Remember that wall Trump swore he would make Mexico pay for? Well, like most Trump promises, it was a LIE!

He is now demanding that YOU, the American taxpayer, pay for his wall. If you refuse, he threatens to SHUT DOWN the government!

You really don't know where rhetoric ends and reality begins, do you?

REALITY-Trump is a lying cheating Dufus who thinks he can bully his way to get what he wants and has screwed everyone he has ever dealt with. That's why he has had so many lawsuits and just keeps getting more of them.

RHETORIC-The promises he makes to the desperate and gullible that he makes a big show of in his drama queen style to bedazzle the foolish into worshipping his orange a$$ while he gets over and blames it on someone else.

By gosh Clete you're right... no difference between the reality and rhetoric of the DUFUS!

some of us recognized his rhetoric as BS and that is why we did not vote for him .

His reality is BS too! See, you can't tell the difference because there is none!

Actually he has been more effective than I imagined .

Define effective; incredible diplomacy? Tax cuts for the rich? Tariffs up the whazoo? Oh yes, he appointed a conservative to the Supreme Court, we couldn't have seen that coming, but what happened to that BIG wall Mexico was going to pay for?

You know Tom imagination is something he lacks

By gosh Clete you're right... no difference between the reality and rhetoric of the DUFUS!

You actually think I'm right Tal, now there is an advance. If I can be right about one thing I can be right about another. Look you know I'm no fan of Trump, I didn't drink the koolade like some, but the alternative, you offered no choice but HOBSON'S and when you do that, well you know it better than I do

I've acknowledged our agreements before so don't act surprised. We were not in a take it or leave it situation but watched a coup of a major political party by a lying cheating Dufus after said party spent years catering to its fringes and stoking fear and hate. Now the tail wags the dog, and repubs are pretty helpless to do anything but fall in line and do as they are told.


Actually he has been more effective than I imagined .

Sure if you like bankruptcy, high drama, lying, cheating, and STEALING right in front of your face everyday.

Sure if you like bankruptcy, high drama, lying, cheating, and STEALING right in front of your face everyday.

It's the American way what are you complaining about

It's the American way what are you complaining about

No it's not. The ineptness and incompetence of our government traces directly back to the power and influence of our FAT, RICH, GREEDY OHLIGARCHS.

NK is still making ICBM's even after The Dufus said the threat is over.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-southkorea-military/two-koreas-hold-military-talks-as-u-s-detects-activity-at-north-korea-missile-factory-idUKKBN1KL09R

Facebook has caught Russia still meddling. Now what should the Dufus do? His own peeps have told him the red alert is flashing.

This one is still hot off the presses so stay tuned.

NK didn't say it would dismantle all of its facilities and no doubt they expected those pesky sanctions to be relaxed. Perhaps they needed to complete these to move them or maybe they have sold the technology to a neighbour. Many possibilities here but they have entered China's greater prosperity plan so all things become possible. The US should make them an offer to take them off their hands.

Yes Facebook has found some dud accounts and no doubt there are many more. During the IS crisis there were many Facebook sites touting opinion but not one convinced me to take up arms or to do anything else. The power of Facebook exists only among the deluded. Twitter is obviously the place to be, Trump thinks so, so let's hear how many of those accounts have been taken down

Why don't the Aussies make an offer Kim can't refuse and get off the fence. Just sayin'. You spend a lot of time telling us what we should be doing but can point to no role that YOU could step up and play.

Just for your information, the Russians have been causing problems across the social media and not just on Facebook. They make fake accounts faster than they can be found and taken down. Are there other actors in this drama as well that have yet to be defined? Probably.

Why don't the Aussies make an offer Kim can't refuse and get off the fence. Just sayin'. You spend a lot of time telling us what we should be doing but can point to no role that YOU could step up and play.

Just for your information, the Russians have been causing problems across the social media and not just on Facebook. They make fake accounts faster than they can be found and taken down. Are there other actors in this drama as well that have yet to be defined? Probably.

We have spoken to Kim, but unlike you we don't threaten him. We stood by your side in the Korean conflict and would like to see it laid to rest. I don't think Kim is a threat to anyone but himself, he just likes waving big sticks around, a little like someone else we know.

When Trump has rational discussions there seems to be progress, when he has a brain fart and tweets there is only regression

You know long ago it was our diplomacy that opened China and given a chance we may be able to do the same for Kim, but, of course your blustering bully would have to get out of the way. I don't see any chance of that, so we will just see what happens

Darn if that doesn't sound reasonable and FACTUAL. I'm simply SPEECHLESSINTX-(In honor of our fallen friend who is gone but never forgotten} Every time the Dufus opens his mouth or takes a picture we get lies and false hopes that are disasters.

His actions and style serve no one but himself. Sure he gets 'em talking, but all he wants is another victory lap for doing nothing but talking, and illicits nothing for his most ardent loyal supporters but footing the bill for his ignorance.

Every time the Dufus opens his mouth or takes a picture we get lies and false hopes that are disasters.

What are you hoping for? A big wall? A tax break? Free medicine? Don't worry, you have a bigger military

Define effective; incredible diplomacy? Tax cuts for the rich? Tariffs up the whazoo? Oh yes, he appointed a conservative to the Supreme Court, we couldn't have seen that coming, but what happened to that BIG wall Mexico was going to pay for?

You know Tom imagination is something he lacks
/I don't want him to have imagination .That is where he gets in trouble. While everyone whined about this or that outrage of the day he :
got a tax cut passed that led to 2 qtr of 3% + GDP growth(
4.1 percent rate during the second quarter of this year.)
,consumer confidence higher than it's been in 17 years ;led to the Dow showing 70 gains in a year rising 5,000 pts .
He cut 67 Obama era regulations that have saved businesses $81 billion in regulatory costs . The FCC has ended it's ridiculous net-neutrality rules . The number of people collecting unemployment benefits has dropped to a 44 year low
Yes he got Goresuch in SCOTUS but he has also made many more youthful constitutionalist jurist appointments (75 nominated 30 serving)to lower courts also. Kavanaugh will be confirmed also . They will be making a huge impact on decisions the courts make going forward.

Yes he has threatened and carried out tariffs . He has also made bilateral trade agreements with a few countries ;and right or wrong ;his threats of tariffs have brought our trade "partners" to the table.
2 pipelines that the emperor stalled are under construction .He is taking us out of the phony Paris Climate accords . He's given the green light for schools to explore school choice programs . The Obamacare unconstitutional individual mandate has been repealed . Overhauling the VA …. sanctions against the thug in Venezuela .He's working with Central American nations to crackdown on MS-13 .Finally recognized Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel and has taken steps to repair the damage to US Israeli relations that the emperor did. We are no longer committed to a '2 state solution' or peace plans ,or road maps to the Palestinian question . We now have harsher sanctions on the NORKS and that is why un-Kim went to the table. He is dismantling the phony deal the emperor made with the 12ers in Tehran.
All the noise about immigration policy has overshadowed the fact that illegal border crossings is declining rapidly ;now at the lowest level in the 21st century before a brick has been placed in the wall . I think an expansive border wall is a pipe dream .But I am in favor of barriers where practical and this enforcement of immigration laws .

Some progress Tom and yes he has an anti leftist policy stance but has he done more than improving the lot of the big end of town

You are blind if you think all he has done is enriched the left . Anyone in America that can pass a drug test can have a job. You are speaking the same lefty pabulum class warfare bs that the socialists are doing . 91 percent of those who earn between $50,000 and $85,000 received a tax cut this year . That is by anyone's definition a "middle class" tax cut .It is the "middle class " that is seeing the largest reduction in taxes up to 56% for some. Yeah in dollars the rich who pay the lions share of the taxes also benefit ….But as a percentage far less than the middle class tax payer . It is actually a more progressive tax than it was in the emperor's reign . Yes the wealthier pay a larger share of the total taxes than before the change . Two of the biggest provisions specifically help the 'middle class ' ,the raise in the standard deduction ,and the child care tax credit . The unemployment rates for both Americans without a high school education ,and Americans with a high school education only is down big time . Enrollment in social services is down ;not because eligibility has changed ,but because fewer Americans need them . So anyone who says this only benefitting the rich is lying to you .

His polling amongst Black and Hispanic voters is going up .That is because of the better job prospects. He hates Hispanics right ? Well Hispanic unemployment has dropped to lowest level in a decade . Further ,when his infrastructure plan gets implemented it will benefit the Hispanic community who represent 30% of the construction labor . Ironically any wall construction will benefit the Hispanic construction force also .

He is also making inroads with Black support . The combination of job growth and a clever strategy of getting Black celebrity endorsements ,pardoning Blacks like Jack Johnson and Alice Johnson ,and having Kim Kardashian as a celebrity spokesperson for prison reform is beginning to erode the stranglehold the Dems have on the Black voter . Oh his numbers will still not look great ;but ,all he needs to do is get these groups support into the double digits and the Dems will have a panic attack.

How will we pay for this glorious tax cuts we put on the national credit card? Oh that's right the economic growth they generate pays for them. Where have I heard that before? Meantime as the price of food gas and your health care goes up, your roads, schools, and infrastructure crumbles and cities can't pay workers. Yeah your boss is flush, and your state is screwed. I like your numbers though defending those middle class tax cuts but you forget half the country makes under $60,000. And of those another half falls below $30,000. (Funny how firefighters, teachers, and cops the life blood of the community fall in that range)

But you are consistent as republican ideology says that 10% of a hundred equals 10% of a millions so the distribution of tax cuts is equal therefore fair. The next sound you hear will be we ain't got no mo money. Will you do as you did with Bush and call him a drunk sailor on a spending spree? The Dufus is holding to the pattern of repubs cut taxes, so nothing new there, as long as he doesn't start a new war, or escalate an old one, OR doesn't get impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, Or the economy doesn't tank because the rich guys screwed up the economy yet again.

Invest YOUR tax cut wisely. The rising interest rates and price increases may be greater than the "middle class" tax cuts.

You will never understand the dynamics of supply side so why try explaining it to you . One of your Dem icons Jack Kennedy understood it and the 1960s were a prosperous time until the damaging effects of bad Keynesian policies by Johnson and Nixon ended it .

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/july-jobs-seen-strong-but-wage-growth-could-again-disappoint.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gdp-growth-q3-third-quarter-strong-2018-8

That's the problem I'm not a supply side fan. Maybe if I was a rich job creator it would make sense, but being a blue collar factory worker all my life I can only deal with kitchen table issues rather than the board room. Plus I have seen those supply side induced recessions affect that kitchen table and cuts to MY bottom line in those supply side business cycles. I have nothing against rich guys Tom, but when something goes wrong with the plan or we have a downturn, my socioeconomic group pays for it. When deficits go up, my socioeconomic group pays for it.

When a war starts my socioeconomic group goes to fight and rich kids take a sabbatical. Maybe if you supply siders figure out a way to trickle a little more down then I might quit b!tching. Sure I can tighten that belt and cut expenses and get by on spaghetti and beans with the best of them. I can also get my hustle on for MO MONEY too!

I ain't 25 any more and that fantastic stuff I use to do is a memory. But the game hasn't changed live within my means and watch yet another repub artificially juice the economy on the credit card and watch the infrastructure crumble under me. If a rich guy ever decided to turn up the trickle down for stuff that helps me, then I would probably vote repubs in and shut up.

Until then, I continue to holler... are you listening? Probably not, since you don't care if people in my socioeconomic class holler, because we are just lazy dumb B@stard out to sit on our arse and take YOUR hard earned money. RIGHT?

You will never understand the dynamics of supply side so why try explaining it to you . One of your Dem icons Jack Kennedy understood it and the 1960s were a prosperous time until the damaging effects of bad Keynesian policies by Johnson and Nixon ended it .


Yeh we know Adam Smith and all that, but pump priming only works if you can keep pumping the pork

Companies aren't priming the economy Clete, they buy back their own stock, and sell it for a profit and pay off the investors. Makes business sense, except workers won't see much of that with any added benefits or wages. I'm sure they are happy to have a job and a $49 bucks tax cut.

Now the Dufus wants the FED to hold off one interest hikes, one of the only tools they have when stuff happens, you know recessions and financial melt downs, as well as relaxing the rules that protect ordinary citizens from investor class shenanigans. What you thought the Dufus was watching out for us with his wild antics? Naw he is the distraction while his cronies and sycophants rob us blind by rolling back all the regulations that make corporate stealing illegal.

That's what repubs do, and always have so of course you can expect an economic slowdown after they are FAT!

More boiler plate without support . It is just not true that wages aren't rising .

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/worker-pay-rate-hits-highest-level-since-2008.html



Yes SOME companies are doing stock buy backs . Others are investing that gain ,including investing in their employees .More than
125 U.S. employers, big and small, have announced plans for bonuses and pay increases after the overhaul . According At least 2 million American workers received or will receive special bonuses in the wake of tax reform.

I voted for Trump because the alternative of HC was a dreary, frightening alternative. I wish he would get his mouth and tweets under control. It's awful, but I have to admit that the economy has taken off and SCOTUS is heading in a constitutional direction.

The latest I hear is that the budget for next year will have a deficit of nearly a trillion dollars. If that's the case, then it will be bitterly disappointing to me. We might as well elect a bunch of democrats if that's what we want. It would be nice if the repubs would develop some courage and cut spending.

It's always amusing to me to see people post about lying, cheating, big deficits, etc. I want to ask if they are talking about Mr. Obama or Hillary.

Hang in there, Tomder. The truth is in short supply on this thread.

More boiler plate without support . It is just not true that wages aren't rising .

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/worker-pay-rate-hits-highest-level-since-2008.html



Yes SOME companies are doing stock buy backs . Others are investing that gain ,including investing in their employees .More than
125 U.S. employers, big and small, have announced plans for bonuses and pay increases after the overhaul . According At least 2 million American workers received or will receive special bonuses in the wake of tax reform.


Out of 148 million working people 2 million get a bonus (Actually I estimated 3M), and you do know that many of those wage increases were voted in by states as referendums during the election of the Dufus so some had no choice.

Minimum Wage Increases in 2018: 18 States and 20 Cities | Fortune (http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/minimum-wage-increases-jan-2018/)



There are now 29 states that have laws mandating higher pay than the $7.25 federal minimum wage, which has not changed since 2009. In 2017, 19 states began the year with wage increases (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/05/business/economy/state-minimum-wages.html)
—five states (http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx)
did so based on ballot measures and seven states (http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx)
raised pay based on legislation passed in prior sessions.

No they are not all blue states.

And more stealing by the rich crowd... Shameful!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/insana-us-cant-afford-trumps-stealth-100-billion-tax-cut-for-rich.html?recirc=taboolainternal

2.whatever percent convert to how much on a paycheck? Will it cover a loaf of bread?

Let me just throw this other peeve in while we are talking jobs and wages

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/business/pay-growth-fast-food-hiring.html

Modern Slavery:   US Fast-food Industry Thriving on Poverty-stricken Workers    : Information Clearing House - ICH (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39607.htm)



But the millions of workers that make those astronomical figures for the industry are paid pittance wages. One study at the University of California-Berkeley puts almost half of all front-line employees in the fast-food industry in America as subsisting on some form of government aid to supplement their low wages. Other studies have found that 20 per cent of families reliant on an employee in the fast-food business are living below the official poverty line.

Now tell me how these are just entry level jobs (Back in the day maybe).

They are entry level jobs, Tal, in an economy where skilled, educated workers are highly paid and there are no restrictions on gaining the required skill or education. In an economy where there are many unemployed workers they cease to be entry level. The imbalance can come from migration; i.e. many unskilled workers or from economic downturn or changing circumstance such as outflow of capital and means of production.

Some time you have to face the truth, uncontrolled migration creates an imbalance both in your country and the place where they emigrate from

With almost 150M people below the poverty line you cannot have just entry level jobs especially when low skilled jobs are the predominate ones being made. We had this before in the 80's following a recovery from a "mild" recession. People get pressed by economic need to take such jobs as they work to acquire new skills. Not all that unusual during life changing events like downsizing, or layoff and plant closings, and a recovering economy.

Not sure how you are tying this to migration though, but I do understand your point as when we take doctors and techs from say India, they have to fill those losses.

we aren't even talking about migration . right now construction jobs are available to ANYONE who can pass a drug test and show up . Many offers do not require prior experience . There is a shortage of labor at all levels of skillset in this country and that is the real reasons wages are on the rise . Tal stop the bs about dead end jobs that will soon displace those low wage workers with AI .Time for them to move on and retrain . https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/the-us-labor-shortage-is-reaching-a-critical-point.html

Come on Tom AI in the food industry, food would become even more humodonised that it already is, can you imagine a hamburger prepared by a machine it would taste even more like crap than it does now. Can you see a Robot sweeping the street, washing the floors, cleaning the tiolets. Do you want to live in a society like this, where all humans can do all day is sit around and wonder what life used to be like, living on the living wage paid by the government so they don't riot and turing up once a week to report how there were no jobs available. This is the capitalist dream, a world without those troublesome workers

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/07/01/creators-new-autonomous-robot-makes-a-burger-in-5-minutes.html

Clete you know and I know that technology is the greatest source of job creation ,at the same time that it destroys the need for humans to do other jobs. It replaces old jobs for new jobs,erasing toil that was once essential.

And yes there is a need for that capital allow innovators to create those new jobs .

There are no companies and no jobs without investment first, and the investors whose capital creates companies and jobs are attracted to profits. Who do you think creates jobs ,the government ? But I don't have to ask you that because you know better than what you just wrote above

.

You really astound me . Without innovation and invention we would still have children working on family farms all day every day just to provide for the basics to survive. With innovation we no longer need children to work so they can devote their time to learning and enjoying their childhood . Mothers and fathers get to spend more time watching their children grow up and the elderly get to retire and enjoy their remaining days .If you don't believe me than go and look at life in those communist utopias .

You're too smart to
believe that there will be no replacement for work made redundant by progress. The car replaced the horse and buggy but there were still jobs for the blacksmith and the carriage driver when those job went. Ideally the loss of the mundane job that robots replace will be replaced by jobs people are interested in doing .Maybe those burger flippers will choose to become chefs instead if their passion is in creating food for others to eat .

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/labor-shortage-single-biggest-problem-small-businesses-record-37-report

we aren't even talking about migration . right now construction jobs are available to ANYONE who can pass a drug test and show up . Many offers do not require prior experience . There is a shortage of labor at all levels of skillset in this country and that is the real reasons wages are on the rise . Tal stop the bs about dead end jobs that will soon displace those low wage workers with AI .Time for them to move on and retrain . https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/the-us-labor-shortage-is-reaching-a-critical-point.html

All that sounds great on paper, but reality is that re-education and relocation is expensive. In the meantime you have to eat and maybe take care of kids. I said nothing about dead end jobs, but about a living wage for those low skilled jobs. Maybe businesses should defray those costs and yeah, they are flush enough to invest because as you say they just have always raised prices to pass it on to consumers anyway. The problem has always been what do you do with those workers who are displaced by technology that transitions them into reliable consumers.

Maybe you hyper capitalists should rethink your economic models and manipulations for exclusive revenue streams before YOU get displaced for being NON essential. Far fetched? Wait until that super computer figures out how to ring the bell without you.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/07/01/creators-new-autonomous-robot-makes-a-burger-in-5-minutes.html

Clete you know and I know that technology is the greatest source of job creation ,at the same time that it destroys the need for humans to do other jobs. It replaces old jobs for new jobs,erasing toil that was once essential.

And yes there is a need for that capital allow innovators to create those new jobs .

There are no companies and no jobs without investment first, and the investors whose capital creates companies and jobs are attracted to profits. Who do you think creates jobs ,the government ? But I don't have to ask you that because you know better than what you just wrote above

.

You really astound me . Without innovation and invention we would still have children working on family farms all day every day just to provide for the basics to survive. With innovation we no longer need children to work so they can devote their time to learning and enjoying their childhood . Mothers and fathers get to spend more time watching their children grow up and the elderly get to retire and enjoy their remaining days .If you don't believe me than go and look at life in those communist utopias .

You're too smart to
believe that there will be no replacement for work made redundant by progress. The car replaced the horse and buggy but there were still jobs for the blacksmith and the carriage driver when those job went. Ideally the loss of the mundane job that robots replace will be replaced by jobs people are interested in doing .Maybe those burger flippers will choose to become chefs instead if their passion is in creating food for others to eat .

How many blacksmith's do you know? Did they migrate to Amish country? You amaze me too, you cannot see what is happening, jobs exist because of population growth but that has to stop. When it does all the jobs will have been taken by machines and what will be left is a few button pushers on short time. We have developed a throwaway economy, cars are fashion objects, good for a few years before obsolescence takes over and they are replaced by something else. You have threeD printers so factories become obsolete, soon houses will be interchangeable so no need for new ones and then people will become obsolete, you already have half your population who have a questionable future

that's the point Clete .In the days where horses were needed for transportation ,there was a need for blacksmiths . Now it is a specialty skill so workers who were black smiths moved on . You need a more recent example ? Draftsmen needed to learn cad and then computer skills . Life is not stagnant and if you are not always improving yourself you risk falling behind or out of the race .

that's the point Clete .In the days where horses were needed for transportation ,there was a need for blacksmiths . Now it is a specialty skill so workers who were black smiths moved on . You need a more recent example ? Draftsmen needed to learn cad and then computer skills . Life is not stagnant and if you are not always improving yourself you risk falling behind or out of the race .

You haven't answered the basic question what do you do with unneeded humans as we transition our economy? Obviously you cannot just discard them, ignore them, no matter how you denigrate them to facilitate such an attitude. Maybe a blacksmith can start loading wagons but in today's reality, people have to eat as they find ways to leverage there skills or non skills, or abilities and lets face it everyone will not, or cannot make such a change overnight, nor without assistance, some more than others.


How many blacksmith's do you know? Did they migrate to Amish country? You amaze me too, you cannot see what is happening, jobs exist because of population growth but that has to stop. When it does all the jobs will have been taken by machines and what will be left is a few button pushers on short time. We have developed a throwaway economy, cars are fashion objects, good for a few years before obsolescence takes over and they are replaced by something else. You have threeD printers so factories become obsolete, soon houses will be interchangeable so no need for new ones and then people will become obsolete, you already have half your population who have a questionable future

Very insightful. Capitalist see this too Clete, but as long as THEY make money who cares about the rest. The very notion of wealth and resource re-distribution sends shivers up their spine.

You haven't answered the basic question what do you do with unneeded humans as we transition our economy? Obviously you cannot just discard them, ignore them, no matter how you denigrate them to facilitate such an attitude. Maybe a blacksmith can start loading wagons but in today's reality, people have to eat as they find ways to leverage there skills or non skills, or abilities and lets face it everyone will not, or cannot make such a change overnight, nor without assistance, some more than others.

It may be that government will have some role in the business of helping to educate people with job skills, and that can be a matter of legitimate discussion. But that should be a local decision, not a federal one. I always get nervous when I see someone talking about providing "assistance". The feds manage money terribly, and in fact have no money, being 21 tril in debt and still climbing. I can handle discussing many ideas so long as we first balance the federal budget.


The very notion of wealth and resource re-distribution sends shivers up their spine.

"Resource distribution", also known as theft. It is so funny how liberals try to justify the seizure of property and income from one American to give to another American, so long as it is someone else's property and income. When you decide to give 20% of your wealth and income to the poor, then you can start talking about taking someone else's. But even then, let's call it what it is: theft. Government sponsored, government enforced theft. The very idea of it should turn the stomach of every freedom loving American.

You haven't answered the basic question what do you do with unneeded humans as we transition our economy? Obviously you cannot just discard them, ignore them, no matter how you denigrate them to facilitate such an attitude. Maybe a blacksmith can start loading wagons but in today's reality, people have to eat as they find ways to leverage there skills or non skills, or abilities and lets face it everyone will not, or cannot make such a change overnight, nor without assistance, some more than others.
The ones that have foresight see the writing on the wall and do what's necessary to transition when the time comes . It doesn't take much training to turn a trolley driver into a bus driver or a draftsman into someone who can do the same job on a computer . So most of it is individual initiative the way I see it . I guess the rest become Democrat constituents .

jobs exist because of population growth but that has to stop.
not true ,jobs exist because of the demand for goods and services . Population stagnation ? I have no issues with legal immigration . Markets stagnant because of the foolish
Paul R. Ehrlich like policies . I can't believe you buy into that hogwash . There is a need to provide goods and services to expanding markets in other countries . The company I work for imports goods from around the world and sells product to the global market . Our workforce is from more than a dozen different nations. I cant believe someone with your training thinks the economic pie is set . The truth and you know it is that the global market place is expanding rapidly and the demand for goods and services has never been higher . Why the pessimism ? There has never been a better time to be alive than today.

It may be that government will have some role in the business of helping to educate people with job skills, and that can be a matter of legitimate discussion. But that should be a local decision, not a federal one. I always get nervous when I see someone talking about providing "assistance". The feds manage money terribly, and in fact have no money, being 21 tril in debt and still climbing. I can handle discussing many ideas so long as we first balance the federal budget.

There is no maybe to it as its imperative for OUR government to play a role in helping folks participate in the collective effort of forming a more perfect union. I agree with as it is it's not perfect now, and plenty of room for improvement, and that is quite a challenge admittedly.


"Resource distribution", also known as theft. It is so funny how liberals try to justify the seizure of property and income from one American to give to another American, so long as it is someone else's property and income. When you decide to give 20% of your wealth and income to the poor, then you can start talking about taking someone else's. But even then, let's call it what it is: theft. Government sponsored, government enforced theft. The very idea of it should turn the stomach of every freedom loving American.

The Dufus and his ilk are stealing YOUR wealth and income right under your nose but of course conservatives think it's raining instead of getting peed on by YOUR lying cheating Dufus and his greedy rich sycophants. That turns my stomach, just as when the Tea Party formed to get government out of their lives but keep them SSI checks coming.

The Dufus and his ilk are stealing YOUR wealth and income right under your nose

How are they doing that, other than by engaging in deficit spending in the same way Mr. Obama did.

After the Trump tax cuts he wants to cut them yet again

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/29/trump-calls-for-another-round-of-tax-cuts-further-reductions-to-corporate-tax-rate/?utm_term=.7104a10859ac

After the Trump tax cuts he wants to cut them yet again


Wow. Tax cuts are stealing. That's so funny I can hardly handle it. Already, the top 1% of wage earners pay about a third of income taxes. The top 10% pay about 2/3.

You'll have to come up with something a lot better than that. To say that letting someone keep more of their money amounts to stealing is just crazy.

What a strange philosophy you have. If someone gets to keep their money, it's stealing, but if the feds force that person to give part of their income to another American, it's charity.

There are, as best as I can figure it, four approaches to charity. When we see a needy person, we can:

1. Ignore them. "Not my problem." I don't think anyone in this discussion falls in that category.
2. We can want to help them, but realize that they don't want our help. I see that frequently. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.
3. We can want to help them, and determine to use our own resources and time to do so. That's what the Good Samaritan did. It's loving your neighbor. We might even enlist the help of others. That can be even better.
4. We can want to help them, and realize they have a problem that an average person can solve (which is most people), but then determine to force others to do so, and in doing so we actually believe we are good people.
5. We can want to help them, realize that they have a problem that the average person cannot help with (e.g. serious mental illness), and attempt to enlist the help of the government (hopefully state or local).

Everyone needs to decide in which category they fall.

Number 5 is the way its set up. You go to your local office (Either the city or county) when you have an issue. They are supported by the state and the state is supported by the federal government. States make their own rules under federal guidelines.

Number 5 is the way its set up. You go to your local office (Either the city or county) when you have an issue. They are supported by the state and the state is supported by the federal government. States make their own rules under federal guidelines.

People with all sorts of common problems get federal aid. A woman can have several children out of wedlock, secure in the knowledge that each additional child brings in a bigger check. What you are saying is simply not true. You need to read #5 more carefully.

Now here is charity.


https://www.facebook.com/CBSEveningNews/videos/10156638257294073/?t=46

People with all sorts of common problems get federal aid.
Our tax dollars at work....

Wow. Tax cuts are stealing. yup they take money you earn and then once a year ,if you have given them more than they think you should ,they cut a check to you and you should be thankful the government gave you money .

The role of the government and it's power to tax and spend has always been contentious in this country going back to Hamilton arguing in the Federalist Papers for a broad interpretation of the government powers ,and Madison arguing for a narrow interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in Art 1 Sec 8 clause 1 .

People with all sorts of common problems get federal aid. A woman can have several children out of wedlock, secure in the knowledge that each additional child brings in a bigger check. What you are saying is simply not true. You need to read #5 more carefully.

I have known woman who game the system, there is never a shortage of people who do it seems. I'm not for those people that do, and have been pretty careful to say so. The vast majority I have run across are just good people in need rather than gamers though. It's not as easy as you think for a woman to get benefits with those 6 kids as you think. Nor as prevalent.

You can look into the process and procedures in your own jurisdiction if you like. In the ones I have worked in there are terms and conditions to be met, as well as penalties for noncompliance. There are a growing number of families and MEN applying for assistance also that most people may not be aware of and also ex felons and people on probation trying to stay out of jail which is not easy at all.

There are many who have made mistakes and not just have kids while not being married. I fully share your ideas about the gamers though, and that does have consequences.

You sound like you approve of the system

It could be more effective and efficient. The idea of starving people is not an appealing option. Just the opportunities it provides for educational and vocatioonal training makes it worthwhile.

You do know what those founders who Tom has faith in did about starving people, they provided them with guns to hunt their food or slavery to earn it, you on the other hand want to pay them to sit on their backside

I suppose we could give them a gun, slavery has been abolished though we do have a form of economic slaves. Strange though that the majority no longer need welfare after they get their act together. Average time is two years. Longer for the working poor, the aged, and low wage families though. Once they started the southern strategy though to get elected the whole story got blown way out of proportion. You would be surprised the successful people who were on public assistance before they turned their lives around.

But why argue with those that don't care about the facts when their misperceptions reinforce their own beliefs, and false narrative.

Oh I don't know, I argue with you with similar result. You converted slavery into a minimum wage utopia and there we have a strange statistic, half the population are below the poverty line, whatever that is, and you speak elegantly of
"the working poor, the aged, and low wage families" as though they have the ability to lift themselves from poverty merely because of residency.

Tal, you live in the same dillusion as those you oppose

not true 15-16% of Americans live at or below the poverty line. That is even relative because each nation creates it's own poverty line .So affluent nations poor are better off than most countries poor. From the NY Times ….


https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/06/milanovic-custom1.jpg
Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.
Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.


All of which should be something of a reality check for those who insist that America's poor are being forgotten, left behind and all the rest.
Even if you're stuck in the bottom 5% of the US income distribution your standard of living is about equal to that of the top 5% of Indians. Even if you're in the bottom 10% your standard of living is about the same as that of the bottom 10% in other rich countries (which, so we are told, care so much more and do so much more) like Sweden and Finland. And when we sweep everything together into some sort of quality of life measure the American poor are better off than the French or German poor. Maybe it's true that the US doesn't do enough for the poor in the US. That's rather a judgement call based upon your own morals. But it's very difficult to see in the actual figures that the US doesn't do enough. The poor in the US are richer than around 70% of all the people extant. The poor in the US are about as poor, perhaps a bit richer, than the poor in other rich countries. It is true that there is more inequality in the US: but this isn't because the poor are poorer. It's because the rich are richer.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/#3c6ca4b854ef

The number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits declined by 3.1 million since Trump assumed office.

A very subjective graph, undoubtedly a poor person in a western country has more money than a poor person in a third world country, but there is a difference in purchasing power, so they are still poor and under privileged. In China I could buy breakfast for $0.20, I can't do it here

I don't compare countries just observe my own and 45 million below poverty does not reflect the people who are just above it by a few bucks, of which the numbers goes way up to half of Americans.

The number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits declined by 3.1 million since Trump assumed office.



What a non-sequitur!! Trump has nothing to do with declining SNAP enrollment. Simple cause and effect - bad times more SNAP, good times less SNAP. People who find jobs have less need for food assistance. SNAP also declined during Obama administration.


not true 15-16% of Americans live at or below the poverty line. That is even relative because each nation creates it's own poverty line .So affluent nations poor are better off than most countries poor. From the NY Times ….


https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/06/milanovic-custom1.jpg
Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.
Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.


All of which should be something of a reality check for those who insist that America's poor are being forgotten, left behind and all the rest.
Even if you're stuck in the bottom 5% of the US income distribution your standard of living is about equal to that of the top 5% of Indians. Even if you're in the bottom 10% your standard of living is about the same as that of the bottom 10% in other rich countries (which, so we are told, care so much more and do so much more) like Sweden and Finland. And when we sweep everything together into some sort of quality of life measure the American poor are better off than the French or German poor. Maybe it's true that the US doesn't do enough for the poor in the US. That's rather a judgement call based upon your own morals. But it's very difficult to see in the actual figures that the US doesn't do enough. The poor in the US are richer than around 70% of all the people extant. The poor in the US are about as poor, perhaps a bit richer, than the poor in other rich countries. It is true that there is more inequality in the US: but this isn't because the poor are poorer. It's because the rich are richer.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/#3c6ca4b854ef




Comparing poverty with other countries is always an exercise in futility, and misleading. Poverty in America is NOT poverty in Africa. True that the cost of living has to be taken into account which tends to reduce gross disparities.

The real issue, in my opinion, is income inequality.

He addressed that Athos,



It is true that there is more inequality in the US: but this isn't because the poor are poorer. It's because the rich are richer.


Rising prices and getting priced out of the market for goods and services doesn't count. Brings the question of WHY after tax cuts and as much corporate welfare they can handle has a low wage worker NOT gotten a raise?

HINT; Starts with G and rhymes with NEED!

Can't be Campaign Contributions can it?

income inequity . a very Marxist view of the world .


According to the government’s own reports, the typical American defined as poor by the Census Bureau has a car, air conditioning, and cable or satellite TV. Half of the poor have computers, 43 percent have Internet, and 40 percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
Far from being overcrowded, poor Americans have more living space in their home than the average non-poor person in Western Europe. Some 42 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only 4 percent of poor children were hungry for even a single day in the prior year because the family could not afford food. By its own report, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and was able to obtain medical care for his family throughout the year whenever needed.

You tout the poor that make it, and we talk of the poor that don't and by your own posts, that's MORE than half of the poor population Income inequality exists not in Marxland but in America, and accounts for 90% of the country.

That's A LOT more than half. As far as those medical needs being met, maybe you should dig into those states that limited Medicaid, and all those folks that that never see a doctor for lack of funds or insurance.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/could-not-see-doctor-because-of-cost/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D

https://www.cdc.gov/MinorityHealth/index.html

Tal, you seem to be very concerned about the poor. What are you doing personally, with your own resources, to help the poor? Not pointing a finger, just asking.

As a friend of Bill, I do a lot of volunteer work with addicts and alcoholics trying to turn their lives around by getting jobs, training for jobs, benefits, housing, and that often means daycare services, restoring of rights following release from jail if needed manning hotlines and food drives sponsored by churches and NGO's, and various women's shelters, sometimes light weight maintenance so I have seen many not at their best and how you kick someone who's down is beyond me.

Not doing a lot lately, personal family and health issues to deal with, but its hard to turn down requests and emergencies. I just do what I can, because I know first hand how much it means when strangers do what they could for me when I was down, overwhelmed and helpless.

I'm about what you would expect from a person with a PHD from the College of Hard Knocks. Glad you asked.

I'm about what you would expect from a person with a PHD from the College of Hard Knocks.

Sometimes I think that's one of the best degrees you can have.

Interesting that you and I are both involved with helping addicts. Very tough deal.

I'm interested in when you think I have kicked someone who is down. If you have gotten that from my writing, then I have plainly not been accurate. I think I have repeatedly stated I am all for helping those who are down, but I am against the forcible taking of money from some people to give to others. I am in favor of ME doing something and then helping others get involved. But kicking someone who is down? I'd love to know where you got that from.

Bill who?

Don't take it personally, sometimes my zeal to defend those who are not here to defend themselves gets rather passionate, and I acknowledge this. I always think that that it's unfair to denigrate folks because they are different, have issues, or go against someone's belief system without taking a look at their story, situation and circumstance. Having scrounged around in the gutter myself I know how easy it is to get there and how hard it is to find the curb and pull yourself up to the sidewalk. It's darn near impossible for many without some help. It's a very desperate situation and I just have a place in my heart for women and children who are often helpless.

So when Bill told me to count my blessings and be grateful, and pass it on to another who suffers, I try to do just that to the fullest of my ability. That's when I learned that drugs and alcohol, and the behavior that comes with it, are but the visible symptom of deeper problems that need to be addressed.

Now you know how I keep my sanity, even if I cross the lines of good behavior sometimes and if I did that, then you have my apology. I try to do better, but it don't always work but I keep trying. I hope I answered your question.

So Tal all you can do is help, you cannot solve the problem

Doing NOTHING is no solution either.

I always think that that it's unfair to denigrate folks because they are different, have issues, or go against someone's belief system without taking a look at their story, situation and circumstance.

I agree completely. To denigrate someone is one thing. To say that an activity is unwise and counterproductive is not only not denigration, it is one of the aspects of love. To pretend that it is productive is wrong.

I appreciate you sharing your story. For me, I was raised with two great parents in a barely middle class home. I went to a church where the Gospel was preached and we were told that we have a personal responsibility before Jesus for those who are struggling. I have lived that way (imperfectly) all my adult life. I do get tired of the "holier than thou" outlook of liberals who think that because they legally force others to engage in charity, that they are somehow on a high moral plane. I am convinced that taking money from one American to give to another is, itself, immoral. But I do enjoy seeing the outlooks of others.

Thanks for sharing JL, I have always thought you were KOOL from the plumbing pages. We may disagree about many things as folks are likely to do, but I respect your side of it even if I can't see it. I ain't shy about my opinions and happily you aren't either. Actually that's what makes you KOOL with me! Just my OPINION. 8)

Thanks for sharing JL, I have always thought you were KOOL from the plumbing pages. We may disagree about many things as folks are likely to do, but I respect your side of it even if I can't see it. I ain't shy about my opinions and happily you aren't either. Actually that's what makes you KOOL with me! Just my OPINION. 8)

Amen. We can discuss things, disagree, and still respect each other. Now if we can only talk the other 320 million Americans into doing that, our country will improve.

You are in no danger from the pigs

The Dufus and his sycophants are the danger. Check your pockets.

And so the game continues! Check your pockets for higher wages and lower taxes, or check your pockets to make sure a liberal is not exercising his/her morality by taking your money and giving it to the poor?

Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.

Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.


No, that's poor thinking on your part. How is he taking money from me and giving it to rich people? If you mean he is allowing them to keep more of what they have earned, then that is a different matter. How is he taking money from me or you to give to them?

Tal is confused like all leftists, he thinks what's yours is his

There is no confusion when it comes to simple math and it seems an ex bean counter would know that.

There is no confusion when it comes to simple math and it seems an ex bean counter would know that.

That is not an answer to the question.

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/38756600_10212817087924178_3016502497171734528_n.j pg?_nc_cat=0&oh=7b85964d2f0b8352463d46d51f99b66c&oe=5BCB6D8A

There is no confusion when it comes to simple math and it seems an ex bean counter would know that.

I'm not an ex bean counter Tal I retain my professional qualifications. The simple math is that in order to pay for leftist largess the government has two options, Tax more or print money. If you print money then the math is it becomes worthless, if you tax more then, the math is, it is not the rich who pay the most tax, but the middle and lower classes who are fortunate enough to have an income. Why didn't Trump actually cut middle class tax, answer; he would have been killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Herein ends the math and economics lesson.

Cutting tax is not giving someone someone else's money, it is reducing the burden of individual taxation. Taxation is theft, that is the reality

Who paves the roads in Australia?

Yeah.. well I am SOOOOOOOO glad Hildebeast Clintard lost, we've been subjected to a year and a half of her mentally disturbed ranting about why she lost, blaming everyone and everything but the one thing responsible... herself. And Bernie wasn't much better. We have a BOOMING economy now and record low unemployment for certain ethnic groups no Democrat ever really bothered to help before... and there are more job openings than unemployed people. Yeah... Trump knocked that out of the park.. something OWEBUMMER never could.

Who paves the roads in Australia?

That is an interesting question, road making contractors at the behest of local or state government authorities. If the point you are trying to make is it is paid for by taxation in some form then you may be correct. A large part of the revenues of such bodies arises in the form of property taxes
since income tax and "sales" tax is a federal tax..

Back in the day when we had a draconian taxation regime, we had fewer paved roads so less income tax has meant more paved roads, go figure

Yeah.. well I am SOOOOOOOO glad Hildebeast Clintard lost, we've been subjected to a year and a half of her mentally disturbed ranting about why she lost, blaming everyone and everything but the one thing responsible... herself. And Bernie wasn't much better. We have a BOOMING economy now and record low unemployment for certain ethnic groups no Democrat ever really bothered to help before... and there are more job openings than unemployed people. Yeah... Trump knocked that out of the park.. something OWEBUMMER never could.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t02.htm (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t02.htm)

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/local/fairfield-county-tv-plant-hopes-to-avoid-laying-off-126-employees/101-581306681

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/local/element-tv-brings-hundreds-of-jobs-to-struggling-county/298820835

So go blast yesterdays news on Clinton and Obama, and I'll blast today's news about The Dufus and Dufus Jr. How's that for splitting the baby? See we both can have our FUN.

Of course I have links to facts.

why would it be any taxing authority except locals ? James Madison favored the Federal Government building roads . Yet he vetoed the bills he received under constitutional concerns .

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with singal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-01-02-5775

Well that was poli-speak, it said absoluely nothing

That is an interesting question, road making contractors at the behest of local or state government authorities. If the point you are trying to make is it is paid for by taxation in some form then you may be correct. A large part of the revenues of such bodies arises in the form of property taxes
since income tax and "sales" tax is a federal tax.
.

Back in the day when we had a draconian taxation regime, we had fewer paved roads so less income tax has meant more paved roads, go figure

That may work for cities but what of the rural areas? I got time if you need to check the facts.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t02.htm (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t02.htm)

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/local/fairfield-county-tv-plant-hopes-to-avoid-laying-off-126-employees/101-581306681

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/local/element-tv-brings-hundreds-of-jobs-to-struggling-county/298820835

So go blast yesterdays news on Clinton and Obama, and I'll blast today's news about The Dufus and Dufus Jr. How's that for splitting the baby? See we both can have our FUN.

Of course I have links to facts.

Interesting "facts", I see you can't decide between micro and macro economics but perhaps you can discern why some places are going backwards

That may work for cities but what of the rural areas? I got time if you need to check the facts.

As I said back in the day we had fewer paved roads, and that goes for rural areas too. I am not here to provide you with statistics but having driven over a large part of my state and other parts of the country I can tell you that once you didn't have to go far to find an unpaved road, these days they appear confined to fire trails and little used roads in remote areas As a Texan you may understand the concept of a large area and a smaller population slowing the pace of road construction, then again you may be busy constructing those north - south highways for immigrants

http://www.australiaonnet.com/tourism/transportation/road.html

Our states get federal funds for roads, bridges, and schools to be built and maintained to supplement local user taxes, like tolls and gasoline. The same as YOURS.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/australia.php

We are not devoid of such innovations, there are federally funded road programs, infrastructure grants, toll roads and gasoline taxes here too. Like yourselves, if it can be taxed it is

That has always been my point. Everybody taxes stuff, and everybody has a peeve about it, and where it goes.

Yes Tal but what is important is to lessen the impact on any individual particularly vulnerable individuals. Few people would be able to avoid a 10% impost even if they are not paying income tax and obviously it is even more. I think it unfair to be taxed 30 or 40% of income no matter who you are, and particularly if it is to provide welfare to free loaders. The principle of user pays is well applied here so if you want a new highway which improves travel speed and the overall journey then you pay for using the highway, but why should I, a country dweller, pay for a super highway in the city

Our rich and corporate types never pay those high tax rates, because of loopholes, deductions and write offs they have. How do you not slam corporate welfare but can't stand poor people welfare? If left to individuals they would all eliminate what they don't like and leave it unfunded. I get that but the function of government is to act in everyone's interest, not just a few, or the wealthiest, or even the poorest exclusively. Isn't that what you elect your representative to do? Whose fault is it they are corrupted by special interests and don't work in YOUR interests?

Our rich and corporate types never pay those high tax rates, because of loopholes, deductions and write offs they have. How do you not slam corporate welfare but can't stand poor people welfare?

Quite a statement considering that the top 5% of wage earners in the U.S. pay about 60% of the income tax.

As I have said about twenty times now, I'm all for helping poor people. But I am completely opposed to supposedly charitable liberals forcing others to do so. But if we are going to do welfare, then let's at least be honest enough to give those people a voucher entitling them to part of my, Tal's, and other's income.

Stop crying about this charity for the poor that you conservatives blame on liberals. Like your job is so much more important than their jobs are. First of all it ain't charity, and second of all why not let a low wage earner take off his rent, child care and transportation costs and heating bills so he doesn't need charity in the first place. I just don't see where starving people helps the country, or pricing them out of the market for most stuff helps a CONSUMER driven capitalistic society in any way. Make the living wage 15 bucks to start and I might see your point.

Why don't you just keep holding your nose and let us liberals make sure we have a strong social safety net? You know like you hold your nose and support the lying cheating dufus run up deficits that make fixing your schools bridges and roads crumble under your feet while your kids share old books with no paper and pencils, and old people eat cat food pretty hard to do.

You can say 100 times how you are for helping the poor, but that one day a week charity doesn't cut it. Helping people through hard times is NOT charity, but human kindness that we treat our fellow humans, kids, and strangers as well as neighbors. I notice you live in a state that takes more out of the pot than you put in so if you can stop holding your nose long enough to explain why then I'll listen.

Are there that many liberals running things there? Or are conservatives BSing us?

Like your job is so much more important than their jobs are. Once again, you are making up positions I have never taken. I've never said that.


First of all it ain't charity, and second of all why not let a low wage earner take off his rent, child care and transportation costs and heating bills so he doesn't need charity in the first place. If you knew your facts, you would know that is not necessary. Low income families pay either no income tax, or very near that.


Make the living wage 15 bucks to start and I might see your point.
Yes, and I suppose you would explain to all the low income workers who lost their jobs because the employer would not pay that much how wise you are and how you have taken it upon yourself to dictate wages to them rather than let them exercise their own freedom in negotiating wages. And may I ask, how did you arrive at 15 dollars? If raising the minimum wage is the answer, then why not go to 25 or 30 dollars an hour?


You know like you hold your nose and support the lying cheating dufus run up deficits
I assume you are talking about President Obama, who was the absolute world champion of deficits. You liberals are so funny. You sat by while Mr. Obama doubled the national debt and said nothing. For me, I despise deficit spending, no matter which pres is leading it.


You can say 100 times how you are for helping the poor, but that one day a week charity doesn't cut it. Helping people through hard times is NOT charity, but human kindness that we treat our fellow humans, kids, and strangers as well as neighbors. I notice you live in a state that takes more out of the pot than you put in so if you can stop holding your nose long enough to explain why then I'll listen.
And there you go again. Amazing how liberals want to lecture all the rest of us about what we should, or should not, be doing with charity. "that one day a week doesn't cut it". Judge Tal has spoken. Typical liberal. Always prompt to tell the rest of us what we should do. You have set yourself up as judge and jury about my efforts at charity. That is really unwise. You just don't know what you're talking about concerning my charitable efforts.

Once again, you are making up positions I have never taken. I've never said that. ;/QUOTE]

You implied it though when you say your tax dollars should not go to them and you should be able to choose your own charity when you please, but our government cannot choose who to help, and you have to apply and qualify for that help. Once taxes are collected they go into a big pot and your ELECTED representatives, both local AND federal decide where it goes and who gets what. In Miss. Are not your reps elected mostly conservative? So blame them not the liberals.

[QUOTE]If you knew your facts, you would know that is not necessary. Low income families pay either no income tax, or very near that.

Fact is they pay a payroll tax every time they get paid, while rich guys do not, and the poor get it back if they file and meet the requirements of income at the end of the year. Benefits are calculated differently and most are non taxable and non deductible. Now if you want to begrudge those with kids their deduction, then stop some of those rich guy deductions. No need to hate on the low wage worker, old persons or kids. If you can hold your nose for the Dufus, you can hold your nose for the poor.


Yes, and I suppose you would explain to all the low income workers who lost their jobs because the employer would not pay that much how wise you are and how you have taken it upon yourself to dictate wages to them rather than let them exercise their own freedom in negotiating wages. And may I ask, how did you arrive at 15 dollars? If raising the minimum wage is the answer, then why not go to 25 or 30 dollars an hour?

I dictate nothing but I advocate for a LIVING wage. A fairer wage than the $7 that stands now, and has stood firm for years despite rising prices. If you say $30 COOL! I can go with your suggestion. You have just eliminated poverty and made welfare obsolete. Well done.


I assume you are talking about President Obama, who was the absolute world champion of deficits. You liberals are so funny. You sat by while Mr. Obama doubled the national debt and said nothing. For me, I despise deficit spending, no matter which pres is leading it.

You assume wrong since Obama inherited a mess left by... WAIT FOR IT... a conservative who inherited a good economy AND a balanced budget from WAIT FOR IT... a LIBERAL... AND a Clinton at that. No more assuming okay since it's a fact Obama left The Dufus a growing economy after he came into a fiscal mess and TWO wars off the books if you want to talk deficits. If your holding your nose with the Dufus, then keep holding it with his stench of scandals and corruption all around him. I am not assuming that either.


And there you go again. Amazing how liberals want to lecture all the rest of us about what we should, or should not, be doing with charity. "that one day a week doesn't cut it". Judge Tal has spoken. Typical liberal. Always prompt to tell the rest of us what we should do. You have set yourself up as judge and jury about my efforts at charity. That is really unwise. You just don't know what you're talking about concerning my charitable efforts.

You express your opinion, I express mine, but we both only get one vote. Only one of us is holding his nose JL. You better hold more than that if you are going to support and defend this lying cheating racist Dufus for the next 4 to 8 years(?). You got anymore assumptions you want to get off your chest?

Hi Tal I agree with you on the living minimum wage fro an adult, not sure if $30 is the right level but certainly $20, the best way out of welfare is to provide employment at better than slave wage levels and people on minimum wage shouldn't pay tax at any time, none of this take it and give it back B/S

Get used to it Obama spent the money, presided over quantitative easing and promoted the war in Syria as well as taxing the population for medical cover

Hi Clete, cutting out the middleman for seeing a doctor makes sense to me but Obama couldn't get single payer, you know conservatives love capitalists that's why they're bringing back junk policies that cover nothing, and no policies if you have a health issue already. Many will get what they paid for.

Those insurance guys should be retrained to pick cotton. Plenty of openings there.

I dictate nothing but I advocate for a LIVING wage. A fairer wage than the $7 that stands now, and has stood firm for years despite rising prices. If you say $30 COOL! I can go with your suggestion. You have just eliminated poverty and made welfare obsolete. Well done.

OK. We're not getting anywhere in our discussion, so let's change the format to "ask a question, answer a question." I'll go first, since it's my idea.

You need to learn to read. I wasn't advocating for a 30 dollar minimum wage, I was asking you a question. And as is usual, you ran away from answering the question. So I'll ask it again. What is the basis for 15 dollars? Do you have research for that figure, or did you, and others, just pluck it out of the sky? And if 15 is a good idea, then why aren't you going with 30, or for that matter, 60 dollars an hour? Then everyone could drive a Mercedes. (Note: 60 dollars is part of a question, not part of a suggestion.)

Now you have to SERIOUSLY and thoughtfully answer the question first, and then you get to ask one. Fair enough? If you are unwilling to answer a serious question, then there is no point in this.

OK. We're not getting anywhere in our discussion, so let's change the format to "ask a question, answer a question." I'll go first, since it's my idea.

You need to learn to read. I wasn't advocating for a 30 dollar minimum wage, I was asking you a question. And as is usual, you ran away from answering the question. So I'll ask it again. What is the basis for 15 dollars? Do you have research for that figure, or did you, and others, just pluck it out of the sky? And if 15 is a good idea, then why aren't you going with 30, or for that matter, 60 dollars an hour? Then everyone could drive a Mercedes.

Now you have to SERIOUSLY and thoughtfully answer the question first, and then you get to ask one. Fair enough? If you are unwilling to answer a serious question, then there is no point in this.

I'm Irish at the core so I'll answer a question with a question, don't you have an independent authority who investigates and regulates these things based on evidence presented. Your labour relations appear primitive to us

I assume you are not American from the tone of your question. So even though you have broken the rules, I can at least provide you with some info. There are no independent authorities who regulate this. It's called "freedom". If you want to make more money, then make yourself more valuable by enhancing your job skills. Nurses make a lot more money than hamburger flippers. It's where freedom meets personal responsibility.

Besides, the question was really directed towards TAL.

How did you come up with "Paraclete" for a name? It's NT Greek, as I remember.

$15 was a consensus and sought after in many states and won, and is being implemented in increments over about 3 years in most places. I see it as a reasonable adjustment. I think the logic goes 15x8=120 per day times 5 days=$600 a week, which is $2400 a month x12 brings us to $28,800 a year before taxes, and that's a reasonable place to start. Yes it gets you out of poverty by shifting the burden from government to employers {Who make the big bucks anyway) and changes a charity/welfare case to a DIGNIFIED CONSUMER. If you define a minimum wage job as fast food and retail, which most new jobs are even when Reagan was KING, and make consumers instead of dependents, not only do you shrink the deficit but spur the economy by demand instead of that supply side trickle down stuff. Actually just from raising the minimum wage means more revenue for government for schools, roads, bridges, and infrastructure to underfunded rural areas. Then more citizens can enjoy a decent job and manage their lives even better... without digging into YOUR pocket... OR mine, or be subject to the derision and name calling by the mean old conservatives.

That's my answer, and I hope you know that I was just funning about 30 or 60 bucks for a floor to the minimum wage piggy backing on what YOU wrote. I got no problem with rich guys getting rich if they are circulating that dollar in a more reasonable way, heck if they did pay a living wage, I would be all for a tax break for them. I don't mind you calling me a LIBERAL, since I think it's the right thing to do. I'm probably as fiscally conservative as you are, so I live within MY means even if it takes a few years to save up for that new car, or a Disneyland vacation.

If the Dufus had those kinds conditions on HIS tax cut bill, Then I wouldn't be calling him The Dufus (YES I WOULD, but not about that), or rich guys ROBBERS, and GREEDY b@stards.

What is the basis for 15 dollars? Do you have research for that figure, or did you, and others, just pluck it out of the sky? And if 15 is a good idea, then why aren't you going with 30, or for that matter, 60 dollars an hour? Then everyone could drive a Mercedes. of course an excellent question that will go unanswered like my question about open borders . (if you don't want open borders as you say you don't ,then what level of enforcement of the borders do YOU find acceptable ? )

I'm Irish at the core so I'll answer a question with a question, don't you have an independent authority who investigates and regulates these things based on evidence presented. Your labour relations appear primitive to us

Yes we do Clete, but repubs are effectively stripping those AGENCIES of any authority to do anything, in addition to stacking those agencies with feckless crony sycophants who answer to them, and not the job they are tasked with. It's not just primitive, but borders on CRIMINAL.

tal you know and I know that the only reason for min wage is the create a higher baseline for union negotiations . What do you get in return ? Well fewer jobs for one thing . Loss of the ability for young untrained workers to get their foot in the door as those jobs become attractive to the older work force . And eventually there is a greater impetus for employers to invest in automation and robotics . What else does it cause ? Well since by your login the owners are greedy ;increased costs due to higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer .

of course an excellent question that will go unanswered like my question about open borders . (if you don't want open borders as you say you don't ,then what level of enforcement of the borders do YOU find acceptable ? )

How about one that complies with the law, and delivers result through ORDERLY due process instead of hiding kids and deporting parents. I don't subscribe to OPEN borders, nor do I holler invasion by women and children fleeing oppression, persecution, and loss of life. You know like all the migrants who came here throughout our history. Leave it to conservatives though to be narrow and closed minded and brand everyone they are afraid of as some kind of threat to be smitten. Anything less than a butt kicking for a misdemeanor will never satisfy a conservative.

Does that answer your question, that I have answered MANY times before? A perfect example of a willingness to ignore what you don't like. None of your queries and assertions have gone unanswered since I've been here. Even Clete agrees with me... SOMETIMES!

8D

It's all good.

tal you know and I know that the only reason for min wage is the create a higher baseline for union negotiations . What do you get in return ? Well fewer jobs for one thing . Loss of the ability for young untrained workers to get their foot in the door as those jobs become attractive to the older work force . And eventually there is a greater impetus for employers to invest in automation and robotics . What else does it cause ? Well since by your login the owners are greedy ;increased costs due to higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer .

Of course we can't have workers negotiating a better deal for wages, benefits or conditions can we? Like you say they just pass the cost on anyway and have without raising wages. You make a great point though about raising the question what to do with workers displaced by technology which increases by leaps and bounds every year and has for decades now. I watched many fall by the wayside tackling that very problem. It's a BIGGIE!

I think the logic goes 15x8=120 per day times 5 days=$600 a week, which is $2400 a month x12 brings us to $28,800 a year before taxes, and that's a reasonable place to start. Yes it gets you out of poverty by shifting the burden from government to employers {Who make the big bucks anyway) and changes a charity/welfare case to a DIGNIFIED CONSUMER. If you define a minimum wage job as fast food and retail, which most new jobs are even when Reagan was KING, and make consumers instead of dependents, not only do you shrink the deficit but spur the economy by demand instead of that supply side trickle down stuff. Actually just from raising the minimum wage means more revenue for government for schools, roads, bridges, and infrastructure to underfunded rural areas. Then more citizens can enjoy a decent job and manage their lives even better... without digging into YOUR pocket... OR mine, or be subject to the derision and name calling by the mean old conservatives.

Well, you didn't ask a question, so I'll ask another. If raising the minimum wage to 15 does all you say it does, then wouldn't raising it to 30 do even more? 30 x 40hours x 50 or so weeks = 60 thou. Wouldn't that be a great boost, by your logic, to the economy? Imagine all those new consumers with their pockets bulging with money. If it's as simple as you say, then why aren't you proposing that? Why did you stop at 15?

I noticed you mentioned no research at all that arrived at 15. Just some sort of "consensus". But you did answer the question in a civil manner. Thanks for that.

I have read so much over the years that I cannot really source it adequately, but this older article came with some good background links to explore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/the-case-for-a-higher-minimum-wage.html

Fact checked fairly well against government data. I fact check almost everything if you noticed, agree or disagree with the premise. Yes I will have questions and rather like this structure for debate, exchange and interactions. Good one JL.

But you didn't answer the question, so I'll state it again. If what you said in your earlier post is true, then why stop at 15? Why not go on to 30? After all, as you said, it would just be coming from the rich and wealthy business owners. So why not?

BTW, I read the article, but the question is to you. When I answer a question, I don't ask the reader to go read an article. I feel it is my job to make my case, and not just reference an article.

You make a great point though about raising the question what to do with workers displaced by technology which increases by leaps and bounds every year and has for decades now.
yes and you can make a case for government assistance in retraining even though I wouldn't wait for the government to do anything on my behalf . Look there are 450,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in this country waiting for an ambitious applicant .
According to a recent study by the Manufacturing Institute , 80 percent of manufacturers report difficulty in finding skilled workers.
I'm not kidding when I say there are at least one job available for anyone in this country who can pass a drug test …maybe 2 jobs . These are not minimum wage jobs I'm talking about . Many employers post 'will train' . It is just a complete falsehood that someone has to settle for a 'dead end ' job.

Another falsehood is that jobs are lost due to technology . That has never been the case . The cotton gin created a demand for more slaves in the old south . And since then there have been century and a half that supports that technological advances creates more jobs than it destroys . Don't listen to luddites .

I'm willing to bet location or relocation has a great deal to do with those unfilled jobs you speak of, as much as skills and motivation. Especially for older dogs with somewhat deeper roots, as well as those looking for more than just a job. Transitioning from on job/location to another is also expensive. But the ghost towns in the Midwest proves people are moving to take those jobs. Then we have those tariffs by the Dufus, which helps one industry, yet devastates another. That's a clumsy way to create a fair market.

I'm willing to bet location or relocation has a great deal to do with those unfilled jobs you speak of

So why wouldn't they move? Is it just so much easier to put them on welfare? I wonder what the hundreds of thousands who moved west in covered wagons at great risk would think of our country now. Good grief.

So why wouldn't they move? Is it just so much easier to put them on welfare? I wonder what the hundreds of thousands who moved west in covered wagons at great risk would think of our country now. Good grief.

That's rather cynical, and snarky, and not very practical today to just venture to the unknown, and live off the land and campout until you get a job, but here's what I mean as far as MODERN challenges,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-million-open-jobs-in-us-but-whos-qualified/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/us-manufacturers-skilled-workers-job-openings_n_1007902.html

These are old articles to highlight that companies have known of the skills gap a long time now, a decade almost so what have they done about it. NOTHING though that's been changing SLOWLY. Seems like those high paid CEO's would have it figured out by now.

http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/827DBC76533942679A15EF7067A704CD.ashx

not very practical today to just venture to the unknown, and live off the land and campout until you get a job

Like I said. Don't expect people to take care of themselves. Just put them on welfare. We have become a nation of pygmies. Low expectations and therefore low results.

And you still haven't answered the question.

It's not my problem whether you accept my answer as adequate or not. I have presented my case and it is what it is. I think the real issue is not conflating welfare with a minimum wage as they are two different things. I understand your peeve with welfare, but also think a MW from decades ago feeds the need for more welfare, and raising it gets people off it, or at least not so dependent.

Now how businesses react to this change is key, as they are keen to pass costs on to consumers anyway. Anyone making $7 bucks an hour has to be on welfare. No choice.

My question is why do YOU think that it's okay to subsidize the wages of people working for companies that make billions, or millions, that already get tax breaks and deductions to help their profits?

My question is why do YOU think that it's okay to subsidize the wages of people working for companies that make billions, or millions, that already get tax breaks and deductions to help their profits?

Ah! A question. Here is how questions are to be answered.

1. Allowing people to keep their own money hardly qualifies as a subsidy. That is not what "subsidy" means.
2. The top 5% of wager earners already pay about 60% of federal income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners essentially pay nothing. Only in the mind of a liberal does that qualify as a subsidy to the wealthy.
3. So you cannot say I am OK with a subsidy that, in fact, only exists in the fantasies of liberal politicians.


It's not my problem whether you accept my answer as adequate or not.


Nope. You can't get off with that garbage. I could not accept your answer because you didn't bother to say why we wouldn't raise the minimum wage to 30 an hour if, as you said, 15 was such a great idea. You never bothered to give an answer that I, or anyone else, could have considered.

Now I'll answer the question I asked you, since you seem unwilling to do so. We don't propose a 30 dollar minimum wage for the simple reason that it would be a bad idea, much like 15 dollars is a bad idea. Increasing the minimum wage does not increase the supply of money. It will not increase tax revenues. It will increase prices and cause a number of people to lose their jobs simply because some employers will be unable, or unwilling, to nearly double wages.

But I can see something in your idea of a 15 dollar minimum wage being tied to ending welfare payments. If there could be some exceptions made, such as teenagers wanting a summer or part-time job, or young adults trying to get started in the job market but not having job skills worth 15 dollars an hour, then it would be worth talking about. So question: What do you think about that proposal?

You make proposals, then you should defend them. You seem unwilling to do that when the going gets tough. That's unfortunate.

Had I known of your inability to grasp simple macro economics I would not have answered you at all. So, sorry about that. Let me try this, the chances of a raise in the federal minimum wage is almost nil but states are doing it despite that.

https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

Any questions just ask.

Had I known of your inability to grasp simple macro economics I would not have answered you at all. So, sorry about that. Let me try this, the chances of a raise in the federal minimum wage is almost nil but states are doing it despite that.

You basically did not answer at all. I have found that when people run out of ideas, then they become offensive, start throwing around terms like "macroeconomics" (which is one word, not two), and put links to websites in an attempt to look like they have answers. You had a chance to answer a simple question. You passed on it, which makes it appear you have no answer. Oh well. Not trying to be offensive to you. I love to discuss these things, but I don't want to just argue. It's useless.

You love to argue, you are not interested in welfare, minimum wage or anything else. I know Tal has a voice for the leftist view even if the solutions offered aren't sound, but you look for the put down rather than the answer. You say you can't get answers, but you don't accept the views offered. Maybe Tal doesn't have the answer to all problems, but the answer is actually found in consensus. You think macro economics is a term people throw around. It refers to the big picture, something you don't see. Minimum wage is a mechanism which prevents labour exploitation to some extent and should be embraced by a fair society

I'm not trying to put down anyone, but I am trying to get people to think about what they say. That's why I like to ask questions, to get people to think. For instance, a fifteen dollar minimum wage would indeed help some people, but would hurt many others since it would mean their jobs would cease to exist. That might not bother you, but it bothers me. Tal stated a position, and I questioned him about it. It's simply an honest exchange of ideas. I would encourage people to thoughtfully make their arguments for their ideas without getting mad about it. You will have to decide if you like that level of honesty. This stuff does not generally make me angry, but it does make me think, and I like that. I learn a lot from these discussions, and I enjoy seeing other points of view, including yours, even if I don't agree with them. Now does it aggravate me when someone will not answer a simple question? Yeah, I guess it does, so that's on me. I try to do things in a way that reflects well on Christ, but I do fall short more than I care to admit. But I actually hate arguing just for the sake of arguing. It's pointless.

I might add that anytime Tal thinks I'm getting too pushy, if he will say so, then I'll dial it back, or just abandon this thread. I'm not out to cause problems. He handles himself quite well, so I have stayed in this, but it's not a big deal. We know each other from the plumbing arena. He knows I respect him.

I'm not trying to put down anyone, but I am trying to get people to think about what they say. That's why I like to ask questions, to get people to think. For instance, a fifteen dollar minimum wage would indeed help some people, but would hurt many others since it would mean their jobs would cease to exist. That might not bother you, but it bothers me. Tal stated a position, and I questioned him about it. It's simply an honest exchange of ideas. I would encourage people to thoughtfully make their arguments for their ideas without getting mad about it. You will have to decide if you like that level of honesty. This stuff does not generally make me angry, but it does make me think, and I like that. I learn a lot from these discussions, and I enjoy seeing other points of view, including yours, even if I don't agree with them. Now does it aggravate me when someone will not answer a simple question? Yeah, I guess it does, so that's on me. I try to do things in a way that reflects well on Christ, but I do fall short more than I care to admit. But I actually hate arguing just for the sake of arguing. It's pointless.

I might add that anytime Tal thinks I'm getting too pushy, if he will say so, then I'll dial it back, or just abandon this thread. I'm not out to cause problems. He handles himself quite well, so I have stayed in this, but it's not a big deal. We know each other from the plumbing arena. He knows I respect him.

Where do you get these ideas from. If an employer can't pay $15 an hour they should get off their backside and do the work themselves. Anything less is exploitation and what I don't get is you defend that.

I'm generally conservative but I know what it is like to be underpaid so there should be realistic minimums and there should be help for those who need it as long as they can't exploit it

Where do you get these ideas from. If an employer can't pay $15 an hour they should get off their backside and do the work themselves. Anything less is exploitation and what I don't get is you defend that.

I get these ideas by listening a lot to debates about minimum wages. If, for instance, a fast food restaurant has to double its wages to get to 15, then it will have to raise prices considerably. Many people will choose not to buy food there because of the higher prices. Less business equals fewer employees. Some of the restaurants will go out of business due to a lack of profit. This is not my idea. It is a proven occurrence. Raising the MW decreases available low-skill, entry level jobs. Just so you'll know I'm not making this up, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-hidden-costs-of-raising-the-minimum-wage/article/2549492.

But I'll ask you the same question I asked Tal and he did not answer. If raising the minimum wage to 15 is a great idea, then why stop there? Why not 18, or 25, or even 30 dollars an hour? Why did you pick 15? You say anything less than that is exploitation. Based on what data?

I'm convinced the answer to the minimum wage question is simple. As people get more experience, they become a more valuable employee and begin to move up the wage ladder. That's why only about 5% of hourly employees in the U.S. make minimum wage, and many of them are restaurant servers that make tips which, when added to their wage, would move them above minimum wage. Also, most people do not make minimum wage for more than a few years, at which point their skill level justifies a higher wage. But raising the MW will keep teens from getting summer jobs, and prevent unskilled adults from getting a first, full-time job. You will be hurting the very people you are trying to help.

I would think a logical compromise would be to grant a separate minimum wage ($6.00??) to teens looking for summer jobs, or for unskilled adults looking for a first job. Then the current minimum wage of 7.65 could go to 9 or 10, or whatever would seem right.

There is another side to this. If I am an unskilled, high school dropout, and I'm looking for a job, I might be quite willing to work for, let's say, 8 dollars an hour. But you and Tal have mandated that I not have the liberty to do that. The employer tells me that my lack of skills keeps me out of a 15 dollar an hour job. So even though I am willing to exercise my freedom to work for 8, you refuse to let me do so, and so I end up with no job. I might be convinced that working two jobs for 8 is what is best for me at this point in my life, and as I gain experience and skill, then I'll make more in the future. You rob that person of that option. It is misplaced philanthropy.

So I read you are in favour of exploitation to produce profit, these guys could do with fewer staff and not be quite so fast. Do you hear yourself, a $15, an hour job is a skilled job! Where do you live, Russia, China? I say we get rid of the inefficiencies and the job will be more valuable. It is not hurting people to pay them more and stop exploiting them. You still have a slave economy mentality

So I read you are in favour of exploitation to produce profit

You still have a slave economy mentality

As is common on this thread, you don't want to answer a simple question or rationally defend your positions, all of which makes it appear that you have no answers. Making baseless accusations is not engaging in thought.

Rather than everyone just getting angry, I'm going to call it quits. I've made my points. People can accept them or reject them. Just make sure your position is well thought out. I'm very comfortable with where I am on this. It's a shame we can't have a simple, non-angry discussion, but it is what it is. Best wishes!

Its all good peeps. I can't say I don't like the argument thing myself and we have done a lot of it here over the years. It can get pretty wild. Yet we keep coming back don't we? I'm rather use to disagreements myself, we all have a different point of view, and consensus generally takes a lot of arguing. I don't know any better way to make a point than with facts we agree on, or NOT, as some reject reality and dismiss it as right/left talking points very easily.

JL I think you side tracked yourself a bit trying to understand where the consensus of 15 bucks as a floor for wages comes from. I think if you consider how the founders came up with the constitution you would see they too argued with the words and conditions of the day. Tom reminds me all the time that they couldn't do away with slavery back then, too many opposed making ALL men equal. They had to come up with a consensus just to get the darned thing ratified, and that's the way it's worked ever since. Consensus in increment to address whatever the problem was. Sometimes the ONLY solution is a compromise between to opposite ideas. So why not 20, or 80 bucks for a MW? Simple, we cannot get there anytime soon so a smaller step has to be taken. Heck guy we are struggling with $15, and that's at the state level. The Fed has made no changes to the MW and not planning to as far as I know.

Some states can afford it, some cannot, and yes maybe states will lose some jobs, but some states will gain. Even the ones who have moved to $15 bucks have done so in INCREMENTS over YEARS. It's a process of adjustment, both for people and commerce. Some will grow faster than others and some will disappear from the heights of their hay days. It's complex. So in my opinion, nobody is taking YOUR money and giving it to someone you deem unworthy. Easy for me to blast that notion as right wing lunacy, but I get the concept of working hard and keeping what you work hard for. I really do, but not all people can wait for someone to deem them worthy of their charity and help voluntarily. That's why we have taxes, and just my opinion again, too many cheat to keep the money they supposedly make.

When they took the chains off the slaves, they had a better way to make us all slaves and had no need to use the chains because we can volunteer our services for wages. WAGE SLAVERY is something you should check out from the other thread. Another piece to the bigger puzzle. We aren't going to change each others minds, but we can get some consensus to move forward can't we. If all you got are baby steps, that's cool too.

In case you haven't noticed even without a rise in the MW, the cost of living have gone up dramatically. $6 bucks for summer help is out of the box for sure. Consider what Big Biz has done with their deficit funded tax cuts and the legions of part time workers who have no benefits and tell me why they don't deserve a living wage. Your math may work in rural Ole Miss, but not in the big city where the rents are already through the roof.

In case you haven't noticed even without a rise in the MW, the cost of living have gone up dramatically. $6 bucks for summer help is out of the box for sure. Consider what Big Biz has done with their deficit funded tax cuts and the legions of part time workers who have no benefits and tell me why they don't deserve a living wage. Your math may work in rural Ole Miss, but not in the big city where the rents are already through the roof.

Nice response. This is like a moth to a candle. I just can't stay out of it!

My first real job was bagging groceries at the local navy base. We were paid... nothing. We made it off tips. The next two summers I worked at a local gas station, 60 hours a week for a buck an hour. Minimum wage was 1.65, but I somehow ended up with just a buck. No time and a half for overtime. A buck an hour. Still, it was great. It kept me out of trouble. It taught me to come to work on time. It gave me some confidence. If some well meaning liberal had come along and said that my boss had to pay me 2 dollars instead of just 1, then I would not have had a job. That's why teens working summer or part time jobs need to get a level below minimum wage. If they can't get that, then they will not, in many cases, have a job. And after all, they are not concerned with paying rent, buying groceries, and so forth. They just need some date money, gas money, etc. The main thing is, learning how to work.

The same is true of young adults who didn't graduate from high school, got a GED, might have a criminal record, or whatever, and might need two or three years of just having a chance to prove themselves. That should be their call, and not yours. They are at-risk employees. They need an edge to get started. This is the big problem I have with your position (besides not being able to explain that if 15 is wonderful, then why isn't 30 DOUBLE wonderful). You are not living in the real world of employment.

The best solution is a healthy economy. When you have that, then the person who is willing to work hard, keep his/her mouth shut, and learns everything he/she can will not make mw for long. That's the way up, and that's where you and I differ. You spend so much time weeping and referring to such silliness as wage slavery. If a person wants to make it, then he/she can. Easy? No, but they can do it. I know that is true because I have seen it countless times.

There is no such thing as "rural Ole Miss". If you want to be offensive, at least be intelligently offensive. And please let poor ole Paraclete know that I say that jokingly.

You know as well as I do the economy goes up and down depending on condition beyond the control of most of us citizens. Never has it gone south because of poor people. It's always the rich guys who screw things up, and the rest of us pay for it.

Welfare ain't no fun. The plant I retired from no longer exists.

One more story. When I was in college, I worked summers and some weekends for a local moving company. Tough, hard work, and I loved it. Made two bucks an hour. One of our employees was a guy named Raz Finley. Raz was hard working and became very competent. He was a kind of asst. manager by the time I left. He was a black man. I mention that because this was the 70's, and the hill was higher to climb for him. Several years after I left, the owner decided to retire. He was far removed from being a liberal democrat, but he knew talent when he saw it. He sold the company to Raz, and for many years "Finley Moving and Storage" was written on the sign. He did all of that with no help from weeping liberals. He worked hard and worked smart, during good times and bad times. He made it big after starting small. So I think the many Raz Finleys in this world trump your sad story about rich guys messing things up. They do mess things up, and if what they do is illegal, then they should be prosecuted. But this is still the land of opportunity.

I can actually sympathize with some adjustment to the minimum wage. I think 15 is too high, but I could be persuaded towards raising it so long as some reasonable allowances are made for teens and people just entering the workforce.

Actually it only goes to $10 bucks most places with further raises a few years down the road by the states that passed it. The MW applies to everybody kids included. By the way the cost of living went up 2.9% the last quarter, and wages increased 2.7% in the same span. COL being prices of goods and services. I've often wondered how prices go up faster than wages and often when wages have not gone up.

Where did you get your data? The consumer price index has gone up less than two percent so far for the first six months of the year. Am I missing something?

49026

As is common on this thread, you don't want to answer a simple question or rationally defend your positions, all of which makes it appear that you have no answers. Making baseless accusations is not engaging in thought.

Rather than everyone just getting angry, I'm going to call it quits. I've made my points. People can accept them or reject them. Just make sure your position is well thought out. I'm very comfortable with where I am on this. It's a shame we can't have a simple, non-angry discussion, but it is what it is. Best wishes!

You just don't like the truth as to calling it quits, is this another of your false flag threats

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

CPI for all items rises 0.2% in July as shelter index rises (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm)
08/10/2018 In July, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 0.2 percent seasonally adjusted; rising 2.9 percent over the last 12 months, not seasonally adjusted. The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.2 percent in July (SA); up 2.4 percent over the year (NSA).

Consumer prices up 2.9 percent over 12 months ended June 2018 (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/consumer-prices-up-2-point-9-percent-over-12-months-ended-june-2018.htm)

From June 2017 to June 2018, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 2.9 percent, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending February 2012. Over that period, energy prices rose 12.0 percent, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending February 2017. read more » (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/consumer-prices-up-2-point-9-percent-over-12-months-ended-june-2018.htm)https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/purchasing-power-using-wage-statistics-with-regional-price-parities-to-create-a-standard-for-comparing-wages-across-us-areas.htm

Redo your math.

By the way the cost of living went up 2.9% the last quarter,


rising 2.9 percent over the last 12 months,

Slight discrepancy in the time frame. A quarter is 3 months, not 12. Happily, there is no need to redo my math.

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

CPI for all items rises 0.2% in July as shelter index rises (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm)


08/10/2018 In July, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 0.2 percent seasonally adjusted; rising 2.9 percent over the last 12 months, not seasonally adjusted. The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.2 percent in July (SA); up 2.4 percent over the year (NSA).


Consumer prices up 2.9 percent over 12 months ended June 2018 (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/consumer-prices-up-2-point-9-percent-over-12-months-ended-june-2018.htm)


From June 2017 to June 2018, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 2.9 percent, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending February 2012. Over that period, energy prices rose 12.0 percent, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending February 2017. read more » (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/consumer-prices-up-2-point-9-percent-over-12-months-ended-june-2018.htm)https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/purchasing-power-using-wage-statistics-with-regional-price-parities-to-create-a-standard-for-comparing-wages-across-us-areas.htm

Redo your math.






What are you trying to prove? Trump is inflationary, I think that is obvious

Not trying to prove anything. Just saw a mistake in the time frame. 2.9% over the course of a year is very ordinary. 2.9 over a quarter would be very troubling.

What are you trying to prove? Trump is inflationary, I think that is obvious

So do I.

Not trying to prove anything. Just saw a mistake in the time frame. 2.9% over the course of a year is very ordinary. 2.9 over a quarter would be very troubling.

Yes it would but I ask you to redo your math because if the trend continues your paycheck, buying power shrinks, despite what you get on your 2019 taxes. Extrapolate that .1, 2 per month, over the next year and you will see you are falling steadily behind, and some adjustment either in increased revenue streams or reduction in personal debt is indicated, as an individual as opposed to a society. So the red flag is unless your wages keep pace with inflation you're screwed if you have any big plans to spend next year.

Did I say if the trend continues? I see no abatement at this time, do you? I have been saying the price of living will go up for sometime now, so I hope you are in that 6% that can weather this inflationary period.

I will not redo my math. It was correct to begin with. Your stat was what needed a redo.

Look, 2.9% inflation is less than the historic average, so for you to bring up the subject of inflation and Trump is grasping for straws. Inflation is common to practically all presidents, including the last one. At least the economy is growing, as opposed to what we experienced for the previous eight years.

But back to the minimum wage. You were correct when you wrote that most of the areas that hiked the mw to 15 did so incrementally, so it is around 10 now and will get up to 15 in next few years. That is so typical of politicians. They want to go around crowing about raising the minimum wage, but put off actually getting to 15 for several years. That way, if the whole thing backfires, it will be someone else's problem. Dems and repubs are all the same in that regard. I would ask them why, if 15 is such a great idea, did they not do it right away?

49027

Must be marvellous to never be wrong

You won't get off with the normal partisan closed mindedness, because we both know that inflation is but a part of the equation and logic should tell you that when inflation grows faster than wages and prices follow, then somebody is losing money. Using your own chart even the most closed minded can see that under conservative repub presidents inflation grows, why, typically tax cuts and rising prices and it would interest you how they dealt with those recessionary forces. Nixon froze prices as he ended the Vietnam war, Reagan cut taxes but raised them when he needed to modestly throughout his years which led to his third term heir BushI to get rejected by repubs and the first thing Clinton did was raise taxes to stave of the recession, and balanced the budget to boot.

Then comes BushII tax cuts and off the books 2 wars, and deficits and the global meltdown, which Obama overcame with a huge bail out with interests, and a modest jobs program, while allowing the Bush tax cut to the rich to expire. Of course you conservatives screamed and hollered as he rescued the freakin' world from rich guys screw ups, and balked at taxing rich guys by a literal nickel tax increase to spur domestic jobs with a low interest deficit neutral infrastructure bill.

So while you held your nose and voted for a guy who is known for bankruptcy, scandals, and weird antics, who inherited a solid economy, you don't get to holler how smart you conservatives are and how dumb liberals are, because history has already shown we have saved your bacon over and over and cleaned up conservative republicans messes.

Keep holding your nose as the stench is very likely to get worse. Save a few bucks for a mask, and ignore my suggestion at your own peril. Keep obsessing over that silly MW argument that peeves you so much, because if you cannot dig deeper into your own data, then I doubt if I could tell you anything that passes as something you can understand. Too bad your own inflexibility has blinded you to the obvious.

I can lead you to water Hoss, but I can't force you to drink it. I ain't got time for that! We both can sit and watch the Dufus deal with his own man made recessionary antics and blast him and his sycophants for it.

You can blame it on the liberals as usual, who cares?

Typical political speech. Liberals are wonderful, and conservatives are terrible. Conservatives, of course, say it the other way around. Obama put us a further 10 tril in debt, gave us a tepid, struggling economy with very little wage growth, and ran an administration strewn with scandal. Liberals, of course, will choose to ignore all of that. Is Trump a shining example of good character? Not even close, but your alternative, HC, was just as bad if not worse, yet you don't mention that. It's all about politics. I could be talked into voting for someone else, but who? Sanders? Warren? Biden? A collective group of incompetent losers. So, for now, I'll appreciate the economic growth and relatively low inflation, be thankful for judicial appointments who believe in the rule of law, admire what Mr. Trump has managed to accomplish in foreign relations, and yes, hold my nose for his many occasions of running his mouth. And also be gloriously happy that HC is not the president.

As for inflation and presidents, you have neglected to mention the most recent inflation king: Jimmy Carter, a democrat!

I didn't have to hold my nose to vote for a female that's been attacked by the right wing loony noise machine for many decades and that includes that BS Benghazi investigation the loons put on her. Two years and NOTHING!

You keep holding your nose and soon the rest of us may have to, or is that all it takes to abandon your morals.

More of the typical political speech. If you think Benghazi was nothing, then I don't know what to tell you. 4 people dead while Obama and Clinton did nothing. Clinton did nothing for the months leading up to it when they were practically begging for help. Then they both lied like dogs about it, trying to say it was a spontaneous event when they knew that was not true. But the truth would have been inconvenient for Obama's reelection chances, so they lied, lied, and then lied some more. Cold, calculated, wicked lying. Might be BS to you, but it wasn't to the family members of those who died.

This is just typical political nonsense. Obama was wonderful. Clinton was wonderful. Trump is a lying dufus. Truth is, they are all cut from the same bolt of cloth. You are so in love with Obama you don't want to admit it, but it is true.

I have three priorities: 1. Foster a healthy economy. 2. Appoint judges who don't legislate from the bench. 3. Eliminate deficit spending. He is 2 for 3 so far. Obama was 0 for 3, so I'm sticking with Trump for now. But if the repubs don't get spending under control and whack the budget deficit, then I'll be looking for a third party. For unlike you sometimes seem to be, I don't regard the president as being practically my best, best friend. He is an employee of the American people and nothing more. If he can't get the job done, then he can move on and we'll replace him.

All quiet on the western front.

Hello JL. In no way do I trivialize the loss of life at Benghazi. It's just I question your facts and SPIN. I mean is it not the facts that it was investigated by the congress and those facts and recommendations part of the public record? I could call the GOP House hearings partisan witch hunts, but the more important fact is they yielded nothing new. Did anybody jump on Bush after 911? No, as a nation we came together to heal recover and get the perpetrators. Benghazi was but another investigation and partisan smear job you righties jumped on, no difference that any other the right wing has used for decades.

So NO, I don't trivialize any loss of life. But you wingers in the GOP, should be held accountable for politicizing the loss of life, and the more disgusting act of justifying holding your nose and giving us the DUFUS just for your political agenda. That you were willing to "hold your nose " speaks volumes of that agenda. The good news though, The Dufus in the White House not only exposes that agenda, and shows how low you would go to further it, but the best thing is we have been spared more intense loony attacks had Hillary won. If the fear of Clinton had your head exploding for decades, imagine the spectacle of running in circles hollering the end of the world if she was in the WH. Yeah, we had a preview of that noise with Obama.

Actually since you guys have crawled from under the rock and have the spotlight, I think we all can examine the FACTS and debate how we want to move forward. I'm more convinced than ever that your agenda is nothing but a ruse to mainstream bad racist behavior and foist YOUR holier than thou agendas on the rest of us. I think my theory that you are the true minority with that kind of thinking and governance will again move to the more inclusive value that all men were created equal... be they slave or MASSA, burger flipper or CEO. Left leaning bleeding heart or right wing loony.

My only hope for you my friend is you stop being a sycophant for a morally corrupt human being. At least acknowledge that Obama came in during a raging fire that threatened the world, and put it out... and started the rebuilding process.

I was remembering this morning how many of us were ready to get up the morning after the election and say to the republican party, "This is what happens when you nominate a poor candidate." Now as it turns out, Mr. Trump won. So instead I say it to the democrats. "This is what happens when you nominate a poor candidate." She never accomplished anything worth mentioning and was as scandal plagued as Mr. Obama was.

I'm fine with people criticizing our president. I do it myself. What bothers me is that most dems are not equal opportunity criticizers. Anything a person wants to condemn Trump about is equally true of Obama and even more so with HC. After all, it was her ineptitude that cost people's lives. But you have a right to your opinion. We simply don't agree.

My ambition in life is to tell others about the saving power of Jesus Christ. Truth is, our nation is rotting from the inside out. We need look no further than ourselves to see where most of our problems reside.

The Dems appear to be doubling down on wacky .
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/dsa-socialism-candidates-midterms.html


Bold prediction . Since the Manafort trial was about tax evasion even though throughout the years the IRS never went after him... exoneration ….maybe even jury nullification .

That's what SHOULD happen.


Bold prediction . Since the Manafort trial was about tax evasion even though throughout the years the IRS never went after him... exoneration ….maybe even jury nullification .

My ambition in life is to tell others about the saving power of Jesus Christ. .

Good luck with that objective. You won't get it done on a website like this

You know you're LOONY when you think a Russian double agent should go free when it's well documented that he evaded paying taxes by filing false documents to defraud the government and US banks while working for The Dufus, and his partner in crime admits it.

You know you're LOONY when you make the bad guys some misunderstood heroes, and want him free.

I guess you'll have to defend Dufus Jr. too, pretty soon. Hope your noses don't fall off your faces from pinching them to hard. Or maybe that's why Trump sycophants sound so funny because they have to breathe through their mouths all the time.

A Russian double agent. That's funny. I've read that no other place than in your post. But, as I've said, you have a right to your ideas.

I must admit it was pretty bad when Trump told the Russian president that he would have more "flexibility" once the election was over. Boy was that ever a statement laden with the possibilities of collusion. No.. Wait. That was Obama, wasn't it? Was it just an oversight that you have not mentioned it?










Good luck with that objective. You won't get it done on a website like this.

Actually, Paraclete, I hope I just did. I see no hope outside the message of Christ.

I'd still love to know how you got Paraclete as a name for this site. I imagine you know the Greek origin of the word.

You know, Tal, that we have to continue this. There is so little traffic on the plumbing area. Have you noticed how it's died down the past couple of years?

What ever happened to Speedball? I really liked him. A little gruff, but a wise old cat.

Just listened to a public service commercial by a bunch of rich Hollywoodites. They want us to sign a petition asking the feds to increase foreign aid. They close by saying, "We're not asking for your money. We're asking for your voice." What?? Do they really think we are that stupid? Where does the money for the federal foreign aid come from?? A money tree?

What ever happened to Speedball? I really liked him. A little gruff, but a wise old cat.

Sadly he succumbed to his illness. We've lost a few good people over the years.

A Russian double agent. That's funny. I've read that no other place than in your post. But, as I've said, you have a right to your ideas.











What would you call an American who works for the Russian government.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/27/paul-manafort-mueller-russia-oleg-deripaska-680630

That's what his NEXT trial is about. Thought you knew.

I'd still love to know how you got Paraclete as a name for this site. I imagine you know the Greek origin of the word.

Yes I do know the meaning of the word, one who comes along side and helps or a counselor. I also am aware of the biblical use of the term. You might note I don't capitalise the name


Where does the money for the federal foreign aid come from?? A money tree?

Yes that is where the libs think it comes from, it grows in Washington.. But don't worry even if the feds increase foreign aid there is not much chance that any of the money would actually get out of the country

I know Oleg Deripaska ! Christopher Steele was working on the dossier at the same time he was lobbying Bruce Ohr on behalf of Deripaska over his visa status !! It's amazing how the same cast of characters keep on popping up in this charade .Steele repeatedly advocated for Deripaska at the time (early 2016) .Steele completed the dossier the end of June 2016 .Ohr's wife Nellie was the point person at Fusion GPS working with Steele on the dossier . Bruce Ohr's involvement in the investigation of Trump and Manafort was a conflict of interest .


As far as this Manafort trial is concerned ;the jury needs to come to a decision if Manafort directed the bank fraud committed by Rick Gates or was that Gates own doing ? Interesting to note that although an IRS agent testified that Manafort hid $16 million from the IRS, not once did the IRS target him in the decade involved . I don't believe there was any audit brought up in testimony .

Yes that is where the libs think it comes from, it grows in Washington.. But don't worry even if the feds increase foreign aid there is not much chance that any of the money would actually get out of the country

And much of that which does get out ends up in the pockets of corrupt government officials. We'd probably be shocked to see how little of the money actually gets to the poor souls it is intended to help. Sad deal.

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



These Gini values (40.8 in 2007) show the United States to be the third most dis-equitable economy of all the developed nations (behind Denmark and Switzerland).

There is little left after the rich guys take their cut, leaving the rest of us to fight each other for the crumbs.

And how do the rich guys go about "taking their cut"? How do they "take" it?

Find a duly elected politician, donate big bucks, or donate big bucks to his campaign, and get favorable legislation passed, a regulation changed that's favorable, or a multimillion dollar tax cut on top of favored loopholes, and before you know it he has a huge write-off he turns to CASH. Like a discount at the checkout line. Remember he pays no payroll tax that he redeems later so his money is already in his pocket. Let me ask what was the first thing a rich guy or corporation do with his tax cut? Easy, buy back stocks, split his money with his board, sure sending bonus sounds good to 3 million workers, contingent on his own accounting, but in actual money to a select few, doesn't compare to a raise in wages. Simply do the math.

As an example, Walmart's ONE TIME bonus of $1000 dollars went to workers with 20 years experience, the rest get less or laid off or both.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/12/walmarts-bonuses-heres-what-workers-will-receive.html



In total, Walmart will spend $400 million in fiscal 2018 to fund one-time bonuses.
Some workers will receive $1,000, but only if they've served at the company for at least 20 years.
The announcement came on the heels of new tax legislation.
Walmart also revealed it would be shuttering dozens of its warehouse club stores across the country.

You can read the rest which includes a break down of how much each worker will get according to service, This is but one example, a newer one. You can look up many others yourself, and go back as far as Romneys Bain capital business model, That factory in Indiana that The Dufus saved by giving them a tax BREAK to stay, but the moved anyway (Yeah Pence was the Governor), or those shuttered plants in the rust belt that went overseas, yep they reaped a tax break from that too.

Haven't heard a word about that pipeline The Dufus promised would be made with American steel either have you? Better check THAT out, while you are holding your nose. The FACTS are out there and it comes down to whether you believe THEM, or a lying, cheating, DUFUS.

Your choice!

In the meantime, the top 5% of taxpayers continue to pay about 60% of all federal income tax. Wow. They don't seem to be getting much for all this influence you say they are buying.

And again, when you talk about a lying, cheating dufus, I don't know if you mean HC or Obama. You need to be more specific. For, you see, therein lies the problem. You had no problem being lied to by liberal democrats, who are also funded by the big money people.

Sadly he succumbed to his illness. We've lost a few good people over the years.





I was afraid of that. Sad. He was entertaining. I enjoyed reading his responses more than anyone else's. Make a mistake, and he'd let you know about it!

In the meantime, the top 5% of taxpayers continue to pay about 60% of all federal income tax. Wow. They don't seem to be getting much for all this influence you say they are buying.

And again, when you talk about a lying, cheating dufus, I don't know if you mean HC or Obama. You need to be more specific. For, you see, therein lies the problem. You had no problem being lied to by liberal democrats, who are also funded by the big money people.

What you are really saying is the wealthy own the country, pay for the services and consider they are entitled to something for their money. Reviewing the facts I would say they are getting a poor deal, and it was worse under BO and the Demorats. There were screams when these taxpayers were given some sort of break and the unfair impost of health insurance was removed. So what I can't work out is the Demorats are funded by the people with the money and their policies are "generous" to the less wealthy, how come they lost the election? Oh, I remember the HC scream, it was stolen because the system worked against the anointed candidate

In the meantime, the top 5% of taxpayers continue to pay about 60% of all federal income tax. Wow. They don't seem to be getting much for all this influence you say they are buying.

And again, when you talk about a lying, cheating dufus, I don't know if you mean HC or Obama. You need to be more specific. For, you see, therein lies the problem. You had no problem being lied to by liberal democrats, who are also funded by the big money people.

Sure the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes but they OWN 90% of the wealth. That's what you consider while you defend them after you have done the math.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/?utm_term=.fba18f195292

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

What you are really saying is the wealthy own the country, pay for the services and consider they are entitled to something for their money. Reviewing the facts I would say they are getting a poor deal, and it was worse under BO and the Demorats. There were screams when these taxpayers were given some sort of break and the unfair impost of health insurance was removed. So what I can't work out is the Demorats are funded by the people with the money and their policies are "generous" to the less wealthy, how come they lost the election? Oh, I remember the HC scream, it was stolen because the system worked against the anointed candidate

Naw the Dufus won by winning the electoral college because he won the rust belt states by 80,000 votes. Hey he won, duly and legally, and I'll admit nobody thought a lying, cheating wacko dufus would win, but its water under the bridge now, but you must forgive the left for not bowing down to The Dufus, just as the loony right wingers and repubs didn't bow down to Obama.

Yes the wealthy own the country, but they don't pay for services, taxpayers do, so consider that when you review the facts and I hope I gave you some clarity. Less than 4 months until the next election.

Naw the Dufus won by winning the electoral college because he won the rust belt states by 80,000 votes. Hey he won, duly and legally, and I'll admit nobody thought a lying, cheating wacko dufus would win, but its water under the bridge now, but you must forgive the left for not bowing down to The Dufus, just as the loony right wingers and repubs didn't bow down to Obama.

Yes the wealthy own the country, but they don't pay for services, taxpayers do, so consider that when you review the facts and I hope I gave you some clarity. Less than 4 months until the next election.

I thought we just established the wealthy pay the taxes, that makes them taxpayers, confusion there. I'm not interested in who bows to who, tug the forelock and get on with it. There is no reason to forgive, I wouldn't want him either, but then I would want a system that works, and selects competent people

Sure the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes but they OWN 90% of the wealth.

I must be missing something. This is the chart from the wikipedia article. As you can see, the top 5% own about 60% of the wealth, not 90%.

49029


I'll admit nobody thought a lying, cheating wacko dufus would win

They were right. She didn't win!

Everybody is a taxpayer, but is it equitable if the 5% who own 90% of the wealth should only pay 60% of the taxes? Why would they balk at paying 90%?

Why are 95% of the people fighting for a share of the 10% that the wealthy don't own? Just asking.


I must be missing something. This is the chart from the wikipedia article. As you can see, the top 5% own about 60% of the wealth, not 90%.

49028



They were right. She didn't win!

They attachment didn't work so a link and copy and paste will do, and humor aside any reference about The Dufus that I make is about the current president... just so you will know who I'm talking about.

Why are 95% of the people fighting for a share of the 10% that the wealthy don't own? Just asking.

Because they are deluded into thinking it is a free country and they can get their share. The point really is; if the wealthy don't own it, the government does, and therefore they can never get their share. It is bread and circuses all over again. Welfare is the bread and the Circus runs permanently in Washington. You should be aware that the government is run by one of the 1% who own the wealth and no way do you get a share

Look at it again, Tal. I think the chart works now. As you can see, your 90% figure is not correct unless I'm not reading something right.

Clete, this country is filled with stories of men/women who started with nothing and ended up worth millions. In my own state a guy named Hartley Peavey started building guitar amps in his father's basement back in the 60's. He is the founder/owner of Peavey Electronics, one of the leaders in the music equipment industry. This is still the land of opportunity for those who work hard, work smart, and don't waste their time listening to people who tell them it can't be done. For that matter, the Obamas and the Clintons are all examples of people who started with modest means and made it big, as is Dr. Ben Carson. Most millionaires in America did not inherit their money, they worked for it. This is most definitely still a free country. Not as free as it could be if we would stop robbing people in excessive taxes, but still free. Our biggest problem is that we don't appreciate what we have. We don't value and treasure it.


humor aside any reference about The Dufus that I make is about the current president... just so you will know who I'm talking about.

I know. That was my lame attempt at humor. But I just hope you know that it could truthfully refer to Obama or HC just as easily as Trump, and I'm pretty sure you never referred to either of them that way. It's the old double standard.

Look at it again, Tal. I think the chart works now. As you can see, your 90% figure is not correct unless I'm not reading something right.

Clete, this country is filled with stories of men/women who started with nothing and ended up worth millions. In my own state a guy named Hartley Peavey started building guitar amps in his father's basement back in the 60's. He is the founder/owner of Peavey Electronics, one of the leaders in the music equipment industry. This is still the land of opportunity for those who work hard, work smart, and don't waste their time listening to people who tell them it can't be done. For that matter, the Obamas and the Clintons are all examples of people who started with modest means and made it big, as is Dr. Ben Carson. Most millionaires in America did not inherit their money, they worked for it. This is most definitely still a free country. Not as free as it could be if we would stop robbing people in excessive taxes, but still free. Our biggest problem is that we don't appreciate what we have. We don't value and treasure it.



I know. That was my lame attempt at humor. But I just hope you know that it could truthfully refer to Obama or HC just as easily as Trump, and I'm pretty sure you never referred to either of them that way. It's the old double standard.

My bad, I did a very poor job being clear and showing the wealth gap had grown when I used that WPA link*



by net worth (2007).[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Wolff2010-12)
The net wealth of many people in the lowest 20% is negative because of debt.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Wolff2010-12)
By 2014 the wealth gap deepened.


*Interactive chart at the beginning of quote left off, but here it is.

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

Yes my blasting of Trump is deeply partisan... as is yours. Nature of the political beast. Your guy is in office so gets BLASTED.

Yes my blasting of Trump is deeply partisan... as is yours. Nature of the political beast. Your guy is in office so gets BLASTED.





Why wouldn't we abandon partisanship and simply stick to the issues and the truth?

Which issue would that be?

Why wouldn't we abandon partisanship and simply stick to the issues and the truth?

We have been, I thought. It's hard to separate strong feelings from facts though for anyone, no matter their political leanings.

Ah those perspectives

So the top 5% owning 90% of the wealth is not accurate, correct?




It's hard to separate strong feelings from facts though for anyone, no matter their political leanings.







Very true, but it's a challenge we really need to accept.

So the top 5% owning 90% of the wealth is not accurate, correct?

Very true, but it's a challenge we really need to accept.

The only way we are going to take it away from them is a revolution, followed by a devolution, and an execution. Are you up to the challenge, that is the question?

https://kurtnimmo.blog/2018/08/14/fear-and-loathing-in-the-land-of-political-retards/

The trend has been moving that way for years, and it was at 80% in 2016, before the tax cuts added 83% to the wealth of the richest, and created a trillion and a half dollars of DEBT. You call that a middle class tax cut? Okay, whatever. At least read the articles charts and graphs as I am still searching new numbers.

https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2018/4/15/on-the-distribution-of-wealth

https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/22910.html



...we find that increasing GDP growth rates alone cannot restore absolute mobility to the rates experienced by children born in the 1940s. In contrast, changing the distribution of growth across income groups to the more equal distribution experienced by the 1940 birth cohort would reverse more than 70% of the decline in mobility. These results imply that reviving the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility would require economic growth that is spread more broadly across the income distribution.

Now you can parse a few percentage points all you want, but the axiom the rich get richer and the poor get poorer holds regardless, and poverty in America may not be as bad as any place else on Earth, but why compare when poor is poor? Supply side economics creates wealth for the few, and makes poor from the many. Supply side economics makes hoarders of the few, and that's always been the failure of it... NO CIRCULATION. A consumer based economy depends on CIRCULATION, put simply people buying stuff in great quantity.

OK. I'm frustrated. This is your original statement. "Sure the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes but they OWN 90% of the wealth." I then posted a graph from your own article that showed the top 5% owned about 60%, not 90%. Now you post another graph which supposedly shows that your original statement was at least close to correct.The graph is of the top 10%, not the top 5%, and yet it still is not even close to 90%. That's why I don't trust what you post on this topic. You seem to just pull figures out of the air. And your own data on that same chart shows that the top 10% of wage earners earn about 47% of the income, yet we know that they pay 70% of the income taxes, meaning the bottom 90% pay only 30%. So your assertion that the wealthy don't pay their fair share, and somehow conspire to shift the tax burden down to the middle class, is shown to be incorrect. AND when did this trend of wealth accumulation continue? Much of it was under the administration of your Saint Obama and his tax increases on the wealthy. If you want to make the case that this trend of wealth accumulation is a bad one, then go for it. You want to argue in favor of tax reform? I'll be right there with you. Our tax code is awful, and it does favor those who hire accountants to try and find the tax deductions that can make a big difference. It should be simple. But make an appeal to the truth.

49033

Sorry to confuse you but it would help if you check the DATES of the links to give you a trend line of where things are going economically in this country. Seldom can you take one set of numbers without context, and draw a conclusion from them. That's why I have laid out a clear time line that supports my position. If you noticed the first graph was from BEFORE the recession in 2007 (I think I pointed that out.). So in 11 years and a recession the income has increased greatly among the rich, and remained flat (Or stagnant) for the rest of the population, which I have to qualify by terms of percent of population.

Clearly I'm making a case for the same kind of bailout that allowed the wealthy a quick recovery (AND the rest of the world) from the rich guys recession. Consider a true middle class tax cut targeted at the rest of us, instead of the rich, because my contention is that a consumer main street bailout would have more immediate results than rich guys who hoard their ever growing wealth. My theory has been in face of the RESULTS of years of data circulating more money through more people will stimulate the whole economy in a sustainable way and yes pay for itself, reduce the deficit and debt, and yes the rich guys would keep getting rich.

Giving a rich guy mo' money through deficit spending and a better carried interest rate is not my idea of a working man simply put.

I get your point, but how do you explain the continuing accumulation of wealth among the top 10% during the Obama years when he RAISED taxes on the wealthy? He did what you are advocating, and it plainly did not work.

Even if you increase tax revenue from the upper 5% by 50%, you still don't balance the budget. Spending is the problem, not tax revenues.

I have said nothing about raising rich guys taxes except the .05% specifically to fund an infrastructure bank for upgrades to roads and schools and the grid. Essentially a 10 year jobs program. That was blocked by repubs, Obama didn't raise taxes per se, he let the Bush tax cuts expire. This is a pretty good article that may help see a bigger pattern.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

As far as wealth accumulation, as the value of ASSETS brings it's own added revenues. Property, stocks, bonds, INVESTMENTS, foundations, trusts, LLC's and such yet yield huge revenue streams. Romneys and Bushes love overseas banks and they are not alone. Here's some good reading. Short and to the point

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3631669&page=1

Also read up on 501c3's tax shelters. You remember that blow up don't you?

Spending and debt is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you manage them both.

As is your custom, you did not answer the question. You have a habit of avoiding unpleasant data. Your favorite president, Mr. Obama, had every chance to implement policies to reverse the trend you are weeping about and, evidently, he did nothing.

As far as jobs programs go, I much prefer the one President Trump has started. It's called a healthy economy, something Mr. Obama never had. The private sector is doing it, as it should be. There are now more vacant jobs than unemployed Americans. It's fantastic. Give him credit.

I read through the abcnews article. All generalizations and conjecture. Not a single American named, at least not that I saw, other than pure conjecture.

As to Obama tax increases, read this.

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93




Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*


2011-2012
15%
15%
35%


2013+ (current law)
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%


2013+ (Obama budget)
23.8%
23.8%
43.4%

I remember 2013 very well when repubs heads exploded over implementation of the ACA. When they got the Dufus after years of promising to repeal it, they FAILED but did weaken it enough to allow insurers to bring back JUNK policies at cheap rates. The bad news is you won't know it's junk again until you use it.

The price of health care will rise a lot faster than before, so it's a good thing you middle classers got that hugest middle class tax cut in history from the Dufus. You will need that and more before he's done with you.

Was the ACA website the source for your data? As I remember they had a lot more pay fors contained within it. They also did away with the junk policies, pre existing conditions, and most health savings accounts.

This was my data source: https://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

"The price of health care will rise a lot faster than before.." More conjecture.

Thanks for the link and testimonials. What stops health care costs from rising since historically they ALWAYS have? How much, how fast, is the subject of debate.

Have you signed up for Medicare?

I have and bought the supplemental as well.

I remember 2013 very well when repubs heads exploded over implementation of the ACA. When they got the Dufus after years of promising to repeal it, they FAILED but did weaken it enough to allow insurers to bring back JUNK policies at cheap rates. The bad news is you won't know it's junk again until you use it.

The price of health care will rise a lot faster than before, so it's a good thing you middle classers got that hugest middle class tax cut in history from the Dufus. You will need that and more before he's done with you.

Was the ACA website the source for your data? As I remember they had a lot more pay fors contained within it. They also did away with the junk policies, pre existing conditions, and most health savings accounts.Obamacare was a disaster before it was ever forced down our throats. The Dims (Specifically Harry Reid) had to change the rules for a simple majority to force it through, they also did it from behind CLOSED doors without a single Republican present. NONE of them read it beforehand, and most still haven't. The only people that want it are the welfare class who aren't the ones paying their fair share of taxes now (a term they love so much). And demand stuff they expect someone else to pay for, (generally people who pay far more than their fair share in taxes). Odd that the people who demand free stuff are the same people who are LEAST likely to do anything for nothing. Don't have enough money, get a second job, Don't have six kids, and don't get everyone of them their own personal iPhones and unlimited data plans, etc, etc. I spent nearly a decade skrimping by to pay my college loans off, and my own insurance etc... so can everyone else. Since we aren't talking the severely handicapped people.. that means they are able bodied and fully capable of working. Can't find work where you are, then move to where the work is... I've done it more than once... so can they.

Obamacare was a disaster before it was ever forced down our throats. The Dims (Specifically Harry Reid) had to change the rules for a simple majority to force it through, they also did it from behind CLOSED doors without a single Republican present. NONE of them read it beforehand, and most still haven't. The only people that want it are the welfare class who aren't the ones paying their fair share of taxes now (a term they love so much). And demand stuff they expect someone else to pay for, (generally people who pay far more than their fair share in taxes). Odd that the people who demand free stuff are the same people who are LEAST likely to do anything for nothing. Don't have enough money, get a second job, Don't have six kids, and don't get everyone of them their own personal iPhones and unlimited data plans, etc, etc. I spent nearly a decade skrimping by to pay my college loans off, and my own insurance etc... so can everyone else. Since we aren't talking the severely handicapped people.. that means they are able bodied and fully capable of working. Can't find work where you are, then move to where the work is... I've done it more than once... so can they.

Careful, Smoothie. Facts, data, truth... you'll confuse some of the folks in this discussion!

And yes, I say that jokingly...sort of.

Careful, Smoothie. Facts, data, truth... you'll confuse some of the folks in this discussion!True...

You you know what they say about ignorance being bliss. I learned from experience... the media is not to be trusted, or believed implicitly. Here in the USA or anyplace else. I also have no implicit trust for or take the word of anyone who makes a life long career out of politics. I trust people who earn a living from real jobs far more. Welfare class is = to Political Class. Both are leeches sucking life from the productive people in society.

the media is not to be trusted, or believed implicitly.

Really true. Too many of them have their own agenda and it's not digging out the truth.

Actual, real, Journalism died decades ago... what exists today is not any different that PRAVDA used to be.

Since we aren't talking the severely handicapped people.. that means they are able bodied and fully capable of working. Can't find work where you are, then move to where the work is... I've done it more than once... so can they.

Absolutely. Welfare actually does a disservices to poor people in teaching them to lose their initiative and just sit, depending on someone else to take care of them.

Absolutely. Welfare actually does a disservices to poor people in teaching them to lose their initiative and just sit, depending on someone else to take care of them.

How ridiculous is that statement? Your attitude suggests you think starving and going without shelter and medical services is a better alternative. The let them eat cake attitude of the rich. The French were right, off with the heads of people like you

Mentally and physically healthy people don't choose to starve and go without shelter. They get off their arse and get a job. Not really complicated. I never have understood the fake compassion of people like you. You want to have the self satisfaction of thinking that you have helped the poor, so long as it's not done with your own money but rather the resources of the taxpayers.


The French were right, off with the heads of people like you.
So you side with the French Revolution. I guess nothing else about you needs to be said. It is unfortunate to see someone so filled with contempt that he cannot carry on a civil discussion.

Geez JL, you make it sound as though everybody on welfare is a lazy b@stard who just sits around and waits on YOUR paycheck. You and Smoothy got that bad. Most of the people on welfare, are the working poor FAMILIES, children, and old people. How much initiative do you expect from kids and old people? Why would you deny or even sink that low to disparage low income people who need help with the basics? Haven't you even noticed the costs of the basics has gone up over the years, not down, which makes it MORE challenging, not less. I guess this is where you talk about how hard YOU worked to get where YOU'RE at, and they can do it too. Well many will and do, and so do their kids. Have you forgotten the challenges YOU had to overcome to get to YOUR goals?

So can it not be said that making working poor the lazy b@stards, we can make you UNGRATEFUL b@stards, because now that you have worked hard to make it, you have forgotten where you came from? Unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and mommy and daddy gave you everything you have now, those poor working class families were YOU back in the day. Or are you doing the same mudslinging and character assassination done to YOU when YOU were working hard to escape your own saga of poverty.

Personally I admire those from humble beginnings who worked hard and never forgot where they came from and feel no need to bad mouth the ones who come behind them. I worry about the UNGRATEFUL b@stards with bad memories though, who never learned you don't elevate yourself by putting someone else down, or ignoring the blessings you got along t

because now that you have worked hard to make it, you have forgotten where you came from?

I have forgotten nothing. I worked hard as did my wife. We trusted God to help us. We struggled. Early on, I went fifteen months with no steady work, and we had our first child in the middle of that, but we never came to the place that you celebrate, where we felt we should have the right to force other people to support us. Now we are in a much better place, so we are able to help others, and we do. We don't sink to the place you are at, where you think that just because someone doesn't agree with you it gives you license to call them a bastard. That's sickening and pathetic, and it is so typical of modern day liberals. You cannot hold your own with reason and logic, so you sink to name-calling. Honestly, that's a disappointing response from you. I often don't agree with you, but to see you go this low is surprising.

I haven't disparaged anyone. I guess that is now your area. I simply say that anyone who is mentally and physically healthy needs to get out and get a job, and get two jobs if need be. If they will work hard and smart, they can become successful. They shouldn't count on the generosity of people like you who are all too willing to try to impress the rest of us with their willingness to spend other people's money to, in their opinion, help the poor.

How did God help you? How did you eat? How did you shelter? How did you feed your baby?

Listen very carefully, as this might shock you. We Worked!! God provided us with mental and physical health. His word encouraged us. The life of His Son Jesus carried us. So there was nothing available to us that was not available to everyone else. We counted on no one to help us. We compelled no one to help us. I worked two jobs at one point. It was a team effort. That's what we need to encourage people to do. Finish high school. Don't have babies outside of marriage. Work hard at a job. Keep your big mouth shut and work. Learn everything you can. Make your marriage work. These are the important things. Don't compel other people to help you.

So you have walked in those shoes of the working poor, no public assistance and such, and paid your bills right? Caught buses and walked if you had to. Paid a hospital to deliver your child and the after care doctor visits. What was the minimum wage back then? We're the same age and we all did the same things back in the day. Best days of my life actually since we were all poor and struggling, and had to put our meager resources together for a deck of cards on Friday night, and potato salad and chick wings for us and OUR kids. My point is we were not struggling in isolation, we struggled together.

I guess it was a blessing to have that group support, and sorry you did not. No wonder you have a sourpuss attitude, and disparage others easily and often.

"sourpuss attitude, and disparage others easily and often."


Good grief. "You don't agree with me, so you must be a sourpuss and one who disparages others." What an attitude. And you wonder why people might not agree with your logic??? Really?

We had people who helped us, but it was primarily us and God. I'm so glad that we never entered into your realm, where people just handed us money. Doing without taught us to work harder, and it made us respect and value each other. It's terrible that you deprive others of that. If you think that is not the case, then I question how much you have actually been involved with poor people. I worked at inner city schools many years. Our church was involved with inner city people. There were a lot of great parents we worked with, but the negative effects of welfare were very obvious.

Good grief. "You don't agree with me, so you must be a sourpuss and one who disparages others." What an attitude. And you wonder why people might not agree with your logic??? Really?

Agree or disagree it's all good. You're a sourpuss not because you disagree with my logic, but because of what you post.




We had people who helped us, but it was primarily us and God.

Talk about not answering the question...! Who were the people who helped you? HOW did they help you? How did God help you and your family?


I'm so glad that we never entered into your realm, where people just handed us money. Doing without taught us to work harder, and it made us respect and value each other. It's terrible that you deprive others of that. If you think that is not the case, then I question how much you have actually been involved with poor people.{/QUOTE]

I have never been in, or seen where anyone was just handed money. I have seen people wait all day for an interview and get assessed and explained as to what could be done, and the rules they have to adhere to, and what was expected of them if they did get help. It's quite a long and tedious process to sign up for any public assistance program, and follow through to keep that assistance, by showing COMPLIANCE and need, but of course you know that, but intentionally made it sound like a snap done deal, just show up with your hands out. Question all you want, but I know how to guide people through that process to get what they need to stand on there own. There is a whole network of us out here who know and want to help the willing through the challenges of learning how to fish and where the fish are biting.

[QUOTE]I worked at inner city schools many years. Our church was involved with inner city people. There were a lot of great parents we worked with, but the negative effects of welfare were very obvious.

I have to ask if it's the effects of public assistance programs, or the challenges of the process of those programs. Would appreciate elaboration if you can to those negative effects, as my experience indicates past traumas, or lack of support as being the obvious effects of a larger situation which has nothing to do with getting the right help to those that need it. Often is the case that food and shelter are not enough and more health centered assistance is more needed, maybe short term for some but many fall into the longer term more extensive assistance needed category.

People in wheel chairs are but a small part of those that are handicapped and mental issues are not always apparent. Deprivation does nothing for those in great need or their spirit. I guess you cannot grasp the concept that some need more help than others and fail to be grateful you are not among them. Not your fault you cannot grasp the full extent of the problem. An unwillingness to acknowledge that fact though is on you as you force your values on those that you don't value.

How did God help you and your family? OK. Already answered that. Go back and read it.

Who helped us? My parents, primarily, but it was a small part of the whole. We were grateful for it, but it was 1% (or whatever) of our income. And I'm glad they didn't carry us!!! It made us grow up and learn to take care of ourselves. I'm so glad they did not have your crippling concept of charity.

It still comes down to this. If you can tell me why you think that some Americans have a right to take the income of other Americans, then we can see if your thinking makes sense. And that is still the bottom line. Phrase it any way you want, it is still some Americans being compelled to give their money to other people, some of whom are not even citizens.

The negative effects? "I don't need to work since I have welfare." That is rampant, and if you don't think it is, then I know you are not engaged with working with poor people.

OK. Already answered that. Go back and read it.

Who helped us? My parents, primarily, but it was a small part of the whole. We were grateful for it, but it was 1% of our income.

It still comes down to this. If you can tell me why you think that some Americans have a right to take the income of other Americans, then we can see if your thinking makes sense. And that is still the bottom line. Phrase it any way you want, it is still some Americans being compelled to give their money to other people, some of whom are not even citizens.

The negative effects? "I don't need to work since I have welfare." That is rampant, and if you don't think it is, then I know you are not engaged with working with poor people.

I have never said that any individual has a right to take another's wages or possession's without your permission but that's not an individual of which you speak and OUR government, duly elected, are the ones taxing us, both your state, local, and federal government making the rules that make public assistance possible. As I pointed out talk to your conservative government officials about why they allow this travesty in your mind to continue since conservatives have the power to change things because they run MOST local and state governments as well as the federal government. You elected them, so why blame liberals when you are the one with the big stick?


"I don't need to work since I have welfare."

That's not in the rules of compliance as I laid out before. Maybe you should start with reading your own state requirements for receiving public assistance. Let me help you with the FACTS in your state.

https://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/public_assistance_mississippi.html




People who receive support from this program will also need to participate in an approved work activity, such as job training or an actual job. This needs to occur after they are determined to be "work ready" by their Department of Human Services social worker. Or they need to be in a work activity no longer than 24 months (within the 60 month lifetime maximum), whether or not consecutive, after receiving public assistance, whichever comes first.

Read the whole thing please as other states have similar rules. The system ain't perfect, but it's what we got. Change it if you don't like it, or move someplace that won't levy taxes for the public good. You live in a conservative state so why are you blaming liberals? You just like to blame liberals for all your imagined ills.

I have never said that any individual has a right to take another's wages or possession's without your permission but that's not an individual of which you speak and OUR government, duly elected, are the ones taxing us, both your state, local, and federal government making the rules that make public assistance possible.

So again, why should the government(conservative, liberal, whatever) have the right to compel any American to take some of their money and give it to another American? Why does that person have a right to any other American's money? Even if it is done through taxation, it amounts to the same thing. Compulsory charity.

Even if it is done through taxation, it amounts to the same thing. Compulsory charity.
What will you do someday if YOU need financial assistance and there's no family help available or "charity pot" for you to dip into?

So again, why should the government(conservative, liberal, whatever) have the right to compel any American to take some of their money and give it to another American? Why does that person have a right to any other American's money? Even if it is done through taxation, it amounts to the same thing. Compulsory charity.

We the people GAVE them the RIGHT to make laws and levy taxes, and what's done with the money. We the people can also take it away.

We the people GAVE them the RIGHT to make laws and levy taxes, and what's done with the money. We the people can also take it away.




No difference. On what basis do we, the people, have the right to go to a free American and tell him/her that another American has a right to take his income? There have been times I could have been convinced to support some types of welfare. No one likes the idea of poor people with no assistance, but I have been unable to answer (as have you) this nagging, foundational question. What right do I have to impose my views of charity on other people? They are certainly born in religious teaching. There is no rational, moral reason for an atheist to think we should help the down and out. So again, how do we, the people, have the right to force other Americans to engage in charity, saying that other Americans have a legal claim to their income? If you want to win me over, you must answer that question.

There is a price for that freedom you seek, but liberty, well as long are you are not incarcerated, celebrate

There is no answer for one who is stuck on the belief that they take YOUR money and give it to someone else against your will. Fact remains it's the LAW. The real question is what you do about it. It would seem if you can hold your nose and vote for Trump, you should hold your nose and obey the law.

There is no answer for one who is stuck on the belief that they take YOUR money and give it to someone else against your will.

It's amazing to me that you can so nonchalantly say such a thing. "They" take your money and give it to someone else against your will. Most people regard that as theft. Do you find it interesting that you have no answer as to why that would be OK other than "it's the LAW". It used to be the law that owning slaves was legal. So I will not accept your position since, essentially, you don't have one other than it must be OK since it is the law. But you would still need to justify why having such as law saying that it is fine that "they" take your money and give it to another person against your will is in any way what should be happening in a supposedly free country.

I am convinced that it is a morally correct thing to do for me to take some of my money and help the poor, but it is a moral travesty for me, or my elected representatives, to force you or anyone else to abide by my personal morality. It sure seems that is what you are advocating for.

I advocate a strong social safety net for citizens who find themselves in bad positions. I have nothing to do with your selective charity church work. The law was changed on slavery, maybe the law will change on stealing your money and giving it to the needy. Or maybe we eliminate the poverty, and you keep your freakin' money. You ready to move to a living wage or not?

I find it fascinating you and your ilk see the poor get poorer, and have nothing but bad words for them, and selective charity which obviously falls well short. While I agree with you 100% about getting the gamers, I also disagree strongly that they all are gamers, or takers.

I advocate a strong social safety net for citizens who find themselves in bad positions. I have nothing to do with your selective charity church work. The law was changed on slavery, maybe the law will change on stealing your money and giving it to the needy. Or maybe we eliminate the poverty, and you keep your freakin' money. You ready to move to a living wage or not?

I find it fascinating you and your ilk see the poor get poorer, and have nothing but bad words for them, and selective charity which obviously falls well short. While I agree with you 100% about getting the gamers, I also disagree strongly that they all are gamers, or takers.

Tal you have my agreement that there is a responsibility to look after everyone. If those who have the money are too mean to help then government has been appointed to get involved. I also think that funds should be diverted from military expenditure to ensure that the emphasis is on those who are in need.

I do not agree that taxation should be ramped up to meet every need without the individual also taking responsibility for their circumstance where it is possible to do so.

To suggest that the government should leave the field to church and charities is niaive and unrealistic.

Quick answer: Why taxes? Citizens have made a contract with federal, state, and local government. In exchange for taxes the citizens pay, they receive e.g., police and fire protection, public education, welfare programs, transportation infrastructure, defense funds, and public libraries.

I advocate a strong social safety net for citizens who find themselves in bad positions. I have nothing to do with your selective charity church work. The law was changed on slavery, maybe the law will change on stealing your money and giving it to the needy. Or maybe we eliminate the poverty, and you keep your freakin' money. You ready to move to a living wage or not?

I find it fascinating you and your ilk see the poor get poorer, and have nothing but bad words for them, and selective charity which obviously falls well short. While I agree with you 100% about getting the gamers, I also disagree strongly that they all are gamers, or takers.

I just don't like this idea of wanting to spend someone else's money to help the poor.

Watched a video recently about a young woman who was riding two buses and a ferry for 2 1/2 hours to get to work, and then the same time to get back home. That's pretty inspiring, but then you find out she is blind and uses a guide dog. So do I feel sorry for those who are mentally and physically healthy and don't work? No, I don't. If she can do it, then they can do it.

Want to impress us? Tell us how you are working a part-time job just to take care of your moral conviction to help poor people, rather than requiring other people to spend their money. That doesn't count. No American has a right to another American's income.

For one thing levying taxes are no longer your money, it's OUR money. Even the working poor kick in through a payroll deduction of taxes like everyone else (And immigrants legal or otherwise.). Some states like yours collect less than they get back from our government for things like Medicare, Medicaid, and public assistance, and some states like mine pay in more than they get back for federal programs and social services.

Sorry I cannot impress you with working a part time job to assuage my moral convictions, but I did volunteer time and efforts because it was the right thing to do, and I feel a good thing to do just as you do, I pay taxes just as you do. I am also subject to the same laws as you are, so I respectfully submit your grievance in this matter is misdirected and have suggested you look to your elected officials to resolve your grievances.

I can't do nothing for you!

For one thing levying taxes are no longer your money, it's OUR money.

Now that's a valid point. It was always thought in our history that when people pay taxes into a single "pot", then that money should be spent on those things that benefit everyone. Roads, bridges, schools, courts, police, military forces, and so forth benefit everyone. But now we have come to taking money and giving it to individuals. That is a different matter. It is compulsory charity.

BTW, I was not trying to be offensive with my reference to a part time job. I was trying to illustrate what I would respect from anyone who truly wanted to help the poor, but I realize that not everyone can take that particular route.

Taxes are compulsory. So are seatbelts. I have a few grievances where my tax dollars go to. I can understand being pissed about who gets what myself.

Just a matter of freedom to me. We should all contribute in taxes to what benefits everyone. But to take one person's money and give it to another person is compulsory charity. It's bad for the person whose money gets taken, and it's generally bad for the person who receives the money if that person is healthy. Over a long period of time, it robs them of initiative.

https://pics.me.me/dont-let-russia-interfere-in-2020-demandvoterld-demand-voter-id-34767377.png

Yes by all means know who you are dealing with

I don't think (could be wrong as I've not followed this religiously) that the Russkies are accused of manipulating voting machines or of having non-citizens voting. It is more that they engaged in a propaganda campaign, and if that's the case, then voter ID would not stop them. However, I'm all in favor of voter ID, just not because of Putin.

Just a matter of freedom to me. We should all contribute in taxes to what benefits everyone. But to take one person's money and give it to another person is compulsory charity. It's bad for the person whose money gets taken, and it's generally bad for the person who receives the money if that person is healthy. Over a long period of time, it robs them of initiative.

I think I have already shown they don't just give it to another person as you put it, and recipients MUST work if healthy, and have a plan to eventually be independent of public assistance. The money put is not given to a healthy or others either, as the costs of such a system with case workers and social services sure ain't free, and it's that infrastructure, like any other that sucks up those tax dollars as well. How can you simply ignore those important facts written in black and white?

How do you ignore the rising costs of poverty on us all, and the failure of government, state, local and federal combined with the best efforts of groups, volunteers, and churches to address this growing problem of POVERTY. Making it about your individual freedom helps no one, not even yourself. It greatly exastrabates the problem and leaves us NO solution.

Please offer alternatives to what I admit is an underperforming system.

I don't think (could be wrong as I've not followed this religiously) that the Russkies are accused of manipulating voting machines or of having non-citizens voting. It is more that they engaged in a propaganda campaign, and if that's the case, then voter ID would not stop them. However, I'm all in favor of voter ID, just not because of Putin.

Goes deeper than just propaganda as they have hacked candidates and staff, as well as local vendors and governments. I'm for comprehensive ID's, not just for voting but for everything, as it's been long past time to upgrade our cyber infrastructures in more solid ways. Closing voting places and purging voter rolls though is politically dastardly and undermines the cyber deficiencies we already have and distracts us and government of the tools to properly implement solid process to achieve the security and system integrity we deserve.

My post was satirical. What does "hacking " a candidate even mean ? Gaining access to email ? Up to the candidates to secure their systems . We had a Sec State who refused to protect her server that she used to conduct classified government business . Are we then supposed to be shocked that any hacker was able to access it ? There is so nothing there . Our system says that locals control how elections are conducted and gives wide latitude for that . So if a state wants tight voter controls ,it is within it's powers to do so . And if a loony town like San Fran want to let illegals vote it is the same deal .

I think I have already shown they don't just give it to another person as you put it, and recipients MUST work if healthy, and have a plan to eventually be independent of public assistance. The money put is not given to a healthy or others either, as the costs of such a system with case workers and social services sure ain't free, and it's that infrastructure, like any other that sucks up those tax dollars as well. How can you simply ignore those important facts written in black and white?

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have worked for years with poor people. I have seen welfare recipients without number who could work (were healthy) but did not. And yes, the money is given to other persons. Who do you think they give it to, their dogs?? Earned income credit checks, food stamps (SNAP), which can be used in restaurants in many states, TANF checks go out to individuals (and your wonderful President Obama rescinded the work requirements of that act), and of course housing and health insurance supplements, not to mention free cell phones that your favorite president handed out. It is not uncommon for a single mom, with three kids from different fathers, to be getting all of the above while her boyfriend is living with her and also getting benefits. With all due respect, you just don't have your facts straight.

Maybe it makes you feel better to imagine that the feds don't take money from some Americans to give to others, but that is exactly what is happening.

Honestly, the more you post, the more I think you have very little experience in working with the poor. Might be wrong about that, but it sure seems that way.

My post was satirical. What does "hacking " a candidate even mean ? Gaining access to email ? Up to the candidates to secure their systems . We had a Sec State who refused to protect her server that she used to conduct classified government business . Are we then supposed to be shocked that any hacker was able to access it ? There is so nothing there . Our system says that locals control how elections are conducted and gives wide latitude for that . So if a state wants tight voter controls ,it is within it's powers to do so . And if a loony town like San Fran want to let illegals vote it is the same deal .

That's a good post. The only question I have is San Fran (a.k.a. Looneyville) allowing illegals to vote in federal elections. I would think that would be a violation of law. Still, that was a good post. The dems didn't protect their data, and now they want to whine about it.

So why aren't state and local jurisdictions doing more to secure their cyber infrastructures. Didn't they learn a darn thing from Target, Sony,and others what the threat is to them? I guess not. Nice going bringing Hillary and illegals voting into this, though Hillary's emails weren't hacked, nor has illegals voting ever been proved. All the social networks are catching hell from cyber attacks, now evidently from Iran as well, and are scuffling to show they are dealing with this issue, which may be great PR to help the corporate bottom line but is it a effective as they say? Obviously not at this time, since it still is happening.

So lets not just sluff it off with justifying knee jerk half a$$ purges and closing polls and kidnapping kids and making them disappear because the illegals are invading our political system and life, and get with the foreign governments screwing with our minds in cyberspace. The Dufus seems to busy with star wars to acknowledge Cyber Wars and covering his own butt from the females turning against him and Mueller probing up his anus to do anything about the real FAKE news that's not the media.

If I have to EXPLAIN what hacking a candidate means, then no point in telling you it's only the tip of the iceberg you can see.

Re illegals voting .. the 14th amendment states voting rights "shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude." .... and the 26th sets the age limit . There is nothing constitutionally prohibiting illegals from voting . State laws have always fluctuated on that issue .It was not until 1928 that an election was held where no non-citizen voted . Since 1996, a federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections But that is by congressional statute that could be reversed any time the right balance became the majority . But you are right that local laws about suffrage do not apply to Federal elections ....yet although I imagine there isn't much of an effort to prevent it in San Fran,

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have worked for years with poor people. I have seen welfare recipients without number who could work (were healthy) but did not. And yes, the money is given to other persons. Who do you think they give it to, their dogs?? Earned income credit checks, food stamps (SNAP), which can be used in restaurants in many states, TANF checks go out to individuals (and your wonderful President Obama rescinded the work requirements of that act), and of course housing and health insurance supplements, not to mention free cell phones that your favorite president handed out. It is not uncommon for a single mom, with three kids from different fathers, to be getting all of the above while her boyfriend is living with her and also getting benefits. With all due respect, you just don't have your facts straight.

Maybe it makes you feel better to imagine that the feds don't take money from some Americans to give to others, but that is exactly what is happening.

Honestly, the more you post, the more I think you have very little experience in working with the poor. Might be wrong about that, but it sure seems that way.

I just have to keep throwing the facts at you don't I

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

Maybe you can fact check yourself before you call my facts, experience, and character into question and saves me the unwanted task of lumping you into the same category as the guy you held your nose for and made him president.

I just have to keep throwing the facts at you don't I.

This is from the article you linked. " Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating (emphasis mine) them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement...And it won’t “gut” the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still won’t be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not...The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent (http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/particip/2008/tab1a.htm) of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office."

So in what possible universe does that back up your original claim? You said, "recipients MUST work if healthy," but your article states, "The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent (http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/particip/2008/tab1a.htm) of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office." And this is your version of backing up your statement???

I said Obama dropped the work requirement. Your article states that the feds were allowing states to eliminate the work requirements. So I think I'll stick with my response. The truth remains that the feds take money from some Americans to give to other Americans. Your article now makes it clear that many of them don't work. Thank you for that reference.

If I have ever questioned your character, then that was wrong of me. I don't mean to question your character at all. I highly question your data and conclusions, and I still wonder if you have ever spent much time trying to work with poor people.

More facts.

"The 1996 welfare reform law required that a portion of the able-bodied adults in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — the successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program — work or prepare for work. Those work requirements were the heart of the reform’s success: Welfare rolls dropped by half, and the poverty rate for black children reached its lowest level in history (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/the-continuing-good-news) in the years following.

But the Obama administration has jettisoned the law’s work requirements, asserting that, in the future, no state will be required to follow them. In place of the legislated work requirements, the administration has stated, it will unilaterally design its own “work” systems without congressional involvement or consent. Any state will be free to follow the new Obama requirements “in lieu of (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html)” the written statute.

The administration has provided no historical evidence showing that Congress intended to grant the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or any part of the executive branch the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. The historical record is clear and states the opposite; as the summary of the reform prepared by Congress shortly after enactment plainly says: “Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.”


The members of Congress closely involved in drafting this law have asserted that Obama’s action contradicts the letter and intent of the statute (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/7.12.12_tanf_work_requirements_letter.pdf). For 15 years after welfare reform was enacted, no waivers of work requirements were issued by HHS. No such waivers were discussed because it was clear to all that Congress had never provided the department with such waiver authority."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-obama-has-gutted-welfore-reform/2012/09/06/885b0092-f835-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.71de2837b5c3

tal I am more worried of Google and their violations of privacy than any illegal hack by Russian pajama boys .

What part of 29 out of a hundred welfare recipients are eligible to work in 2009 is it you cannot grasp? How many times must you be told that the majority of public assistance recipients are working poor families, the old, handicapped, and their children. Republicans governors requested the waiver, crafted it and asked for more flexibility in their STATE SPECIFIC plans. Obama gave it to them. The Dufus took it away, or is trying.

Of course I have MORE facts for you!

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-2018-budget-welfare-reform-614410


IQUOTE] Indeed, when one actually looks at the data from some of these safety net programs, it becomes clear that so-called able-bodied adults are a minority of the participants. For example, 64 percent of those receiving food assistance in 2012 were children, people with disabilities or the elderly,
according to the Congressional Research Service (https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20161109_R43400_15cc7d46ebf83a869fd10344794d9ec2f0 a3a343.html)
. And 53 percent of those receiving public housing benefits had either elderly or disabled heads of households...


… Even congressional Republicans are criticizing the domestic spending cuts in the president’s budget as “draconian” and downplaying their overall significance. At the same time, however, GOP lawmakers are weighing doing something very similar to Medicaid, the government-funded health insurance program for low-income, elderly and disabled Americans, as what the president is proposing for food assistance. The American Health Care Act that Republicans pushed through the House on May 4 would roll back Medicaid’s expansion under Obamacare, which allowed working-age men and childless women to participate for the first time. Republicans want to return the limits to women with children. The House legislation also would slash federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $880 billion and put the onus on states to cover the rest. Trump embraced that approach in his budget, adding another $600 billion-plus in Medicaid cuts on top of it.
Some Senate Republicans, however, are squeamish about those Medicaid proposals, for the very same reasons that progressives criticize them and other parts of the Trump budget. They worry a rollback in funding and eligibility will hurt their most vulnerable constituents, particularly in states that chose to expand the program under Obamacare. And they want to see a very different version of health care legislation come out of the Senate.[/QUOTE]

And from 2012,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/what-obama-really-did-to-welfare-reform/260931/

@JL

I can see where you would agree with the writer of this article, been reading his right wing Heritage Foundation stuff for years. I do not agree with his article. No surprise there huh?

Unfortunately my free reading for WP is over the limit at this time. So I defer commit on this specific fact you presented.

Sorry.

tal I am more worried of Google and their violations of privacy than any illegal hack by Russian pajama boys .

By George Tom, your bulb may not be that bright on some things, but at least it's working on a basic level. I did away with Facebook and twitter accounts a few years ago. All these new privacy policies bear reading.

Of course I have MORE facts for you!

You said work was a requirement. Your article said work was not a requirement and that states did not have to require recipients to work. Your conclusion was wrong. End of story.

Read the law for yourself

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawds


SNAP rules require all recipients meet work requirements unless they are exempt because of age or disability or another specific reason. (Children, seniors, and those with disabilities comprise almost two-thirds of all SNAP participants.) Forty-three percent of SNAP participants live in a household with earnings.

Some of these working individuals are ABAWDs, or able-bodied adults without dependents. ABAWDs must meet special work requirements, in addition to the general work requirements, to maintain their eligibility.

You obviously misunderstood what you read.

You obviously misunderstood what you read.

Seems to be an ongoing problem