Quote:

---

he sure is expanding the less than median income rolls.

---

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

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

In simple terms people are not statistics and math terms.

Quote:

---

In simple terms people are not statistics and math terms.

---

So? Has that ever been in question? It hasn't been by me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Charity is when I help the poor with my money. Tyranny is when I help the poor with your money.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Low unemployment does not always mean wage growth for all, so maybe not a better living for all, given the price of everything has gone up. Maybe we should look at the people and all those stats for a context.

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

Median income growth does mean wage growth.

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

Nah. Here you go. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...y-food-stamps/

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

Quote:

---

few people shifted position

---

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

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

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-ma...ryiuIl6GfKDEjE

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

Promises, promises white man speak with forked tongue

Quote:

---

Promises, promises white man speak with forked tongue

---

Just about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Median income growth does mean wage growth.

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

Nah. Here you go. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...y-food-stamps/

---

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

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...states-in-2019

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

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

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

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/tr...y-2020-update/

Quote:

---

Deficit funded tax cuts don't pay for themselves either, and NEVER have but feel free to correct me on that. PLEASE!

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/...0223104509.jpg

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/...0221044532.jpg