a gun is the bad guy?No. Not joking. Next time a bank, convenience store, taxi cab, or home is robbed, ask the people if they had any trouble figuring out who the bad guy was. I bet they didn't. I bet it is obvious about 999 times out of a thousand.

No. Not joking. Next time a bank, convenience store, taxi cab, or home is robbed, ask the people if they had any trouble figuring out who the bad guy was. I bet they didn't. I bet it is obvious about 999 times out of a thousand.
Look at the videos! People run around like crazy when a car backfires! And if there's concealed carry or open carry, and those people have drawn their guns and are brandishing them and shooting, maybe one is the bad guy! Oh, my!

There's no way for you to see the bad guy and get a clear shot with scared people running around between you and him.

WG, you are referring to the relatively rare situation of a mob of people reacting to a perceived danger, but that is typically not the case. In robberies or murders, the bad guy is typically very apparent.

WG, you are referring to the relatively rare situation of a mob of people reacting to a perceived danger, but that is typically not the case. In robberies or murders, the bad guy is typically very apparent.
Nope. Watch the videos of actual shootings. The crowd is spooked and running wildly every which way whether it's because of gunshots or backfires.

Read my comment again. Carefully. Most shootings do not involve crowds.

Read my comment again. Carefully. Most shootings do not involve crowds.
Many have involved crowds and students in school and even a nursing home (Hope that old guy in room 103 who brags all the time about shooting bad guys can find his revolver.) Remember when it really got started in 1966, Charles Whitman at the U of Texas-Austin?

Want a list? Then see "Deadliest mass shootings since 1949" in the Wikipedia article titled "Mass shootings in the United States."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Nope. Watch the videos of actual shootings. The crowd is spooked and running wildly every which way whether it's because of gunshots or backfires.
If you said something succinctly then your comments might be better understood

WG, you are talking about mass shootings. The vast, vast majority of gun killings in the U.S. are not mass shootings, and in those cases the identity of the bad guy is very plain. But even in mass shootings, the ID of the bad guy can be very obvious. Just refer to the recent church shooting in which the death toll would have been enormous if not for armed and capable church members.

Jlisenbe: No, you and I MUST BE FOULED-UP/WRONGHEADED in our thinking: I guess we are just supposed to be victims....sheep led to the slaughter....we shouldn't defend ourselves: NO THANK YOU! I have every intention of defending myself and protecting my family and what is mine....waiting for Law Enforcement to "arrive" whenever they see fit just isn't going to pass the requirements of my standards.

Vac, that's a really good point about police wait time. We had a country store robbed at gun point (bad guy easy to ID) one night a couple of years ago. They locked the employees in a room at the back. One of them had a cell phone and called the police. Twenty minutes later they finally arrived at the scene of an armed robbery. There were only two deputies on patrol for the entire county that night and neither one was nearby.

jlisenbe: Perfect example! And that story had a "good ending" because no one was killed, I assume? But there are many more stories where the ending is not so good.

In the county where I grew up, the father a boy I went all through school with ran an ABC store....one rainy Saturday night, two men entered the store and immediately started firing at him behind the counter...bulletproof glass saved his life and he was able to retrieve his shotgun and killed both of them: These vermin would never rob any more stores or hurt anyone ever again....even after all of that, it took the Sheriff's Office 20+ minutes to get to the store.

IF YOU AREN'T ARMED, YOU ARE A VICTIM WAITING TO HAPPEN.

LOL, Vac the shotgun didn't save him, the bullet proof glass did, as even those with guns can have the drop pulled on them with a well planned ambush and that lesson should not be lost. Doesn't it count that even law officers can be ambushed and killed, and regretably have been?

Talaniman: No doubt, you are right about the bulletproof glass giving the guy the initial "survivability" and you are also correct about the ambush potential for even those with guns....however, even the bad guys fear things...they don't like taking on people who can fight back...they don't like being shot at: If they know that an intended victim "MAY" be armed, the normally don't want to risk the damages of losing a gunfight: The capacity to sling lead back at the bad guys is a strong deterrent to them initiating their perpetrations....why attack a "hardened/armed" target when there are plenty of "soft/unarmed" targets.

Talaniman: No doubt, you are right about the bulletproof glass giving the guy the initial "survivability" and you are also correct about the ambush potential for even those with guns....however, even the bad guys fear things...they don't like taking on people who can fight back...they don't like being shot at: If they know that an intended victim "MAY" be armed, the normally don't want to risk the damages of losing a gunfight: The capacity to sling lead back at the bad guys is a strong deterrent to them initiating their perpetrations....why attack a "hardened/armed" target when there are plenty of "soft/unarmed" targets.
C'mon, V7. The shooter often kills himself or sticks around long enough to be killed by law enforcement. It's a suicide mission; he knows he probably won't get out alive.

He's not a "bad guy" but a very miserable maybe mentally ill person who has endured bullying or child abuse or mistreatment of some kind.

The shooter often kills himself or sticks around long enough to be killed by law enforcement. It's a suicide mission; he knows he probably won't get out alive.In many shootings, the perp is never found. So much for being on a suicide mission.


He's not a "bad guy" but a very miserable maybe mentally ill person who has endured bullying or child abuse or mistreatment of some kind.How do you know that?

In many shootings, the perp is never found. So much for being on a suicide mission.
What are you smokin', Willis???

Aren't we talking about mass shootings? -- Las Vegas, the Charleston, SC church, Sandy Hook, cf. the list on Wikipedia (link posted in #40).


How do you know that?
I read the newspapers, listen to news reports, and always look for the outcome and motive.

Please post the list of shootings (mass murders) committed by shooters who walked/ran away.

Would six thousand unsolved murders in one year be enough for you? I guess you forgot to read about them. In your lovely city of Chicago, it is well over half that go unsolved.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/a-shocking-number-of-us-murders-went-unsolved-last-year/

Chicago figures: https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/here-s-where-homicides-go-unsolved-chicago

As to the topic, it did not begin on 40 but on 31 when Vac posted, "Talaniman: Concealed Carry or Carry In Plain Sight: It you step into the "WORLD", anywhere in this world, you are putting yourself at SOME level of risk....but your home should not be a danger zone, it should be where you are protected. What is for certain is that Law Enforcement is going to be an hour late and a dollar short...so, if you're waiting on BLUE, you are backing up."

Now he was plainly speaking of protecting his home, but you then rather hysterically (my opinion) replied, "And how many innocent people will you shoot in the chaotic crowd that results? The bad guys aren't going to stand around, waving their arms in the air, and wait while you unpack your heat."

Vac had it right. The vast majority of shootings are not mass shootings. If someone is breaking into my home, I will be armed and ready to protect my wife and me. Hopefully it never happens.

The conversation is about mass shootings.

It is in your head. It's not for the rest of us.

How about those unsolved Chicago murders? What was the figure..74% unsolved? Did you read about them?

I can certainly understand having a secure home, but who stays home all the time with guns a ready? What of the times you are away from home? I ask that and got no answer. Instead you attack the poster! That getting to be a tired tactic.

How did I attack the poster, by asking a question? You don't think WG is capable of answering a question?

You didn't ask me about being away from home. In our state we have open carry and it seems to have worked well. There could also be concealed carry.

I conceal carry when out and about and I don't respect the demands of any establishment that says no firearms allowed, as far as I am concerned, they are talking to the wall. It is like this, I won't parse words: Sure, I can CALL the Police but I am not going to RELY UPON THE POLICE AS MY SOLE SOURCE OF PROTECTION.....Beyond the laws made by mere men, I have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SELF-PROTECTION.....AND, I WILL NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION TO PROTECT MYSELF OR WORRY ABOUT SOME DAMNED MAN MADE LAW THAT SAYS ITS O.K. OR NOT O.K. TO PROTECT MYSELF. Like the old saying "I would much rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

I remember some years ago, during some crisis in N.Y., that Georgia was going to send Policemen and State Troopers to support the N.Y. Officers: N.Y. said fine but you can't allow your officers to bring their firearms....so Georgia rescinded their offer.

You could fit in my family very easily Vac, and you at least see the value of protecting your own, and like most gun owners respecting that power of life and death, and I have no problem there, even as you have to understand that a guy with a gun cannot be readily recognized as a good guy, or bad guy. If a trained cop can make a wrong judgement, so can anybody right? Nobody should shoot first or ask questions later and if you do, you better be all the way right or be judged by those 12 you mentioned before. Same for cop and citizens. There are always questions later! I'll spare you the stories of all the ones who got it wrong and got away with it.

Nobody should shoot first or ask questions later and if you do, you better be all the way right or be judged by those 12 you mentioned before. Same for cop and citizens. There are always questions later!I would agree with that. I don't carry, concealed or otherwise, but I have no problem with those who do. I am prepared to "defend my castle", but I hope I never have to. I don't think I'm going to shoot someone to protect my television.

Talaniman & jlisenbe: Absolutely correct, carrying a gun LEGALLY entitles you to no more rights than anyone else and also confers a whole hell of a lot of responsibility, so you are ON THE HOOK, potentially, any time you use it but, hopefully, you get to stay alive (main point). Like you said, Talaniman: You better be right! No, the "Death Zone" for anyone is when they breach the threshold of your doorway...at that point they are consciously taking their lives into their own hands and are challenging the sanctity of your abode with bad intentions, so this is a different level scenario....Southern States have laws where homeowners are pretty much in the clear on intruder confrontation and the results thereof...where it gets murky is IF you know the intruder or if the intruder is a family member, no matter how distant...those can be challenges. Handguns connote a different aspect amongst all guns because of their potential for concealment potential and regulations for them are more stringent for them, accordingly, as they should be. I am an advocate for women learning to use guns in self-defense but they must be competent users because to pull a gun means that you must be willing to use it and you shouldn't pull if you aren't willing to use it....and that goes for anyone.

A gun is a firearm, not a weapon: A gun only becomes a weapon once INTENT is established...same for a brick or a pipe!

LOL, we had similar laws in the north Vac for gunowners and home owners, and if you shoot an intruder outside you better drag him inside before you call a cop. Yeah that breach the threshold law applies everywhere not just in the south my friend. It's that fear for my life crap outside the home that riles me. No abuses possible there? Scared cops use that to shoot first and figure it out later. Plenty of abuses there over the years. Don't get me wrong we all have fear, but you cross the line when it's unfounded.

Scared cops use that to shoot first and figure it out laterIf you'd been a cop a year or two, then I bet you'd have a different point of view.

If you'd been a cop a year or two, then I bet you'd have a different point of view.

Perhaps but a well trained cop is not so prone to actions out of fear, so hopefully training will kick in before the fear. At least one would hope they are well trained to that level BEFORE they are let out on the street. If not, now that's a huge problem with a marked potential for disaster could we agree on that?

I don't know of a police force that uses untrained policemen, but if one exists, then yes, that would be a great concern.

I don't know of a police force that uses untrained policemen, but if one exists, then yes, that would be a great concern.

I have experienced a few, some more corrupt than inept though, and that's even worse. You've heard of stop and frisk? Well I grew up with stop and search back in the days of my youth and being a minority in a white town carries it's own experiences you never forget just driving outside your "assigned" neighbor hood.

Well I grew up with stop and search back in the days of my youth and being a minority in a white town carries it's own experiences you never forget just driving outside your "assigned" neighbor hood.Do you still experience that?

Not personally so much, but it has been a conversation with my kids before, and now with my grown grand kids who are more than a bit angry at dealing with it. Their moms and dads are now also feeling the anxieties on this very real and sensitive subject as I did and no doubt my own father and his father before him did when I left home for errands and such or just being with friends. It's a part of the minority experience that has a long history, and still exists whether it's acknowledged, or understood and that's the dam shame of it after all this time!

I don't expect you to understand or care, that may be asking a lot.

my grown grand kids who are more than a bit angry at dealing with it.So your grandkids are being subjected to searches for no observable reason?

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this. I've known one black person in my life that we could sit down and talk with everything on the table and have a genuinely honest conversation. We were talking about this subject and she told me that she had conducted a conversation with her kids about how to behave if they were pulled over/stopped by a policeman. I asked her (She was probably somewhere in her forties at the time) if she had ever had a negative encounter with the police. She said she had not. I just started laughing because, as it turned out, I was the one who had experienced unpleasant, unwarranted encounters with cops and on several different occasions, including one time when I was suddenly faced with four cops and a police dog at my school! So it is quite possible that I understand more than you think.

But I will still say that the biggest problem facing black people in America, by FAR, is the behavior of far too many black people in America. In other words, black people could promote their own welfare a great deal by making some changes in behavior that would cause them to reap enormous rewards.

Research has shown that three behaviors are important in avoiding poverty. They are to "finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20!Here’s the real kicker: only 8 percent of families who do all three are poor; however, 79 percent of those who fail to do all three are poor." It is beyond amazing to me that all we hear is this largely false narrative about police brutality, and yet NO ONE, including Tal, talks about this. It is one of the great disgraces of our age. It is so because it's a lot easier to whine and complain about the behavior of someone else and thus be able to avoid ME having to change MY behavior. It's sickening that we do not shout this from the rooftops.

https://lifesmartblog.com/2015/01/28/3-life-choices-to-prevent-poverty/

So your grandkids are being subjected to searches for no observable reason?

That's what I said, followed in stores, especially higher end shops and we aren't talking poor looking kids either, but when they ask why does it happen, it's because it does, so watch how you present yourself and the way you talk, and act especially around cops no matter what! I was always taught because people look like you they aren't automatically your friend, nor those that look different automatically your enemy. Be aware of where you are and who is around you. Don't let your mouth get you kilt!

Most minorities realize how quick you can die for nothing as I'm sure everybody does and they watch whatever news like everybody else. We all do. I know it's a risk for everybody, and bad things happen to good people all the time. Heard all that but with a minority stuff happens because you are a minority.

To this day even my old butt never stops where there could be a problem, no minority does. I imagine you gave your kids the talk about those people places and things that could be a problem for them too.

Talaniman: I will admit that hysteria exists all over the map when it comes to subjects of race and Police, from both sides of the perspective, and especially with regard to Blacks. I know that Police tend to "act" differently when handling Blacks as opposed to Caucasians and Black tend to act differently than Whites when confronted by Police: So where is/what is the genesis of these differing reactions? I can only guess that much of it is rooted in a TRUST factor and there are a lot of components interacting dynamically in that equation. There is a history to be told by both sides and much of that history has fallen by the wayside because it isn't relevant anymore but some of it is quite relevant. When I get pulled for speeding (5 years since my last ticket!), I must admit that my heart skips a beat and if my heart skips a beat I can only imagine its worse for a Black man: When you are nervous, you act differently! And that is a fact. Not being nervous is a hard thing to teach and I don't even know if it is possible. This nervousness in a person is something damn near palatable to a cop...they pick up on it and immediately become suspicious of whomever they are interacting with at the time....I'm not making excuses for bad behavior, just telling you what happens.

I can relate this story: My wife had a neighbor girlfriend (Black woman) that lived one house over from us. Her husband (Black man) was a very successful Trucking Co. owner...these two seemed very happy.....but one day, that all changed, dramatically: My wife came to me and said "You have to go over to Tina's and do something, Robert is throwing all her clothes out of the house!" Well, what do you think I did? I can't deny my wife's wishes so I went over there to try and talk some sense to Robert, who was raging at Tina...he didn't lay a hand on his wife, just raising hell....Started talking to Robert trying to calm him down without being too intrusive (how do you do that?)….meanwhile, some other neighbor had called the Police: Two Police cars arrived, two cops: Immediately on enter the home, the cops hands were "on" their sidearms....they wanted to know who I was and why I was there....I told them I was a friend and I had walked over to talk to Robert...One of the cops, very young, was particularly nervous and confrontational and damn near pulled his sidearm...at that moment I realized that something bad might happen right then and there...so I quietly, but effectively positioned myself between the cop and Robert, not an obvious way but in a way to diffuse the situation...and, it worked! I swear, I think that If I had not been there that day, Robert may have been shot by a nervous young cop...and it would have been for nothing: By the end of the day, Robert was picking all of his wife's clothes up off the lawn and putting them back into the closet...they are still man and wife with 30 years marriage now.

MOST Police are well trained, I think....and most are probably good....but there are those that are better than the average and those that are worse. Are there RACIST cops? Probably some, sure...but I don't know how you screen for that. I do think that a lack of understanding, a lack of communication, between cops and people of color is something that definitely can and should be worked on.

Race "FIREBRANDS", on both sides of the subject, are a problem for us all, and it doesn't matter what angle they are coming from on the subject: The "pot stirrers" are a real troublemakers: We will continue to progress but the firebrands slow that progress rate down by a good bit.

Plus, the police are not know for their wisdom and intelligence.

The standard range of scores applied for police officers is a score between 20 and 27. According to ABC News, the average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average. A perfect score on this test, the Wonderlic, is a 50.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-police-departments-refuse-hire-smart/ (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-police-departments-refuse-hire-smart/)

Plus, the police are not know for their wisdom and intelligence.

The standard range of scores applied for police officers is a score between 20 and 27. According to ABC News, the average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average. A perfect score on this test, the Wonderlic, is a 50. My goodness. What an insulting statement, that they are not known for wisdom and intelligence. The ones I know are both wise and intelligent. That comment is surprising coming from you.

So their IQ is above average. The police I know, and I know several, are terrific, but if you don't trust them, then the next time your house is being broken into, be sure to NOT call them.

I have never seen a person yet who disparaged Police NOT call them when they had a crisis: In fact, the opposite often seems true, they will call them faster!

No one would ever break into my house. During my own experiences with the police, their wisdom and intelligence have not been real obvious. (Btw, the average IQ is 100.)

So their IQ is above average

No it's not above average. Any IQ around 100 plus or minus 5 points is average. WG is correct.

The average IQ policeman is given a gun and a badge - the ultimate authority outside of a court. There is also the reality that outside of the big cities and the state police the police training is terrible. They're not well-trained in the law, much less how to handle people in critical situations.

As someone said, the problem is screening. Very badly motivated individuals tend to apply for police work. They want the gun and the badge. Good psychological screening gets some of them, but not all. Just watch the news for shoddy and tragic police work. African-Americans are doubly in danger since the average white cop is not familiar with Black life, and is conditioned by media to see Blacks as criminals.

There's nothing new about all this. It's been well-known for years and the small town police departments have little funds to do a good screening job of applicants. Most cops do a credible job but too many are loose cannons.

No it's not above average. Any IQ around 100 plus or minus 5 points is average. WG is correct.Uhm...it was not my opinion that it was above average. It was her own article that said it was.

Uhm...it was not my opinion that it was above average. It was her own article that said it was.
"...just a little above average."

If a perfect score is 50 and the standard score for police applicants is 20-27, umm....

Yes. A little above average. In other words, above average. Not by much, but above average according to your article. It's really not complicated.

Yes. A little above average. In other words, above average. Not by much, but above average according to your article. It's really not complicated.
No, saying "above average" is misleading. As Athos said, plus or minus five points is still average. Didn't you take a course in tests and testing?

Oh to get people on this board to learn how to read. I'll post it again for your benefit. "Uhm...it was not my opinion that it was above average. It was her own article that said it was." Now a "little" is not a lot, but it is still some, so it plainly means above average.

If someone says they are not above average, then that person is contradicting the article, and not me. I still find your utter disrespect of the police to be appalling. I never cease to be amazed at where your liberal orthodoxy takes you.

I never cease to be amazed at where your liberal orthodoxy takes you.
It's not anything liberal; it's from personal experience.

Back to the OP....

Tomorrow evening's debate will be interesting if Bloomberg is part of it.

It's liberal.

It's liberal.
If you're talking about me, I have been surrounded by conservatives since birth -- through all my schooling, by my church, by family of origin and in laws, by the communities I have lived in. If I'm liberal, it's because I've taken Micah 6:8 and the words of Jesus into my heart and as the reason for my actions.

In all honesty, two things jump out of this discussion that could use more exploring: 1) As Athos pointed out, "the average white cop conditioned by media to see Blacks as criminals" and 2) Compensation for Policemen.

The MEDIA not only lies about people of points of view other than their own, they also lie about minorities, in this case Blacks, to the point that they have tainted Law Enforcement against Blacks....this makes me want to blame the MEDIA more than blame the Police for their occasions of bad behavior.

Nobody has talked about Police Compensation/pay: By and large, you get what you pay for in this world. You want a good education at a major university, you pay through the nose....you want quality teachers, you have to pay them decent wages....you want a great chef at a major restaurant, get ready to pay him.....you want good politicians, get ready to pay them (wow, we may be paying them too much, bad example!)…..Policemen are no different: How are you going to attract "the best and brightest" Police Officers when their pay is not competitive with other disciplines? You want super cops but pay them like they are burger flippers! Soldiers get Combat Pay for being IN THEATER in combat zones: Generally speaking, a lot of Police Officers are walking into COMBAT ZONES every day in the U.S., and I am not exaggerating much, if at all! How are we compensating these people who stick their necks in the noose for our safety? Do we really appreciate the risks that our L.E.O.s take every day in the name of upholding the law? I wonder if can even conceive of what they go through. This may come as a shock BUT MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it takes someone with no better than an AVERAGE IQ to put up with PUTTING EVERYTHING HE HAS AND EVERYTHING HE EVER IS GOING TO HAVE on the line each and every day! DO YOU HONESTLY THINK A SMART MAN WOULD RISK HIS LIFE EVERY DAY FOR MINIMAL PAY, DAY-IN AND DAY-OUT, ONLY TO BE SECOND GUESSED AND RIDICULED BY THOSE HE IS SWORN TO PROTECT? Aren't we asking a little much? Cops are humans, too: Every man has a breaking point when exposed to prolonged periods of combat...99.8% of the men in this world will break at some point in combat, time is the deciding element.....the 0.2% that do not break are psychologically unstable human beings.

So I see your argument but to extend it; to get a great president you would need to pay a billion dollars, no, that won't work, you already have one who has a billion dollars. many of your politicians are millionaires, hasn't bred a better politician. No, you need to return to the Roman times when politicians served without pay, it was a position provided by their circumstance and civic duty

If someone says they are not above average, then that person is contradicting the article, and not me. I still find your utter disrespect of the police to be appalling. I never cease to be amazed at where your liberal orthodoxy takes you.

I never cease to be amazed at your constant game of semantics to obscure your errors. I am appalled.

Vac that was an interesting enough summation that I looked it up and depending on areas they get paid rather well, but as you say is it enough to really compensate them for the rigors of the work? Another part of this whole thing is we should not judge the actions of a few with a broad brush of all of them. Not ALL cops are scary racist arseholes and it doesn't take but a very few to make BIG headlines, and traffic stops may not be completely about just race, but quotas as well, so in all honesty the problems with minorities and cops can be lethal, but for many different reasons in different places. One of the most infuriating things for minorities which adds to the mistrust is the wholesale covering up of bad cops doing really bad stuff. The fact that they so blatantly get away with it is the cause of much concern over years. Policies also like stop and frisk, not new and a practice in many places before NY for years helps NOTHING, nor profiling practices, all done for years and decades, starts at the TOP of the chain, and has not served their communities well at all.

Sometimes those things get lost in the discussion and makes all those personal anecdotes of individuals and their bad experience take on a bigger role than otherwise they would along with the new phenomenon of cell phone videos of cops doing bad stuff making an already bad situation even worse and communities and good cops who are silent to bad policy and practice are all victims of a sometimes inadequate system and the people that make it so. It helps nothing when white people call a cop on a minority minding his own business in there establishment, and the cop handles those situations badly but it adds much to an already growing resentment by minorities and even people who are not giving more fuel to the fires of racial inequality and treatment. There's enough blame to go around for sure, but lets not pretend that it doesn't happen or disregard the need to change it.

I think I've had my fill of this respect the bad cops, when the evidence says they should not even be cops. At least don't send the SOB's to my neighborhood. That would at least start the healing and maybe the good cops wouldn't be targets and have to die at the hands of those that hate them for what has been systematically done by bad cops and the policies of the powers that be.

Very grateful though to this forum for respecting the need to talk about race in an open way and thanks for listening white peoples. Sometimes listening is all you have to do since that's where understanding begins.

V7 - compensation comes in many forms,. not just dollars. The mindset of an ordinary guy who is given a gun, a badge, and a uniform is heady stuff. The cop doesn't think of himself as a person who "protects and serves", but rather as a guy whose word is law and citizens better obey in any confrontation.

Then there are the temptations which lead to corruption, especially in the large urban areas. Drug payoffs, for example, are enormous and the good cop who sees this is faced with the Blue Wall of Silence. Even the top cops can be corrupted - see Bernie Kerik, past PC of New York City.

There's something inherently dangerous in being a policeman. Too much power for one individual. Fair trials for bad cops would be a step in the right direction - not "I feared for my life" as a defense that juries buy when the cop is clearly shown shooting a suspect in the back as he is running away. Video cameras should record every single police stop.

Athos: In the area I live, a large portion of the Law Enforcement personnel are Ex-Military....and it is pretty obvious from their hair cuts to the way that they carry themselves. I sincerely believe that the Military background in the Police Forces is a big plus, not only from the discipline portion of it but, also, from the psychological part of it.

Athos: In the area I live, a large portion of the Law Enforcement personnel are Ex-Military....and it is pretty obvious from their hair cuts to the way that they carry themselves. I sincerely believe that the Military background in the Police Forces is a big plus, not only from the discipline portion of it but, also, from the psychological part of it.

Police Departments love to recruit ex-military. I was recruited by the LAPD when I got out. Ex-military, as good as most may be, also can bring problems to police work.

I thought of another media thing - unlike portrayals of African-Americans, when Police are portrayed in media, they are invariably heroic, brave, honest and terrific all-around. Not to mention good-looking and the women are spectacular. This is not a criticism of media, but an important factor in how our culture looks at certain groups.

Athos: There is a lot of, for lack of a better word, "subliminal" messages that can be put out by MEDIA, if they so chose to take that approach, upon old John Q. Public. If we knew the real story, we would probably be shocked at how much MEDIA has influenced our thinking and actions over the years....and OUR MEDIA was hard at this a long time before the notorious "Russian Bots" were in the public purview.

If you look at Bloomberg, now Presidential Candidate Bloomberg, he could have a very deft capacity to influence public thought given his enormous "financial network".

Hard truth of the matter: We are being psychologically ASSAULTED on a daily basis! That's why, sometimes, you just have to turn everything off and put blinders on for a at least a few days!

nanny Bloomy is going to feel like a pinata after tonight . And it won't matter . When the Dems see their choice of a communist or Trump lite they will flock to Bloomy ....and the ones on the fence he will buy off. It is a ways off yet but look to Slim Shady Sharpton to support nanny Bloomy even though there were race tensions in his term as Mayor of NYC due to stop and frisk ;even though he squashed protests and allowed them to demonstrate behind "free speech "cages Even though homelessness began to rise on his watch.

Well that answer is easy . Sharpton still owes $ 9 millions in unpaid taxes . Here comes nanny Bloomy on a white horse and a check book in his hand. Viola ! instant endorsement right before the NY primary !

Athos: There is a lot of, for lack of a better word, "subliminal" messages that can be put out by MEDIA, if they so chose to take that approach, upon old John Q. Public. If we knew the real story, we would probably be shocked at how much MEDIA has influenced our thinking and actions over the years....and OUR MEDIA was hard at this a long time before the notorious "Russian Bots" were in the public purview.

Media, including advertising, is so powerful, it doesn't need subliminal messages. Look what Goebbels did to the German people in thew 1930s. Repeat, repeat, repeat is the opposite of subliminal. Trump is a master at this. "Fake news, the Russian Hoax" - we see and hear this almost daily from Trump. He knows what he's doing. His Medal of Freedom winner Limbaugh has instructed his followers to watch only FOX-News, never the other broadcasters. Hardly "Freedom"!

The Russian bots were smart enough to target the swing states in 2016 - Pennsylvania, Michigan etc. Someday we may learn how effective they were.


If you look at Bloomberg, now Presidential Candidate Bloomberg, he could have a very deft capacity to influence public thought given his enormous "financial network".

He's already doing it via enormous TV ad buys.


Hard truth of the matter: We are being psychologically ASSAULTED on a daily basis! That's why, sometimes, you just have to turn everything off and put blinders on for a at least a few days!

As you say, it's nothing new. Vance Packard wrote The Hidden Persuaders in the 1950s exposing how the ad companies manipulate the public - quite successfully, I might add. Yet we're still lambs led to the slaughter.

Athos: I know you're right about the effectiveness of the MEDIA....I do have and opinion, though: If you "READ" and you try to balance PRINT Vs. ELECTRONIC, you might have a better chance of weeding through the garbage and not being "led down the garden path" by the pied pipers. I also think the "educated" have a better chance at navigating through all the crap that is slung from every direction...I say this but then look back at your example with Goebbles and how he conned Germany, who had a VERY educated population and STILL succumbed to the siren of der Further....that still bugs the piss out of me, don't understand it.

Just saw a video of Goebbles talking to an American reporter and speaking to the American people, through and interpreter, in 1938: he looked like he was lying and even acted like he knew he looked like he was lying! Guy looked like a weasel!

all Nazi were weasels vac they didn't just look like them

Paraclete: Ha, ha! Great point! Truly diabolical beasts.

after the train wreck I still say bernie will be the candidate

Athos: I know you're right about the effectiveness of the MEDIA....I do have and opinion, though: If you "READ" and you try to balance PRINT Vs. ELECTRONIC, you might have a better chance of weeding through the garbage...... I also think the "educated" have a better chance at navigating through all the crap that is slung from every direction...

Absolutely true! Any educated person can "weed through the garbage" but it takes effort, and sound bites are enormously effective. The dumbing down of the nation is not a good thing. One very bad result is that it leaves the power in the hands of those who know how to manipulate.

Athos: The dumbing-down of America is on full display and, I agree, its dangerous....but, perhaps, what is even more dangerous is when you COMBINE dumbing-down with ARROGANCE OF THE DUMBED-DOWN PEOPLE, a truly horrific combination! Too arrogant to realize how dumb they have become...one of my favorite movie lines: "I always knew you were a bastard....but its the "dumb bastard part" that I really have a problem with!"

The acceptance of the idea that we can have more things from the feds and not have to worry about paying for them is a huge problem and goes right along with your "dumbing down" theory. The American people have completely accepted this, so both repubs and dems are completely invested in it. When the day of reckoning comes rolling around, it's going to be a shock to a lot of folks.

jlisenbe: What you said is unarguable.....and it transcends all party or political affiliations. This is the one subject that all of us on this forum are probably together on and the same page....we can't keep doing the stupid stuff and expecting it to work because it NEVER worked in the first place. Education is the key component: We don't have to be all PhDs but we need to stop accepting everything that is "fed" to us by the MEDIA and others as being gospel: We should CHALLENGE our leadership and see if they can truly support their positions: Everyone wants the easy answer but sometimes there are no easy answers and no ONE MAN can be more intelligent than a collaborative group of men.

Back in the day of 3 network media things were clear cut and easier because there just wasn't a lot of contradictory stuff and the news was just a few hour thing to break up the entertainment programming. That day left with the 24/7 cable news shows and the internet taking over. We must also recognize that before our eyes we have been in an extended period of transition from old norms to the new world order of things where factories are replaced by hospitals and high rise offices. It's effects on people is profound indeed and while we are making bucks in the new world order of things to denigrate and castigate those without the ability to keep up, or get left behind, or left out is despicable indeed. If Big Biz and charity can't do it then government is the only viable vehicle left, so to say it's okay to leave half the population hanging on their own devices and government should play NO role, amid this transition, is not even close to the high moral standards some espouse, but action truly belies.

So we either rise to the challenges this brave new world order presents, or drown in our own crap until we figure it out as a collective. Now we can blame the media, the liberals, the conservatives, the rich, the poor, young immigrants, and old immigrants, the dumb, the smart ad nauseum. Doesn't matter! What matters is we rise to the challenge as a COLLECTIVE. We got the right wing version of a solution with the dufus, because the other guys stayed home. So I see the collective society must do a better job of PARTICAPATION in the process of picking leaders and legislatures as a first step in the solution to the problem, or present leadership will run buck wild maintaining the status quo of MO'Money for themselves.

If you think in your wildest dreams you can maintain a great nation by leaving almost half the population out of it you're probably as loony as a broken cuckoo clock. Only correct about a couple of things twice a day if that. I check the accuracy of whatever watch we use for accuracy!

Talaniman: Whatever happened to the collective group "SYNCHRONIZING" their watches? That makes things run smoother!

Nanny Bloomy'd best debate moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK9odsWwfIo

Talaniman: Whatever happened to the collective group "SYNCHRONIZING" their watches? That makes things run smoother!

Everybody has to have a good watch to synchronize don't they? Then you have to start with being able to tell time in the first place. Some people get stuck counting their own fingers, let alone trying to master a watch. Not saying they are bad people mind you, just challenged in this particular area. That's why I keep the standard for voting at participation. Maybe synchronizing can come later. Finger crossed!


Nanny Bloomy'd best debate moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK9odsWwfIo

LOL, I suspect you were looking for that clip instead of watching the debate! Hardly blame you.

Bloomberg is real short on charisma.....and long on $$$s!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=kU13v33ZuRY&feature=emb_logo&fbclid=IwAR0XHft9pCywz5RMUerPcMMB_uH8fKdBYUraTjyMw 24HQGhOyU7x9fM06Z8

Nanny Bloomy'd best debate moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK9odsWwfIoThat was hilarious.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAwXnBJ.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Talaniman: Ha, ha: STOP IT! Be nice. Trump came into Office rough around the edges but he is softening those edges some over time. I am sure that in his 2nd Term he will be more mellow.

Geez Vac, you sound like Susan Collins when she said impeachment taught the dufus a lesson. Yeah right.

Take a guess ….which candidate owns this home ?

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/sanders-vermont-evan-dvorkin-1-web.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1280 (https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/sanders-vermont-evan-dvorkin-1-web.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&strip=all)

What's your point?

Bolshevik Bernie? Isn't that too big for a Dacha?

that's one of 3 homes he owns . here is his modest lakeside home

500 feet of lakefront on Lake Champlain
they added the American flags for the photo op


https://s.hdnux.com/photos/50/75/52/10738343/3/480x480.jpg (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstimes.com%2Fnews%2Fartic le%2FSanders-summer-camp-in-Vermont-becomes-fodder-15071435.php&psig=AOvVaw3W9P9evo7M2MWv6g2H6mAw&ust=1582475770627000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCPiPpePL5ecCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAb)
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/bernie6.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=782&h=517 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fheavy.com%2Fnews%2F2019%2F06%2Fb ernie-sanders-house-home-photos%2F&psig=AOvVaw3W9P9evo7M2MWv6g2H6mAw&ust=1582475770627000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCPiPpePL5ecCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAh)

A real advocate for poor people. If he really wants to help people, he would seriously downsize and give that money to charity. But then that would not qualify for liberal political thought.

A real advocate for poor people. If he really wants to help people, he would seriously downsize and give that money to charity. But then that would not qualify for liberal political thought.

How come that doesn't apply to the dufus?

How come that doesn't apply to the dufus?It does, but the difference, to those who are paying attention, is that Trump does not claim to be the great advocate and protector for the poor in the way that Bernie does. It illustrates what I have said many times. Charity is when I help the poor with my money. Tyranny is when I help the poor with your money.

Makes some sense, and for once he isn't making a promise he knows he won't keep, because he sure is expanding the less than median income rolls. Wonder if they will say they are better off than they were before his regime?

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBZT0ci.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

he sure is expanding the less than median income rolls.You just don't understand the term "median" do you? You cannot simply increase the number below the median without increasing the total number measured. It is ALWAYS half of the total number. You might as well say that he has increased the number above the median because the only way for one group to increase is for the other group to increase as well.

I understand that you are trying to find a way out of your dilemma. When median income goes up, then the economy is definitely getting better. If you agree to that, then you would be (horror!) giving credit to Trump, and your TDS will not allow such a thing to happen.

In simple terms people are not statistics and math terms.

In simple terms people are not statistics and math terms.So? Has that ever been in question? It hasn't been by me.

Charity is when I help the poor with my money. Tyranny is when I help the poor with your money.
What's it called when I (TRump et al.) don't help the poor at all?

What's it called when I (TRump et al.) don't help the poor at all?

Only a liberal views raising the standard of living of the poor to be not helping them. Median income goes up, then poor people are doing better. Lowest Latino/black unemployment in history. Millions of people able to get off of welfare roles. And the poor are not helped at all? Come on.

Low unemployment does not always mean wage growth for all, so maybe not a better living for all, given the price of everything has gone up. Maybe we should look at the people and all those stats (https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/finance/welfare-statistics.html) for a context.

Where are those millions of people getting off welfare if you have that handy?

Median income growth does mean wage growth.

As to this, "Where are those millions of people getting off welfare if you have that handy," I'll let you look that data up. Isn't that what you always want me to do? To look up your supporting data?

Nah. Here you go. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/02/05/fact-check-trump-was-bragging-about-taking-away-food-stamps/

Median growth just means a few people shifted position it means nothing at the lower end

few people shifted position Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. It means the middle income figure is now higher than it was ten or twenty years ago. That means that what was in the 60th or 55th percentile is now at the middle. That cannot happen unless wages are going up in the bottom half. It would be impossible. It is a win. No question about it.

Liberal MSNBCs Chris Mattews compares Bernie's win in Nevada to Nazi Germany overrunning France .

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-compares-bernie-sanders-winning-nevada-to-france-falling-to-germany-in-1940/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2tf_tNCKCQF0I6ssyU5TYKr6TOmWDueJHAt9aFV CuEqryiuIl6GfKDEjE

He does seem to be pretty unstoppable at this point. That appeal for freebies must be like catnip for the left. And Bernie promises that better than any of the others

Promises, promises white man speak with forked tongue

Promises, promises white man speak with forked tongueJust about right.

Median income growth does mean wage growth.

As to this, "Where are those millions of people getting off welfare if you have that handy," I'll let you look that data up. Isn't that what you always want me to do? To look up your supporting data?

Nah. Here you go. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/02/05/fact-check-trump-was-bragging-about-taking-away-food-stamps/

You forgetting that states had a huge hand in raising wages across the country too? You think Walmart was going to raise wages without the law changing? I don't think so. Deficit funded tax cuts don't pay for themselves either, and NEVER have but feel free to correct me on that. PLEASE!

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-12-31/minimum-wage-increases-in-20-states-in-2019

Even your own link acknowledges they can't say that those millions will not have to rely on food stamps, and lets also remember that changes in the law has and will affect those numbers as much as any economic gains, and we cannot ignore the rising prices factor or regional conditions that exists. While I concede gratefully that they have slowed for now, they still cancel benefit for all Americans especially the poor who have done better, and the middle class who are still pressed to keep up.

Now the dufus can brag about some things being better the FACTS say it was headed that way before he got here, and while he hasn't destroyed that progress, his over all policies may indeed slow the progress considerably in the longer term, certainly after his second term if he gets one, which is pretty consistent with other repub administrations going back to Reagan. Maybe he will be different, but I doubt it.

I've seen this movie before several times. For a true non biased assessment though I give you this link.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/trumps-numbers-january-2020-update/

(https://www.breitbart.com/)

Deficit funded tax cuts don't pay for themselves either, and NEVER have but feel free to correct me on that. PLEASE! Reagan was elected on the promise that lowering tax rates would stimulate the economy and result in higher fed tax revenues. His first year, personal income taxes were at 280 bil. By his last year it had risen to 400 bil.

"These minimum wage increases, which range from a $0.05 inflation adjustment to a $2 per hour increase." Wow. A whole nickel raise?? Happy days are here again!! Have you looked at how many jobs have been lost because of higher min wages?

Interesting that the economy is so good that your only criticism is that the future might not be quite so good.

Reagan was elected on the promise that lowering tax rates would stimulate the economy and result in higher fed tax revenues. His first year, personal income taxes were at 280 bil. By his last year it had risen to 400 bil.

"These minimum wage increases, which range from a $0.05 inflation adjustment to a $2 per hour increase." Wow. A whole nickel raise?? Happy days are here again!! Have you looked at how many jobs have been lost because of higher min wages?

Interesting that the economy is so good that your only criticism is that the future might not be quite so good.

That's not my only criticism of the economy, since basically its the same smoke and mirror redistribution to the wealthy as all the repubs have practiced since Reagan.

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

For many years union workers took better benefits and also assumed greater costs of health care at the sacrifice of less take home pay or that $.05 hourly wage. Indeed back then wages where calculated with benefits as a factor. So go ahead berate the bottom half getting a buck or two, while those very same corporations send jobs overseas, hide money in havens and bring in robots.

At least you're consistent. Blame it on the bottom half wanting MO"MONEY and not the top half getting MO'MONEY! No comment on states for being the ones to push for MO"MONEY? You would be more believable as while you decry the minimum wage as job busting you advocate the poor working as many jobs as they can get, you don't see the possibility of transparency of the wealthy by eliminating those rich guy loopholes, and deductions that caps the wealth and allowing more wealth to TRICKLE down.

LOL, we can't have that now can we?

jlisenbe: Reagan was elected for a multiple of reasons but the biggest one was that people were sick of Jimmy Carter's inept Presidency and his embarrassment to the U.S. in the failing around the Iranian Hostage fiasco.....just too many issue, amongst the one you allude to also included....people felt strangled and Reagan appeared like a Knight In Shining Armor!

Lets not forget the economics at the time. Never will I forget the lines at the gas station, after the Iranian Revolution that led to the hostage crisis, and our failure to rescue them.

Talaniman: Yes, you are correct: Carter was/is such a nice man....and I admire his part in the development of the Nuclear Navy as a Nuclear Engineer, he was awesome...and, I love his historical books he has authored...but: Every man has his strengths and his weaknesses...every man can't always come to realize what they are...they lucky ones do but many of us don't: Jimmy Carter just didn't DO the Presidency very well....and, the STARS ALIGNED AGAINST HIM...when that happens, nothing you do will work. Reagan was the benefactor of all the ills Carter possessed in that 1980 Election.

I agree, the way he ran his administration, eerily like the dufus in a few ways, opened the door for his failure and King Reagan walked right in. Reagan a supply sider through and through cut the tax rate from 70% to 28%! Wrap your head around that for a minute! What I remember most was the downsizing and lay offs of businesses. I made the cut by the skin of my teeth.

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/stg022420dAPR20200223104509.jpg

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz022220dAPC20200221044532.jpg

Bernie wins again. South Carolina is next!

http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Bernie-Delegates.jpg?fbclid=IwAR1m7KBRqUZOEaGZS2ZEoOnVtxF HMPmfGakA0FjagKAqeNx4ocPyrzXJO-k

Lower wages for the lower echelon workers equates to lower wages for the Middle Class, as well. This is the problem with any country that suffers an influx of undocumented workers, for example....and this is viewed only because it demonstrates the effect more easily because it could just be many low end paying jobs by documented workers, too: If the low end workers pay dips ever lower, the downward pull of these wages will decrease the wages of Middle Class workers....only the high end wage earners on the scale will be insulated from the wage assault.

Vac, I think you are off center on that one. Lower wage workers are not competing for the same jobs as middle income individuals. Besides, as we have discussed here about 93 times, if median income is rising, and it is, then that can only happen if lower to middle income workers are making more money.

Vac, I think you are off center on that one. Lower wage workers are not competing for the same jobs as middle income individuals. Besides, as we have discussed here about 93 times, if median income is rising, and it is, then that can only happen if lower to middle income workers are making more money.

No it has to do with how many incomes are in that middle bracket and not about how many people are in the series, so if you have a streaching effect where there are more high income individuals and more low income individuals the growth in middle income affects the series without indicating that lower incomesa are improving

No it has to do with how many incomes are in that middle bracket and not about how many people are in the seriesThe number of people in the series can certainly affect the median. If you add a lot towards the bottom of the range, then the income figure at the median automatically drops. If you add a lot towards the top of the range, then it rises. There is no "middle bracket" for median income. There is one income at the very center of the group. If you have 1,001 people, then the 501st person is the median giving you 500 below and 500 above. If you add one hundred towards the bottom (or anywhere for that matter), then the total figure rises to 1,101 and the 551st person is the median.

"Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution) into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean) income (average (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average)) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. Mode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics)) income is the most frequently occurring income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income) in a given income distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution)."

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

you need more than a rudimentary understanding of statistics to understand these figures. Knowing the middle figure means nothing other than it approximates the average sometimes

you need more than a rudimentary understanding of statistics to understand these figures. Knowing the middle figure means nothing other than it approximates the average sometimesWell, it would help to at least have that rudimentary understanding of stats. Based on your previous comments, I don't think you have that. This statement, " it approximates the average sometimes," means basically nothing. How more vague a statement could you have made? "It approximates the average sometimes??" It's the equivalent of saying that every once in a while the median approximates the mean. It's meaningless.

Median income is a very useful stat. When it goes up, it is good news.

Median income is a very useful stat. When it goes up, it is good news.

It is a trailing indicator at best which means that if it rises any "good news" was some time ago, it is only good news to politicians like trump who can shout about their success however vague the connection maybe

It is a trailing indicator at best which means that if it rises any "good news" was some time agoA trailing indicator? So is GDP growth. So are unemployment figures. So are inflation figures. It's a silly objection. No one says, "Unemployment is down, but let's all be sad and somber because, after all, it's a trailing indicator."

It is good news to everyone other than those who don't want Trump to get any credit for an economy which is breaking records. I'm not a Trump fan, but truth is truth.

truth is truth.

Don't do a Pilate on me, which truth, the truth according to Trump or the truth according to the demonrats. One says everything thing is getting better, the other says things are worse

If you add more to the lower income population, the Median Income goes down and the average income goes down: this is meaningless to any group other than the lower income group. The Middle Class gets zapped when the lowest earners population grows because of the Tax Structure architecture: The Middle Class ends up paying for the tax deficiency of the lower income wage earners, effectively robbing their earnings.

If you add more to the lower income population, the Median Income goes down and the average income goes down: this is meaningless to any group other than the lower income group. The Middle Class gets zapped when the lowest earners population grows because of the Tax Structure architecture: The Middle Class ends up paying for the tax deficiency of the lower income wage earners, effectively robbing their earnings.

You need to learn the reality that taxing low income earners is a zero sum game, we learned that lesson and our economy hasn't suffered, if you lower taxes on the middle classes you fuel the economy and the rich don't need tax breaks so close the loop holes

Paraclete: That is what I said! We're saying the same thing: Crushing the Middle Class with taxes to make up for the deficit of tax revenues on the lower wage earners is a LOSING PROPOSITION! Communism attacks the Middle Class with intent to destroy it: This is what we have been witnessing in this country the last 50 years. When Trump's tax plans took effect, I ended up paying MORE TAXES THAN I HAD EVER PAID IN MY LIFE! They were advertised as being good for the Middle Class but they have proven anything but good!

you are in the wrong class

We're saying the same thing: Crushing the Middle Class with taxes to make up for the deficit of tax revenues on the lower wage earners is a LOSING PROPOSITION!The top 20% of income earners in the United States pay over 85% of the income tax. In what way are we "crushing the middle class"?


Don't do a Pilate on me, which truth, the truth according to Trump or the truth according to the demonrats. One says everything thing is getting better, the other says things are worseWhich is why I don't make an appeal to dems or repubs. Stats are not swayed by political beliefs.

Income Level
Top 1%
Top 5%
Top 10%


Percentage of Total Tax Revenue
39.40%
59.90%
70.80%






Income Level
Top 1%
Top 5%
Top 10%
Top 25%
Top 50%
Bottom 50%


Percentage of Total Tax Revenue
39.40%
59.90%
70.80%
86.70%
97.20%
2.70%


Average Tax Rate
27.10%
23.60%
21.20%
17.80%
15.50%
3.40%





https://www.lombardiletter.com/top-20-percent-pay-95-percent-tax/20757/

which proves you forgo nothing by removing taxes on the lower 50%, but the answer to both lower taxes and a balanced budget is reduced expenditure

which proves you forgo nothing by removing taxes on the lower 50%, but the answer to both lower taxes and a balanced budget is reduced expenditureExactly correct. In fact there is no conceivable level of taxation that will raise an extra tril of revenue without wrecking the economy. We are not on a good course.

If all those taxes are paid by the upper classes why do we run a defict every year except under Clinton who cut military spending and raised taxes. Obviously taxing the rich ain't enough, and cutting their taxes is even worse fiscally, because it added to the deficit, and who else can afford to be taxed more? Like Clete says we have a lot of cutting to do to balance a budget, and I doubt ordinary paycheck to paycheck folks especially with kids are going to vote for that. Sure your median income stat makes you feel better, shows progress right? Slow and steady! It's been explained that those high end taxpayers 12%% tax reduction can mean millions and billions right now and yours and poor people's are measured in thousands and hundreds.

Only in your weird math world do we enrich the already rich at the expense of everybody else who ain't rich. I mean duh! Can't you see how that hollows out the middle class? Of course you don't, so why grab a position you don't seem to know much about or understand very well? I mean in our consumer driven economy buying stuff moves it along, and circulates the money, and no matter how much you give rich folks they don't do either. They don't build roads, schools, or bridges! The hoard the money they get for NOT working and hide it for their kids or foundations and cry my taxes are to high give me a cut!

Who listens when you holler? You of all people should know how hard it is to get in and stay in the middle class, and you seem to have forgotten that struggle.


Exactly correct. In fact there is no conceivable level of taxation that will raise an extra tril of revenue without wrecking the economy. We are not on a good course.

So are you admitting the tax cuts made permanent were not a good idea since the middle class tax cuts are set to expire very soon? All on the credit card I might add.

. Sure your median income stat makes you feel better, shows progress right? It has nothing to do with me feeling better. It has everything to do with my original statement which was that we are better off now than thirty years ago. That statement is entirely correct.


Only in your weird math world do we enrich the already rich at the expense of everybody else who ain't rich. I mean duh! Can't you see how that hollows out the middle class?Are you talking about the weird math that continues to show you that the wealthy are already paying nearly all of the income tax? At least you have dropped your ridiculous argument that the tax code favors the wealthy.


I mean in our consumer driven economy buying stuff moves it along, and circulates the money, and no matter how much you give rich folks they don't do either. They don't build roads, schools, or bridges! The hoard the money they get for NOT working and hide it for their kids or foundations and cry my taxes are to high give me a cut!Tal, that is a completely false comment. Rich people do not "hoard" money. They invest money which produces jobs for others, and they spend money which produces jobs for others. They don't build roads and bridges??? Who do you think pays an enormous share of income and prop taxes that are used to build roads and bridges? You need to start reading more and get out of your liberal bubble in which you live.

I don't live in that top 20% and never have. I have nothing personal to protect here other than standing up for the truth. What you are saying is simply not true. You might as well say the moon is made of cheese. You have no data to back up your position and never have.


So are you admitting the tax cuts made permanent were not a good idea since the middle class tax cuts are set to expire very soon? All on the credit card I might add.No. I am saying that "there is no conceivable level of taxation that will raise an extra tril of revenue without wrecking the economy." So we must put the fed government on a diet. A 10% across the board cut on spending other than Soc. Security would be a good start. Let those incompetent fed program administrators learn how to cut spending without significantly cutting services. It can be done.

It has nothing to do with me feeling better. It has everything to do with my original statement which was that we are better off now than thirty years ago. That statement is entirely correct.

Well duh! If we weren't in some way better off than we were 30 years ago then we would be in big trouble now wouldn't we and that is through repubs and dems work, liberals and conservatives. That's more a testament of we were and always have been a great country that deals with whatever challenges we face. I would say we are better of now than when we started this experiment more than 200 years ago.


Are you talking about the weird math that continues to show you that the wealthy are already paying nearly all of the income tax? At least you have dropped your ridiculous argument that the tax code favors the wealthy.

Any math seems weird to you that's exactly why you have no clue what you're talking about. What's the old saying: You show how dumb you are when you open your mouth! Not only does the tax code HEAVILY favor the rich, it gives them full control to keep it that way. Job creation is a by product of them getting richer because they can't do it without people for those jobs and the cheaper wages the better. Let's go back to the Walmart business model. Big employer that uses cheap labor to sell cheap stuff and employs a cheap labor pool here to sell stuff, and that's after getting locked in to a huge tax break from the state and locals and subsidized labor costs since the cheap workers have to be on public assistance still, all of that to bank billions for the family business. They all do it and have for centuries. So yeah, who has the weird math that ignores reality? YOU DO! Or your wife is the financial genius in your house.


Tal, that is a completely ignorant comment. Rich people do not "hoard" money. They invest money which produces jobs for others, and they spend money which produces jobs for others. They don't build roads and bridges??? Who do you think pays an enormous share of income and prop taxes that are used to build roads and bridges? You need to start reading more and get out of your liberal bubble in which you live.

See above rebuttal to your lunacy.


I don't live in that top 20% and never have. I have nothing personal to protect here other than standing up for the truth. What you are saying is simply not true. You might as well say the moon is made of cheese. You have no data to back up your position and never have.

TRUTH, EVIDENCE, FACTS, AND REALITY ARE NOT YOUR STRONG SUITES! You could learn if you wanted too, but listening ain't in your tool box either it seems.


No. I am saying that "there is no conceivable level of taxation that will raise an extra tril of revenue without wrecking the economy." So we must put the fed government on a diet. A 10% across the board cut on spending other than Soc. Security would be a good start. Let those incompetent fed program administrators learn how to cut spending without significantly cutting services. It can be done.

Actually we have tried that, but repubs have come along and done away with those sequester cuts with a vengeance! Repubs NEVER cut the rich and their Big Biz MO'Money machine. Ain't gonna happen with a repub in the WH and congressional majorities. Now a balance between supply and demand through the tax code may be a step in the right direction of a LONG term plan. Until then get use to debts on YOUR credit card.

Any math seems weird to you that's exactly why you have no clue what you're talking about. What's the old saying: You show how dumb you are when you open your mouth! Not only does the tax code HEAVILY favor the rich,In what way does the tax code favor the wealthy when they are paying 85% of the income taxes?

You keep criticizing my math, but you don't say in what way it is wrong, and you certainly have no math/data of your own. You keep making reference to WMart, but they do not pay minimum wage. Starting pay is around nine or ten dollars an hour, and goes up from there. You won't get rich at that salary, but you are wrong if you are suggesting they pay min wage. BTW, I worked there part time when I was a teacher. It was not a demanding job.


TRUTH, EVIDENCE, FACTS, AND REALITY ARE NOT YOUR STRONG SUITES!I'm the only one presenting evidence, data, math, or facts, so if you want to contend that my data is wrong, then present your own. Just being insulting and bombastic does not prove anything other than your own poverty of data.


Actually we have tried that, but repubs have come along and done away with those sequester cuts with a vengeance! Repubs NEVER cut the rich and their Big Biz MO'Money machine. Ain't gonna happen with a repub in the WH and congressional majorities. Now a balance between supply and demand through the tax code may be a step in the right direction of a LONG term plan. Until then get use to debts on YOUR credit card.We did try sequestration. It was a repub idea and shot down by your beloved Mr. Obama and the lib media. Learn your history before you try to post about it. Honestly, I have no hope for a balanced budget. We have become such a stupid and lazy nation that it will keep going like this until the wheels fall off the cart. Look at Greece and Venezuela.

Becoming angry and insulting does not prove your points. Why don't you try making a logical presentation of your case, complete with data, and absent any appeal to me to do the math and research for you.

I don't get angry and if my growing opinion of your posts is insulting then you only have yourself to blame starting here (https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-sequestration-causes-and-impact-3305775).

So where in your link to nowhere, which is typical, does it say that, "Actually we have tried that, but repubs have come along and done away with those sequester cuts with a vengeance?" The dems have the House now. Other than the kangaroo impeachment court, could you show us where they have proposed any cuts in spending?

As to my math, I'll call you out on that one. Show me where my math is wrong. Either that, or find something else to complain about. It really gets kind of old. This business of trying to present yourself as some sort of expert on data and math when you had no idea what median income was and NEVER present any data yourself. Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.

Did you miss the part about the sequester is still in effect until 2021, or the repubs repealed the sequester on military stuff. So show me the balanced budget repubs have produced. You got no math, so we can dismiss the lunatic attempts at insults. Let me know when you stop being stuck on just rich guy taxes and median incomes, and are ready for more advanced calculations with a wider range of factors that tells a more accurate picture of the realities of real people.

.

Did you miss the part about the sequester is still in effect until 2021So the House is in the hands of the dems right now. Are they enforcing that?


Let me know when you stop being stuck on just rich guy taxes and median incomes, and are ready for more advanced calculations with a wider range of factors that tells a more accurate picture of the realities of real people.As I figured, you are not able to point to any errors in my math. But by all means, I'm ready now for "a wider range of factors that tell a more accurate picture of the realities of people." Fire away. Let's hear it. Just be aware that your opinions matter nothing. Your stories matter nothing. Hit us with the data. I am ready to listen.

So the House is in the hands of the dems right now. Are they enforcing that

Best answered by review the bills that Moscow Mitch is sitting on from the current House since they were seated last January.


As I figured, you are not able to point to any errors in my math. But by all means, I'm ready now for "a wider range of factors that tell a more accurate picture of the realities of people." Fire away. Let's hear it. Just be aware that your opinions matter nothing. Your stories matter nothing. Hit us with the data. I am ready to listen.

All the links and comments have already been presented. You must have missed it in your lunatic rantings, but you have plenty of time to catch up! No hurry! Go for it. Or perhaps you should stick with more social issues like having your 15 week abortion laws, and the heartbeat laws struck down as unconstitutional. Have heart though, Moscow Mitch intends to hold a vote on abortion to keep you prolifer's engaged and ready to vote for him and the other dufus sycophants very soon. You're on better ground than monetary policy where you are amazingly primitive almost backward.



TRUTH, EVIDENCE, FACTS, AND REALITY ARE NOT YOUR STRONG SUITES!

Add data gathering for analysis to the list. I know, just my opinion, but gleaned from your own postings.

jlisenbe: Effectively, for the past several years, I have made the same income, not even keeping up with rises in the Cost Of Living.....In all the years up to last year, I never had to pay any tax due by April 15th. LAST YEAR, after Trump's Tax Plan kicked in, I had to PAY TAXES OWED TO THE FEDS BY APRIL 15th: I have never done this but once in way over 35 years work experience. The TRUMP TAX PLAN hurt me. I could really care less about how much the UPPER 1% of income earners pay in taxes: Right now, I am talking about how I have been affected.

All the links and comments have already been presented. You must have missed it in your lunatic rantings, but you have plenty of time to catch up! No hurryCompletely untrue. If you had anything, you'd show it. You've been called out and you came up with zip. It is now clear to all that you have nothing. I have unemployment record figures, median income, GDP growth, and income tax figures to back up my statements. You've got absolutely nothing other than temper tantrums and name calling.


jlisenbe: Effectively, for the past several years, I have made the same income, not even keeping up with rises in the Cost Of Living.....In all the years up to last year, I never had to pay any tax due by April 15th. LAST YEAR, after Trump's Tax Plan kicked in, I had to PAY TAXES OWED TO THE FEDS BY APRIL 15th: I have never done this but once in way over 35 years work experience. The TRUMP TAX PLAN hurt me. I could really care less about how much the UPPER 1% of income earners pay in taxes: Right now, I am talking about how I have been affected.Vac, I get what you are saying, but we're not just talking about you. The nation as a whole, and that would mean most people, are doing better. Unemployment is down, wages are up, and the wealthy continue to carry the greater part by far of the income tax burden.

jl, why do you object to those with the greater ability bearing the greater burden, tax is in effect the licence fee for making money

jlisenbe: I go no doubt that "MOST" may be benefitting in some way or another from Trump's Presidency.....its just that I am not seeing ANY benefit from his Presidency: The company made record profits each of the past three years but did not pass any fruits of this off to me and those at my level....and, then, to add insult to injury, my taxes went up as did my insurance...so my take home pay is less this year than it was last year: Just not getting much out of TRUMP in my house.

jl, why do you object to those with the greater ability bearing the greater burden, tax is in effect the licence fee for making moneyI have no problem with the wealthy paying a higher share. I have a big problem when someone makes ridiculous statements like the tax code favors the rich or the poor are being taxed to death.


jlisenbe: I go no doubt that "MOST" may be benefitting in some way or another from Trump's Presidency.....its just that I am not seeing ANY benefit from his Presidency: The company made record profits each of the past three years but did not pass any fruits of this off to me and those at my level....and, then, to add insult to injury, my taxes went up as did my insurance...so my take home pay is less this year than it was last year: Just not getting much out of TRUMP in my house.Why not work for someone else? It's a workers market out there now. Really sounds like your problem is with your employer and not really with Trump. What do you do?

I have no problem with the wealthy paying a higher share. I have a big problem when someone makes ridiculous statements like the tax code favors the rich or the poor are being taxed to death.


but you are operating with a half truth, the rich can avail themselves of loopholes and deductions that the poor cannot or these are of little or no advantage to them. The tax code is not a level playing field

but you are operating with a half truth, the rich can avail themselves of loopholes and deductions that the poor cannot or these are of little or no advantage to them. The tax code is not a level playing fieldI don't know what to say. The top 20% pay over 85% of the taxes. The top 1% pays about 40% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing, so yeah, I'd say the tax code is not on a level playing field.

I don't know what to say. The top 20% pay over 85% of the taxes. The top 1% pays about 40% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing, so yeah, I'd say the tax code is not on a level playing field.

Yes you keep repeating these statistics but the rich can reduce the effective rate of tax through structuring their affairs. The rich pay more tax because they have more income, that is the way the tax rates work. The low income people pay less because they earn less . What would happen if you reversed the situation and the low income people paid a high percentage of their income, there would be less incentive to work

I keep repeating those stats because they refute your contention that the tax code is not on a level playing field. I am not suggesting we reverse anything. I am suggesting we stop this false narrative of tax inequities. It is not true. A person can argue about tax deductions and that can be a legit discussion, but not tax unfairness.



Income Level
Top 1%
Top 5%
Top 10%
Top 25%
Top 50%
Bottom 50%


Percentage of Total Tax Revenue
39.40%
59.90%
70.80%
86.70%
97.20%
2.70%


Average Tax Rate
27.10%
23.60%
21.20%
17.80%
15.50%
3.40%

You keep repeating those stats because that's as far as your ability takes you. You think that's the whole picture to determine the whole story. Stats though show the rate of growth in median income, barring a recession, only applies to the country as a whole, but does not represent the parts of the country that lags woefully behind that figure which suggests that some have gained more than others, which is a lot of people who aren't as well off as you have claimed. The flaw in your analysis is you do not parse the numbers enough to reflect that though some places have bigger gains than others MOST do not, and those living in those areas of no growth or very little see no changes in their lives over the last few years. My conclusion recognizes this fact, and says the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and that FACT resonates over the past decades.

As Clete says your median income stat is a reflection of my conclusion more than yours, and is a perfect example of how a broad stand alone stat cannot paint an accurate picture, though you claim it does. Sure the rich pay more in taxes, another fallacy of yours though the real story there is how inadequate that is in the bigger economic picture when prices are rising, as is the COST OF LIVING, and government spending is through the roof creating even more debt than we have ever seen.

At least at the bare minimum you must recognize that the wealth at the top has elevated your medium income stat, and while good for rich guys not so good for the rest of us. Here are my stats to back my position on median income. (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html) A far more accurate one than yours by far. Please note how far below the average median income your state is and tell me again how the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer affects YOU.

The country is not even doing as good as you claim, because you ignore totally the other factors that go beyond median income, because you don't look deeper. Much like reading a headline and not the whole article. Once you understand the nuance of those economic dynamics we can get to those other factors that go into those broad numbers like rich guy deductions and actual ways those rich guys manipulate the tax code that they themselves have written to steal money legally.

Not my opinion but analysis of data. I only gave you one link, but there are numerous others that say the same but for fact you don't do so good at multiple links, research or even fact checking so no wonder you cannot find data supplied you BEFORE and keep regurgitating the same stuff repeatedly. Stubborn or stuck? I don't know, nor care frankly, we still have the same outcome, we cannot prove facts to you, and you will never prove fallacy to us. It is what it is I suppose.

You keep repeating those stats because that's as far as your ability takes you. You think that's the whole picture to determine the whole story. Stats though show the rate of growth in median income, barring a recession, only applies to the country as a whole, but does not represent the parts of the country that lags woefully behind that figure which suggests that some have gained more than others, which is a lot of people who aren't as well off as you have claimed. The flaw in your analysis is you do not parse the numbers enough to reflect that though some places have bigger gains than others MOST do not, and those living in those areas of no growth or very little see no changes in their lives over the last few years. My conclusion recognizes this fact, and says the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and that FACT resonates over the past decades.

As Clete says your median income stat is a reflection of my conclusion more than yours, and is a perfect example of how a broad stand alone stat cannot paint an accurate picture, though you claim it does. Sure the rich pay more in taxes, another fallacy of yours though the real story there is how inadequate that is in the bigger economic picture when prices are rising, as is the COST OF LIVING, and government spending is through the roof creating even more debt than we have ever seen.

At least at the bare minimum you must recognize that the wealth at the top has elevated your medium income stat, and while good for rich guys not so good for the rest of us. Here are my stats to back my position on median income. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation) A far more accurate one than yours by far. Please note how far below the average median income your state is and tell me again how the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer affects YOU.

The country is not even doing as good as you claim, because you ignore totally the other factors that go beyond median income, because you don't look deeper. Much like reading a headline and not the whole article. Once you understand the nuance of those economic dynamics we can get to those other factors that go into those broad numbers like rich guy deductions and actual ways those rich guys manipulate the tax code that they themselves have written to steal money legally.

Not my opinion but analysis of data. I only gave you one link, but there are numerous others that say the same but for fact you don't do so good at multiple links, research or even fact checking so no wonder you cannot find data supplied you BEFORE and keep regurgitating the same stuff repeatedly. Stubborn or stuck? I don't know, nor care frankly, we still have the same outcome, we cannot prove facts to you, and you will never prove fallacy to us. It is what it is I suppose.

us. Here are my stats to back my position on median income. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation) A far more accurateI hope you realize that you have twice given a link to the Crimean invasion as "stats to back up my position on median income" which would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous. I can only assume that's a careless mistake of some sort even though you did it twice. Well, I rest my case. You have no data. Lots of meaningless words, but no data.


At least at the bare minimum you must recognize that the wealth at the top has elevated your medium income stat,And yet again you show that you don't understand median income statistics. I don't recognize that since it is untrue and doesn't reflect how the median income stat works. That has already been explained to you, but you are too eaten up with TDS to be willing to understand.


Not my opinion but analysis of data.You do realize that you presented no data and thus have no data to analyze?

Waiting for coffee but have corrected the error on my part. Blows the spin about my perfection though! 8D

Your median income stat is but the headline dude, you have to read the whole paper to understand what the headline means. Your refusal to do so is perplexing for whatever reason. Just saying!

You got the link right. Now maybe you can start on those "advanced calculations".

This is the first chart. Kind of really makes the case, doesn't it? As to the fact that some states are doing better than others, hasn't that always been the case? Anyone who has even the most simple understanding of median income knows that some people make above the median and others make below it. That was true during the Obama years and it's still true. It will always be true. It's an absurd objection to say, "Well, not everyone is making a lot of money." That's been known for centuries by everyone willing to pay even the slightest ounce of attention to it. It will always be the case, but it doesn't change the very plain and simple truth that when median income goes up, it is a good thing.

https://www.census.gov/content/census/en/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017/jcr:content/par/image.uscbimg.576.medium.jpg/1569503969738.jpg


Your median income stat is but the headline dudeYou do realize you gave a link to a site concerning...median income???

You do realize that the rise though steady over the years, is also showing signs of slowing down significantly? That's the macroeconomy, but let's look at it by state to understand the differences. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income)



You do realize you gave a link to a site concerning...median income???

Just exploring your premise, in relation to mine.

You do realize that the rise though steady over the years, is also showing signs of slowing down significantly?So your complaint is that median income is rising but not as fast as you would like?

As to the state by state comparison, if you're pointing out that some states do better than others, then that's fine. I thought everyone in American already knew that, but if you feel the need to point that out, then mission accomplished. It does nothing to change the fact that a rising median income is a good thing and shows that most people are doing better financially.

What are those "advanced calculations" you promised us? You haven't even put down a number, not even a simple addition problem.

In the meantime, in last night's debate Joe Biden gave us the startling news that since 2007, 150 million Americans have been killed in gun violence, "more than in all the wars!" I think the ole neurons just aren't firing very efficiently anymore.

So your complaint is that median income is rising but not as fast as you would like?

As to the state by state comparison, if you're pointing out that some states do better than others, then that's fine. I thought everyone in American already knew that, but if you feel the need to point that out, then mission accomplished. It does nothing to change the fact that a rising median income is a good thing and shows that most people are doing better financially.

What are those "advanced calculations" you promised us? You haven't even put down a number, not even a simple addition problem.

Lets just move along to the next step and may I ask if median income is in your mind less significant than per capita income in your mind? Or did you ignore that further breakdown of state stats?



In the meantime, in last night's debate Joe Biden gave us the startling news that since 2007, 150 million Americans have been killed in gun violence, "more than in all the wars!" I think the ole neurons just aren't firing very efficiently anymore.

Don't watch debates and have already voted in the primary.

Lets just move along to the next step and may I ask if median income is in your mind less significant than per capita income in your mind? Or did you ignore that further breakdown of state stats?This is the "advanced calculations"???

Median income can be calculated on a per capita basis or on a household basis. You get the same result since median household income is arrived at by multiplying per capita income by 2.2. In other words, it has been rising for several years in both cases since one cannot rise without the other one rising. They are tied together. So to answer your question, neither one is less significant than the other in my mind since they both show precisely the same thing.

The meaningless comment about state stats has already been dealt with as being well known by every person who has ever sat down and thought about it for even thirty seconds.

So what's your point?

How did you already vote, by absentee ballot? Your primary is in March.

This is the "advanced calculations"???

Median income can be calculated on a per capita basis or on a household basis. You get the same result since median household income is arrived at by multiplying per capita income by 2.2. In other words, it has been rising for several years in both cases since one cannot rise without the other one rising. They are tied together. So to answer your question, neither one is less significant than the other in my mind since they both show precisely the same thing.

The meaningless comment about state stats has already been dealt with as being well known by every person who has ever sat down and thought about it for even thirty seconds.

So what's your point?

How did you already vote, by absentee ballot? Your primary is in March.

No guy we are at the very early stages of advanced calculations and already you're lost? Not very encouraging, but easily understandable. My point remains the same, THE RICH HAVE AND WILL GET RICHER, AND THE POOR WILL GET EVEN POORER! Like most equations their are constants and variables by which to plug in factors so the factors you leave out skews the final results which I have mentioned several times. Price increases eat up and reduce the effects of a paycheck so a few bucks gain can be wiped out rather easily for lower income folks and indeed for those in the middle as well. Missing a few bucks due to things beyond your control are huge factors that can wipe family finances out real fast. So while you talk about how good we are doing, at least acknowledge that is only half true at best.

So explain your multiplier to me of 2.2 and how it's derived if you can.

We vote early in Texas! Much easier that way.

No guy we are at the very early stages of advanced calculations and already you're lost?Probably because you haven't done any calculations. Zero. Nada. None at all. Do you understand what a calculation is? It involves numbers, kind of like 2 + 2 = 4. You've done no advanced calculations or, for that matter, simple calculations. You've done none at all. Not any at all. Not the first one. Is that beginning to become clear?



So while you talk about how good we are doing, at least acknowledge that is only half true at best.It is certainly true, as I have said many times, that not everyone is participating in this improving economy. That, of course, is always true and has always been true. It about on the level of saying that the sun rises in the east and then pretending you have said something profound.


So explain your multiplier to me of 2.2 and how it's derived if you can.


https://www.thebalance.com/income-per-capita-calculation-and-u-s-statistics-3305852

"There are three other widely-used measurements of income. Average household income (https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189) is the most common in the United States. It tells you the income per household, which contains 2.2 people on average. That's why it's higher than income per capita. "

No! You guys are all wrong about biden! He told s.c. Yesterday that he was running for the senate!!!

Sure I have, you missed them as usual, either because you dismissed them, or they go against your rather broad narrative, or maybe both, so now I think we just slow walk the process so you can see that the number of REAL people and how they are affected over time bellies your median income theory of a great economy for everybody, as a stat to start with and must be dug down into for accuracy. It should be obvious I'm steering to individual outcomes and circumstances not the broader averages you favor.

As long as you stay with those averages you discount how bad it is that a vast number are left in this great economy or maybe you know and don't give a crap so see no need to address the inequality gap at all. In discounting the poor you will fail to grasp how the middle class is also diminished in the narrative which was one of your questions if I remember correctly. No I have nothing profound in this narrative and actually it's been known for decades now, but ignored by many, so never properly addressed in a productive way.

Goes way back to the supply side notion that people like the dufus pay the higher taxes and if it was lowered they in turn would create more jobs. They never have so let's just drop that LIE, and also the one about such tax cuts pay for themselves and that has never happened either, but it adds to the deficit and somehow that's okay? Thanks for the link though, one of my own favorites which explains very well most of what I have been saying under the TRENDS and SLOW CHANGES sections. That link also includes some interesting data that breaks it down even further (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-pinc/pinc-01.html)and I assume you browsed those also am I right?

That leads you to advanced calculations my friend.

Sure I have,Yeah. Sure you have.


That leads you to advanced calculations my friend.That certainly means that you have no idea how to do "advanced calculations". Linking to a page filled with links to other material is not doing calculations. You just don't know what you're doing or what you're talking about.

When you can show some of those advanced calculations, then count me back in. Otherwise, I'm done with this nonsense. Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

Yes as usual you're wrong, follow the links or NOT! Up to you, as I have provided what's needed, so keep squacking about MY chosen methods. Is that lazy or incompetence on your part, or both? You provided the link I might add. It actually says what I have been saying all along, So why should I give you more when you have it already? Makes no sense like all your postings. Rant on hopper grass.

Exactly as I figured. You have no idea. I followed the links. I think you did not. I think that you googled the topic, found a link, and posted it to make it appear that you did something serious when you did not. But you can defuse that by simply doing these two very simple steps.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

Exactly as I figured. You have no idea. I followed the links. I think you did not. I think that you googled the topic, found a link, and posted it so make it appear that you did something serious when you did not. But you can defuse that by simply doing these two very simple steps.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

Your post is irrelevant. Just tell us what you gleaned from the embedded links of the link YOU posted.

Already have. In fact, I posted a quote from it that was in answer to your question. It went like this. "There are three other widely-used measurements of income. Average household income (https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189) is the most common in the United States. It tells you the income per household, which contains 2.2 people on average. That's why it's higher than income per capita."

The difference is plain. I linked to an article that itself had a lot of information. Your link sent us to a page of links. It had virtually no data, but was a source of links to information. If you didn't take the links, then you had nothing.

I'm sure you know a lot about many things. I'm equally certain you know next to nothing about this topic. But you can show me that I'm wrong.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

Sorry you missed it, you always do, so go back and find it yourself. I kept my promise using your link and there was a truckload of data that backed up my position. Stop holding up the show so we can get to those rich guy deductions and hiding wealth from taxes and the influence of rich guys and corporations that influence the tax code more than you do for their own gains.

By this time next week we may have a better idea who the dem nominee will be.

If you can't walk the walk, then don't talk the talk.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

what a load of irrelevant crap, I said this and I said that and My searches are better than your searches

Read something else if it bothers you so much.

I don't come here to read childish rants, that's for sure

I don't come here to read childish rants, that's for sureOr to post them?

Or to post them?

Says the guy who takes one stat, deems it enough, and refuses to look at the underlying FACTS that stat derives from.

and refuses to look at the underlying FACTS that stat derives from.I'm all for it. Show us what you mean.

What part of do your own homework do you fail to understand?

Forget it. You evidently don't understand, and evidently I can't explain it clearly enough. Moving on along.

SC primary election tommorrow...crunch time for unc Joe!

SC primary election tommorrow...crunch time for unc Joe!
It's on Saturday, the 29th.

It's going to be interesting. Does he have to win this to stay alive?

For sure if he doesn't do very well his path for the nomination gets difficult. After Tuesday though a lot of candidates will have some decisions to make I would imagine.

Thanks WG, you must forgive my not knowing what day it is. Got up this morning to find it was only Friday.

Got up this morning to find it was only Friday.At our age, if you get within a day of being right, then that's close enough.

At our age, if you get within a day of being right, then that's close enough.
I was on top of the day and date only because the 27th would have been my dad's 101st birthday. :)

I know how you feel. Lost my dad 2 1/2 years ago. Still miss him a lot.

jlisenbe & W.G.: lost my Daddy 26 years ago....he would be 95 today if he were still here.....not a day goes by that I don't think of him.....I would give anything to have one more day with him, just one more.

My dad, a Lutheran pastor, died at a church meeting on February 20th, 1994 (a week before his 75th birthday).

My dad made it to 101. He managed to do it fairly gracefully other than the final year or two. His last really good day was when they gave him a 100th birthday party at the church. There are many things I would like to tell him, but my chance will come at some point ahead. Him and mom both.

My parents and elders taught my generation so much that it's as if they are still with us in spirit if not body. Those lessons seem to come back in times of uncertainty for which I am grateful for. I only hope I do my job as well as they did.

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/87783429_10222316832216515_910772158991433728_o.jp g?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_oc=AQkjojDXdvisLLP5xABYAVbVtMMoP4pHFUdrEDbRmLn eB3V7E7C0eyxlfb7DA3h-FXc&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&_nc_tp=7&oh=9b1f0dee145b9f0893c58480544b4059&oe=5EF4AADD

The Tomder strikes again!

Well Tom communism is not synonymous with RUSSIA and more in line with China and NK today. The US has much in common with Russia, they are both ruled by Billionaires

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB10nfSV.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/BB10tP39.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Elaborate spending proposals with no idea of how to pay for them!

Check!

Make responsible people pay off the student loans of irresponsible people.

Check!

Pretend to be a paragon of virtue and a responsible user of energy while owning three expensive homes.

Check!

“The biggest business in America is not steel, automobiles, or television. It is the manufacture, refinement and distribution of anxiety.”—Eric Sevareid (1964)

Elaborate spending proposals with no idea of how to pay for them!

Check!

Make responsible people pay off the student loans of irresponsible people.

Check!

Pretend to be a paragon of virtue and a responsible user of energy while owning three expensive homes.

Check!

“The biggest business in America is not steel, automobiles, or television. It is the manufacture, refinement and distribution of anxiety.”—Eric Sevareid (1964)

Rich guy tax breaks and repeal Obama care, and purge the voting rolls

CHECK

Make students the bad guys for student loans!

CHECK

Attack the dem front runner for being a socialist, and rich!

CHECK!

Sevareid had it right back then and repubs have used the fear card to perfection before the dufus came along going back to Nixon. Now they have the complete set as an incumbent with no repub opponents is in his element on the campaign trail loaded with red meat for the base. Keep feeding the fools and he keeps power. LOL he told a SC rally that the coronavirus was a dem hoax, and so have his sycophants.

Election year politics at it's best(?) Everything goes!

Rich guy tax breaks and repeal Obama care, and purge the voting rollsTalking about the rich guys who pay 85% of the income taxes, and forgetting, as usual, that you can't give the bottom 50% a tax break since (duh!) they pay basically no income taxes?


Make students the bad guys for student loans!Yeah. Imagine that. Assuming that someone who voluntarily entered into debt should be held responsible for paying it back. Whoever heard of such a thing? I don't say they're the bad guys. I do say they're the stupid guys, and the only cure I know of for stupidity is having to bear the consequences of your dumb actions so you can learn from them.

Hey Tal. How many of those student debts belonging to a stranger have you paid off? I bet it's zero, which makes me think you're right back to wanting someone else to fund your charitable impulses.


Attack the dem front runner for being a socialist, and rich!He admits to being socialist so that's on him. As to being rich, I haven't attacked him for that. I have pointed out the stupidity of claiming to be the champion of the poor when your rich rear end sits in any one of three expensive homes. But that's right back to the typical liberal nonsense of wanting to claim some moral high ground for being willing to force someone else to support the poor while you enjoy your millions. How generous of him!!

Talking about the rich guys who pay 85% of the income taxes, and forgetting, as usual, that you can't give the bottom 50% a tax break since (duh!) they pay basically no income taxes?

I already know your ultra conservative fundamentalists mind is forever stuck on that ridiculous idea of rich guy worship/hate poor people notion to find a solution that works for EVERYBODY so I'll easily dismiss your malady.


Yeah. Imagine that. Assuming that someone who voluntarily entered into debt should be held responsible for paying it back. Whoever heard of such a thing? I don't say they're the bad guys. I do say they're the stupid guys, and the only cure I know of for stupidity is having to bear the consequences of your dumb actions so you can learn from them.

And what other choice to better yourself through education do people have but debt? Took a while to pay off my wife's school debts, and if she and others are stupid that makes you a MORON!


Hey Tal. How many of those student debts belonging to a stranger have you paid off? I bet it's zero, which makes me think you're right back to wanting someone else to fund your charitable impulses.

Who funded your rich guy tax breaks?


He admits to being socialist so that's on him. As to being rich, I haven't attacked him for that. I have pointed out the stupidity of claiming to be the champion of the poor when your rich rear end sits in any one of three expensive homes. But that's right back to the typical liberal nonsense of wanting to claim some moral high ground for being willing to force someone else to support the poor while you enjoy your millions. How generous of him!!

He is an AMERICAN socialist, he made a buck has a few houses, like all your rich guy heroes who unashamedly soak the system for private gain, so why be so selective with YOUR morality. What you think YOU have a higher moral ground or something? I doubt that but dream on its your fantasy so enjoy it.

I already know your ultra conservative fundamentalists mind is forever stuck on that ridiculous idea of rich guy worship/hate poor people notion to find a solution that works for EVERYBODY so I'll easily dismiss your malady.Yeah. You dismiss it when you are confronted with the uncomfortable truth that you cannot give a tax break to people who don't pay taxes. Even liberals can understand that, or at least I hope they can.


And what other choice to better yourself through education do people have but debt? Took a while to pay off my wife's school debts, and if she and others are stupid that makes you a MORON!Oh stop wetting your pants. You and your wife paid off her school debt, so she evidently was smart enough to get a major that allowed her to do that. Good for her and good for you for shouldering your own load and paying off that debt instead of expecting someone else to do it. It's the people who major in "Women's Studies" or other useless areas that end up as waiters and struggle with debt, and then expect people like you and me, who paid our debts, to also pay their's. Yeah, that's stupid.

What other choices? Well, let's see. You can join the military and they will pay for a free college ed for you. You can aim for scholarships. You can hopefully have parents who care enough for you to at least help pay your way through school. You can go to a community college and save a ton of money. You can work full time as I did and then go to school part-time and make it that way. Or you can do as many do by getting a useless degree, getting neck-deep in debt, and then vote for some useless person like Sanders who will attempt to buy the votes of the non-thinking crowd who just want to force some other person to pay off their foolish debt.


He is an AMERICAN socialist, he made a buck has a few houses, like all your rich guy heroes who unashamedly soak the system for private gain, so why be so selective with YOUR morality. What you think YOU have a higher moral ground or something? I doubt that but dream on its your fantasy so enjoy it.

So you think that putting the adjective "American" in front of a noun makes it OK? I guess that being a American nazi, or an American commie, or an American terrorist would make those OK as well? As to wealth, I'm all for people making money, and I'm all for them being able to keep as much as possible. I am not for some rich guy parading himself around as being the champion of the poor when he has so many assets he could be using to help them. He's just a typical liberal dem, running around with a political message that far too many people don't want to see through.

Nice right wing loony rant! Heard it before. Didn't care then, don't care now. We shape the course of America with our votes, so cast yours and spare me the idiocy of your ideology. I just ain't going for much of your crap! Thought you knew! If Bernie wins the nomination, he gets my vote, no holding my nose either. That goes for any dem!

Convincing a far right loon ain't my style, I prefer to grab you by the ankles and pull you kicking and screaming into reality. If you think for a minute I won't take your money for some needy soul, then you just ain't thinking right!

PS

You didn't tell us who is paying for those rich guy tax cuts.

Nice right wing loony rant! Heard it before. Didn't care then, don't care now. We shape the course of America with our votes, so cast yours and spare me the idiocy of your ideology. I just ain't going for much of your crap! Thought you knew! If Bernie wins the nomination, he gets my vote, no holding my nose either. That goes for any dem!

Convincing a far right loon ain't my style, I prefer to grab you by the ankles and pull you kicking and screaming into reality. If you think for a minute I won't take your money for some needy soul, then you just ain't thinking right!Well, you just said it. You liberal dems are always quite willing to take someone else's money "for some needy soul." So typical. Then you'll march around crowing about what a charitable soul you are. And the sad thing is, you'll vote for BS and not hold your nose. You have evidently lost your sense of smell. The odor is pretty bad. Spending programs with no idea of how to pay for them just strikes me as foolish.

It must be quite a skill to be able to post so many words and yet not really include any content. It's lines like, "I just ain't going for much of your crap!" that are so full of rich thought.

Says the guy that had to hold his nose to vote for the dufus!



PS

You didn't tell us who is paying for those rich guy tax cuts


Don't worry guy I won't take more from you than I give myself. FAIR?


PS

You didn't tell us who is paying for those rich guy tax cuts

Says the guy that had to hold his nose to vote for the dufus!Absolutely true. I've said it from the beginning. You voting for a moron like Sanders and being proud of it is insane.


Don't worry guy I won't take more from you than I give myself. FAIR?

That's what I'm worried about. You'll take it from me and give it to you. At least you're an honest lib.


You didn't tell us who is paying for those rich guy tax cutsBecause it's an absurd question. Our problem is not revenue. Our problem is spending.

Look, not a RIGHT WING LOONEY RANT: You cannot be a socialist, an American Socialist, a Bolshevik, a communist, a Marxist, or, even, ChiCom and OWN AS MANY PIECES OF REALESTATE AND HAVE AS MUCH WEALTH AS BERNIE SANDERS! If you can't see the contradiction in terms, well, we have more serious problems to confront! The tragic part of this is that young people, who really know nothing of life, think that Bernie is a REAL Socialist! Bernie is a CHARLATAN! He is a pretend-to-be SOCIALIST: You know the kind "I'm not a Socialist BUT I PLAY ONE ON TV" kind of socialist. Its a shame people are really trying to believe in someone who is not what they say they are.

actually Bernie is the perfect socialist . That it their MO .

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others Orwell 'Animal Farm '

The tragic part of this is that young people, who really know nothing of life, think that Bernie is a REAL Socialist!
You are a socialist. I am a socialist. The US is socialist. Think about that!

Well, you just said it. You liberal dems are always quite willing to take someone else's money
How do you get to Wal-Mart? Do you keep your outhouse free of spiders? Where do you bury your household garbage? Did you homeschool your children? Remember--don't ever call 911!


"for some needy soul"
And you'd refuse any local/state/federal help if you hit a long-term bad patch in life? You'd refuse Medicaid after your own money ran out paying for a nursing home?

You are a socialist. I am a socialist. The US is socialist. Think about that!Uhm..I'm not a socialist.


How do you get to Wal-Mart? Do you keep your outhouse free of spiders? Where do you bury your household garbage? Did you homeschool your children? Remember--don't ever call 911!The point is this. What we do that benefits all of society (road, schools, etc.) is the proper scope of government. Government just giving money away to people is not.


And you'd refuse any local/state/federal help if you hit a long-term bad patch in life? You'd refuse Medicaid after your own money ran out paying for a nursing home?Do your homework. Medicaid is a different story. "Long-term bad patch?" That's my job to prepare for.

Says the guy that had to hold his nose to vote for the dufus!

Absolutely true. I've said it from the beginning. You voting for a moron like Sanders and being proud of it is insane.

Any dem makes more sense than the moron you voted for. Hey you got your moron and we can't have ours?

Don't worry guy I won't take more from you than I give myself. FAIR?

That's what I'm worried about. You'll take it from me and give it to you. At least you're an honest lib.

If I need it I would ask for it, and if someone asks for it and needs it, I would give it to them. Screw what you're talking about, and your state agrees with ME, so they told you to screw off too!


You didn't tell us who is paying for those rich guy tax cuts

Because it's an absurd question. Our problem is not revenue. Our problem is spending.

What a dodge and not a good one, since it was DEFICIT FUNDED to give rich guys a tax cut, so where did they get the money to spend on the tax cuts? Simple enough question about who pays for it. Even you cannot duck the truth so you'd rather just duck, dodge and play dumb?

WG tell me where in the consitution the local services you state are mandated ? Each community decides the level of police ,fire and other government services they want . If the local government provides a service for a fee that is not socialism.
In a free society, citizens recognize that certain threats cannot be dealt with by individuals alone. The government’s first and only legitimate role is to safeguard the lives, rights, and property of its citizens. Citizens pay a little bit of tax to fund a military to protect against invaders; police and prisons to capture and incarcerate criminals; and certain emergency services to protect against fire, floods, pandemics, or meteorite strikes.To call that socialism is to disistort the legitimate role of government in a free society . But I understand the false narrative that these services are socialist .

Uhm..I'm not a socialist.
If you use any local/county/state/federal services that we all pay into, you are a socialist. Weren't you a public school official? Where did your salary come from?


The point is this. What we do that benefits all of society (road, schools, etc.) is the proper scope of government. Government just giving money away to people is not.
But if you lose your job and paycheck, and need at least temporary financial help for housing, medical problems, dental concerns, transportation, etc., you will immediately contact a social worker who will advise you about government services that you can tap into.


Do your homework. Medicaid is a different story. "Long-term bad patch?" That's my job to prepare for.
And when you finally run out of money, like my mother did in western NY, and are still alive, where are you going to get $60k to $90k per year? Or will your children happily take you in?

WG tell me where in the consitution the local services you state are mandated ? Each community decides the level of police ,fire and other government services they want . If the local government provides a service for a fee that is not socialism.
In a free society, citizens recognize that certain threats cannot be dealt with by individuals alone. The government’s first and only legitimate role is to safeguard the lives, rights, and property of its citizens. Citizens pay a little bit of tax to fund a military to protect against invaders; police and prisons to capture and incarcerate criminals; and certain emergency services to protect against fire, floods, pandemics, or meteorite strikes.To call that socialism is to disistort the legitimate role of government in a free society . But I understand the false narrative that these services are socialist .



Tom, I'm not talking about communism. Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And "there are two types of socialism. Type one: authoritiarian socialism where socialism is imposed by the state, and type two: democratic socialism, where socialism is applied by a democratic majority vote."
https://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/There_are_two_types_of_socialism


If the local government provides a service for a fee that is not socialism.
I pay taxes for police and fire protection -- and for schools and public libraries. Don't you?

If you use any local/county/state/federal services that we all pay into, you are a socialist. Weren't you a public school official? Where did your salary come from?I don't think you know what a socialist is.



But if you lose your job and paycheck, and need at least temporary financial help for housing, medical problems, dental concerns, transportation, etc., you will immediately contact a social worker who will advise you about government services that you can tap into.Actually, I don't think we will. Like most responsible people, we have our ducks in a row. We've never lived on the taxpayer's dime. Far more than that, we look to God as our source.



And when you finally run out of money, like my mother did in western NY, and are still alive, where are you going to get $60k to $90k per year? Or will your children happily take you in?

Refer to the answer above. I would hope our children would do that.


If I need it I would ask for it, and if someone asks for it and needs it, I would give it to them. Screw what you're talking about, and your state agrees with ME, so they told you to screw off too!My state has never told me that. I'm all for the personal charity you just described, and it's really a shame that, being a wonderful liberal dem, you don't choose to be an advocate for that, but I'm not in favor of the communist-like, law-enforced system you push.


What a dodge and not a good one, since it was DEFICIT FUNDED to give rich guys a tax cut, so where did they get the money to spend on the tax cuts? Simple enough question about who pays for it. Even you cannot duck the truth so you'd rather just duck, dodge and play dumb?Cut spending and problem solved. Now you wouldn't be able to continue your "I hate the rich" rant, but I guess it would just have to be your loss.

I don't think you know what a socialist is.

You certainly don't!


Actually, I don't think we will. Like most responsible people, we have our ducks in a row.

My mom did too. She lived longer than she thought she would.

You certainly don't!Sorry, but I actually do



My mom did too. She lived longer than she thought she would.Don't really know the situation, so I can't comment on that. I can comment on our situation.

Don't really know the situation, so I can't comment on that. I can comment on our situation.
Don't outlive your money.

Yes the promice of longer life doesn't bring with it a promice of prosperity

Joe Biden just swamped the South Carolina primary and got himself back in the game with a resounding win as the Super Tuesday with 14 states looms on the horizon.

Go Joe Go!

Talaniman: Joe is the man for POTUS for you?

The guy who actually thought we had 150 million gun deaths since 2007. It was more, he said, than all the wars combined. Not exactly reassuring.

ANYBODY but the dufus fellows!

I want a repeat of the 1924 Dem convention (without the KKK)

I sure don't want a repeat of 1972! Probably wouldn't have made a difference despite Tricky having issues.

you mean where the rogue extreme candidate won the nomination against the stale establishment candidate ?

Mayor Pete dropped out That's 2 gone in the last 2 days .